Nuclear Unicorn
Nuclear Unicorn's JournalSuicide Squad: I find the 41 metacritic score inexplicable and undeserved.
Even if someone doesn't appreciate comic book movies the movie was solidly acted, shot, and edited. The story was soft in some parts though I couldn't say in detail without 1) seeing it again and 2) revealing spoilers.
I'm totally willing to see it again and look forward to it coming out on disc, hopefully with a director's cut.
The very low score from the professional critics makes me wonder if there isn't some ideological axe-grinding going on here. They seem angry over something where no anger is warranted.
Will Smith didn't really sell it for me as Deadshot. He's a competent actor but he's more of a goofball than an intimidating, steely-eyed sociopath.
They redeemed the relationship between Joker and Harley, somewhat. In the comic books, video games and animated series he is the worst sort of abusive boyfriend. He never loves Harley, he only manipulates her love of him. In SS he is actually as codependent as she is -- as a good boyfriend ought to be!
I chortled every so often when Margot Robbie's Australian accent peeked out or she strained to hide it behind an accent from 1930's gun moll from Brooklyn.
Katana could have been an interesting character but she was very underdeveloped. They did her character a big disservice having her separate herself from the rest of the squad at the one moment they bonded together and decided to be the heroes. Perhaps they are grooming her for later appearances though I can see that falling away due to the fans' inability to grow to love her.
The costume for Enchantress was captivating! But I have to say even I can dance sexier than Cara Delevingne and that's saying something.
El Diablo brought a poignancy to the story, which I suppose is necessary. If the audience doesn't have a place to become emotionally invested in the characters lest the audience sit there like a bunch of Amanda Wallers.
Speaking of Amanda Waller. Holy crap! Sorry to be un-PC but she earned "Ruthless Bitch 2016." hands down, no contest, would the rest of the contestants please just get off the stage! Viola Davis crushed it. Tremendous actress in a powerful role.
Killer Croc and Captain Boomerang seemed to be padding the numbers to fill out the roster to make it a squad.
There were some decidedly heroic acts by normal humans, if members of the military could be considered such (and I mean that affectionately). While the metahumans are running around doing their thing the film depicted many acts of selfless service and self-sacrifice by the military, which is what they do. The movie would have been much, much stronger if it had given that aspect a bit more recognition ala Battle: LA.
So, while most of what I wrote may seem like a detraction the movie was fun. Which is what a movie -- especially a comic book movie -- ought to be. I enjoyed the fight scenes. Harley stole many scenes -- which is what everyone wanted. You wanted the squad to win. You even felt cheated knowing they wouldn't be released even though you also know they're the worst of the worst and for me that was the clincher.
Oh, and: Best soundtrack in a long time and I think the editors really enjoyed their work, especially in the first act.
I am uncompromising in my support for SANDERS!
So there!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going out to get some fried chicken.
This election is too weird
This is only my 3rd presidential election I'll be voting in so I can't claim to have the wisdom of the ages. Take that for what it's worth.
My dad has always been a lifelong Democrat. Union member. Straight party ticket.
He's going for Trump.
My FIL is the straight laced businessman. Archetype of the GOP bedrock.
He'll be sitting this election out.
The loophole in the Mass. assault weapons ban
The following is a press release from the Attorney General of Massachusetts --
....
The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is. They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.
That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.
The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.
We recognize that most residents who purchased these guns in the past believed they were doing so legally, so this directive will not apply to possession of guns purchased before Wednesday. In the dozen years since the federal assault weapons ban lapsed, only seven states have instituted their own assault weapons ban. Many of those bans have been challenged (unsuccessfully) by the gun industry, and we anticipate our directive may be too. But our job is to enforce state laws and to keep people safe. This directive does both.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/20/the-loophole-mass-assault-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html
Seems overly broad and will end up including weapons well outside the scope of the law. Moreover, it was decided by the AG's office, not the legislature. As such it seems ripe for judicial challenge.
Admittedly convoluted but honestly asked question, RE: registration laws
It is established case precedent that a person intent on using a gun to commit a crime cannot be charged with failing to register their gun because doing something would violate their 5th Amendment protections against being forced to incriminate themselves (Haynes v US)
But suppose someone intended to violate no law except the law requiring registration? What could they be charged with?
I can't help but think all of the angst over the UK/EU referendum is a bit overblown
It's not like the British navy will fire on Brussels or that trade won't normalize. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand the market and currency response. It all seems much ado about nothing.
Should someone on a no fly-no buy list also be restricted from working in sensitive professions?
By sensitive, I mean a job that requires them to carry a gun or be in control of large amounts of hazardous materials or be in charge of passenger safety on planes, etc.?
I have no direct experience but it's my understanding a background check is required to obtain a hazmat endorsement for a drivers license and I can't imagine the value of forbidding someone from buying weapons if their job requires them to carry a gun.
Before any trigger is ever pulled there is a series of decisions
Suicides, homicides and even so-called accidents all require a series of deliberate choices. I am increasingly of the belief that if we confront that fact we will confront the causes of the vast majority of illicit gun uses and even instances where such things occur but do not involve the use of a gun.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Sep 16, 2009, 07:33 PMNumber of posts: 19,497