Review: Suicide Squad (2016)

Warning: Spoilers!

Suicide Squad

Suicide Squad is the newest edition to the DCEU and the second movie in this franchise to be released this year, the other being Batman v. Superman. It depicts a group of supervillains having to work for the government who wishes to take down a paranormal entity which has attacked a city. Throughout this review I will reference another film, Batman: Assault on Arkham, as that is another Suicide Squad movie, although, it is set in the Arkham universe rather than the DCEU. This review contains spoilers but please skip to the conclusion for my final verdict, and special for this review I have a but of a rant.

Plot, Acting and Pacing

Amanda Waller, (Viola Davis), has set up a team of supervillains to fight a possible metahuman, (superpowered), threat under the command of Rick Flag, (Joel Kinnaman). These villains include June Moone, (Cara Delevingne) who is possessed by an entity causing her to become the Enchantress, expert marksman Deadshot, (Will Smith), the insane Harley Quinn, (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang, (Jai Courtney), the pyromancer El Diablo, (Jay Hernandez), Killer Croc, (Adewale Akinnuoye-Abbaje), and Rick Flag's friend Katana, (Karen Fukuhara), who wields a katana which absorbs the souls of those it kills. It goes wrong when the entity possesses June Moone again causing her to take over Midway City, and is preparing to destroy the world. As the Suicide Squad is sent in to stop her, with another mission to rescue an important person, the Joker, (Jared Leto), goes to find his lover, Harley Quinn, and take her from the Squad. I will give the movie credit for embracing the source material. So far the DCEU has tried too hard to ground itself in reality, but Suicide Squad has done a good job in doing this. I have to give David Ayer much credit for doing this, 

The premise of the plot is very good. In fact it bears some similarities to Assault on Arkham with the Squad having to go to a dangerous place and retrieve someone only to find a twist, as well as being confronted by the Joker. Although I did prefer the plot to Assault on Arkham I did enjoy the plot to Suicide Squad. I was worried about pacing, something which really let Batman v. Superman down, but the film was well paced making it more enjoyable. However, I do have some gripes. Before the final act the reason why the Squad chooses to join Rick Flag seems very forced which really hindered the movie. Not only this, but I felt that Killer Croc, Katana, and to an extent Captain Boomerang were often sidelined which is a shame seen as Killer Croc is one of my favorite Batman villains. Katana only had a few lines in the film. It was a shame seeing these characters sidelined. Even the Joker was sidelined with around 90% of what was filmed being cut from the movie. Similarly, much of the scenes depicting Killer Croc's backstory was cut which again was a disappointment. It is especially disappointing considering that Akinnuoye-Abbaje spent so much time watching the DCAU, reading about cannibalism, and watched crocodiles to prepare for the role. The cuts even created a distorted view of Harley's and the Joker's relationship: the cuts caused their relationship to seem really loving whereas originally it was true to the comics, (and the DC Animated Universe where Harley first appeared), where they were in an abusive relationship. Already I've seen internet posts where people who have yet to read the comics or watch the DCAU state that Harley and the Joker were in a perfect, albeit homicidal relationship, which is far from the truth. 

Now to the acting. Viola Davis as Amanda Waller was really good; she perfectly captures the character's ruthlessness and authoritarianism which made the performance really good. With the rest of the cast I would say that the acting was good. I feared that the movie would neglect all the Squad bar Will Smith and Margot Robbie, but it didn't which gave the cast more time with their performances. Each actor worked well with one another which created a good team dynamic between the cast. Even the marginalized characters, like Croc, were given good performances so I feel the film could have been even better if they had not cut so many scenes. Now to Jared Leto. It had the makings of a good performance but I could not tell if that was due to Leto himself or due to him not being in the movie for very long, preventing him from giving a better performance. Again, if they release an unedited version of the movie we may be able to see how good a performance it was. Overall, Mark Hamill and Heath Ledger were the better Jokers, whether Leto can top Jack Nicholson and Caesar Romero that has yet to be seen. Clara Delevingne gave a mixed performance, but it was a relatively good one considering she is a relatively new actor compared to the other main cast. As June Moone, and at times the Enchantress, she was really good, but when she goes into the Central American deity mode with the voice over her performance is not as good, and the strange dance she had to do was very offputting. It looked more comical than intimidating. I must say though that Margot Robbie nailed Harley Quinn on the head; definitely one of the best live-action comic book performances that I have seen.

Effects

I would say the effects are a mixed bag. At times the CGI was good, such as the close up fighting scenes, while at other times it was not as good. Specifically, when it's showing Enchantress and her brother around the vortex. It seemed to resemble graphics from a video game five years ago rather than a big budget movie. I did not notice it but my friend said he saw the Enchantress' body being pixelated in the corner of the screen at one point. However, I did like the use of practical effects, especially Killer Croc's makeup. It looked very realistic and made the movie better as a result.

Easter Eggs and Trivia

David Ayer has truly honored the source material and has had fun with it. Throughout Suicide Squad there are many easter eggs and trivia to be found. Most of the movie takes place in Midway City where Hawkgirl and Hawkman sometimes protect, and the prison for metahumans, Belle Reve, appears in it's traditional place in Louisiana. Killer Croc speaks in a Cajun accent just like in the comics, and he mentions how he's beautiful. Originally there was going to be a scene showing his backstory which is directly from the comics. Slipknot's inclusion to be killed off immediately is reminiscent to KGBeast's inclusion just to be immediately killed off in Assault on Arkham. Batman appears three times and he is more like he is in the comics as he doesn't go out of his way to kill. The Flash also appears and takes down Captain Boomerang, and I have heard there was going to be a scene where Slipknot gets taken down by Wonder Woman but it wasn't in the final edit. I have a feeling this is due to the fact that Slipknot was only included to be killed off so this was not as needed as much as Deadshot, Harley Quinn and Boomerang. Harley Quinn at one point has a mallet which she used in the DCAU, but throughout the movie she uses a baseball bat which she uses in the Arkham games. Briefly her classic costume from the DCAU is seen and there is even a shot with the Joker replicating a image made by Alex Ross.

The image

Harley also has puddin' tattooed on her as well as a piece of jewelry saying the same thing. She is also seen doing gymnastics several times in reference to her formerly being a gymnast before becoming a psychiatrist. The Joker also has several tattoos with meanings. For one, David Ayer has said that Batman knocked out the Joker's teeth after he killed Robin leading to him getting gold braces and tattooing 'Damaged' on his head. Although, very briefly Harley's file hints that she may have actually killed Robin. The club scene is reminiscent to a scene in Joker by Brian Azzarello where the Joker murders a club owner for making Harley be a stripper. In the comic it is more violent with him skinning the owner while in the film he is just shot. However, Jonny Frost who appears in that graphic novel appears in the movie. There is so much more but I shall leave it at that.

Rant Time

I try to avoid ranting on my blog. I wanted to rant about the British EU referendum result, I wanted to rant about copyright on YouTube, I wanted to rant about how you were misandrist if you said positive things about the new Ghostbusters or if you said anything negative you were a misogynist, I wanted to rant about whitewashing with Dr Strange, Ghost in the Shell and Gods of Egypt. I avoid ranting because I do not wish to upset people. A debate or a calm review I feel is much less polarizing than a rant and I do not want to polarize the people who read this blog. However, I cannot keep this rant off anymore. This rant will cover three topics: harsh critics and Marvel comparisons, studio interference, and 'it was made for the fans'/fan wars.

First off, critics were way too harsh on both this film and Batman v. Superman. This film did not deserve 26% on Rotten Tomatoes or 40 on Metacritic. Of course movie critics occasionally are overly harsh or overly praiseworthy on certain movies; it is understandable because they have to virtually watch every movie released. Through this they will see recurring things in movies, (just think how many times 'I should have killed you when I had the chance' appears in movies), which they eventually get tired of and when a movie does something new it may seem like a breath of fresh air. This mindset is perfectly fine in my opinion. The DCEU is unfortunate to come about after the MCU grew big. The MCU is not perfect by any means, just look at the Thor movies and Iron Man 2 and 3, but when it gets it right it does it phenomenally. Both Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy are on the IMDb Top 250 Movies list. As a result the MCU has set an expectation which critics are looking for, unfairly, which they expect Sony, Fox, and now Warner Bros. to match in quality and tone. Of course Sony's and, to an extent, Fox's attempts have been disastrous. X-Men: Apocalypse, Batman v. Superman and now Suicide Squad were not up to the quality of some MCU movies, and as they are different in tone to the MCU this has been two strikes against them. As a result they've been unfairly degraded. Was Suicide Squad, Batman v. Superman and X-Men: Apocalypse good? Squad I believe is a yes, BvS was mediocre and I have yet to see X-Men so I cannot comment. Are they the worst comic book movies ever? Not by any means. There's all three of the awful Fantastic Four movies, Batman and Robin, Batman Forever and X-Men: The Last Stand were all worse, in my opinion, to BvS and Squad. I even feel Iron Man 3 was worse than BvS. I feel critics have to realize that if a comic book movie is less than stellar the reason for that has nothing to do with comparisons to the style of the MCU but rather other factors, and as a result shouldn't been overly harsh for that reason. An example I want to give is Dredd. Dredd is one of my favorite comic book movies based on the Judge Dredd comics; published by Rebellion Developments. It was well acted, honored the source materials, had good set-design and effects, and had fantastic fight scenes. Critics gave it positive reviews but not many. There were not any negative reviews that I'm aware of but the reason why it got so little reviews was because it was overlooked. The MCU had just gotten big and The Dark Knight Rises had shown DC was awesome again. Critics and audiences forgot this little gem to focus instead on Marvel and DC instead. Hellboy as well has been criminally overlooked in my opinion. Before we rush to DC's defense we have to remember that other comic book companies have been neglected.

My second rant is about the studio. BvS was much better unedited and most of my issues with Squad could have been rectified by keeping the deleted scenes in. Of course it is natural for a studio to have some interference; they have to make money and need to protect their interest. The studio interfered with Tim Burton's Batman by keeping Burton on a leash which produced one of the greatest comic book movies of all times. When they let him off the leash, and later Joel Schumacher, the next Batman movies were not good at all. Warner Bros. should have looked at what Fox did when they intervened in Fantastic Four and produced not only one of the worst comic book movies, but one of the worst movies of all time. Studios parade round the phrase 'it was made for the fans' but they should know fans will sit and watch a four hour comic book movie if they want this to be true. Comic book fans dress as their favorite characters, nitpick individual scenes in movies and debate trivial matters; if we do all that we will happily watch a film for three and a half hours. With the mainstream audiences they too will watch a nerdy film if it's hours long. The Lord of the Rings is one of the most critically acclaimed series of all time and not-geek audiences were more than happy to watch it. Of course BvS or Squad didn't have to sweep the Oscars but if they had made it good then the public would watch it. To be honest the studio didn't need to interfere with BvS at all: a movie with Batman and Superman in the title practically sells itself. If the studio was going to interfere it should have been to not give so much creative control to Zack Snyder. Snyder makes very good looking movies; one thing Watchmen, 300, BvS and Sucker Punch all had were they were good looking. However, it is like a fancy meal in a 5-star restaurant: nice to look at but not filling. If David S. Goyer was given more control then this could improve the DCEU.

Now to my final rant: the Fanboy Wars and 'it was made for the fans'. I hate all this Marvel v. DC. BvS and now Squad has caused DC fanboys to claim that they are hard done by, the MCU is for little kids and has brainwashed critics into thinking that all comic book movies should be like the MCU. Marvel fanboys meanwhile have been saying that DC is a shambles, it's properties are terrible and they cannot do anything right. In response DC fanboys say that Marvel cannot create good characters, Marvel fanboys say Superman and other characters are boring, and the fights continue. I will admit I am a bigger fan of Marvel than DC but that is only because it was Marvel which got me into comics. I still love DC, Image, Dark Horse etc. The Fanboy Wars are absurd. The MCU has produced both good films, (Iron Man, Avengers, Guardians), and bad films, (Thor, Iron Man 2 and 3, Incredible Hulk) while DC has produced one of the greatest films of all times, The Dark Knight. Very rarely though has any of these recent Fanboy Wars mentioned the comics. Nor has they defended the overlooked comic books:it was fans of all comics which got a Dredd sequel to be put into the works, none have commented on the possibility of a new Crow or Spawn movie, Kingsmen went overlooked by both until it was released, and none went to defend the appalling Cowboys and Aliens. Now to my other major point: 'it's made for the fans' is not an excuse to making a less than good movie. The Killing Joke, Dredd, Under the Red Hood and Dark Knight Returns were all made for fans and were good. BvS and Squad were clearly made for a wider audience, as well as for fans, and because critics didn't like it studios tried to pit fans against studios so their movie had some defense. It worked as well. I am tired though of being expected to rush to defend a not very good movie, Squad was somewhat good though, just because I'm a comic book fan. I hate it when people say 'it's just a kid's film' to defend a bad kid's movie or 'it's just a goofy movie' to defend films like Nine Lives and 'it's for the fans' is no exception. I am sick of this being a defense and I am sick of being expected to become a white knight for a poor comic book movie. 

Well that's my rant.

Conclusion

For good acting, some good effects, honoring the source material and a relatively good story, but thanks to cuts and poor CGI at times I will give Suicide Squad a 6.8/10. I would consider it an alright movie, could have been better but could have been worse. Regardless if you liked Suicide Squad or not I would strongly advise watching Assault on Arkham: it's better than Suicide Squad and a good comic book movie overall.

10,000 Views Special: Why I read Comics

Two weeks ago this blog received 10,000 views. First off I would like to thank everyone for taking their time to read this blog and push it up to 10,000 views. I was debating what to do to celebrate this milestone until I thought that I should do something personal. As you can all tell I am a huge comic book fan and I read any comic: Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, Image etc. My favorite superheros range from Batman to Black Panther to Ms Marvel to Hellboy to Spawn. For over half my life I have been reading comics and around half of this blog is devoted to comics. This post may seem a bit rambling but it needs to be a bit of a ramble to properly explain why I read comics and why I'm optimistic about the future of the comic book industry.

Why I read them

This may seem an obvious point; comics are made to entertain people and we read them to be entertained. I do read comic books for that reason. I read books, play video games, write stories and watch films for this reason also. However, to me comic books are much more than just illustrated monthly stories. Mark Hamill, who played both Luke Skywalker and the Joker, stated that comics were 'the greatest form of escapism'. In my opinion this is a fairly accurate statement. Comic books throw you into a world where people who should not exist exist, the most fantastical events take place, and things that would be regarded as the greatest of feats in our world are treated as normal. Comics throw you into the lives of fantastical people with no build up; you become part of this world at the same rate as the character you are reading about. Comic books have been published for far longer than any person reading this blog has been alive: Doctor Occult, DC's first character, first appeared in 1935, Superman in 1938, Namor the Sub-Mariner, Marvel's first hero, in 1939 and Batman in 1939. Issues published by companies continue from their origins so many years ago, and readers get thrown right into it. It is like meeting someone for the first time: you enter their lives at some point and you find out the rest as you progress your relationship. In 1991 the Mutant Registration Act last appeared in the Marvel Universe, but it would later be mentioned in the Civil War story arc fifteen years later in passing. That is the glory of comic books; it can briefly allude to events happening years ago without taking you out of the present. 

Comic books are all about escapism. Although I do like realistic heroes, stories and events, (after all Batman is one of my favorite all time characters), comic books manage to blend realism with fantasy. Batman is one of the most realistic heroes using his fortune to build advanced equipment to fight crime, but he fights alongside an alien he gets a whole host of powers from the sun's rays and the daughter of the Amazonian queen who brought her to life from clay, (or was the biological daughter of Zeus). Y: The Last Man has the very unrealistic scenario of every mammal with a Y chromosome, bar am escape artist and his Capuchin monkey, dying alongside the realism of a world societies recovering from the initial collapse. Comic books blend realism and fantasy to draw us into a world so different from our own to help us forget about our own world. Even comics which have virtually no fantastical elements do this well. From Hell, for the most part, deals with a realistic mystery set in Victorian London trying to solve the Jack the Ripper case. Alan Moore managed to get a realistic setting for most of the story but did it in a way which drew people away from their own world and into one with Abberline hunting the Ripper. The staying power of comics is evidence of this escapism and the characters created really bonded with the readers.

I wish to talk more about the characters as it gets quite personal. Comic books have been published over so many years, with many characters over the decades, which means that as comic book readers we can see the evolution of these characters. We saw them at their highs and we saw them at their lows. We understand what they are going through and care so much about them. I was one of the many people who were outraged with the U-turn of Spider-Man's personality in One More Day and how Batman revoked his 'no killing rule' in Batman v. Superman. When Batman v. Superman was released I saw several internet comments questioning comic book fans why they were so outraged that Batman and Superman killed people. The simple answer is that we have bonded so much with these characters that we hate to see everything what they stand for thrown aside. Commonly referred to as the worst fanfiction of all time, My Immortal depicts all the Harry Potter characters in the incorrect ways, (such as having Dumbledore being uncaring), which was one reason why it got so badly slammed, (although that was just one of many things wrong with that fanfiction). This is the same case. We know so well these characters so we don't want to see them portrayed badly. I love Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, but I was disappointed in the way they treated by favorite Batman villain: Scarecrow. He is a complex and dark villain who utilizes the one weakness we all have, our fears, and in Batman Begins he is soon overshadowed by the final act while in the others he is sidelined. Now I shall get into my final point about why I read comics, (partially to do with the characters).

I suffer from chronic depression and social anxiety disorder. For many years I found it hard to cope with these issues; often I felt alone and felt like a pariah. When I was first diagnosed it was a time when I had started to truly get into comic books. Years prior I had a small interest in comics: I would read a few comics, (largely Dark Horse's Star Wars publications), I loved the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films, (Spider-Man 3 less than the rest), when I was younger I watched The Batman by the creators of Jackie Chan Adventures and I thought The Dark Knight was a cinematic masterpiece, (I still do). Around the time I was diagnosed I properly got into comic books. I had started my own collection in earnest, I got Batman: Arkham Asylum, I started looking online for older comics, I bought on Amazon one of my favorite comic book video games, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, and I read about the characters which didn't appear in the comics which I did own. When I got immersed into the world of comic books I started to sympathize with characters. The X-Men and the mutants were outcasts of society, Hellboy found it hard to initially fit in with his human colleagues and was plagued by the knowledge that he was summoned to Earth to be the catalyst of the apocalypse, Batman was tormented by the memories of his parents, Barbara Gordon's paralysis and the Joker killing Jason Todd, and Daredevil himself had depression. To me this made the escapism of comic books even more poignant and at times it helped me cope. Explaining these feelings to people who do not have depression or social anxiety is difficult but seeing characters having their own problems helped me cope with my own.

When this was happening comic books were not yet in the mainstream. I received a bit of criticism for enjoying comics, not very much though, and for a while I was the only one that I knew who read comic books. This soon changed. Batman: Arkham Asylum was well received by both comic book fans and non-fans alike, and the sequel Arkham City gained even more attention. Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe suddenly hit everyone, not just comic book fans, with The Avengers. People who I knew who had scoffed at comic books in the past were talking excitedly about this new films, and to this day it is one the IMDb Top 250 films list. That same year we also had The Dark Knight Rises, although not as good as the previous one, showed that comic book movies were good and profitable. Now we are at a stage where the Justice League is getting its own film, the previously obscure Guardians of the Galaxy could have a film regarded as one of the best comic book movies of all time, Deadpool could have a much loved movie and comic books could be in the mainstream without being ridiculed. 

Why I'm hopeful

Comic books moving to the mainstream, and the changes happening in the industry has inspired some hope. Although Marvel Now! is a bit all over the place at the moment, (Captain America 'Hail Hydra' springs to mind), it is doing somethings right. I really am liking the fact that one of my favorite Marvel heroes, Carol Ann Danvers, is now Captain Marvel, and is enjoying some much needed attention. She is a really good character who's been often overlooked in the past. Equally, I like how Marvel is having Rira Williams become the new Iron Man. It's a bold move which adds some diversity to the Marvel roster. Although DC's New 52 was hit and miss it did some really good things. Harley Quinn's and Batgirl's own publications were really well done and developed two very loved characters. DC Rebirth released this year has done several good things, like bringing back Wally West, and it genuinely had me stunned. The revelation that Superman has cancer and that the Watchmen are entering the DC Universe was a big shock to the system. 

Comic books in recent years have been introducing so many more diverse characters: we have Muslim heroes, deaf heroes, homosexual and bisexual heroes, heroes with mental illnesses and more ethnic minority heroes. I have to say Simon Baz is now one of my favorite Green Lanterns and I hope he appears in the live-action DC films. Miles Morales as Spider-Man for years has been the saving grace for the the Ultimate comics and I really hope he appears in the MCU. As comics become more diverse more people can become interested in them; we can have future comic book writers picking up a Dark Horse, IDW Publishing, DC or Marvel comic now and becoming inspired by it. Hopefully with comics now in the mainstream people can read comics and seek the same solace which I did. May comics continue to do as well as they have been doing for another eighty years.

DC Rebirth

Marvel Now!

Thanks for reading, thank you for the 10,000 views and next time I'll be reviewing the Suicide Squad movie.

Review: Batman: The Killing Joke (2016)

Warning: Spoilers

The Killing Joke

One of the most controversial Batman stories was adapted into an animated film which saw a limited worldwide release on Monday. I am a huge Batman fan and despite the controversial nature of the comic The Killing Joke is one of my favorite Batman stories. Hence, I was fairly excited to see this film. Like always this review contains spoilers so please skip to the conclusion where I give my final verdict if you don't want any spoilers. Before I start though most of my opinions concerning The Killing Joke can be found in my Comics Explained which I did for this story if you are interested in reading it.

Plot

Unexpectedly this film does not only use the story of the comic. Instead it starts off with another story depicting Batgirl, (Tara Strong), and Batman, (Kevin Conroy), trying to take down a narcissistic mobster, (Maury Sterling), who has a perverse fascination about Batgirl. Following this is the actual The Killing Joke story, (please see here). Overall the plot of the film is very good. The second half is a direct adaptation of the story so it builds on what originally worked while the first half I feel could have worked as a standalone story. The pacing of both halves is done very well so this allowed the plot to not feel rushed, as well as both halves not feeling rushed as well. The Joker's song when showing Gordon images of a tortured Barbara was done very well also and it epitomizes the Joker; singing happily and cheerfully about the darkest of things imaginable. Although, I felt that the second half was stronger than the first, but that does not mean that the first half was bad.  

The first half I originally thought was just filler to pad out the film, unlike The Dark Knight Returns or The Long Halloween The Killing Joke is a somewhat shorter story, until the second half started. It served as a good way to build up to the overall theme of the story: can we bring ourselves back from the darkness. It delves much with Batgirl finding the strength not to permanently harm, or even kill, a sadistic sociopath who has been fantasizing about her and wants to make her his own. It very much helps set up the second half effectively which deals with not giving in to our own anger. I particularly liked the mobster who Batgirl wants to take down, Paris, and I could easily imagine him being one of the Bat family mobster villains like Black Mask. However, there were some things that I was not happy with. Largely the Bat sex. I shall talk more about this because to me and many others it seemed to ruin the first half.

For those who weren't aware Batman and Batgirl have sex and throughout the story it plays with sexual tension which Batgirl feels for Batman. I hated this aspect of the story. I have a feeling that Brian Azzarello thought that exploring a relationship between Batman and Batgirl this would create a bigger impact for the second half. As a comic book fan and a huge Batman and Batgirl fan I felt this was a complete misrepresentation of the characters, and from what people are saying on the internet I am not alone. I always felt Batman was like a father figure for Batgirl rather than a romantic interest and this could easily have been shown by the film. To me it would have been much better if Batman's protectiveness over Batgirl and her rebelling against him was meant to represent a father wanting to protect his daughter and a daughter wanting to show her father that she can do these things. Batman mentioning not giving in to the darkness could have worked into this as well. A scene in the second half has the Batcomputer which shows an image of a dying Robin. In the story Death in the Family the Joker beats to death Jason Todd who was the second Robin which Batman sees as his greatest failure. I felt maybe they could have used this and have Batman's protectiveness being about the fear of losing a daughter just as he lost a son. Thanks to this Bat sex issue it really messed up the first half of the story.

Voice Acting

Mark Hamill aka the Joker

One of the best things about the movie is the voice acting. The actors who voiced their characters in the DC Animated Universe reprise their roles in this movie. Kevin Conroy is by far my favorite Batman and he brings back that good performance in this movie. Tara Strong is back as Batgirl and she is really good as well. I find Strong's work to always be good and this is no exception. John DiMaggio, (Jake the Dog from Adventure Time and Bender from Futurama), is in this and I did not know until the credits, and he does a good job here also. However, all this is overshadowed by one actor: Mark Hamill. Hamill reprises his role as the Joker and he steals the show. He is once again fantastic and literally everything about him is done well. In this role he captures everything that makes the Joker: happy about doing the most evil things possible, suddenly going into a psychotic rage, then laughing immediately after the rage, singing gleefully about dying children and going insane, and all with a perverse charm. I had goose bumps when he gave the famous 'One Bad Day' monologue. He steals the show without a doubt. The joke he says at the end actually got laughs from some people at the end despite the dire atmosphere which shows his good performance. In his final performance as the Joker he definitely solidifies himself as the best Joker.

Animation

Both good, like this, and poor at times

The animation is a mixed bag. At times, such as the shot above, it is very well done very good animation. There's two times where it really stands out: one when the Batmobile pulls an armored car from a truck and another when the Joker's admiring his amusement park. During the final fight between the Joker and Batman it is really well done and the quick paced editing really adds to the effect. I particularly like how they've made it resemble the DC Animated Universe animation style which is a nice throwback. However, at times the animation is poor and the editing choppy. There's only one point when it stands out, when Batman is entering Arkham Asylum, but periodically throughout the film the animation quality drops as well as the frames per second. It is noticeable and it is really offputting, especially when it is really good at other times of the movie. As the budget of the film is only around US $ 3.5 million I have a feeling they purposefully gave the more important scenes the better animation which is a shame. It really wrecks the rest of the movie that some scenes has far better editing and animation. Although for just three and a half million it does have good animation and it is far better than Norm of the North with a budget around six times that of The Killing Joke. Although, I was a bit disappointed that they left out the two beams of light and one turning off that was at the end of the comic, (which started the theory that Batman killed the Joker), but that might just be me as it is my favorite panel in the comic.

Music

The music is phenomenal. Most Batman movies have good music and this one is no exception. As said earlier the Joker's song is really good and the use of a Broadway type song is very imaginative and fits very well with the Joker's personality. During the last fight as well it is very tense which adds to an already tense scene making a thrilling experience. From a technical standpoint this is the best part of the film. Nothing more to be said of it. 

Documentaries

The movie had two short documentaries with it: one before about Mark Hamill as the Joker and one after about the music. Both were good although I preferred the first one. It starts with Hamill in 1976 being cast as Luke Skywalker, then up to the 1990s when he became the Joker, then in 2008/9 when he reprised his role in Batman: Arkham Asylum and then 2016 with this movie. It was a good homage to the best Joker in my opinion.

References

Like all comic book movies it contains some references to the wider DC universe although with this one it is mostly limited to the Batman comics. John DiMaggio appeared who played the Joker, very well as well, in Batman: Under the Red Hood. Two Face also has a brief cameo when Batman arrives at the asylum where his scarred side is clawing at the front of his cell. Finally, on the Batcomputer there are several references to famous Joker stories including Death in the Family as a beaten Robin can be seen as well as referencing the Joker's very first appearance in one part of the screen.

Conclusion

With good animation at times, good voice acting, phenomenal work from Hamill and good music but thanks to bad editing at times, some poor animation, a weaker first half and that unforgivable Bat sex scene I shall give Batman: The Killing Joke a 7.1/10. Not as good as Under the Red Hood or The Dark Knight Returns and I doubt Alan Moore would be happy with it, but it is a good film regardless which I feel any DC fan will enjoy. Thanks for reading and please feel free to give me your own opinions on the movie.

Last week this blog reached 10,000 views and by the time of the writing of this post it has almost reached 11,000. For that reason next post shall be a very personal 10,000 view post and a thank you to you all for helping me reach this number.

Comics Explained: The Killing Joke

The Killing Joke cover

As of writing an animated adaptation of The Killing  Joke will be given a limited release in cinemas worldwide. For those who do not know The Killing Joke was written as an Elseworlds story; Elseworlds are DC Comics stories set in parallel universes to the mainstream DC universe. Created by Alan Moore, (of Watchmen and V for Vendetta fame), Brian Bolland and John Higgins this story has managed to become part of the mainstream DC Universe, however, it also remains as the most controversial and dark Batman story. For the intense violence and sadism done by the Joker in this story, as well as the trauma of his origin, this story gained fame for being the definitive Joker story. The creators have even stated that they went too far with what they did in the story. Most of the criticism is directed to the treatment of Barbara Gordon, which is extremely well justified, and Alan Moore has criticized it at least three times. For this reason before we begin I will give a warning that The Killing Joke contains many moments which people may find upsetting. At the most traumatic parts I shall not go into detail or show images from the comic but, it is still very graphic. All images shown are owned by their respective companies and authors with no copyright infringement intended.

Opening

'Two Guys in a Lunatic Asylum'

The story opens with Batman visiting the Joker in Arkham Asylum. Batman has been thinking about his relationship with the Joker; how two men who know nothing about one another could hate each other so much. Batman also has been thinking about the end of their relationship. Either the Joker will kill Batman or Batman will kill the Joker. Batman wants to help the Joker so this will never come to pass. However, Batman then realizes that the man in the shadows he had been talking to was not the Joker but instead a stooge put there by the Joker as a distraction while he escaped. While this is happening the Joker is buying a carnival, and killing the seller, to enact his plan. Batman returns to the Bat Cave pondering that his and the Joker's relationship is in an endless cycle. The Joker escapes then kills and mains before being taken down by Batman. Later the Joker escapes and the cycle continues. Batman wonders how many have been killed or could have been saved if this cycle was broken. Meanwhile, we see the possible origin of the Joker.

Making a Murderer

A failed comedian

Years ago a stand-up comedian is struggling to find money for his pregnant wife. His comedy career is failing as he fails to remember the punchlines, he misses his cues and the audience remains silent as he tells his jokes. To consul the broken comedian his wife says it doesn't matter as long as he makes her laugh. Desperate for money he plans a heist of the chemical plant he used to work at but during the preparation stage his wife is tragically killed in a household accident. Despite this the criminals force him to continue with the heist that night. The comedian is forced to dress up as the infamous Red Hood he would act as a distraction for the police. During the heist the police gun down the criminals but then a creature of the night arrives. Batman early on in his career arrives at the plant but the Red Hood fears him. He panics and jumps into a chemical waste pound lock. Later on he surfaces but sees that his face has become bleached, hair turned green and body has become disfigured. He starts laughing manically. One bad day was all it took to turn make him insane. 

One Bad Day

Years later he decides to show Batman this.

Another Bad Day

The Joker decides to test his theory on someone who should be able to keep his cool no matter what: Commissioner Jim Gordon. Gordon was visiting his daughter, Barbara, (who was the then Batgirl but Jim was not aware of this), at her apartment. The doorbell rings and when she answers it she sees the Joker standing there with two armed goons.

The moment that changed DC history

The Joker then shot Barbara Gordon in her sternum. Horrified at seeing his daughter shot Jim Gordon panics before being knocked out by the Joker's goons. Barbara later wakes in hospital with Batman standing worried over her. They both realize that Jim is missing and the Joker had left Barbara lying in her own blood which points to the idea that the Joker has plans for Jim. Batman sets off then to find the Joker.

Meanwhile, Jim Gordon wakes up naked in a demonic amusement park. Before him sitting on a throne on top of a mound of dolls, and surrounded by burning dolls, is the Joker. When Jim questions the Joker about what is happening he merely replies 'You're going mad'.

The Joker's Throne

The Joker has Gordon dragged to a room where he is shown pictures of his daughter stripped naked on the floor being abused and bleeding out on the floor, (thankfully these images in the comic are almost fully obscured). While this is happening he is being tortured and jeered at by the Joker and his cronies. Batman soon arrives and frees Gordon. At this moment Batman finds out that the Joker's plan to make Jim Gordon go insane. Gordon pleads with Batman to bring the Joker down as he normally does. Batman immediately tracks down the Joker who then has a brief moment of sanity, (the Joker briefly looks distraught that he shot Barbara Gordon and tortured her father), and then tries to shoot Batman only to realize it was a fake gun. He has realized that he has failed to turn Batman insane as well. The Joker then begins to tell Batman a joke: 

See, there were these two guys in a lunatic asylum… and one night, one night they decide they don’t like living in an asylum any more. They decide they’re going to escape! So, like, they get up onto the roof, and there, just across this narrow gap, they see the rooftops of the town, stretching away in the moon light… stretching away to freedom. Now, the first guy, he jumps right across with no problem. But his friend, his friend didn’t dare make the leap. Y’see… Y’see, he’s afraid of falling. So then, the first guy has an idea… He says, “Hey! I have my flashlight with me! I’ll shine it across the gap between the buildings. You can walk along the beam and join me!” B-but the second guy just shakes his head. He suh-says… He says, “Wh-what do you think I am? Crazy? You’d turn it off when I was half way across!

Surprisingly Batman laughs at the joke. He starts to keel over laughing and places his hands on Joker's shoulders. The last panel just shows one beam of light and the laughter stops.

'Two Guys in a Lunatic Asylum'

Legacy
The Killing Joke has a controversial legacy. Feminist comic book fans and writers have criticized the extreme violence that was done to Barbara Gordon and the fact that I could not show you or go into detail about the violence shows how justified this criticism is. The fact that even Alan Moore has said that he is not happy about what he did just shows how disturbing this comic is. The first time that I read The Killing Joke I found it that discomforting that I had to stop reading and to date it is the only comic that has managed to achieve this. Not even the Crossed comics caused this level of discomfort. Despite the controversy The Killing Joke was well received and was made part of the mainstream DC universe. Barbara Gordon remained paralyzed thanks to the events of the story but, remained a hero in the form of Oracle. With the New 52 reboot of the DC universe in 2011 Barbara Gordon managed to get become Batgirl once more. However, the events of The Killing Joke remained with her as Barbara occasionally suffers from PTSD during gun fights and the cover for Batgirl #41 which was inspired by the story had to be redone due to the horrific imagery on it.

The Killing Joke has greatly inspired Batman related media outside of comic books. The Joker's Hawaiian tourist outfit, which he wears while shooting Barbara, are available costumes in the video games Lego Batman and Injustice: Gods Among Us. The Birds of Prey TV series starts with the Joker paralyzing Barbara and The Batman animated TV series has two references to this story. Detective Ethan Bennett is broken, (and turned into Clayface), by the Joker in the same way the Gordon is as well as the Joker giving the same monologue about having 'one bad day'. Later on in the series there is an episode set in the future where Barbara has become Oracle. Also, every one of the Batman: Arkham games mentions in someway this story, (mostly as in all bar one Barbara appears as Oracle). In Asylum the Joker sits on a throne of mannequins, uses an alias Jack White, (used in this story when buying the amusement park) and he also starts telling the lunatic joke before saying 'you've heard it before'. In City Joker tells the story to Hugo Strange and in Origins you get to see his origin as he gives the 'one bad day' monologue. Finally, in Knight there are several: the Joker repeatedly mentions the story, Batman hallucinates and sees a, thankfully, less disturbing version of Joker paralyzing Barbara and in the DLC where you play as Batgirl the Joker shoots at Barbara, misses and then says that 'the next one won't'. Incidentally Knight also references another controversial Batman story; Death in the Family where the Joker killed Jason Todd who was the second Robin. Both Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan were inspired by The Killing Joke when creating their respective version of the Joker and, Nolan even gave Heath Ledger a copy of the story to read. The Joker's creation scene was also shown in the animated film Batman: Under the Red Hood, (incidentally the film shows Jason Todd's death). My favorite person to play the Joker, the incredible Mark Hamill, only agreed to play the Joker one last time if this story would be adapted, (he is in fact playing the Joker in the new film).

Finally, with the controversy is it worth reading? I would argue yes. In my opinion this comic is not about the Joker trying to break Gordon but rather the extreme lengths the Joker will go to show that he and Batman are the same. The Joker wants so desperately for Batman to kill him as it would show both of them that they are the same. Like the Joker one bad day made Batman go insane; seeing his parents shot in front of him propelled him to becoming the Batman. While Bruce Wayne's bad day led his mania to become a force for good the bad day for a nameless comedian propelled him into a life destined to end all that was good. The Joker, meanwhile, is infuriated that Batman has not acknowledged how similar they are and is willing to destroy Barbara and Jim Gordon to make Batman see this. Like Death of the Family years later this story effectively shows the unhinged obsession the Joker has with Batman. One last note there is a theory about the last scene's imagery, (shown earlier). Grant Morrison, (author of Batman Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on a Serious Earth where he took imagery too far with every page having some hidden artistic meaning on it), has theorized that Alan Moore and the other creators had Batman prove Joker's idea that they were so close to being one another true. The last two shots show the laughter ending and a light going out. Morrison believes that this references the joke the Joker told and that Batman snapped the Joker's neck.

Thank you for reading. The other sources that I have used, (I took some information from the links of the picture captions), are as follows:
-Batman: The Killing Joke by Alan Moore
-DC Comics Year by Year: A Visual Chronicle by Alan Coswill, Alex Irvine, Matthew K.Manning, Michael McAvennie, and Daniel Wallace
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36V6oni9Mw

World History: Rome: Kingdom to Republic to Empire

When we think about ancient European civilizations the one which instantly springs to mind is that of Rome. Without Rome Europe would have gone down a very different path that it did do as well as North Africa and the Near East. The legacy of Rome can be found in all traces of western society: the works of Shakespeare, the American senate and Christianity to name just a few things. As Alexander the Great, (see here), was forging an empire in the east Rome was spreading across the Italian peninsular. As Alexander's empire splintered following his death Rome continued on until 476 CE in the west and 1453 CE in the east. How did such a remarkable city achieve all this over two thousand years ago? First we must look at the mythical, and the actual, founding of Rome.

Foundation

Romulus and Remus and the wolf

There are many variations of the main story of how Rome was founded. One variation has the king of Alba Longa, Numiter, being overthrown by his brother Amulius. Amulius had Numiter's male heirs executed and his daughter, Rhea Silvia, forced into becoming a Vestal Virgin. However, Rhea had become pregnant by the god Mars with twin boys. Amulius had Rhea's twins thrown into the River Tiber. The twins were discovered by a she-wolf who suckled the twins until they were discovered by the shepherd Faustulus and his wife Acca Larentia. The two raised the twins until they discovered their true heritage and aided their grandfather in ousting Amulius. However, the brothers did not want to wait until Amulius died to become kings so they went out to form their own city. A quarrel erupted between the brothers about who would found the city: Remus saw six vultures first while Romulus saw twelve vultures. Remus said his claim was stronger as he saw an augury first whereas Romulus claimed that as he saw more vultures it was his right. A fight ensued and Romulus committed fratricide. Romulus then finished the new city and invited people from all around to inhabit it ranging from runaway slaves to political refugees. However, only men inhabited the city. To rectify this in what has been called the 'Rape of the Sabines' men of Rome kidnapped, married and raped the women of the neighboring Sabines. As the men of Sabine went to destroy Rome in retaliation it would have ended in bloodshed had not the Sabine women called for peace. Peace was declared and Rome entered a golden age. Of course this story is a myth but it was very important in Roman legacy. They were ashamed of their mythical origin; they were ashamed that a hero like Romulus could commit fratricide and then order the kidnapping and rape of the women of Sabine. Stories were then created saying that Romulus's friend killed Remus and, the poet Virgil, (from The Divine Comedy), claimed that Remus was never killed. Instead he claimed that the brothers ruled side by side.

Another tale says that Rome was founded by refugees fleeing from the destruction of Troy. However, the actual founding of Rome has some connections to Greece. The city that is now Rome was founded by a group of people called the Etruscans, hailing from Etruria in modern day Tuscany, Lazio and Umbria. The Etruscans had trading ties with the Greeks and Greek society heavily influenced that of Rome, notice how similar the Roman pantheon is to that of the Greeks. For centuries the Etruscans would form the elite of Roman society, even after Rome became a republic, and this can be seen in the way that early Roman burial urns were the shape of houses exactly like Etruscan burial urns. Around 511 BCE though the kings were ousted. The son of King Tiberius Superbus raped a noblewoman called Lucretia. In response the Roman Senate revolted and ousted the kings. The Roman Republic was born.

Republic and Society

19th Century fresco of a Senate debate

The Roman Republic was organised around the Senate. You might recognize the acronym SPQR when looking at Roman motives and coins; this stands for Senatus Populusque Romanus (The Roman Senate and People). For years the Republic was ruled by two Consuls who ruled for a year and were chosen from among the members of the Senate who had previously been other elected officials. The phrase Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? can be linked to this as each Consul was supposed to check the power of the other as both could veto the other's decisions. The fact that Consuls had to serve for one year was also a way to check their power. Who made up the Senate though? The idea that the Senate's authority rested with the people, (as many parliaments do in present day governments), is not entirely accurate. To see who could sit in the Senate we have to look at Roman society. Society was initially split into patricians, (aristocracy), and plebians or 'plebs', (everyone else). As the Consuls chose the Senators this meant most Senators came from patricians. However, by 287 BCE the plebians had gotten legal equality with the patricians as the growth of Roman rule over new lands extended and merchants benefiting from the growth of Roman power started to become richer than patricians. This is a recurring theme in history which we shall look in more detail at when we reach the French and Industrial Revolutions. After 287 BCE membership of the Senate was mainly based on two factors: if you were rich, (similar to the Greek city state democracies), and if you were a citizen. Citizens had to be freeman or natives of Rome and the outlying areas. That is until 89 BCE. By 91 BCE Rome ruled all of Italy and Italians were angered that they were not citizens despite being similar to their Roman overlords. Thus started the Social War as they were angered that fellow Italians lacked equality. After two years they were defeated but given equality. Thus was the power of the idea of citizenship.

The Senate and Republic were not entirely safe though. Decades before the rise of Julius Caesar the Senate had been toppled by generals. If the Republic was in danger a magistrate could be declared dictator. Unlike the dictators like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin that we are used to a Roman dictator was a temporary position. They could do whatever they want until the threat to the Republic passed. The general Sulla was just one who managed to repeatedly become dictator and it was not uncommon for Consuls to maneuver themselves into serving multiple terms. Rome also faced threat from outside. In 390 BCE, for example, the Gauls managed to sack Rome and managed to burn most of it to the ground. Also, Rome had to face the might of another Mediterranean powerhouse: Carthage.

The Punic Wars

Hannibal crossing the Alps

Carthage was an empire which stretched across most of the Mediterranean ruling from Morocco to Libya. Southern Spain, Sardinia, Corsica, Malta and Sicily were all part of the Carthaginian Empire. All of it was ruled from a city state around modern day Tunis. Like Rome one of the mythical origins of the city was that it was founded by Trojan refugees and like Rome it was a power; Carthage a naval one while Rome was a land one. As Rome started expanding out of Italy it naturally came into conflict with Carthage and in 264 BCE the first Punic War started. Despite being a land power Rome had been studying Carthaginian boats and, had expropriated the boats for themselves. Through this Rome succeeding in taking Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily. In 218 BCE a Carthaginian general called Hannibal decided to expand on his conquest of the Iberian city of Saguntum by going to war against Rome in its heartland. It was during this war that Hannibal led war elephants over the Alps and into the Italian peninsula after passing through Roman Gaul as well as inflicting massive damage onto the Roman forces at Lake Trasimene (in 217 BCE) and Cannae, (in 216 BCE). However, Hannibal had made a huge error in not bringing siege equipment with him so he could not take Rome. Stranded in Italy for several years his forces were bled dry by the Romans until he fled back to North Africa. At the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE Hannibal was defeated and Rome took almost all of Carthage's lands. The final Punic War started in 149 BCE. By this time Carthage was merely a city but there was a great urge to permanently destroy Rome's old enemy. Cato always said at the end of a speech 'Carthage must be destroyed'. In 146 BCE they succeeded in doing this where Rome destroyed Carthage so thoroughly that it got wiped from the map. All that remains of Carthage is an archaeological site. 

The Punic Wars shows a very interesting fact: Rome became an empire while it was a republic. By conquering lands clearly outside of Italy and conquering people so very different to the Italian people Rome truly became an empire in everything but name. People were put in place to rule over old Carthaginian lands, soldiers were given land in conquered regions and the locals were not given citizenship. This would be evident in every empire in history ranging from the Achaemenid Empire to the British Empire around two millennia later.

Expansion and its consequences

Caesar landing in Britain

Rome capitalized on the disunity of Macedonia and Greece. The last king Pergamon capitulated in 133 BCE. Sparta's isolation, the weakened Macedonian state and various wars between the Greek leagues allowed Rome to take conquer individual states or turn one state against another to do it for them. Not to mention the superiority of the Roman army compared to the moribund Greek phalanxes. The Roman Centurions were more disciplined than that of the Greek phalanxes and were better equipped which gave them massive victories. In the west Roman victories were far more devastating: Rome's conquest of Gaul led to genocide. Unlike the Greeks who were organised in city states and small kingdoms Gaul was a collection of tribal chiefdoms centered around fortified cities called oppida as well as  hillforts. Manching and Mont Beuvray are good examples of oppida. Prior to the Gallic Wars (58-50 BCE) Rome only controlled parts of southern Gaul, southern France, and they called it the Province, (where modern day Provence gets its name from). One general managed to conquer much of Gaul. A general called Gaius Julius Caesar. Caesar would travel from oppida to oppida and conquer any which did not submit to Roman rule. Rome claimed rule over all of Gaul, (an area comprising France, the Low Countries and the western Rhine), despite not actually ruling the land. Hence, any tribe which did not immediately submit would be basically massacre. During the Battle of Bibract in 58 BCE around 238,000 were killed by the Romans. Various other battles numbered this body count, not to mention the massacre of civilians in tribes which did not capitulate immediately. Through conquest and massacre Caesar managed to conquer Gaul and in 55 BCE he landed in Britain, (the Romans did not conquer Britain though).

These conquests had a great effect on Rome. For one, the new conquests in the Balkans, Gaul and from the Punic Wars caused the debate about what it meant to be a citizen. The newly conquered people were seen as vastly different to the peoples of the Italian peninsula but, the Italian peoples had no greater rights than that of the conquered peoples. Thus started the Social Wars. The conquest of Greece brought Greek literature, philosophy and art to Rome which completely altered Roman culture. The Romans managed to adapt Greek culture and make it distinctly Roman. Slavery also grew rapidly with conquest, especially from Gaul. Conquered peoples, including the remaining population of Carthage, were enslaved by the Romans which offered cheap labor for rich agriculturalists. This meant that rural peasants had to flock to the cities which created an urban populace. Rome's expansion also led to the development of capitalism as merchants could come into contact with new areas. The Silk Road boomed when Rome expanded and even the Celtic peoples traded with Rome as a burial at Hochdorf, Germany contained a Greek style cauldron. It also led to the rise of generals capable of toppling the Republic. Due to the size of the empire, (definitely an empire with the addition of Gaul and Greece), soldiers were often drafted from outside Roman lands. Instead of being loyal to Rome they were loyal to their general. To keep soldiers happy when they retired Rome gave them farming land as well but to they needed to conquer land to give soldiers land to farm, which made the Republic need the generals more, but to conquer land they had to more soldiers, which meant the generals were more powerful, but with more soldiers they needed more land etc. etc. This growth of military power led to Gaius Julius Caesar changing the fate of Rome.

Caesar and his legacy

Caesar

Before we look at how Caesar came to power we need to know some background. Caesar had been a family member of an opponent of the general Sulla who started massacring his enemies, (and their families), when he was dictator. This made Caesar distrust the Senate. Caesar was also descended from a patrician family so could claim ancestry to the old aristocracy, (who were supposedly descended from gods). While warring in Gaul he made himself a popular figure. His accounts, written in third person, propelled himself into public limelight and him living among his troops made him a popular figure. Around 59 BCE Caesar joined forces with two other major generals, Crassus and Pompey the Great, to form the Triumvirate which would back each other politically in the Senate, (in 60 BCE Caesar became Consul), which worked very well. After becoming governor of Transalpine Gaul his famous conquests took place where he became a major public figure. However, Crassus was killed in 53 BCE while battling the Parthians of Iran which caused a rift in the Triumvirate. Pompey in 50 BCE got the Senate to call Caesar back to Rome for extending his power as governor. In 49 BCE Caesar crossed the Rubicon river which separated Italy from Rome, but he came with an army saying 'let the die be cast'. If he came back alone he would likely have been arrested. Thus a civil war started and Caesar narrowly managed to win several battles until Pompey fled to Egypt, itself going through a civil war between Ptolemy and his wife/sister Cleopatra battling for power, in 48 BCE. Ptolemy had Pompey beheaded thinking it would get Caesar to be on his side. Instead it infuriated Caesar that such a noble enemy in his eyes could be killed in such a way. He allied with Egypt's genius queen Cleopatra who fathered a son together, Caesarion, with Caesar, (although she arrived in a bag and not a carpet to meet Caesar). Doing this helped strengthened Roman influence in Egypt, especially following Ptolemy's death.

Caesar had taken over all of Rome's land, although forces loyal to Pompey would remain active for years, and he started to make a series of reforms after becoming consul and dictator. Caesar started a series of reforms including getting land pensions for soldiers, reorganized the debts for debtors and made the calendar far more accurate. Previously days in the calendar could be added, or taken away, by the consul but this became politicized as consuls could then use this to extend their own term, the term of allies or shorten the term of enemies. Caesar removed this. However, he also started making himself look like a god. Despite styling himself as a god the Senate still supported him because he became consul several other times. However, when Marc Anthony tried to style him king at a festival the Senate feared his power too much. At the Ides of March in 44 BCE Caesar was stabbed to death by members of the Senate; although he never said 'Et tu Brutus' which was made up by Shakespeare. They did this as they thought they could save the Republic; this failed spectacularly.

The Senate received little support for killing Caesar as his reforms were well liked. A second Triumvirate was formed between Marcus Lepidus, Marc Anthony and Caesar's adopted son Octavian. Unlike the last one it never had success as Octavian and Marc Anthony started battling over who should replace Caesar. The nineteen year old Octavian saw unexpected success. Being Caesar's adopted son he got much support from the military while Marc Anthony had to seek help from Cleopatra. At the Battle of Actium the Egyptian and Anthony's navies were destroyed. Octavian invaded Egypt causing Cleopatra and Anthony to commit suicide and, Egypt was then conquered by Rome in 31 BCE. In 27 BCE Octavian changed his name to Caesar Augustus. The Senate had killed Caesar to preserve the Roman Republic but had instead truly forged the Roman Empire.

Conclusion

Rome's rise to power has captured the imagination of the world. Everything about Rome's history remained important to the Romans. Caesar was murdered after it was rumored he would become king; being deified was seen as being more acceptable than being crowned. Also, as soon as the Roman Republic expanded outside Italy it sowed the seeds of its own destruction. One last thing to think about is Caesar's long lasting legacy. He relied on populism and militarism to rise to power and sustain that power. It is not surprising that he is seen as the first fascist dictator. Next time we'll look at how this empire fell.

Thanks for reading and the sources I have used are as follows:

-The Penguin History of the World by John Roberts

- Reassessing the Oppida: The Role of Power and Religion by Manuel Fernandez-Gotz. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 2014, Vol 33 (4), pp. 379-394

-Exploring Prehistoric Europe by Chris Scarre

-The Times Complete History of the World by Richard Overy

-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPf27gAup9U
- Julius Caesar, BBC Radio Four In Our Time podcast
-Romulus and Remus, BBC Radio Four In Our Time podcast

For a full list of World History posts please see here

Review: Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

Warning: Spoilers!

http://gb.imdb.com/title/tt1628841/

I had been waiting years for this to be released. When I started liking the sci-fi genre I watched Independence Day and loved it. It had some of the best special effects of the 1990s, it was fun, it was cheesy and, I loved it for that reason. When I was fourteen I found out they were planning to make a sequel and after almost six years waiting the film has arrived. Is it any good though? This review does contain spoilers so please skip to the conclusion if you have yet to see the film. 

Plot 

Twenty years after the initial invasion humanity has managed to rebuild itself and incorporate the alien technology with Earth's technology. David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) is the Director of the Earth Space Defense (ESD) preparing for if the aliens ever return as former President Thomas Whitmore (Bill Pullman) continues to have hallucinations from the psychic attack of the alien from the first film. After the ESD shoots down a ship which arrives over the moon a second invasion begins causing widespread devastation. Again humanity has one day to save itself from extinction. I did not expect a plot as detailed and emotive as something like Star Wars and, the plot is nothing too special. It is similar to the first film and this was a, somewhat, good idea. Roland Emmerich knew this was a mindless action/sci-fi movie and a detailed plot would have acted against the film's charm. I even overlooked some of the most outlandish things in the movie, like how humanity put their differences aside after the first invasion, how the aliens somehow drop Beijing and several other Asian cities on London and, how guerrillas in central Africa managed to wipe out a land invasion. However, it lacks something of the original film. Despite the 1990s, f*** yea' 'Murica, cheese of the first film it was very well paced. Hence, it had a sense of urgency. When the aliens were about to blow up Area 51 you felt that this is it. If they don't do something now humanity is extinct. With this film the pacing was quite off so this made it all seem very much less urgent. 

Acting and Characters

http://www.starburstmagazine.com/movie-news/11322-independence-day-2-confirms-jessie-usher-liam-hemsworth-a-jeff-goldblum

Both the acting and characters were a mixed bag. It was nice seeing some of the original cast reprise their roles. However, I was disappointed that Mae Whitman was replaced by Maika Monroe. Both are good actors but I felt that Whitman was better for this role and, I have heard rumors that the recast was due to Whitman not being 'conventionally pretty' according to the producers. If this is true I will be furious. Whitman has been in more roles which would suit this film and, (getting into a small rant), casting should not be down to what the media thinks is pretty. It reinforces the most stupid of stereotypes, pushes back more progressive casting and, it hinders the film as you get poor casting. I digress though. Jeff Goldblum and Brent Spiner, (reprising his role as Dr. Okun), are easily the best two actors, and characters, in the film. They have the best lines, are the best written and have the most fun in the roles. Goldblum has many opportunities to go 'uhm' and 'ahh' between every other word and it is done to a good effect. By playing with Goldblum's tropes they really role with an eccentric performance. However, I felt that his character could have had more screentime as he seemed almost shafted in favor of a meandering plot. Spiner is really good as well expanding on his role from the first film. His charisma and energy brings more life into the film. His rapport with John Storey playing Dr. Isaacs is also very fun to watch. 

The rest of the acting was not bad but they weren't standout either. Although I did complain about Monroe being cast over Whitman she wasn't that bad in the film. She could have had a really good performance but, like with the other cast members, the script let her down. Everyone seemed to struggle to give a good performance with a mediocre script. Liam Hemsworth and Jessie Usher seemed to be the replacements for Will Smith, (especially Usher who plays Smith's character's son). Hemsworth appeared desperate to appear charismatic and Usher seemed to give up. The first film was saved by the charisma of Goldblum and Will Smith; without Smith the film seemed lacking a certain charm. Bill Pullman at times wavered between good, passable and bad. His last lines were delivered in such a bizarre way that I found it hard to believe that this was the same person who gave one of the greatest speeches in cinematic history! The only other standout characters were Deobia Operai's central African warlord and Nicolas Wright's bumbling UN official. They only stood out because I thought Operai's character had potential but was wasted and I wanted Wright's character to just leave. He was the bumbling comic relief but as there were several other comic relief characters he was just redundant and, he lacked the charm of the others. Wright was one of the writers so I have a feeling that he just wanted to be in the film.

Now we get to why I believe the acting is either passable or lacking: too many characters. There were just too many characters which meant that the script had accommodate establishing so many characters. The first film introduced four groups of characters: the Presidential family/workers, Will Smith's family, Goldblum and his dad and, Randy Quaid's family. In this one we had: the President and her staff, the ESD pilots, the UN group, the army staff, Jeff Goldblum's dad, some refugee kids who team up with Jeff Goldblum's dad, the Area 51 scientists and, this tugboat in the Atlantic. Some characters were given too much screentime and others given too little. The refugee kids seemed to be shoehorned in just to give Jeff Goldblum's dad, (Judd Hirsch), a purpose in the film and, even then, it wasn't to progress the plot but instead offer comic relief. I did not learn most of the names of the characters. They tried to fit too much in too little time.

Effects

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/22/independence-day-resurgence-trailer-london-under-attack

Roland Emmerich always does at least one thing well and that is destruction scenes. The scenes where they destroy London and Singapore were truly spectacular. I particularly like how creative they were with the destruction scenes. I was initially worried that they'll just rehash the destruction scene from the first film. During the London destruction scene several characters are flying through the city having about three other cities dropped on it and it is very thrilling. The effects threw everything at you at once which made it very overwhelming. This allowed you to feel part of the action. However, this works against the film in other scenes; especially the dog fight scenes between the ESD and the aliens. Some times it works throwing everything at the viewer at once but other times it doesn't. When it wasn't meant to be overwhelming it was. Also it had too much CGI. The original film mixed CGI, practical effects, pyrotechnics and miniatures. It was so good that it won awards for the effects. Here there were only one or two practical effects and literally everything else were made by CGI. Considering how every action and sci-fi utilizes the same effects what would have otherwise been standout effects did not seem memorable. However, this did not mean that the CGI was bad. The designs were very good and they've definitely put effort into creating such a unique universe. I particularly liked the ESD ships and that of the alien Hive Queen (although it did awfully resemble that of the xenomorph queen from the Alien franchise). As said earlier the scenes where they destroy the cities are really good.

The last scene

This scene made me so mad. Nevermind how they dropped several cities nowhere near each other on London, nevermind how Jeff Goldblum's dad became a comic relief babysitter, nevermind Bill Pullman's very strange last performance. What made me mad was Dr. Okun saying that this orb which arrived to save humanity from the evil aliens wanted humanity to lead their resistance. The film then ends. Batman v. Superman made me mad with how it tried to desperately shoehorn in a sequel but compared to this it was subtle. I sat in the cinema at that point thinking 'what the hell?'. It ruined the film for me. I knew beforehand that they were going to do a sequel but this really was something else. 

Conclusion

After I gave Avengers: Age of Ultron and Jurassic World too high reviews I normally give myself a week to review the film. In those two cases I was so excited to see my favorite Marvel villain and a film I was very nostalgic for so I got caught up in my emotions. As of writing it has not been a week. The reason for this is because everytime I think of the last scene when planning the review the final score drops. If I had waited a week I would likely give it a score much lower than it deserves. As a result for some good acting from Goldblum, a fantastic destruction scene and very good designs of the aliens/ships/ESD ships but, mediocre acting from everyone else and too little time devoted to certain aspects of the plot I give Independence Day: Resurgence a 5.8/10. Overall a mediocre film with some redeemable moments.