What you refer to as "objective flaws" is what every film has, because movies aren't ever logically bulletproof, you can always find faults in plot structure.
No, not every film reaches its natural climax at the end of Act II and then has to bolt on what ought to be the second act of an entirely different film to have its Act III, or is full of incoherent edits.
The degree to which it bothers you will be entirely dependent on how much you enjoy the movie.
This part, I agree with.
See: When I'm talking about objective flaws, I'm not talking about how much you
enjoy the film. For a less-charged example:
The Room, starring Tommy Wisseau, is an objectively bad movie. It is poorly written, poorly acted, and poorly edited. But of course, many, many people enjoy this film a great deal -- sometimes
because of its flaws. The weight you assign to a flaw and the enjoyment you do or do not derive from a film is entirely separate from whether or not the flaws are present.
Now here's the part that may surprise you: I actually enjoyed
Suicide Squad in spite of its flaws.
Edited to add: I go back and forth on
how much I enjoyed it, because it depends on how much weight I assign the parts I enjoyed at that given moment. But
(End Edit) I enjoyed it because the parts of it that
were good were enough to keep me entertained even while I acknowledge the existence of all these other major structural problems.
In point of fact:
Edited to add: At this moment, I think (end edit) I enjoyed
Suicide Squad more than
Doctor Strange. I absolutely still contend that
Doctor Strange is an objectively better film that is structured more competently than
Suicide Squad. But
Doctor Strange was also very familiar, very paint-by-numbers, while
Suicide Squad had the vivid performances of Margot Robbie, Will Smith, and Viola Davis to keep me intrigued and entertained even while I was frustrated by many of its flaws.
Doctor Strange is a better movie, but
Edited to add: in retrospect, as I think about it right now, (end edit) I probably had more fun at
Suicide Squad.
Yet that doesn't mean those flaws aren't there. They are. I can see them and I'm irritated
Suicide Squad wasn't better. I don't blame David Ayers, though -- I blame Warner Bros. They didn't give him enough time to write the best possible screenplay, he tried to find the film in editing, and then they fucked with his edit.
I like both the Marvel and DC films, though I admire the DC films more (even though I consider them more often flawed than Marvel). The aggregate Marvel films (MCU) are usually well-crafted and executed, with fewer moments of "what were they trying to do here?" However, the DC films are not as "safe" as the Marvel films. They take more chances--and I especially like what they've done with Superman (I'm not going to re-hash the "debate", but rather state I'm fully in favour of challenging expectations, as has clearly happened so far). It is the willingness to take chances I admire. Every Marvel film I've seen (I've seen them all) makes "safe choices". They are enjoyable (some more than others, but that's to be expected with so many films now) but never challenge my expectations. The DC films, on the other hand, often do--not always successfully, but I'm a big fan of going big, with the risk of failure, ahead of "staying safe" (even when "safe" is entertaining).
I don't take this so far that I
admire the DCEU films -- I consider them fundamentally broken at this point. But I will agree that the DC films have been willing to take more risks than most MCU films, especially with the decision to do
Suicide Squad as an "anti-
Avengers" rather than to follow up
Batman v. Superman with a more conventional superhero film. And some MCU films have been sufficiently "safe" that I didn't enjoy them as much as I might have otherwise, such as
Doctor Strange as I mentioned above.
).
