2016 Films: #16. Suicide Squad

August 13th in Chicago. In only 3 weeks since it's release on August 5th, Suicide Squad has grossed over $270 million domestically. The film has more than made back its production and marketing budget ($325 million combined) with a worldwide gross of $587 million. The funny thing is that the critics don't like the film but fans love it. Fans loved it so much, they wanted to shutdown Rotten Tomatoes because they felt so strongly that the site's critics reviews were wrong (they weren't).

I can see why critics hate this picture. It's bad. There is nothing original in this film. If you want to see a good film involving Task Force X, go see Batman: Assault on Arkham Asylum.

Don't worry. Suicide Squad steals a lot from this feature.

My good friends at  Cracked.com had this to say about the film but I think the redundant plot can be properly summed up here in a way that makes me wish I was this clever...

To be fair, there were strong performances. Viola Davis really nailed Amanda Waller and I liked Jared Leto's take on The Joker (a bit more subtle than Heath Ledger's portrayal). Will Smith is good as Deadshot but Margot Robbie's portrayal of Harley Quinn is something that's up in the air. Sometimes she's good and sometimes I'm left scratching my head. Which maybe is the reaction I should be having. There are some good scenes in this film, mostly flashbacks involving Batman. Overall the film seemed rushed, a recurring theme in the DCU. They used the same sets at Batman v. Superman and had a plot piece that seemed all to familiar...

I give you the swirling portal from Suicide Squad (2016).

Ghostbusters (1984).

Avengers (2012).

Thor: Dark World (2014). Sensing a screenwriting theme yet?

X-Men: Apacalypse (2016). To be fair it's really just swirling debris. But you get the idea.

As I've said earlier, I didn't like the film. It wasn't as awful as critic made it out to be but it did not warrant fan backlash against Rotten Tomatoes either. Others have voiced better opinions that mine but here's another for good measure. With the financial success of this picture, there will be others and there's still time to make this better. 

2016 Films: #15. Star Trek Beyond

July 28th in Fairfield, CA. I will just come out and say it. I did not care much for this film. The film received great scores on Rotten Tomatoes and I understand that this is now an action franchise (as noted by the choice of director, Justin Lin). We are not going to see the science fiction film with some action from the past. That's fine. The powers that be want to milk the franchise for all its worth. It's the Hollywood way. Put in as much action as possible for younger viewers then throw in some nostalgia to suck in the older fans of series past. This is the 3rd film since the 2009 reboot and each film has gotten steadily worse.

The thing is, I never got a feeling that Kirk and pals were ever in any danger of not getting the job done. Kirk and Spock do not have the same rapport in the reboot either. Their friendship was forced upon them and us. The convoluted plot deals with both Kirk and Spock contemplating leaving the Enterprise until a distress signal calls the Enterprise back into action with the standard, it's "the only ship in the quadrant" cliche. The distress signal turns out to be a trap, the Enterprise is destroyed and the crew marooned on an unknown planet. Despite being split up, they manage to come up with a plan that involves a motorcycle (because why wouldn't it), Scottie fixing stuff with no explanation, repairing a two hundred year old starship to escape the planet and a hot female alien.

When they first meet, Kirk looks her over and totally thinks about having sex with her Given.

Then of course there are the evil aliens led by Krall. They seem to have access to great technology that allows them to monitor Starfleet transmissions and supply exposition. Oh, the two hundred year old starship that the Enterprise crew escapes in, turns out it's the ship that brought Krall and the evil aliens to the planet. See, it's the USS Franklin that went missing somehow the crew survived and has been luring ships there in hopes of finding the missing piece to an ancient weapon that happens to be in Kirk's possession in the comedic opening scene. Spoiler, the evil aliens turned out to the the crew of the Franklin and they've been turned into lizards (no explanation) but stay youthful due to a device (never shown) that can suck the life out of people (never shown, no explanation). It turns out they're really pissed at the Federation for not rescuing them. This all leads to the final battle on board the new Starfleet space mall that Kirk manages to save from the biological weapon at the very last second. Given.

The film is fast paced but the story and plot definitely take a back seat to the action. Lin abandons the sci-fi aspect of the film to go straight into hand to hand combat (thankfully the universe has a universal knowledge of kung-fu) and motorcycle stunts. Simon Pegg and five other people are credited with writing this picture. That usually means that the studio put in a lot of input and there were potentially a few other uncredited writers. It's very possible that the film had a good script to being with but it kept getting changed. The film was released on July 22nd and has grossed over $146 million domestically and $86 million world wide against a $185 million budget through August 19th. Not bad numbers but certainly good enough for a sequel. Perhaps the next installment can improve.

2016 Films: #14. Race

July 27th on flight from Chicago to San Francisco. The real life of Jesse Owens is one of hard work, resilience, perseverance, fortitude, triumph and tragedy. Yet somehow this film seems to overlook a lot of that stuff. Look, I understand that to make a comprehensive film about Mr. Owens, it would have a runtime of 180 minutes (2013's 42 had a similar problem but focused on Jackie Robinson's first year in the major leagues). The picture is directed by Stephen Hopkins (who has a lot decent to mediocre films to his credit) and centers around Owens' time at Ohio State and the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Stephan James does a very nice job in his portrayal of Owens. But I never really bought into Jason Sudeikis as Owens' gruff track coach at OSU. To me he was the guy from Horrible Bosses. 

Then there's the fact that the film also puts focus on Avery Brundage (Jeremy Irons) and how he was able to negotiate the with the Nazis to include Black and Jewish athletes in the games. The film makes a valiant effort to give the viewer an account of what lead up to one of the greatest Olympic achievements of the 1st half of the 20th Century (Jim Thorpe being the other) but it falls short. Is it about Owens or about the Berlin games themselves? By trying to hit on all facets of the of the period (the hideous racism faced by Owens; Owens having to deal with whether or not to compete in the games; Owens getting a new pair of track shoes prior to competition; Owens having to pay his own way through college because scholarships weren't offered to blacks; the USOC debating about whether to boycott and the whole Brundage thing), the entire film was shortchanged.

Even the film's postscripts in the end fail to do Owens justice. It tells you that after decades of being unable to find work, Ohio State gave Owens a job as a janitor. A janitor. Actually it was much worse than that. Read about it. I did. This is the one thing I give the film credit for; it forced me to find out what really happened to Owens after the Olympics. It was terrible. The film received a 61% rating on Rotten Tomatoes which is mediocre. Not bad but not that good either. The film just doesn't do justice to the life of Jesse Owens. It should have been better.

2016 Films: #12. The Infiltrator

July 16th in Chicago.  Brad Furman directs this based on a true story picture about U.S. Customs agent Robert Mazur who went undercover to help bring down Pablo Escobar's drug money laundering operation. Bryan Cranston plays Mazur, a devoted family man and equally devoted to his job as an undercover agent (he gets offered retirement based on an injury stemming from a malfunction wire that burned him, he turns it down of course). Acting on some information from an informant, Mazurgoes undercover as a banker laundering drug money for the drug cartels.

Mazur struggles to keep his marriage together while being utterly dedicated to his job as he gets deeper and deeper into the organization, working his way to the top. He even brings his aunt (brilliantly played by Olympia Dukakis) in to cement the facade. Slowly they build their case an everything comes to a boil at his "wedding" (he's pretend engaged to another undercover agent) where law enforcement arrests everyone.

This is by no means a bad film but in terms of an "undercover cop" film it's not the best. It's mediocre to good. You're not missing anything by not seeing it. This bothers me because the source material (it's a true f*cking story!) is really interesting, its great cast but it's a "meh" film. This story is a perfect example of what law enforcement should do to money launderers in real life, PUT THEM ON TRIAL AND PUT PEOPLE IN PRISON!

Death Penalty might be too much but hard time in maximum security peniteniary would be a start.

Want to see a good film in this genre then see Donnie Brasco, The Departed or Internal Affairs. Those are much better films. This film actually follows the same premise as Donnie Brasco; undercover is obsessively dedicated, has moment where he has to "prove himself" to organization by committing a vile act in character, family life suffers, sympathy for a criminal who he's befriended and remorse for the arrest of said criminal when the sh*t goes down. I was never worried for Cranston's character. Now his partner Emir Abreu's (nicely portrayed by John Leguizamo) fate was in doubt but I wasn't given a chance at any emotional attachment to that character. Fine acting all around, decent pacing but the picture just didn't have it. There's a reason the film only received a 66% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It's good but nothing special.

2016 Films: #13 Road Games

Netflix rental on July 23rd. This British film saw it's US release in March of 2016. I had never heard of it (not that I was scoured the Spring releases all that thoroughly) and it seemed like a good choice for a Saturday night while my wife was attending a bachelorette party.

The picture takes place in the French countryside when we join Jack, a British citizen hitchhiking his way around, trying to get back to England. On the road he meets up with Veronique and the two decide to travel together. Since Veronique is a young, hot, sultry French chick, Jack pretty much falls for from the get go.

Exactly how she appeared just before the obligatory "let's go skinny dipping in the pond" scene.

Despite the fact there is a legend about the bodies of hitchhikers turning up in the area, the two forgo common sense and accept a ride from an eccentric gentleman, Grizard. Grizard suddenly decides that he can't go as far as they wanted but offers to put them up for th night at his home. Jack says sure but Veronique thinks its a bad idea. Once they see the guy's large home Jack reassures Veronique that things will be ok. They meet Grizard's wife Mary and have a nice dinner. Then things start to get weird.

Jack and Veronique feel that there's something "off" about the couple but still decide to spend the night. In the morning, Jack is informed that Veronique left during the night. Which is weird because Jack thought that Veronique had a thing for him. Jack goes after Veronique and winds up in the clutches of a sinister loner and things look grim. Jack manages to escape and makes it back to Grizard's where he rescuces Veronique. The young couple escape, survive a unsurvivable car wreck and have the final showdown in a field. Then there's a big reveal.

The film is written and directed by Abner Pastoll and has solid performances from Andrew Simpson (Jack),  Joséphine de La Baume (Veronique),  Frédéric Pierrot (Grizard) and Barbara Crampton (Mary). The picture is minimalistic and has some riveting moments (I didn't see the big reveal coming, nice job!). However, it takes a while for the tension to get ratcheted up and it didn't really get all that ratcheted up for me. Plus, once Jack and Veronique link up, you can see where the film is going. All in all this was a decent film for a Saturday night Netflix viewing. Definitely not awful but nothing fantastic either. It was a ice little thriller worth checking out if you're interested in this sort of thing.

2016 Films: #11. Nice Guys

June 23rd in Sheffield, OH. This picture received a 91% Rotten Tomatoes rating and has grossed $35 million against an $11 million budget to date. The film is directed by Shane Black who wrote the first two Lethal Weapon films and The Last Boy Scout. The fact that he wrote The Last Boy Scout is convenient here because The Nice Guys is pretty much a Last Boy Scout remake. Hear me out, Ryan Gossling is Holland March, an ex-cop turned down on his luck private eye. He's a widower and single father who's just a fun enough dad to keep from being a terrible parent (make no mistake, he's a terrible parent). March has a drinking problem and a teenage daughter who's way too mature for her age, copes with her mother's death better than her father and is crucial in helping solve the case.

In Last Boy Scout, Bruce Willis plays Joe Hallenbeck. A disgraced ex-secret service agent turned down on his luck private eye, who is divorced, drinks too much, has a teenage daughter who's way too mature for her age and is crucial in helping to solve the case. He's not a terrible parent because his ex-wife has custody (he ends up being framed for her murder) but he's a delinquent dad. The similarities are too close to overlook. Both films deal with government corruption (a crooked in senator in Last Boy Scout and a crooked Justice Department prosecutor in The Nice Guys) and have a sadistic weirdo henchmen...

Milo from The Last Boy Scout.

"Blueface" from The Nice Guys.

That still leaves Russell Crowe and Damon Wayans. Crowe plays Jackson Healy, a muscle for hire thug type with a good heart who strives to do better than intimidate people. Damon Wayans played Jimmy Alexander Dix, a disgraced ex-quarterback for the fictional LA Stallions. Different characters sure but they both have a good heart, help March/Hallenbeck get back to the good standing they once had. Each character is also a better parent to the daughters of March/Hallenbeck. The Healy/Dix characters also embody characteristics in the March/Hallenbeck characters. March and Dix are more or less goof balls capable of courage when the moment arises. Healy and Hallenbeck are both gruff tough guys who aren't opposed to hurting people. When Healy first meets March, he breaks his arm. Hallenbeck has a signature catch phrase before belting someone. To be honest, Healy is pretty much Bud White if Bud had broken up with Lynn Bracken (Kim Basinger reference) and moved back to LA. Also, both films are whimsical despite being very violent

The convoluted plot of The Nice Guys revolves around the death of a porn star and her film crew. It seems the porn star and her crew knew about the pollution the auto industry is trying to hide in their upcoming trial against the DOJ. March and Healy follow leads that requires them to crash a Boogie Nights type party, dodge bullets, get involved with crooked government officials and uncover a larger criminal enterprise. All in a days work.

The acting is good, the pace of the film is fine and the 70's fashion was fun but there's a lot of talent going through the motions here. The film is set in 1977 but there are several background continuity gaffes. In one scene there's a Jaws billboard, a film released in 1975. There is a shot of Holly's (March's 13 year old daughter) room showing an orgy of evidence that she's a teenager in the 1970's. One such piece of evidence is a London Calling poster. That particular album by The Clash was not released until 1979. That's just the stuff that I remember. A 91% rating is way too high. This is not Shane Black's best work. It's very derivative. If you haven't seen this yet, wait until it comes out on HBO or Redbox. Don't pay full price for a film that's been done before.

2016 Films: #10. X-Men: Apocalypse

June 16th in Johnson City, TN. This is the latest installment of the X-Men franchise after 2014's Days of Future Past essentially wiped the slate clean of all the content that took place in the X-Men films between 2000-2009 (that's three X-Men films and the the hideous X-Men Origins: Wolverine if you're keeping score at home) and the other sub-par Wolverine stand alone film that came out in 2013. Presently, the franchise canon is this film, the previously mentioned Days of Future Past and 2011's X-Men: First Class.

This film takes place in 1983, 10 years after the events in Days of Future Past. Professor X's School For Gifted Youngsters is thriving and old student Alex Summers brings his little brother Scott (spolier: it's Cyclops!) to the Professor when is mutation manifests. Magento has taken up a simple life as a factory worker in Poland, complete with wife and child (why he chose Poland, a Communist country that's not quite as bad as the Soviet Union but still oppressive is beyond me) despite the fact that he's been wanted by every law enforcement agency in the world for the last 10 years. In Egypt, a powerful mutant has awakened after several centuries of hibernation and he's discovered by plucky CIA agent Moira MacTaggert (who definitely has not aged 20 years!).

While Apocalypse makes his way to Europe and hooks up with Angel, Pslyocke and Storm, Magneto is discovered. When authorities attempt to take him in, his wife and daughter (who seemed a little older than 10) are tragically killed (the way they die is borderline ridiculous but I'll let it pass because the filmmakers didn't want to belabor the point), Magneto turns to the dark side and becomes Apocalypse's fourth horseman.

Cue ominous music.

Back at the X-Mansion, Scott takes a liking to star student Jean Grey and Raven shows up with Nightcrawler, Apocalypse and is crew show up at the mansion to kidnap Xavier (Apocalypse plans to use Professor X carry out his plan to tip the balance of power over to the mutants) and the ensuing battle, there's an explosion, Quicksilver arrives to save everyone, there's a tragic good guy death and Stryker shows up to capture the students left behind.

Jean, Scott and Kurt (Nightcrawler's real name) stow away on a helicopter to Alkali Lake, run into a soon to be named Wolverine (surprise!), who slaughters his way to freedom, and rescue everyone. While the X-Men are making their getaway, Apocalypse gets Magneto to mess with the Earth's magnetic field in order to cause a lot of destruction where several landmarks are destroyed. Again. This sets everything up for the big showdown in Egypt.

The big showdown goes to form; the bad guys have the good guys on the ropes, just when all seems lost, the good guys rally. Professor X also gets his signature "chrome dome" look during the final showdown as well. Mutants save the Earth again.

There's a reason this film received a 48% Rotten Tomatoes rating. It's not that good. In fact it's lousy. I was bored. The plot was redundant. Apocalypse is a blow hard who really just spouts Magento's rhetoric from the films that are no longer in the franchise canon. The plot and character development suffer for the sake of giving you mutants that weren't in the 1st series of films. Angel gets no development whatsoever. He's there because he was a horseman for Apocalypse in the comic books. Storm joins the X-Men in the end so she might get a backstory in the next film. I felt that Psylocke was wasted as a character. She had some cool powers and the character could've been expanded on but I felt that any showcase she got was because of her outfit (Olivia Munn doesn't act so much as she's just in action sequences).

It's a nice ensemble sure. But not very useful when fighting.

Everything that Nightcralwer did on screen was pretty much the same as what he did in X-Men 2. Nothing new from him. The scenes where Quicksilver uses his power are still exciting to watch but they're really just expanding the scene not giving us anything new or interesting (like the ham-handed way we get the information that Quicksilver is Magento's son). Plus the effects for his powers are probably expensive so his powers get limited screen time. That leaves us Jean Grey. Sophie Turner is beautiful, she plays Jean very well but it's pretty much the same Jean Grey as Famke Janssen but younger and her Phoenix powers manifest in one film instead of over two. You can also see where the next installment is going to go as well. More Jean Grey/Phoenix and more Wolverine. To be fair, I am not looking forward to the next installment.