Went to see it on friday. It's a flat out bad movie. I've heard people say that it's "so bad that it's good" but frankly it didn't made me want to see it again in any shape or form.
Yesterday I saw Suicide Squad...and it was Good...[MAJOR SPOILERS]
- Thread starter SweetShark
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, Batman has forearms as thick as my torso. He would kill people in a single punch, or more likely turn them into a vegetable on permanent life support.bastardofmelbourne said:
Movies/games have this weird concept about how strength/chin works. The Predator, for instance, has enough upper body strength to punch a 250 pound Arnold Schwarzenegger into the air and twenty feet backwards into the forest. Schwarzenegger shakes it off, when in fact that kind of force would have straight up decapitated him.
I saw it. It is not bad, just mediocre and schizophrenic (no pun intended). It has that distinctive look of a kitchen with too many cooks in it... it wants to be pop and funny, but at the same time it tries to be an straight heroes assemble movie and, given that, both attempts fall flat. The jokes feel unnatural and inserted. Right after every single action scene, someone gives a one liner, just so that we don't forget this is also a comedy. I guess they don't even have to make sense, since half those people are quote crazy unquote.
And it does try to be an straight heroes movie. Almost none of the characters felt like villains to me, specially Will Smith. He is just your by-the-book antihero who does the right thing while begrudgingly complaining about how he would rather do something else. And I call him Will Smith because sure as hell he is not Deadshot. He is the same character than in I Robot, Hancock or Wild Wild West: cocky but scarred, a bad guy mostly because of his problems with authority, but deep down only waiting for a chance to prove he was good. As I said, not Deadshot...
The writing and the editing is atrocious, for the same reason. Since they don't know how to represent characters through actions or cinematography, every time they introduce someone, they cut to a full title screen and some flashback to show why he is a big deal. It was like watching Borderlands introduce a boss or some cheap WWE knockoff. And since they don't know how to represent characters through actions or cinematography, they have to say everything out loud. Final boss gets vulnerable? Say it out loud. Someone has a change of heart? Say it out loud. Something weird and supernatural is happening and there is a small chance someone in the audience didn't noticed? Say it out loud... preferably interrupting the action.
But, as I said, it is not a bad movie. I mean, it is not good, but it is not Batman v Superman. With the latter, I could feel the disdain some people in the production team had with some elements of the characters and their hubris of an idea on how to "make them better"; while the former only seems like they had no idea what to do with the characters... like they knew nothing about them and so they decided to make them the most generic version of crazy and antihero they could find.
And it does try to be an straight heroes movie. Almost none of the characters felt like villains to me, specially Will Smith. He is just your by-the-book antihero who does the right thing while begrudgingly complaining about how he would rather do something else. And I call him Will Smith because sure as hell he is not Deadshot. He is the same character than in I Robot, Hancock or Wild Wild West: cocky but scarred, a bad guy mostly because of his problems with authority, but deep down only waiting for a chance to prove he was good. As I said, not Deadshot...
The writing and the editing is atrocious, for the same reason. Since they don't know how to represent characters through actions or cinematography, every time they introduce someone, they cut to a full title screen and some flashback to show why he is a big deal. It was like watching Borderlands introduce a boss or some cheap WWE knockoff. And since they don't know how to represent characters through actions or cinematography, they have to say everything out loud. Final boss gets vulnerable? Say it out loud. Someone has a change of heart? Say it out loud. Something weird and supernatural is happening and there is a small chance someone in the audience didn't noticed? Say it out loud... preferably interrupting the action.
But, as I said, it is not a bad movie. I mean, it is not good, but it is not Batman v Superman. With the latter, I could feel the disdain some people in the production team had with some elements of the characters and their hubris of an idea on how to "make them better"; while the former only seems like they had no idea what to do with the characters... like they knew nothing about them and so they decided to make them the most generic version of crazy and antihero they could find.
I just got back from seeing it a second time, and I have to say, I enjoyed it more the second time. I was able to turn of the critical part of my brain, and I had already decided which parts I liked and which parts I didn't. Made the movie much better for me.
It's not terrible in my book, but it could have been better too. My two main complaints:
The Joker. Sorry, Mr. Leto, but your character really shouldn't have been in the movie. Okay, yes, the opening scene, showing the birth of Harley? Yeah, be there. That scene at the end? That's okay too. But everything else? You can easily take all that out--save for Harley's flashbacks--and the movie works just fine. Better, even, because now Harley's bomb is no longer deactivated, so Waller's threat at the end of the movie makes more sense.
Waller killing those four people. Just...no. I hate, HATE, when we get scenes like this. When a bad guy kills his crew, find. They're all bad guys. But those four people--the two girls looking like they're only in their twenties--should not have died like that. They STAYED BEHIND to help Waller with her mission. These people have proven their loyalty to her. They will keep the secret.
Waller is a *****. She is just as bad as the bad guys, and in many cases, worse. But she doesn't act like that. She makes threats (which she was amazing at in the movie), and she won't hesitate to kill bad people when backed into a corner, or order the execution of people. But she rewards loyalty. If anything, she would have set those people up for life. She would have warned them, "Tell anyone about this, and you're dead," but she would not just coldly execute those people like that. It was so out of character for her.
If those people needed to die, fine. They could have died on the roof when the helicopter showed up. Or they could have died in the crash, having gotten on the chopper with Waller. But Waller just killing them, after everything they did? No. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and should not have been in the movie.
It's not terrible in my book, but it could have been better too. My two main complaints:
The Joker. Sorry, Mr. Leto, but your character really shouldn't have been in the movie. Okay, yes, the opening scene, showing the birth of Harley? Yeah, be there. That scene at the end? That's okay too. But everything else? You can easily take all that out--save for Harley's flashbacks--and the movie works just fine. Better, even, because now Harley's bomb is no longer deactivated, so Waller's threat at the end of the movie makes more sense.
Waller killing those four people. Just...no. I hate, HATE, when we get scenes like this. When a bad guy kills his crew, find. They're all bad guys. But those four people--the two girls looking like they're only in their twenties--should not have died like that. They STAYED BEHIND to help Waller with her mission. These people have proven their loyalty to her. They will keep the secret.
Waller is a *****. She is just as bad as the bad guys, and in many cases, worse. But she doesn't act like that. She makes threats (which she was amazing at in the movie), and she won't hesitate to kill bad people when backed into a corner, or order the execution of people. But she rewards loyalty. If anything, she would have set those people up for life. She would have warned them, "Tell anyone about this, and you're dead," but she would not just coldly execute those people like that. It was so out of character for her.
If those people needed to die, fine. They could have died on the roof when the helicopter showed up. Or they could have died in the crash, having gotten on the chopper with Waller. But Waller just killing them, after everything they did? No. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and should not have been in the movie.
As much as I like Will Smith Will Smithing it up, especially since that last movie I've seen him in was After Earth, he doesn't really fit the Deadshot character. Jared Leto is godawful as the Joker. I'd have preferred the goofy camp of Cezar Romero's Joker over Leto's. I'm dead serious. Margot Robbie's Harley was fine. Waller was mostly fine. I remember very little about Captain Boomerang and Katana other than he's Aussie and she's the Japanese chick wielding a soul-sucking sword. Croc and Slipknot, I don't remember anything about. I liked El Diablo, but him turning into a burning skeleton demon was a real 'Where the fuck did this come from?' moment.
And Enchantress has all kinds of snazzy magical powers. Why would she bother to fight a bunch of B and C-lister villains in a fist/knife fight instead of just zapping them.
Also, Assault on Arkham is the better Suicide Squad movie, IMO, mostly because the villains actually act the part.
And Enchantress has all kinds of snazzy magical powers. Why would she bother to fight a bunch of B and C-lister villains in a fist/knife fight instead of just zapping them.
Also, Assault on Arkham is the better Suicide Squad movie, IMO, mostly because the villains actually act the part.
That scene bothered me too, mostly because Waller never strook me as the kind of character who would needlessly waste useful assets when she could be using more subtle methods of keeping them quiet. Cruel, cold-hearted and manipulative, yes, but not wasteful.Sniper Team 4 said:
Perhaps it was because I went in expecting a trainwreck, but I left having really enjoyed the movie.
My biggest complaint was that it should have been called "The Deadshot and Harley Show". They were the only two of the Squad who seemed to matter to the film-makers, the others just kind of faded into the background, not bad but also just there to make up the numbers.
A surprise to me was how much I liked Jared Leto's turn as the Joker. He had a terrible laugh but other than that he had the manic energy that I expect from the Joker.
The Enchantress made a good villain but boy was that CGI at the end bad, it was like the test effect that they'd forgot to change.
All in all this has proved to be the best of the DCU films so far.
My biggest complaint was that it should have been called "The Deadshot and Harley Show". They were the only two of the Squad who seemed to matter to the film-makers, the others just kind of faded into the background, not bad but also just there to make up the numbers.
A surprise to me was how much I liked Jared Leto's turn as the Joker. He had a terrible laugh but other than that he had the manic energy that I expect from the Joker.
The Enchantress made a good villain but boy was that CGI at the end bad, it was like the test effect that they'd forgot to change.
All in all this has proved to be the best of the DCU films so far.
Exactly how I feel. With BvS, I was actually angry. Suicide Squad was just bewildered disappointment.hermes said:
OT: I think I can appreciate Suicide Squad more after knowing about all the cut scenes. I mean, most of them can't even be brought back in some kind of Director's Cut, but I consider them part of the movie anyway. Things like Joker's relationship with Harley and Captain Boomerang's decision to help out are way better in the deleted scenes.
I watched it last night! So before I forget that I have even seen it....
Stylish, but simple. Which is good ... up to a point. Pacing was kind of muddled...
I feel like they shouldn't have tried to make this; "First mission + backstory ..." I feel like it should've dropped us in medias res after a couple of missions. Then with the quick flashbacks w/ basic exposition after a roll call style of thing as Flagg and Waller choose a small team amongst them to beat some threat to life as we know it. Or either that or simply do quick exposition as the action unfolds .,... that way you can show why, as dysfunctional as they are, they were selected for this and why Waller thinks she can make all this work.
Then they could focus on delivering characters rather than a 'why we fight'... which ultimately tries to make these people sound reasonable when in truth just saying; "Ragtag band of misfits trope + crooked, heartless Waller who makes them fight... that's it, these people are irredeemable and you kind of hope Waller flips the switch, anyways ... except for El Diablo and arguably Deadshot, but not really..." would have been more than enough.
I still enjoyed it, but I felt like the pacing and trying to tell us more ultimately lead to me knowing less about the world the film was trying to articulate.
Stylish, but simple. Which is good ... up to a point. Pacing was kind of muddled...
I feel like they shouldn't have tried to make this; "First mission + backstory ..." I feel like it should've dropped us in medias res after a couple of missions. Then with the quick flashbacks w/ basic exposition after a roll call style of thing as Flagg and Waller choose a small team amongst them to beat some threat to life as we know it. Or either that or simply do quick exposition as the action unfolds .,... that way you can show why, as dysfunctional as they are, they were selected for this and why Waller thinks she can make all this work.
Then they could focus on delivering characters rather than a 'why we fight'... which ultimately tries to make these people sound reasonable when in truth just saying; "Ragtag band of misfits trope + crooked, heartless Waller who makes them fight... that's it, these people are irredeemable and you kind of hope Waller flips the switch, anyways ... except for El Diablo and arguably Deadshot, but not really..." would have been more than enough.
I still enjoyed it, but I felt like the pacing and trying to tell us more ultimately lead to me knowing less about the world the film was trying to articulate.
Just came back from watching it, went in expecting the worst and came out pleasantly surprised.
Overall i had fun watching the film and contrary to star wars episode 7 where i felt the film just dragged on and on yet was paced super fast so you didn't have time to digest scenes, suicide squad felt just right to me and didn't overstay its welcome nor seem to drag on forever. Then again the plot was paper thin so wasn't that much to be padded out i guess xP
I quite liked the characters overall and was just :/ that my fav character (el diablo! whose translations for mexican insults were btw very off, ffs "cabron" does not mean "*****", it's more like "smartass") is of course the only one of the mains who dies (slipknot doesn't count, ffs i didn't even catch his name in my viewing, he is just guy that randomly appears and thus you know is gonna be first to die). But hey at least he went out in style.
Came in expecting to hate the joker, he was allright'. Came in expecting tons of sexism that make the film problematic or something, i must truly be a lost cause cos i came out disappointed in that front, barely got triggered. Overall came in expecting a bad movie, and walked out pleasantly surprised, enjoyed this more then Star Wars.
Safe to say i'm really not trusting net critics again, not that i had that much faith in them to begin with.
Overall i had fun watching the film and contrary to star wars episode 7 where i felt the film just dragged on and on yet was paced super fast so you didn't have time to digest scenes, suicide squad felt just right to me and didn't overstay its welcome nor seem to drag on forever. Then again the plot was paper thin so wasn't that much to be padded out i guess xP
I quite liked the characters overall and was just :/ that my fav character (el diablo! whose translations for mexican insults were btw very off, ffs "cabron" does not mean "*****", it's more like "smartass") is of course the only one of the mains who dies (slipknot doesn't count, ffs i didn't even catch his name in my viewing, he is just guy that randomly appears and thus you know is gonna be first to die). But hey at least he went out in style.
Came in expecting to hate the joker, he was allright'. Came in expecting tons of sexism that make the film problematic or something, i must truly be a lost cause cos i came out disappointed in that front, barely got triggered. Overall came in expecting a bad movie, and walked out pleasantly surprised, enjoyed this more then Star Wars.
Safe to say i'm really not trusting net critics again, not that i had that much faith in them to begin with.
That's because the plot was for better or worse the exact same as Guardians of The Galaxy. Group of misfits, near-do-wells, criminals and bad guys come together through reasons to go and stop bad guy who wants to destroy the world. I am interested in how the plot made more sense than Civil Wars as that made perfect sense to myself, it certainly wasn't a shit show, Batman VS Superman though, NOW THAT was a shitshow.
As for the OP, good on ya, if you enjoyed the movie then that's all that matters, I found the movie to be very meh, bordering on bad, it certainly would have been better if the run ups advertising and trailers hadn't covered all the decent parts of the film but if you enjoyed it then good on ya.
The characters weren't the problem with the movie. They're competently portrayed for what they are in the film. It's the writing that's all over the place with pointless flashbacks, beating fans over the head with trivial facts (i.e. 'Her sword eats souls'), and generally just fluffing around from set piece to set piece without accomplishing much in the mean time. Katana is the obvious example, everything about her character is either stated to the audience by Colonel Commander Brigadier Flag or her swinging her sword at something for a shot.
Harley is emblematic of how the film simply doesn't understand where to cut the fat and where and how to expand on a character. The film spends way too much time building how twisted her relationship with the Joker is and building up the Joker's tracking her down, when the payoff is an act 3 fizzle. Joker could have easily been relegated to one or two cameos, and been much more effective if the film had a clue how to build him up as a threat or use him as a wild card, instead of wasting scenes that would easily be build up through passing dialogue. Time that could have been spent with the title cast interacting with one another.
Killer Croc, conversely, is handled better simply because he had a simple role to fill. Muscle with a few one-liners. If he'd interacted more with the cast or had more in general to do, he would easily have been a breakout character. It's the snappy one-liners in between action pieces that the movie does reasonably well, but it's all muddled with a spastic narrative of what's essentially a barebones plot. They had the talent, they had the effects, the studio just didn't have a clue how to piece it all together to make a fun summer movie.
*Edit: One of the biggest scenes that actually bugs me in the movie is the bar scene. It made for great trailer clips, but the execution in the movie itself devolves into 'screw this let's go drink, have a pointless flashback or two, build up a character because the audience needs to like him before he dies, and have a pep talk to go do that thing we just blew off because drinking makes us family'. The transition flubs the drama, kills the foreboding built up the scene before it about the big-bad, and just generally detracts from the narrative flow. The scene could have worked, if only the writers understood the levity the trailers were so desperately trying to spin. But instead it just comes off as just another section of a disjointed mess of a plot.
Harley is emblematic of how the film simply doesn't understand where to cut the fat and where and how to expand on a character. The film spends way too much time building how twisted her relationship with the Joker is and building up the Joker's tracking her down, when the payoff is an act 3 fizzle. Joker could have easily been relegated to one or two cameos, and been much more effective if the film had a clue how to build him up as a threat or use him as a wild card, instead of wasting scenes that would easily be build up through passing dialogue. Time that could have been spent with the title cast interacting with one another.
Killer Croc, conversely, is handled better simply because he had a simple role to fill. Muscle with a few one-liners. If he'd interacted more with the cast or had more in general to do, he would easily have been a breakout character. It's the snappy one-liners in between action pieces that the movie does reasonably well, but it's all muddled with a spastic narrative of what's essentially a barebones plot. They had the talent, they had the effects, the studio just didn't have a clue how to piece it all together to make a fun summer movie.
*Edit: One of the biggest scenes that actually bugs me in the movie is the bar scene. It made for great trailer clips, but the execution in the movie itself devolves into 'screw this let's go drink, have a pointless flashback or two, build up a character because the audience needs to like him before he dies, and have a pep talk to go do that thing we just blew off because drinking makes us family'. The transition flubs the drama, kills the foreboding built up the scene before it about the big-bad, and just generally detracts from the narrative flow. The scene could have worked, if only the writers understood the levity the trailers were so desperately trying to spin. But instead it just comes off as just another section of a disjointed mess of a plot.
Civil War's entire conflict was based around the following assumptions:Laughing Man said:
- the UN would, over a period of a year, draft a series of major international accords governing superhero teams like the Avengers without any media coverage, consultation, or any one of the Avengers really paying any attention, only to spring it on them like a bear trap the instant they drop the ball.
- that the United States government would allow and even facilitate passing control of a team of some of the most powerful persons of mass destruction in the world to the United Nations, when every member of the team is either an American citizen, a naturalised expatriate (Black Widow, Scarlet Witch) or an artificial being (Vision). Three of the Avengers at the time were former American military personnel; why would the Pentagon want to put them under a UN mandate and risk them getting fucked over by Russia or China when they have much sounder legal grounds for just conscripting them?
- that no-one questions the sense of putting a rapid emergency response team under the control of the UN, who has a terrible [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide] record [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre] of responding [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide#Revisionist_accounts] to international [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur] emergencies [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war].
- that this team of superpowered people would then get into an all-holds-barred slap-fight at an airport and react with shock at one member of the conflict being injured (by a guy on his own team).
- that the United States government would allow and even facilitate passing control of a team of some of the most powerful persons of mass destruction in the world to the United Nations, when every member of the team is either an American citizen, a naturalised expatriate (Black Widow, Scarlet Witch) or an artificial being (Vision). Three of the Avengers at the time were former American military personnel; why would the Pentagon want to put them under a UN mandate and risk them getting fucked over by Russia or China when they have much sounder legal grounds for just conscripting them?
- that no-one questions the sense of putting a rapid emergency response team under the control of the UN, who has a terrible [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide] record [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre] of responding [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide#Revisionist_accounts] to international [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur] emergencies [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war].
- that this team of superpowered people would then get into an all-holds-barred slap-fight at an airport and react with shock at one member of the conflict being injured (by a guy on his own team).
Don't get me wrong, it was a fun movie. But there's a reason they had to make Tony's motivation in the climax be a personal one and not a political one.
As for BvS...the theatrical release made no damn sense, it was predicated on the idea that a Senate committee would hold Superman responsible for a bunch of people being shot to death. With bullets. The extended cut [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skZbdZABKi4] is a little better about it.
Seen the movie. I thought it was okay as a timewaster but I could easily see every problem people complained about, the Joker in particular. The biggest laugh it got out of me was when it tried to get me to feel sorry for Harley Quinn after the helicopter gets shot down. No movie, I will not feel sorry for her because of the Joker's 'death' (and who didn't see him surviving?).
In all, the movie was acceptable but certainly not good or great.
In all, the movie was acceptable but certainly not good or great.