Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom

_{Viola Davis gives an exceptional and fully committed performance as blues singer Ma Rainey}

It’s not typically the kind of film I’d seek out but the Oscar buzz and nominations made me check it out. It’s based on the play by August Wilson and while I’m not a big fan of plays, I can appreciate that sometimes staging a film like a play can work to its advantage by giving the viewer the feeling that they’re a fly on the wall, observing characters, scenes, and secrets.

Ma Rainey is definitely staged like a play, with the majority of the film comprised of lengthy scenes in the same three or so rooms of the recording studio where “Mother of the Blues” Ma Rainey (who I learned was, in fact, a real person) is making a new record. This stylistic choice is beneficial to doing some of the things it sets out to do, like bringing us closer to the characters and anchoring us to one location, but it’s almost too contained–to the point of being claustrophobic (which could absolutely be what director George C. Wolfe was going for, but it didn’t work for me).

Despite some successful production design and costuming, Viola Davis is the real draw here and gives a great performance as Ma Rainey. However, throughout the film I got the feeling that she (and the screenplay) only scratched the surface of Ma’s character. It seems like there’s so much more to tell, so it’s baffling why there’s not more of her. Ma Rainey’s name is in the title of the film, but it goes many lengthy scenes without her being mentioned or appearing. Instead, there’s a large focus placed on her bandmates. Ranging from the pragmatic Cutler to the naïve and high-dreaming Levee (Chadwick Boseman), they’re given just enough details to flesh them out, though it’s Levee who has the meatiest role. Chadwick Boseman gives a good performance here (his last on screen performance, it would turn out) as the tormented trumpeter who’s determined to make a name for himself. It’s a good part and Boseman puts a lot of raw emotion into it, but if I had watched it without knowing he was nominated for an Oscar for the role, I wouldn’t have thought it anything remarkable.

The film is only one hour and thirty minutes, but the lengthy tangential, and occasionally irritating monologues slow down the pace. As smart as the language and passionate as the performances, it just reminds you that people don’t talk that way in real life. There’s also an incredibly jarring scene in the film’s final few minutes that is shocking in its violence and doesn’t feel completely earned.

Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom didn’t receive an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, and it’s not hard to see why. The story just isn’t robust enough. There’s enough good material in August Wilson’s play and the real-life story of Ma Rainey herself to make for a compelling biopic, but shackling the film to the framework and staging of its play source material keep it from elevating it to greatness.

7/10

Mank

_{Mank’s technical achievements can’t make up for an uninteresting story and underdeveloped characters}

I’ll preface this review by saying that I’ve never seen Citizen Kane (gasp!)

Mank is the story of Herman Mankiewicz, a prominent Old Hollywood screenwriter arguably most famous for Citizen Kane, which many film critics and historians cite as the greatest film of all time. While Mank’s writing of Kane is the backdrop of the film, little focus is paid to his actual writing process. This is a shame, since it would’ve allowed the audience more insight into his psyche than we were given. (Plus, I’m always into movies about writers and the process of writing.) Instead, director David Fincher chooses to focus a large portion of the film on the governmental and Hollywood studio politics of the 1930s, which I found hard to care about and be fully invested in, especially since the characters involved in the political arguments, sandals, and intrigue weren’t fully realized.

While the film is decidedly focused on Mank, he really isn’t given the chance to develop as a character despite a fully committed performance from the always reliable Gary Oldman. As the alcoholic Mankiewicz finds himself battling with political and professional adversaries in his personal life, there’s more than enough fertile ground for creating drama and high stakes. However, the narrative structure is so jumpy as it flashes back to events in Mankiewicz’s past that slow down the film and really don’t serve a greater purpose. I understand that Fincher’s intent was to mirror the jumping-around-in-time aspect of Citizen Kane—and in that respect he succeeds—but it really doesn’t work here to propel the narrative or allow us to get fully invested in any of the characters. The pieces are there but they remain jumbled instead of clicking together.

The rest of the performances are fine (though not of the flashy Oscar-bait variety as some of the others in this year’s crop of nominees), with the other standout being Amanda Seyfried as actress Marion Davies. But despite the clear acting chops on display, the performances can’t make up for a poor screenplay without true character arcs or growth. I suppose you could argue that Mank going from not caring about receiving screenwriting credit for Kane at the beginning of the film to desiring it at the end counts as growth, but even then it’s flimsy.

I will say that Fincher did a good job making Mank look and feels like a film straight out of the 1930s, with great attention to detail paid to production design, sound, and costuming. It’s also a handsome looking film, with deep blacks and sharp, crisp whites. Unfortunately, though, Mank is another film in this year’s batch of Oscar-nominated films that I’d qualify as Just Okay. There’s solid source material and the framework of interesting characters, but little attention is paid to developing them into fully realized people or creating an engaging plot with real stakes.

While some viewers will no doubt be swept away by the film’s Old Hollywood charm and technical successes, solid production values can’t make up for a poor story. Had Mankiewicz himself written the film, I wonder if he would be so eager to take credit?

6/10

Godzilla vs. Kong

_{The MonsterVerse continues with the long-awaited face-off between Godzilla and Kong}

As the first big ol’ blockbuster I’ve seen in the theater since before COVID, Godzilla vs. Kong does not disappoint in terms of monster brawls and thrilling action sequences bolstered by some truly awesome CGI. As if that wasn’t enough, it also gifts us with the single greatest piece of dialogue and delivery in film all year. If you weren’t as delighted as I was after watching an irritated Kyle Chandler yelling, “You should be in school!” at Millie Bobby Brown, well, we clearly appreciate different things.

Chandler’s dialogue and delivery throughout the entire movie was awful and unintentionally hilarious. Unfortunately, his role as Millie Bobby Brown’s scientist father (one of the few carryovers from 2019’s Godzilla: King of the Monsters) is indicative of a larger problem with the film’s screenplay, which is filled with expository dialogue and a lack of a robust and compelling story. (While these kinds of movies don’t feel the need to give us a hefty, brain-teasing story, I did feel like the plot of King of the Monsters was more thought-out.)

But flimsy plot and screenplay aside, I really enjoyed the movie and had a great time the whole way through. It was very watchable and a visual feast so it’s surprising the runtime was kept fairly reined in at a trim two hours, especially since there were many plot points that could’ve easily filled a longer runtime. Personally, I wouldn’t have minded it going another hour. The fight scenes were killer (especially when paired with the killer score), the cinematography (especially that of Skull Island and Hollow Earth) was truly incredible—even breathtaking in some instances—and the plot never felt slow or biding its time until the next big action scene.

Like other films in the MonsterVerse, the human characters are flimsy at best and have one defining trait in lieu of development (Frazzled Scientist, Rebellious Teenager, Conflicted Researcher, etc.). I understand the rationale behind placing minimal importance on the human characters and shoving them aside so the monster mayhem can ensue, but these kind of movies work best when we’re invested in the humans as well. Without human anchors, what do we care if families are torn apart and entire cities are destroyed? Somehow, it makes the stakes seem smaller.

It’s frustrating because the framework for interesting character arcs and development is there, but not fully realized. The best human character elements of the film involve Rebecca Hall as Kong expert Ilene and her relationship with an orphaned Skull Island native, Jia. Their relationship is refreshing in its genuineness and is miles away the heart of the movie. But even more affecting is Jia’s relationship with Kong himself. She and Kong communicate via sign language, and the true friendship and understanding between child and beast is both a welcome surprise and an incredibly smart decision on the part of the filmmakers. There’s some genuine affecting moments involving Kong that caught me off guard and gift us with emotion that hasn’t been present in the MonsterVerse thus far. While Godzilla is a kickass Titan in his own way, in terms of emotional intelligence, Kong is miles above Godzilla. To give Kong this new development allows him to grow as a character and let us see another gentler, emotive, and yes, forlorn side to him besides the fierce Titan he is. Despite both Titans getting top billing in the title, I’d argue that this is 100% Kong’s movie.

As the film progresses, there are some plot elements (not so much twists, but unexpected narrative turns) that genuinely surprised me. Some were incredibly cool, like the concept and scenery of Hollow Earth (hello, spin-off!), while some were a little silly and felt like they belonged in a different movie (one particular plot point involving gravity comes to mind). Some could’ve used extra time to flesh out details and build up suspense, but the fact that the plot details of a monster movie can catch me off guard is impressive and made the journey throughout the film that much more entertaining and engaging.

Godzilla vs. Kong is a film of contradictions. It’s both narratively simple and complex. Its Titan characters are developed but its humans are not. It’s bonkers with Titan brawls and reserved on human action. Despite that, in terms of its high entertainment value and achieving what it set out to do, it’s a success. I’m not sure where the MonsterVerse goes from there, though there’s plenty of fresh ground to mine after some new plot developments in this one. So if someone’s serving up another helping of giant prehistoric monsters and apes battling it out? Sign me up…just give me a little human character development, too.

8/10

Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga

Will Ferrell and Rachel McAdams star as Icelandic pop duo Lars and Sigrit in Netflix’s Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga

If I was a responsible tournament participant, I would’ve watched one of the 2010 films on my priority list. Instead, I watched Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga and I’m so happy that I did. I’d been looking forward to Eurovision ever since it was announced because as if a film revolving around the over-the-top production values of the Eurovision Song Contest wasn’t enough to solidify my interest, Will Ferrell and Rachel McAdams starring as an Icelandic pop duo sure was.

For the uninitiated into the gloriousness of the long-running song contest, Eurovision features active member countries of the European Broadcasting Union competing to have the best song in Europe, with some of the contest’s real life winners including Celine Dion and ABBA. Think American Idol but for all of North America.

In Eurovision Song Contest, Will Ferrell and Rachel McAdams are Lars and Sigrit, a pop duo known as Fire Saga who has complete confidence in their singing, songwriting, and yes, costuming abilities even when no one else in their small Islandic fishing village of Húsavík does. They play local pubs but have dreams of something bigger, especially Lars who has dreamed of winning Eurovision since he and Sigrit were children. Through a series of comedic coincidences that allow them to actually enter the contest and perform at Eurovision, they get one step closer to achieving their dreams of winning.

Despite Lars being one of his more grounded, less hyper characters, Will Ferrell’s natural comedy chops are still on display. Whether through Lars’s unflinching confidence or social unawareness, Ferrell fully embodies Lars and makes him feel like a fully-realized person—with wants and fears and doubts—rather than a caricature (which would’ve been much easier). I suppose it also helps that he co-wrote the screenplay, giving him more of an investment and closer connection to the characters and material. As for Rachel McAdams? She’s fantastic here, nailing both the dramatic and comedic beats of Sigrit’s character, imbuing her with childlike innocence and earnestness, determination and resolve. After hits like Mean Girls and the more recent Game Night, hopefully Eurovision will finally get people to realize McAdams’s skill at comedy in addition to drama. The film is also filled with fantastic comedic supporting performances from Dan Stevens and Demi Lovato as fellow Eurovision contestants Alexander and Katiana.

I went into Eurovision expecting a joke-a-minute laugh-out-loud comedy and while it’s not that, I found that the longer I watched, I didn’t mind. Because what it is instead is an incredibly heartfelt and genuinely sweet story about friendship, the important things in life, and following your dreams no matter who tells you to give up. Which is not to say that the film isn’t funny. The jokes and sight gags genuinely land, especially because they’re character-based rather than of the raunchy, lowbrow sex and profanity variety that most comedies seem to have now. Some highlights include Lars insulting a group of American tourists, a sight gag featuring Icelandic elves, and a boat explosion. Yes, that’s right. Only in Eurovision can a fatal yacht explosion be so uproariously funny.

Another absolute pleasure that I wasn’t expecting was the music. When they released the kooky music video for Fire Saga’s “Volcano Man”, I was expecting the music in the film to be similarly over-the-top and played for laughs. But man, that’s not the case at all. Damn if the film’s entire soundtrack isn’t completely mesmerizing. As I watched the film, I found myself not only enjoying the songs but completely entranced. Like the recent A Star is Born, so much of Eurovision feels like a big European concert complete with glow sticks and wonky costumes. I even bought the soundtrack (which I rarely do for a film) and am listening to it as I write this review. Some of the songs are outrageous (and gloriously catchy) like the local Húsavík pub song “Ja Ja Ding Dong” and “Lion of Love” (sung by Dan Stevens’s character but dubbed by Erik Mjönes), but Fire Saga’s “Double Trouble” and “Húsavik” (Will Ferrell sings while Rachel McAdams is dubbed by real-life Junior Eurovision Song Contest contestant Molly Sandén) are genuinely enjoyable and perfectly fitting for the characters of Lars and Sigrit, the kind of Icelandic electro pop—good music and lyrics without being over-produced—that’s perfectly suited to these characters.

If I had one criticism, I almost wish that they had leaned even further into the absurdity of the whole thing—the Icelandic lyrics, the over-the-top costumes, Fire Saga’s unflinching confidence—but can see why they chose to play it more straight and keeping Lars and Sigrit grounded. From a comedy standpoint, I’m not sure if it was the right move, but from a drama perspective in creating fully realized characters, it works.

Some have said that the film’s two-hour runtime is too long, but the time flew by for me. It was well paced, the comedy landed, and the fantastic music and contest format of the film kept things moving along nicely. Honestly? I wouldn’t have minded if it were longer because I’d love to spend more time with these characters. In a summer (and year) filled with so much uncertainty and negativity, it’s incredibly refreshing to find a film that’s not only so unapologetically positive without being schmaltzy, but one that I’m already looking forward to re-watching.

8.5/10

Alien: Covenant

Alien: Covenant attempts to appease viewers by blending the big ideas of Prometheus with the familiar carnage of Alien

When Prometheus was released in 2012 it had high expectations to live up to. Would it answer the questions left by Alien? Who (or what) was the Space Jockey? From where did the titular creatures originate? Would aliens burst from various parts of the human body in new and disgusting ways? It answered these questions (in part), but also raised more, which left many viewers confused, angry, unhappy, or some combination of the three.

Now, five years later, Alien: Covenant (Alien is even in the title, which could be seen as Ridley Scott attempting to get back to the tent pole series’ roots as it gets closer to linking up with Alien, or a blatant marketing move to get fans of the original series in theater seats), attempts to appease both fans of the creationist and AI elements of Prometheus as well as the creature-feature, body horror ones of Alien.

I’m not so sure it succeeds.

Covenant takes place ten years after the events of Prometheus’s doomed expedition to find the origins of life on Earth, where a new colonization ship (for which the film is named) carrying with it 2000 cryo-sleeping colonists, embarks on a journey to terraform and build life on a new planet. Of course, being an Alien movie, nothing is going to go as planned. The crew picks up a rogue transmission from a nearby planet, similar in livability to Earth, and, to take their mind off a tragedy in the film’s opening minutes, decide to take a field trip to investigate.

I was one of the seemingly rare viewers who loved Prometheus upon initial viewing. I loved the focus on big ideas about creation and where we come from, the heroine in the form of Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, the twists, the memorable scenes (alien abortion, anyone?) and action set pieces, the breathtaking cinematography (I still look upon the first scene with awe), and the sense of wonder shared by the characters caused by exploring the things that make us curious. For fans of Prometheus’s big questions, this is what we’ve been waiting for, what was promised at the end of Prometheus: the home planet of the Engineers, the tall, pale, human-esque beings who seemingly created humanity and just as quickly decided to destroy it. Of course, it doesn’t take long for the ship’s crew members to touch what they should touch, disrespect what they should respect, and tread heavily where a lighter step would be wiser. And before they figure out what we already know, that this place is not safe, the aliens show up: bursting from backs, springing from throats, hugging faces. Here are the aliens, but where are the Engineers? What happened here? Where’s Shaw? Did she get the answers she was hoping for, ask the questions she was wondering?

As the crew of the Covenant encounter David, who we last saw as a head in a bag, some answers are revealed. Unfortunately, it’s here, at the foot of all that was promised at the end of Prometheus, that the film begins its falter from which it cannot recover.

The end of Prometheus seemed to promise further adventures with Dr. Shaw and David as they search for the Engineers and reasons for why they created—then tried to destroy—humanity. The ten years between the two films could have easily spanned the runtime of a film or two and what could have been an intriguing, suspenseful continuation, building on the philosophical elements introduced by Prometheus with characters in whom we’d already invested, is minimized into a few short minutes. Instead, the film seems too antsy and eager to focus on the film’s (and David’s, with his fully realized contempt for humanity and subservience) creations more recognizable to the franchise—chest-bursters, face-huggers, neomorphs, and other members of their blood-hungry extended family. Aliens are unleashed, crew members attempt to escape, carnage ensues.

I think that’s my real problem with the film. There’s no clear purpose, aside from Scott retreading the old formula (that some were hoping for with Prometheus, no doubt) of setting up characters to run from (and perish by) aliens in all their terrifying colors, shapes, and sizes. Without the desire to uncover or curiosity of Dr. Shaw, or the ulterior motives of Meredith Vickers and Peter Weyland, the film becomes a paint-by-numbers slasher (which isn’t all necessarily bad—the creatures are cool, after all; their appearance and movements realistic). There’s nothing for us to invest in, no mysteries to unravel, no curiosity to devote. Without this, the plot is too familiar and formulaic, things we’ve seen in this series before, and you can almost feel Scott checking off his boxes: chest-burster? Check. Face-huggers springing from eggs? Check. Fully-grown alien stowed away on a ship and stalking its last crew member(s)? Check.

Also lacking is a clear sense of suspense and nail-biting urgency. While there are visually interesting scenes, Scott seems to mistake quick alien attacks for suspense. At this point in the series, if we see an alien behind a human, we know it’s going to attack. We need exploration, characters to discover things the same time we do, to wonder, What’s going to happen next? or How are they going to get out of this? Not, In what cool ways will the crew be dispatched? Upon re-watching Prometheus, I was struck by how seamlessly everything blends together, how effortlessly security turns to dread which turns to fear, how the runtime flies by. Covenant’s focus is much more sporadic and unfocused.

Though Katherine Waterson gives a good performance as Daniels, she doesn’t have the same awe, relatability, or put-through-the-ringer sense of desperation and fight as Shaw (which makes it all the more disappointing that Shaw got the shaft here. They could’ve given her the same ending, had it been earned by spending another movie with her and David). As for the cinematography? Not entirely memorable (the film’s rainy, muted blue color palette grows a bit boring).

All of this makes it sound like there are no redeemable qualities to the film, which isn’t the case. The crew’s interactions during the first third seemed natural (bonus points to the script for giving them a believable motivation to explore the rogue transmission), as were the film’s subtle points about planetary disrespect and how no matter how clean and new something is, humans will always muck it up.

The scenes between David and newer model Walter were one of the best things about Covenant (thanks to the script and Michael Fassbender’s performance). I’m not sure what is says about the movie that the androids were more interesting than the humans, but these interactions mixed with David’s equally awesome and gross experiments proves we don’t need (the crutch of) aliens; we have a perfectly good antagonist in David. And it goes to show what good would come of this prequel series taking its time with the big ideas raised in Prometheus—AI, creation, our place in the universe—instead of rushing to feature the aliens and carnage we’ve already seen.

Alien: Covenant is just good, but it could have been so much better, especially after a five year wait. Many viewers complained about Ridley’s Scott’s focus on the philosophical and creationist elements of Prometheus, while only sprinkling it with the Alien DNA they’d grown up with (and had been expecting). Unfortunately, and to the disservice of Covenant, it appears as if he listened. Scott has said he could see the prequels going on for two, three, four-plus more movies. But if they’re to continue with the same formula—new ship, new crew, same alien carnage—I’m not sure I’ll be as excited to take the ride if the only difference is the same aliens bursting from new chests.

6.5/10

The Space Between Us

In the near-future, mankind has finally surmounted the obstacles of going to—and colonizing—Mars. The ship launches and lands without a hitch, and everything seems to be going according to plan. That is, until the lead astronaut gets sick. It’s easy to write off her vomiting as her body adjusting to a new atmosphere, but all it takes is an image on a monitor to show what’s going on: she’s pregnant.

Release Date: February 3rd, 2017 Runtime: 121 mins.

It’s not a spoiler to reveal that she dies in childbirth and, as her son is born, the space company is faced with a dilemma: bring the child to earth, where they know he’ll have a hard time acclimating to our planet’s atmosphere, or keep it a secret, forever hiding the fact that a human child was born—and is living—on Mars.

Cut to sixteen years later and that child, Gardner (Asa Butterfield), is thriving on the space station. He’s working with the scientists, he’s got a robot friend (his only friend, he often laments), and a pseudo-adoptive mom (Carla Gugino). The only problem? He’s lacking connection with people his age—or, really, anyone from Earth. It’s a longing that he partially satiates by web chatting (future technology, and all that) with a high school girl named Tulsa (Britt Robertson). So when he’s finally granted the opportunity (permission) to visit Earth, he makes the most of it, wasting no time in fleeing his scientist escorts in an attempt to meet up with his Colorado-dwelling web crush.

The beginning of the film isn’t boring by any means, but by the time we get to Gardner and Tulsa’s meet-up, it’s definitely evident that the preceding minutes were just to get us here, to the “good” stuff. And that’s what’s most shocking about the film—once it switches gears, the relationship and budding romance between Gardner and Tulsa are actually more engaging than the Mars sequences. There’s an obvious chemistry between them that only gets stronger as the film progresses. Butterfield is great as Gardner, all wide-eyed curiosity about Earth and other people, and it’s here that much of the humor comes in—Gardner’s relying on old black-and-white films to provide him with pick-up lines about chivalry, asking strangers What’s your favorite thing about Earth?, and his joint fascination and surprise by water and sunglasses  (things Earthlings take for granted). While funny, these moments also allow us to experience the world through Gardner’s fresh eyes. (Think Will Ferrell’s Buddy from Elf roaming the streets of New York City.)

In the beginning, I wasn’t totally sold on Britt Robertson’s performance as Tulsa, which is strange because I’m a fan. I have a feeling she was asked to play younger to fit the role since Britt is actually 26 in real life. However, her performance grew on me as the film progressed and her character had a chance to deepen.

It’s only as the film takes a step into road trip territory on a search for Gardner’s father that it falters. While the stops Gardner and Tulsa make provide material for both humor and drama, and the mystery of Gardner’s father was a surprise I didn’t see coming, a little further developing the character of who it turned out to be would’ve gone a long way.

In some ways, The Space Between Us feels like it wants to be three different films: a space exploration story and the moral implications that go along with it, a teen comedy-romance, and a road-trip search for family. It’s all three at various points (and successful in their respective parts), but I don’t think they meshed quite as well as they were intended. Though the relationship between Gardner and Tulsa was the heart and soul of the film, I can’t help wondering what the film would’ve been like had it further grappled with the moral implications of keeping Gardner’s existence and sequester a secret. Regardless, Space is an easy-to-watch, sometimes funny, always engaging and delightful film about relationships, time, and the notion that we always want the opposite of what we have.

7.5/10

Suicide Squad

Leto’s Joker and Robbie’s Harley Quinn are easily the best parts of Suicide Squad

I’d been looking forward to Suicide Squad for a while now. The promise of lesser-known DC anti-heroes brought together to stop a greater evil? Sign me up! And it didn’t hurt that once the trailers were released, they rocked: quirky characters, dark humor, and well-paired music that let the viewer know they were in for a crazy ride. Unfortunately, expectations for the film’s success grew after Batman v. Superman didn’t do as well in box office numbers or critics’ reviews. As a result, almost overnight, the hope of quality and profit in the continuing DC Cinematic Universe seemed to be riding on its red-headed stepchild.

I purposefully avoided many Suicide Squad reviews prior to seeing the movie so I could make up my own mind about the film (re: taint my excitement), but the ones I have read definitely reek of what many have already suspected: viewers going into the movie prepared to hate it (and DC films as a whole, since the same critical reactions can be read in reviews for Batman v. Superman). So, after reading these reviews and seeing the movie for myself, I have to ask: What are these “critics” smoking?

The first half of the film is great and just what I was hoping it would be: a great introduction to the Squad members, a morally shady figure in the form of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), great Batfleck cameos tied to the Squad, and a premise with the promise of unique styling, intense action, moral ambiguity, and great characters.

Most of the characters (though there are a few too many, some being relegated to the sidelines) were great, especially Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) and the Joker (Jared Leto), who are the highlights of the film, character- and plot-wise. I’d read a lot of complaints Mr. J wasn’t given much screen time, which had me worried, but he’s in a decent-enough amount of scenes to both satisfy (his role is more backstory and subplot than “A” storyline) and leave you wanting more. And Leto kills it. His Joker is more than satisfying—totally captivating, like popcorn-hand-paused-midway-to-mouth captivating—ranging from persuasive sweet-talker to scary mob boss, bouncing between affection for Harley and psychotically unhinged craziness. Which can also be said of his female counterpart and partner in crime, torn between wreaking havoc with her Puddin’ and settling down to have a normal family. As a result, Leto and Robbie’s chemistry really shines, their psychotic codependent relationship the film’s highlight. So much so that I would have loved to see more of them, relevance to the main plot be damned. Bring on the Harley-Joker spin-off!

Speaking of characters, I was also really happy that the film used the songs featured in the trailers and marketing promos. I wasn’t so sure they would. They fit with its characters and the film’s zany, balls-to-the-wall tone that it works really well.

My main issue with Batman v. Superman was that Snyder crammed so much stuff into the film that it lacked focus. Thankfully, Suicide Squad doesn’t have that problem. It has another, though, which I’ve realized is my main problem with all entries of the DC Cinematic Universe so far: the supernatural, and what I’ll refer to as The Big Threat. Man of Steel had Zod (an alien) and his terraforming device (The Big Threat), intent of destroying the world. Batman v. Superman had Doomsday (both an alien and The Big Threat), also intent on destroying the world. Which leads me to my problem with Suicide Squad’s second half. Five months after the beginnings of the Justice League first formed on the big screen to stop such otherworldly havoc, comes Enchantress. Possessing the body of explorer June Moone, Enchantress is an ancient witch (supernatural…again) upset to realize the world worships “machines” instead of entities such as herself. And because she’s upset, what does she do? Builds a machine (The Big Threat) to, you guessed it, destroy the world.

Are we noticing a pattern here?

When every DC movie has the main villain attempt to destroy the world (or even an entire city), complete with airborne circle of brightly-colored debris, it lessens the stakes quite a bit. Which is a weird kind of irony being that you’d think a world threat would raise the stakes. But because we know there’s a cinematic universe in play and that the films will continue, it disarms the threat since we know that—however it comes to happen—everything will be okay. Not only that, but in this case, Suicide Squad has an embarrassment of riches with great characters. And when they’re facing a supernatural threat, it removes the sense of surprise and excitement that should come with a film’s climax; we know the odds are against these human anti-heroes but are confident they’ll prevail anyway. Not to mention that the action sequences come dangerously close to boring repetition.

I would have preferred (and believe it would’ve made a better film) for the Squad to face off against a decidedly more human threat. For example, what if the Joker was the villain of the film, Harley torn between stopping him and joining him? Having Mr. J in this role would have given the film potential for more grounded character-driven beats and stakes that I would’ve loved to see (not to mention more focus on the Harley-Joker relationship).

But I didn’t make the film.

Instead, Enchantress—though she looks really, really cool—is kind of vanilla. If you’ve seen one superhuman (or, in DC-talk, metahuman) intent on destroying the world, you’ve seen them all. If every DC movie didn’t have the same third act with some kind of supernatural and/or alien threat, it might’ve felt a little more fresh.

Thankfully, this issue—though it’s kind of a big one, being that it revolves around the whole purpose of the Squad’s forming—is one of the film’s few. The characters, performances, soundtrack, and off-beat humor make it both an entertaining and unique entry to the DC Cinematic Universe. And while it’s not a perfect film—or even the film it could’ve been—it’s far from a disappointment.

If only critics—of both the professional and couch variety—would step back from their eager hate for popcorn entertainment enough to see it.

8/10 (right now, but I have a feeling my rating will be bouncing between an 8 and a 7.5)