OUT NOW: The Suicide Squad

To cover up its dirty work, the US government assembles a team of supervillains to infiltrate a small island nation and destroy a secret project called Project Starfish.

I have not seen Suicide Squad 2016 and so do not expect any references to it. There will probably be spoilers yada yada. You get the drill.

This movie hits a particular set of buttons that used to reach my funny bone. I will say that those buttons do not work as well as they used to.

I wanted to enjoy how blackly comic it is, but there was something familiar about it that I cannot shake. It all feels a little stale.

First, the good: this movie does not deviate from the idea that its central characters are bad. This movie is incredibly misanthropic - people die in horrible ways; the team’s taskmaster Amanda Waller is more frightening than the actual villains; there is a great sequence based around Bloodsport and Peacemaker trying to prove who is the better killer.

I enjoyed parts of the movie, and laughed throughout - Nathan Fillion’s appearance is hilariously underwhelming - but it never quite comes together.

While the plot is fairly simple, it feels over-long and there is a flabby middle where it seems like we are wandering around for a while. The movie tries to tie itself together with some heart and gravitas, but the movie does not quite earn it. 

The inclusion of Harley Quinn never feels necessary - her subplot with the dictator has a great punchline, but otherwise she feels like she needs to be here because she was in the last movie.

The movie leans into being disgusting and unnerving - the Weasel, with his bug eyes, is annoying. The R rating means that Gunn's more extreme tendencies are on display, and some of it works. But there are also parts of the movie where it feels like Gunn pulling from the Guardians playbook - the group of unlikeable losers barring their hearts and souls - but the movie never finds the right path between these two poles.

We get his recurring theme - stated in dialogue by Taika Waititi's Ratchatcher - that everyone is important, even street rats. That idea does not have any emotional payoff here - probably because the Squad have been annihilating smaller versions of themselves. Another reason it hits awkwardly is that the movie also wants you to think about the island location in terms of US imperialism, and it clangs after the movie has been making jokes about how many of the locals have been killed.

What is frustrating is that the movie has a vague idea of what it wants to do. Take main character Bloodsport (Idris Elba). He finally does something for other people, and wins the respect of his daughter. It never quite works - possibly because their own previous interaction was establishing lines of conflict and respective bad childhoods. But that is all it is - she gives him his motivation to take the mission, and then at the end she sees a news report that he has saved the world. It feels like the coldest version of screenwriting 101.

The character of King Shark feels like a meta-textual homage/ripoff of Groot, from his monosyllabic dialogue to the casting of Vin Diesel's spiritual father Sylvester Stallone as the voice.  

John Cena has never been that good at straight action hero, but this character - a fascist obsessed with ‘peace’ at the expense of anything else - is a weirdly perfect fit. He feels more like a narcissistic jock, obsessed with his own abilities and the warped code that he lives by. He is a solid third act obstacle, and Cena is legitimately frightening as he goes after his teammates.

The rest of the cast are all good but once again the script fails to fully utilise them. It feels like we barely get to know the other members of the team until we get some wedged- in backstory. 

While it is entertaining, The SuicideSquad never quite coalesces the way it wants to.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Checked out the latest episodes of the James Bond Cocktail Hour?

 The third season of the James Bond Cocktail Hour continues!

The episodes are as follows:

No Time To Die Trailer 2 review

Nobody Lives For Ever (by John Gardner)

How to introduce James Bond

Casino Royale '06 Part One & Two

McClory v Fleming

Thunderball (novel)

Remembering Sean Connery

Thunderball (Terence Young, 1965)

A look at Kevin McClory's Warhead (1976)

Never Say Never Again (Irvin Kershner, 1983)

Remixing Thunderball

The Hunt for Red October

The Man with the Golden Gun

Bond Tropes Discussion

Ranking the James Bond ski chases

Die Another Day (2 hour cut)

Patriot Games

Clear and Present Danger

The Man Who Almost Killed James Bond

A View To A Kill

Sum of All Fears

Jack Ryan - Shadow Recruit

Executive Decision

VARGR

This month's episodes are:

State of the Franchise

Skyfall (Part One)

You can listen to these and future episodes wherever you listen to podcasts!

Follow the podcast on IG @jbchpod and on Twitter @jbchpod007.

Asia (Ruthy Pribar, 2020)

A single woman in her early thirties, Asia (Alena Yiv) is trying to maintain her independence while keeping her teenage daughter Vika (Shira Haas) at bay. When she is not working as a nurse, she enjoys a night out, or ducks away for an affair with one of her colleagues. 

Asia is living life the way she wants it. 

And then everything turns upside down…

I had a conversation recently with someone about the book/movie Wonder. They wanted to know why I had not seen it.

I do not like to watch movies involving people with disabilities - most of them treat disabled characters as signifiers rather than human beings.

My least favourite trope is a disabled character who exists as a catalyst for the main character’s transformation - mostly by dying.

I made an exemption for Asia because it starred Shira Haas from Unorthodox. I should have stayed the course.

Asia falls so squarely into the scenario I just sketched I am not even that angry. It’s just so cliche.

This thing won awards - I can see why: it features an non-disabled actor as a disabled person, and the movie ends with their character dying. It will probably get an Oscar nom.

Ugh.

I spent the whole movie waiting for a swerve, a subversion of the formula - but no.

These movies, and these kinds of representations, must be reviewed, and they must be critiqued. It is important. Maybe not as important as accessible buildings, education, health and employment - but these stories are everywhere for a reason. Disabled people are generally still seen as other, whether as figures of inspiration, pity or caution.

They are rarely treated as people. 

Haas is a great actress, and she does what she can to make Vika live, but she is constrained by the stereotypical role. 

It is a pity because in its early stages the film is intriguing, as we get a sense of the title character’s life. Asia had a child young and the movie takes time to show how she is somewhat disconnected from her daughter. Their dynamic is closer to sisters or roommates - Asia and her daughter seem to be on their own, with their own spaces and friends away from each other. I do not recall the characters sharing the same frame for a while. The filmmakers unite them by cross-cutting between them in completely separate spaces.  

But once Vika’s illness takes centre stage, the movie becomes depressingly familiar. It also foregrounds how little agency Vika has.

In an attempt to serve her daughters’ wishes, Asia gives her caregiver tacit permission to have sex with Vika. 

My problem with this scene, and the way the action unfolded, was that Vika is unaware of what is going on. Throughout the movie, it feels like Asia is taking on major decisions that involve her child without consultation.

On top of this, the filmmakers do not deal with any ethical concerns for the caregiver. While he does leave, there is an earlier sequence in which he makes non-verbal overtures towards Vika. Because no one talks to her about it, and the way this scene is framed (a mid shot on Vika in bed, with the caregiver mostly out of shot), I do not think it plays the way the filmmakers intended - it just visualises how dis-empowered Vika is.

It just feels like this movie wants to present a portrait of a complicated, flawed woman, but at the expense of the portrayal of her daughter.

The only thing I kind of liked was that while Vika does not want die a virgin, she turns down an offer because it is based on pity rather than affection. There is a flicker of agency, but she gets little else through the rest of the movie.

The acting is good, and some of the cultural context is interesting, but the turn Asia takes at the climax is so depressingly familiar, it felt like a pitch for gravitas that the movie did not need. It also feels like a punishment  for Asia - this woman who has spent her life avoiding responsibility now has literal responsibility for her daughter’s life. The end.

Thinking about this movie, I could not shake off the feeling that it wants to punish its main character - she is flawed, but the finale is so arbitrary and horrifying that it feels like payback for the character’s various infractions. Combined with the familiarity of the daughter’s storyline, the blunt finality of the ending feels like another familiar play on convention - denying the character release and leaving the viewer to marinate on what she has done.

But I did not feel like it worked. Or maybe that ending was the movie’s message - this woman is finally forced to make a tough choice. But even taking that scene as a conclusion, I felt the lack of Vika’s input. I felt like this ending needed some kind of set-up - it also felt out of place for the portrayal of their relationship.

Going back to the movie as a whole, the movie is mostly aligned to Asia’s POV, but Vika and their relationship are meant to be a major part of the story. It felt out of character for Asia (movie and character) to make this final decision alone. It just reinforces how Vika feels like a plot device for advancing Asia’s journey.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BITE-SIZED REVIEW: Murder at 1600 (Dwight Little, 1997)

When a staffer is found murdered in the White House, police officer Detective Harlan Regis (Wesley Snipes) is put on the case. 

When it becomes clear that the murder has ties to the current administration - and the man leading it - Regis finds his life in jeopardy. 

Forced on the run, Regis and disgraced Secret Service agent Nina Chance (Diane Lane) are in a race against time to uncover the killer.

The trek through nineties thrillers continues, with this Washington DC-set murder mystery.

This thing feels like an airport thriller - the premise is high concept and a tad salacious, and the plot features familiar elements like an innocent man on the run, attempted assassinations and government corruption.

This latter element feels particularly specific to its context - it fits right in with the themes of conspiracy and rogue government agencies which were prevelant in the nineties.

The casting of Wesley Snipes and Diane Lane also gives the film the feel of one of those serial killer/erotic/courtroom thrillers that were omnipresent in that decade.

For the first half hour, this movie is kind of enjoyable. But once the plot pieces are in place it never really gets going. It is not that the movie falls apart - it just never quite works as the genre piece it wants to be.

There is a lot going on but it never feels that connected - there are constant references to the shift in public opinion toward the President but it feels disconnected from the main action. And the main action is not that interesting, mostly because it never feels like Snipes is in that much peril.

Snipes is fine in the lead, but the character is often subservient to the plot. At the outset it feels like the movie is going to have a go at some commentary about the cultural, racial and economic differences between the White House and the city around it. Snipes is introduced worrying about his apartment building, which is scheduled to be demolished to make way for some new government building. This kernel of an idea is completely dropped once the mystery gets going, and only returns as a joke at the end.

He does not have much chemistry with Diane Lane, but the script does not do a particularly good job of building their dynamic. The lack of characterisation is indicative of a bigger problem - the movie feels smaller than its scope, and feels too undeveloped for its cast. 

Part of it is the direction - Dwight Little is primarily an action movie director, and his style is pretty blunt and to the point. His staging of the film’s one action sequence - the attack on the house - is fine, but he has no feel for suspense. This is evident in the scenes where our hero is entering threatening spaces (the darkened warehouse; his own apartment after an intruder breaks in). Little does not use a moving camera, makes limited use of shadow, and uses a lot of flat compositions which do not allow for building tension in the back/foreground of the frame.

The bigger problem is the script, which never feels that developed. 

Watching the movie, I never got the sense of the inner workings of Washington or the Secret Service. The movie feels too simplistic and underdeveloped. The movie’s twists do not feel that surprising, and the villain’s ultimate motivation is so remote it just never clicks.

This movie is not ridiculous enough to be a cartoonish thriller, and it lacks the depth and nuance to work as a drama. 

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BITE-SIZED REVIEW: When Eight Bells Toll (Étienne Périer, 1971)

Cargo ships carrying gold bullion have disappeared in the Irish Sea. Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert (Anthony Hopkins) is tasked with solving the mystery.

Tracking the latest ship, Calvert's investigation leads him to a small coastal town in the Scottish Highlands, where his presence draws the attention of the mysterious forces behind the conspiracy... 

After The Fourth Protocol, I was keen to check out some more spy thrillers, and I stumbled upon this one.

Based on an Alistair Maclean novel and starring a young Anthony Hopkins as the rough-and-tumble action hero, on its face When Eight Bells Toll seems like an unlikely proposition. 

This movie reminded me of the sensation of reading an old paperback thriller. Characterisation is minimal, but the central mystery is intriguing, there is a strong sense of place and atmosphere, and the whole thing moves at a clip.

In the lead role, Hopkins is in fine form - whip-smart and so mission-focused he comes off as rebellious to his officious boss (Robert Morley). Hopkins’ character is cool - while worldly, he will take no hypocrisy. He even sees through the femme fatale, although unlike Bond, he lets her escape.

There are some well-crafted set pieces - the helicopter crash and escape is well-staged while there is an underwater fight inside a sunken ship that is far more atmospheric and tense than the similar sequence in For Your Eyes Only.

The humour is a little more offbeat - Morley’s characterisation of a prissy beaurocrat who grumbles about local cuisine is kinda broad but works in juxtaposition with Hopkins’ self-sufficiency. It is a little too big for my taste, and his effete performance feels a little crass and outdated.

It is no masterpiece but it is a pity there were no sequels because this movie feels like the down-to-earth action adventure that a certain strand of Bond fans say was missing in the seventies.

In fact, according to the always-reliable Wikipedia, this movie was intended as a franchise to compete with/succeed James Bond, at a time when Sean Connery was leaving and it looked like the series might end with him. While no sequels were made, as a one-and-done potboiler, When Eight Bells Toll is worth checking out.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BITE-SIZED REVIEW: Deadly Prey (David A. Prior, 1987)

Mike Danton (Ted Prior) is a Vietnam veteran living an ordinary life in suburbia. That life is up-ended when he is kidnapped on his doorstep by a group of sadistic mercenaries led by his former CO, Hogan (David Campbell).

Hogan believes in training his men using live targets, and Danton is soon in the fight of his life to kill these hunters and exact his vengeance on his former commander.

"Who am I? A little man who's spent 27 years of his life as a cop trying to put big shots like you away. 27 years in the filth and dirt of the streets and there ain't no music down there. You watch the people on the streets, killing, raping each other, pumping dope through their veins, while big men like you sit in the fancy penthouses. And yet the poor slobs rot in hell. I know about you. As long as it puts money in your pocket. Today the nobodies who made you rich are gonna win. Die you son of a bitch.”

Everyone has a special bad movie in their back pocket. This one was mine.

Emphasis on was.

About a decade ago, I heard about this movie. Shortly thereafter, I found a crappy transfer on YouTube and laughed the whole way through. I thought it was unintentional genius as a comedy.

Recently, a group of friends had been putting on a series of bad movie nights - we had watched some of the usual suspects: we had watched a Neil Breen opus and The Room.

Deadly Prey was my contribution - once again, it was posted for free online which made the decision easier.

Novelty made its clumsy handling of genre and cinematic language feel fresh - watching it again, my feelings have cooled a smidge. 

The film wants to be an escapist fantasy, but the filmmakers also have pretensions of depth. And their idea of depth lessens the fun:

The film tries to lean into darker territory with Danton’s wife, which is unnecessary and manipulative. In this subplot. the movie ends up feeling like an unintentional critique of what the filmmakers think the key elements of the genre are. 

The film still packs some solid gold laughs - Danton’s various ambushes are inspired (the deaths by tree, twig and, uh, hand are worthy of Zucker Abrams Zucker). Former teen heartthrob Troy Donahue manages to outshine the rest of the cast with a performance so wooden it elevates their performances.

However, the real comic highlight is Cameron Mitchell performance as Danton's father-in-law. He recites the monologue I included at the beginning of this review. He is so earnest in his delivery of that word salad, it reminded me of Leslie Nielsen - it is not that good, because this movie was not intended as parody, but it is in the same vein.  

Earnestness is a big part of Deadly Prey. The film works because the people behind it are completely sincere about making an action movie: The awkward action posing, editing and soundtrack are aiming so clearly for familiar iconography, but they are often funny just for how close they get to the real thing.

One thing that really stuck out this time was that I did not realise how much of this movie’s power came from the fact that its leading man is wearing jorts. Danton’s mullet, muscles and jean shorts is such a distinctive look that it weirdly helps the movie. There is something unique about having a hero with a mullet and jorts, and it adds to the naivete of the movie that shields it from just being mediocre. 

Sadly, in the third act Danton gets into generic combat fatigues for the final showdown(s), and the movie feels like a generic eighties action film.

Deadly Prey is worth a look, but make sure it is with a crowd - that way you can talk through the dead spots. Otherwise, I would recommend watching clips of the highlights.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BITE-SIZED REVIEW: Instant Family (Sean Anders, 2018)

Ellie and Pete (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne) make a living renovating and flipping houses. After a series of impulsive decisions, they become foster parents for three young siblings (Isabela Merced, Gustavo Escobar and Julianna Gamiz). 

At first, the couple think they have it figured out. But they quickly realise that raising kids is not the same as building a house.

This is one of the most shocking movies I have seen recently. Shocking because I had the displeasure of watching director Sean Anders' previous movie That's My Boy and I cannot believe this movie is as good as it is.

Mark Wahlberg is a legit a-hole and yet I totally bought him as one half of these would-be parents. When Wahlberg is ongame, he brings a weird sense of sincerity to his role - part of why he is so funny in The Other Guys is because he is the straight man. He is on a similar wavelength with his role in Instant Family. Pete is a goodhearted lunkhead who lacks pretense or tact -  it is one of his most likeable performances.

One of these days, Rose Byrne is going to win Oscars, and people are going to forget how consistently great she has been. Ellie and Pete are super-motivated people but this situation puts them completely out of their element. Byrne’s role feels like a comment on how comedically neutered women’s roles in these movies usually are.

Isabela Merced plays Lizzy, the oldest sibling and surrogate parent to her two siblings. She has the meatiest of the kid roles, and adds a welcome friction to the dynamic with the parents. She has believable high status over Ellie and Pete as they try to figure out what they are doing.

 

Midway through the movie, Margo Martindale shows up as Pete’s mum Sandy Wagner. Overbearing and goodhearted, she is a bolt of energy.

Tig Notaro and Octavia Spencer play the social workers who guide the parents-to-be through the foster care process.

In a fun bit of casting, Eighties comedy players Michael O'Keefe (Caddyshack) and Julie Hagerty (Airplane) play Ellie’s parents. More bizarre is Joan Cusack’s appearance as a random bystander that feels like an in-joke for the filmmakers - did she visit the set one day? It is great to see her, but a minor shame that she is in such a strange role.

There are moments that might be a bit over-the-top, or feel a bit sachrinine, but then the script will emphasise parts of the process or throw the family an obstacle.A movie that could be overly sweet is offset by enough sour moments that it fooled my bullshit detector. The movie is funny and real and obvious and poignant and sentimental and none of it threw me out.

This movie was made by the same guy who made That’s My Boy and the Daddy’s Home duology. The success of those movies gave Anders the cachet to make this and it hit - does this mean growth? 

All I can say is this is a good movie that I can see becoming comfort food. It is nice. And that is not meant as faint praise.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.