Suicide Squad (David Ayer, 2016) Movie • Page 29

BvS just doesn't do the characters justice, which is the whole reason I want to go see a superhero movie. That movie is at its best when Bats and WW are in action against Doomsday and in Batman's Martha rescue scene. Not nearly enough to save the film, which is about 85% poorly executed exposition. Sure, Civil War has its flaws but it's easy to see past those flaws when the airport scene is going on and all of these awesome characters are just at their best. BvS didn't have one scene that came close to that.

 

I was entertained by both CW and BvS. CW was more refined, had better developed characters, but felt safe and had it's share of plot holes and shoehorned in aspects that seemed to go unacknowledged. It also feels annoyingly televisual at times, like some other Marvel movies. BvS was not as sharp, had missteps in the script, but its themes and conflicts are more interesting. And Snyder made that movie look and feel much more cinematic than CW.

My enjoyment and criticisms for both balance out for the most part. Might give CW the slight edge, but I'm not sure at this point. A lot of people's disdain for BvS tend to stem from a "not my Superman" or "not my Batman" argument, which is fine I guess, but I liked the interpretation of these characters.

 

I think the bad character work in BvS and Man of Steel is a sizable flaw that Civil War and most Marvel films don't share (though many Marvel movies are straight up bad). Amidst all of Superman and Batman's brooding (and Wonder Woman's under-utilization), they haven't had a chance to endear themselves as fully realized characters. Marvel has taken a better route in characterization so far.

 

It's there and it's intentional. It's not done in the most revelatory or poignant way, I personally would have liked to see a bit more explored in it, but I promise that was their intent and it came through a little bit.

I'd argue that, if none of the other Spider-Man movies existed, Tom Holland's version of the character would have the same effect. They introduce him as a new character, he feels a multitude of things and has motivations and a psychology. BvS didn't do as good a job with Wonder Woman. Gal Gadot communicated more character in her performance in the action scenes than in any of the clunky, bad dialogue scenes with Batman.

 

Holy shit. If BvS didn't exist that third act might be the absolute worst thing I've seen in a long time. There's a solid hour and a bit of a good film and then it turns to shit. Wow.

 

yup - I just got out of the theater and I really had fun seeing this movie and I don't understand why Marvel movies get praise when this felt just like any type of those movies.

 

These posts are making me sad. Really wanted to like this.

 

They had to have chopped up that last act a ton. I can't get over it.

 

go see it - movie reviews are probably the most worthless things to ever read

 

Not really. There are some exceptional critics. Find the ones who challenge your thinking on film and offer up interesting perspectives on how movies work and why. Ignore RT scores.

 

I wouldn't even say that. Going to the movies is fucking expensive. If something has a bad RT score, I will wait for VOD. I don't think I have ever seen a movie with a sub 40 RT score that I thought was worth going to the theater for.

 

That's wrong.

 

I, obviously, disagree. I can't think of a single Marvel character that I would call realized, or even really explored all that well. (Lots of good one line zingers though.) Part of this is bad writing, part is trying to do too much with too many characters, and the last is that they reset, or change, their characters in weird ways depending on what movie they're in. The version of a character in one movie gets, sometimes overtly, sometimes subtly, changed in another movie. They become stand-ins for comedic relief or just "killed" off if you need it. RDJ being a really good actor is probably why most people point to Tony's character arc, and, I would argue that's mostly done because of him — not the script or direction. In fact, I think Clark Kent's character work, while not what many would call "Superman" (and that's a fine complaint), is conveyed more than Thor, Hulk, or even Cap. Now, there are complaints to be had about what that character arc and experience means, but that's a different argument.

 

I disagree. I mentioned this earlier in the thread but RT measures agreeability, not quality. To the Wonder (44%) is one of Terrence Malick's most rewarding films. Finding Dory (94%) is middling Pixar. Safe, decent movies do well in Rotten Tomatos (Marvel, JJ Abrams, Pixar). Ambitious, challenging movies are more divisive (Terrence Malick, Lars Von Trier).

If you don't care about high minded movies and just want pure entertainment (not a bad thing, by the way, that's what most people want in movies), then sure RT probably won't steer you wrong. But I wish people would ignore it completely.

 

Film criticism is important because it can inform if not color your enjoyment of a film, but that doesn't mean " they're always right" because that's impossible it's subjective

 

Didn't you used to write music reviews? Seems like an odd opinion to have.

 

That's mostly fair. I have a lot of issues with Snyder's Superman work and think Iron Man and Cap have more going on character wise than you do, but that's mostly where we differ. I do think the Marvel forumula is bad for character arcs long-term.

 

The past few years I have reserved going to the theater for the entertaining event films and everything else for home viewing. Every now and then my wife and I might go see a comedy if we are bored but the expense of going to the theater has shut out a lot of big screen viewings because we have a nice television at home that the latest indie darling or slapstick comedy will look great on.

 

He's said similar things about music reviews too. Just because you offer your opinion into the world, doesn't mean you have to think the practice is particularly "useful" as a whole. I think "reviews" as a whole are pretty damn worthless ... but I think individual opinions of a few people are worth following (and I spout my own nonsense everywhere).

 

I don't completely ignore RT scores. The fact that I can read all of the criticisms of a movie and still enjoy it personally is more rewarding than liking a movie outright and ignoring any and all of the criticisms.

 

For me, it's all a means to having a conversation about art and everyone's varying perspectives on it. Sure, there are some hacks, but I would never write off the craft as worthless.

 

Seeing that Suicide Squad has received almost the exact same RT rating as Batman v Superman, I'm not near as worried now I never really look at RT, but given that's what Fandango shows you, and bc their scores are comparable. I enjoyed BvS a good bit, so hopefully I will this too. Swapping my standard showing tickets in for regular IMAX.

 

A lot of people that write reviews say that, but with the internet and new technologies, reviews of media are, undoubtably, becoming less and less relevant or even culturally needed. I would be willing to bet this continues as bandwidth increases, cost of distribution decreases, and more and more people are willing to trust algorithms and/or what their social circle is saying and posting in their walled networks. I know my friends and my generation pretty well, and I've spent 20 years studying the metrics of how much people read certain things online, and know first hand how many people read reviews on some of the largest music websites on the internet — and I know what the generation behind me is doing. The people that love to talk about reviews and critics are ... mostly critics in their own little echo chamber pretending they're relevant. And for a handful of people they are. But the truth is I can send one tweet that will get more people to check out a band than any review I'll ever write can and that scales to all mediums as social apps increase in importance and future generations know only them.

 

I do not believe for a second that this movie is going to be "trash" like most people are spouting off in here. Lady in the Water is trash. I'm sure even if this movie isn't great, it probably has a lot to like about it. I can't wait to see it tomorrow! Any of the critics I follow either like it or think it's just ok, but I think it's over ridiculous to think a film on this scale is all completely bad. I would personally discredit anyone who just downplays it completely.

EDIT: It reminds me of Age of Ultron. Everyone loves the characters, the action, the comedy, James Spader as Ultron but then go onto say "well its a bad movie". WUT.

 

As an avid consumer of reviews of all kinds, the conversation around them fascinates me. A good critic makes herself worthwhile by offering insight into the quality and meaning of a film -- or an album -- previously unseen. The practice has been diluted, of course, and we have a tendency to associate it more closely with evaluation and advice than we do with analysis and interpretation. I like to know what the bigger picture is before I commit myself to a movie or a book or whatever, and everything around the work itself feeds into how I make sense of my experience and the meaning of the thing.

Nonetheless, I'm not sure we need critics to tell us that this movie is terrible. Something has seemed off about it from the beginning. It has that Zach Snyder aesthetic that I've been irritated by since Sucker Punch. Visuals and edginess taking precedence over story, character, and dialogue.