Spoilers Suicide Squad - Grading & Discussion

[Christopher]

While that may feel more right, being Superman does that distance even matter? Shouldn't he be just as capable of popping over?

Depends on the version. Superman's had wildly varying power levels over the decades. The early version could just leap 1/8 of a mile at a time and run really fast, and "nothing short of an exploding shell" could penetrate his skin -- he basically started with the same power set that the Hulk did, albeit a bit weaker. Then it escalated more and more -- he could see through walls, he could fly, he was invulnerable, he could survive in space, he could could move faster than light, he could push moons around, etc. Various retools or adaptations, including the Denny O'Neill comics in the '70s, the Byrne reboot in '86, and Superman: The Animated Series, have tried to dial Superman's powers down to a more manageable level so that there would be more suspense, more chance that he could be defeated without having to fall back on having kryptonite in practically every villain's possession. But usually his power levels tend to drift upward again over time.

So my idea of separating Metropolis and Gotham was predicated on the assumption of a Superman with post-Crisis or S:TAS-level powers, so that a cross-country flight would be a less casual thing than just hopping across a bay. Also, if Metropolis and Gotham were on opposite coasts, there'd be a lot of other cities that would be closer to Superman, and that would affect the relative attention he could give to each. Having Gotham literally adjacent to Metropolis makes it feel like it ought to be part of Superman's extended territory anyway. Most everything that happened there would be literally in his direct line of sight. Even just from a psychological perspective, it feels more right if they aren't next-door neighbors.

 

[dahj]

It's the number quoted by experts who actually know something about how movies are financed.

What experts?
It's a number that an anonymous "veteran" allegedly blurted out in one article almost as an offhand remark, and then every other website just ran with that without checking any sources.
This type of reporting is pure and simple bullshit.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

I found the editing to be very choppy and it was difficult to understand what was going on.

I very much enjoyed Margot Robbie's performance though. She was bonkers and heartbreaking all at once.

 

[Samurai8472]

Estimates peg that Saturday numbers for "Squad" went down 39-41%, and the revised weekend estimate is now back down to $135M.

Mark Miller hated it, he wishes he could take his kids to DC movies "without them needing therapy"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Mark Millar could take his kids to Kick-Ass instead.

 

[Trekker4747]

I found the editing to be very choppy and it was difficult to understand what was going on.

I very much enjoyed Margot Robbie's performance though. She was bonkers and heartbreaking all at once.

Yeah, the movie feels very, very edited and it stands out and is indeed very, very, choppy. I'd be very curious what an "unrated" cut would look like and if it stands up better.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Though there is an easy mark with Millar and the violence in some of his own works, one of the things about both SS and BvS that really stuck with me is they are NOT family friendly. Yet, they scrape in under the PG13/12 wire to allow them to grab all the bucks they can.

When I saw BvS there were many kids under the age of 8 in the screening, and with the level of violence on display, I really wasn't convinced that it was anywhere near appropriate for them. Same with SS, which with its misogynistic psycho-sexual tone in scenes, almost pornographic gaze on weapons and the violence they inflict (but with that cop out "it ain't a human so it doesn't count" rationale attached to it), and its flippant attempt at humour through crass violent action, there would be no way I would take younger kids to see it. In the UK it was thankfully rated a 15, but in the US it stood as a PG13.

I honestly believe that the problem with the DC films is they want it both ways - they want to be seen to be serious, moral, more grown up, more realistic in their violence than their Marvel counterparts, but want 6 year olds in the seats so they can have them beg their parents for the Superman toy at Walmart the next day. They refuse to fully commit to either making family films OR fully grown up adult fantasy and hence the massive tonal and structural problems.

Given the number of people/things gunned down by Batman in BvS or Deadshot in SS the fact the entire things are basically bloodless makes them little more than a rain-soaked A-Team episode. Violence should be used as horrific punctuation, not meaningless waffle, the consequences of which should be up on the screen.

This argument is, of course, not solely aimed at WB and DC, as there are many films in the PG13/12 bracket that I have had serious WTF moments with wondering how they were not rated higher.

For all its failings, Marvel has its formula. Even when it doesn't work, it makes enough money to carry on. But it's there and it's aimed at families, with the occasional heady moment thrown in from time to time. I don't like all of the films and only a few are more than "fun entertainment", but they know what they are, what they are offering and don't suffer from pretensions that they are rewriting a genre and damn you all if you didn't get it or didn't like it.

Hugo

 

[Makarov]

If the dark knight got PG-13 with the joker slicing people up etc, I think it fits here too. PG-13 doesn't mean parents are supposed to take 6 year olds into the movie, but it's fine for 13 and up. I'd agree with the rating on this one. It's up to parents to decide if a darker comedy super hero movie is what they want to see. Deadpool was R but people were still taking little kids into it. It is very clear from the trailers that this isn't the family friendliest of super hero movies, but I'd say a 13+ year old can handle it. How many kids grew up on Terminator 2 and Rambo movies and turned out alright...

A dark comedy with the villains is not the type of movie I care to dwell on the real world impact of violence but to each his own.

 

[Christopher]

If parents are taking their 6-year-olds to see movies that are clearly rated PG-13 or R, the problem is with the parents, not the movies. Although, on the other hand, it would help if Hollywood offered more G- or PG-rated superhero movies alongside the PG-13 and R-rated ones, so that the parents wouldn't feel the latter were the only option for their superhero-loving little ones.

 

[BillJ]

Though there is an easy mark with Millar and the violence in some of his own works, one of the things about both SS and BvS that really stuck with me is they are NOT family friendly. Yet, they scrape in under the PG13/12 wire to allow them to grab all the bucks they can.

When I saw BvS there were many kids under the age of 8 in the screening, and with the level of violence on display, I really wasn't convinced that it was anywhere near appropriate for them. Same with SS, which with its misogynistic psycho-sexual tone in scenes, almost pornographic gaze on weapons and the violence they inflict (but with that cop out "it ain't a human so it doesn't count" rationale attached to it), and its flippant attempt at humour through crass violent action, there would be no way I would take younger kids to see it. In the UK it was thankfully rated a 15, but in the US it stood as a PG13.

I took my nine year old. Our policy is to talk through the things he doesn't understand or we feel he may get a wrong impression from. I have a 23-year old daughter and 19-year old son we used the same policy with, and they seem pretty well rounded.

I don't believe in hiding the world from my children. I'd rather they learn how to interpret material from me than learn about it from the playground or the internet. Kids need to have exposure to the world, including media, so they aren't shocked with it and can't cope when they grow up.

All in my opinion.

 

[Trekker4747]

I took my nine year old. Our policy is to talk through the things he doesn't understand or we feel he may get a wrong impression from. I have a 23-year old daughter and 19-year old son we used the same policy with, and they seem pretty well rounded.

I don't believe in hiding the world from my children. I'd rather they learn how to interpret material from me than learn about it from the playground or the internet. Kids need to have exposure to the world, including media, so they aren't shocked with it and can't cope when they grow up.

All in my opinion.

What? You're being a parent?! Seriously, this here is all it takes. My parents took me to more than a few "hard PG-13" and R-Rated movies when I was a kid and I turned out (mostly) fine and didn't end up emotionally scarred or anything because they were open to talking about ti and not hiding things from us. The only limit was anything overly sexual but even light nudity they were more-or-less okay with it. They didn't overly hide or shelter me and my brother from things, we saw Robocop 2 in theaters and loved every moment of it and managed to come out of it without cursing all of the time or being mass-killers.

 

[Mr Light]

I loved this movie! For the first time in the new DCEU, there was a sense of fun and excitement. Now, I love Man of Steel. And I mostly like BVS, even though it's way too morose and serious. But the tone of this movie was perfect. It had dark material with dark characters but it never stopped being entertaining and funny. Every character worked. I loved the Joker (even if it was a pretty far interpretation from the comics). Harley was delightful and constantly doing something interesting. I liked Deadshot a lot more than I expected to. Waller was great. Croc was funny. Even El Diablo had a good story. Rick Flagg worked better than I expected, and Huntress had some very interesting things going on (though the performance when she was evil was way too over the top). Katana barely exists as a character but I loved the look and what we did get. This movie even achieved the impossible and made me like Jai Courtney for the first time ever.

I loved how crammed this movie was with ideas and characters, while at the same time flowing perfectly, unlike BVS which was a jumbled mess of too many stories. This is a world full of pre-existing heroes and villains and we see them all in passing without too much explanation, including some great Batman cameos. It's a world where a woman can just stumble across an idol and get possessed by an ancient extra-dimensional witch, as you do.

The actual mission/story was thankfully kept a mystery from the trailers so I went in knowing nothing. I thought it was a pretty good story with a big threat. The third act had a solid resolution. I didn't really have any complaints about the movie, so I'm really mystified at all the horrible reviews it's getting.

THE GOOD: All the characters really shine. The tone and sense of humor.

THE BAD: Nothing, really. The Joker's looks and personality are a little divergent from the comics, but still fascinating. And I do wish Harley wore her original costume.

 

[Christopher]

I've realized something.

Opinions of Batman v Superman are highly divided, but even the people who hated it agree that Wonder Woman was its high point.

Opinions of Suicide Squad are highly divided, but even the people who hated it agree that Harley Quinn was its high point.

Maybe Warner Bros. just needs to make all its DC movies about female characters from now on.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

^ I vote for a live action Harley/Poison Ivy team up!

 

[LJones41]

Though there is an easy mark with Millar and the violence in some of his own works, one of the things about both SS and BvS that really stuck with me is they are NOT family friendly. Yet, they scrape in under the PG13/12 wire to allow them to grab all the bucks they can.


Is this what the bitching and moaning about the DC movies are about? That they are not "family friendly"? The violence in the actual comics are worse in comparison. And even some of the Marvel movies - "The Winter Soldier" and "Age of Ultron", along with their Netflix programming, would not be regarded by many as "family friendly".

I would say that "Suicide Squad" is more entertaining than "Batman v. Superman". But I like the latter film a little bit more.

I don't care whether the stories are "family friendly" are not. As long as I like the damn stories - whether the movies are DC, Marvel or some other comic book company. It seems as if culture today - pop culture - is all about making everything family friendly and bland for mass consumption. This is what art has come to in the early 21st century. Ugh.

 

[davejames]

Yeah, the movie feels very, very edited and it stands out and is indeed very, very, choppy. I'd be very curious what an "unrated" cut would look like and if it stands up better.

Yeah I envy those who were able to somehow overlook how incredibly choppy, rushed, and poorly edited the movie was. For me it was just way too distracting, and made it impossible to get involved in the story at all-- even on a dumb summer popcorn flick level.

And really, people like Millar actually thought the movie was too dark and violent? For me all the movie's attempts to seem "edgy and badass" just seemed utterly laughable. Whether it was the cheesy dayglo graphics that looked drawn by a 5 year old or Joker's ridiculous pimped out look or the use of outdated rap songs by Eminem. It was all just so soft and PG, and you get the sense the bikers from Sons of Anarchy could kick the shit out of these guys in a second, even without superpowers.

 

[Tosk]

What? You're being a parent?! Seriously, this here is all it takes. My parents took me to more than a few "hard PG-13" and R-Rated movies when I was a kid and I turned out (mostly) fine and didn't end up emotionally scarred or anything because they were open to talking about ti and not hiding things from us.

Same. I practically grew up on movies that were rated higher than my age, and I turned out just fine.

...Ask my therapist if you don't believe me.

 

[Mr Light]

I remember when I was younger I wasn't allowed to watch rated R movies and they finally let me watch T2. So for years afterwards I always thought rated R meant naked men

 

[M.A.C.O.]

John Ostrander wrote his thoughts about the movie.

http://www.comicmix.com/2016/08/07/john-ostrander-reviews-the-suicide-squad/

 

[Tosk]

I love this bit...

"My problem is that, at least with some of the media reviews, is that the critic is also tired of superhero and “tentpole” films and, overtly or covertly, would like to see their end. Look, I get it – they have to see all the films out there and they must be tired of all the blockbusters.

If every superhero film is not The Dark Knight, they’ll bitch. I think that’s going on here to a certain degree. Just as I came prepared to love the movie, they came prepared to hate it."

The "critics don't like/are sick of this kind of movie" thing is so old. Batman v Superman comes out, a lot of critics hated it. Civil War comes out after that, a lot of critics liked it. Suicide Squad comes out after that, a lot of critics hated it. That doesn't sound like superhero fatigue to me, it just sounds like a lot of them didn't like BvS and SS.

As for some of the online haters – if a film doesn’t fit their pre-conceived notion, it is wrong. Female Ghostbusters, a black Deadshot, Ben Affleck as Batman (Affleck, by the way, does cameos as both Batman and Bruce Wayne in Suicide Squad and is terrific) – these are all sins and must be decried.

People had a problem with Smith being Deadshot? I must have missed that one entirely. Or I've since forgotten.