Leonardo: Experience a Masterpiece - exhibition review

"Leonardo: Experience a Masterpiece" was an experimental exhibition at the National Gallery that ran in winter 2019/2020. Full details can be found here. 

It was centred around the Virgin of the Rocks. Reading that article, do I find it hilarious that the National Gallery exhibition said nothing about the Louvre version generally being regarded as the “more made by Leonardo” one? Of course I do. 

L took me following previous Leonardo-related adventures. 

The exhibition had four distinct parts. 

The first put the Virgin on the Rocks in context. Lots of stuff about the why and the background, interestingly presented in some mirrored cubes in multiple languages. 

The second, and least successful to my mind, was the “Studio” section, which I think was supposed to be about the how. The problem for me, was that it seemed to reflect mid-Victorian views on what an artist’s garret was supposed to be like, rather than a renaissance studio. I’ve always imagined Leonardo’s studio as a massive, bustling space full of students and materials, rather than the dark quiet empty space presented here (I have no idea if this is actually true, but still.) 

I really liked the third section, which was all about shadows and how they look. Like most people, I dabble in drawing, and I find shadows and a sense of depth to the objects I draw to be the most difficult thing (don’t worry, no terrible sketches will be shown). I found this section to be really good at showing (not telling) how light and objects interact. 

The final section was the painting itself. The curators did a very good job of keeping the crowds down here and letting the audience sit peacefully and enjoy looking at the painting. The CGI used to simulate the altarpiece the painting may originally have sat in was a little distracting, but once you’d got used to the rotation of potential altar pieces, it was also quite soothing. 

Overall, I’d say it was an interesting experiment in setting an exhibition around a single painting, but with some flaws.

Book Review - The Periodic Table: A Field Guide to the Elements by Gail Dixon and Paul Parsons

 The only reason this isn't 5 stars is entirely a me-problem, and I'm trying to be reasonable.

I wanted more science to go along with the pictures.  A couple of elements had two pages of text and I think I would have liked more elements to have got that.

The pictures are amazing and I really like the inclusion of the crystal structure space for each of the solid elements.

LibraryThing Suggestions

1 - Periodic Tales: A Cultural History of the Elements, from Arsenic to Zinc by Hugh Aldersey-Williams

2 - Science in Seconds: 200 Key Concepts Explained in an Instant (Knowledge in a Flash) by Hazel Muir

3 - Uncle Tungsten: Memories of a Chemical Boyhood by Oliver Sacks

4 - The Elements: A Visual Exploration of Every Known Atom in the Universe by Theodore W. Gray

5 - Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe by Simon Singh

6 - The Disappearing Spoon: And Other True Tales of Madness, Love, and the History of the World from the Periodic Table of the Elements by Sam Kean

7 - The Planets by Brian Cox

8 - Seven Elements that Changed the World: An Adventure of Ingenuity and Discovery by John Browne

9 - Stars and Planets by Jay M. Pasachoff

10 - The Secret Life of the Periodic Table by Ben Still

Not read any of them, but I want to.

Film review - Gemini Man

A mid-level spy film, an interesting sci-fi film and a mediocre action film had a baby.

As did Superman and Lex Luthor.

No, really.

It's a frustrating film because it comes so close to being better but it's also solid for what it is.

You have the conflicted agent working against a conspiracy - and Will Smith can do that easily (and does).

You've got the international espionage angle - it works.

You've got the everyday setting film that turns out to be sci fi and I like that style of sci fi.

I'm going to go through the three films that don't quite mesh together in increasing order of goodness.

Let's begin with the action film part, which is the bit that doesn't really work. I can understand a director choosing this film to try new technology, and unlike say, Cats, where you're there going 'why are you using tech that isn't quite there yet for an adaptation of this beloved piece from another medium?', this at least uses the tech that isn't quite there yet for an original story so the high frame rate not quite working doesn't ruin anything.

Why am I putting the technical detail in the action film section? Because it was in the action scenes where I noticed it. If I notice you are doing something technically different, my escape into the film is damaged.

I understand that, for the film to work (and probably to get the budget to make it), it needed action scenes. But they don't work and there's too much time spent on them, which means that some of the quieter character scenes that the film needs either aren't there, or are too short.

The middling spy film - it does what a lot of Hollywood films do. Get a bunch of British actors to play morally grey. They're cheap and they can do American accents. I'm fine with this, it gives Benedict Wong and Ralph Brown money. All good.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is stuck with the most obvious "oh hell, we haven't got a single woman in this film, stick one in" role I have seen for some time. She does very well in a horribly under-written role. I am not exaggerating about how obviously Zakarewski was added in to give the film a female character. There's one scene where she's being searched for bugs, and the way it is shot is totally just an excuse to get Mary Elizabeth Winstead in her underwear. It would have been filmed completely differently if the character had been male and it's so frustrating. I had hoped we'd moved beyond that.

There's travel and subterfuge in Budapest and you know what, it's middling.

The science fiction bit is the bit that works the best. I think it is, at least in part, because they don't try and explain the how, and just go with the why. Clive Owen is very good in his short screen time, because you can understand a younger Verris meeting Henry Brogan for the first time and seeing his belief that you can bend someone to being a superman by how you bring them up supported by evidence, and how he moved from that to cloning and every idea he's had since. (It's very Lex Luthor and Superman and Superboy/Kon-El)

And of course it ends up in child soldiers, because children are more malleable and aren't as aware of right and wrong, and isn't interesting the Verris starts to turn against Junior when he becomes old enough to develop his own set of ideals.

Junior is why the film has to use the fancy special effects and Will Smith is an excellent choice because the animators have lots of footage of a younger him to help mould how Junior looks. Will Smith is an excellent choice anyway because he sells Junior as well as Henry Brogan - he plays them differently enough that you could probably pick them apart even without the special effects. And the scene where he talks about his father!!! (Plus, as I said, the way it's obviously that story that made Verris choose him as the DNA donor for Junior.)

When the film does slow down for the emotional scenes, it works well. I almost want Ang Lee to have the chance to re-do it and pace it more like the original Day of the Jackal. Or make it a mini-series. There's so much potential in this that they can't get into because of time constraints.

It's not a good film, don't get me wrong, the bits don't fit together and its under-written, but there's potential there.

Film Review - Big Trouble in Little China

 Spoilers below

Another Mockingbird Cinema (https://mockingbirdcinema.com/MockingbirdCinema.dll/Home) special.

I went with D. When we go to the cinema, we aim for silly films. Big Trouble in Little China definitely brings that.

It's dashed hard to write about because it's such a delightful confection. You don't want to press too hard in case it breaks the spell. While I understand people who go "you can't want films to make sense and love Big Trouble in Little China" but within itself, it's consistent and makes sense. That's all I ask for.

'Big Trouble in Little China' also does something clever, with a lead character who is so totally not the hero. It's not that Jack Burton doesn't try, or isn't brave, but that man is not the hero. (By the by, Wang Chi is a most excellent fiancé and were I to be kidnapped by ancient incorporeal wizards, I would like to be rescued by him)

A lot of films would tweak that start to make Jack Burton be the big damn hero at the end, but this doesn't. One knife throw aside, he spends the end fight unable to help.

He's also an excellent character to explain the plot to because he's an outsider so there's very little "as you know, Bob" going on, because Jack knows Jack.

It's a little gem of a film and I recommend seeing it if you get the chance.

Film Review - Ad Astra

This film was so bad that I have made a new graphic for it.  

This is going to be reserved for the real clunkers. I have 61 film reviews to write up, including this one and only 3 of them deserve this figure, and one of those is an edge case. 

Ad Astra was terrible. 

Bad science, bad plot, bad logic. 

Although I will say it had good set design. 

What annoyed me about it so much? 

It was the laziness. 

I'm a bad sci-fi fan. I do not expect diamond-level hardness in my sci-fi films. I am happy to accept internally cohesive over scientifically accurate. But, if you're going to have one of your characters be a deep space explorer charting new planets out in the Kuiper belt don't have three pictures of "new space objects" be the same picture of Europa turned 90 degrees and coloured in differently. 

Particularly not if you say things like "what I’m trying to do is the most realistic depiction of space travel that’s been put in a movie and to basically say, ‘Space is awfully hostile to us.’ It’s kind of a Heart of Darkness story about traveling to the outer edge of our solar system." during the press tour. (https://collider.com/james-gray-brad-pitt-ad-astra-filming/) 

You really don't get to say that if you have scenes that only work if there is no convection of heat from rocket engines. 

It's not just Europa, and basic physics, it's every little detail of the film. For instance, the faked geography of the opening shot. "Whilst watching Ad Astra, instantly recognised two lakes as Brad Pitt was looking down to Earth. Qinghai Lake and Lake Urmia. Obviously they are no where close to each other, one is in China, the other in Iran." (quoted with permission from here - https://x.com/x4rius/status/1248252953074360320). 

In the director's defence, he does achieve the whole "Heart of Darkness" theme he was aiming for, although his is more the isolation of space drives you mad rather than colonialism will destroy us all.

The vibe I got was more Odysseus in the "everyone he meets dies" way but I think we have to accept my brain was warped at an early age. 

The problem is that it was sold as 'interesting sci-fi philosophical film', but it is in fact, "man-pain the movie: this time we're in space". Which would be hard to sit through anyway, but the lead character is deliberately emotionless as his major characteristic and he's the only character with any major screen time ... this film is dull and unengaging as well as having all those technical flaws. 

Gah!  The whole thing is a mess and is a waste of two hours of your life.

Film Review - Blinded by the Light

The year it came out, I named "Blinded By The Light" my favourite film of the year. I stand by that. 

I have no idea if it's a good film mind you, because it just blows past good, straight past all my critical faculties. 

It captures that teenage feeling of no-one understanding you except your band, in all its melodramatic glory. I mean it, that windswept scene, who hasn't felt precisely that? 

Maybe that's why I love the film - the way it reflects so many of my experiences. Not just "my favourite band are the only people who understand me", but the town in economic distress ('Luton is a Four-Letter Word' indeed), the friend you shared your music with, Leicester being the escape from your rundown town, so much of it. 

That's before we get to Roop looking so much like A who was my mate who shared his music with me. (No, seriously, that was uncanny, and means I get guilt for not keeping in better touch with A every time I think of the film.) 

The whole thing is filled with so much love, from Javed on down. Everyone is trying to get tomorrow and helpd each other as best they can (except Eliza's parents and the National Front, and fuck the National Front). 

The love is everywhere - find me a scene more filled with love than the one where Javed's Mum dyes Javed's Dad's hair. 

It would have been so easy to make Javed's Dad the boo-hiss disapproving Dad of legend, but he's not. He disapproves, yes, and he doesn't understand, but he's trying so hard and it's clear throughout that he loves his son. Even if he's terrible at showing it. 

The other thing I really like is that Javed is not over-idealised. As it's based on an autographical book, it must have been so tempting to make Javed super-sympathetic and always right, but he isn't. He gets to be mean, thoughtless and selfish at times. He's a teenager and feels like it. I also like that, unlike a lot of other Bildungsroman-type films, Javed grows through his own experiences and not the suffering of others. 

In short, I loved it.

Film Review - Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw

Spoilers throughout, along with guest commentary from L (in purple).

This film does not hang together well.

If that's a problem for you; this is not the film for you.

This said, if you came into a film co-billing Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson & Jason "The Stath" Statham, and were really needing a film that hangs together well…you have unreasonable expectations, and need to have a word with yourself.

No, run along and have a word with yourself; the rest of us have other business to which to attend.

Whether by accident or design, it feels like an otherwise unrelated film, a buddy cop film along the lines of Tango and Cash was shoehorned into a Fast & Furious shape.

Add to this the first half an hour or so where we have two unpleasant characters being unpleasant to each other and generally acting like they've got testosterone poisoning and you've got a film that quite quickly teeters over onto the "no" side of the "yes/no" pile.

Sudden unexpected Ryan Reynolds does not help its standing.

It does settle down after the first half hour and becomes watchable if your pleasures are CGI action adventure-y.

There are some nice character touches. Vanessa Kirby and Helen Mirren are their usual excellent selves, and Eddie Marsan's not-so-evil scientist going HAM with a flamethrower stirs something deep in my soul, but the film's basically a waste of Idris Elba which is a terrible shame.

Come to think of it, when was the last time Idiris Elba wasn't wasted? Thor 3? Maybe?

Having read up on the film to write this, I have discovered that the film was David Leitch-directed goodness which explains why the fight scenes are so good.

The stunt people earned their money, there's a motorbike stunt towards the start in particular that is just *chef's kiss*.

The continuity department did not earn their money. I'm not just talking about the part of the film where the characters are said to be landing in one country but the on-screen sign is for a city in another country, but also mid-scene watch switches that are so obvious even little old me, infamously oblivious to that sort of thing, notices.

There's lot of little moments that destroy believability, not least that Hobbs & Shaw takes place in a post-apocalyptic hellscape of augmented super soldiers, nanoviruses, and Samoa apparently never having discovered rugby.

One of these things is more unbelievable than the others, and it's not the super soldiers.

Now probably part of that is that none of the film was filmed in Samoa, it was filmed in Hawaii. While I am aware that the concept of Samoan brotherhood espoused by the film's characters is about people not places, and the large Samoan diaspora in Hawaii, if you're going to have characters spend so much time talking about the glory of Samoa, at least help their economy out by filming there.

Overall, the bits that don't work are the bits that connect it to Fast and Furious, which I think strengthens my feeling that it was based on an unrelated script and they've just smooshed it in.

The main problem is [Jason Statham's character's name] Deckard Shaw He gets a name when he stops basically being Jason Statham. I will never forgive him for killing Han, and I don't care how they have since retconned that. At the time, he was still responsible and it remains unforgivable.

If you like mindless explosions, it's not bad, but even in that genre, it's at best mid-range.

If you want to watch The Rock, watch "The Rundown/Welcome to the Jungle"; if you want to watch Jason Statham, watch "Hummingbird" (which proves he can act if he's bothered to).

In neither of those films are we subjected to a hellscape where Samoa doesn't have rugby.

Book Review - The Puffin Book of Funny Stories

The LibraryThing entry says by Helen Cresswell, but it's more collected by her and with introductions by her (and one of the bits is excerpted from one of her books).

I strongly suspect I got this when I was still in primary school.

The book is a bunch of funny excerpts from funny books some of which were aimed at children.

Reading it back now, I am fonder of some of the stories than I was and the collection will always have a special place in my heart for introducing me to Three Men In A Boat.  The book used The Cheeses, which makes sense because it's one of the funnier free-standing bits and of the other options both The Packing of the Luggage and Uncle Podger are probably funnier with more life experience.

The book may also have been my introduction to Adrian Mole and one day I will get round to reading Witch Week.

No LibraryThing recommendations, because I don't think enough people have reviewed it.

John Wick: Parabellum nearly got me punched in the face

There is a scary gif later on. I promise you it is vital for the story. 

I had missed the first John Wick film for some unknown reason, probably fencing. And the second came out during what we will refer to as the unfortunate Newcastle time. 

So I hadn't seen either John Wick film. This surprised L, who thought it would be precisely the sort of violent baroque nonsense that would appeal to me. 

I suspected it would be, certainly Chad Stahelski and Jonathan Eusebio (and Jon Valera) is a combo that creates fight scene joy, and I was going to go along anyhow. 

However, apparently, I didn't look suitably enthused so L played his trump card - Mark Dacascos. Now L knew I was a big fan of Mark Dacascos, and he correctly suspected that I hadn't heard he was going to be in John Wick 3. 

Unfortunately, L had somewhat underestimated my reaction. Imagine you are happily sitting on a sofa, telling your friend something you think will make her happy and you get this reaction (this was his actual description of events):

 

via GIPHY

You too would nearly swing for the person golluming at you. 

In my defence, I was surprised, it's an actor who I really like in action film that had the promise of being glorious baroque violent nonsense and I am an enthusiastic person. 

Somehow, I avoided getting punched. 

The film itself was enjoyable nonsense. It's very much an excuse of a plot used to string together a series of cool fight scenes and some cool character bits. But it's best not to think about the plot too much, or indeed at all, because it makes no sense if you spend more than 3 seconds thinking about it. For instance, the entire Halle Berry bit, nothing but an exceptionally fine piece of nonsense diversion (with remarkably immortal dogs). On the other hand, it does cause Said Tamaghouni to appear on my screen so I shan't complain too much (why, oh why, is he not in all the things?) 

The whole thing was stuffed with solid actors (to the point where every second scene caused a moment of "oh, it's thingy") and let them get on with it. It turns out, if you give good actors space to do their thing, they will add to what would otherwise be a very flat story. 

Other things that helped with that is the set design and cinematography. This world is believable as a shadowy underworld running alongside our own, with its own ridiculous rules, and dark and miserable and rainy, and light merely deepening the shadows. 

 I loved so much of it; 

the King of the Bowery (and yes, I plan on making the pigeon speech into a cross-stitch sampler), 

Ian McShane doing charming and sinister as he does so well (Ian McShane makes everything better),

Lance Reddick,

the Adjudicator and the sheer power and lack of fear (the Pax Romana lives),

unexpected Yayan Ruhian,

watching a film that understood how much I wanted to see several of these actors in anything ...

And Mark Dacascos being sinister and odd and weird even for an assassin and just ... 

I was filled with glee pretty much throughout. It's a spun sugar web of nothing but style that seems to have been made for me. 

That is where my review ends, the rest is spoilery comments about the ending - because yeah, no way was Winston aiming to kill John Wick. If Winston wanted him dead, he would have been dead. And I think the Adjudicator knows it. I think Winston is using him as part of a power grab against the High Table, but then we're back with the important statement - Ian McShane makes everything better and I want him to lurk sinisterly and avoiding Wickian vengeance for at least two more films.

Exhibition review - Leonardo da Vinci: A Life in Drawing

The exhibition ran from May to October 2019, and you can find the exhibition blurb here. (I recommend the website, it’s very in-depth.) 

I want to start by saying we didn’t arrive late: we were exactly on time to be there with 5-10 minutes to spare. What we didn’t take into account (because we didn’t know it was happening), was that the course for the Virgin London 10 K would prevent us from crossing from Green Park to Buckingham Palace. 

[Cue a 15 minute dash around Buckingham Palace to get to the exhibition in time.] 

Mostly, other than a sore ankle (the sloth is my heraldic device for a reason), my take-away from this was how tiny Buckingham Place is (relatively). 

Not so much the building itself, Schönbrunn is probably no bigger, but the grounds. I can’t think of another palace where you could circle round the whole thing, gardens and all, in less than 15 minutes, at a fast walking pace. 

So, after that, the security checks and your brave protagonist finding out that they'd got their top on back-to-front, we arrived at the exhibition. 

Now I’d seen some of the highlights while I was in Newcastle, and I have to say, I think the layout of the Newcastle exhibition was easier to follow. They made a virtue of having less, and focussed on da Vinci’s techniques and materials, and how he used them to create the effects he was aiming for. 

The Buckingham Palace exhibition didn’t seem to know whether it wanted to be organised chronologically, or thematically; and went with a mixture of the two, a mostly chronological layout with blobs of theme, which didn’t quite work. 

You’d be reading along going “okay, this followed that, because he fell out with yet another patron” when suddenly there’d be some work from 10 years and two patrons before. I think a thematic layout would have worked better. 

The works themselves were exceptional - the detail, and the way the drawings and sketches demonstrate the work that went into the greatness of his larger works and his plans for works that didn’t quite come off (the bronze horse for instance, sadly I can’t find a link to the studies for the engineering required for something that idiotically big). 

My favourite pieces were either the maps, the plants or the cat sketches. 

After that, a trip to Brazilian barbeque, to finish off an excellent day.

Avengers: Endgame

Review is spoiler-ridden (complete with a small spoiler for Dark Knight Rises).  And also high-pitched and squeaky in parts.

Friend C didn't like Infinity War, but she admitted that might have been because she felt there wasn't enough Steve Rogers.  Similarly, I'm not sure how much of my ambivalence to Endgame is because I didn't like what they did with Thor who is my favourite.

In my Infinity War review, I said that Thor was running on fumes and I hoped someone would be there to catch him when he fell.  And there wasn't, and there was much to like about how they handled it:

1) that it wasn't that Korg et al. weren't trying, it was that they just weren't capable of providing the support Thor needed, 

2) that scene where Thor snaps and chops Thanos's head off even though he knows it will accomplish nothing, because he is beyond doing anything but that

3) the scene with Frigga, because of course he's worried that he's not worthy anymore, and of course she realises that something terrible has happened, probably to her, and immediately stops him from telling her what happened and then he has to let her go to her death despite knowing that it's going to happen and !!!

So what am I not happy about with regard to Thor?  Mostly the idea that someone who is over-eating to cope with what appears to be a major case of depression (because the thing we know to be his literal worst nightmare [thank you Age of Ultron] has happened to him) is a figure of fun because "hur hur he fat now".  In defence of how they handled it, at least one person at work thought I was being too harsh on them and they weren't treating him as a figure of fun.

Secondly, how they handled his fat.  "OMG, Thor is so out of shape now, he looks like ... people who play rugby at international level".  I mean, he's solid, but his "out of shape"/fat-suit is better than most of us will look at any point.  Are they trying to give people complexes?

I think that the thing I really don't like is that the arc of Thor's story in his films is "that with great power comes great responsibility" and this film ends with him rejecting his responsibilities, and yes, it probably is the after-effects of everything, and would be justifiable, but after 3 films of character growth going one way, it feels like a huge step back.  (I know, I know, in Taika we trust.)

All that being said, the film still made me cry, for reasons I will go into later, so it still got to me.

The plot was very much an excuse plot, in the traditional style, but they did a good job of giving everyone something to do, especially if you consider the two films as one unit.

Because there's so much going on, a few people are going to get some short shrift in this review.  For instance, Hulk (where they seem to have solved the 'Bruce doesn't want to Hulk out but the audience is waiting for it' problem), and Rhodey, which upsets me because Rhodey never gets enough love.  Also Nebula, who is the unwitting cause of disaster, in a way that plays into how we first saw her and all the other terrible things Thanos has done.  (Thanos isn't getting much either but listen, my Infinity War review was mostly raving about Thanos and Josh Brolin so ...  Although he is very good in the scene at the start where Thanos doesn't care if he lives or dies because he's already won.).

With those apologies out of the way, let me start with the parts of the film I will spend too many words on.

1 - Hawkeye and Black Widow (or, in short, keyboard smash, the superhero film).  I mean, I'm absolutely convinced that Nat knew where he was all along and spent half her time making sure he was a step and a half ahead of Rhodey, because she feels she owes him for trusting her.  Then the moment they come up with a possible way of going back, Hawkeye is the first to volunteer, then he sees the kids and you're like "no, don't talk to them, don't touch them, you will break the space time continuum, and ruin your chances at happiness forever."  And then he gets time-snapped back just before he can, and it's worse, somehow it's worse.  

And then they get sent to Vormir.  And it's horrible.  Whoever would have got sent there, it would be horrible.  But with some of the others you could at least go "fine."  Thor, the position he's in, fine.  Cap - fine.  Iron Man - fine.  But not these two.  Not when the thing that has to happen to get the soul stone has to happen and they're best friends and no!

Can I reiterate that I was at "no!" the minute I realised they had been sent to Vormir.

And I did not retreat from "no!" at any point. 

It was done perfectly.  Every bit from the moment they realised that for this plan to work, one of them needed to die onwards.  The fact that both their first thoughts were not "how do I save myself", but "how do I make sure it's me that ends up at the bottom of the rock".  That they both tried to lie to the other one about that being their main thought to try to prevent the other one from being guilty and that neither of them convinced the other one for even a nano-second.

The fight, and the way it called back to Avengers Assemble, and the utter trust between them because they were fighting damn hard to make the other one be the one to survive and then that moment where Nat said, "let me make this choice" (or thereabouts).  She is a most-excellent godparent (I also have the problem that I was brought up to believe that in that situation, that's what the godparent is supposed to do, and I discovered that ... I have been socialised differently to other people).

And oh, Nat and Hawkeye and !!!!

2 - Steve Rogers - okay, so the thing I find really interesting about Steve Rogers in the film actually has very little to do with Steve Rogers, but I am fascinated by the response to his choice, and how similar it is to the reaction people had to Bruce Wayne's choice at the end of Dark Knight Rises.  The films are getting to the question of "how much can we expect from our heroes?", and where is the line between "with great power comes great responsibility" and a hero's right to some kind of life outside superheroism.  Then there's this interesting disconnect between an online generation who are supposed to be all "look after yourself, self-care is important," but not extending that to this sort of character, and obviously, this is fiction, but ooh, that's interesting to me.

Plus, it's not like he and Peggy hiding in backrooms and knitting in the altered past.  (I was reasonably sure that the film itself hinted at a lack of hiding, and I think Black Widow confirmed it.)  [Insert rant about audiences having no whatever-the-film-equivalent-of-reading-comprehension-is]

Cap was also involved in one of the scenes that made it clear that Marvel have written themselves some very nice loopholes if they need to reset, which is sensible.

I think he told Bucky what he was up to before he left, there is no other way of reading that scene.

3 - Gamorra - Talking about Vormir *and* giving themselves loopholes.  On the other hand, ack, a Gamorra who hasn't had a chance to become the Gamorra we know and love having to cope with that crew who, you know, love her and miss her and will, accidentally because they are morons, remind her that she is not the Gamorra they know and love at least 3 times a day.  In between her and the adventures of Drax and a recovering Pirate Angel Baby I am looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy 3.

4 - Doctor Strange - okay so I have to admit I was mean about Benedict Cumberbatch's American accent as Doctor Strange, coming as it does via Cornwall.  I shouldn't have been, because while the accent still has its Truro moments, he nailed the rest of it.  Because there's this moment when you realise the reason why he was running through so many versions of time to find the least worst one in Infinity War wasn't to find one where they all lived but to find one where Thanos was defeated and the least of them died.  And it makes sense, *for him as a character* and builds on his film, because Strange really is no kill in that, even against villain's minion number 3.  (Also, it was interesting that all of the sorcerers only use magic for shields and general defence when they get spirited back at the end).

Which all leads to *that* moment where Doc Strange looks at Tony and Tony looks at him and they both know that this is the least worst way, and Tony knows that Doc Strange would not have suggested it had there been any other way, and Doc Strange also knows that Tony would rather be the dead one rather than Peter.  I'm wondering if that's the unspoken agreement, had the "remains dead" person been Thor, for instance, I'm not sure Tony would have agreed, and I'm not sure that that Doc Strange would have asked.  I think there is something about Peter's youth, and civillian status.

Of course, that all leads me to person 5 - Iron Man.  I have my usual reservations, mostly that they keep telling rather than showing how great Tony Stark is.  Like the bit with "oh, he's so brave risking his future with his wife and daughter," somehow missing that Scott Lang is willing to risk it too and he has a lovely daughter also.  Or, "he's so clever," when he's building on stuff that Hank Pym, Janet van Dyne and Bruce Banner have done.

It makes sense that it's him though, because he's the one that we started the journey with.

It wasn't actually Tony's death that made me cry, because, let's be honest, the way Tony Stark is, his story was never going to end any other way.

No, the bits that got me were that scene where all our heroes are arrayed and all the villains are arrayed on the other side, and there is a blasted plain and ... I read that comic.  Not that exact comic no, but how many of the comics I grew up with had that as their end fight.  I was keeping it together until T-Challa stepped through one of the sorcerers's portals and then I was gone.  Because the Avengers assembled and the Earth is defended and I am hopeless.

Then I tidied myself up until Happy asked Morgan what she wanted and she said a burger.  And oh Morgan, you have a superhero by your side in Happy, one of the best, superpowers be damned.

Separately, because, as much this wave of films had to finish with Iron Man, because we started with him, none of this would have been possible if the first Iron Man film hadn't been so good.  It might be hard to believe but no one believed that these films would ever grow into the all-devouring mega-phenomenon they have become.  So thanks, Jon Favreau, on behalf of me now, me a couple of years ago when I really did need the escapism, and 13 year old me who would have been bowled over to see her comics on the big screen.

Book review: The Universe Inside You by Brian Clegg

The author states that his aim is not to give all the information about any one area but instead to give an overview of interesting facts from many areas. He succeeds in this - while I was reading it, I would tell my Mum some of the fun facts when she rang me. So I feel a little churlish saying I almost wish the author had included fewer things so he could spend more time on less so there would be less bouncing about between topics. Less bouncing about might also make the book read more smoothly, and might have ironed out a couple of peculiarities, for instance, on one page there is a truly terrible description of enzymes, what they are and how they work, and then, not more than two pages later, there's a perfectly good and workable description of the same thing.

The book is a fun race through some interesting science, but I am left with a feeling that less would have been more.

Out of Blue

I'm going to start at the end.

When I came back from watching "Out of Blue" at the cinema I looked it up on Wikipedia, and found out that it's based on a book (Night Train by Martin Amis), and that book is a parody. Which makes the film make so much more sense. Unfortunately, the film lacked that reflexive self-aware quality of good parody. There's a beautiful quote from the Torygraph that I think sums the film up perfectly - "This New Orleans-set detective thriller from Carol Morley pulls off an undesirable yet weirdly impressive coup: the twist ending to its murder mystery is somehow simultaneously preposterous and obvious, like a clown car parping and swerving its way towards you from the far end of an airstrip."

That statement is true of everything that happens in the film. You think, oh, they're using this tired trope in this really unsubtle way to subvert it. And then they don't. It's not just one tired trope, it's all of them. In sequence. In obvious sequence.

It wouldn't be so bad, I mean basic thrillers are ten-a-penny, yeah, they're not good, but they're not bothersome either, they're Sunday-afternoon-plans-have-washed-out films. But this film keeps putting on these airs and graces, all "I am a serious film, making serious statements. I AM ART!" when it's really not. It tries to be clever and turns out dumb. Also the physics is terrible. But I suspect that's deliberate, because the physics they use is all trope-y and we're back to "tired trope played straight."

It's a waste of some lovely cinematography and a good soundtrack. And some solid performances. Patricia Clarkson as Mike Hoolihan gives enough mystery and enigmatic to be engaging despite being all but one of the hard-bitten female detective clichés. Toby Jones is Toby Jones so you know he's good. Aaron Tveit's Detective Silvero does a good job of sleazy and sinister ... like every other male character. Basically, the female characters suffer and the men are sleazy and sinister. It's very thin that way.

It's one of those rare films I'd actually disrecommend.

How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World

Last year I went to watch this with colleague I.  Colleague I wanted to watch it because it looked cute, and her cat looks very similar to Toothless, and I am very easy to convince to go see a film.

I am so glad I went.

How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World is a little gem.

We get to meet old friends (Hiccup, Astrid and the gang, Toothless, Gobber) and see that they're still doing well.  And they're still warm, loving and ridiculous and everything we love about them, especially Toothless and Ruffnut.

Then there was Grimmel.  Oh he's a fantastic villain, mean, cruel and evil, but with a plan, and the will to carry it out.

The effects for the hidden dragon world are fantastic.  I don't know if it was filmed for 3D, I suspect it might have been, but it still looked amazing in 2D.

I enjoyed the fact that they whole-heartedly tell their story with such vim and vigour.

Definitely recommended.

Klimt/Schiele

In February 2019, L took me to see the Klimt/Schiele exhibition as a birthday treat (because he is the best). Like all Royal Academy exhibitions, it was well set up and informative.

I enjoyed finding out why Klimt's pictures have always reminded me of sculptures (and that there's a word for that), and I found the preparatory sketches for his work interesting because of how he structured them, and being able to see how his training in applied arts affected his works.

However, there was this feeling that this was a Schiele exhibition with some Klimt pictures added: one almost wondered if the curator had a burning desire to put on a Schiele exhibition, but had been told the only way they'd get their exhibition was if they used Klimt's name to bring in the crowds.

I understand, I too think Schiele > Klimt, but it does mean that one of the headliners feels like an after-thought.

It also has other effects.

This was the first exhibition I'd ever visited that had a content warning. About mid-way through, I did wonder why: fine, there's been a few naked women, but it's an art exhibition, when aren't there naked women? There were even the occasional naked men. They were mostly self-portraits, or as L's ditty went:
If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands,
If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands,
If you're happy and they know it,and you really want to show it;
if your name is Egon Schiele, put it away…

However, nothing that I thought required a warning.

The next room featured pornography by the artists. Even Klimt's lady reclining flicking the bean isn't vulgar. She's rather darling and delicate in fact, in an architectonic sort-of-way (told you I'd learnt a new word), but you know, not requiring a warning.

The pictures did lead to one small child asking her father, "Daddy, what's that?". I think the child was faced with the Schiele that's a naked woman in green skirts minus the top half of her body, so it’s an understandable question. Normally though, they don't give warnings just to prevent fathers from having to splutter explanations.

Then I turned a corner and saw why they'd put up a warning.

Now, I am not easily shocked, I walked up some stairs and came face to ... face with The Origin of the World without warning and didn't blink (I am of the faction that says it's too clinical to be obscene).

The Schiele "behold the child prostitute" picture *does* deserve a warning. Part of that is a testament of Schiele's skill. He makes graphite and gouache come alive, vividly and vulnerably. The other part is the way he makes the viewer look at her the way the artist looked at her, and the artist had nothing like good intentions. It's both spectacular and creepy.

This isn't me assuming something about the artist from what he painted, I know about Schiele. This leads to the other effects of the exhibition’s focus on Schiele. This is not my first Schiele exhibition, but it was the first that ever tried to explain away the Neulengbach incident as 'locals not recognising artistic genius'.

I don't know if it's because there's been a cultural shift since the last time I went to a Schiele exhibition, but every other exhibition has been "horrible man, brilliant artist", and maybe you can't get away with being glib like that anymore, but I don't think trying to hide his horribleness is any better.

It was still an excellent exhibition, and I will be buying the exhibition book, but it was an odd line to take, especially in a post-#MeToo world when we're supposed to have stopped brushing things like this under the carpet.

Thor: Ragnarok

I can see why some people thought it was too broad.  Because it probably was, a smidge.

I don’t quite get why people thought it was so wow, but it was fun.  Which is something which should never be underestimated or undervalued.

Spoilers begin underneath

I would probably have restructured it slightly, with less time on planet weird so that Skurge got more screentime for his last stand.

Karl Urban is great in the time he does get.  Because he makes it quite clear that Skurge is a loser, rather than evil, and that he's in over his head.  Without any dialogue. This use of Skurge also fits in with the overall theme of the Thor films - we all make mistakes, the important thing is to try to fix them, rather than pretend you didn't make them (or you know, bury them and paint over them with a giant mural).

Thematic consistency, I like it.

The new stuff also makes sense of things from the first film, like why Odin flipped out when he thought Thor was being too blasé about war with the Frost Giants. To have one child go kill crazy is unfortunate, to have two smacks of carelessness.

I love that Thor has learnt enough to push Loki’s buttons back.  That scene in the elevator is some of the best work Hiddleston has done as Loki, because he conveys how worried Loki is that this is it and Thor has finally had enough of him and it upsets him.

That's the thing.  Loki would do anything for Thor if Thor made it clear how much he loves him, while Thor just doesn't get it because of course he loves his little brother. Even if they occasionally stab each other.

I know it was deliberate, but I didn’t like how every serious scene was immediately undercut with a silly bit.

I would also have saved “Immigrant Song” for the last fight only.

~~~~

I had been pre-warned that Matt Damon would appear, possibly so that I didn’t grab L and go “OMG, is that Matt Damon?!”  It didn’t stop me from giggling and then going “OMG is that Sam Neill?!”  Of course Odin is Loki, you’d think someone else that wasn’t Heimdall would have twigged roughly when the statue was made with horns!

I see that Doctor Strange has taken over his rightful role as explainer of mystic weirdness from Selvig. Which makes more sense than Selvig knowing about mystic weirdness in Age of Ultron.

I did love Doctor Strange inconveniencing Thor and then Thor being gloriously petty back.  Particularly Thor’s smile of “sorry, not sorry”.

I know they killed off the Warriors Three to make Hela look dangerous but there must have been a better way.  Then again, I am probably out of step with everyone else in missing them and the usual Earthers.

That being said, notice that Hogun, on his own, did nearly as much damage as Thor and Loki did in their first confrontation with Hela.  Warriors Three represent.

I do love that Thor now has sub-plans for that moment when Loki betrays him.  The boy is not as stupid as he looks or pretends to be.  I’m also reasonably sure that Loki stole both the tesseract and any other shiny things present in the treasury, because he’s a power magpie in human form.

I also love that Valkyrie is every bit as fight mad as the rest of the Asgardians.  I believe Thor when he says that he wanted to be a Valkyrie when he was little.  I just get this vision of him running around pretending to be a Valkyrie, Odin going “someone’s going to have to tell him,” and Frigga going “nah, what’s the harm.”  Loki is, of course, the one to tell him in the end.

I am trying to decide if Cate Blanchett can do *that* with her voice naturally or if she just has a voice SFX pedal on hand at all times.  I want to believe she has a natural reverb setting.

Heimdall is the most polite rescuer ever - “sorry about the violence while I was rescuing you”.

I get why there was almost nothing of the gladiators’ revolt, but I would have liked to have seen a bit of it anyway.

Somehow, Chris Hemsworth looks ever more attractive the more damage he takes.  That is voodoo, either from the actor or the director.

I know the scene where Bruce chooses to Hulk out is a counterpoint to the one where Black Widow forces him to, but I think Natasha did the least worst thing there so I am, once again, not the intended audience.  It also shows the problem with any Hulk solo film.  A goodly chunk of the audience are waiting for the bit where Bruce loses and becomes the Hulk despite himself.

I do love that Thor’s plans involve him doing the risky bit, and total trust in Loki, because he knows that Loki can be trusted, as long as you don’t give him time to think.  I wish we’d got the hug that came roughly three nano-seconds after Thor realised that Loki was staying.

The loudest laugh I gave was when the Grandmaster landed amidst the people he’d held under.  I live in hope he got his the same way the Beast Rabban got his.

~~~~

In other important news, I’d like to give a shout out to EJ at the BFI IMAX.  He deserves any Nandos that he got from the blue forms.

Also, just an FYI, if you position yourself just right, the subway tunnels running from the BFI IMAX to Victoria have fantastic acoustics if you’re singing along with Robert Plant.  It’s possible that I don’t need the help on the volume though ;)

Blade Runner 2049

A lot of the points I am going to mention cover the same ground as Selenak does here.  She explains what I liked and disliked better than I can, in fewer words, so I recommend reading her take on the film, and then coming back to read this for the couple of points where we disagree, and a few more specifically-me points.

• I maintain my feeling of unease about a film about 30 years in the future of what people 40 years ago thought now would look like. Where are the films about what people now think 40 years in the future will look like?
• Denis Villeneuve is a stonkingly good director.  He keeps a lot of the visual language from the original, but imbues it with his own feel which is a lot softer than Ridley Scott’s.
• The BBFC rating includes a warning for sexualised nudity.  Anyone who finds any of the nudity in this film arousing has issues.  I think it was very well done, and thematically works but yes, the director deliberately went for “the commodification of sex and bodies is bad” and it worked.
• The film works best when deals with the flipside of Blade Runner’s “what does it mean to be human”.  2049 asks “what does it mean to not be human?”

Everything below this is a spoiler.

Because the “what is it to be non-human” bits do work, I am more than a little bit miffed that the film’s main answer to the question is reproduction makes you human.  

My miffed is four-fold.  

1) I like to believe that I am not any less human than my friends who have reproduced.  

2) Of all the facets of humanity to choose, the film choose the one we share with animals.  Birds do, bees do it, even educated bacteria do it and so on.  

3) I am sorry to put this quite so bluntly, but in terms of the replicants wanting their freedom, I’ve never known the ability of their slaves to reproduce ever stopping slavemasters keeping their slaves enslaved.  

4)  It goes against the message of the first film, where being human is what you do, not what you are.  The replicants were more human than the humans, quite literally.  Leon and Pris’s willingness to risk what lifespan they had for Zhora and Roy Batty, Pris and Roy Batty’s love for each other and Roy Batty letting Dekker live are all more human than any act of the humans in Blade Runner.

I’m not sure some of the background of the story works with the information from Blade Runner.  Do you believe that a technology that had already been banned from Earth after several previous rebellions would suddenly become legalised just because someone said the technology was now safe?  I don’t either.

I presume that they let the replicants live out amongst humans to try to tie them in closer to humanity so that they’re less likely to rebel.  That’s also reflected in the words that Joe is expected to repeat in his check-ups.

I’m pleased that they decided that Joe wasn’t a human, mostly because you know, Ryan Gosling only has the one facial expression.  It also meant that something I thought was a plot hole wasn’t.  (I’ve gone with calling him Joe because I am terrible at remembering alphanumerics.)

I guessed that the child was actually the girl because the quickest way of hiding someone is saying that they’re dead.  I should have guessed who the child was because such an extreme immunodeficiency suddenly cropping up at 8 is … unlikely.  But I didn’t.  The DNA section threw up another plot hole though because if Joe has the DNA sequence of the child, it should be easy enough to compare it with his own, and, depending on what DNA segment is recorded, he should have been able to check if the female identity or the male one was the real one.

Joi is probably the most human of the characters, in one of the bits where the film decides humanity is the ghost in the machine.  Which is interesting, given that she’s the only unembodied/disembodied character.  She's the one who makes decisions about herself and chooses danger rather than being forced to betray Joe.  She's so lovely. And also opens up a whole vista of philosophical questions. Like is she any less human because she's disembodied? Why does Joe choose her over another replicant (presuming, of course, that as a Replicant he’s not allowed to date humans - did I mention whole vistas?)?  Does Joi choose Joe as a name because it’s the name she’s been programmed to use it as a name or because she likes it?  How much of Joi is Joi and how much is the programming, and is that any different for Joe?

My favourite scene is the one where Joe is going back to Los Angeles and sees the advert for Joi.  He looks at her and it’s so full of love and sadness, because he knows that a new Joi would not be his Joi, and the ghost is in the electrons.  (Okay, so Gosling actually has three expressions, but he’d be more effective if he used the other two in more than one scene each.)

The odd thing is that the weakest scenes in Blade Runner 2049 are the ones that tie it into Blade Runner.

I feel bad about saying that because Harrison Ford is exceptional in his scenes.  The silhouette of Rachel was possibly the most terrifying unseen person since Joyce in “Forever” (Buffy, episode 17 season 5).  And yet, they slow an already slow film down and add nothing, because trust me, I already hated Wallace.  It feels like there were two scripts, one a direct sequel to Blade Runner, and one a more general sci-fi “what measure is a human” one, that they smushed together.

I am not sure what they were trying to do with Wallace, who was so much just Tyrell that D and I just called him not-Tyrell when we were talking about the film.  He’s just so unnecessarily horrible that I was hoping that dear, unstable Luv was going to gut him.  I am most sad that no-one gutted him.

My uncertainty with Wallace begins with his casting.  Given that he’s surrounded by faux-Japanese cultural motifs, why they didn’t just cast a Japanese actor is beyond me.  That was one of the things that did strike me, the film had much less of an Asian influence than the first one (even if I do understand the complaints that for all the Asian set dressing, there were no Asian characters in Blade Runner), and much more of a Soviet one.  It felt odd since I don’t think the Soviets were mentioned even once in Blade Runner, possibly to avoid dating the film.  I suspect this is partly a hangover from filming in Hungary.

On to some more general points:

I know why film-makers have characters use axe kicks in films.  They look cool.  I am willing to go with “rule of cool”, even if I don’t like axe kicks.  What I don’t get is why the characters being attacked by axe kicks never use the “proper” defence against them, even if that character is supposed to have fight training.  Axe kicks are so easy to defend against, why does nobody ever do it?!

I say this about every film he’s in, but when did Dave Batista get so good?  He’s a foot taller than me and about two of me in weight, and yet, when Sapper Morton put his glasses on I wanted to protect him.  That’s a neat trick.

I really like Hans Zimmer’s work.  If you need a film composer who can ape someone else’s style and rework it into something new, he’s the best choice.  The problem isn’t him, the problem is when the soundsystem of the cinema you are in can’t take all those tones at once, and you get massive reverb even when the soundtrack doesn’t want it.  Also, I’m reasonably sure that chunks of the soundtrack could be used for soundboarding people.  I know it’s deliberate but some of that really messed with my brain.

~~~~

In short (too late, I know), Blade Runner 2049 is a good film.  It’s not as good as Blade Runner.  It may or may not be a good sequel to Blade Runner.

Atomic Blonde

Atomic Blonde is a great soundtrack in search of a film.

I think my anger with the film is because of its wasted potential. It could, and should, have been so much better.

The acting is solid, as is the directing and the technical stuff. The make-up department deserve an Oscar nomination. No, seriously. A character goes into shock and they made the character up to the right shade of pale.

The problem is the plot.

It makes no sense. No, seriously.

Without the last two "twists" (neither of which is a twist if you'd paid any attention during the film), it just about makes sense, because of some serious legwork by the actors, mostly Charlize Theron.

SPOILERS BEGIN HERE

With the penultimate twist, it becomes a solid entry in the gay spy drama category.

Think about it, young British agent, commits a lesbian indiscretion and is blackmailed by the Soviets, becoming Satchel. In protecting herself, she loses yet another chance at happiness and gets Delphine, who is very much the girl she was, killed. But she's got to see it through to get her freedom. It's all very bleak and actually works with the story.

Unfortunately, that's when they throw in the last twist. Which isn't really a twist and ruins all that has gone before. I'm not joking about it not being a twist. If you've ever heard John Goodman's voice before, you'll get it about halfway through the film.

With the last twist, a CIA op has killed 3 Allied agents, and one defector, mostly because of a lack of communication by the CIA. And we're supposed to be happy about this and think it was a successful operation.

Also, MI6 is so incompetent that it didn't notice a CIA mole, who was pretending to be a Russian mole, for about 10 years.

You've got poor Spyglass, killed trying to do the right thing.

Then poor David Percival, who is a see you next Tuesday, don't get me wrong, and in the throws of the traditional British spy middle-life crisis, who finds out that a friend of his was killed by the Russians to protect someone who has betrayed Percival's government, and therefore goes all dark side. We're supposed to be happy she kills him, and that he gets blamed for the whole thing, even though she's the mole and there isn't a mole, she's actually triple-agent but the CIA didn't bother to tell anyone. And I'm like ... no.

In short, when your most sympathetic character is a Stasi agent, there is something wrong with the film! 

I'm not even going to go into the really weird thing where there is only 1 German actor, who gets no lines in German. All the other Germans and Russians are played by Scandinavians. Now the amassed Vikings all do a damn good job (no, seriously, all my love for Roland Møller and Bill Skarsgård) but if you're actually filming in Germany, which this was, it's a bloody odd casting choice.

Doctor Strange

Doctor Strange is a brilliant example of the danger of expectations.

I expected cool SFX and Mads Mikkelsen.  I got that, and bonus Benedict Wong, so I was happy.  L expected a film that actually worked on its own merits and was left disappointed.  It is quite a flat film, that spends most of its time setting up its own sequel and whatever the Marvel Cinematic Universe equivalent of the Infinity Wars is going to be.

It's also telling that the memorable scenes are the ones with very little in the way of obvious SFX, where they give the actors are given something to do.

I want 16 films of Rachel McAdams's Nurse Palmer going 'oh FFS' at superheroics.  But then again I am entirely happy with the idea of 16 films with Rachel McAdams in.  Dear Hollywood, please cast her in more things.

Spoilers Underneath

For all that I'm supposed to think Doctor Strange is a bit much, he's not actually that much worse than several doctors I know.

I know that Marvel have said that the flyer with a broken spine is not Rhodey, but 1) I think they're lying and 2) if it's Sam Wilson, I riot.

I can't help but feel more sorry for Doctor Strange in the scene where he shouts at Christine than the film wants me to, not least because he was a lot more polite than I would have been.  I don't know if that's because I know how much time and effort you have to become a neurosurgeon, never mind one at the top of his field.  I did like the irony of other surgeons saying to him re: his condition.

One interesting thing is how much Kaecilius thinks that what he's doing is the right thing (as does Mordo, and the Ancient One).

I can see why people make the Tony Stark / Stephen Strange parallels, except it misses the important thing about them.  Tony is driven by not wanting to let his father down, while Stephen Strange is driven by his belief in his own greatness.  Strange doesn't have the same self-destructive tendencies as Tony.  Tony would happily get himself killed several times over to save the Earth or Universe, but I doubt he'd have come up with a plan that got himself out of it alive too.

They've also got very different attitudes to killing people.  I like how seriously Doctor Strange takes the whole try not to kill thing.  The fight scenes did lead to me going hallo there Scott Adkins.  He has joined that select group of people that I recognise from their shoulders.  Maybe recognise isn't the right word, because I couldn't put a name to the shoulders, but I did go 'I know those shoulders from somewhere else'.

Like lots of superhero films, both Marvel and not, the end boss is a bit of an anti-climax.  Although I am deeply amused by the method used to defeat him, it all seemed so easy, and the cost doesn't become apparent until the end stinger.

Saying Chiwetel Ejiofor is good is telling you stuff you already know, but he was oh so good when the film finally gave him something to do.  It meant that for all that this film was flat, I am looking forward to the sequel just for Mordo vs Strange.  But that's exactly what I mean when I say the film spent a lot of time setting up its sequel rather than being its own film.

End Spoilers

Disney Marvel are missing out on oodles of money by not having a Doctor Strange replica cape for sale.  As this isn't like them at all, I do wonder if it's to avoid lawsuits from parents of children who try to levitate.  If they do ever bring out a replica cape, I will be all over that.

I am very aware of the film's flaws, but I am the target audience so I enjoyed it.  To paraphrase N on Facebook, "make a competent films with Marvel Studios at the beginning and I'll enjoy it".

Suicide Squad

Was far better than it had any right to be.

As in was actually fun.  And Will Smith is amazing.  As is Margot Robble.  And I <3 Diablo, and Katana and Captain Boomerang.

Joel Kinnaman looks terrifyingly like Carmine Giovinazzo, so I apologise in advance if I make any Danny Messer on steroids jokes.

It's only as I'm reading back through this that I realise that I've gone through the film character by character rather than thematically or chronologically.  This wasn't deliberate but may well show one of the weaknesses of the film.  It's a series of character bits strung together with action scenes.  Now I don't mind that at all, but other people will.

Some spoilers for Batman vs Superman follow (because they're in the film) and mention of most of the Marvel Filmverse.

Spoilers Beneath

The story mostly makes sense.  There's a couple of moments of 'that move was too boneheaded for that character to make' but we will forgive them for this.  The characters work as versions of themselves, even if a few people have had some of their rougher edges smoothed down.  It is interesting, for instance, that the film does flash up that Harley was involved with Robin's death but it is blink and you'll miss it.

The film is tightly tied to Batman vs Superman, and I'm not sure how I feel about it.  On the one hand, Suicide Squad does its bit to set up Justice League with a much lighter, easier and more fun touch than B v S did.  On the other hand, I feel that this means that the Batfleck solo film we're going to get (thank you, whoever) is going to be Bats vs the Joker, again.  And while I am all over that, because ... oh I'm hopeless, I do feel it's been done and is only going to be compared to The Dark Knight, and that may not end well.

I am aware I am the only person that liked the Leto Joker.  He doesn't quite work, but it is at least blatantly not based on the Ledger-Joker (no diss against him).  Given that other films keep turning other characters into the Ledger-Joker it's a refreshing change.  Also Jared Leto is the only person who looks more terrifying out of Joker make up than in it.  Harley's fantasy is legitimately eerie.

Deadshot is lovely, and it's one of the interesting things about the film, that he is clearly a good guy and a bad man at the same time.  And Will Smith is good at both.  Better at being the good guy but ... Deadshot so lovely.  As is his daughter.  Whose name I didn't catch.  In the film's defence, I can't hear out of my right ear properly at the moment so I don't think it was their fault.

The film gave me an Amanda Waller who was just right.  Because yes.  Although it does worry me somewhat that her line on the topic of Superman is mine.  No good comes of me and Amanda Waller agreeing.  I also liked that the film let the "heroes" (well, you know) call her out when she does things that are really not good, see also *that* scene in the bunker.  One of the things that annoyed me about the first Avengers film and the second Captain America film is that Nick Fury kept doing things that were decidedly shades of grey and no-one shouted at him.  I don't mind Nat and Clint not doing it, but I refuse to believe that Tony would be able to keep his opinions to himself.  Also, I think she knows about the Bat and that makes me want to yell at Bruce going 'Bruce, you really don't want her to know'.

Harley Quinn was, well, she was herself.  I can see why people might be annoyed that she always goes back to her Pudding.  But the whole thing with her character is that she would (and indeed is) lovely, if only she avoids the Joker.  And they got that over.  Margot Robble is far better than I expected her to be.  My favourite scene was the one just after the helicopter is shot down when the rest of the Squad find her again.  The minute she sees them she tries to fake being alright, and then Deadshot holds his arms out so she can get down and she just melts into his arms.  It's so lovely.  Because Deadshot is lovely.

Actually, the whole escape sequence is lovely.  From Deadshot not telling anyone about Harley's plans to him pulling his shot (and the rest of the squad being happy about it) and Captain Boomerang, who is by someway the member with the least empathy, trying to comfort him when the helicopter is shot down.

Joel Kinnaman does a bang up job in what could have been a thankless role.  Because Flagg is the least bad of the good guys (because that's how this film does it's shades of grey), and less interesting than the bad guys and could just have been a bland GI Joe a-like. Instead Kinnaman gives him a reality and just enough human weakness to believable and real and solid.  (Although the rest of the military squad were pretty much misc. disposable military types and hello Scott Eastwood.  Because Scott Eastwood is always hello!)

I am going to presume that they cast Cara Delavigne for her ability to gyrate convincingly in very little for that bit at the end with the Enchantress.  It doesn't work.  Then again, I don't think anyone would have been convincing doing those gyrations, Josephine Baker notwithstanding.

Jay Hernandez is good as Diablo, who gets to be the regretful one of the squad.  I think he's literally the only one who regrets their crimes.

Captain Boomerang, on the other hand, really doesn't.  He's, I think, the only one of the Squad who isn't given some excuse or reason or redeeming feature.  He's fun, nonetheless, and it makes those moments where he is vaguely human more effective.  It's interesting that they choose him, who is the least dangerous and deadly Squad member as the one without redeeming features.

His accent is merely ludicrous.  I have no idea if Jai Courtney just can't do an Aussie accent, or if he's an Aussie they told to put on the most stereotypical and ridiculous accent ever.  All I know is that it sounds even more bizarre given that Margot Robble occasionally breaks into 'Strine next to him.

I <3 Killer Croc, which I really didn't expect.  He's one of the few Bat-villains I know more from the comics than any adaptation, and I'm used to feeling sorry for him, but not loving him.  Because he knows what he is, and he's okay with it - see the scene in the bar.  (Also, just cast Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje in everything.)  I'm also trying to figure out if his line about 'being born into the sewers' is supposed to be a call-back to Bane.

Nothing about Katana makes any sense.  If she's got Flagg's back, then why does she leave him and join the rest of the Squad in the bar scene?  But if she's one of the Squad, why is she allowed to roam free?  She's cool, but as I said, makes no sense.

It's not a classic by any means, but its a fun way to spend a couple of hours, and if nothing else, it has a cracking soundtrack.  I really don't want to know how much Warners paid to get that soundtrack.