Suicide Squad

[GDSmithTX]

My 14 y/o Jake and I saw Suicide Squad yesterday at 1:30 at the upgraded "Dolby Cinema at AMC Prime" theater (the most amazing sound ever), and we had the same reaction: not a great film, but tremendously entertaining.

I give the movie a solid B, or I guess 3.75/5

It makes some hip visual choices that give the film a very "comic book" feel, as if certain scenes' whole "look" came directly off the pages of a comic book, and a good one at that. We've seen this before, but it works very well here. Plus, after the gloom of the Man of Steel and Batman v Superman palettes, it's refreshing to see a DC film so colorful and lively on screen.

Harley Quinn is delightfully daffy, and isn't sexualized anywhere near as much as I expected her to be, given the last decade's worth of her portrayals in comics and video games. There was some light leering, but come on ... have you seen Margot Robbie? She's one of the most tremendously beautiful women in the world. It's like not filming an evocative moonrise because it was too gorgeous: why would you do that? You wouldn't; nobody would.

Harley is also a certified badass with a baseball bat, not taking any shit or any prisoners. This is not a princess in need of protection; Harley kicks ass and Margot did a great job bringing her to life.

But Will Smith is the real star and I liked his character Deadshot a whole lot, though I wasn't very familiar with him beforehand. Will didn't mail it in at all like he sometimes can. He meant that shit and it comes through in a charming, heartfelt, funny performance, his most entertaining role in years. He plays a terrible person who, somehow, you just couldn't help but like and root for.

Jared Leto's Joker was just fine with me; more than fine, in fact. He was only onscreen for a short time, but when he was it really worked: unhinged, capricious and viciously violent, but somehow strangely grounded and loyal. He loves Harley Quinn; it's a sick and twisted love, but it's love nonetheless. This wasn't Heath Ledger's Joker, but that's an unfair comparison for any actor to have to live up to. Jared should keep the role.

The first thing Jake said after we stepped out of the theater into the 103° sun was "Well that was a lot better than the reviews made me expect." I 100% agree.

I get some of the complaints about some unevenness in tone, but it just didn't really bother me that much. Maybe because I don't go into a film looking to sabotage my own enjoyment.

The only real problem I had with it was the character design of the [SPOILERS] main villain. The Enchantress is much better in her smoky, spooky, teleporting incarnation, as if Samara from 'The Ring' got her freak on. When she transformed to the awkwardly-dancing quasi-Babylonian goddess mode, I found her effects and character design annoying, like a lesser Lady Gaga persona. [/SPOILERS]

Even so, the overall momentum of the film was pretty propulsive. There were a couple of times it bogged down, but never seriously and never for long. The rest of the time, there was some shit goin' down.

Like Guardians of the Galaxy, music is at this film's heart and it uses music well to help advance/augment the story. I like that.

I love the Marvel films above all in the genre, but post-Christopher Nolan, there's a pretty clear anti-DC film bias going on. Which is not to say that the DC films haven't had their problems -- they have -- but not one of them is anywhere near as bad as "common opinion" would lead one to believe.

Overall, I'd rank it a bit above Ant Man, a film that I absolutely love. This is a very solid effort, and deserves to be a box office hit.

 

[mystixboi1]

Thank you for the great review. I've been reading a lot of reviews that completely trashed the movie. But your review has given me some hope. I want to like this movie but I don't want to hope too much.

 

[Chad]

Thanks for the review. The others I have seen were not so kind, but I rarely agree with movie reviewers.

 

[GDSmithTX]

Thanks for the review. The others I have seen were not so kind, but I rarely agree with movie reviewers.

Like I said, why would I actively try to ruin my own enjoyment of things that were specifically made for people like me?

The only way you do that is if you don't really like yourself that much.

 

[Jbird]

I don't pay alot of attention to movie critics when it comes to action flicks. Yes, most action movies have plot holes, but that's not why I'm watching them. I just want a good action flick.

I tend to pay more attention to movie reviews for drama films.

 

[Flamencology]

I trust the critical consensus over the guitar forum consensus.

I'll see it anyway and will develop my own thoughts, though.

 

[GDSmithTX]

I'll see it anyway and will develop my own thoughts, though.

I find that's the safest path; I don't really dig other people deciding what I should think. I end up not liking a lot of things I'm supposed to like -- and vice versa -- out of sheer contrary stubbornness.

 

[baimun]

I wanted to like it more than I did.... Will, Margot, and Jared were excellent in their roles. My biggest issue was the lack of story or decent villain. It plays like a video game. Introduce the characters in a couple quick cut scenes, then work their way up through levels, through waves of faceless badguys who "de-res" when hit, and work up to the boss level to find a clever way to defeat it. Not really a movie..... but the target demographic loves video games more than I do, so they'll likely eat it up.

* * 1/2

 

[Flamencology]

I don't really dig other people deciding what I should think.

I think that's the worst misconception about criticism. That's never been its purpose.

 

[Dogsinplastic]

I think that's the worst misconception about criticism. That's never been its purpose.

Maybe not initially, but there are more than a few "critics" today that like to think their position gives them power. As such, they use that power in a manner that comes across as being (or trying to be) the arbiters of taste for the population. They don't like an actor, director, the source material, etc. and they go after it. It's not uncommon with comic movies being the film geek and comic geek haven't overlapped much on their theoretical venn diagram until more recently. Too many film reviewers are clearly not versed in the books or comics that are adapted or appreciative of literature or comics/graphic novels. Reviews/critics often like to perseverate on a few details that irk them in a movie that they just don't care for to validate their perspective. Rarely will they admit to not being a fan of a type of movie or genre when they lambaste a work (regardless of their field, e.g.: books, music, etc.).

I trust no consensus in general, but may side with one after I've delved into the given topic. But Titanic and Avatar are prime examples of the shite that is critical consensus and even mass fanship of works. Well received/liked/evaluated and popular is never a guarantee of good or even decent, let alone great.

To the original topic...I will see this film soon, but it is in an unenviable position of being the introduction of a large amount of characters that aren't well known outside of the world of comic fandom. If they dove right into a story without explaining origins they would have gotten hammered for that. Every angle that was basis of poor/negative reviews can have validity without the entire movie or concept being shit. Admittedly, however, I've not read a review yet, just seen the headlines saying that it was not well received.

 

[Guitar Heel]

I'll pretty much watch anything with Margot Robbie in it. That said, I doubt that I'll see this one in the theatre.

Thanks for the review!

 

[Flamencology]

Maybe not initially, but there are more than a few "critics" today that like to think their position gives them power. As such, they use that power in a manner that comes across as being (or trying to be) the arbiters of taste for the population. They don't like an actor, director, the source material, etc. and they go after it. It's not uncommon with comic movies being the film geek and comic geek haven't overlapped much on their theoretical venn diagram until more recently. Too many film reviewers are clearly not versed in the books or comics that are adapted or appreciative of literature or comics/graphic novels. Reviews/critics often like to perseverate on a few details that irk them in a movie that they just don't care for to validate their perspective. Rarely will they admit to not being a fan of a type of movie or genre when they lambaste a work (regardless of their field, e.g.: books, music, etc.).

I trust no consensus in general, but may side with one after I've delved into the given topic. But Titanic and Avatar are prime examples of the shite that is critical consensus and even mass fanship of works. Well received/liked/evaluated and popular is never a guarantee of good or even decent, let alone great.

To the original topic...I will see this film soon, but it is in an unenviable position of being the introduction of a large amount of characters that aren't well known outside of the world of comic fandom. If they dove right into a story without explaining origins they would have gotten hammered for that. Every angle that was basis of poor/negative reviews can have validity without the entire movie or concept being shit. Admittedly, however, I've not read a review yet, just seen the headlines saying that it was not well received.

Criticism is an artform. There's a broad range of insight, knowledgeability, intellect, etc.

Music has plenty of Nickelbacks, film had plenty of Michael Bays. Criticism is no different.

But there are plenty who are really great at their job.

Will note that the Internet and the demise of newspaper art sections haven't been healthy for the artform. RT and Metacritic do serve a purpose, but it ignores and negates much of what good criticism actually does.

 

[GDSmithTX]

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against critics who are good at their job. Ones who seem to go in with an axe to grind and/or don't really seem to "get" the films they review are the ones I'm talking about.

 

[Peen Simmons]

I'm fairly certain that reviewing desperate edgy cute third tier comic book adaptations is the eight ring of film critic hell.

 

[Dogsinplastic]

Criticism is an artform. There's a broad range of insight, knowledgeability, intellect, etc.

While I hear you, I have to wholeheartedly disagree with the notion of criticism as an artform. I will give you that some of them are great writers and seem to speak to the work they are assessing at a higher level, but these are few and far between...even before teh interwebz greatly diminished the overall quality of public/shared writing.

Basically, being somewhat/subjectively masterful at a written assessment/evaluation art will never be an "art". A refined skill, yes, but that's as high praise as I am willing to give.

 

[Flamencology]

While I hear you, I have to wholeheartedly disagree with the notion of criticism as an artform. I will give you that some of them are great writers and seem to speak to the work they are assessing at a higher level, but these are few and far between...even before teh interwebz greatly diminished the overall quality of public/shared writing.

Basically, being somewhat/subjectively masterful at a written assessment/evaluation art will never be an "art". A refined skill, yes, but that's as high praise as I am willing to give.

Strongly disagree.

Objectively speaking, how much have you read, apart from rock criticism?

 

[Peen Simmons]

Strongly disagree.

Objectively speaking, how much have you read, apart from rock criticism?

I have read a fair amount of Lit and Art crit and what can conservatively be called a heaping shitload of Rock crit. Rock crit BARELY QUALIFIES as criticism. 90% of it is merely reviews and regurgitated press releases. It's the absolute verified WORST. Which is not to say that it isn't helpful/enjoyable/necessary. You just have to approach it in a different way than, say, an essay by Umberto Eco or somesuch. Even the best rock critics get tangled up in their own biography in amateurish (from an academic point of view) ways that draw attention away from their subjects (I'm looking RIGHT AT YOU, Simon Reynolds).

I'm guessing most people's experience with film criticism begins and ends with write ups in the local news paper or today's cut-rate internet equivalent.

 

[Dogsinplastic]

Strongly disagree.

Objectively speaking, how much have you read, apart from rock criticism?

Have never been much for reading music criticism. I'd rather find music based on recommendations from artists I like or projects they're working on. Listening to one of two or three good music radio stations left in the world can still introduce new music. NPR is nice. But for literature, I read dust jackets and if the story idea intrigues me I'll read the book. Similarly with movies, I'll watch a trailer and see if there's anything interesting going on...if so, I'll see the movie (or put in a queue to eventually watch...man will never be seen). And all of this is contingent on available time.

But if I'm going to spend time reading, listening watching, etc. I prefer it to be on the actual creative works. I don't spend time reading, listening to, or watching reviews in any area. The music reviews I read were during my teens and had no bearing on the music I bought or listened to...they were mostly for the artists I already liked or some were funny. Written/published reviews have never made me partake of or avoid works. They aren't important to my consumption of artistic works.

This morning I had a conversation with a friend at work who saw Suicide Squad and knowing him, his appreciation of the source materials, the animated DC works, and the overlap into the live-action comic serial and movie world, I have the best idea yet of what the movie is like. It doesn't mean I'll love or hate it (or fall in the shades between the extremes) in any way that he does either, but it paints a better picture in my mind.

None of this is take away from you or anyone else enjoying criticism in its own right. It's just not my bag, not unlike Fox news...but maybe slightly more valuable.