Suicide Squad Movie - A Review

As Suicide Squad heads to its final theatrical release week, let me just share my opinion about the film. I know, I know... It's already late for reviews but I want to share mine anyway.

  So, Suicide Squad is a movie adaptation of DC Comics' antihero group Task Force X which then became Suicide Squad. But unlike any other DC comics based film, this is the very first "team-up" that they have made ever since the DCEU began. The movie stems up from a group of villains hired by the government as a contingency unit for future threats. And that is what you can see in the movie. For comic book readers (like me), there is so much to be brought up regarding the Suicide Squad and the movie was not a disappointment as it is the first of its kind to be brought up by the DCEU. Fans are eagerly anticipating for more Suicide Squad but the release dates are just too anti-climactic. Unlike MARVEL, DC has its own way of presenting their characters not being too generic.

  Anyway, let's go back to our main theme. For a moment I really thought that they would be basing the movie on Batman: Assault on Arkham since the Suicide Squad was the main theme of that animated feature. Anyone who has seen Assault on Arkham would be amazed by who these characters are. The Suicide Squad film has some similarities though but for me Assault on Arkham was a much better Suicide Squad film. I cannot help but compare these films because it is a point of fact that fans love Assault on Arkham more than the Suicide Squad film. But I can't also say that I can't give credit to the film. For the non-comic readers, the film was a great introduction to the characters, and that is the one thing that I could give credit to Director David Ayer.

Now for the characters:

Deadshot

  Played by Will Smith, Deadshot is an assassin who is an insanely skilled shooter. In the comics and animated features, you can see see him as a merciless criminal who is just leashed by the government and works for them because he has no choice, but in the film you actually feel for him. His backstory is just heart-pounding. There is this scene in the movie when Batman captured him and Deadshot tries to shoot him but he can't because his daughter was preventing him from doing so. You can see that in many films but in the point of view of Suicide Squad, you can actually share your sentiments with him. Deadshot and Harley Quinn owned most of this movie, yeah.

Harley Quinn

  Also known as Dr. Harlene Quinzel, a psychiatrist in Arkham who was administering the Joker's medication but ends up being the one who was recruited and brainwashed by the Joker. Margot Robbie was a superb casting on this film. She captured the Harley I know from Batman: The Animated Series. Aaaand she looks like my girlfriend, only my girlfriend's much prettier. Hah!

Captain Boomerang

  Honestly, Jai Courtney as Captain Boomerang was not a bad choice. I've seen Jai Courtney's films and I gotta admit, he ain't a good player in those films. But as Captain Boomerang, he was good... kudos to that bro!

El Diablo 

  I can't really remember who played his part but El Diablo was the most, I can say, important member of the team. I have to admit, I really didn't know that DC had a character like him until I saw Suicide Squad. He had the feels and the badass-ness of a character in this film. Among all of the members, he was the most powerful one but he won't show it because of the remorse he felt after he killed his family.

The Joker 

  Hmmm... What am I going to say with the Joker? Oh I know... Jared Leto was a shitty choice playing the Joker. Honestly, the first time I knew that Jared Leto was going to be the Joker, I also knew that it's a poor choice. But I didn't gave up hope, I wanted him to be good, I wanted him to be the Joker I know from DC's New 52, but after seeing the movie... Ummmm... sorry dude, I had my hopes but forgive me, I just can't seem to like you.

Enchantress

  Played by Cara Delevingne, Enchantress was the main antagonist of this movie. But honestly, I found her weird. If only it was her brother who was the main villain and Enchantress would just be the one conjuring him, it would be more convincing. Also, what I don't understand is why does she want to destroy the world? That's what seems lacking in the story. There is no nefarious ideology that the enemy holds in their plans. And in the end, the film ends up just showcasing some comic book characters that some don't know about.

Rick Flag

  In the film, Rick Flag is the field handler of the Squad.

He is the US' top field agent, he got involved with the Suicide Squad just because he and Dr. June Moone, Enchantress' surrogate, are together. In order for Amanda Waller to get a hold of Col. Flag, she has to control Dr. Moone thus putting Flag into the game. Joel Kinnaman playing the role was actually not a bad idea. Tom Hardy was the original casting but for some reason, he dropped the role.

Amanda Waller

  Who says Loki is a badass? Well guess what, here's a character who's a more asshole than any of these characters. Meet Amanda Waller everybody; the squad's Government handler. And duuuude... when I say badass, I mean she's the real deal! While it is true that Waller is both a badass and an a-hole in the comic books, Viola Davis totally nailed it as Amanda Waller in this version.

Killer Croc, Katana, and Slipknot

  It is sad to say that some of the characters in this movie gets less appreciation. When you look at the comic book or animated version of these characters, they are quite interesting. Take Croc for example; I was acquainted with Croc's backstory watching Batman: The Animated Series and reading some comic book features about him and Batman. On the sidenote, Croc is an interesting character because of his struggle being different. He doesn't want to be an asshole but he becomes one because he is being chased by his nemesis, Batman. When you look at his story based on his point-of-view he is just some mutant being a victim of evolution. But that isn't much emphasized in the film. He's just like some dorky street gangster dude hanging with some other guys. On the other hand, Katana isn't also as interesting as her story is in this movie. If you aren't much acquainted with Suicide Squad or the DC Universe, you actually won't appreciate Katana's struggle in this film. I suggest you watch the CW TV Series Arrow for a much clearer introduction for the character. And last but... yeah... let's admit it, the least: Slipknot. What am I gonna say about him? To be honest, it is the first time that I saw this character in the DC Universe. Before this film, I really didn't know that he exists. In the movie, he's the only character that you won't care about, really. I think he was just made to die. 

All in all, Suicide Squad is a pretty good movie to watch, especially that... oh, did I mention that they have captured the original look of the characters from the comics? That is also one thing that I appreciate about this film, comic accuracy. I enjoyed watching it even if it's already in its fourth release week and there are only five people (I think) watching with me in the cinema. But it is still worth the watch especially that I've been waiting for this movie ever since they announced that they're going to make one. And it didn't disappoint me... except for the Joker though. I suggest that DC won't cast Leto as the Joker anymore. Now for its rating, I'm gonna give Suicide Squad a grade of 4 out of 5.

So, Suicide Squad; have you seen it? What did you think about it? Just comment below and let me know. Thanks for reading, you're AWESOME!

Confinement and Freedom (A Look on Discord)

Confinement can sometimes be better off than freedom. Wait, before you react to this, let me just say that this piece doesn’t come from a person who is confined to an ideological matter relating to something like… religion or politics, et cetera. Because I will not let myself be bound to those ideas for me to think of matters concerning what life should be, in my point of view. Hey, we’re all beings of thought here, thus, we are entitled to our own opinions of our views in life. So, what then is the reason why I mentioned those words in the first sentence? Perhaps we should look better at confinement as a means for one to be free rather than see confinement as a matter of being chained in a box outside of being liberated.

Ironic as it may seem but the truth of this matter can be seen in our very lives, I’ve seen it in mine, I don’t know about yours. But mostly, as far as my observation to other people’s lives (and mine) is concerned, I have seen this irony and am continually seeing so as long as I’m breathing. So, why is it better for some to be confined rather than be free? Why is it better to be bound to something than to be liberated by someone, or something? I’ve been asking these questions to myself more than a dozen times and have attempted to shed some answers to it more than I ask about it.

Confinement as the Basis for Freedom

            Whether we like it or not, we are not free; we are not in a state we deem to think being free in any way. Being a part of a society that builds itself on politics and laws, we are bounded on a set of codes that makes our society what it is. Under those codes, we have set a standard for freedom and if we deprive ourselves from those, we are considered outlaws of the society we claim to be a part of. Unless, of course, we submit ourselves to those moral codes that we’ve established that should exert punishment for our deflection, we can have a chance yet to be accepted back by the society we ought to live in. By this, I am reminded of what Jean-Jacques Rousseau pointed out that, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” In my understanding of this, we are free yet that freedom is only a matter of what the law says we are. If I’d furthermore explain this, we’ll just go round-and-round the context that I’ve already presented, thus, we proceed to another point by which I shall conclude this “opinionated” blog.

Freedom as a Means of Discord

            I myself am a “professing” anarchist; anarchist by means of subjecting myself with my own understanding of some concepts that others prefer to accept without deeply looking at it. But I am not saying that others just don’t view things deeper. As I’ve said, we have our own opinions and we are subjected to raise those opinions whenever we want to. So, what then is the basis of anarchism without viewing lawlessness and discord? As some view anarchism as a matter of chaos and turbulence. But for me, anarchism is simply viewing things differently from what most people view it to be. Anarchism is therefore, for me, a matter of private opinion than a basis of turmoil.

            Now let us go back to freedom. Have you ever heard of the phrase, “Men are free, but not TOTALLY free.”? Well, for some good reason, this phrase has a significant amount of validity since, as I’ve pointed out, men are bound by the laws their society has built on. Now, being free, and I mean total freedom, can be a basis of discord than a means of positive liberty. This is where confinement then arrives. In order for a society to thrive and survive, the law is created to suppress discord and therefore confine the people to a norm that should make the society it builds be in harmony we can only describe as “peace”. We now arrive to the conclusion that peace is the only way for a society to thrive. However, peace is just another idiosyncratic mode of building a genuine account for true liberty. There is a much greater factor that we should view at freedom rather than discord, and we should confine ourselves to it to be truly liberated from the superficial amounts of freedom that the law provides. Love.

            Love is the profoundest way that we should allow ourselves to be confined with so that we can be entirely free. It is not just a maudlin aspect, but the only true basis that we could conclude so that we can be truly free. It is the object by which peace is contained, it is the prison by which we should lock ourselves into, and it is the very matter at the core of our search for genuine freedom. But it is ironic that we profess to love but still we grip on hate, thus freeing ourselves from it, and in doing so, be confined to the very thing we loathe… discord.

The Impacts and Significance of the Advancement and Decline of Jesuit Missionary Works in Mindanao

I. Introduction

There are some aspects that we think are of little importance in our history. Philippine history in particular, has that sort of partiality especially in matters of religion and dogmatic understanding about faith. We cannot neglect the fact that in basing our understanding about religious developments in the Philippines, especially in the 19^th century, would give us the perception that it is only limited to, in the aspect of Christianity. While religious developments are not only limited to Christianity in our discussion on Philippine history, particularly in Mindanao, it is still a vital part upon understanding our past. On this note, I am tasked to discuss the role of the Jesuits in the evangelization of Mindanao. Though this is a subject too broad to be discussed in a minimal amount of time, I shall attempt to give an overview of its advancements and how it slowed down. And it is expected that by the end of our discussion on this matter, we shall have an understanding on the significance of its impact to the history of Mindanao...

TO BE CONTINUED!

This research will be presented on April 13, 2016. If you want to learn more about this, attend the History 223 (History of the Philippines during the 19th Century) Seminar at the IPDM, Mindanao State University-Main Campus, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, Philippines. There are more interesting topics to be discussed in this upcoming seminar, so if you are willing to attend, be excited! History is FUN!

"With no history, there is no heritage. And with no heritage from the past,

there is no legacy for the future."

Robert J. Morgan (Author, On This Day in Christian History)

Imagination in History: A Discourse

Imagination is important to history indeed. As much as interpretation gives life to history, imagination also gives color to it. Otherwise, history could have been the most favorite among all other subjects since children love stories, even adults do. Variety of entertainment is in history; the story of the world is in it. They say there are only three interesting subjects to be talked about: my story, yours, and of the other people. And that is history. Hence, if art is applied to it, no wonder, people would love it at best.
   Imagination is an art. It is actually being used in literature. Mostly, it is used in descriptive writing whether it is objective or subjective, or spatial in its flow. It allows the reader to paint a picture of people, place, organization or an event. Well, history too needs imagination since it is not only a science, but also an art.
   History and Literature, even though these fields of study are different in nature; they’re closely related in structure. In history, a historian uses facts of evidences and that is objectivity. Further, he uses his mind to interpret and imagine the past as lively and as beautiful as he could by the use of the gathered evidences, and that is subjectivity.
   In literature, the writer, or, let us be more particular, a poet or a fictionist writes more subjectively and even usually embellished. That is simply because literature is dramatic. Besides, it aims more to entertain than to contribute factual knowledge about the humanity. It may be used as a call for nationalism by the use of, of course, representations of the characters to the real people in the society (like the novels of Rizal) but still, it is indirect and may confuse the speculators of history if literary records will be used as basis in history.
   Therefore, Teodoro Agoncillo was right in his point that the historian’s task is to narrate events without any exaggerations, or even, we must also consider this, omission. Like in our first understandings in the Philosophy of History, history must be seen in its wholeness and not on one side only. How else do historians expect their readers to do such standard in the Philosophy of History if they omit important things in their writings for some irrational reasons such as impression, satisfaction, and desire to avoid exile, or the least, prejudices?
   On the other hand, it is not only omission that a historian must be watchful of (watchful because, of course, a historian must be selective), but also exaggerations. One cannot and must not embellish a bad to worst or a good to best. Otherwise, his writings will be highly questionable.
   As much as it is true that a writer of history must not distort any factual event, date or place, it is also true that he must not be a good one if he writes things which are not acceptable in terms of using his imaginations. Like in the example in the Mass at Limasawa, saying that there was a total silence while the Mass was being conducted would be an obvious exaggeration. How could that be? Where in fact, Leyte faces the Pacific Ocean and that time of the year, summer was approaching... well, winds might have probably been blowing toward their direction (given that it was at daytime and it winds indeed; the sea breeze-blows toward the land). If the wind was blowing toward them, the trees must have made some rustling noise. Now, that is exaggeration through imagination.
   Unlike interpretation that cannot be wrong or right but only be valid or invalid, sensible or nonsense, etc., I say that imagination in here can be wrong if not given much thought at all. Thus, a historian, or an aspiring one must be careful with his imaginations. Let the evidences be the guide and we provide the picture of it in our minds as it was before. Besides, we have the grounds to just limit ourselves in imagining because there is no such thing as a “complete history”.
   Another thing, as Professor E.H. Carr said, “History cannot be written unless the historian can achieve some kind of contact with the mind of those about whom he is writing.”

Professor Edward Hallet Carr

I concede because imagination is re-living the past and one cannot possibly think the way his subject did or at least understand his subject.

   See through the past according to what you know is right and true. Be rational in giving reasons to why you write certain descriptions of the people, place and events you are writing. Lastly, don’t fabricate the facts if you want to honor yourself with a name of a true historian. Be subjective, interpret and imagine as much as you want, just make sure you don’t go beyond the borders of history.

Published last February 17, 2015

Miss Universe 2015: A Filipino Mask

The most enticing thing that the world could offer to us is beauty itself. Beauty is something that all of us long for; it is in each of us, the urge to do something beautiful or, simply said, be beautiful. Every culture, race, and basically every person has their own different tastes and views about beauty. Embedded in our inner personalities, beauty could often resort to an insatiable thirst that we are tempted to acquire. Even I, honestly, am tempted to do beauty in writing this piece. I have this itch that I feel inside me that if I couldn’t write it in a manner worthy of beauty, then what good will it be? This is what I can describe of that enticement to be beautiful. But it is not my intention to talk about myself or to prove that this piece is worthy of reading. This is about the reality and the auspicious offers of beauty in our society. And one of those offers are being accepted in a caste where people are being looked upon; in this case, the recent and controversial Miss Universe 2015 pageant.

Crowned Miss Universe 2015 Pia Alonzo Wurtzbach

         For those of us who have always been so dreamy about acquiring a title that, for us, would be the most lasting beauty that we can have, a crown is a symbol that we can often relate to. It doesn’t always mean a literal crown, but a title that ranks us more significant than others. Recently, everybody was talking about the crowning of Ms. Pia Wurtzbach as the Miss Universe 2015, I mean, who wouldn’t? Everyone was crazy about it. It was, or at least seemed to be, the most controversial Miss Universe Pageant ever. I am sure that every one of us, I guess, saw the pageant or, at least, have heard of it. But there we go; it seems that, for us, those things just happen. We can’t take that fact away; it is in our heads, every time we mention the name of our new Miss Universe, we can picture out the controversy. But for some, the Miss Universe pageant is just a façade that hides the real appearance of our system.

The Philippines is a country where people desire prominence and acceptance to a higher class. It is in the history of Filipinos, that we crave and desire for that elegance. And we, as Filipinos, have adopted it up until today. We can’t take that away, it is the pride of our people to be viewed in a higher level; to be respected and adored. But as we look closer to the Filipino, there is that darkness that lurks and could almost consume him/her. We cannot deny the present situation of our motherland, every time we face the occurrences in our country, we can see that darkness that overshadows us. And there is nothing worth of beauty to be embraced in it. We always say that we cannot appreciate beauty if there is no ugliness that is present. True, but I am not convinced that appreciating one thing is the same as appreciating the whole of it. We have that tendency that if we are appreciated, we have that moral responsibility that we should uplift every one of us. If I haven’t made my point clear enough, let’s look at the Miss Universe Pageant winner. She’s a Filipina, and by saying the term Filipina we, as a people would have that pride that she’s one of us, therefore, we are a better people. Sure, we can think of that, but we should note that not every Filipina could be Miss Universe!

Now, you might be wondering why I said that the Miss Universe is just a “façade.” Let’s go back to the Philippine society. The present darkness or ugliness that persists in our system is difficult to be recouped, and in an attempt to make things look better, we put on a mask. But then, it’s just a mask, isn’t it? Here comes the Miss Universe Pageant, the winner was a Filipina, and we still can’t get over that it was a controversial annunciation. But still, we have that pride inside us (which we should really have), that it was our kind who won the Miss Universe Crown. However, it isn’t just the whole of it. There is much more to be seen in the Philippine side, and we cannot neglect the bitter side of it. My point is not recounting the negative aspects of Philippine circumstance. What I am trying to point out is that we should make ourselves worthy to be accounted beautiful, and not just sending an emissary announcing and advertising that we are entirely good, which is not. We must be vigilant about this kind of doing since it is for our own benefit.

It is really hard to resolve something really, really, wrong; but it doesn’t mean it’s impossible. I still believe that the Philippines and the Filipino is, by nature, beautiful. But being called beautiful is not just focusing on climbing in a comfortable situation; it is by being resilient when an ugly condition is at hand. We should remember that beauty is not just limited to having a crown or winning a contest, rather it is a matter we should always achieve every day, and every moment of our lives.

Kudos to Ms. Pia Wurtzbach! Kudos to the Filipino!