Birds of Prey: Comic Book Fatigue?

I'm going into this blog by saying I don't know much regarding the DC comic villain, Harley Quinn. I know that Margot Robbie's take on her in Suicide Squad was one of the very few bright spots to it. Looking at that, it makes sense to have a new movie with Birds of Prey and put her in a role that gives her a bigger presence. But with a disappointing first day at the box office, it should be number one, but disappointing number one.

Judging by the trailers, it's a film that is very wacky based on Quinn's persona. Is this comic book fatigue, though? No. Critically, it's doing fine. Maybe its the tonal shift. Going from the dark and serious Joker back in October to this with the same R rating but more violent and out of control. But this is a problem with obscure character films. DC doesn't have the well of comic book characters to make movies of like Marvel. But Marvel has struggled with some of their films, including a couple Thor films, Ant-Man. I think Doctor Strange was not a huge hit compared to its other companions.

Maybe the release date was a bad idea. We've seen movies do well now in the winter months and possibly emulating how Black Panther did. Blockbusters don't always happen in the summer. But with competition from Bad Boys, 1917, and a few other award nominated films, it could be a reason it doesn't do well in the theater. There's the more friendly Sonic the Hedgehog next week. Call of the Wild in a couple weeks. Lots of small indie films releasing this month. Maybe this could have done better in the summer. Maybe not.

Ending today's blog, poor timing by Warner Brothers. But I don't think they were expecting older competition to keep doing well and keep people interested. Or maybe the love affair for Quinn was overdone and fans were disappointed. Lots of what ifs for this film. Should make a bit worldwide, but the lower numbers will be tough to swallow.

Joker Review

Under normal circumstances, I would not have seen Joker. With all the whining about the way it is done, I had to see what the fuss was about. This is not the typical comic book flair that has been seen for the last decade. I'm not into today's films compared to the likes of what was seen back then like the 89 Batman. But this was surprisingly good. I'd say borderline great.

It has origin story written all over it with Todd Phillips writing part of it and directing it. Arthur Fleck lives in a crummy part of Gotham with his mother. He works as a clown, doing stuff like promoting an out of business store and making kids happy at the hospital. There are hints of issues that he has had for a long time. The dreams he has includes wanting to be a comedian. However, life throws a curve ball in a lot of situations. But what happens when a guy with mental issues finally snaps?

This is no popcorn flick. It's a film. No reliance on special effects or explosions for 350 million dollars. No guys in green screen suits, though a couple scenes do involve the Waynes. It is a psychological thriller and a serious drama. You see what Fleck goes through and when it reaches that breaking point, there is no stopping him. Joaquin Phoenix is excellent in performing the character with the weird laughs and depressed look of him. I'm not sure it's Oscar worthy, but it could get a nod. Robert De Niro has chances to shine as TV host Murray Franklin. The same can be said for Frances Conroy as Arthur's mother. With the rest of the cast, it's thought out and works for the film.

The controversy over the movie feels manufactured. I don't see it as a movie that promotes violence. And I was expecting it to be a lot more violent. He doesn't go on a huge rampage, but some of the killings will surprise you. Which is something I'll bring up. This is set in the 1970s. Gotham is New York City when you hear about garbage strikes, riots, and stuff similar to fires in the Bronx. Crime was very high and the portrayal is eerie. What I see out of this is what happens when a nut tries to control himself, but can't. And that's how Joker is in the comics. You never now what's going to happen, although not as crazy like in the comics.

I think we've only tapped into what happens when Joker snaps. If there ever is a plan to make more Batman movies, I have a feeling we will see a more deadlier adversary. Add in a dreary approach to the cinematography and the score leaving you on your toes, the movie is worth a watch in the theater. Not as controversial as others say it is.

Score: 7.5 out of 10

Sparkling Bats

Who do you go for with the next Batman? Get Ed... I mean Robert Pattinson. There is always controversy surrounding who gets to be the Caped Crusader. There was questions about Michael Keaton because of his movie output in the 80s prior to the 1989 Batman film. My take is that people are spoiled.

They are spoiled by Christian Bale and the overrated voice actor Kevin Conroy. We can have different takes on DC's superhero. Every comic book character that gets an adaptation will always be questioned in terms of performance. Pattinson has done plenty of work and he is more than just those awful Twilight films. He was Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter. There is a new film that hit Cannes last month called The Lighthouse. The unfortunate side is that he will never escape what he made in the late 2000s and early 2010s.

I say give the guy a chance. Can't be as bad as George Clooney as Batman. Or other actors in other comic book movies like Venom in Spider-Man 3. I can see regular Bruce Wayne working for Pattinson. As far as Batman, that answer will come whenever the first trailers of the new movie come whenever that happens. Right now, it's just pure overreaction.