Soooooo… Suicide Squad
-
Jaguar-Wong-is-Dead — 9 years ago(February 02, 2017 11:44 PM)
But Thor 2 wasn't hailed as one of the worst films ever made and, yeah, Captain America has all that - and is boring as f-ck.
It's a knockabout action movie. Guy Ritchie has been supplanting music videos for plot/character/dialogue from day one and incites no where near the hate that Suicide Squad does.
Basically. SSs flaws are offset by is own mindless level of superficial entertainment.
Moreover, those flaws (and more) are present in films that get nowhere near the reaction that it did.
Again, it's not a very good movie but, even in a 'rotten tomatoes' world, I don't judge my enjoyment of something on a two point scale. -
Mats_Thy_Wit — 9 years ago(February 02, 2017 11:51 PM)
Captain America even if it's boring, which I don't think it is, is still on a technical and structural level worlds better than suicide squad.
Guy Ritchie's movies weren't re-edited at the request of the studio by a trailer house with no input from the director.
Arguing that a movie is "dumb fun" focusing on superficial, mindless entertainment and therefore is exempt from criticism as you seem to be doing makes no logical sense and just gives the impression that so long as a movie has a suitable enough amount of action you'll like it regardless of any flaws. Which I'm sorry to say calls your sense of taste into question.
On top of all that I don't think anybody outside of IMDB, where hyperbole is the norm, has ever claimed that suicide squad is genuinely "one of the worst films ever."
I don't understand your point about judging things on a two point scale. What does that even mean? -
Jaguar-Wong-is-Dead — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 12:12 AM)
It means that increasingly, with the unstoppable rise of click bait, entertainment is deemed as either good or bad, fresh or rotten, best film ever or worst.
I didn't say it was exempt from criticism, I'm suggesting that perhaps it should be judged in the same way that similar movies are.
If you're going to suggest otherwise then I'm afraid it's your taste (or rather, it's separation from the myth of objectivity) that should be questioned.
I want good action from an action movie, SS does a decent job of that, not great, but not bad.
I sat down for two hours and watched a film. It entertained me.
I fail to see why who it was edited by, how much Harley's arse was Photoshopped, or who cuts Zack Snyder's hair should have any bearing on that. -
Mats_Thy_Wit — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 12:19 AM)
It means that increasingly, with the unstoppable rise of click bait, entertainment is deemed as either good or bad, fresh or rotten, best film ever or worst.
That's just the way of the internet. Because the internet loves and rewards hyperbole. Nobody should, or really does, take that type of thing seriously.
I didn't say it was exempt from criticism, I'm suggesting that perhaps it should be judged in the same way that similar movies are.
It was judged in the same way that other comic book movies are judged, and it was deemed crappy by the majority of critics and audiences alike. It was not being held to a different standard than everything else is. You seem to be arguing that it should be held to a
lower
standard than everything else is held to.
If you're going to suggest otherwise then I'm afraid it's your taste (or rather, it's separation from the myth of objectivity) that should be questioned.
myth of objectivitythrowing out pseudo-intellectual terminology in attempt to sound more intelligent doesn't help your argument when you're basically arguing "it's got a lot of action in it, so it's good."
I want good action from an action movie, SS does a decent job of that, not great, but not bad.
It has decent action in it. But it has no characters to relate to or invest in on an emotional level, a lack of coherent editing and story telling, and ultimately nothing in it means anything. Having a lot of action in an action movie is not the deciding factor on whether or not a movie is good. There's plenty of action movies that have a lot of action that are dogsh!t bad. There's a lot of action scenes in the movie Deadly Prey, that doesn't make that movie good. The same holds true of Suicide Squad. Simply put an action movie needs more than
just
action scenes in order to be a genuinely good movie. -
Jaguar-Wong-is-Dead — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 12:53 AM)
It's not about the amount of action, but the quality of it.
SS had better action than Dredd, for example.
It failed at a lot of other sh-t, it would have been better if it didn't I've already compared it to several comic movies don't know what else to say.
There's nothing pseudo-intellectual about the myth of objectivity. Here, read this objective review of The Stanley Parable:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/stanley-parable-the-objective-review/
People hide behind objectivity when they can't adequately express what they liked or disliked about something. -
Mats_Thy_Wit — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 02:01 AM)
Your argument for the "myth of objectivity" using a joke to try and prove some point is stupid. It's as intellectually hollow as your attempt to sound smart by throwing out a term like that in the first place.
-
Jaguar-Wong-is-Dead — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 02:40 AM)
You keep on throwing around terms like 'intellectually hollow' while simultaneously dismissing something regarded as fact by anyone with common sense. It doesn't reflect well.
You can't be objective when assessing a piece of entertainment in any realistic or useful way.
I don't even know how we got into this, but I feel we wouldn't have done had the content of my OP been:
6.5/10 Would bang Harley Quinn -
Harry_Skywalker — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 06:12 PM)
Compared to the Great from marvel in it falls way, way short. But it's better than, say, Thor 2, about on a par with the first Captain America.
I really can't understand how you think you can be taken seriously with these abysmal hipster opinions.
Suicide Squad better than Thor 2 and on par with Captain America???????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jaguar = Officially Insane
I always tell the truth, even when I lie. -
Yoss_and_the_Pilfered_Peaches — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 12:26 AM)
Didn't like it. Action scenes always felt flat. A lot of wasted characters, way too much focus on Will Smith and G.I. Boredom. Margot was good, even though her accent wobbled like crazy. Didn't even know she was Australian until I saw the film. It at least gave us the first good new Harley costume.
As long as the whole Superhero movie fad has been going, it's surprising how few good movies has come out of it. There's, like, one, and even that has plenty of issues.
I am on fire, but an extinguisher is not required -
Pambo_Calrissian — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 01:30 AM)
It is one of the few films I wish I could unsee. They wasted almost every character they used.
WB are making a real mess of things.99% Complete: [||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ]
-
saxondale7 — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 02:26 AM)
To be fair, I saw it with a pretty bad hangover, but I just remember thinking it was incoherent and obnoxious, and built upon sloppy performances, and a sloppier screenplay.
Then again, I've been surprised by the amount of real life people (ie not on the internet) who thought it was perfectly acceptable. Just as you have no idea what the hate and drama is about, I have no idea what people saw in the film to enjoy, but that's just how it falls.
Shut it, Love Actually! Do you want me to hole punch your face? -
ReapAndRepeat — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 08:28 AM)
Can't say I hated it. But I dunno, when it was over it just left an empty void. I couldn't really remember what it was about. For such a long introduction they sure had a problem with introducing an actual story, IMO. The early Enchantress was pretty cool though!
-