starwolf

So, yeah - it's a super hero movie. It doesn't suck the way a lot of people are crowing about, but it's not a masterpiece either the way a lot of other people are shouting.

The good: I thought Margot Robbie's acting, without mentioning her accent, was pretty much spot on for what I would have expected from Harley Quinn. (I came close to naming my Harley Sportster "Harley Quinn" but then this movie started being advertised, so I named her "Binky.") The plot made sense, even if it was a bit of a stretch here and there. Other people have complained about it, but I liked the music. I thought "Spirit in the Sky" was misplaced when it started, but whatever. Viola Davis plays a bad guy pretty well. I thought the actor who played Griggs (Ike Barinholtz) did a great job making us care about him and what happened. Jay Hernandez did a good jobs as Diablo. Most of the SFX didn't suck.

The bad: Well, Margot Robbie's here and then gone again accent. (I could give her a slight break because I know how hard it is to carry an accent throughout a performance. But, OTOH, this wasn't a live show, she could have had an accent coach, and she got paid a lot more than I ever have, so no - no slight break.) For me the show screeched to a halt every time Leto's joker appeared on the screen. Man, I hated that characterization. It simply didn't work for me, even a little bit. Ditto Cara Delevingne - my Lord she is a terrible actress. And IMHO her body might look nice but her face certainly isn't all that. So, with the lack of a trace of acting ability coupled with not being gorgeous - she must be sleeping with someone to be getting these acting gigs. I simply couldn't buy her enchantress except when she was hidden under heavy makeup and CGI. Why the heck was Captain Boomerang in this story? He didn't add anything plot wise. At least Slipknot was there to show us the effectiveness of the "persuasive device" used to make the Suicide Squad go along.

The ho hum: So yeah, once again Will Smith played Will Smith. If you like his "Oh hell no!" plus his "now I'm going to speak slower in a lower register so you can tell I'm a serious and tortured soul" then you will like his 1,000th (a made-up number to emphasize my point) rendering of this character.

All in all, not a failed movie and not a master piece.

Not great but entertaining for an afternoon.

Seriously, when one of the best performances is turned in by Margot Robbie what can you say about a movie? Christoph Waltz is playing the same bad guy he's played in four or five other movies. Skarsguard plays the strong silent type well but there's not a lot of fire there. Samuel L Jackson just seems like a late arrival to the whole thing. His part seemed more of an appendage to the story than an Intercal part of it.

The color palette was horrible with muted blues and blacks and browns all through the movie. To me the story was reasonably disjointed and repetitive. Jane is captured, Jane escapes, Jane is captured again, Jane escapes, etc.

Frankly I thought the earlier Johnny Weissmuller movies had better action in them, but this was a pleasant enough movie to see with my family on a Sunday afternoon.

This movie is, quite simply, bad.

I was aware of Ralph Bakshi's "Wizards" and I found most of it appealing although I was not a fan of the rotoscoping. But the actual artwork I liked a lot.

Then I was at the 1977 Houston Comicbook Convention and Art Festival and some woman from United Artists hosted a talk where she showed artwork and stills from the upcoming movie.

I was pretty excited. I loved The Lord of the Rings, and had a habit back then of rereading it every year starting in April.

The movie showed up and it was terrible. Yes it took ridiculous liberties with the story but the biggest issue in my mind was the endless rotoscoping. Sometimes you would see the same scene over and over, rotoscoped into different shades of color.

I get it - rotoscoping is cheap compared to actual full animation, especially when you are just using clips from other movies and shows. And sadly that is what it made this movie look - cheap.

I still remember when the movie ended some guy a couple of rows up from me said, "What the hell was that?" And I heard several variations on the theme, "That was it?"

In short, not enough artwork and too much reliance on cheap rotoscoping, too much reworking of a story too well known (if you think you can write a better story, write it! Don't steal someone else's), and just an abrupt end to the movie.

People can say now it was great but it was not well received as evidenced by the fact that Bakshi studios never made the second part.