It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I tend to agree. I don't think it was bad per se, and there were some good performances, but it failed to engage me in any significant way.It's mostly fine but nothing that stood out to me very much. I'd certainly rank it at the bottom of all of the DCEU movies.
Stop it.BoPatFEoOHQ.
It's true, at least for marketing purposes. Wild.The movie has just been renamed to, Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey
Link...The movie has just been renamed to, Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey
My word isn’t good enough?
While it's certainly true that most previews are both ear-crushingly cacauphonous and brain-meltingly boring in their identical structure...Trailers very rarely ever present a plot for these kinds of movies. It sounds to me like you have more of a problem with the overall way movies are marketed these days, rather than this movie specifically.
Suicide Squad also had Will Smith and a great trailer backing it up. Birds of Prey was so under the radar that I almost didn't realize that it was coming out this past week. I also think that the R-rating was a mistake. If they had pulled back on it just a little to get a PG-13, I think that teenagers would be a very key demographic for this film.
But it seems distributor Warner Bros. has a theory of its own: Potential viewers must not be aware that Birds of Prey focuses on Margot Robbie‘s Harley Quinn. Well, the studio has now taken steps to make that loud and clear…or rather, louder and clearer. Though the film’s official title is Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn), take a look at the listings for your local multiplex and you’ll see something slightly different: Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey. AMC, Regal, and Cinemark‘s websites all currently display this title for the film.
Harley is and always has been an anti-hero, so it seems a bit silly to be mad that she is acting like an anti-hero. It sounds to me like you have more of an overall problem with anti-heroes and criminals as the main characters in movies than with this movie specifically.While it's certainly true that most previews are both ear-crushingly cacauphonous and brain-meltingly boring in their identical structure...
... most previews aren't asking us to root for violent criminals who assault cops and blow up urban chemical factories (presumably poisoning the surroundings and probably killing at least a few night shift workers in the process). So, I'd argue this flick had a particular responsibility to tease a compelling story in its preview. But, what do I know? I'm just a guy, and WB's the one with the fantabulous hit on its hands.![]()
Yeah, I was actually surprised how tame the action scenes really were, I was expecting it to be a lot more graphic than it ended up being. I think if they just got rid of the fucks, and did a couple quick edits in a couple scenes it could have easily been PG-13.It's not too far from a PG-13 from what I remember so it is surprising they didn't go that direction with maybe an unrated video release.
It's mostly fine but nothing that stood out to me very much. I'd certainly rank it at the bottom of all of the DCEU movies.
I'd also agree with these. I mean I don't know much about DC comics besides the big big names, so knew nothing about the Birds of Prey themselves. And having seen the movie I pretty much still feel the same way. Just mostly dull, uninteresting characters, and a complete waste of Mary Elizabeth Winstead. And sorry, I can't sympathise or even like some annoying pickpocketing thief. I was almost praying for Ewan McGregor to finish her off.It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I tend to agree. I don't think it was bad per se, and there were some good performances, but it failed to engage me in any significant way.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.