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

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I still think it’s a terrible play, but it makes a wonderful rehearsal.

Room Service (1938)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers step away from MGM for a solitary RKO outing, and a scarcely disguised adaption of a play to boot. Room Service lacks the requisite sense of anarchy and inventiveness of their better (earlier) pictures – even Groucho’s name, Gordon Miller, is disappointingly everyday – but it’s nevertheless an inoffensive time passer.

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater (2020)
(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

Time wounds all heels.

Go West (1940)
(SPOILERS) Comedy westerns were nothing new when the Marx Brothers succumbed – Buster Keaton had made one with the same title fifteen years earlier – but theirs served to underline how variable the results could be. For every Bob Hope (Son of Paleface) there’s a Seth McFarlane (A Million Ways to Die in the West). In theory, the brothers riding roughshod over such genre conventions ought to have been uproarious, but they’d rather run out of gas by this point, and the results are, for the most part, sadly pedestrian. Even Go West's big train-chase climax fails to elicit the once accustomed anarchy that was their stock in trade.

Shall we bind the deal with a kiss? Or, five dollars in cash? You lose either way.

The Big Store (1941)
(SPOILERS) Three go mad in a department store. The results are undoubtedly more diverting than low point Go West, but it feels as if there is even more flotsam to wade through to get to the good stuff in The Big Store, which is almost exclusively delivered by Groucho as private detective and bodyguard Wolf J Flywheel. Perhaps surprisingly, however, the climax is one of the better ones, an extended chase sequence through the store that is frequently quite inventive.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

Goodbye, Mr Chimps.

At the Circus (1939)
(SPOILERS) This is where the brothers sink into their stretch of middling MGM movies, now absent the presence of their major supporter Irving Thalberg; it’s probably for the best this wasn’t called A Day at the Circus, as it would instantly have drawn unflattering comparisons with the earlier MGM pair that gave them their biggest hits. Nevertheless, there’s enough decent material to keep At the Circus fairly sprightly (rather than “fairly ponderous”, as Pauline Kael put it).

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …