'Suicide Squad': Characters are promisingly introduced, fizzle fast

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

'Squad' stars actors including Margot Robbie and Will Smith as villains from the world of Batman who are recruited by the government to take on an even bigger baddie.

Clay Enos/Warner Bros. Pictures/AP
'Suicide Squad' stars (from l.) Jay Hernandez, Jai Courtney, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Margot Robbie, Will Smith, Joel Kinnaman, and Karen Fukuhara.

“Suicide Squad,” which comes on the heels of “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice,” is the latest failed attempt to lift up DC Comics-based characters into the mega-franchise stratosphere. Writer-director David Ayer doesn’t have the right graphic technique for a comic-book-style jamboree – he’s strictly a noirish-pulp guy – and the characters, all of whom are promisingly introduced, fizzle fast. 

Best is Jared Leto as the green-haired, metal-mouthed Joker, although he’s not quite on par with Heath Ledger’s definitive portrayal. As Joker’s girlfriend, Harley Quinn, Margot Robbie tries hard – too hard – to act flagrantly bonkers. 

Will Smith, as ace sniper Deadshot, is manfully effective but underused; the same, and then some, could be said for Jay Hernandez’s pyromaniac Diablo. It’s nice to see Viola Davis as a government bigwig who assembles a dream team of baddies to vanquish an even bigger baddie, but it would be even nicer to see her in a role that does more than boost her asking price.

In the Marvel v. DC matchup, there’s still no contest. Grade: C- (Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence and action throughout, disturbing behavior, suggestive content and language.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.