Suicide Squad reviews are in and it sounds like they should of stayed locked up

Recommended Videos

Mr. Popplewick

New member
Aug 4, 2016
17
0
0
I saw it, and jesus wept it was terrible. I just kept laughing at the serious scenes, and deadpanning the jokes. Jared Leto's Joker is as bad as predicted, Margot Robbie is just criminally undeserved by this role, and the story itself is weak and piddling.

DC fans need to stop paying to see this shit and lose the Stockholm syndrome, it's just sad.
 

P-89 Scorpion

New member
Sep 25, 2014
466
0
0
Reading MovieBob's twitter is fascinating when the embargo first lifted the comments where 'Not as good as it could have been' but as more reviews come out the comments get harsher and harsher. So rather than committing to an opinion he waits to see what the overall consensus is to decide his opinion.
 

minkus_draconus

New member
Sep 8, 2011
136
0
0
bastardofmelbourne said:
AccursedTheory said:
Oddly enough, Rotten Tomatoes has critics giving Dawn of Justice an average score (Not percentage liked) of 4.9/10 (49/100), about 5 points off of Metacritic (44).
And that somehow translates into a 27% rating on the Tomatometer, which is twenty points out. And it's the lower number that gets the most publicity; reports on box office failures get more page views than reports on box office eh-coulda-been-betterer's.

This is why I fucking hate Rotten Tomatoes. Can you tell that I fucking hate Rotten Tomatoes? This is why.
That's fine and I understand your reasoning. The petition was about the content of the reviews that Rotten Tomatoes aggregates. The creator of the petition and it's followers deserve to be mocked mercilessly. If they had half of the thought or content of your post it would improve a thousand fold in quality.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
kris40k said:
Seriously, glad I'm not the only one who thought that the reviews make is sound like a movie I would love!

Its a movie about a thrown together group of supervillians forced into kicking ass for truth-and-justice or die trying. What the fuck did they expect? The movie could literally be 90-120mins of dick jokes while they blast the shit out of stuff while Blitzkrieg Bop plays in the background and I would fucking love it.

This is not a thinking movie, nor was it ever supposed to be.
That's not an excuse for being, apparently, poorly edited, disjointed, confusing and basically a hack job.

What you're saying is basically that not every meal has to be fancy, and it's fine to have a hamburger once in a while. True, I agree. But you can still make a really really shitty hamburger or a really tasty one. Like The Expendables. When that came out I really hoped it'd be a juicy hamburger, instead I got a dried out McDonalds turd.
 

Cheesy Goodness

New member
Aug 24, 2009
64
0
0
I'll see it for myself and find out if it is bad as they say. I saw Star Trek Beyond last weekend and thought it was a huge ball of meh. Live I've said in the past, their aggregate scores are almost meaningless to me anymore. When you have an entire system based on fresh or rotten, it doesn't leave any middle ground whatsoever. It gives people the wrong impression and some will be often looking at the scores incorrectly. I've been giving more movies a chance so far and some have pleasantly surprised me. I have no inclination to stop doing that.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
19,347
4,013
118
Just saw the movie. I don't think it's bad, just disappointingly mediocre. Margot Robbie is the one stand out.
 

Mr. Popplewick

New member
Aug 4, 2016
17
0
0
Ah these poor fucking millenials, having a seizure because something they were prepared to love wasn't loved well enough by others. So pitifully fragile.
 

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
Aug 28, 2014
5,512
2,126
118
Country
Philippines
YouTube reviewers I trust have said that it ranges from mediocre and disappointing to a good enough time. Either way, I'm watching it, if only to support a fund raiser.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
bastardofmelbourne said:
AccursedTheory said:
Oddly enough, Rotten Tomatoes has critics giving Dawn of Justice an average score (Not percentage liked) of 4.9/10 (49/100), about 5 points off of Metacritic (44).
And that somehow translates into a 27% rating on the Tomatometer, which is twenty points out. And it's the lower number that gets the most publicity; reports on box office failures get more page views than reports on box office eh-coulda-been-betterer's.

This is why I fucking hate Rotten Tomatoes. Can you tell that I fucking hate Rotten Tomatoes? This is why.
I'm with ya there... but I in general hate our culture's over reliance on critics anyway.

Even the people flipping out over negative reviews... like just go see Suicide Squad and try to enjoy it. Ugh whatever.

the only ever purpose I've found with critics is if you find a person who's tastes match your own, and they're hyper critical. Like Yahtzee I'll watch his show, but it's mostly because when he tells me a game is enjoyable I've found consistently I enjoyed that game too, and it's usually something Indie I wouldn't of tried anyway.

As long as this movie isn't a 2 hour joyless cluster like Batman v Superman, I'm good... and I didn't think BvS was terrible either, I just think it tried to do something impossible.
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
Silentpony said:
My spidey sense was tingling ever since they introduced the Joker as a bling-wearing, smarmy hipster with 'DAMAGED' written on his forehead in crayon, are Harley became a cliche penis-envy-riddled tough punk rock girl straight out of that god-awful Sucker Punch movie. It never felt like they understood the source materials or the characters, and just wanted to compete with Marvel to remain relevant in this century, but knowing Marvel has the 'good' thing down, they went for an 'edgy and 'tr?s chic' viral marketing movie.

To be fair, if they changed the soundtrack to slow saxophone jazz and drum, made it all black/white and added monologues, I'm sure it'd be a decent Sin City movie.
I agree with so much of what you were saying specifically related to this flick. You could look at it from a purely visualization standpoint and see that things were not quite clicking. Yes the prime draw is live action Harley Quinn and they have put that front and center from the very begining, but that also showed that something was not quite right. Missing nuanced little details, or getting them outright wrong. Starting from the simplest switch of Red&Black to Red&Blue began to snowball into an avalanche of bad omens with each teased detail from pictures and trailers. You could tell that they just simply were not "getting it" and if the people making something do not properly understand the source material as well as how that material has evolved (somehow they managed to try to make the joker something new and ended up taking him back to the pre-Jack era joker.) and why it evolved in that way.

However, I have to depart from you when it comes to marvel "having the 'good' thing down." because Marvel despite having commercial success has produced some of the most bland and uninspired "eye fodder" for the zombie like masses since bending the knee to der f?rher ma?s.

As for reviews, you cant trust initial ones anyway. Just look at how another Disney joint, Episode 7 was fawned on by every major critic site for the first day or so before people started to put two and two together and realize they payed a ridiculous amount of money to rewatch a HD reboot of a nearly 40 year old movie.

So the Marvel films are not anywhere near as praise worthy as people want to think that commercial success = good. I mean arguably the best of Disneys efforts so far was the original Avengers movie and ultimately that was riffing off of a much loathed Michael Bay flick


You can praise them for making people like something they a year earlier hated, But ultimately all that comes down to is successfully pulling off a Microsoft Mojave.


That does not seem like something to consider "good" by any definition.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
bastardofmelbourne said:
Rotten Tomatoes is terrible for an entirely separate reason; they aggregate all film reviews into either "rotten" or "fresh." Meaning a guy could give a film a 49/100, and as far as RT is concerned, he may as well have given it a 0...That's not even getting into the problems with reducing review scores to a binary state to begin with. Some reviews don't even give a score. Most don't use a percentage system.
Rottontomatoes' method of lumping every review in to one of two categories isn't meant as a replacement to reading the actual reviews themselves. The tomatometer just provides a snapshot of where the critics in general sit, and the site gives you an easy access to all the reviews you could want. That's why it has to be something as simple as a binary positive/negative set up, because the only common denominator with all reviewers, regardless of what scoring system they employ, is whether they have been positive or negative. That C+ review could well have been a negative review, so it goes in the negative pile.

I agree it isn't mega helpful if you want to know whether a film is really really special or only a little bit good; seeing a movie get 100% fresh might make you assume its excellent, only to find that all fifty critics said it was just passable. But then again that's when the consensus summaries and the reviews themselves come in to play.
 

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
Okay, so I saw the film (literally about an hour ago) and it's not that great. It exceeded my expectations, but my expectations were that it was going to be lukewarm butt chutney, so that's not that much of a compliment.

The editing is atrocious. The first half hour of the film plays like a series of tongue-in-cheek trailers introducing each character. The actual scenes are fine; Deadshot and Harley's introductions are on-point. But it's framed with Amanda Waller having an extremely awkward expository conversation with a government bigwig over dinner (who is conspicuously not the same government bigwig from the first trailer), and the whole thing feels clumsy.

When it got to introducing Enchantress, I literally winced. Even Thor handled the supernatural elements better than "she's a witch, deal with it." (Thor implied that the Asgardians had just hit Clarke's Third Law; Suicide Squad straight-up says she's a witch, no explanation given.) Not to mention that her host, June Moone, gets incredibly little characterisation; given that a lot of the narrative relies on us giving a shit about her, this is a mistake. I did like Enchantress' design and the aesthetics of her introduction. It was very creepy and weird, and if the dialogue around the character wasn't so bad, I'd like her. But for some reason, from the second act onwards her appearance shifts from "creepy prehistoric witch" to "Cara Delevingne in a trippy dress," and it ruins whatever gravity her character had. She switches back to witch-mode at the end, which I appreciated.

It improves significantly in the second act; everything after the Suicide Squad actually assembles is pretty good. Then it peters out a little near the end, but still kept my interest - there's a wonderful scene which is just the Suicide Squad saying "screw this" and breaking into a bar to have a drink instead of saving the world - and then the climax is full of cringe-inducing "I love you guys so much!" dialogue that feels like a "the TRUE power was FRIENDSHIP" message. Which...does not gel with the rest of the film, at all.

It is a pretty funny film. There's a good balance of comedy and action; it actually pulls off the comedy much better than the drama. Most of it comes from Harley and Deadshot, but there's a few gems from Killer Croc as well (if you can make out what he's saying.) It's also quite colourful; it takes place mostly in an urban area at night, but makes heavy use of bright neon colours to contrast the gloom-and-doom.

The main antagonists through the film are these very creepy-looking eyeball monsters that reminded me of Bloodborne [http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/bloodborne/images/7/7c/Bloodborne%E2%84%A2_20150512194836_-_1.png/revision/latest?cb=20151013162329] a little, which was neat. There's a very eldritch-horror aspect to the villain that unfortunately gets undercut by their very generic motives.

Overall, the writing swings between "Pretty funny!" to "Jesus, I can't believe someone wrote that and then asked Will Smith to say it." There's no major plot holes aside from two very big ones: the "why don't you just drop a missile on them" solution, and a scene where the Enchantress proves her chops to an unnamed general by teleporting to Tehran and stealing some classified Iranian military documents...which are in English. Perhaps she also translated them for the general's convenience?

The entire plot is essentially Amanda Waller trying to clean up her own mess, which is both kinda funny and appropriate. If I had to pick a low point, I'd say it's the shoddy and inconsistent editing; it's most noticeable at the start, but it's a problem throughout the whole. The first third of the film makes a very poor impression as a result.

If I had to pick a high point, I'd say it's the acting. Everyone is on-character, the costuming is great; Will Smith, I hate to say this, is actually pretty good at Deadshot, Margot Robbie does a remarkable Harley Quinn, and the Joker is, despite his weird-ass punk kid costume, actually very close to the source material as a psychopathic gangster as opposed to Ledger's anarchic terrorist-philosopher. Though - and all respect to Jared Leto, I know he went literally crazy for the role - I still prefer Ledger. Leto's portrayal just grates on me.

It's a solid 5/10, and I say that honestly, not on a four-point scale. It's not bad, it's not great, I had fun watching it, I wouldn't go watch it again, and if you're a fan of the title or of Harley Quinn as a character it's worth seeing. If you were looking for the fabled DC franchise-saving magnum opus, this isn't it.

It's getting shat on by Rotten Tomatoes, because of course it is, but honestly, it's about as good as Assault on Arkham, and people really liked that adaptation, so whatever.

tl;dr - It's okay. It's more average than bad. It's not like, Fant4stic bad, or Amazing Spider-Man bad, or X-Men: Origins bad. It's just sorta "eh, that coulda been better." That's really WB/DC's problem at the moment; they can't seem to land a clear hit.
 

Kolby Jack

Come at me scrublord, I'm ripped
Apr 29, 2011
2,519
0
0
Angry Joe just tweeted that he liked it. The guy on Forbes who reviews comic book movies liked it. I find my opinions on movies line up with theirs often enough that I'm looking forward to seeing it.

The problem with review aggregation is that it removes any and all nuance in the reviews. A critic can say "There's something there for fans of the material to love but it just wasn't my cup of tea" and rotten tomatoes lists the critic as calling the movie "rotten." There's nothing wrong with aggregating reviews, but there's certainly something wrong with posting a picture of a tomatometer and saying whether the movie sucks or not.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
Saw it tonight.

Not sure. 3/6 or maybe 2/6 if I'm harsh.

Margot Robbie did a great job. Jared Leto did an ok job, but I fucking hates his teeth with a passion. Will Smith can go fuck himself. He was the same character as in Bad Boys, ID4 or wherever he is. He's not an actor, he's a comedian playing himself.

The rest was barely in the movie. Actually Leto wasnt there that much either, it was mostly Will playing the villain with a heart, sort of. Did I say fuck him already?

The story was boring and unconvincing, the emotional stuff made me want to kill somebody, and that the writer(s?) managed to fuck up Margot Robbies stellar performance makes me boil with rage.

Its not as awful as people make it out to, but I found myself being pissed off that DC cant get off their ass and make somthing good.

For once in a movie I also didnt want to kill Jai Courtney, this is his best role ever and he was actually a lot of fun. Small role, but fun.

Spoilers below, sort of.

Also, its a point of hilarity that the lady that had the team under her thumb actually killed more people than any of the villains, even joker in the entire movie.
 

Saulkar

Regular Member
Legacy
Aug 25, 2010
3,142
2
13
Country
Canuckistan
Mr Ink 5000 said:
a shame, but no shock.

any word on why the Joker looks like Keith Flint?
I do not know but I swear It's an Omen. His costume looks like it was designed by some Jilted youth.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
So, just saw it.

I actually really liked it. I liked how balls out with the DC universe it is. It makes me actually care about the DC cinematic universe now.

Joker is the clear fail of the movie though. They tried to make Heath Ledger Joker, but as a pimp. Fuck that. Seriously, just reboot Joker again, but only after watching The Animated Series. Seriously, that's what we fucking want. Hell, Id take Mark Hamill in bad lipstick and nothing else over Leto or Ledger.

And Harley had her proper origin. A worry I am glad was relieved.

And I got what I want out of the cameos.
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 8, 2009
2,542
210
68
Saelune said:
So, just saw it.


Joker is the clear fail of the movie though. They tried to make Heath Ledger Joker, but as a pimp.
I didn't get 'pimp' from Leto's Joker, I got 'mafia boss' with severe emotional (and psychological) damage.
And I didn't see any similarity (other than the name and being a criminal) between Leto's Joker and Ledger's Joker.
Leto's version struck me as being far more calculating and manipulative than Ledger's.
 

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
twistedmic said:
I didn't get 'pimp' from Leto's Joker, I got 'mafia boss' with severe emotional (and psychological) damage.
And I didn't see any similarity (other than the name and being a criminal) between Leto's Joker and Ledger's Joker.
Leto's version struck me as being far more calculating and manipulative than Ledger's.
The pimp aspects mostly come from the jewelry, loud clothing, and the fact that he literally (if insincerely) offers Harley to another gangster at one point while meeting in a strip club.

I felt that - costuming aside - it was closer to the source material Joker than Ledger!Joker was, but that's because Ledger!Joker was more of a bomb-throwing anarchist trying to make a philosophical point through acts of terrorism. Leto!Joker feels more like a psychopathic criminal, which is what the Joker's always really been.

He still annoyed the balls out of me, just because of how very, very grating his voice and behaviour were. I think it was intentional, because he's meant to be creepy, but all it did was make me weirded out every time he showed up. There were all these stories about how crazy Jared Leto got into the role, and I respect that level of dedication, but it just didn't click with me.

Probably because of the problem with having the Joker in any film or comic or cartoon - you either do him right, and then he steals the attention of the audience away from the plot and makes everything about Joker, or you do it wrong, and he's not very interesting. They shouldn't have included him in the plot directly to start with.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
twistedmic said:
Saelune said:
So, just saw it.


Joker is the clear fail of the movie though. They tried to make Heath Ledger Joker, but as a pimp.
I didn't get 'pimp' from Leto's Joker, I got 'mafia boss' with severe emotional (and psychological) damage.
And I didn't see any similarity (other than the name and being a criminal) between Leto's Joker and Ledger's Joker.
Leto's version struck me as being far more calculating and manipulative than Ledger's.
I meant in terms of his style.

This one seems far too in love with the idea of himself being crazy and edgy. And as my brother pointed out to me, he lacks the obsession with Batman. That scene with the knives in a circle....should have had them in the shape of Batman or something.

The Joker isn't supposed to care about money or being a crime lord.