Denis Villenueve. A solid lineup. A different take on first contact. I loved Sicario but went in expecting a cerebral epic sci-fi.
That was a mistake.
Good things:
- Some really nice visual scenes
- Interesting aliens Calligraphy aliens!
- Clear theme of communication is omnipresent
- A neat score that might be awesome in a different movie
Bad things:
- The acting
- The lack of emotional reaction to ALIENS! The students asking to turn on the TV, all of the main characters
- Lack of useful characters Only the aliens and Louise actually did anything the entire movie.
- Supporting characters are very stupid in an attempt to foil the main character slightly
- Very clumsy exposition. Genre-typical news reports, voice-overs, dumb characters asking stupid questions.
- Very slow pacing. This worked in parts of Sicario, but didn't work in this movie because there was no tension. The main characters never seemed remotely threatened.
- Lousie showing up at school thinking everyone will be there after aliens arrive and there's a state of emergency
- Why can't you translate alien language like you can translate Farsi. This is a paraphrase but in the spirit of what Colonel Weber was saying.
- Useless love interest when the costars have no chemistry.
- Ultrasecure military base lets someone steal a ton of explosives and put it in an ALIEN SPACECRAFT without anyone noticing.
- Many unbelievable plot points
- Poor dialogue Let's make a baby - real quote
- Poor handling of the major plot points Looking through time seems to undermine the fact that the aliens need help. Why did one have to die if they could see the future? Why did only one die when they were right next to each other?
- Very heavy handed moral messaging that didn't align with the rest of the movie.
- Why couldn't Ian also see into the future as he studied the language, or any of the others?
Overall extremely disappointing. I'm honestly surprised critics or general moviegoers like this. The premise was very good. It's a real shame the execution failed so miserably.
Bloodsport: “Nobody likes a showoff.”
Peacemaker: “Unless what they showing off is dope as fuck.”
James Gunn recently said in an interview that he finds superhero movies “mostly boring” right now. Anything ranging from safe and boring or technically well-made but disposable, at best. Gunn received at bit of heat from fans for those remarks, but in some sense, he’s not wrong. Because sometimes following the same formula will eventually wear fin and more risk taking needs to happen.
And here we have ‘The Suicide Squad’, the soft reboot to the 2016 film, but this time directed by Gunn himself, where he delivers a highly entertaining movie that is bursting with creativity and ultra-violence. James Gunn once again shakes up the superhero formula with a slick style. I’m just glad DC is finally letting directors have a voice and a vision, and I hope it stays like that.
The first 10-15 minutes tells you exactly what the movie is going to be.
I just can't believe we got something like this. It's 2 hours and 12 minutes long, but it's always on the move. It’s bonkers from start till finish, and I enjoyed every minute of it. This is probably one of the best shot movies in the DCU. The soundtrack is great as well and used effectively. The action scenes were insane and made the overall experience one of the most fun I had at the cinema in a long time.
A massive improvement over the 2016 film, AKA ‘the studio cut’, is that the movie doesn’t look ugly and isn’t chopped together by trailer editors. The movie is vibrant in colours that made it look pleasing to the eye. The structure at times is messy, and yet strangely well-paced, as there’s a lot going on.
Did I mention the movie is very gory? It’s cartoonish violence, or what people call "adult superhero movie", so it's not for kiddies or for the faint of heart. You would probably guess that not everybody on the team is going to make it to the end credits, so deaths are to be expected, but how certain characters “bite the dust” are so unexpectedly gruesome and brutal, it took me by surprise each time. The marketing for the movie was right, don’t get too attached. As I said before, James Gunn had complete creative control over the movie, and he doesn’t hold back on what he wrote and show on screen. But then again, it's a movie, it's not real, the actors who die on screen are fine in real life...I think.
All the cast members have equal amount of time to shine, and you like these super villains this time around, as each character had wonderful chemistry with each other. John Cena plays Peacemaker, who can be best described as a “douchebag version of Captain America”. An extreme patriot who will do the most horrific things for liberty. John Cena excels in the deadpan line delivery for comedic effect, but surprisingly enough, worked well in the serious moments. Looking forward to the spin-off show ‘Peacemaker’.
Margot Robbie once again nails the role of the chaotic but gleeful Harley Quinn. While the character isn’t front and centre this time around, more of a side character, but whenever the character is on screen, it’s instantly memorable.
Idris Elba plays Bloodsport, a contract killer who’s doing time in prison after failing to kill Superman with a kryptonite bullet, while also dealing with family issues, especially with his daughter. While the character may sound like Will Smith’s Deadshot from the 2016 film, but trust me, the execution here is much stronger. This is by far Elba’s best work in a while. Charismatic and a strong leading presence.
Polka Dot Man, played by character actor David Dastmalchian, a socially awkward, weird, and lame sounding character that has some serious mummy issues, which has a funny running visual gag throughout. However, because of Gunn’s writing and Dastmalchian's performance, the character is more than a joke, but a unique character to watch.
Ratcatcher 2, played wonderfully by Daniela Melchior, who brought so much warmth and heart to the film. I loved how they tied in her tragic backstory into the finale, as it honestly made me cry. And let’s not forget the king himself, King Shark, voiced by Sylvester Stallone. He stole every scene he’s in, because he’s so adorable and has such kind eyes, but when he’s hungry, he can be a killing machine.
The rest of the supporting cast, even in the smaller roles, still manage to stand out amidst all the chaos. I liked Joel Kinnaman as Rick Flag a lot more this time around, because the actor was given more to work with in terms of good material. Viola Davis is brilliant as the cold and ruthless Amanda Waller. And Peter Capaldi is always a pleasure to see. Also, I like the character of Weasel, who I can describe as a unholy offspring of Shin Godzilla and Rocket Racoon. He may not be beautiful to look at, but he's beautiful to me.
Like ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’, the movie has a lot of heart and I like how they took certain characters, who on page sound stupid and ridiculous but are handled with such love and depth, while also being self-aware of its own characterization.
You can literally watch this as a standalone movie and you won’t be lost or confused, as you don’t need to watch 22 other movies to understand it. This is by far the strongest entry in this jumbled mess of a cinematic universe.
Overall rating: Nom-nom!
So, here’s the thing. I have words about this movie. I’ll start with the good because there’s a couple of things I was extremely happy to see. I could tell right off the bat that this was the same director and editor. I didn’t even have to look, it was that obvious to me. McG is a really funny guy, and I know comedy is subjective, but he’s kind of a tongue-in-cheek writer. He knows what the audience is thinking, and he isn’t afraid to embrace the ridiculous parts of the film. Now, it didn’t have the same writer, since the first one was written by a different guy, but the writing is still somewhat similar. I think the only difference in writing is the balance. Where the first film was able to convey both horror and comedy in a very balanced manner, I think this film leaned much more heavily on the comedic side, and it is funny. There was more than one moment in this flick where it reminded me of the older Charlie’s Angels films that McG also directed. Also, when it comes to the editing, I dug it. The editing alone really helps convey the tone of comedy the movie is going for, since the editor had a wonderful sense of comedic timing. So, even though I didn’t love this movie, these two things alone helped it feel like it still fit.
Unfortunately, I probably have more negative things to talk about in this movie than positive. First, the cinematographer has changed. Just how I could tell it was the same director and editor, I could tell they changed the cinematographer. One of the best and most alluring parts of that first film were the color palette choices. I talked about this a lot with my review of the original film, and I even did something I almost never do, and I used visual examples to show what I was talking about. I loved what they were able to do with just themes of color. Blues and whites, yellows and reds, as well as with greens, and how the characters blended into those things. There was just so much thought put into the color, and this sequel was so bland. It was just a basic white balance, nothing unique anymore. It was boring, honestly, and that’s only where my complaints begin.
The next thing you’ll have a hard time avoiding is the fact that none of this movie makes any logical sense. First, the movie claims to take place just two years after the events of the first film, but did everyone have an insane growth spurt? Nobody looks the same. Cole looks like an entirely different actor. You can sort of tell Melanie is the same actress, but she also looks particularly grown up, and that’s because, from what I understand, the actual dates of filming the first and second movie was a five-year gap, not two. The actor who played Cole was 19 years old when he made this movie, and it was supposed to take place two years after he was playing a 12-year-old in the first movie. Come on!
Secondly, we’ll just say these enemies have returned from the dead to finish the job they set out to do, as the plot suggests. Why on God’s green earth would they go after the same kid that bested them the first time around? Why not go after a different innocent? That’s all the curse requires. Thirdly…gahh! It’s the worst decision the movie makes overall, and I can’t even talk about it, since it would spoil some major plot points, but just know that I HATED it.
What this film ultimately feels like is a cash grab because there’s not a lot in the movie that feels very original or needed. They rehash a lot of the events of the first, and the plot is basically a remake of The Babysitter, which is upsetting. If you don’t have enough material, then why even bother making a sequel? For cheap laughs? I’m not easily disappointed in films; not even remakes, which people always crap on these days. However, every once in a while, it happens, and it happened here.
My score is 7 out of 10 (6.8/10) because I'll give credit where it's due, and 7 out of 10 for me, means average. I rated the first one 8.6/10 because I adored a lot of the work that went into making it special.
