A Review of Ghost in the Shell

Everyone who has seen the remake of Ghost in the Shell seems to be saying the same thing. It’s a beautiful film that is sadly lacking in any humanity.

I was skeptical of that feedback as I walked into the theater. That’s almost identical to what people said about Blade Runner in 1982. How can anyone talk about a lack of humanity in a film when the primary point of the film is to explore what it means to really be human?

The point of the original film was how Major, a woman who’s mind had been implanted into a robot’s body, wasn’t sure what her existence meant any more. Major wasn’t even sure if she had ever been human and that her memories are fake. Such a character is not going to be warm or easy to embrace.

So, the reviews made Ghost in the Shell  sound like the movie it needed to be.

I saw it myself and came away (mostly) impressed. This is one of the most gorgeous film’s I’ve ever seen. I cannot express how amazing the special effects in this film. From the shots of the neoTokyo skyline to the images of the robotic human faces, Ghost in the Shell builds the first world since Dark City I wanted to get lost in.

The plot does not follow the first film. Ghost in the Shell explores the conspiracy around a man named Kuze (Michael Pitt) who is killing the doctors that helped build the first robot with a human brain, Major Mira Killian (Scarlett Johansson). Major finds out that Kuze contains secrets about who she was before her mind was inserted into her new body, which leads her to declare a war against her creators at Hanka Electronics.

Ghost in the Shell is also a wonderful throwback to the classic cyberpunk stories of the ’80s and ’90s. It’s not so much a remake of the 1995 animated film as it is an homage to it and stories like it. The film fetishizes Japanese culture, from the giant holograms of Japanese characters everywhere to the casting of Takeshi Kitano (who gets the best scene in the movie). But Ghost in the Shell also made me wonder why cyberpunk died out. In an age where everyone has access to a supercomputer in their pocket, the idea of people being augmented and upgraded doesn’t seem like science fiction. One character, Batou (Pilou Asbaek) loses his eyes in an explosion and replaces them with rather freaky camera lenses. There is also a scene (copied from the first film) in which a character being interrogated by the police realizes that his memories are a lie and his beloved child doesn’t exist. I always enjoyed those stories when I was younger and cyberpunk was fresh. In an age when the internet was still a new thing, at what point did we all start becoming faceless entities. Twenty years and several billion YouTube comments later, I still don’t have an answer.

I also liked Scarlett Johansson for the most part. She’s stiff and emotionless as Major, but there’s a very deep pain beneath the surface. One great scene in the film has Major buy time with a prostitute just so she can describe what it feels like when Major touches her. It’s a moment when Johansson explores both her “human” and robotic nature.

But it’s also Johansson who exposes the biggest flaws in the movie. To explain, I’ll go back to Blade Runner. Ridley Scott’s masterpiece had a lot to say about humanity, memory, and identity. But it didn’t directly say anything. We as an audience had to learn it through watching the replicants and listening to their speeches. Rachel’s tears as she realizes Deckard can recite her “memories” to her spoke volumes to the audience.

Ghost in the Shell doesn’t have any moments like that. It replaces those with moments where we’re told about how Major feels cut off from the world. She tells a doctor repairing her that “You have no idea how alone that makes me feel” upon being told that soon, everyone will be like her.

That is not a good way to explore any theme you want to present. It’s also not good storytelling. Major is, at times, so emotionally distant that her actions become impossible to predict. She seems to have no problems killing other human beings or being used as a weapon by Hanka and Section 9 despite the fact this is supposed to be her central conflict.

It makes the action scenes more gratuitous. Why should I applaud scenes of Major shooting everyone when the film has told me that she’s supposed to be very conflicted about the fact she’s been reprogrammed to be a killing machine? And the film doesn’t end with Major having a profound revelation. She goes right back to doing what she was at the start of the film.

This is a woman who had found out her existence was a lie, but did practically nothing with this information. Major even shrugs off the fact that Hanka destroyed her identity. Some audiences were horrified by the casting of Scarlett Johansson, claiming it was whitewashing. The film tried to incorporate this into its plot, especially in the scene where Major meets her birth mother. But there’s no payoff to it after Major decides to basically stay the way she is.

Ghost in the Shell is a gorgeous movie that’s a little too obvious. But it’s still not bad. I enjoyed watching it and have a desire to see it again just to see the city again. It’s a very immersive film, but I don’t believe it rewards audiences who want to get lost in it. Imagine a gorgeous, complex maze that contains nothing but a single piece of rotten fruit in the center. That’s a little worse than Ghost in the Shell is, but you have some idea of what viewing it is like.

Posted in Current Films/New Releases | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Review of The Lego Batman Movie

The Lego Movie was one of my favorite films of 2014. I enjoyed how it was written like a film written by an eight year old playing with Legos in his basement. It was energetic and hilarious. Even if the plot was a lift from Joseph Campbell, it never felt pedantic. And it appealed to adults without relying on double entendres.

Now comes The Lego Batman film, a movie I looked forward to. Will Arnett’s portrayal of The Dark Knight in The Lego Movie was a standout. If Batman really existed, surely he would be the selfish braggart that was seen in that movie. And the Batman mythology is already known enough to create the pop culture gags that The Lego Movie depended on.

But something feels off about The Lego Batman Movie. It’s still funny and includes a lot of in-jokes that only Batman fans would get. (Did anyone else notice the Blight cameo or the Batman Beyond costume in the Batcave?) But the script doesn’t feel like it was written by a child playing with Legos. It plays like an adult who is imagining that he or she is a child playing with Legos. The film is ultimately about how it’s important to have friends and only teamwork will save the day. That sounds like something that’s better learned on Sesame Street. Again, The Lego Movie was childish, but it had earned the right to be. The Lego Batman Movie never earns that right.

The plot is the Batman plot. The Joker is up to something, Batman tries to stop him, finds he can’t do it alone, so must rely on help from his Bat-family. In this film, Batman wants to get rid of the Joker by banishing him to the Phantom Zone, while the Joker wants to recruit some of the biggest villains (like Voldemort and the Daleks, labeled as “British robots” in the movie) from there to prove he is truly Batman’s greatest enemy.

I enjoyed how many Batman Easter eggs were scattered throughout the film. The Lego Batman Movie is sure to remind the audience of Batman’s grittier films – and then points out how ridiculous some of those gritty moments are.Batman, if he existed in real life, would not be the tortured soul that exists in the Christopher Nolan movies. He would be the narcissistic man who exists in the Lego universe. He wouldn’t live in the dark, but in the camera flash as he’s mocking the garish criminals he fights. He wouldn’t love Gotham, he’d barely take notice of it as he admires himself in the mirror.

Batman would not have lasted 78 years if he’d been consistently portrayed this way. But for a ninety minute satire, it’s perfect. I was concerned this film would be an overexposure of the character. The Lego Movie was right to only feature Batman in small doses. Yet Will Arnett and the filmmakers find the perfect balance between funny and grating. One scene I really enjoyed was the scene in which Batman visits an orphanage and makes sure to bring along a cannon to fire t-shirts at the orphans.

Bateman’s supporting characters also work well in this spoof. I liked Zach Galifinakis’ lovesick Joker, who only wants Batman to hate him more than anyone else. Michael Cera is an amusing Dick Grayson. Far removed from the child acrobat of the comics, this Grayson is a hopeless nerd who views the Batcave as a comic convention vendor hall. Ralph Fiennes is a great Alfred Pennyworth who fills the “father role” in a way live action Alfreds have not. And Barbara Gordon…well she’s a reprise of Lucy from The Lego Movie. It still works because Barbara tries so hard to be the voice of reason in the comics like she is here.

So far, it sounds like the perfect Batman riff with some great casting. So what’s the problem?

The Lego Batman Movie doesn’t capture the same tone that The Lego Movie did. That film had a very childish and dumb plot. But it worked because it felt like the sort of plot that a child would create while playing with his toys.

The Lego Batman Movie feels like the sort of cartoon pitched at eight year old children. Ultimately the film is about the importance of friendship and how Batman can’t save the day by himself. To be fair, several famous comics have addressed that theme. (Check out Bruce Wayne: Murderer for an example.) But it’s not a lot of fun seeing it done here. I felt like I was being talked down to throughout the film.

This is also bad because the film is full of gags that are not likely to appeal to children. All of the jokes about the shark repellent and references to the Joker on a parade float “while Prince songs play” are going to go over the heads of children. So why insult the adult audience with such prof themes after doing so much to ensure your film appeals to them?

I don’t hate The Lego Batman Movie. As a Spaceballs-esque spoof of the Batman mythology, I can imagine a far worse film. The creators of the film love the character while also recognizing the cracks in Batman’s armor. But it’s too childish and doesn’t have the same sense of fun The Lego Movie had. As a result, instead of being the joy The Lego Movie was, it feels more like a cartoon cable series that wouldn’t have much crossover appeal.

Posted in Current Films/New Releases | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Review of Star Wars: Rogue One

It’s hard to review something like Star Wars: Rogue One. On the one hand, I know how bad this franchise can get and I should be thankful that Rogue One doesn’t fall to those depths.

On the other hand, I know how good the franchise can be and know what mistakes it needs to avoid. Above all, a Star Wars film needs to tell a story that is going to engage its audience. Star Wars has always been about using the basics of storytelling and making them seem just as exciting as an ancient culture hearing The Odyssey for the first time.

I’m not convinced Rogue One tells such a story. We already know how the Rebel Alliance ended up with the Death Star plans. And the film can’t possibly have drama. We all know how it will end – the rebels will succeed and get the plans no matter what they face.

Still, I don’t want to dismiss Rogue One completely. As a spectacle, it has some fantastic moments. But is it necessary?

One of the best things about The Force Awakens was the new characters it introduced. Rogue One relies on even fewer existing characters in the franchise. We’re introduced to Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) whose father Galen (Mads Mikkelsen) has been recruited by the Galactic Empire to held construct “the ultimate weapon.” Jyn escapes as a child and is raised by Saw Gerrera (Forrest Whitaker), an extremist rebel who thinks politics won’t be enough to dethrone Emperor Palpatine and his second in command Darth Vader. Fifteen years after her father is kidnapped, Jyn meets with Rebel Intelliegnce officer Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and reprogrammed imperial droid K-2SO (Alan Tudyk) to find her father and steal the plans for the space station he was designing.

What I liked about these scenes and characters is that it showed life in The Empire. In the original film, we were mostly told about how evil Palpatine was and were never shown how daily life was affected by the presence of Stormtroopers everywhere. There are some great scenes of storm troopers demanding identification papers and scenes of skirmishes between the troopers and the rebels in the middle of crowded marketplaces. It’s obvious director Gareth Edwards studied The Battle of Algiers. I really enjoyed Jyn’s character arc. Her reasons for rebelling were clear and I wanted her to succeed in her quest.

But at the same time, I had a difficult time following who each character was and how they related to each other. Saw Gerrera was criminally underused. He’s meant to be a veteran of the clone wars and a sort of figure that is spoken of in hushed tones. But we don’t see him doing anything in the film and his philosophy is never explained. If the idea was that the Star Wars universe needed to be expanded, then Saw Gerrera represented a great opportunity to explore the Rebellion and how fractured the world was.

That never happened. I wouldn’t say it was because Rogue One wasn’t interested the more complex aspects of good vs evil in our world. I would say it’s only interested in getting to the start of A New Hope. 

There’s so much potential wasted in the first two acts. We see Saw Gerrera torture someone to get information, setting up the conflict between his tactics and those who want to give politics a chance. But the film promptly forgets he does it and we never explore Saw Gerrera’s character again. We see Darth Vader at the height of the Empire as he threatens underlings and (in the best scene of the film) kills rebel soldiers. It’s fun, but we don’t learn anything about Vader we didn’t already know. We’re introduced to a would-be Jedi named Chirrut Imwe, who both connects the film to the samurai epics that inspired George Lucas and builds on the mythology of The Force. But the filmmakers don’t explore him or any potential connection with the Jedi Order.

There are so many potential doors open, but they get shut almost immediately so the film can get to the first trilogy.

Yet by the time we get to the third act, which directly leads to the opening of the original trilogy, Rogue One is exhilarating. During the last forty minutes, Rogue One takes on the tone of a classic war film like The Dirty Dozen or The Longest Day. We finally see what the “war” in Star Wars really meant. I especially enjoyed the scene in which Imwe walks through gunfire while chanting about The Force to ensure the mission succeeds.

Of course, I had to remind myself that I knew what would happen. Rogue One (the group that agrees to fetch the plans after the rebel leaders refuse to grant them permission) will succeed no matter what happens. There is drama in seeing which characters will survive the battle and I was emotionally invested when a character didn’t make it. But it was all for nought because I knew how the movie would end. It’s like watching a race when I already know who is go be to win. What they were thinking as they crossed the finish line may be intersstkng, but it doesn’t add any drama to the outcome.

I’m not sure why Rogue One exists. There are good elements here to ensure Star Wars fans will like it. But it doesn’t feel like the bright future The Force Awakens announced for the franchise. It felt like a cash in that doesn’t forward a narrative but exists to sell toys. I know Star Wars has always been a commercial enterprise, but the best films in the franchise will survive for generations because they put narrative first. Rogue One isn’t lazy, but it doesn’t escape the trap that almost all prequels are stuck in.

Posted in Current Films/New Releases | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Best Films of 2016

2016 was a bad year for a lot of people and they wanted a way to escape it.

I won’t get into all the reasons why. I can’t speak for everyone and we still only have a limited space. But what frustrates me the most is that, as of yet, Hollywood has yet to catch up with the public mood and provide them a good escape. They’re still relying on the same tricks they were eight years ago, and what are “sure bets” to studios have become the stalest films imaginable.

Look at Independence Day: Resurgence. It was an artistic bomb but was still hyped as this “can’t miss experience,” even though people knew better. That’s why premieres of shows like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones are drawing millions of viewers while studios are watching theater attendance shrink. People are aware of every trick studios are willing to throw at them while TV and streaming is becoming more adventurous and able to respond to what people want.

Yet some people don’t want adventure. Take a look at the reaction to Ghostbusters. I didn’t see it, but for months all I heard was about how Hollywood was “forcing” social change by using an all female cast. I personally thought it was a good idea to branch out and use some of the funniest people in mainstream comedy to revive a dead franchise. But no one was complaining about how the trailers went out of their way to present the same scenes from the original film and were not showing anyone anything new. That was more troubling to me.

I’ve said that the theater experience needs a massive overhaul. Spending $11 to watch a single movie is no longer practical when people can spend the same amount each month to access an entire library from the comfort of their home. I have a feeling that, eventually, all  films will bypass theaters entirely. Indeed, some of the films I highlighted on my list were released exclusively to streaming services.

What theaters need to be is a way to emphasize community spirit. As I said at the start, 2016 was a bad year for a lot of people and we’ve had to rely on each other for comfort. I have a feeling that over the next, say, four years or so we’re going to need a lot more of that comfort. Perhaps the solution is to leave theaters to the special events and send movies to Netflix. The best thing I saw in a theater this year wasn’t a movie, but a broadcast of the Frankenstein play directed by Danny Boyle and starring Benedict Cumberbatch as the Creature. It was an experience I felt would not have had the same experience had it been broadcast on PBS. I felt like I was in London watching the play on opening night.

I want more of that. The whole purpose of films is to give me an experience I cannot get any other way. Forcing me to pay $4 extra for 3D glasses is not the experience I’m looking for. But I also realize that this cannot be something I do on my own. I need to be able to share it with my friends. That is something Netflix cannot replace.

I do think we’re going to have some more interesting experiences in the coming years. Artists are going to be more empowered and eager to share their messages to the world, and I think the studios are going to be more willing to finance them. Once again, artists will take the role of the underdog – something that they need in order to be relevant.

Maybe there’s hope.

But before I focus too much on the future, let’s look at the immediate past. As usual, I have picked my top three and then listed the rest alphabetically. Also, there were some films I missed in theaters (like Swiss Army Man and Manchester By the Sea) that I haven’t highlighted here. I will hopefully catch up with them in them in the future. For now, I think every film on this list is something people need to seek out.


Last year, my pick went to Mad Max: Fury Road. This year, no blockbuster that I saw seemed to fit the bill. Nothing coming out during the summer was as adventurous or as exciting as the adventures of Max and Furiosa.

But the strange thing is that there was an independent film that was just as thrilling as Fury Road. It also stuck out in my mind as I started seeing the villains of the film appearing on the news every night. They were fighting to preserve their way of life without seeing the ugliness they were living. The youth that challenged them were confident that their side was right, but became more frightened as the villains sought to destroy them and come closer to winning.

Sound familiar? That premise summarizes 2016.

Green Room (dir: Jeremy Saulnier)

Green Room is tense and spellbinding. It’s hideously violent, but never gratuitous. And the villains are some of the best I’ve seen in a while. They are sadistic and we avoid all of the mustache twirling that comes with Neo Nazi villains. It’s almost easy to see how they feel they’re as victimized as they people they’re tormenting and killing. The film doesn’t defend their actions, but it’s a mood and an idea that few filmmakers want to use. I’m still thinking about Green Room months after I saw it and realizing how it seemed to be the biggest warning against what was already happening in the poverty-stricken areas we as a society have chosen to ignore.


I saw Green Room very early in the year and it took a while for something to make a similar impact on me. I had to think about the basics. Why do I like films? What can they do that nothing else can?

Then I saw this film. It transported me into someone else’s life – a life I will never really understand. This film gave me a chance to try. Yes, it’s pacing is slow, but the emotional impact it makes is more significant than any Marvel superhero movie I’ve seen.

Moonlight (dir: Barry Jenkins)

Moonlight demonstrates that less is sometimes more. The entire third act consists of two people talking at a restaurant and most of the film looks like it could have been shot on an iPhone and uploaded to YouTube. Moonlight feels like a documentary, which helped me understand the characters in a way a conventional film would not. Usually, Hollywood feels artificial and I’m aware that they people I’m watching will go home to their expensive homes in their expensive cars and berate people who didn’t fetch them their coffee quick enough. Moonlight’s amateur feel is far more authentic than, say, The Help. It creates a profound emotional impact and demonstrates that, for certain people, trying to figure out who they really are can still seem like an act of rebellion.


I had a real tough time coming up with a third place entry. I could think of several films I wanted to highlight, but I couldn’t declare that one was better than the other.

Then I remembered that art needs to be a way for audiences to escape from their reality. And our reality is getting bleaker by the day. In 2016 and beyond, the biggest thing I’m looking for is hope that the future may not be so dark. This film gave me that hope. It’s also what I wish studios would make more of – something that doesn’t insult my intelligence but also doesn’t alienate audiences. This film is like finding water in a desert.

Arrival (dir: Denis Villeneuve)

Arrival is a film with an independent mentality that could only be made through a studio with deep pockets. It’s smart and looks glossy, but at the same time doesn’t depend on action sequences or quick editing to keep people distracted. It must have seemed like a risky gamble, where most of the film is dedicated not to special effects but to linguists trying to decode an alien language. But it’s also a very hopeful film that reminds me no matter how scared people are, we’re still capable of creating a bright future. Arrival is the sort of science fiction film I was worried Hollywood had forgotten how to make.


13th (dir: Ava DuVernay)

13th is a Netflix documentary that reminds us of one thing – the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did not make slavery entirely illegal. People who are incarcerated can still be made slaves. The documentary shows just how big this loophole is and how many lives it’s affected. It’s brave in how it humanizes people who society at large would still rather forget – or demonize. 13th also contains the best individual scene of any film I saw this year. It’s a scene that reminds us what happens if we ignore our past and cannot come to terms with everything we’ve done. What was a warning is now something far more urgent.

Everybody Wants Some!! (dir: Richard Linklater)

I’m surprised how quickly people have forgotten this film. It seemed like it would attract the right audience – a spiritual follow-up to Dazed and Confused by the director that’s made the best film of the decade so far. Yet no one seems to be talking about it any more. That’s a shame, because Everybody Wants Some!! is really fun. It’s a film that perfectly captures the spirit of youth where the characters think they know everything but are still eager to try out what they don’t know. It’s not a copy of Dazed. The characters are slightly older and wiser, but still naive enough to get into mischief. In much the same way Dazed and Confused reminds me of certain high school friends, Everybody Wants Some!! reminds me of some people I met my first day of college. And as that time retreats further into the distance, films like Everybody Wants Some!! grow in my eyes.

La La Land (dir: Damien Chazelle)

La La Land doesn’t know a Hollywood cliche it doesn’t like. This would normally spell doom, but the film makes every plot point seem fresh and engaging. Hollywood has always had a great love affair with itself, and in the wrong hands the story of a struggling artist looking to make it big in Los Angeles is about as exciting and original as a taupe wall. But La La Land is smart enough to seamlessly incorporate the storytelling techniques of the past into the story of two characters I cared about. The musical sequences recall the great musicals of the past when musicals were a way for Hollywood to showcase everything it could do. It’s got a great soundtrack, too.

The Lobster (dir: Yorgos Lanthimos)

The Lobster is one of the most original dystopian films I’ve seen in a long time. It’s a love story, but it subverts many of the Hollywood conventions. In items like The Hunger Games, love is used as a means to an end and the society is so poorly defined that it has no hope of succeeding. The Lobster ends with two people finding happiness in a world that would deny it, which is victory enough for them as they don’t know how to properly rebel. That attitude seems far more realistic and is a comforting reminder that people can still win no matter what happens. It’s also hysterically funny.

The Nice Guys (dir: Shane Black)

I can’t believe everyone has already forgotten about Shane Black’s The Nice Guys. It’s a wonderful daffy noir that showcases Shane Black’s strength as a writer. Black is a man who knows exactly what makes noirs work and how to keep its characters engaging. Even child actress Angourie Rice is engaging and organic thanks to Black’s ability to establish her character as something besides an annoying extension of an adult protagonist. I could not begin to describe the plot nor how the titular “nice guys” are able to defeat the not so nice guys. But when The Nice Guys is playing it’s such an engaging affair that I found myself embracing the film’s many charms.

Nocturnal Animals (dir: Tom Ford)

Nocturnal Animals would work as a tense thriller. The scene in which Texas yokels abduct Tony Sheffield’s family is more tense and riveting than almost every modern thriller. But Nocturnal Animals also works well because of its own French Lieutenant’s Woman style exploration of how art and real life blend. Sheffield’s story is born from a dark place, and what scares Susan Morrow isn’t that story but that it demonstrates she was wrong about her ex-husband. Nocturnal Animals works on so many levels that it’s impossible to see only once.

The Witch (dir: Robert Eggers)

There’s something that modern horror doesn’t seem to understand. Simple jump scares are enough to make people, well, jump. But they’re not enough to really disturb anyone or give anyone a lasting impression that their existence is not what it seems. The Witch understands this – or at least knows enough to understand what would scare the characters. The film is not so much an exploration of witchcraft as it is an exploration of adult fears. Lost children, illness, and the failure of religion to provide comfort in times of grief are how The Witch gets under and audiences skin. And its all done with convincing 17th century vernacular, which simultaneously sounds completely alien yet completely familiar.


Posted in Special Articles | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Review of Moonlight

The best thing films do is give audience an emotional experience they would never get in their own lives.

I’ve been fortunate to not live in the areas where Moonlight’s protagonist Chiron grew up. I certainly wouldn’t understand Chiron’s experiences. Moonlight and director Barry Jenkins made Chiron’s life seemfamiliar to me. It also made me realize that, no matter what our backgrounds are, we’re all searching for the same thing.

Moonlight is told in a Kubrickian three act structure with different actors playing the same characters at different stages of their lives. When we first meet Chiron, he is a child called Little and is played by Alex Hibbert. Little barely speaks and the only thing he fears more than bullies is his crack addicted mother Paula (Naomi Harris). The only people who seem to care about him are Juan (Mahershala Ali) and his girlfriend Teresa (singer Janelle Monae). Juan finds Little hiding in a crack house from bullies and takes him under his wing. One of the most emotionally devastating moments in this emotionally devastating film sees Juan confront Paula over her drug use – only for Little to later ask Juan if he’s a dealer. Juan can barely hold back tears as he answers in the affirmative.

Moonlight still would be one of the best films of the year had it followed the story of Little for its entire run time. In this era when more people seem to be turning away from urban slums as a relic of a bygone era, these scenes reminded me that there are still people living these lives. It was also told in a way that made Little’s story seem real to everyone in the audience. The cinematography throughout the film, at times, seems to have been inspired by GoPro videos. It makes the film look like a documentary, which makes the emotional impact much stronger.

What’s most amazing is that the people society has abandoned in our reality are still determined to do good. Juan recognizes the damage he’s inflicting on his community and views Little as a way to atone. But Little is just as much a victim of Juan as anyone else who’s become addicted to the drugs he sells. Juan, despite his desire be a father to Little, is ultimately going to cause damage to the people he knows. I hope Ali is nominated for an Oscar – his tortured performance of a man doing wrong when he wants to do right fits the bill.

The first act also sets up the new story Little’s adolescence. The second act, titled “Chiron,” deals with Chiron (Ashton Sanders) as he comes to terms with some of the questions he had as a child. Chiron is still being relentlessly bullies and his mother has become a more desperate drug addict, badgering her son for money. Chiron also realizes that he is gay as he experiments on the beach with his friend Kevin (Jharrel Jerome).

That sexual experimentation scene is one of the standout scenes of Moonlight. In an age where gay marriage is legal, Moonlight reminds audiences that there are still large segments of our culture that finds this wrong. Chiron is unable to process his actions, and feels a need to apologize after it’s done. Chiron is also the target of vicious bullying by people who merely suspect that Chiron is gay.

The third act is reminiscent of Louis Malle’s My Dinner With Andre, as Chiron becomes “Black” (and now played by Trevante Rhodes) and lives the same sort of life Juan did. He reconnects with Kevin (Andre Holland), and they have dinner at the Miami restaurant Kevin works at together. They talk about how neither of them expected to end up where they are and how they both have deep regrets over their lives.

This last act is glacially paced. We’re watching two people talk in real time. But I can’t imagine a way that the story could change. I cared about the characters and wanted to see how they would react to each other. I also understood why they arrived at the emotional point that they did. Compare these two to, say, watching Tony Stark and Steve Rogers fight for the bazillionth time and you’ll see what’s missing from most big budgeted tent poles these days. I had a reason to care about Chiron and Kevin.

Moonlight is one of the most satisfying films of 2016. It’s a wonderful emotional journey that I could not have another way. Some may dislike how slow the film is, but I don’t think that’s the filmmakers fault.  I wish that more films were as engaging as Moonlight. And director Barry Jenkins shows how easy it can be. All you need are characters that can draw you into their world.

Posted in Current Films/New Releases | Leave a comment

A Review of Arrival

Arrival is basically what I wished Interstellar was.

I was disappointed in Christopher Nolan’s space opera because I didn’t feel like it was really interested in exploring the themes that it introduced. Yes, the power of love is certainly a wonderful human emotion that has been the impetus for some legendary work, but does it mean a whole lot when we’re exploring the concept of the infinite universe?

Arrival gives me what I would actually be interested in if aliens came to earth – an examination of the impact on humanity. But it doesn’t sacrifice the human feelings that Nolan was obsessed with. Instead, it blends them into the larger goal of learning how to communicate with intelligent life from another galaxy.

Most people know that Arrival is about aliens coming to earth. Most don’t realize that the film focuses on Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams) who is, of all things, a linguist. She is recruited by Colonel Weber (Forrest Whitaker) and assisted by physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) to help translate the aliens’ language. Meanwhile, Louise is teased with memories of her child that passed away. This tragedy inspires Louise in her communication with the aliens, even when other countries like China view the aliens as a threat rather than a beacon of hope.

 What impressed me the most about Arrival was the fact that, despite the presence of the military and aliens, it never devolved into an action film. That sounds like a weird compliment, but it’s something that makes Arrival unique. The trend is to treat aliens as bug-eyed monsters who exist to put humanity in danger. They will be killed in an explosion that means nothing because we know nothing about the aliens or really care about the humans. Compare it to that stupid Independence Day sequel and you’ll see what I mean.

Arrival treats the existence of aliens like the global changing event it would be. People are scared of them but fascinated with them. They want to know why they came and what it means for humanity. 

Adams’ performance encapsulates all of humanity’s fears and excitement. She is nervous when she goes into the craft for the first time (the ship only opens during certain times of the day and only for a limited amount of time) but is fascinated to watch the aliens communicate. Their language is also wonderfully original, which makes the film’s themes of overcoming the language barrier that much more pronounced. The best scenes of the film feature Adams and slowly unlocking their language. 

The film does explain why the aliens came to earth and, in that grand sci-fi tradition, it’s not for what you would expect. Some people have already complained about the “twist” at the end. It won’t be original to science fiction fans, but the film doesn’t treat it as a new idea. What matters is that the film naturally builds up to the revelation of why the aliens came to Earth. I didn’t feel cheated by it, nor did I feel like the film was talking down to its audience. If anything, it was treating them with some intelligence and respect.

Arrival does something that is increasingly rare in a blockbuster. It has a brain in its skull and gave me a sense of wonder about the world. We live in a time now that puts fear and anxiety above knowledge and wonder. Arrival gives me hope that this phase of humanity shall pass and maybe there is a bright future ahead.

Posted in Current Films/New Releases | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Review of The Rocky Horror Picture Show: Let’s Do the Time Warp Again

The fact that The Rocky Horror Picture Show: Let’s Do the Time Warp Again exists is a disaster to Rocky Horror fans.

The reason the original film has played in theaters for 41 years has nothing to do with its quality. It’s a deeply flawed film with bad writing, bad singing, and bad acting. But it’s been a way for people sympathizing with the counter-culture to come together with like-minded individuals and feel as though their ideas have won out. As you probably guessed by the opening sentence of this paragraph, I’m not a big fan of the original Rocky Horror film. It’s nowhere near as revolutionary or insightful as its legions of fans claim it is.

The whole point of the film is to point out that the junk culture from the Eisenhower administration directly lead to the hippie revolution and the “Summer of Love” that saw people exploring the limits of their sexuality in a way that still seem dangerous. That’s certainly a good theme, but filmmakers like Brian de Palma, Ken Russell, John Waters, and Derek Jarman have explored the same territory and done it better. (Not to mention performers like Alice Cooper, Freddie Mercury, Frank Zappa, Prince, and David Bowie, who all built careers around the same idea that have lasted decades.) Grease was about the same thing and demonstrated that such an idea is so against mainstream culture that it became, for a while, the most popular film ever released.

Still, for many years, Rocky Horror was a phenomenon that belonged to people going against the constraints of society. I have been to a live screening and it’s fantastic. Even if I don’t understand the cult, I can’t deny it exists or try to fault people for being in it.

But that cult still depends on rebellion from the mainstream. Even if this new Rocky Horror is a perfect remake that captures everything about the original, it’s being played on prime time TV. No longer is Frank N Furter a midnight staple for the hippest of the hip New York audiences. He’s being beamed across America for everyone to consume. And not only is he a man in drag – she (Furter’s gender is changed in this adaptation) is being played by an openly transsexual actress. What would have been unthinkable even ten years ago is now ready to be consumed by the masses.

So the new Rocky Horror had no chance of making the same impact the original did. But does it still capture the campy fun that makes the original watchable? No, and it doesn’t even bother to try.

The film does have a good opening. It’s one of the few times that director Kenny Ortega (Hocus Pocus…no, seriously. Someone watched Hocus Pocus and decided that this guy was the perfect man to capture the Rocky Horror cult for a new generation) tries something new. Instead of the iconic lips singing “Science Fiction Double Feature,” we open with an Usherette (Ivy Levan) singing it as people walk into a movie theater to settle in for a screening. She wanders through the crowd, chastising people for putting their feet up, and slinks through the song with a new sort of cheesy pop sound. It works because it acknowledges the Rocky Horror cult, shows a willingness to experiment with the songs, and introduces new camp elements that would resonate with people who are decades younger than the original film.

It’s also the biggest con in film history. The rest of the film is exactly like the original, demonstrating the pointlessness of the remake. There are also several times when we cut back to this theater audience at random, showing people making jokes at the film. This might have worked had the show been live and there been a shadowcast, but as it stands it’s a joke that makes no sense. You have to know the punchline in advance, and those people who’ve gone to the show hundreds of times are just likely to be upset by the joke.

Then we get to the usual stuff – Brad (Ryan McCartan) and Janet (Victoria Justice) go to a wedding, get engaged, have their car break down, end up at the castle, etc. And when I say it’s the same, I mean it’s exactly the same. There is no attempt to try anything different.

But this new version never captures the original spirit of the film. This version is so glossy and clean. Every costume looks professional, all the actors look fantastic, and the set design is really good for a TV movie. This is a terrible idea for Rocky Horror. It takes away the elements of danger and the oddness from the original film. The filmmakers turned away people like Steve Martin and Mick Jagger for people who were unknown at the time. The film’s low budget aesthetic worked to its advantage. All of that is gone in the new version. For example, here’s what Victoria Justice, the film’s Janet, looks like:

She is a gorgeous woman. How on earth does anyone who looks like this capture the feeling of “innocent 1950s virgin?” When she sings “Toucha Toucha Touch Me,” it is not going to convey an exciting moment in her life as she tries something new. It’s going to come across as “business as usual.” The whole point of Brad and Janet is that they’re hopelessly square people who can barely understand what the Transylvanians are doing when they talk dirty about pelvic thrusts. And that initial lack of knowledge is what creates the thrill for them that leaves them forever changed. Hiring a supermodel is not going to convey that, but is going to convey a bright poppy sheen for a mass audience.

Even Laverne Cox isn’t served well by this approach, and she’s the only person that really tries to capture the spirit of the original. Cox is not only a talented actress, but is someone who still captures the dangerous sexuality that makes Frank N Furter work. Her public statements about her transition still rattle the mainstream. She also does try to capture the campiness of the original. But here’s how the film handles her performance:

The filmmakers have forgotten that Frank N Furter is not meant to even wear convincing drag. His corset doesn’t fit, his makeup looks like a Joan Crawford nightmare, and his fish nets are torn. Cox looks like she could open for Rhianna. It doesn’t have the same impact Tim Curry made when he first threw off the cape.

Speaking of Curry, he shows up in the film as the criminologist. And it’s sad. Curry suffered a stroke some years ago that left him wheelchair bound. He does the best he can, but it’s terrible seeing him barely able to say his lines. I don’t blame him at all. I blame the filmmakers who thought it would be a good idea to show such a legendary actor in such a weakened state just for a cheap nostalgia thrill.

An image that captures my feeling on the film's treatment of Tim Curry.

An image that captures my feeling on the film’s treatment of Tim Curry.

The whole film is a mess, but it feels like a more desperate, unfortunate mess than the original film. I had a feeling that the original cast and original creators at least believed in the point they were trying to make and felt they had to make it any way they can. They managed to find camp in a way that audiences could relate to – an audience that felt unable to relate to anything else coming out of the mainstream. This remake simply feels that being “weird” is enough. It’s practically adding a #totallyrandom hashtag to the credits and thumbing its nose at the people who have kept the original in theaters for 41 years. How can anyone approve of that?

Posted in Current Films/New Releases | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Review of Finding Dory

I know that I’m incredibly late to this party. (And incredibly late in updating this blog.) But I recently saw Finding Dory on a Transatlantic flight and feel compelled to respond to it. I suppose that’s a compliment, considering how dreary most of this year’s releases have been. But then I have to remember that even fools gold is shiny.

I didn’t see Dory during its original theatrical run. I usually avoid animated films in theaters for two reasons.

1.) The predominantly child audience would make me stick out like a sore thumb and

2.) Animated films, more than any other type of film, are not treated as works of art. They are treated as commodities that are designed to distract children and nothing more. I know this because every time I point out any flaw in a Disney movie, I inevitably hear, “It’s not FOR YOU! It’s for kids.” But that’s not how films are supposed to be judged. Yet most animated films are not works of art – they are enterprises designed to advertise toys, coloring books, and fast food to kids. And instead of demanding that our kids receive better treatment during this important part of their lives, we let the filmmakers get away with it.

It was the second item that had me concerned about Finding Dory when I heard about its release. Pixar has been the studio that has consistently produced some of the best work of the last 25 years. The original Finding Nemo isn’t my favorite Pixar film, but that’s the point. Most creators can spend a lifetime not making anything nearly as good as Finding Nemo, yet Pixar has surpassed it several times.

But lately Pixar has been taking the idea that films are the springboard for whatever trinkets the marketing department at Disney wants to sell. Cars has gotten a sequel and is getting another one. Monsters Inc got a prequel about a time nobody cared about. And Toy Story is getting another entry even though the narrative is clearly over. Finding Dory just seemed useless to me. Nemo knew to avoid overusing its cute characters and knew when to drag out its emotional moments for maximum impact.

Having said that, I’m pleased to say that Finding Dory is really good. Its animation is beautiful and its plot isn’t just a retread of the first one. It also introduces some great new characters that help show a new side of Dory.

But it also feels like Pixar is taking a step backward. Nemo worked because it knew that you can only make it rain once. Dory is almost packed with moments that rain. The filmmakers don’t know when to let up and those moments lead to plot holes and dampen the emotional impact of the film.

When Finding Dory works, it works very well. The opening drew me in as I saw a baby Dory talking with her parents Jenny and Charlie (Diane Keaton and Eugene Levy) about her short-term “remember-y” loss. It’s a cute moment that shows us how a supporting character can take the lead of the film.

But the opening scene also shows the weaknesses Finding Dory will not be able to shake in its run time. It would have been great if we only received the one flashback to set up the story.

We then flash to a grown Dory (a returning Ellen DeGeneres) suddenly remembers her family and goes on a quest to find them with Marlin (Albert Brooks) and Nemo. She only remembers a name – the Jewel of Morro Bay. It leads her to an aquarium/habitat and leads her to be separated from her friends as she tries to get to the exhibit she was born in.

I really enjoyed the aquarium setting in the second act. It offered a way to drive home the environmental theme of the first film and gave audiences a slew of new characters. One of my favorites was Hank (Ed O’Neill), a misanthropic octopus who wants nothing more than to go to an aquarium in Cleveland. Hank represents everything strong about Finding Dory. Not only is he beautifully animated with fluid motion and some great scenes where he camouflages himself, he’s an interesting new character that had no equivalent in the original film. Destiny (Kaitlin Olsen), a nearsighted whale shark, also provided some new dimensions that weren’t in the first film. She dreams of freedom from her tank but is also scared of what lies outside. And best of all is my new spirit animal, Gerald.

But it made me wonder why Pixar even used the Nemo characters at all if they wanted to take advantage of new ideas. Marlin and Nemo are really underused. Marlin’s whole arc is about how he mocks Dory for her handicap – which was also his arc in the first film. Nemo is a non-character who spends the entire film sulking.

And Dory’s characterization is unusual. She supposedly has no short-term memory but frequently has flashbacks to her childhood. In fact, the entire film is built on moments when she can’t remember simple things…unless the plot requires it. These flashbacks quickly became grating as I wondered how Dory could even have them.

I caught myself several times during the film as I started to whine. Why should I complain when there are so many good moments in Dory? Even when the film wasn’t making the right emotional impact for me, I admired the skill the animators had. One scene late in the film that has Dory falling through a pipe in a POV shot is one of the greatest animated sequences I’ve ever seen. The water effects throughout the film are fantastic. And yes, I was emotionally invested in Dory’s journey. One scene that suggested Dory may never be reunited with her family had me nearly in tears. I was emotionally invested in these characters, which is the starting point to any great film.

Finding Dory is fantastic in many ways. But it also leaves me conflicted. Do I praise Finding Dory for exceeding my expectations or condemn it for not matching Pixar’s other output? In the end, I did what everyone else does in this situation – thought of the children. I remembered when I was a child and saw Toy Story for the first time. It was revolutionary. Kids are at an impressionable age and will remember those moments for the rest of their lives. I think we owe it to them and I know Pixar is capable of delivering. So maybe that’s why Pixar making what is only a really good film still feels disappointing to me.

Posted in Current Films/New Releases | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Review of Snowden

Edward Snowden’s story is basically the story of my generation. After 9/11, we were all scared and wanted to do anything we could to protect ourselves and the U.S. No one ever stopped to think about what we were doing to further that goal. When Bush said that Iraq had WMDs and was harboring terrorists, we all smiled and nodded and let him do whatever he wanted. Those who questioned him were traitors who just wanted to invite another 9/11.

But time still went on and the more the Bush administration did, the more people started taking a long hard look at what we were doing. The U.S. was going into nations for no reason, no plans to ensure that the area stayed safe, and ended up destroying what little infrastructure existed. A few short years after the Iraq invasion, the region was a perfect breeding grounds for groups like ISIS. And in an effort to “protect our freedoms,” we discovered that the government was frequently treating those freedoms as an inconvenience in its quest for some undefined “safety.” And then, as the government realized groups like al Qaeda were essentially destroyed and that no one group or nation posed a significant threat to our borders, it began to use this data in ways that were legally and morally reprehensible.

There are those people who still say that Snowden is a traitor who endangered American lives. Those people are wrong. Snowden disclosed important information about how U.S. citizens were being treated as the enemy by its own government. It jump started an important discussion about our nation’s future and how we the people exist as the bosses of the government, not the servants. Some people don’t want to participate in this discussion. (These are the same people who want to vote for a racist Oompa Loompa with the IQ of mustard in November.) But that doesn’t mean that we can avoid it.

That’s why it’s important that Snowden exists. It’s also why I was excited when I heard that Oliver Stone was directing it. Stone’s career has been built on films that create a desperation in its audience to speak truth to power. It’s been frustrating when he puts that passion into the wrong direction. JFK is genius in its construction but is about as insightful into history as Monty Python and the Holy Grail. But Stone wouldn’t have to invent facts for Snowden. The conspiracy already exists. All he has to do is create that feeling of passion and anger in his audiences. He succeeds.

The film starts with the moment we’re all familiar with. Snowden (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) meets with columnist Glenn Greenwald (Zachary Quinto) to disclose the data he has smuggled from his job. We then go back to Snowden’s beginnings and how he became public enemy number one. Along the way, we also witness Snowden’s growing paranoia that is eventually proven correct.

The obvious choice would have been for Stone to focus on the deep conspiracies surrounding Snowden and how he came to fight against him. It’s like what he did with Jim Garrison in JFK. Stone was so eager to discuss the supposed”conspiracy” around Kennedy’s assassination that Garrison’s family and his effect on them was almost irrelevant to the plot. Which scene do you remember more – the scene in which Garrison’s wife yells at him for missing the family’s Easter Sunday lunch, or Garrison’s courtroom plea for truth?

What’s interesting is that Stone takes a more conservative approach at the start of Snowden. He’s mainly focused on the love story between Snowden and Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley). When they meet, they have opposite worldviews. Snowden was a special forces trainee at Fort Meade before an injury forced him to leave the Army. He still sees enemies of the U.S. all around the world and wants to serve his country. Lindsay is a more bohemian woman who signs petitions protesting the war in Iraq and scoffs at Edward’s statements on the “liberal media bias.”

Mills has been a figure that is often overlooked in Snowden’s story. When the story first broke, she was depicted in a sexist manner as an example of “what Snowden gave up.” We were reduced to ogling at Mills without wondering how this was all affecting her. But Snowden gives her a greater voice. There are some arguments that seem cliched (like one in which Mills accuses Snowden of preferring work to her), but it’s far better than the coverage Mills was given by the news media.

The focus on Mills makes for an odd first act and some of the dialogue is clunky, but it did help me see the human side of Snowden. It was easy to forget that this man is a human being. Mills also acts as the sort of passive figure in finding out about the surveillance. She reacts with shock when Snowden places a band-aid over her webcam. (He claims it’s to protect her from Russian hackers.) And when Edward starts talking to her about the data the NSA is capturing, her response is “I have nothing to hide.”

Only in retrospect that we realize Stone is preparing to respond to the passiveness that have greeted Snowden in the past. He’s preparing us to be shocked by just how far the CIA and the NSA were going with their programs to “keep us safe.” One of the most effective scenes in the film has Snowden explain how the NSA casts its net by looking at people’s cell phone contacts. We see the wide net the NSA is casting and see how that technology can be abused. One scene has an agent remotely turning on a webcam – ostensibly to spy on a banker’s family, but more likely so he can watch a Muslim woman remove her burka – and pants. Once the film shifts to the NSA spying techniques, it finds a jolt of energy that doesn’t let up until the credits role.

Snowden’s symbols are not subtle, but when has Oliver Stone ever depended on subtlety to convey his point? What matters is if Stone creates the emotional feeling he’s looking to convey. Snowden accomplishes this in spades. The scenes of Snowden smuggling the data out of the headquarters is nail-bitingly tense. The scenes of him and Lindsey are touching. The moment where Snowden argues with his boss over Skype (in which his boss is projected onto a huge display that makes him look like Big Brother) is good for boiling the blood.

Overall, Snowden is such a great package that accomplishes what it set out to do that I can’t stay mad at its flaws.  It’s a great example of how, to paraphrase Woodrow Wilson, history can be written with lightning. It’s also great at showing another side of Snowden. He’s removed from being a symbol and finally becomes a human being.

There are some who will like Snowden. Some will hate it and wonder why Stone is so obvious with his message. I found Snowden to be the most effective film Oliver Stone has made in more than a decade. It doesn’t beat audiences over the head with its message, but allows them to enter Snowden’s world on their terms and understand why he did what he did. That’s all any movie can hope to accomplish.

Posted in Current Films/New Releases | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A Review of Suicide Squad

I originally made plans to skip Suicide Squad after seeing the press about it. Additionally, director David Ayer directed one of the few films I’ve ever been morally disgusted enough with to shut off. (End of Watch – specifically, I turned it off at that scene in which a cop fights a suspect on a dare and his partner is egging him on while recording it for some community college class.)

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that Suicide Squad needs to be discussed regardless of its quality. First, it is the perfect film that illustrates the state of the film industry. Marvel has been successful in creating a “universe” that requires people to buy tickets to twenty films in order to understand what’s happening. Filmmakers are not doing this because of some huge artistic ambition. It’s because of the potential for higher grosses.

I don’t fault studios for coming up with new plans to fit a changing market. That’s what running a business entails. But it also means that big tent pole films are slowly morphing into a product that is turning people off. Batman V Superman crashed and burned earlier this year after people realized that it was not so much a film as a trade show to introduce the new fall superhero design. I have not seen Batman V Superman, but the marketing campaign was a mess. Instead of focusing on two of the most famous pop culture characters, the studio dictated that every single character be introduced at the same time. And, rather than letting the audience discover these characters on our own, the ad campaign gave every new character their own trailer. It was impossible to understand how so many elements would come together.

Suicide Squad works much the same way. Even after having watch the complete cut, I still am challenged to explain who the characters are, how they relate to each other, or what they accomplish in the film. Suicide Squad doesn’t work as a dramatic work. It works to introduce characters that we’ll see later and to generate excitement about future films. It’s an extended trailer. Maybe, somehow, this will pay off in the long run as Warner Bros puts out more DC Comics movies. But it doesn’t pay off in the short term.

The plot is simultaneously simple and incomprehensible. Viola Davis is Amanda Waller, a high-ranking intelligence officer who wants to put together a team made up of “famous” comic book villains to go on deadly missions. This includes Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) a former psychiatrist from Arkham who fell in love with The Joker (Jared Leto), Deadshot (Will Smith) who is trying to balance his life as the world’s greatest assassin with being a dad to his eleven year old daughter, Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) who has a skin disease, Enchantress (Cara Delevingne), an ancient witch who inhabits the body of an archeologist, and someone named Captain Boomerang who I am still not entirely convinced is an actual character from DC Comics. The team is promised time off their prison sentences in exchange for helping Weller on missions. But Enchantress uses her freedom to resurrect her brother to do…something…that will somehow cause the end of the world. The rest of the squad has to stop her before it’s too late. Oh, and The Joker is in it and trying to help Harley break free of the Squad.

I will focus on the two elements that I thought worked for the film. The first is Robbie. Harley Quinn has been a fan favorite for almost 25 years. There was a bizarre quality about her in every adaptation – she somehow brings the closest thing to humanity The Joker has while somehow showing why so many people are attracted to the dark side of Gotham. The Joker is as physically and emotionally abusive towards her as anyone would expect, but Harley seems to think that it’s her who ends up with power through their relationship.

Margot Robbie captures all these aspect of the character in her performance. Besides the “Mistah J” and “Puddin” lines, Robbie’s Quinn is simultaneously strong and tortured. She uses her sex appeal to drive her captors crazy but is unwilling to face what The Joker is doing to her. That character should have carried the film on her own.
I also liked Will Smith’s Deadshot. Smith has been a very talented performer for many years and hasn’t lost his edge. He’s simultaneous funny while also being very human. Smith has a talent for taking weak material and bringing out the most he can from it. That’s the case in Suicide Squad – the hitman with the heart of gold has been outdated for decades. Smith makes it seem fresh and finds the emotional core that audiences need in the film.

But that’s really all the positive I can say about Suicide Squad. The rest is a disjointed mess, filled with too many characters and so many leaps in logic that it became impossible to follow.

For example, as I stated in the plot summary, Enchantress becomes the main villain after being recruited for the team. You would think this means that everyone involved sees the immediate flaws in the plan and squashes the idea of setting a bunch of dangerous criminals loose. But no, it’s full steam ahead the entire time. The film also takes care to reveal that Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman) is the Enchantress’ lover. And then, the film reveals it again as though that was a big dramatic twist in the second act. Characters are pointlessly introduced multiple times. And the big finale fight is an incomprehensible hodge-podge of CGI. I’d rather watch a cartoon if I’m going to end up watching two digital characters fighting.

And Jared Leto’s Joker is terrible. He’s barely in the film, and what few scenes he gets are of Leto trying his best to impersonate Heath Ledger’s performance. There’s no sense of a character being created. You wouldn’t know who the Joker is unless you were already familiar with the character walking into the movie.

That sums up the movie’s flaws in a nutshell. It exists as a checklist so producers can say, “we introduced this character now so we can bring them back later.” I’m sure there are plans for The Joker later, but nothing is realized here. And I’m not going to excuse this by saying that he “may be better utilized” in a later film. This film doesn’t work because everyone involved was too eager to get to the next step.

Suicide Squad is an important film that should be examined for what it reveals about Hollywood’s business side. But such an academic exercise is not going to be fun for the average audience. It’s not going to be fun for those critics either, who are going to walk away very depressed. This should not be the future of Hollywood, where films are made on an assembly line or as a stop-gap. There have been some great films made in the past based on comic book properties. But as they’ve become more popular, they’ve become diluted in their impact. Suicide Squad demonstrates not a need for a competitor to the Marvel Universe but a moratorium on superheroes until we can all agree that a character named “Captain Boomerang” does not need to be seen outside of a children’s TV show.

Posted in Current Films/New Releases | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment