Suicide Squad Sequel

As do-overs go, the two films will act as great examples of the difference between accidental and deliberate stupidity. This was a fun and breezy "stupid" film, and something only James Gunn's macabre mind could have conjured; it really leant into the chaotic insanity of the whole pop-anarchic, fatalist concept of the comics. It happily embraced that kernel of ludicrousness all superhero stories have, but cinematic adaptations rarely touch - and frequently mishandle. The cartoon violence will absolutely alienate some, but this was gore used as a punchline, not for its own sake.

But like pop-anarchy, there was a certain shallowness to it all, not least the realisation after the credits rolled that it cheated. It set itself with the bold promise that nobody was safe - highlighted by that fantastic, gutsy opening sequence - but! When I sat and thought about it ... 

Meanwhile, any complaint about runtime feels so redundant these days, now that blockbusters simply default to 2+ hours now; yet still, it could have done with a tighter edit as a few patches sagged and robbed the film of the otherwise constant, manic energy. Just this once the runtime really worked against the film in spots.

Penn covered the bases here, but doubt, coming so soon after the first film was a mistake - heck just the name being so similar was a bad move IMO. It just made the whole enterprise more confusing than it needed and for once, a colon'ised title would have worked better. It would have worked with the tone of the film if it was called something like Suicide Squad: The Re-Do.

Suicide Squad: Weasel Origins.

While not hitting the same heights as pre-CoVid numbers, Fast & Furious 9 managed to pull $660 million worldwide; but then IIRC this was before Delta came along so perhaps this specific strain has rattled folks, coupled with some localised lockdowns. With Suicide Squad, it's possible the well was just too poisoned by that infamously bad first film to try again so soon.

Doesn't even need to be a question of "riskier" film, if we're talking artistic riskiness... we are discussing blockbusters after all. There is a formula to make good, entertaining mainstream movies. Even reboots and sequels TBH. The Jumanji reboot made nearly a billion dollars off of a $90 million dollar budget. All because, IMO and this is speculation ... it wasn't interfered with at the executive level (to get that Four Quadrant blandness); while word of mouth ensured a very entertaining, characterful adventure film kept its legs at the box-office.

Even picking something really niche, as blockbusters go; 2018's Escape Room made $150 million worldwide off of a $9 million dollar budget. That's a crazy profit margin. Joker of course broke that billion-dollar barrier, albeit off the back of the weird, cultural pearl-clutching that went on around it. So there are examples of smaller mainstream films that do well.

I love them too, but I do get a little impatient at how lazy they can be sometimes, how half-hearted and afraid of their own properties the studios act. Like, it's crazy just how many tonal or structural variants of Batman there are in the comics themselves (including particularly outlandish ones like Vampire Batman, or Samurai Batman) - yet we have never got anything except glowering, depressed Batman; heroism a burden rather than a calling.

It's an interesting compare and contrast I suppose in the rare field of R rates superhero films. Deadpool was a definitive comedy complete with gags, punchlines and puns, with occasional splatter;, whereas the humour in Suicide Squad was often drawn from its brazen vulgarity and gore. It pushed itself as transgressive IMO. I think the former was an easier sell. And the brand of Ryan Reynolds probably drew in the casual curious, whereas I still maintain the literal, titular closeness of this sequel to the maligned original was a mistake.