After 3 weeks at #1 and hauling in, to date, a massive $300 million plus from American audiences and a total worldwide haul, excluding China which didn’t allow the film to be screened there, of around $637 million, its fair to say Suicide Squad is a success. (More information about the film’s box office can be found here)
Not bad for a film many predicted -before its release and immediately after all the terrible reviews came in- would crash and burn.
I wrote a few weeks back about how Suicide Squad seemed to be following Batman v Superman’s trajectory almost to a tee. (you can read that posting here)
The folks over at Warner Brothers/DC Comics must be exhaling and celebrating. The fact is that despite so much rancor, they’ve had themselves a very profitable summer and both BvS and Suicide Squad have proven a hit with audiences…if not all of them and certainly not with most critics.
I’ve said again and again that I really like BvS and, now that the director’s cut is available, like the film even more. I would even go so far as to state it is now one of my favorite superhero films, though it doesn’t quite reach the level of my two favorite superhero works, the original Superman and Captain America: Winter Soldier.
Yes, I consider BvS on the level (in some ways better, in others not) with the Christopher Nolan Batman films.
But Suicide Squad?
That’s a whole ‘nuther story. When I finally saw it and reviewed it (you can read that here), I found the film enjoyable enough but recognized it was a Frankenstein’s monster of a film. Suicide Squad was clearly a rushed work that featured last minute re-shoots and, based on further reports, a melding of two different “cuts” of the film.
And it showed.
Again, I enjoyed myself while watching it but, unlike BvS, the flaws were such that I simply couldn’t recommend the film in that form. Like BvS, I suspect the folks at Warners/DC will release the two alternate cuts of the film and make themselves a whole bunch of money in the process.
They’ll certainly have my money. I’m most curious to see the director’s version of the film, reportedly a “darker” work that features much less humor.
But that’s what’s to come.
In the meantime and despite their success, I wonder how the folks at Marvel feel about these developments. Yes, Captain America: Civil War made more money overall than either BvS or Suicide Squad but I wonder if maybe they’re starting to worry -at least a little- about how well the folks at DC have succeeded despite all those major obstacles thrown their way in the form of critical panning and online criticism. Further, with summer all but gone it seems very few people are talking about the Captain America film yet there remains considerable discussion regarding BvS and Suicide Squad, a sure sign both films remain a hot topic, for better or ill.
What’s most encouraging about these successes (and, the bottom line is that all these films, DC and Marvel, succeeded) is my hope they encourage each other to produce better and better works.
I’m a firm believer in the notion that competition leads to better products, whether it be music, books, movies, cell phones, cars, etc. etc. etc.
When a company sees another succeed, it can’t help but make them work all that much harder in creating something better. In the end, the ones who most benefit from such competition are the fans.
I won’t post all the items present on the above (there are a total of 10 photographs presented), but this one -the very first presented- I thought was really cool:
This summer has been an interesting one when it comes to expectations and internet fueled opinions. Batman v Superman was the first film to face the internet firing squad well before it was actually released. After its release, opinions appeared to be divided between those who hated the film and searched far and wide for any little or big reason to justify their hatred and those like me who defended the movie and felt it was…gasp…quite good. Great even.
I’ve stated before (to the point where I’m in danger of beating a dead horse) that BvS, especially in its director’s cut version, is a far better film than the critics and some internet posters made it out to be. In time (what the hell, I will beat that dead horse) I believe the film will rise in people’s estimations and may become viewed as one of the better superhero films ever made.
Once BvS played itself out, the sometimes red-hot internet hatred found its next victim in Ghostbusters. Much of the venom, sad to say, came from people who claimed the film was “sexist” because the leads in the film were female. To those I say: Please look up the term “projection”. The only sexism in Ghostbusters was the one coming from those who accused the movie of it.
Nonetheless, the film didn’t do all that well at the box-office. While I enjoyed it and recommended it, I was nonetheless not too surprised to find it underperformed. While I still believe the movie was good, even I’ll admit it never reached that next gear of hilarity that really great comedies hit.
As the summer died out, one of the last “big” films to be released was Suicide Squad (you knew I’d get there eventually, right?!). As I’d written before, I was curious why this film would be the next big DC tent pole versus so many other properties out there they have.
Despite that feeling, the first few trailers of the film blew me away and had me hoping for a genuinely entertaining work. Sadly, the film, to me, proved to be a mess, storywise. Despite that, I nonetheless enjoyed the bulk of it after its very rocky start. Perhaps it was the performances or the giddy vibe it sustained but I didn’t feel like I’d just wasted my time and hated myself for spending my time and money on it. On the other hand and unlike BvS and Ghostbusters, there was no way I could recommend the film to anyone.
Nonetheless, Suicide Squad is, as the article above points out, doing quite well at the box-office. Now in its third week of release, it is still #1.
Which makes me wonder…
The critics hated BvS, liked Ghostbusters, and hated Suicide Squad. Yet of the three, the ones that made money were BvS and Suicide Squad. Clearly there’s a disconnect here and I wonder what it is.
BvS, as stated, had plenty of negativity from critics and many on the internet but, as I stated above, there was stuff in the film that even the harshest critics would agree was good. Ben Affleck’s Bruce Wayne/Batman, for instance. Or Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman. The cinematography (even the film’s harshest critics can’t deny the film at times looks gorgeous, even if its palette is dark). But moving past all that, there is a solid story, IMHO, here. One that is far deeper than many are willing to admit and/or recognize.
Which is something I can’t say about Suicide Squad. Despite this, the film is drawing tremendous amounts of cash.
Which leads me to wonder why the DC films made as much as they did given all the flack they got.
I’m just guessing here, but I think part of the reason is that fans are starved/primed to see big budget versions of DC comic heroes.
Marvel, for better or worse, has dominated the movie landscape these past few years but after so many films, there may be a sense of fatigue starting to appear regarding the “Marvel style” hero movies. The fact is that all the Marvel Universe films thus far have displayed certain tendencies. This is not surprising given the fact that the same people who run the Marvel show have been behind it since its inception.
When one gets a new toy, its shiny and beautiful and you play with it to your heart’s content. But after a while, that shiny new toy no longer entertains you as much as it once did. With the Marvel Universe films, they were shiny and new and intriguing but I’m wondering if audiences are starting to see through the “magic” and that shiny new toy may become just a little bit dull.
While Captain America: Civil War made a tremendous amount of money (more than BvS) over its run, I find it fascinating how little people talk about the film now. Those who do are just as likely to disparage it, noting its plot was weak and the film, overall, was underwhelming. That’s not to say everyone who writes about the movie does this, but it is curious how even now BvS can inflame passions and create a commentary hurricane while CA:CW engenders far less enthusiasm.
So, is it possible people are starting to tire of the Marvel movies to some degree yet remain thirsty for superhero films? This might explain why Suicide Squad, despite its many deficiencies, manages to hold on to the box office pole position. Despite its many weaknesses, one thing you can say about Suicide Squad is that other than having a cast of super-beings, it is nothing like a Marvel film and so too was the case with BvS.
Sometimes, variety can indeed be the spice of life.
Way back in 1967 director Robert Aldrich assembled a large, powerhouse cast including Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Jim Brown, and John Cassavetes, and made what many consider one of the best “anti-hero” war films, The Dirty Dozen.
The story? A group of volatile criminals are recruited for a top secret mission behind enemy lines. They are considered expendable because of their history -some commited crimes which may cost them their life anyway- and the mission they’re being tasked to do has a very low probability of survival.
If you’ve seen Suicide Squad, you’re already seeing the similarities, no?
When writer John Ostrander wrote the first “new” Suicide Squad story back in 1987 and for DC comics, he was clearly inspired by the above film. Because he was writing for a comic book universe, the “ordinary” criminals brought together were instead turned into super-villains. Their missions were dangerous and could well get them killed. The series proved a moderate success and, as with many comics, there were good stories to be found along with the bad but, as far as I know, Suicide Squad was never much more than a cult -or perhaps a little better- hit.
With the financial success of comic book movies of late, it came as little shock DC/Warners would eventually try their hand at creating a “shared” movie universe not unlike that found in the thus far very successful Marvel films.
After the “self-contained” Christopher Nolan Batman films were complete, DC/Warners began the process of making their version of a shared universe. They started this with 2013’s Man of Steel, director Zach Snyder’s first crack at Superman, and followed it up with this year’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (BvS from now on) and, of course, Suicide Squad.
Given what I thought was the cult nature of Suicide Squad and so many more interesting properties DC had at their disposal, it seemed odd to me this one was chosen. Some have speculated the movie was meant to be DC’s answer to Guardians of the Galaxy. I suppose that’s as good a reason as any for green-lighting the project.
Despite some ambivalence regarding the logic of pursuing this particular project, I will readily admit the first official trailer to the film blew me away:
So summer (almost) arrives and BvS is released…to significant controversy. While the theatrical cut of this film did the movie no favors (see the Ultimate Cut) and was hated by most critics and engendered some incredible bile from average moviegoers…the movie nonetheless went on to be a box-office behemoth.
If you’ve been following my thoughts on this blog, you know I found the Ultimate Cut of BvS an ambitious, fascinating -though flawed (the Batman/Apocalypse dream should have been left on the cutting room floor)- work, one that once all the hysteria dies down I suspect will be re-evaluated and, IMHO, eventually viewed as one of the better comic book films ever made.
I could be wrong, but that’s my opinion.
Anyway, history sure did appear to repeat itself once Suicide Squad was finally released (Read my thoughts on that here). You had the critics savaging the film (it, like BvS, scored a pathetic 27% positive among them) and yet audiences liked it far more (BvS and Suicide Squad are viewed positively by approximately 70% of audiences). Further, as with BvS, there appear to be those in the media and disgruntled fans alike that were so baffled and/or bothered by these films’ box-office success that they’re intent on proving the incredible amount of money each has made/is making is really a sign of how unsuccessful the film is (Suicide Squad has made record amounts of money for an August release and even in its second week is performing well -it’s still #1 at the box office- yet some headlines make it sound like the film is a complete washout).
So, given the similar roll outs of both films and my love of BvS, would it follow that I’d feel the same about Suicide Squad?
The short answer is “No,”
While BvS was an ambitious work that carefully took on and deconstructed the superhero genre, Suicide Squad is clearly meant to be a “popcorn” film, an enjoyable romp that doesn’t aspire to terribly high cinematic goals. In effect, this movie’s goal is to be an enjoyable/exciting summer action film and not a whole lot more.
Does it succeed on that account?
Here, its a little more difficult to provide a “short” answer.
While watching Suicide Squad, I found the first few minutes confusing and, frankly, not all that great. Sometime shortly after the credits rolled, the film found its grove and was, for the most part, enjoyable to watch if waaay too dark. And when I say “dark” I’m not talking about the story: I’m saying the director should have brought in more lights. The damn film looks like it was shot in a cave with a flashlight.
Despite the murky look, the movie moved along nicely and was aided immensely by the charisma of its large cast. Will Smith is fine as Deadshot, even if he’s not stretching particularly hard. Margot Robbie is quite good in the film’s splashiest role, that of the Harley Quinn, the Joker’s whacked-out girlfriend. Viola Davis is fine as the steely Amanda Waller, the government agent behind the forming of the Squad. Jai Courtney was also highly amusing as Captain Boomerang even though his character was ultimately irrelevant and unnecessary in the film (see video presented below).
Others may disagree, but I also enjoyed Joel Kinnaman as Rick Flagg and Cara Delevingne as June Moone/Enchantress. It was their story that wound up grounding the film and, though I didn’t expect it, provided an interesting and satisfying resolution (I don’t want to give away too many spoilers here regarding it, but I’ll just say I’m a softie for matters of the heart and leave it at that).
Of note too was Jaret Leto as the Joker. I thought he wasn’t bad taking on the role but neither, IMHO, was his performance all that memorable. Unfortunately for Mr. Leto, he’s given something like five total minutes of screen time to take on a role made memorable by heavy hitters like Jack Nicholson and, of course, Heath Ledger. And those actors had a hell of a lot more screen time to deliver their work. So at this point I’m willing to give Mr. Leto a pass and wait to see what he does if given more screen time. Maybe he’ll get that chance in the next Batman film?
I’ve beaten around the bush long enough: What of the film itself?
Well…
Here’s the thing: After that rocky start, I enjoyed myself. For the most part. However, let’s not kid each other: The film was a mess.
Anyone who has read anything about the behind the scenes of the film knows a) Director/writer David Ayer had to bang this out very quickly and b) the critical bile directed at BvS appears to have caused the people at DC/Warner’s to OK even more hasty re-shoots. Word is that once the film neared release, two “cuts” were created, a more serious in tone one by Mr. Ayer and another, lighter in tone version created by the same people who made the movie’s memorable trailers. In the end a “compromise” cut was created between the two and this was what was released to theaters.
Unfortunately, the end result is a film that very much feels like a compromise between two different visions. Early on there are too many scenes presented with music much as they were in the trailer and while it may work wonderfully there, doing it over and over again in the film itself got annoying. Worse still, some of the lesser characters get shorted badly, perhaps in favor of providing higher level cameos (Batman and Flash). While I enjoyed seeing these bigger heroes appear in this movie, they didn’t really need to be there.
As for the story, this is where the film failed the most. As a writer, I firmly believe the success of any film lies in having a strong story behind it. In the case of Suicide Squad I’m reminded of my feelings for films such as Skyfall and Star Trek: Into Darkness. While watching both films I enjoyed them but the moment they were over and I thought about what I just saw I realized the story made absolutely no sense at all. This too is the case with Suicide Squad and one has to blame Mr. Ayer for that, whether he was rushed or not.
So here’s the bottom line: Flawed as Suicide Squad was -and there are significant flaws in the film- I nonetheless for the most part enjoyed myself. Having said that, its impossible for me to recommend the film.
If you’re anything like me, you will be thrilled to see Harley Quinn, the Joker, Ben Affleck’s Batman, Flash (for all of 3 seconds), Deadshot, Captain Boomerang, the Enchantress, Katana, and, yes, Rick Flagg on the big screen and being played by flesh and blood actors. You’ll probably also “go with the flow” and enjoy the film for what it is. However, I know there will be those who will think back to what they’ve seen and find that the proverbial “bridge too far”.
In the end, DC/Warners has done well, financially, with their two 2016 comic book releases. While I feel BvS was damn good, I feel Suicide Squad can only be qualified as decent at best. Hopefully the powers that be learn from their mistakes and sharpen their next product(s), especially if they involve these characters.
POSTSCRIPT:
For those who have seen the film and liked it to those who hated, hated, hated it, this video posted on YouTube by Jenny Nicholson IMHO hilariously skewers the plot…or lack thereof of Suicide Squad.
For most of my life I’ve collected things. Not “hoarder” level, mind you, as I really dislike clutter, but things that I like I tend to buy and, if I really like them, I will hold on to them to hopefully enjoy them again later on.
When I was much younger, I bought and held on to comic books (still do, to some degree). For a very brief while I also got into stamp and coin collecting (I still have a jar nearly completely full of old coins. To this day, whenever I stumble upon an older coin, I stick it in the jar).
I’m not alone in this. My parents at one time had a very extensive betamax collection of movies and, when the VHS format killed it, we switched to and bought quite a few movies that way.
My sister, in particular, really got into buying Disney films when they were first released in that format in the 1990’s. I suspect she still has a closet in her house with the movies.
I point this out because of this amusing article by Matt Novak and presented on paleofuture:
The upshot of this article is that somehow a rumor spread that those old VHS tapes, the same ones my sister bought back in the day, were suddenly worth many thousands of dollars. Some of the people who believe these rumors have therefore posted their Disney VHS tapes on eBay and are asking sometimes outrageous amounts of money.
We’re talking $10,000 plus.
You read that right: Ten thousand dollars plus. Here’s a screenshot presented by BobbiBrown, on of the people offering comments on the article:
If any of them get that kind of money, good for them and (read it in a Trump affect) very sad for the buyer.
I’ve seen this kind of insanity (how else describe it?) before, where people think something is worth far, far more than it is.
The fact of the matter is the collectible market lives on supply and demand. In the comic book market, the reason Superman’s first appearance in Action Comics #1 is worth nearly a million dollars is because a) Superman is a cultural icon and this is indeed his first appearance in any medium and b) there exist very few -perhaps no more than ten- “mint” copies of Action Comics #1 out there.
But the VHS Disney films?
First off, the VHS tapes sold very well back then and I suspect there are many, many people like my sister who bought and then stored those films away, thinking they were “collectable.” This is as opposed to Action Comics #1 which while many people bought individual copies way back in the 1930’s (some individual comics did sell in the millions), there was no sense of their having a collectable nature and therefore huge quantities were read and thrown away and, over all these years, very few “mint” copies of them remain.
Further, while you can still “use” a mint copy of Action Comics #1 (you can read it, should you own it), the VHS market is dead. Further to that, today you can get most of those Disney films either on DVD, BluRay, or digitally, should you wish. All these presentations are far, far better than what you would see on a VHS tape. So it begs the question: Why in the world would you want to own an inferior image of a Disney movie via a VHS copy of the same?
In the above linked article, the author makes the same point and several comments below the article note that VHS copies of these films are available for pennies at garage sales or in thrift shops.
The point of all this is: Beware the collectable marketplace. Just because you have something that is of value to you doesn’t mean it has an equal monetary value in the “real” world.
There’s a reason many things are worth high amounts of money but, again, this relates to their rarity and desirability, both of which are just not the case with regard to the Disney VHS tapes.
We’re rapidly nearing the end of summer and in these times some, such as myself, look back at the summer movie season and wonder: Which films succeeded and which proved costly flops?
While I don’t have anywhere near a complete list, two significant box office flops -at least in terms of revenue made versus invested- are clear.
The first is the Duncan Jones directed Warcraft. Over on ign.com Steve Watts writes about this film’s losses:
I’m going to offer a really big SPOILER here (though you should read the article) and note the film is expected to lose approximately 15 million dollars when all is said and done. Now, Hollywood accounting being what it is, I suspect the film will eventually go into the green thanks to DVD/BluRay sales as this film hasn’t yet appeared on the store shelves.
While I haven’t seen Warcraft nor, I have to be honest, am interested in doing so, my understanding is that the film felt disjointed and cut up in its theatrical incarnation. I understand some 40 plus minutes of the film were trimmed to get it into a more reasonable runtime and, like what perhaps happened with Batman v Superman, the end result might have impacted the film’s cohesion.
The second big box office failure, and its a far bigger one, is Ghostbusters. According to Pamela McClintock at The Hollywood Reporter…
I reviewed the film shortly after it was released (you can read the review here) and found it was an amusing time killer which absolutely did not deserve all the negative comments directed at it in the run-up to the film’s release. Unfortunately for the movie, China refused to allow its release in that country as they apparently do not want any movies which feature the “supernatural” so one large potential source of revenue was cut from the film right off the bat. I suspect the negative comments also hurt the film in the end as there were likely a sizable amount of people who simply did not give it a chance.
In the end, there’s little, however, to argue about. While I most certainly enjoyed Ghostbusters, clearly the film wasn’t good enough to bring in the hoped for droves of moviegoers. Certainly it wasn’t good enough to overcome the many pre-release negative perceptions.
When all is said and done, I wonder how both Star Trek Beyond and Jason Bourne, films that both received decent reviews, will ultimately perform. Both films had strong openings but appear to be stalling. For that matter, will Suicide Squad also recoup its investments?
Haven’t watched Suicide Squad yet so no review (belated or not) to offer, just my observations regarding the reaction to the movie’s debut:
Critics hated the film, at least according to Rottentomatoes.com. At this point, the film has a pretty terrible 26% approval overall from critics.
On the other hand, audiences like the film to the tune of 72%, again via Rottentomatoes.com.
The movie made a ton of money, breaking all records for a premiere at this particular time of the year…
On the other hand, there is some indication that the film may fall hard in its earnings after a very robust debut.
People appear to be divided into two camps: Those that enjoyed the film and can’t understand why all the hate is directed toward it and do not feel it deserves such a low overall critical rating. There are others who feel the film is a big mess and is another huge DC disappointment.
No, you are not experiencing deja vu.
Each of these five points could -and have been!- applied to Batman v Superman. The critics hated it? Check. Audiences liked it considerably more than the critics? Check. The movie made a ton of money? Check. Afterwards, the film lost steam, revenue-wise? Check. People dividing into two camps, one hating hating hating it while another defends the film? Check.
I don’t know what to make of this. I certainly don’t believe the whole “critics hate DC movies and love Marvel movies” some have professed yet I can’t quite understand the extreme differences in opinion.
I’ve stated before I really liked Batman v Superman and feel over time the film will be reassessed and recognized as a very ambitious work. Did it succeed completely? No. Even in the “Ultimate Edition” there were a few things I felt the movie came up short on. For example, I feel Bruce Wayne/Batman’s apocalypse dream sequence could and probably should have been removed from the film. Mind you, there was nothing wrong with the sequence itself, it just didn’t much matter in the context of the story being told and had it been left on the cutting room floor (or presented as a bonus sequence on the DVD/BluRay) I don’t think anyone would have minded.
I will eventually catch Suicide Squad, though I don’t know if it will be while its still in the theaters. Will my reaction to this movie mirror Batman v Superman?
If you had met me in the 1970’s, 80’s, or 90’s and asked my opinion of Clint Eastwood, I would have said something similar to what I’d say now:
He’s one of those very few actors with a screen presence so magnetic/electric that no matter how bad the film he’s in is, his mere presence makes it better.
Looking over my digital films, I suspect I have more Clint Eastwood films in my collection than films featuring any other actor. I have almost all of them, from his “Man With No Name” trilogy to Where Eagles Dare (a criminally underrated WWII action fantasy) to Kelly’s Heroes (a criminally underrated WWII…comedy?!) to his Dirty Harry films to The Eiger Sanction (Mr. Eastwood doing an “American” James Bond) to High Plains Drifter to The Outlaw Josey Wales to…
Well, I could go on and on but hopefully you understand: I’m a HUGE fan of Clint Eastwood, actor. And while I may not like all his directed works quite as much, he’s proven to be at the very least a good -and at times great- director as well.
But what my younger self probably never would have conceived of is the fact that as he’s aged, Mr. Eastwood, the individual, has become the living embodiment of the cranky “get off my grass” old man. Or, as the Simpson’s so ingeniously put it:
“It will happen to you”.
It seems to most certainly have happened to Mr. Eastwood and it seems to have started a few years back, when he famously tried to bash President Obama at the Republican Convention nominating Mitt Romney for President by speaking to an empty chair…
The speech, which Mr. Eastwood later stated was intended to be absurd humor, instead landed with a wet thud and, reportedly, Ann Romney, Mitt Romney’s wife, was furious as the speech was happening as she knew it would be -along with Mr. Romney’s campaign- ridiculed.
I suppose those were the good old days when it comes to Mr. Eastwood as he’s given an interview to Esquire magazine and some of the things he says are…jeeze…how to put it? Weird. Strident.
Ed Mazza for Huffington Post (yes, a for the most part liberal publication so take that as you will) highlights some of Mr. Eastwood’s comments:
Among some of the highlights of what Mr. Eastwood said:
“You know, (Donald Trump)’s a racist now because he’s talked about this judge. And yeah, it’s a dumb thing to say. I mean, to predicate your opinion on the fact that the guy was born to Mexican parents or something. He’s said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody—the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it. It’s a sad time in history.”
First, Donald Trump hasn’t just stated one insulting thing against one judge. He has offered multiple racist statements. While “both sides” say dumb things, Donald Trump specifically, has made multiple inflammatory comments regarding Mexicans and Muslims. So far the worst I’ve heard from Hillary Clinton against Mr. Trump was that he was “ill tempered” to be President (something I agree with, btw). Meanwhile, Mr. Trump and his crowds that have called her a “bitch”, someone who should go to jail, or, in at least one case, labeled her the “devil.”
This quote, also presented in the above article, is even more illuminating:
“(S)ecretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist. And then when I did Gran Torino, even my associate said, ‘This is a really good script, but it’s politically incorrect.’ And I said, ‘Good. Let me read it tonight.’ The next morning, I came in and I threw it on his desk and I said, ‘We’re starting this immediately.’”
Curious how he mentions Gran Torino in the article. While I enjoyed the film and thought it was intended to be a “final” Dirty Harry film in all but name, what I found most intriguing and disappointing about it was the fact that it didn’t have the “guts” Mr. Eastwood seems to imply it has to “go there” with political incorrectness.
What I’m referring to is the fact the character of Walt Kowalski is presented as an old generation person who, like Mr. Eastwood in real time today, bemoans political correctness and is perfectly fine spewing racial epithets yet curiously never once says the biggest racial epithet of them all.
You know, the one referring to black people that starts with the letter “n”.
I wondered why this “politically incorrect” film would, in Mr. Eastwood’s vernacular, “pussy” out of doing that. I mean, the character was meant to be a gruff, politically incorrect “old school” man who didn’t give a shit about all that stuff, yet at no point in the film does Clint Eastwood have his character say the “n” word.
Why? Its only too obvious.
Racism, like many things in the world, is tolerated by some as a matter of degree. For Mr. Eastwood, people like Donald Trump can get away with calling a woman a “bitch” or a “devil”. He can get away with labeling Mexicans “murderers” and “rapists”.
But even someone like Mr. Eastwood who decries “political correctness” knows there’s this bright line drawn when calling black people the “n” word. Suddenly, the stark, revolting reality of racism is apparent for all to see.
I suspect had Walt Kowalski in Gran Torino said such a word even once during the course of that film audiences might well have turned on his character.
Instead of finding Mr. Kowalski a crumudgeon with a “heart of gold”, we’d might well have cast him as a vile racist.
Over on Rottentomatoes.com, the film is scoring a not very good 33% positive among critics (24 of 48 critics so far have enjoyed the film).
Reading through some of the negative reviews, the main thing I’m getting from the critics is that the film presents far too much in too messy a fashion.
I suppose that makes sense. The film is a team movie and it presents many of these characters for the very first time, though it appears they do so at the expense of a tighter storyline.
While negative, these same critics offer praise for Margot Robbie (who plays Harley Quinn) and Will Smith (who portrays Deadshot). There also seems to be a general consensus that Jaret Leto’s Joker was both a cameo performance and ultimately extraneous to the story.
I haven’t seen the film so I obviously have no opinion one way or another.
Well, that’s not entirely true.
I find myself in the curious position not unlike many who were predisposed to not like Batman v Superman. In the case of BvS, I saw only one film directed by Zach Snyder before that one, Dawn of the Dead, and therefore came into the film with far fewer negatives than others who had seen -and not enjoyed- more of his films.
With Suicide Squad’s director David Ayer, I have seen more of his works and, frankly, his career has been kind of hit and miss for me. He’s written some good works (especially Training Day) but his two films previous to this one, 2014’s Fury and Sabotage, were to my mind a) only ok and b) a real missed opportunity.
Of these two films, the one I most looked forward to was Sabotage and, based on the trailers, found the And Then There Were None concept applied to testosterone fueled uber-agressive drug hunting cops an intriguing idea…but after a decent start the film simply didn’t have much of a payoff, IMHO.
Fury, as I said above, was in my mind a decent film but when all was said and done it didn’t really add all that much to the voluminous WWII film genre, despite some great effects and for the most part very good acting.
I will see Suicide Squad, though I’m not sure if I get a chance to do so in the theaters. At this point I want to catch Star Trek Beyond and Jason Bourne and its been hard to find the free time to see one of those films, much less all three.
Last week Friday and after a few months, a French Court hearing an appeal by Luc Besson, producer and “original story” creator of 2012’s Lockout, decided the man had indeed ripped off John Carpenter’s 1981 film Escape From New York. The original judicial judgment was for €80,000 but this new decision upped the penalty to €450,000.
Read all about it here in an article by Germain Lussier and presented on i09:
So, not only did the appeal fail for Mr. Besson, it failed pretty damn spectacularly as his original penalty judgment was upped nearly six times.
Here’s where perfect 20/20 hindsight comes in: I suppose in retrospect Mr. Besson should have just taken that original judgment and accepted it then simply moved on.
I wrote twice before about Lockout, first offering a review of the film in which, among other things I stated this with regard to the “similarities” between the film and Escape From New York:
My younger, more strident self (as opposed to the more mellow person I’ve since become) might have been furious that Mr. Besson (who is also listed in the credits as having the “original idea” of this film!!!!) would so cavalierly rip off another person’s concept.
Later, when the initial case was brought before the French Courts and Mr. Carpenter won, I also wrote about that and had this to say:
…with Lockout vs. Escape From New York, there is very little doubt that one inspired (or, as the French court ruled, “ripped off”) the other. Whatever you may think of Lockout, good or bad, if you’re familiar with John Carpenter’s film, you instantly see the similarities…and they are quite significant.
As I writer, I have my own ideas regarding “original” story concepts.
There are those who say there’s no such thing as an “original” story and that any form of similarity between stories is worth nothing more than a shrug.
I disagree.
Copying a story concept is a question of degree. You can isolate all the individual elements in Escape From New York and Lockout and decide nothing in the film is original.
For example, you have a lone borderline villainous anti-hero in both films (been done, see Kiss Me Deadly to Fistful of Dollars to The Road Warrior)
You have an impenetrable/unescapable prison where the protagonist has to escape from (been done, see Escape From Alcatraz, The Great Escape, etc.)
You have a mission which must be accomplished by a certain time or else (been done, see Mission Impossible movies and TV shows, Wages of Fear, Smokey and the Bandit, etc.)
You have questionable allies helping your hero do his thing (been done, see Where Eagles Dare, The Guns of Navarone…hell, most of the movies based on Alistair MacLean novels)
You have a strong, flamboyant villain and his even more flamboyant right hand man (been done, see almost every James Bond film)
You have a very important person you have to get out of there (been done)
I could go on but I think I’ve made the point of many of those who do not feel Lockout is a rip-off of Escape From New York.
HOWEVER, what Lockout did which many other films did not is take these individual elements found in Escape From New York and present them in pretty much the same order and way but with one cosmetic change: Setting the story in space.
Otherwise, they are essentially the very same works.
