Yeah, but it's not like RT doesn't take reviews from the same sources as Metacritic. It requires one extra click to see them. There are just "new media" sources to go along with them.I feel exactly the same way Gaith does. I stopped going to Rotten Tomatoes when I realized I didn't recognize the majority of the publications on there, while I have heard of pretty much every publication on Metacritic.
If you missed it, what I said was that in cases like this, the critics clearly don't have the same view as someone like me will have. They're inability to understand what they're watching is utterly irrelevant to whether I'll enjoy it or not. Rather than accepting the movie for what it is, they clearly expected something entirely different, and it shows in most of their reviews.
I also said -- and I'm fairly sure you'll edit out this bit if you reply again, too -- that I may end up agreeing with them after I see the movie. But as it stands, based solely on their reviews, those reviews are largely meaningless to me because it is, in fact, clear that they didn't understand what kind of movie this is. It may still suck, but if it does, I doubt it'll be because of most of the reasons they've cited in their reviews.
Some people rely on reviews to choose their movies. Some don't. Neither tack is wrong. You don't judge a movie until you've actually seen it? Good on ya, mate! There's no law anywhere that requires the rest of us to follow your lead.
Exactly. The way so many people cite RT as THE source for ratings is purely an indicator of herd behaviour, especially as it's obvious most people don't even understand what the "fresh" rating means. (Whether it means anything, or provides any useful info, is also up for debate.)Well, this is one reason why Rotten Tomatoes sucks on toast: it's filled with dozens upon dozens of random, no-name reviewers, whereas the far superior Metacritic only includes scores from serious publications. (Not even IGN makes their cut!) Why so many people cite and pay attention to RT when Metacritic is around is beyond me; most reviewers quoted by Metacritic I've at least heard of, and I respect many of them
You know that "fine dining" is an archetypal example of the emperor's new clothes?This Friday night I can either see a film that film critics say is mediocre at best or terrible at worst or I can have dinner at a restaurant that food critics say is excellent.
With the references to BvS, it'd be best if one saw that movie first. This movie feels like part of a series.A movie should be good on it's own.
Pretty much.Majority opinion is the characters are great, and there are many fun things about the movie, but the structure was a mess and the climax was weak...
I've seen the movie. Here's my review without having read all of this thread or any other reviews...
The Bad:
The Good:
- It wasn't the screwball comedy or even the dark comedy that the trailers made it out to be. It was a straight-up action movie with the requisite humor. I couldn't tell what parts were retooled but it wouldn't surprise me if they added some music to change the tone in a few spots at the very beginning and very end. Music makes all the difference and that was a big part of what made Guardians of the Galaxy what it was. This movie didn't go all out but it had touches. The trailers are misleading.
- The story wasn't clear. It had a decent first act that introduced some of the characters but like BvS, it was poorly put together. The second act was a bit of a mess with even less clarity but in the third act, things came together a bit more and we got some decent character moments.
- Jared Leto as the Joker was pretty good but he didn't really serve a purpose beyond playing off of Robbie.
- I'm a big fan of Adam Beach and thought that he was sorely wasted.
The Verdict:
- Viola Davis killed as Amanda Waller. She was every bit the Amanda Waller you all know and love (to hate).
- Will Smith was Will Smith but he was also a pretty decent Deadshot.
- Margot Robbie was a fantastic Harley Quinn. Crazy and demented. There was even a nice little surprise. You'll know it when you see it if you haven't been spoiled already.
- It was actually nice to see Smith and Robbie working together again after Focus.
- Cara Delevigne was great. Scary like in a Japanese horror film, dangerous and sensual. She was sexier than Harley by a mile and I was fascinated by the dual character that she played. If there was one bad thing about her character it was that she wasn't explored a little more.
- Batman.
- The whole ensemble was generally good. Good cast, bad plotting.
- The movie was nicely connected to the larger DC movie universe with the U.S. government's view of Superman and references to events in the last two movies.
- Man of Steel A+
- Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice C
- Suicide Squad B+
In the movie they talk about they hypothetical "next Superman". A super powered being who doesn't "share America's values". Superman is always viewed as being on America's side, despite how much they may drag him for his unsanctioned actions in other countries. Task Force X in the movie and the comics is about creating an unofficial team of metas to combat metas.I'm curious about one thing...in the trailer, Waller talks about Superman and what they can do if things go bad again. How is this team supposed to handle something like that anyway? Harley with a baseball bat, the rest with guns, one has fire...these guys can't even take out Batman, so what luck would they have against a Superman-level threat?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.