Skip to main content

You killed my sandwich!

Birds of Prey
(and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)
(2020)

(SPOILERS) One has to wonder at Bird of Prey’s 79% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I mean, such things are to be taken with a pinch of salt at the best of times, but it would be easy, given the disparity between such evident approval and the actually quality of the movie, to suspect insincere motives on the part of critics, that they’re actually responding to its nominally progressive credentials – female protagonists in a superhero flick! – rather than its content. Which I’m quite sure couldn’t possibly be the case. Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) isn’t very good. The trailers did not lie, even if the positive reviews might have misled you into thinking they were misleading.

I’m reluctant to conclude from this that a Harley Quinn-led movie is inevitably a bust, however. Her self-consciously glib repartee and narration often bears a superficial resemblance to Deadpool, which was, of course, a massive hit (times two). And Margot Robbie is easily the best element of the movie, as she also was in Suicide Squad. Robbie’s engaged and engaging enough to make the frequently undercooked dialogue sound halfway kooky (“Call me old fashioned, but I always thought the guy was meant to get the girl the diamond”).

So the problem is really that almost everything else about this Christine Hudson scripted, Cathy Yan directed solo outing is at best mediocre, and more commonly an outright bust. Material of this sort absolutely needs a sympathetic sensibility and energy, so the protagonist is acting in unison with the flavour of the film itself (with Deadpool, much of that came from Reynolds’ improv, but his hands-on presence amounts to the same thing). There’s none of that here, excepting in a very few fleeting instances.

In that respect, Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) rather resembles Tank Girl of twenty-plus years ago. Which is a little unfair to Rachel Talalay, who did at least try. The only times Birds of Prey comes alive visually are in the action reshoots helmed by John Wick maestro Chad Stahelski or various pieces of punched up (as in, through layering music or narration or rapid-fire editing) business with Harley.

Otherwise, Yan’s direction has to be the flattest, most four-square disaster a comic book movie has seen since the heyday of Mark Steven Johnson (of Daredevil and Ghostrider notoriety). Just count the number of shots – or lose count – where she’s parading her cast members with the least imaginative blocking and framing. DP Matthew Libatique attempts some interesting palate washes with the lighting, but the result for the most part gives off the vibe of cheap sets. I was going to compare the overall look of the movie to 90s TV, but 90s TV tended to look far superior. This may have cost anything up to $100m but it looks utterly cheap and tacky.

Consequently, Robbie’s instantly iconic Suicide Squad performance has simply been dropped into a subpar, under-designed, under-finessed picture that has no idea what it wants to achieve tonally. So on the one hand, there’s gratuitous violence aplenty (peeling off a family’s faces, stabbings, bone snappings and throat slittings) approaching the level of deafness found in Robocop 2. On the other, Harley’s given a parent/child relationship with streetwise kid – I know, it’s that ugh – Cassandra (Ella Jay Basco) who has swallowed a McGuffin diamond wanted by Ewan McGregor’s villain (there's an unsubstantiated rumour out there that the character was significantly reconfigured in reshoots, including the nature of the McGuffin, BJs ahoy).

There are terribly dull exposition and character scenes, many involving Rosie Perez’s dogged cop Montoya (Perez is as irritating as ever, but that’s all on the character here at least; no Bobo to be found this time). The usually reliable Mary Elizabeth Winstead comes a cropper as vigilante, cross-bow wielding avenger Huntress (her costuming is especially dire), while Jurnee Smollett-Bell unleashes laughably naff hypersonic screams as Dinah/Black Canary. The birds of the title are both underdeveloped and abysmally realised. I’m gobsmacked they’re all bona-fide DC characters, since they come across as having been invented on the fly by someone with absolutely no imagination or ingenuity.

Taking the award for phenomenally lousy performance, though, is McGregor as Roman Sionis/Black Mask. McGregor is playing a twisted, campy woman hater with a penchant for torturing his victims (there’s a suggestion of queer coding between Sionis and henchman Zsasz, played by Chris Messina, which one might suggest is troubling, given the unabashed misogyny displayed by both). McGregor isn’t able to cite any past form when it comes to hamming it up a storm or indulging in heightened or flamboyant performances, with the consequence that he comes across as severely lacking here, if not to say faintly embarrassing. As a substandard villain – the movie gives us no reason for Sionis wearing the mask and even less for reason to think he might be an iconic villain in the Batman pantheon – he only adds to the sense that this is a B-movie in the least laudable definition of the term.

Positives, aside from the aforementioned Robbie? Occasionally, a glimpse of visual wit surfaces; there’s a chase sequence in which Harley is desperate to eat her bacon-and-egg sarnie and is duly foiled at every turn. A running gag involves those formerly insulted, injured or degraded by her attempting to get their revenge, emerging out of the woodwork at the least convenient moments. Her hyena gives rises to a line Paul Merton would be proud of, at least as delivered by Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse (“Is that a hyena in a bathtub?”). You can briefly see the picture Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) might have been in these sequences. The action provided by Stahelski is entirely serviceable, with expected choreographic flair (be it prison break or bike chase), but it isn’t very witty or clever; he couldn’t really be expected to come in and assemble the required tone, though, not when the surrounding film was left so wanting.

Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) is a bad movie. That’s why it’s underperforming. People saw the trailer and got a whiff of its stink. I’m tempted to put that largely on Yan as, even though the “assemble the Birds of Prey” structure itself is on the shoddy side, Hodson’s Bumblebee largely worked as directed by Travis Knight. Warner’s’ decision to retitle the movie Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey, on the rather desperate basis that her potential audience were insufficiently aware to show up – because it’s all down to the title – shows the studio is as hit and miss as ever, despite an uptick in the quality of their DC fare (it’s as evident as failing to consider whether the picture actually merited an R rating, which it probably didn’t, unless it was wholeheartedly going to embrace its potential irreverence, rather than reeling blindly around taking pot-shots at anything that seemed like it might justify “adult” status). It looks like it will be left to Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot to show DC how it should be done this year.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.