Suicide Squad reviews are in and it sounds like they should of stayed locked up
- Thread starter MatParker116
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's like a flashback in a dream in a vision in a dream, with time travel thrown in because fuck it, why not.RJ 17 said:
And don't forget to have random visions of possible futures without any context within those dream sequences. Should probably throw in time travel for good measure. Hey... Y-You don't think this will make the movie seem cluttered and unfocused while also making it difficult to follow the obtuse plot, do you?undeadsuitor said:
I swear there's like four or five dream sequences within that movie. I'm not even exaggerating for comedic effect.RJ 17 said:
And, like AccursedTheory said, some of it is convoluted as Hell. There's literally a scene where Bruce dreams of a future where Superman is evil. It also seems to have hints of Dark Sied, like fire pits and insectoid Parademons making it seem like it might be a vision of the future. He then wakes up and some sort of portal opens up with Flash trying to tell him something. And I swear he wakes up from that making it seem like it was maybe not a real thing, but apparently it was supposed to be.
That being said, Ben Afleck isn't a bad Batman. I'll give him credit for that.
I'm not saying you can't like it. But I hated it. I've seen it twice and only had more problems with a second viewing. It's among the worst films I have ever seen in my opinion. And I've seen some stinkers, especially if we count MST3K episodes.Kibeth41 said:
That's a shame. Not entirely surprising, given how every DC-related movie since The Dark Knight has turned out, but a shame nonetheless.
EDIT: Apparently it's less of a shitshow than previous DCEU movies, given the 93% IMBD score and the 35% Rotten Tomatoes score (as opposed to previous movies). Still, a shitshow is a shitshow regardless.
EDIT: Apparently it's less of a shitshow than previous DCEU movies, given the 93% IMBD score and the 35% Rotten Tomatoes score (as opposed to previous movies). Still, a shitshow is a shitshow regardless.
Fairly impressive, that IMDB score. Apparently, the Beacon Theatre (The only movie joint that's shown the movie so far) was able to squeeze over 6000 people in. In one night.Rangaman said:
God damn.
Also... the movie already has a sequel planned? Fuck.
Of course it already has a sequel planned. DC are going to run this gravy train right through the ground and all the way to China.AccursedTheory said:
IMDB scores are also not really worth as much, because the reviews are, by and large, from fans, not actual critics. I only put it up because people would throw shit at me if I didn't.
(warning: fan theory ahead)Kibeth41 said:
I felt the entire sequence could have been justified - and the movie improved as a whole - if the Flash had just told Batman to save Martha and not Lois.
At no point in BvS does Batman have to save Lois. There's even an opportunity near the end when she's drowning while Superman is fighting Doomsday and Batman is just hiding, but then Superman just takes a time-out and saves her. But if the Flash had told Batman to save Martha, it would have been a mind screw.
Batman would be like "what, save my dead mum? you're thirty years late chum", right up until he's got Superman at spearpoint and Superman tells him the exact same thing. The time travel would make sense in that scenario; in whatever trenchcoat-and-goggles apocalypse timeline we got a vision of, Batman just stabbed Superman, Martha got burned alive, Superman comes back to life later just like he'll do after Doomsday, finds out what's happened, and falls to the Darkseid (pun pun pun).
It not only would've solved a lot of the problems people had with the plot - like Batman suddenly changing his mind about killing a guy because their mothers have the same first name - it would've been a genuinely good narrative twist. But instead they decided to tell Batman to save Lois for...some reason, maybe to tease some future film, and the whole sequence makes no sense and comes out of nowhere.
I was half-expecting the extended cut to replace "Lois" with "Martha," but nope; apparently, this was their plan. Honestly, if they just got Ezra Miller to come in and dub over those lines it'd improve the film tremendously. (You can call it the "Martha Edition," Zack. I'll pay thirty bucks for it.)
I'm of the opinion that a lot of the useless scenes that were kept in the theatrical release solely to foreshadow future films could've been removed and just put on Youtube for free publicity. Considering that there's a major difference in quality between the theatrical cut and the extended version - the editing room basically butchered the plot to fit it under 2h30m - those scenes are just a waste of time in a film that is already very long. It feels like some marketing executive demanded they be kept in come hell or high water, narrative cohesion be damned.Kibeth41 said:
Really, whoever edited the theatrical cut owes Warner Brothers a couple hundred million dollars.
Yeah, that's pretty much why I discount aggregate user reviews for "polarizing" media.AccursedTheory said:
Amazing Spider-Man 2 had a sequel planned. So we'll see if the box office is enough for Suicide Squad 2 to get made.
I feel there is a difference between the kind of "bad" films you mention, which are just plain unpleasant or boring to watch and a film like Batman V Superman.Samtemdo8 said:Alright blind DC fanboy side mode on.Saltyk said:
You have not seen many movies if you think BvS was the worst thing ever
And I come from the opinion that BvS is at worst a 3/5 "meh I've seen worse, but it could have been better"
I am just flabbergasted that it's being treated as bad on the level of the Room, Gigli, Birdemic, and Food Fight.
Unbelievably unfair and overly high standards
BVS is the kind of bad film the internet (ironically) adores and which a large part of it thrives on, like The Phantom Menace. A film that can be analysed and picked apart by YouTube personalities and with enough material for jokes and rants. The "right" kind of bad movie can prove to be quite a valuable commodity these days.
In general I feel that alot of people have been desperate to find the next 'Phantom Menace' for a few yeara now and have been actively trying to push that kind of reputation onto a lot of films such The Hobbit Trilogy or Man of Steel. Howecer with the diversity of opinion on the internet now though its difficult to find that kind of consensus of opinion.
Roeper didn't like it and that's enough for me. I'll see it, I'll see almost anything DC, but on DVD. Lots of critics who shot themselves and their credibility in the foot with Ghostbusters, don't know what to think about the consensus.
Regardless, the RT score says the consensus is that the movie is just average, middle-of-the-ground; exactly like Batman v Superman when it was released. But, for some reason, people still use the Tomatometer as an actual scoring system, so whatever.
Regardless, the RT score says the consensus is that the movie is just average, middle-of-the-ground; exactly like Batman v Superman when it was released. But, for some reason, people still use the Tomatometer as an actual scoring system, so whatever.
