Cinema Freaks Live: Suicide Squad

Last week, The Observer/Colin and I got together and watched Suicide Squad. I didn't really know what I was going to think of it, but I kept hearing equally good and bad things about it, so I thought I'd give it a shot.

And... well, just check out our video on it:

(SPOILERS!!!)

If you can't watch the video for some reason, we thought it was a pretty shit movie really. But it was oddly fun for all of that! It was so patchwork, so piecemeal, so poorly done. And other alliterative terms beginning with 'P.' You could tell the studio edited the fuck out of this in endless futile attempts to please an audience that hadn't seen it. The stench of desperation about this whole thing is worse than the dead dog I passed on the sidewalk last week.

It's a shame because some of the performances are good and you can tell the actors probably had fun working on it. Well, until they saw the final product anyway and realized they now looked like they'd spent hours working on a movie and had nothing to show for it except costumes that look like bad childrens' birthday party entertainers.

One thing Colin pointed out that I agreed with was that it seems really weird to put together something like this Suicide Squad at all. "We need an army to fight off the bad guys in the shadows and not get any recognition... okay, let's get a guy who can shoot a gun, a girl who's crazy, a dude who plays with boomerangs, a guy who can shoot fire from his hands and a guy with a crocodile head. Sounds logical! We totally don't need anyone else! That should be enough!" It's like, how is that going to solve problems? If there's any real threat, I don't see how these assholes would be that much more capable than anyone else. Maybe the fire guy would be OK. But otherwise, nah.

Jared Leto's Joker, for all his hi-larious antics backstage of the film, wasn't as bad as I figured he would be. He wasn't great - mostly because he looked kind of like a weird CGI blowfish with bad clown makeup on. But for a performance that had to live up to Heath Ledger and partially succeeded by sort of imitating him, Leto was not too bad.

I don't want to say any more. Check the video. Enjoy. Live your life. Watch Suicide Squad, if for some reason that might make you happy. Until next time!

Cinema Freaks Live: Batman: The Killing Joke (2016)

Here it is. The newest big budget video production from me here at Cinema Freaks. This one, I did by myself, because I alienated everyone else around me. Either that or I just didn't have anyone that night to go see the movie with me. Pick whichever answer makes you feel better about your own life.

Anyway, this is the new DC animated movie, Batman: The Killing Joke, based on, I believe, an 80s post punk band. But on the case that I am wrong I did include the video here for your viewing pleasure.

Have fun with that! It's eight minutes of bliss about the movie. Spoilers included. If you watched the video before seeing the movie, and then saw the "spoilers" warning after you already heard some spoilers, then sorry. I'll refund your money at the door.

Dear Hollywood: Stop Planning Ahead

Movies in the last few years have become a little too homogenous for my liking. It seems like every single movie coming out – at least during the summer blockbuster season – is some kind of sequel, remake or adaptation of something else. Now, this is not something new to any of you reading this blog or most moviegoers who have been awake for the last half-decade – I'm not becoming Captain Obvious on you here.

But I do think something has to be said for the sheer level of planning ahead Hollywood is doing with these – it isn't just that they're making these superhero sequels, book adaptations and spinoffs of popular franchises, but that they're also planning them ahead of time to ridiculous amounts more befitting of a tiger mom planning out her four-year-old's doctorate degree years and years in the future.

You want proof? Well, how about the fact that the new film based off the Harry Potter spin off book Fantastic Creatures and Where to Find them will actually now be MORE THAN A TRILOGY. Keep in mind the original book was like 80 pages and served as a fun little extra add-on to the main series. And now it's going to be like six more movies. If we're lucky.

Look, I get it – people love Harry Potter. I remember reading the books as a kid and have very fond memories; they were great books and they got me more interested in reading books when I was young. That's fine. I know people love the movies too; that's also fine – go wild and love them more than anything if you want. Obviously the movies had to be made as the books were so successful and people wanted to see the characters and events on screen – that happens any time a book gets popular; I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is the absolute ridiculous lengths this is being taken to with this new series – more than three movies for an 80-page book? Are you serious? That's insane. They didn't do it this way back in the 80s. Notice how we didn't get a trilogy for each segment of the Back to the Future movies explaining how the various alternate timelines came to pass. There was no Indiana Jones prequel trilogy where we got to see three movies of him as a kid learning to jump off shit and lash with a whip. Though, honestly I hesitate to say that, as I'm afraid of what might happen next.

It's just too much. The best stories aren't great because they never end and have spinoffs made about minuscule elements of the story – they're great because they end at the right time. The traditional story arc is a beginning, a middle and an end; not a beginning, middle, end and then a billion little side-stories, anecdotes and addendums attached on and forced on the population like a kid who won't eat his veggies with his mouth held open. That's not a real story; it's just not being able to let go of something at the right time. It's no different than a shitty TV show dragging on for twelve seasons long after everyone's done watching.

And it's quite insidious how they hook you in – the persisting argument in favor for these endless spinoffs, rehashes, sequels, is that they're showing us something we need the answer to, or that they're showing us the backstory of something. It's a quite devilish marketing ploy that's really just a thinly-veiled excuse to keep making money – oh, we need to explain this one thing from the original series, so we're throwing billions of dollars and plenty of talented actors, backstage guys and more to GIVE YOU THOSE EXPLANATIONS. Never mind the buckets of money pouring into our pockets and the general dead-eyed cynicism of the rest of the public. It's to answer our questions!

I realize I'm kind of in the minority on this, but I'm going to say it: The best stories don't need tons and tons of explanations. If you can't draw us in with your characters, world-building, plot twists, social commentary or whatever other elements you wanted to convey, and you have to explain pages and pages of exposition and facts and tidbits and then go on to make prequels where you explain your explanations...you probably need to re-work your narrative a little bit. If you can't convey whatever you need to do in your beginning-middle-end story arc, you probably don't need to be making money in Hollywood. But alas – they are anyway.

Aside from that, do good stories need EVERYTHING explained? Can nothing be ambiguous or left to the imagination? I'm not saying everything has to be a Lynchian escapade into the depths of the soul and have all kinds of artsy abstractions, I just think there's something to be said for the power of mystery and of telling a story over explaining every minute detail. The whole matters more than the cogs and gears that make it up, if you know what I mean. Get an emotional message across, and have a point to what you're doing. Then worry about explaining the technical details. But that's just me. Apparently some see it differently, and that's your own prerogative I guess. But even so, there comes a point when explaining and more explaining is just a bad storytelling form.

On the other hand of this two-forked road to hell we have DC and their upcoming “I wish we were as cool as Marvel” attempt, also known as Batman vs Superman. I'll also accept for the name “We forgot what was cool about The Dark Knight and instead accentuated its worst elements.” The Dark Knight was great because it finally gave us a comic book movie that took itself seriously, and no I don't mean in the way that it was gritty and violent. I mean it was serious in that it was an actual movie. It took characters we loved from a different medium and worked them into a real movie with those characters in adapted roles because Christopher Nolan actually understood that film is a different media than comics and you don't need to have everything exactly the fucking same all the time.

These days, you don't really get that. I dunno, but I get the idea a lot of these comic movies are seriously afraid of the batshit "HOW DARE YOU CHANGE A THING FROM OUR HOLY TEXT" crowd on the Internet, because comic movies since then have never reached that same level of cinematic quality. As good as some of the early Marvel movies got, there was always a pervading safeness to them, where it just felt like the sole purpose was for the audience to go 'hey, there's that character I liked! There's that thing I wanted to see happen!' Maybe some people feel differently, but that's kinda what I keep getting from those films.

They have a shitload of other superhero tie-ins set up for the next six years until 2020 – well, bravo. You guys do realize we don't really need every single movie to be lined out for us, right? I mean goddamn. You're already sitting on a ton of money. It's not like peoples' interest will wane if you don't shovel the information down our throats every damn day. Just chill the fuck out!

This whole thing is just out of hand as well because, as many before me have said, WE DON'T NEED THAT MANY SUPERHERO FILMS. Do you guys really think peoples' favorite movies lists are going to be comprised in 15 years of just Marvel and DC adaptations? I wouldn't be complaining if these films were made by genuine fans who just wanted to convey the story, but for the most part, these movies are made just to keep the conveyor belt moving to make more movies after that, whether it's sequels or 'collaboration' films like Avengers or Justice League – that's the only reason they're doing all these separate films, which is a shame because I'm sure under different management, we could get some really gripping and powerful stories out of them. If you're a huge die-hard comic fan, you could probably go further than me here and list off some of the emotional conflicts, drama and social messages that could possibly be tackled, which DC will definitely not do and we'll deservedly hate them for it.

Marvel tends to fare a little better on this aspect, as their films are at least entertaining enough to watch in theaters – but even that is going to wear thin, and probably pretty soon. They got lucky with Guardians of the Galaxy being such a fun, emotional movie, but I just don't think they can keep it up for much longer. People are going to get tired of these films. The comic geeks will stick to their comics and the casual fans will start to move on and go “hey, I really feel like watching a nice drama or a gripping detective mystery.”

"Hmmm...on second thought, Pride and Prejudice sounds good about now!"

It's just the endless stream of sequels and connections – yes, it was an interesting idea, but it's too much now. It's overcooked. There are too many options and people will get burnt out. If you're just making movies that will only exist so you can make more movies, it becomes a cannibalistic process. There eventually won't be any reason to go see more, because you'll just be worn the hell out of all of it. Superhero films are reaching the oversaturation point. It's coming fast, and soon the bottom will drop out and the whole thing will be fucked. Nobody really wants THAT many big-ass movies full of explosions and guys shelling out witty quips. It might sound great at first, but just like that time you ate too many of your grandma's fudge brownies and then spent the rest of the night moaning on the floor in the bathroom – you'll soon find it wasn't what you wanted. It was too much and you got sick of it.

I started this thing weeks ago and more shit keeps coming out that I feel like I could add to it. A Toy Story 4? Really? Granted, the other three are near-flawless kid's movies, so logically I should be excited, but...the third one was such a fucking perfect ending. Why make another? You can end on a high note! It isn't too late! You can still cancel the project before it goes too far down the rabbit hole!

Granted, this is the only part of this article I'm going to say might turn out OK. I mean, yes, I would've rather it ended with the third one. But maybe, just maybe, there's a chance it could be okay - despite my worries of it turning into another sequel-marathon down the road...

I guess really it all boils down to one thing – are these movies going to be good? After all, that is the main consideration when talking about any kind of art – does it succeed at what it wanted to do, and is it quality? It may be presumptuous of me to say so, and some of you may not agree, but I'm going to say no, they probably won't be – at least not as good as any one of them individually might've been, if it was made purely out of a love for storytelling, moviemaking or anything else.

The movies I mentioned in this article, for the most part, are being made just to continue shoveling out more movies after them. They're machinations in a conveyor belt, not integral, impassioned stories. With the sheer volume of crap just lined up to come out years and years from now, planned out as meticulously as a trip itinerary for a busy lawyer, is ANY of it going to have even a little bit of a point to it? Any slightly good ideas in these movies will be lost in the constant static-noise of the rest of them all cluttering up the box office every week. They already have so many big plot elements and events planned out that there won't be any room for actual creativity in the process. Where's the spontaneity, the twists, the original creativity that directors and actors will get to bring to the table? It's incredibly telling that Idris Elba, while working on the last Thor movie, called the process “torture” while he would've rather been working on a more personal project.

But alas – this is just echoes in the wind. What I've said here won't change anything in the big picture. That will have to be left to Hollywood once this whole thing blows up in their face.

Images copyright of their original owners; I own none of them.

Review: Green Lantern (2011) TH

Forget class rings and wedding bands, this is one ring you'll wish you had

A brazen man named Hal Jordan, who tests the limits of everything he does, including flying fighter jets like he's got nothing to lose, has these impressive powers thrust upon himself and has to fill the shoes of an esteemed alien warrior named Abin Sur that crashed on Earth and is dying. If that wasn't enough he's given the responsibility to protect the world with this little bitty ring from a monolithic entity called Parallax that feeds off of fear--like a whispering voice that nags inside your ear and tells you you can't amount to anything before succumbing to its hungry jaws.

Mr. Jordan has a few things on his plate to work out in his personal life, such as continually disappointing those around him, including his family, co-workers and old love interest named Carol who also works with him but grew up and he didn't. Without having a chance to really think about what he's getting into by giving his word to the dying alien and swearing an oath to this weird green orb, he takes what's happening in stride. His powers come out of the ring by accident but it isn't until he's transported to this distant planet called Oa that houses the Green Lantern Corps, does he really understand the scope and magnitude. There are droves of others just like him that are assigned a certain area in the galaxy to protect--except his position is unique because Earth is a younger planet that has never had a ring bearing guardian. He's not taken very seriously and like something out of the Marine Corps has to go through make-or-break training to prove he's up to snuff.

Meanwhile, a hermit named Hector Hammond is taken to a secret facility to examine the body of the alien and in the process is infected by a contagion left over from Parallax from his battle with Abin Sur prior to crashing on Earth. Hal Jordan and Hector Hammond are figuring out what their powers are capable of in interspliced shots. They both crave their fathers' respect and also have an eye for Carol, except she only sees potential love in Jordan. Now with Hammond's powers coming into fruition he decides to do something about it that doesn't include just asking her out because that's not what psychos do.

As a massive budget feature, "Green Lantern" samples the board without being on top of its game with it all. It's mostly easy entertainment that plays it safe and somewhat formulaic at times, though it comes with a few challenges regarding not measuring up to what you're supposed to be and having to conquer yourself before you can beat your enemies. It constantly plays on a relatability factor with the "cool" aspect of having unlimited power that's conjured up from the lantern ring by just using your will. Any object you can think of--such as a machine gun, sword, giant fist--will come out of the ring in a green mirage that packs a physical punch or safety net to save innocents; think of Mr. Fantastic meets Bugs Bunny. Unlike the realism in "X-Men: First Class," this requires more of your imagination to reach out such as traveling great distances so quickly, everybody speaking the same tongue, being able to breath wherever they go, not one astronomer spotting any activity on these distant planets prior. If you're a comic book reader, this won't be a stretch as brushing over the details to accelerate an epic story has been happening since super-heroes were first inked in space.

Ryan Reynolds retains a lot of himself here from past movies by giving out some of his typical one-liners but on the other hand adds a fun element to what could have been serious subjects. Peter Sarsgaard is almost unrecognizable as he keeps it downbeat and deplorable due to sinking further and further into something "else." Like "Iron Man" with Jeff Bridges' character, this attempted to include another big star face, though Tim Robbins plays it stiff and safe as his role didn't require range or any likability. The 3-D gave a chance to show off some of the outer reaches of space with nearly pure CGI shots of planets that jut out and are painted with various splashes of color. Some of it is detailed, though the other parts look somewhat dated and almost what you'd expect out of a video game instead. Not all of the movie required 3-D as a share of it was a building process to a concluding battle where the results felt somewhat inevitable and predictable. That's one aspect a sequel could include more of: more action in between that doesn't have to be crammed till the end instead of distracting with token love interests and unnecessary, quirky buddies on the side.

Director: Martin Campbell (Goldeneye, Casino Royale, Edge of Darkness)
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard, Tim Robbins, Mark Strong
Website: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1133985/