Ah, he didn't mention that they named a a building after him in the movie but I will.
Spoilers Suicide Squad - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Well, his own movies sure fail on that basis.
The Iron Man movies are the only Marvel movies I really enjoyed. The rest were no more than "okay", a forgettable way to kill a few hours.
Well, people like them are the kinds that review movies for their publications.
These two are my favorite so far. Written by different writers, of course.
Last edited:
I went to see the movie yesterday, and while I agree the movie is flawed, I cannot at all fathom the extreme nature of this reception. If you believe the critics, this would basically be the worst movie of the summer, and that's pure idiocy. Seriously, SS is apparently considered worse than BvS, worse than Warcraft, worse than X-men Apocalypse, worse than Independence Day Resurgence - it's unbelievably hyperbolic, especially for a movie that has some of the best performances of the year.
I also don't understand where a lot of the critics are coming from since most of the complaints I've heard just make no sense to me at all. In fact, the biggest flaws in this movie seem to be almost the exact opposite of what I've read. The ending is fun and solid. The action is easily exciting enough (no, it's not Avengers spectacle, but who really expected that?). The movie definitely doesn't 'fall apart as soon as the mission starts', as multiple reviewers I read claimed.
In fact, most of the flaws are in the first part of the movie, setting up the mission. The introductions are redundant and take too long, especially when they keep cutting back to Waller's dinner scene which was even more redundant and should've been cut almost entirely so that we don't have to watch two 'convincing the higherups to authorize the project' scenes literally back to back. Then they go back to even more redundant introductions despite the fact that the bad guy has already shown up in Midway City. Most of these intro scenes were funny, so I get why they might be reluctant to cut them, but we didn't need to see Deadshot or Harley's relationship with the guards, nor did we need to see Boomerang's arrest or Katana's random swordfight. And all of these useless scenes completely clutter up the transition to the actual mission with the result that it feels very lethargic (seriously, it took 3 days to send them there?) and makes it weirdly unclear why they're going on a rescue mission when they were supposed to be an anti-metahuman task force.
Once they get in the city, though, everything goes pretty smoothly. They're funny, they're cool, they beat up the bad guys. Exactly what this kind of storyline should be. I can agree that the bad guys probably should've been a little more stylish throughout the second act, but I don't see that as a very big deal at all. Harley and the others were massively entertaining, anyway.
Also, descriptions of the movie as 'chaotic' to the point of being indecipherable seem totally laughable: yeah, the editing was sub-par in places, but except for the one bit I already mentioned (about the purpose of their mission), there isn't a single thing in this movie that's at all hard to understand. It's just a simple, fun search and destroy movie.
The complaints about the Joker's screentime feel completely petty - he most definitely wasn't 'barely in the movie' as many keep repeating. He was a repeated presence through the entire length of the film, and the only way he could've ever been a larger presence was if he were the main villain, which none of the trailers or promotional stuff ever implied, so anyone who went in convinced that was what they were getting has only themselves to blame. (He was, incidentally, a pretty great Joker, though not as imposing as Heath Ledger - the pope ring moment was absolutely hilarious)
The discussion about it really being Deadshot's movie and not Harley Quinn's is incomprehensible, as well. They were both pretty much equal leads.
And I have to disagree with the negative reaction to Enchantress - Cara Delavigne did a great job overall. In fact, the dark version of the Enchantress was creepy as hell and incredibly well done. I do agree the gyrating in the light was a weird mistake, and I think the way they enhanced her voice in the second half of the film killed the menace of the character (the whole egyptian makeover in general was just much weaker than the dark version we got to begin with). But none of it really hurts the film for me, since a movie like this shouldn't even need a deep villain, anyway.
I do agree, though, that the pop music was overdone and not well placed (and, when combined with the rather unexpected 'family of misfits' trope, doesn't do much to combat the claims that DC was trying to replicate the GotG formula).
And I very much do agree with the general consensus that Margot Robbie was by far the best thing about this movie. I'll be very curious to see how the financial situation develops, considering this totally bizarre reception, but even if it does turn out to be such a financial disappointment that we don't get anymore SS, we absolutely must have more Harley Quinn, somwhere, somehow. She's by far the best character the DCEU has at this point.
Overall I give it B-, easily better than BvS and probably the best DCEU movie so far.
I'm also curious: did anyone else find it kind of weird to tack on a post credits scene which kind of implies that the movie shouldn't even have a sequel to begin with?
I don't remember anyone having a problem with a black Deadshot, but there were people who had a problem with Will Smith as Deadshot, primarily out of concern that Deadshot would wind up being the same basic generic nice guy with mad skills that Smith tends to play in many of his blockbuster movies.
And I honestly kind of feel like those concerns turned out to be sort of justified. I didn't feel like he was anywhere near as ruthless as he should've been, and I've been pretty surprised by the number of comic/ss fans who've praised his performance. I'm no expert in the character, but what I've read seemed to make it pretty clear that he's not the kind of guy who would be part of a 'family of misfits' trope the way he was in this movie, and that if he was given any opportunity to get his daughter back, he would stab his entire team in the back in a heartbeat.
Not that the general audience could or should care about this - the character as is is perfectly entertaining and enjoyable. I just don't feel like it's actually Deadshot.
I also don't understand where a lot of the critics are coming from since most of the complaints I've heard just make no sense to me at all. In fact, the biggest flaws in this movie seem to be almost the exact opposite of what I've read. The ending is fun and solid. The action is easily exciting enough (no, it's not Avengers spectacle, but who really expected that?). The movie definitely doesn't 'fall apart as soon as the mission starts', as multiple reviewers I read claimed.
In fact, most of the flaws are in the first part of the movie, setting up the mission. The introductions are redundant and take too long, especially when they keep cutting back to Waller's dinner scene which was even more redundant and should've been cut almost entirely so that we don't have to watch two 'convincing the higherups to authorize the project' scenes literally back to back. Then they go back to even more redundant introductions despite the fact that the bad guy has already shown up in Midway City. Most of these intro scenes were funny, so I get why they might be reluctant to cut them, but we didn't need to see Deadshot or Harley's relationship with the guards, nor did we need to see Boomerang's arrest or Katana's random swordfight. And all of these useless scenes completely clutter up the transition to the actual mission with the result that it feels very lethargic (seriously, it took 3 days to send them there?) and makes it weirdly unclear why they're going on a rescue mission when they were supposed to be an anti-metahuman task force.
Once they get in the city, though, everything goes pretty smoothly. They're funny, they're cool, they beat up the bad guys. Exactly what this kind of storyline should be. I can agree that the bad guys probably should've been a little more stylish throughout the second act, but I don't see that as a very big deal at all. Harley and the others were massively entertaining, anyway.
Also, descriptions of the movie as 'chaotic' to the point of being indecipherable seem totally laughable: yeah, the editing was sub-par in places, but except for the one bit I already mentioned (about the purpose of their mission), there isn't a single thing in this movie that's at all hard to understand. It's just a simple, fun search and destroy movie.
The complaints about the Joker's screentime feel completely petty - he most definitely wasn't 'barely in the movie' as many keep repeating. He was a repeated presence through the entire length of the film, and the only way he could've ever been a larger presence was if he were the main villain, which none of the trailers or promotional stuff ever implied, so anyone who went in convinced that was what they were getting has only themselves to blame. (He was, incidentally, a pretty great Joker, though not as imposing as Heath Ledger - the pope ring moment was absolutely hilarious)
The discussion about it really being Deadshot's movie and not Harley Quinn's is incomprehensible, as well. They were both pretty much equal leads.
And I have to disagree with the negative reaction to Enchantress - Cara Delavigne did a great job overall. In fact, the dark version of the Enchantress was creepy as hell and incredibly well done. I do agree the gyrating in the light was a weird mistake, and I think the way they enhanced her voice in the second half of the film killed the menace of the character (the whole egyptian makeover in general was just much weaker than the dark version we got to begin with). But none of it really hurts the film for me, since a movie like this shouldn't even need a deep villain, anyway.
I do agree, though, that the pop music was overdone and not well placed (and, when combined with the rather unexpected 'family of misfits' trope, doesn't do much to combat the claims that DC was trying to replicate the GotG formula).
And I very much do agree with the general consensus that Margot Robbie was by far the best thing about this movie. I'll be very curious to see how the financial situation develops, considering this totally bizarre reception, but even if it does turn out to be such a financial disappointment that we don't get anymore SS, we absolutely must have more Harley Quinn, somwhere, somehow. She's by far the best character the DCEU has at this point.
Overall I give it B-, easily better than BvS and probably the best DCEU movie so far.
I'm also curious: did anyone else find it kind of weird to tack on a post credits scene which kind of implies that the movie shouldn't even have a sequel to begin with?
People had a problem with Smith being Deadshot? I must have missed that one entirely. Or I've since forgotten.
I don't remember anyone having a problem with a black Deadshot, but there were people who had a problem with Will Smith as Deadshot, primarily out of concern that Deadshot would wind up being the same basic generic nice guy with mad skills that Smith tends to play in many of his blockbuster movies.
And I honestly kind of feel like those concerns turned out to be sort of justified. I didn't feel like he was anywhere near as ruthless as he should've been, and I've been pretty surprised by the number of comic/ss fans who've praised his performance. I'm no expert in the character, but what I've read seemed to make it pretty clear that he's not the kind of guy who would be part of a 'family of misfits' trope the way he was in this movie, and that if he was given any opportunity to get his daughter back, he would stab his entire team in the back in a heartbeat.
Not that the general audience could or should care about this - the character as is is perfectly entertaining and enjoyable. I just don't feel like it's actually Deadshot.
Last edited:
Whenever "you people" say BvS, I assume you're talking about Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Their first threat is their greatest ally, most powerful team mate and the only reason that they exist, or got funding from that black budget war council?
Oh.
Superman is dead.
Forgot about that.
Kept wondering why he was leaving the world saving to these miscreants.
Well that answers that question.
Their first threat is their greatest ally, most powerful team mate and the only reason that they exist, or got funding from that black budget war council?
Oh.
Superman is dead.
Forgot about that.
Kept wondering why he was leaving the world saving to these miscreants.
Well that answers that question.
Last edited:
Sorry, that's always been BtVS...
This actually was kind of a minor annoyance in the movie - especially once they said it took 3 days for the Squad to actually get into the city.
Not for Superman, himself, obviously. But the movie does go out of its way to show Batman and the Flash actively taking out metahumans (the Flash even doing so in Australia, which presumably means he ranges far and wide from his home turf), and yet neither of them show up when a major US city is completely evacuated due to metahuman terrorists?
No major plot spoilers here, but it's mentioned by one of the contributors in this discussion that a friend of his saw the Ayer cut (when WB were testing alternative versions) and considered it the better of the two, with a much darker tone (i.e., Killer Croc actually ripping into people)
Also non-spoilery as the shot in question features in trailers, but I thought this was just one interesting technical example of, for me, one of the editing issues with film. In the making of, you can see @1:07 they set up a really nice continuous dolly/louma shot of Deadshot stuntman rappelling off building. Nice practical work with no CGI, which would have been thrilling to see as one single shot as he leaps off building. In the film however, the shot is broken up into 5-6 edits intercut with another separate scene, and is just drained of any energy becoming just another generic action montage.
Also non-spoilery as the shot in question features in trailers, but I thought this was just one interesting technical example of, for me, one of the editing issues with film. In the making of, you can see @1:07 they set up a really nice continuous dolly/louma shot of Deadshot stuntman rappelling off building. Nice practical work with no CGI, which would have been thrilling to see as one single shot as he leaps off building. In the film however, the shot is broken up into 5-6 edits intercut with another separate scene, and is just drained of any energy becoming just another generic action montage.
Last edited:
Agreed--and though some people still live in the dark about the following, so many kids are already exposed to serious entertainment content--video games above all else. They're not all watching Disney and playing the video game version of Lego-whatever.
In need of smelling salts, Christopher?
Crossover rules, mate. It wasn't Flash or Batman's movie. I know we don't like it, but it's the same imposed rules we see in comics and other movies. Why do no Avengers help Tony in IM 3 when his house was blown up by terrorists? Why do no Avengers help Steve when they learned SHIELD was infiltrated by HYDRA and planning mass death with the hellicarriers in DC? Why does Superman never just pop over to Gotham to stop whatever multi-issue crisis Batman and his family are having? Story is not about them, so they weren't included.
With the old rules in Marvel Comics, you would at least get a shout out of what other heroes were doing when shit was going down. Mainly because 99% of all of Marvel's heroes were in NYC (Spider-Man, Daredevil, the Heroes for Hire, Fantastic Four, Avengers, Doctor Strange etc).
That was a great airing of the different viewpoints. The ever-expanding panel threw me a bit: it's a four-person panel, no there's two other guys over there, no there's two MORE guys in a third location.
Made the mistake of reading the comments.
What he said, specifically, is that he thought it was inappropriate for his kids to see. There's no contradiction there. He writes comics that are meant for adults, but he's also a parent and he wants entertainment he can share with his kids. He's hardly the only writer of adult-oriented material that I've seen express that desire (not about this movie, but in general). After all, comics are a medium, not a genre. They're not all supposed to be aimed at the same audience. There should ideally be comics for kids, comics for adults, and everything else. The problem is when there's too much of one and not enough of the others. And the people who create the dark, violent, adult-oriented material are often the first to say, "Hey, wait, you've misunderstood my intent -- I was making this for a specific audience to convey a specific message, and I never meant it to be seen as a template for everybody else to follow."
Heck, I've been there myself. There have been a few occasions when I've been at a book fair or convention to shill my hard-SF superhero novel Only Superhuman, and when I've had to advise young attendees or their parents that the book was too adult for them. My sensibilities as a writer tend to be adult-oriented, but it doesn't feel great to tell a small child "No, you can't have this." So sometimes I wish I had something else to offer that was more all-ages. If I were a parent, with my whole world reoriented around the well-being of my offspring, I'm sure I'd feel that far more strongly.
I haven't seen it, but I saw a summary of the scene, and it sounds more like it's setting up a future conflict between Bruce and Waller over the Squad's existence -- she keeps it around, Batman tries to shut it down, and there's your plot for the sequel. Maybe the next movie will be Batman v Suicide Squad: Mid-Afternoon of Villainy.
Really? Usually the racists are quick to come out of the woodwork and condemn any casting of a black actor in a traditionally white role. Well, maybe they're all too busy attending Trump rallies to pay attention to movies anymore...
Or maybe an immunity has built up with regard to Will Smith playing a character who was originally white, because this is at least the fourth time it's happened (following Men in Black, Wild Wild West, and I Am Legend).
Slipknot should have been in all the promo pictures.
There was a bit of irony that Waller herself seemed to, if not outright cause, than contribute to the situation that needed the Squad in the first place.
Your whole post was a good detailed breakdown but I'm glad I "embargoed" reading any reviews for this film or any news period once enough clips have come out. I'm not one to say reviews and critics don't have merit but some seem to spend more time debating and discussing the reviews themselves than the movie without ever seeing it.
Your whole post was a good detailed breakdown but I'm glad I "embargoed" reading any reviews for this film or any news period once enough clips have come out. I'm not one to say reviews and critics don't have merit but some seem to spend more time debating and discussing the reviews themselves than the movie without ever seeing it.
Last edited:
The thing with Mark Millar's statements is that one that are sensationally hyperbolic, and two a film with the Suicide Squad, is not something you as a parent should take small children to if that his concern. Unlike say Terminator 2 and Robocop 2, which were very adult in terms of content, both films were actually marketed to kids. Deadpool and SS weren't marketed to children, but parents presumably took their kids to see the film anyway. Plus, his kids needing therapy after watching SS is such exaggeration. The film has nothing in it that merits such a response.
I forget what Millar said about BvS, but I'm certain he didn't like it. As for MOS, he compared Superman killing Zod to Sylvester the Cat eating Tweedy Bird. Not sure how the analogy works, but like I said Millar is a sensationalist. Just look at his resume; Kick Ass, Wanted, Kingsman, Civil War, Old Man Logan (with Hulk&She-Hulk incest and several mentally retarded children) etc. I read Millar may still be miffed at WB for rejecting a script for a Superman movie where Supes would've been an in your face conqueror. I imagine it would have been similar to his own Superman Red Son story. Where Superman basically conquered the planet except for America.
I forget what Millar said about BvS, but I'm certain he didn't like it. As for MOS, he compared Superman killing Zod to Sylvester the Cat eating Tweedy Bird. Not sure how the analogy works, but like I said Millar is a sensationalist. Just look at his resume; Kick Ass, Wanted, Kingsman, Civil War, Old Man Logan (with Hulk&She-Hulk incest and several mentally retarded children) etc. I read Millar may still be miffed at WB for rejecting a script for a Superman movie where Supes would've been an in your face conqueror. I imagine it would have been similar to his own Superman Red Son story. Where Superman basically conquered the planet except for America.