Rogue One: The Star Wars movie that isn't really a Star Wars Movie

SPOILERS TO FOLLOW

Rogue One might be the most unique Star Wars film to yet be released. This is, ultimately, not only because it is the first 'stand alone' film in the series but, because it is a stand alone film, it is able to do many things that one cannot do in a typical 'Star Wars' film.

The original Star Wars films, along with the prequels and last year's The Force Awakens, exist firmly in the tradition of mythological narratives of the hero's quest a la Joseph Campbell's monomyth (although Force Awakens offers some promising new elements). Rogue One, however, is a war movie, plain and simple. It has a different tone altogether than the stories that have been told as part of the main 'Episodes' of the Star Wars Saga.

This is actually rather freeing for both the 'spin-off' films and the flagship franchise.  For the former, it means they don't have to live up to quite the same expectations as their more fantastic brethren; for the latter, it means they no longer have to be EVERYTHING that every fan wants them to be.  For years, Star Wars fans have clamored for a 'grittier, more-realistic' take on the Star Wars universe. However, if you think about it, that approach doesn't work on a series that is, at it's heart, operatic fantasy.  If you make it too grounded, it loses the element of fantasy and escapism that is what brought everyone to the table in the first place.  Now, certain elements of a grittier world have always been hinted at: the under world of Jabba the Hutt and bounty hunters. They have even been explored to an extent in Dave Filoni's work on the Clone Wars and Rebels animated series which both, in their own ways, function as more grounded takes on familiar elements of the Star Wars Universe.

In a perfect example of something Rogue One can do that typical Star Wars movie can't, very early on in the film, the rebel spy, Cassian Andor, kills another rebel spy when he becomes a liability that will prevent his own escape and jeopardize his mission. Luke Skywalker could never do this. Even Han Solo, forever the bad boy space pirate, couldn't do this.  Sure, we're ok with him shooting first and taking out the scummy bounty hunter holding him at blaster-point but would we be as accepting of Han if he killed his allies just as callously?  The heroes of the main saga must be a purer sort of hero. The heroes of Rogue One are not heroes in the mythical sense; they are soldiers.  And, as soldiers, you have to do things in the greater service of the mission that aren't always the most noble. As Cassian himself points out they,"are spies, assassins, and saboteurs"
. Their story is not one of redemption but of justification. They make the compromises so that those who follow can make the more noble choice. Their sacrifice is the sacrifice of real, everyday heroes.

Oddly, in some ways, Rogue One harkens back in many ways to one of Lucas's original inspirations for Star Wars: The Seven Samurai: a group of warriors is brought together to serve a greater cause, each sacrificing in turn until the victory is complete. Oh, and by the way, SPOILERS, everyone dies... EVERYONE!  All the heroes live just long enough to play their necessary parts in the final mission. This is a bold move for a Star Wars movie. It is a fate viewers become uncomfortably aware of in the film's final act.  As each character falls, you get the sinking feeling that fewer of our heroes will make it out than we'd hoped and, then, you not only realize that this is how it will end but how it must end. Their sacrifice gives an even greater weight to the heroes we are introduced to in A New Hope--- and it emphasizes why the hope is so needed.

Also, on a side note, it is reassuring that the stand-alone films won't simply be used as a means to manufacture more spin-offs.  That is, it will not become the 'shared universe' of the Marvel movies, continually spinning off various 'sub-franchises' that link together in various iterations. The same way these stand alone films are able to do things that the main 'Episodes' can't, they also take nothing away from those films.  Rogue One takes nothing away from Episode VIII.  It will still be the next installment of the classic, mythic saga. The stand alone films can enrich the larger universe and still let the traditional 'Star Wars' movies do what they do best.

A couple of final thoughts:

CG Tarkin: Ok, they may have overplayed their hand a bit by recreating Peter Cushing digitally. If it had just been a single moment, where he turns around and delivers a line, it would have worked and been a pretty thrilling tip of the hat to the original movie but, instead, they KEEP using him in multiple scenes.  Some called the CG 'cheap'; quite the contrary, it is pretty remarkable and quite lifelike but even the best CG still looks ...off.  And, the longer it's on the screen, the longer you notice it.

Vader Unleashed:  When we finally see Darth Vader slaughtering rebel soldiers with his lightsaber in the film's final moments, it is actually the first time we have ever seen Darth Vader go... well... FULL ON VADER on the big screen. Most of the original trilogy merely implies his deadliness and confines his saber-skills to one-on-one duels (a pretty boring one in the original Star Wars --- not much of a budget for stunt people on that one). For over thirty years, Vader has been the tragic figure: the fallen hero redeemed at the finale of Return of the Jedi. Even in Revenge of the Sith we merely saw his transformation into the monster; we didn't get to see him simply BE the monster. In Rogue One, that's what he is: summoned from his lair on Mustafar by his evil masters, he is the Dracula/Frankenstein/Smaug/Jason that haunts the nightmares of the Rebel Alliance.

2016 Favorites: Movies

10. The Secret Life of Pets

On here because I'm a dog person--- while the movie as a whole isn't quite as enjoyable as the opening and closing sequences of animals doing what they do just after their master's leave and as they come home, it was still an overall entertaining family film. 

9. Moana

Classic Disney storytelling with a more modern take on the Disney princess, Moana is lots of fun and the Rock shows us what a lovely singing voice he has....

8. Star Trek Beyond

More cohesive than 'Into Darkness' but those hoping for a return to the 'more intellectual' Trek of old will likely be disappointed. But, if you're looking for a fun popcorn blockbuster, this hits the spot.

7. Dr. Strange

While it might be the most visually compelling Marvel movie to date, the plot wasn't really anything all that interesting and the script as a whole seemed it could use some punching up. Marvel movies often do little more than lay the ground work in the first movie and then go for something more interesting in the sequel. Let's hope that trend continues in the follow up to Dr. Strange. 

6. X-Men: Apocalypse

While it wasn't as good as First Class or Days of Future Past, I have to say it was still pretty damned entertaining and definitely better than X3 and both Wolverine movies (possibly even the first first X-men... which I always felt had kind of a stupid plot).

5. Ghostbusters

This much maligned 'reboot' would have been better off if it were just a straight up remake.  It was an overall solid good time with a stellar cast that was effectively utilized even if the plot wasn't all that great. Ultimately, I did feel it was a little too self-conscious in it's references to the original and wish it had tried to be more of its own thing. But, Kate McKinnon was AWESOME! I totally have a man-crush (yes, man-crush) on Jillian Holtzman.

4. Captain America: Civil War

In many ways, this was Avengers 3 but, in some other important ways, it managed to still be a Captain America movie. The Russo Bros take what could have been a trainwreck of studio demands to include this and that and mold it into a film, while not quite as tightly plotted as The Winter Soldier (which, objectively speaking, might actually be the best Marvel movie) is still a lean, mean action machine.  And, unlike Batman Vs Superman, I really felt that Tony and Steve had reason for the all out slugfest at the movie's climactic conclusion. 

3. Deadpool

Civil War was bigger but Deadpool was more fun.  Never has a major studio been more faithful in their adaptation of a comic book character (well, except maybe Christopher Reeves Superman).  This is exactly what the fans wanted to see--- and studios learned that, sometimes, that's what other audiences will enjoy. Since he was first cast in the atrocious X-Men Origins: Wolverine, I've thought Reynold's was a perfect fit for the 'Merc with a Mouth' and he finally gets to shine here and may even win a golden globe for his troubles....

2. Sing Street

A love letter to the music of the early days of MTV disguised as a John Hughes movie by way of Dublin, Sing Street was only narrowly edged out as my favorite movie of 2016 (and, if I'm being honest, it's probably actually the best movie on here). The music was brilliant and the show stopping "Drive it Like you Stole It" feels exactly like the hit song that would have been inescapable and in heavy rotation on MTV circa 1985. 

1. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

I will probably do a more detailed write up for my complete thoughts on this one--- but, in short, if Force Awakens was meant to be a warm return to a familiar world,  Rogue One forces us to look at that world from a different perspective.  If you want to quibble, the film has a few flaws but it's ability to deliver in terms of action and epic battle sequences isn't one of them.  I would have been happy with Star Wars: Battlefront the Movie but Rogue One delivered all of that and more. And, without revealing too much, it has the most daring conclusion of any Star Wars movie to date. 

 

Favorites 2016: Comics

10. Howard the Duck -Chip Zdarsky/Joe Quinones

The funniest series you'll read that will also make you cry. Zdarsky has a knack for tickling the funny bone while also pulling the heart strings. Veronica Fish also drew the best issue of the series with Shocket and Linda, female clones of Howard and Rocket.

9. The Vision- Tom King/Gabriel Hernandez Walta

Both deeply funny and deeply disturbing, this book uses Marvel's favorite artificial human to examine the darker side of humanity and family.

8. Jughead- Chip Zdarsky/Erica Henderson

Everyone's favorite slacker is updated for the 21st century--- plus: dream team up with Zdarsky and Henderson!

7. Spider-Gwen- Jason Latour/Robbi Rodgriguez

Latour continues to make Earth-65 his own personal playground yet also manages to successfully give Gwen Stacy her very own unique spider-verse to inhabit.  Interesting twist on familiar characters is just a perk on top of the gourgeous art and solid story and characters.

6. Batman/All-Star Batman-  Scott Snyder/Greg Capullo/John Romita, Jr.

Snyder and Capullo's run on the flagship title will go down as one of the all time greats in the history of comics and All-Star Batman is shaping up to be the capstone of Snyder's work on the character.

5. The Unbeatable  Squirrel Girl- Ryan
North/Erica Henderson


USG continues to be, not only one of the most enjoyable comics out there, but also one of the most innovative. This year also saw the release of the Original Graphic Novel The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl Beats Up the Marvel Universe (and Henderson ALSO drew Jughead). Added Bonus: I got my first ever letter published in letters page and all I had to do was imitate a squirrel!

4. Mother Panic- Jody Houser/Tommy Lee Edwards

Part of the concept of DC's Young Animal line is to bring back the early days of Vertigo when, rather than being the companies creator-owned imprint, it focused on darker, more adult corners of the DC Universe.  Mother Panic focuses on a new Gotham vigilante who works outside Batman's circles. If anyone was curious about a connection between the two, our protagonist makes it abundantly clear in the first issue when she bluntly states, "Fuck the Bat."

3. Doom Patrol- Gerward Way/Nick Derrington

I am a HUGE fan of the Morrison/Case iteration of the Doom Patrol from the 90's.  Way seems to be attempting to pick up where they left off--- It's still unclear if this will be a faithful continuation of that run or more of an homage that will incorporate more of the team's larger history.  If anyone can pull of a decent Morrison imitation, it's Way. His Umbrella Academy is the best Grant Morrison comic not written by Morrison. I only hope he can grow beyond his influences a bit and make the book his own.

2. Cave Carson Has a Cybernetic Eye- Gerard Way/Nick Rivera/Michael Avon-Oeming

Doom Patrol may have been the Young Animal title I was most looking forward to but, ultimately, Cave Carson Has a Cybernetic Eye has proved to be the most intriguing. It kind of reads like a more dramatic version of The Venture Bros--- and I mean that in a good way. Plus, they brought back Wild Dog!  Friggin' Wild Dog!

1. Saga- Brian K. Vaugn/Fiona Staples

Do I need to explain this more than simply saying: it's Saga

2016 Favorites: Music

Honorable Mentions:

Beatles Live at the Hollywood Bowl- even in the remaster it's still rough but it captures the spirit of Beatlemania perfectly, PainKillers- Brian Fallon, Sing Street (original soundtrack)

10. Hardwired... To Self Destruct- Metallica

The band's first album to lack any 'Power Balladry' since Kill 'Em All; unfortunately, the album could have benefited from a bit of variety.  The songs sort of bleed into one another--- not a lot of stand out tracks but pretty good for when you need something loud, fast, and hard. Possibly their thrashiest since And Justice For All...  Key Tracks: "Hardwired.... To Self Destruct", "Moth to a Flame", "Now that We're Dead", "ManUNkind"

9. Weezer (the white album)-Weezer

I think, overall, Everything Will Be Alright in the End is a much stronger album and neither really manages to match the band's earliest masterpieces but, at the end of the day, Cuomo is talented tunesmith and at least a few of the songs will be stuck in your head for days. Key Tracks: "(Girl We Got a) Good Thing", "Thank God For Girls", "Endless Bummer"

8. Revolution Radio- Green Day

Green Day's least ambitious project in a while. Overall, a bit more of the polished sound from 21st Century Breakdown but with a less ambitious overall theme. Still, the album's best tracks aim toward the more epic side of things.   Billie Joe Armstrong can still turn a clever phrase here and there and has an undeniable gift for melody and killer hooks.  Key Tracks: "Bang Bang", "Revolution Radio", "Still Breathing", "Forever Now"

7. Loud Hailer- Jeff Beck

Eric Clapton once said that Beck was the better player but he just lacked the tunes to go along with his chops.  That still remains true, however, he comes closer to achieving a unified 'band' sound here more than his other recent work. Not content to be an oldies act, Beck looks into the more recent past and manages to evoke a White Stripes/Dead Weather vibe throughout. Key Tracks: "Live in the Dark", "O.I.L.", "The Ballad of the Jersey Wives"

6. Good Times!-The Monkees

Pure nostalgia. Rivers Cuomo saved his best tune of the year for the surviving members of the Pre-Fab Four with "She Makes Me Laugh". The strongest track, the Neil Diamond penned "Love to Love", is, of course, from the band's heyday. Key Tracks: "She Makes Me Laugh", "You Bring the Summer", "Me & Magdalena", "Love to Love"

5. Death of a Bachelor- Panic! at the Disco

Part of me will always wonder what the band would have been like if Ryan Ross (the original principle songwriter) had stuck around.  As it is, the band has become Brendan Urie's own personal Nine Inch Nails. Urie's lyrics still lack Ross's bite but he may have finally nailed the punch of the hooks. Although, it is telling that the best track relies on a pretty blatant sample of the guitar riff from "Rock Lobster" Key Tracks: "Don't Threaten Me With A Good Time", "Victorious" "Crazy = Genius"


4. A Moon Shaped Pool- Radiohead

Radiohead's least ambitious release in years is also their best since In Rainbows (which basically means it's better than King of Limbs). It's my understanding that much of the album was culled from previously recorded material, however, it doesn't affect the album's ability to hold together quite well.
Key Tracks: "Burn the Witch", "The Numbers", "Present Tense"

3. Day Breaks- Norah Jones

Hailed as a return to her Jazz roots following a detour into more mainstream pop on her last two albums, the truth is it is more a fusion of those roots with her more recent pop excursions. The effect is probably her most satisfying work since her first two records.  Key Tracks: "Burn", "Day Breaks", "Fluriente Africaine (African Flower)"

2. Awaken! My Love- Childish Gambino

Donald Glover ditches Rap for Funk and R & B (real R &B) for his most successful musical project yet.

Key Tracks: "Me and Your Mama", "Boogieman", "Zombies"

1. Blackstar- David Bowie

A giant of the industry produces a fitting eulogy for himself with songs that meditate on mortality and never has there been a better final statement from an artist than "I Can't Give Everything Away". Even the album's brevity is a welcome feature in an era when albums tend to outstay their welcome by half a dozen songs. Farewell and godspeed to the man once known as Davy Jones.....
Key Tracks: "Blackstar", "Lazarus", "I can't Give Everything Away"








Favorite Tunes 2016:
The Iron Maiden/Monkees mash-up of "I'm a Believer"/"The Trooper"---- yes, I know it didn't come out this year but it is when I discovered it and it is one of my favorite things!
"She Makes Me Laugh"- The Monkees
"You are the Sunshine of My Life"- Jack White and the Muppets
"Drive it Like You Stole it"- Sing Street (the perfect lost hit from the summer of '85)

Bob Dylan-Nobel Laureate and the last of the Rock Stars.

In Chuck Klosterman's recently published But What If We're Wrong, a book dedicated to pondering our present as if it were the distant past, he acknowledges that we are now in the twilight of the genre of music once known as 'Rock N' Roll' and ponders which artist, if any, will be remembered of this mid-twentieth century musical form hundreds of years from now. He even points to the observations of some that rock may be remembered only as the genre from which certain artist emerged. Most often, this argument is made for The Beatles; that is the music of the Beatles will be listened to and discussed long after all other music of the rock era has fallen through the cracks of time.  That might be a fair assessment but, if there is one artist that is capable of transcending the genre even more than the Fab Four, it is Bob Dylan.

Don't get me wrong: I'm a Beatles guy; if given the choice to listen to the Beatles or Dylan (or any other artist for that matter) for the rest of my life to the exclusion of all other music, I would choose the Beatles every time.  However, this isn't about personal preference; this is about an objective stance on which artist will be seen to have greater historical importance in the distant future.

One thing that is fascinating about Dylan and his association with rock music is how little of his overall body of work can truly be considered 'rock'. Ultimately, his contributions to the genre are confined to just three albums: Bringing it All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisited, and Blonde on Blonde. If you think about it, very little of Dylan's work that followed this can be clearly defined as 'rock'.  After all, his greatest work subsequent to these albums is Blood on the Tracks; is that a rock album? Folk? Something else entirely?

What is fascinating with Dylan's brief dalliance with rock is that, in those three albums, he managed to virtually redefine the genre.  It was those three albums (along with the work of The Beatles and the Rolling Stones) that would, ultimately, transform the genre of 'Rock N' Roll', a popular kind of dance music from the mid-1950's, into Rock music; they elevated the genre from music that was meant to be danced to into music that was meant to be listened to.

However, his influence on the genre as a musical form is not the sole reason that he will be the one who ultimately transcends the genre; after all, The Beatles and the Stones (and, arguably, many other artists who emerged in the mid-late sixties) had just as much, if not more, to do with this evolution as Dylan.  It is the same reason he is being awarded the Nobel prize for literature, not music.  As this article from the Atlantic points out, he is being awarded as a songwriter and not as a musician. The focus is upon the songs that he wrote and not his performance of those songs.  After all, Bob Dylan is the poster child of the songwriter whose own voice is an acquired taste.  In fact, before he had even established an identity as a performer in his own right, his songs--- performed by other artist--- had become part of the popular consciousness.

The genius of Dylan as a lyricist is that his words manage to be both reflections of the time in which they were written while still being ambiguous enough to remain universal and relevant five decades later. Even the so-called 'topical' songs of his 'protest' era are capable of working just as well (perhaps even better) when they are removed from their original context.

So, I think it's pretty safe to say if I were to cryogenically freeze myself for a few hundred years that, when I awoke, people would still know Bob Dylan's work even if they'd long forgotten about rock and other popular music of the mid-twentieth century. And I take comfort in that.... however, personally, I'm really hoping I'll also still have access to Rubber Soul. 

I'll leave you with what I have always felt was Dylan's greatest 'rock' moment:

The most revolutionary character in the Force Awakens....

While the character of Rey, played to perfection by Daisy Ridley, is an important step forward in terms of female representation in the Star Wars universe, aside from her gender, she is actually rather traditional in the KIND of character that she is: she is our chosen one, our Luke Skywalker,  the ordinary person who discovers that they were destined for greatness all along. Even her reluctance to embrace her destiny is part of a formula straight out of Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces.
There has been a recent trend among children's films (and, ultimately, that's what Star Wars is at its heart) to reject this kind of 'chosen one' narrative.

One of the best things about The Force Awakens was the way that it gave us all the familiar elements of the original trilogy while also introducing new elements. I contend that, in addition to Rey's more traditional epic hero, the film also gives us an example of this new kind of 'not-so-chosen-one' hero. I am, of course, talking about Finn. He is unique among the heroes in Star Wars films because of one simple fact: he's not particularly good at anything.

When we first meet Luke Skywalker, he is already an excellent pilot strong in the force; when we first meet Han Solo, he is a skilled smuggler and pilot who isn't afraid to shoot first and ask questions later (sorry, GL, Han shot first).  Sure, he could be cocky and reckless but, more often than not, it seems to work out in his favor. Even Leia is a tenacious, strong-willed leader who is just as good in a fight as her male companions.

When we first meet Finn, he is a stormtrooper but a completely ineffective one (granted, he's only ineffective because of his unwillingness to slaughter unarmed villagers.... still...). Later, when he frees Poe Dameron, he does so not out of bravery or moral principle but because of the simple reason that he needs a pilot and could not escape on his own.  When he first encounters Rey, he begins to rescue her from attackers before he realizes that she is a far more competent combatant than he is; shortly after this, she is successfully able to overtake him. He isn't particularly brave and his more heroic actions seem to be motivated by his fondness for Rey--- even then, his actions fall short: by the time he and Han show up she has already managed to rescue herself.  He wields a lightsaber twice in the film and loses both times (even whiny little Luke Skywalker managed to be 1-2 in lightsaber match-ups).

Of all the characters in the film, he is the one who doesn't seem to have a destiny set before him; it is up to him to figure out what his journey will be.

Happy 25th Anniversary Nevermind!

For a long time, my favorite Nirvana album was actually Unplugged in New York; I felt that, even more than their final album In Utero, it represented 'What-Could-Have-Been'.  There was a time in my generation that it felt like Nirvana might be our Beatles--- Unplugged in New York could be seen as their Rubber Soul in that sense.  It showed the beauty of what lay beneath the noise and distortion. However, over the years, Nevermind has claimed the mantle of, not only the best Nirvana album, but also the most culturally significant.

I would love to say that I was an early adopter, that I was one of the cool kids who was immediately transformed the first time they heard the opening chords of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" but I was not.  My first reaction when I saw the video on MTV one afternoon was "What the fuck is this shit?  What's that guy saying?  He can't sing. He can't play guitar. Did he just say albino? Teen Spirit? Like the Deodorant? (years later, I would learn that was, in fact, the origin of the title)."  Let me tell you a little something about 14-year-old me.  A year earlier, his favorite music was Phil Collins and Genesis. He had only recently adopted hard rock as his preferred genre of music.  His favorite bands? Guns N' Roses and Def Leppard.  Like most hard rock fans at the time, I didn't quite know what to make of Nirvana.

Here's the thing though:  it didn't matter what those hard rock fans thought of Nirvana.  They didn't have to appeal to us because they appealed to everyone else.  A year later, EVERYONE loved Nirvana--- the cheerleaders who were primarily into Paul Abdul and MC Hammer, the football players who would blast Garth Brooks from their pickup trucks at the homecoming games, the metalheads who wore  Slayer and Megadeth t-shirts, kids who had never really even cared about music before; Nirvana was the great equalizer.  Throughout the 80s, aside from mainstream pop, hair metal had become the most popular and profitable genre within the music industry.  By the early 90s, it had also become the most boring and predictable.  What Nirvana managed to do was to show people that there WAS another option out there; alternative rock (AKA college rock, AKA underground rock, AKA modern rock) had been around since, at least the 80's, but Nirvana finally broke it into the mainstream.

Ultimately, Pearl Jam would prove to be more popular (in terms of record sales at least) but, still, Nirvana was the band the  busted the door wide open for all those 'Alternative' acts.  It represented a shift in the culture as well; a lot of those clean cut football players from freshman year had grown their hair long and were playing guitar by the time they were seniors.  Preppy cheerleaders started wearing flannel and dying their hair.  It wasn't ONLY Nirvana--- but that was certainly the band at the center of the storm.

Lastly, it is just a great album; it is simply Kurt Cobain's best batch of songs. Many critics have tried to say the album was 'too polished' but, in part, that's probably what helped make it accessible to so many people.   And, at the end of the day, isn't that what makes a work of popular music great? Its ability to appeal to the largest demographic possible? The critics and the general populace, the jocks and the nerds, the metalheads and the punk rockers, the cheerleaders and the stoners?

Here's the video for Smells Like Teen Spirit

Suicide Squad: They almost did it... almost...

Somewhere towards the end of Suicide Squad, Will Smith's Deadshot remarks, "Well, we almost did it..." And I can think of no more accurate statement to describe this movie.  It almost works. It's almost good, but not quite. The movie is far from being as bad as the critical consensus would have you believe.  It's actually pretty fun and, at least for the first two-thirds, it moves along at a brisk pace with plenty of action.

It isn't even so much a matter of parts of the movie not working as it is parts of the movie working but not quite as well as you would like. Without a doubt, the one part of the movie that works more than any other is Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn.  The beloved fan favorite is perfectly embodied by the Aussie bombshell. She's the perfect combination of crazy, sexy, and funny.  They even manage to create a version of the Joker/Harley relationship that is far less problematic than the one depicted in the comics and the animated series (in short, rather than being manipulated by the Joker, she falls for him becomes his willing accomplice and, rather than being abusive or manipulative, this Joker seems to, in his own twisted way, legitimately care for Harley).

And speaking of the Joker, Jared Leto's Joker is one of those things that almost works.  He's no Heath Ledger, but he still gives a creepy, madcap performance as the Clown Prince of Crime.  In fact, I don't have a problem with most of the Joker's look--- except for that damned 'damaged' tattoo across the forehead. It's a bit too on the nose.  It doesn't so much make him seem crazy as it makes him seem like someone who desperately wants people to think he's crazy (then again, that might be what Leto has in mind for his version).  The result is a Joker who isn't so much disturbing as he is what teenagers who shop at Hot Topic think is disturbing (In fact, the movie even has a tie-in clothing line at that very store and my friend and comic writer Jeremy Whitley even quipped, "I can think of no better analogy for Hot Topic than PG-13 Suicide Squad").

Will Smith's 'Hitman with a Heart' (he never shoots women or children; has a daughter that he wants the best for), is another character that almost works. Smith has a natural charm, particularly when his humor is given a chance to shine (which, unfortunately, isn't quite often enough in this film). The character just doesn't have quite enough meat to him and, as a result, it looks like Smith, more or less, just phoned in his performance.

Jai Courtney's Captain Boomerang is a welcomed bit of comic relief but, unfortunately, is woefully underused. Speaking of laughs, if the rumors are true and the film underwent massive reshoots in order to inject more humor, they were definitely a sound investment. The film contains the bare minimum amount of laughs that it needs to be entertaining.  It's still not quite as funny as it needs to be to attain the level of irreverence of, say, Deadpool or Guardians of The Galaxy but it's JUST funny enough to prevent the movie from being a tonal bore.

Another online theory about those reshoots claimed that they were to inject more action into the movie. If this were the case, they were not only unnecessary, but they may have actually made the movie worse.  Suicide Squad isn't bad at it's 2 hour running time but, if it had been 20 minutes shorter, it could easily be upgraded to "pretty good" (still not great though). Like many modern blockbusters of the sci-fi/superhero genre, Suicide Squad suffers from action overload in its final act. This is something that affects both movies that are actually halfway decent (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Star Trek Beyond) and movies that are not so decent (Batman Vs Superman, Man of Steel). I kind of feel like, more and more, the final act of these movies is becoming like the final boss fight of a Final Fantasy game; it's not enough for the good guys to just show up and beat the bad guy. They have to seemingly beat the bad guy, beat the bad guy in a more powerful form, then fight the person revealed to be the REAL bad guy.

Ultimately, Suicide Squad is just what it needs to be: an entertaining, action-packed, star-studded blockbuster. Nothing more, nothing less.  And, really, if you're expecting anything more from a late-summer action pic, you're expecting too much (even if, as Guardians of the Galaxy proved, sometimes you get a little more).

ALMOST SPOILERS: The movie is true to it's premise that these are 'Suicide Missions' that our crew is being sent on and that not all of them will make it out alive.  However, figuring out which ones won't is a bit too easy:  which characters have you never heard of before? Gee, I wonder why that guy wasn't even given a backstory like everyone else? They could, at least, make it a little less obvious.
 

Batman Vs Superman's Greatest Failure: Bad Parenting

*SPOILERS*

I can't say that I was 'disappointed' with Batman Vs Superman because I really never expected it to be that good.  It was as humorless and lacking in any real fun as its predecessor Man of Steel. So, why doesn't it work?  What is at the heart of its failings? Is it Ben Affleck's Batman?  Not at all; as skeptical as I was when he was initially announced, I thought he did an admirable job and, all things considered, Affleck looks the part of Bruce Wayne more than just about anyone who has played him on the big screen.  Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman is also a definite highlight so that leaves only one culprit in this holy trinity of the superheroic: Superman.

However, I do not blame Henry Cavill's performance; no, the problem is much deeper than that. There is something inherently wrong with this Superman. If you want to do a film about a clash between the two greatest superheroes to ever put on tights, you have to have an inherent understanding about who those characters are.  When it comes to Superman, Snyder, Goyer and Co. are clueless. 

The first time we see the Man of Steel in the film, he recklessly charges in to a foreign country to save the life of Lois Lane, leading to an international incident (granted, some of this was a result of the machinations of Lex Luthor.... but still). This is a Superman who does what he wants with complete disregard for the consequences of his actions. He doesn't act in the interest of the greatest good, he doesn't even act in the interest of "the American Way" like the Superman of old--- he just rushes in to 'save the day', consequences be damned. Oh, and if it's someone he cares about (which, as far as I can tell, is limited to his adoptive mother and Lois Lane)who is in danger he will gladly trample over anyone or anything that stands in his way.  

So what happened? Why is this Man of Steel so selfish? Why isn't he able to separate himself from his own self-interest and work towards the greater good? 

The answer is quite simple: his adoptive parents are terrible, terrible people.

I grew up with the Christopher Reeve Superman. This Man of Steel was adopted by farmers of the greatest generation--- the people who survived the great depression and defeated Hitler---they knew a thing or two about the sacrifice necessary to make the world a better place.  As a result, this is a Superman who can never truly be with Lois Lane.  He could never dedicate himself to just one person because that would be denying the world of his extraordinary abilities--- he can't just focus on Lois, he has too much else he needs to do. 

In Superman II, Superman makes the choice to give up his powers so that he can be with Lois but, when General Zod and his cronies show up, he quickly makes the decision to regain his powers even though it means he can never be with Lois again.  He sacrifices his own happiness because he realizes the world needs him more.

He learned this from his parents.  They taught him not to abuse his power. In the original Superman, Pa Kent tells his son that he's "There for a reason [and that] it's not to score touchdowns".  Moments later, he suffers a heart attack and dies, teaching Clark two very important lessons: 1) don't waste your talents on selfish pursuits of glory and 2) not even Superman can save the people he loves all the time. 

Compare this to Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent from Man of Steel who, when asked by his adoptive super-son if he should just let people die rather than reveal himself, rather bluntly replies, "Maybe". Here, we have a father teaching his son to be selfish. He is worried about how the world might react to him so he teaches him to hide his power and act in his own self-interest.

This leads to this Pa Kent's own, rather stupid, death by tornado. So, rather than learning about the fragility of life and the inevitability of death, this Clark Kent carries on his conscience the death of a father he could have easily saved. 

However, Pa Kent isn't the only parental force in Superman's life.  We must not neglect Diane Lane's Ma Kent who, in Batman Vs Superman, advises him to, "be anything they need you to be.... or be none of it. You don't owe this world a thing. You never did." And there you have it: rather than teaching her son that "with great power comes great responsibility" (see what I did there) and a moral obligation to help those less powerful than yourself, she says that great power means you can do whatever the hell you want with it.She probably used to read to him from The Fountainhead at bedtime (this isn't all that surprising when you consider Zack Snyder's own admiration for Rand's work).

There is one crucial aspect of Superman that one needs to understand for the character to make any sense.  Why would a being this powerful even bother to help us? Why not conquer us and rule us as a god? The answer is simple: the Kents.  The Kents are supposed to teach him the value of compassion and altruism. Their very first act towards him is one of charity.  They had no obligation to take this poor, alien, space-baby into their homes.  They could have easily handed him over to the government. After all, who knows what kind of alien diseases he may have been carrying. But, they take him in: he cares for man because man cared for him first.  Remember, Superman was born in the era of the New Deal, in a time where, as a nation, we realized that we could only survive through combining our strength and agreeing that we are only strong when we are able to help the weakest among us. 

However, the Kents of Man of Steel/Batman Vs Superman are not the idealist of the greatest generation; they are jaded and suspicious about their world.  They are not the generation of FDR and the New Deal--- they are the children of Watergate and Vietnam.  That's right, this Ma and Pa Kent are Baby Boomers (after all Costner even made his uncredited film debut as the dead body in the opening of The Big Chill--- that most quintessential of Baby Boomer movies). If you think about it, it's a wonder they even bothered to save the poor infant from krypton in the first place!

So what kind of Superman does this get us?  Brooding, grim, egocentric, self-pitying--- probably spends a lot of time alone in his room listening to his favorite Stone Temple Pilots and Collective Soul CDs.  That's right: I give you the Superman of Generation X!