Give your view in the film but strictly no spoilers!
IGN gave it a 5.9: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2016/08/02/suicide-squad-review
They're some of the biggest DC fans on the planet and usually always overrate comic book films. They gave positive reviews to the two previous DCEU films, but not SS. This is not looking good. :(
I linked this more positive review yesterday: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/suicide-squad-review-from-early-viewer-suggests-its-better-than-batman-v-superman-but-theres-not-a7166101.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/suicide-squad-review-from-early-viewer-suggests-its-better-than-batman-v-superman-but-theres-not-a7166101.html)
Quote
On its general quality:
"I really enjoyed it. There are some pacing issues but the actors cancel that out. Will Smith kills it and so does Margot Robbie. I'd give it an 8/10."
On the worst part of the movie:
"The worst part is just some of the pacing. And I feel like Croc could of had some more lines and back story since we got a lot more for Harley, Deadshot, and Enchantress. The best part is the team together. There's awesome jokes and great chemistry between them."
On the best scene:
"I loved that final fight sequence, Deadshot, Harley and Croc were so awesome in it."
On Jared Leto's Joker:
"To be honest he needs to grow on me more. He's cool but his role isn't huge but it is important in the film. I think once he has more screen time though he's going to be amazing...He comes off more as a mobster in SS than the Joker...He even owns a strip club. But I love his laugh it's so creepy."
On the size of The Flash's cameo:
"He's on screen for like 2 seconds."
On setting up future DC Universe films:
"This movie sets up a much better tone for the future of the DCU than BvS did. It's not as dark and depressing."
On Batman's involvement and whether you actually see Ben Affleck (as opposed to a stuntman):
He does get screen time in the first hour of the movie...It is Affleck you get to see him with out the mask."
On Scott Eastwood's cameo:
"I was so excited to find out and so disappointed to see he was just a random soldier."
On the mid-credits scene:
"That got me so excited. It's a good set up for one of the next movies."
Here's The Guardian's review: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/02/suicide-squad-review-dc-comics-will-smith-margot-robbie-jared-leto (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/02/suicide-squad-review-dc-comics-will-smith-margot-robbie-jared-leto)
Quote3/5 stars
The new DC Comics supervillain movie certainly brings the crazy with its team of psychopathic ex-convicts, a Dirty Half-Dozen Hannibal Lecters. It also brings the chaos and the surreal disorientation. It's undoubtedly an advance on that recent uneasy face-off, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. But does it bring the funny? Not the way the Marvel movies do it, really: that ingredient of sympathetic humour hasn't quite worked its way into DC's mix yet – though I accept that writer-director David Ayer (who made Brad Pitt's second world war drama Fury, as well as End of Watch and Harsh Times) intended Suicide Squad to be darker, meaner and more violent than that – all of which has earned his film a 15 certificate in the UK.
There's plenty to like: Suicide Squad is about a secret US government project to release the country's imprisoned supervillains and, with a tiny remote-control bomb implanted in each of their necks to induce cooperation, train them to fight any threat from other uber-bad guys lurking beneath the narrative horizon. Margot Robbie is entertainingly over the top as the toxic-barbie Harley Quinn, formerly Dr Harleen Quinzel, the improbable prison psychiatrist who dressed in strippergram clothes even before her journey to the dark side. She fell in love with a patient, the Joker, now on the loose and played here by Jared Leto.
Robbie steals the movie from most of her co-stars, but the real scene-stealer is Viola Davis, playing soberly dressed federal apparatchik Amanda Waller: it's an excellent, coolly menacing performance. Waller has a duplicitous plan to use the Suicide Squad to cover up another plan. If only Davis were involved a bit more; if only we could scale down the inevitable FX-driven action finale involving slightly tiring supernatural forces, in order to beef up the dialogue and the chemistry. And maybe lose some of the more incidental appearances from B-list Squadders who are hardly used, and perhaps even cut the incidental franchise-signalling cameos, like the Flash (Ezra Miller).
As things stand, Superman is off the scene; America needs protection, so Waller dreams up a plan to recruit a top team of badder-than-bad guys and put them under the control of special forces hombre Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman), who can exert authority over and above that neck-bomb. His girlfriend is archaeologist Dr June Moone, who regularly morphs into an ancient warrior, Enchantress (Cara Delevingne); she can keep the Squad in line, and as Waller has her heart in a special briefcase, she will have to keep Enchantress in line too. The Squad is made up of weapons fetishist Deadshot (Will Smith), fire-breathing hellraiser Diablo (Jay Hernandez), Harley Quinn (Robbie), Aussie tough guy Boomerang (Jai Courtney) and subterranean monster Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje).
There is fun to be had as each Squadder's deplorable backstory is sketched out, and in seeing our mutinous antiheroes submitting with bad grace to some sort of training. Yet no sooner are they together, they find that the Joker has plans to spring Harley from the programme – which gives Harley first-among-equals plot status – and the dark forces they must combat have been somehow called into being by the Squad's very existence: caused, in fact, by the fraught presence of Enchantress. Clearly, Amanda Waller has a secret she is keeping from them.
It's a clotted and delirious film, with flashes of preposterous, operatic silliness. But it doesn't have much room to breathe; there are some dull bits, and Leto's Joker suffers in comparison with the late Heath Ledger. I was just settling into what promised to be an enjoyable jail-life montage to the accompaniment of Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody – a track featured very heavily in the trailer – when the song was just yanked, not even a third of the way through, and we cut to something else. (Another trailer promised us a blast of the Sweet's Ballroom Blitz, incidentally. Not forthcoming.) There were some funny touches, mainly from Harley, and from Ike Barinholtz's corrupt prison guard Griggs. (Held at gunpoint by Deadshot, he announces that should he die, his colleague has his permission to shoot Deadshot and then quickly delete Griggs's internet browser history.)
Suicide Squad promises madness, and a dense downpour of madness is what it delivers. I could have done with more fun and more lightness of touch.
Right-wing Tory newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, gave it, by contrast to The Guardian, a negative review:
QuoteUntil the marketing onslaught for the latest DC Comics film began, drenching every bus stop and Twitter feed in the land in electric puce and eau-de-nil, few outside the comic book-reading fraternity had heard of the Suicide Squad. Even in Batmanland, this villainous strike force had always been something of an antic sideshow – at least until earlier this year, when the widely unloved Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice threw Warner Bros.' super-heroic cinematic universe into a state of crisis.
Heartsore fans were reassured that the forthcoming Suicide Squad movie would be the emergency valve by which the studio would squirt some fun back into the enterprise. Warner Bros. even commissioned reshoots, reportedly as recently as April and costing in excess of $10 million, to add more action and humour.
Even by a generous count, that works out at a sum in the high six figures per memorable action sequence, or million bucks gross per gag that actually lands – although eardrum-puncturingly bad dialogue, scowling self-pity, covert pornography and scrappy CGI are apparently a lot more affordable.
For here we have a motion picture in which a new incarnation of the classic Batman villain the Joker – essayed by Jared Leto as a kind of Halloween-themed version of Rik Mayall's Richie, from the 1990s BBC sitcom Bottom – slurpingly offers up a sexual encounter with his girlfriend-stroke-protégé Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) to a fellow career crook as a kind of underworld bargaining chip.
Here is a comic-book adaptation in which Batman (Ben Affleck) himself – one of the most universally beloved superheroes ever created – hauls Harley from the Gotham River, gives her creepily insistent mouth-to-mouth, then immediately pins her down by the throat, erotic asphyxia-style, when she comes around.
Here is a film in which model-turned-actress Cara Delevingne gives not only a personal worst performance, but something close to a former-profession-worst performance, as a gyrating, bikini-clad villainess called Enchantress, who kisses men full on the lips to turn them into her slaves (of course!) and talks like Vanessa Redgrave on rhinoceros tranquiliser.
Enchantress's human host is an archaeologist called June Moone, whose introductory sequence shows her walking into an ancient temple and immediately snapping the head off an ancient idol. This is more or less par for the course in terms of Suicide Squad's depiction of comprehensible human behaviour.
While it surely wasn't Warner Bros.' intention, Suicide Squad often feels like the film equivalent of a crumpled note passed to the anti-Ghostbusters trolls outside detention. "See?" it seems to say. "At least we haven't forgotten you. We've got tube tops and gussets and proud but tormented men, and a scene in which Will Smith (as Deadshot, the world's greatest marksman) shoots a wide range of deafening projectile weapons to a rousing pop music soundtrack."
The film begins with the Squad's who-knows-how-many members' origin stories rattled through in quick succession: this is mostly fun, not least because it involves plenty of Viola Davis as the secret-service hawk who recruits them.
Then comes their mission in central Midway City to take down Enchantress and her lychee-headed minions, while the Joker just sort of wanders in and out. This is very long and very rainy: somehow it even rains during the final battle, which takes place indoors.
What's doubly depressing about all this is that Suicide Squad was directed by David Ayer (Fury, End of Watch), a weathered specialist in gallows camaraderie and exactly the kind of filmmaker who might have been able to make a good fist of it.
Occasionally, the film feels like Ayer is trying to fight his way out from underneath an enormous, suffocating parachute. Flammable gang-banger El Diablo (Jay Hernandez) has a tough-tragic family history that's almost affecting, while Ike Barinholtz's cheerfully corrupt prison guard – a very Ayerish creation – makes more of an impression than official Squad members Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman) and Katana (Karen Fukuhara) put together.
Then there's Robbie, whose winking, collusive star-appeal remains mostly undimmed here despite everything, and under happier circumstances might have been (and still might be, with any luck) an ideal Ayer leading lady.
When you compare Suicide Squad to what James Gunn and Marvel Studios achieved in Guardians of the Galaxy – low-profile property, oddball characters, make-it-fun brief – the film makes you cringe so hard your teeth come loose. But it's a slog even on its own crushingly puerile terms.
Hmm, this is an interesting line: "While it surely wasn't Warner Bros.' intention, Suicide Squad often feels like the film equivalent of a crumpled note passed to the anti-Ghostbusters trolls outside detention."
But like I said, remember that the Telegraph or 'Torygraph' as it's popularly known in the UK, is a right-wing paper for posh people, unlike the liberal/left-wing Guardian which gave the film a decent review. :)
"Empire Magazine", which I have very high regard for, and only gave BvS 3/5 stars, has given Suicide Squad 4/5 stars. :)
QuoteMachiavellian government agent Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) has a plan to deal with the sudden, Superman-heralded "metahuman" threat to the world: coerce the globe's deadliest bad guys into an emergency super-team. And when Midway City becomes the ravaged heart of a plot to extinguish humanity, that's exactly what she does, with expectedly unexpected results.
If Marvel has the best superheroes, so the prevailing geek-logic goes, then DC has the coolest villains. So it's only sensible they're finally placed front, centre and in the firing line. Filling its entire super-team with previously unseen antagonists, Suicide Squad represents a Flash-speed sprint of a catch-up for the rapidly forming DC Cinematic Universe. And, on that front at least, it's a real hoot.
Deadshot, "the most wanted hitman in the world", is delivered with heat-of-the-action poise and a generous side order of sass by Will Smith, who couldn't look happier stepping back from his above-the-title dominance to join this motley ensemble and coolly put bullets in brains.
Then there's Harley Quinn, the Jokerette, if you like; though "crazier than him, and more dangerous", we're warned. Margot Robbie, skipping daintily about in pants hotter than hell's sauna, isn't quite allowed to completely steal this show — but she certainly borrows it from time to time, and repays you with enough interest to make that mooted Harley stand-alone an enticement.
Plus, among others, we have the tinnie-swigging, stick-hurling Captain Boomerang, which finally sees Jai Courtney flexing his rough charisma on screen; and flame-moulding gang-banger Diablo, the team's unlikely conscience in the impressively intense, tat-etched form of Jay Hernandez.
It's quite the roll call. And, despite the rich material, director David Ayer is a brave man to marshal this Dirty Half-ish-Dozen. Thinking he was making the "funny, smart-talking, cool little brother" to Batman v Superman, he found himself tasked with turning back the wave of negativity that smashed Zack Snyder's Dawn Of Justice.
More used to spelunking in the man-caves of the testosteronic psyche with the likes of End Of Watch and 2014's underrated war movie Fury, Ayer might seem an unlikely candidate to rescue a comic-book blockbuster series, but, like his unpredictable, mismatched characters, he pulls it off with gritty-flashy aplomb.
Well, for the most part. Whatever the truth behind the reasons for additional shooting (standard procedure, or last-minute Deadpool-style humour injection?) you can't help but inhale the sweaty waft of 11th-hour scrambling in what proves to be a scrappy final edit. False starts, oddly placed flashbacks, clunky cameos (Ben Affleck's Batman, Ezra Miller's Flash) and a muddled chronology detract from the grungy, kooky DayGlo-splashed fun, and it takes a good 45 minutes (plus the mystifyingly late introduction of what turns out to be one complete non-event of a character) for the set-up to stop flapping and the action proper to kick in. Also, in striving to find a threat deadly enough to warrant asking bad guys to save the world, the film's answer is less than satisfying. We get little more than just another posturing villain with vague plans for world domination via a big, swirling mass of CGI.
Still, at least elsewhere there's a proper bad guy to chew on. Though only a wild card, occasionally capering in and out of the main plot, Jared Leto's incarnation of the Joker is essential to its success. Where Heath Ledger's version was scarred, shabby and countercultural, Leto's has a smooth, blingy gangsta swagger; a modern take on the way the original comic-book creation riffed on '30s mobsters. But it's not his swish, purring style and elegant, slo-mo cackle that really hooks you, it's something we've never seen before: the Joker in love. Here's a fascinatingly jagged new angle (cinematically at least). It's unsettling and compelling — almost enough to make you wish it were more than a subplot.
But there's more to come, surely? Judging by what Ayer's pulled off here, you can bet there will be.
Like Avengers Assemble forced through a Deadpool mangle, Suicide Squad gives new life to DC's big-screen universe. So bad-to-the-bone it's good.
So maybe there is some hope after all. :)
I deleted the ComingSoon review. It said "potential spoilers" and this is a spoiler free thread.
Letting you know I will put in my review for the film by Monday. Hopefully it can be posted on the site!
Sure thing!
This isn't specific to Suicide Squad, but rather an analysis on "Five things wrong with the DC Extended Universe":
http://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/things-wrong-dc-universe.html/?a=viewall
I'll comment the first four things in this list.
Quote
1. Lack of a consistent tone throughout
In Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, Snyder established a downbeat tone largely set by his dour, conflicted version of Superman. However, with gleefully over-the-top characters like Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) and more laid-back heroes like the Flash (Ezra Miller) on the way, the DCEU will need to establish a consistent tone. This tone will need to be present throughout each individual film and will be central in the creation of a shared universe in which all the various characters coexist.
Think of how Marvel managed to sell moviegoers on the earnest Captain America and the arrogant Iron Man as individuals before perfectly meshing the two together in The Avengers. Fingers crossed that Justice League can pull off the same for its marquee heroes.
Look, I'm a big fan of the MCU, but to be honest, I don't find the tone to be that consistent either. The Winter Soldier was the best movie of Phase 2, and that was because it had a compelling plot where the heroes had to stop a corrupt government agency with a fairly serious tone in comparison to IM3, TTDW, GOTG, AOU and Ant-Man. It had its humour, but it wasn't overdone. As a matter of fact, TWS didn't feel like it belonged in the same universe as those other movies.
In Civil War, Spider-Man and Ant-Man drastically changed the tone in the second act of a film that was otherwise grim and dark. They rather felt out of place.
Quote
2. Rushed introductions to characters
Although Warner Bros. has plans to spin each Justice League character into solo movies, it remains unclear whether each of these will be origin stories or simply take place after the team is established. In the latter case, the DCEU runs the risk of introducing too many new characters that casual moviegoers are not intimately familiar with. This lack of sufficient development could hinder interest in a character's solo film and rob the epic team-up of some of its impact.
Take, for example, the way that the overstuffed Batman v Superman shoehorned Wonder Woman into a story centered on the two title characters. After decades of waiting for their own films, these characters deserve proper big-screen introductions.
Honestly, apart from the unnecessary return of Swanwick and his secretary from MOS, I didn't find BvS that overstuffed at all. The JL cameos were simply that, and nothing more.
Also, I don't buy the Wonder Woman example. Now sure, one may say she wasn't that integral to the plot, but A) she'll be helping Batman find the other metahumans to form the Justice League, and B) she is getting a proper big-screen introduction next year. Besides, I didn't find her role more forced than Spider-Man's involvement was in Captain America: Civil War. And before anyone accuses me of anything, I'm not trying to start some childish Marvel vs DC war here, I liked Civil War but I thought Spider-Man was superfluous.
Quote
3. Bombast and imagery over story focus
Perhaps the most popular issue moviegoers and critics have with the DCEU films to date is the emphasis on explosions and other computer generated mayhem rather than a more nuanced approach to storytelling. Both of Snyder's Superman films struggled to balance their stories against a desire for widespread destruction and shots that faithfully create visual callbacks to famous comic book images. As cool as it was to see the trinity of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman team up, the fact remains that the entire third act of Batman v Superman feels like an excuse to facilitate that short-lived and sadly underwhelming team-up.
One might say that's the case in MOS, (and even then I think it's a little unfair), but BvS had less action and destruction. It was story-focused, particularly the Ultimate Edition. So if there's any criticism against BvS from my part when it comes to action, it didn't have enough. But that's okay because the plot explored the characters, their motives and their struggles.
Quote
4. Choosing convoluted plots over complex characters
Speaking of story problems, the DCEU needs to recognize that fans come to these films to spend time with their beloved characters, not to endure a labored attempt to be dazzled with convoluted narrative threads. Batman v Superman was far more guilty of this than Man of Steel. It was to the point that one must sit through the film's supplemental three-hour "Ultimate Edition" in order to begin making sense of the various disconnected plot threads and Lex Luthor's absurdly far-fetched scheme to pit the heroes against each other.
Our suggestion? Create richer characters and put them first. They'll dictate the intricacies of the story. It shouldn't be the other way around.
Aside from the dark tone, another complaint which I find to be hypocritical is the convoluted stories aimed at these movies, when Nolan's trilogy were riddled with plot holes and messy plot points that don't hold up to scrutiny, but were forgiven anyway. The only part I don't get about Lex Luthor's plan was his involvement with Steppenwolf, as it was implied in the Ultimate Edition. But otherwise, I didn't find his plan to be any more far-fetched than TDK Joker's, with the nonsense about having no plans when he clearly does, or how he miraculously counters Gordon's non-plan to capture him...and dumbing Harvey Dent down. Need I say more? ::)
Quote
'Suicide Squad' Is A Blast, But Reviews Are A Dumpster Fire Of Hyperbole
by Todd Kenreck, Forbes.com
Ahhh, but a blast of what exactly? Suicide Squad is fun, scrambled, and contains an excellent cast. But why all the salty reviews? Why the edgy and upset headlines? Several critics hate Suicide Squad with the intensity of an angry toddler, which isn't unexpected since the DC cinematic universe seems to be their favorite punching bag. First thing you have to understand is that there is a character named Captain Boomerang in the film, so calm down your expectations of seeing something remotely rational. I've read the comics for Suicide Squad on and off again for years and David Ayer blew me away with his surprisingly faithful adaptations of the characters and by capturing the feel of the comics. Suicide Squad isn't the grim, dark Batman V Superman, and it isn't the silly heart of gold criminal group from Guardians of The Galaxy. These are hardened homicidal criminals in a world of flying aliens and a rich guy who likes to dress up like a bat – so buckle up and expect things to get super weird and disjointed.
Jared Leto's Joker took me a while to warm up to but by the end of the movie I loved this new version of The Joker. Leto's performance is intense, uncomfortable and you don't doubt for a second that The Joker is a real, unhinged psychopath. His chemistry with Margot Robbie who plays Harley Quinn is undeniable, which is a good thing because she steals the show. Margot Robbie's Harley is twisted, nuanced and delightful. She captures all of the character's broken logic and conflicting ideologies. Harley is fiercely capable and independent but not when faced with her paramour, The Joker. They are both slaves to each other, and it is clear The Joker can't not love Harley, which is an intriguing performance decision because ultimately despite all of his evil, this relationship is the one thing that humanizes him and the one thing that dehumanizes her. Harley convinces herself that she is okay with this clearly unhealthy life, but deep down she just wants to have a "normal" relationship which is also still slightly off and absolutely dated. Harley is not a hero, not a role model, not a healthy example of who a woman, or who any person should be and you have to be okay with understanding that a character's existence and actions in a film do not condone those things.
Will Smith is fantastic as Deadshot, blending a heavy mix of comedy and drama into almost every moment for the character. On several occasions Deadshot got a round of applause from the audience after some exceptionally epic and jaw dropping moments. Viola Davis is amazing as Amanda Waller in this movie; she walks in and owns the world with such cold-blooded detachment that it makes you realign your idea of what a villain is. This is a movie that relies less on the plot line and the main villain than on the performances of a nearly perfectly-cast film. The main threat in the movie goes from Ghostbuster-style campy to uber creepy several times, this defines the movie itself because it does feel like a film that has been second guessed by the studio. Oddly, the inconsistent style of Suicide Squad works for it because of the instability of the characters and the diverse range of backgrounds they all come from in the comics.
Suicide Squad very much serves as the narrative and likely tonal connective tissue between Batman V Superman and Justice League with some brief cameos and a touch of extra world building for the DCU. Is this a perfect film? No, but it is a fun film that is getting raked over the coals while movies like The Avengers: Age of Ultron are for the most part immune, despite similar problems in plot, studio meddling, tone, agency, too many characters and a portrayal of a villain that definitely missed the mark.
Suicide Squad is ultimately a victim of not being a Marvel film. Critics for the most part bashed Batman V Superman for its dark atmosphere, so Warner Bros. tried to pivot at the last minute with Suicide Squad and they got bashed again for that. When Justice League comes out and it isn't a shot for shot remake of The Avengers then it will get slammed for that as well – and if it is a success it will be accused of stealing the Marvel formula. Having a soundtrack isn't an exclusive right of Guardians of The Galaxy, by the way, do I need to refer anyone to The Watchmen, The Crow or just about every action movie ever made? My advice to fans and the creators of Suicide Squad is this – forget about what the critics are saying, just make up your own mind and try to let yourself have fun. When there is a half-man-half-crocodile in this film fighting alongside someone wielding a katana named Katana, you know what you are getting into. I give Suicide Squad an 8/10.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddkenreck/2016/08/05/suicide-squad-is-a-blast-but-the-reviews-are-a-dumpster-fire-of-hyperbole/#715b2804bb4b
I don't appreciate the jab at Marvel, although the point about Age of Ultron is quite spot on.
So many people with polarizing opinions about this movie. I saw some people who loved BvS felt really let down by this, and vice versa. My biggest concern is a lot of scenes have been removed, as Jared Leto confirmed.
Unfortunately, it looks like I'll have to wait for another week to see it because I have to save cash for a dental appointment to take care of this damn wisdom tooth. >:(
The Dark Knight's review now live
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2016/8/6/review-self-harm-hampers-suicide-squad-2016
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, TDK. It sounds like I was way off the mark about this being the best DCEU entry. Ayer's a talented guy. Not always consistent, but talented. And the first trailer – with its gritty, almost Nolan-esque aesthetic – looked awesome. So I'm really disappointed to hear it's such a mess. I still plan to see it and form my own opinion, but my expectations are a lot lower now.
Back in April, friend of mine said this will be the worst movie of the summer. Sad to say, he was right.
Quote from: Azrael on Sat, 6 Aug 2016, 19:35
Back in April, friend of mine said this will be the worst movie of the summer. Sad to say, he was right.
Yeah. Believe me, I wanted to like the movie. I'm one of the biggest DC supporters you will find.
I saw the movie this afternoon. What follows is just my opinion, and I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. But personally, I thought it was bloody awful. It's the worst film I've seen in theatres this year and I'd rank it bottom on the list of live action Batman films.
It's a complete mess. There's no narrative structure, no ambition with regards to subtext or layered characterisation. Deadshot, Harley and Diablo are the only remotely interesting protagonists in the picture, but even they're ill served by the shallow material they're given. The tone felt really awkward, trying to skirt between dark/gritty and comedic/quirky. It fails on both scores. The theatre I saw it in was about 60% full and there wasn't one laugh out loud moment in the entire film. A few people sniffed quietly at one or two of the jokes, but none of them outright laughed. I didn't chuckle once.
I did like Deadshot. I thought Smith was solid in the role and it was fun seeing a variant of the classic Marshall Rogers costume in live action. I also enjoyed seeing Batfleck back in action, though his screen time amounts to little more than a cameo. It was also nice to see Stranger Things actor David Harbour in a supporting role. There are some nice visuals too. The dark, murky look of the film is probably the best thing it has going for it. I can't help feeling there was a more interesting story to be told regarding the back-story of Harley and the Joker. We see snippets of this in the form of frustratingly brief flashbacks, but none of them are expanded upon in any real depth. Her transitional arc from psychiatrist to psychopath probably would have been a far more compelling narrative than the one we're given. They should have made that film instead.
Of course the character everyone's talking about is the Joker, but I find it hard to judge Leto's interpretation based on what little we've seen. His storyline felt superfluous to the main plot and his scenes were so obviously truncated, out of sequence and sloppily edited that they often felt more like trailer clips than complete narrative sequences. Based on what we do see, I thought his voice was a little too similar to Ledger's. Beyond that I don't have a whole lot else to say. I imagine his performance will work better when taken in context with the deleted scenes, but here it feels like a lot of posturing – lots of quirky mannerisms and ticks – without anything really substantial or cohesive. There's no underlying philosophy to correlate with the visual elements like Nicholson and Ledger had. It doesn't help that this take on the Joker is heavily influenced by Azzarello's version, which is one of my least favourite of the Joker's comic book incarnations. Consequently Leto is my least favourite live action Joker. I hope that changes when we see more of him, but for now I'm just not feeling it.
I found the soundtrack annoying and overbearing. They were obviously going for that Kick-Ass/Deadpool thing of playing chirpy licensed songs during moments of violence, but here it felt tired and overdone. The jokes universally fell flat, the action scenes were pedestrian, the characters were mostly one dimensional. The movie was only 2 hours long, but it felt more like 3. At one point Deadshot asks Flag "When will this end?" and I found myself wondering the same thing repeatedly throughout the second half of the film.
I'm crushingly disappointed with this movie. I honestly thought Ayer would pull it off, but clearly something went wrong. I'm glad I saw it so I could formulate my own opinion, and I'd advise anyone else who's curious to do likewise. But I honestly find myself agreeing with the critics on this one. I've got mixed feelings about the previous two DCEU films, but this is the first movie I'd call a flat out disaster.
Final rating: 4/10 :(
Good review, Silver. Completely agree. Have you seen my review on the film, by any chance?
My review (minor spoilers)
Overall the expectations I went in with were probably higher than they should have been. The narrative and overall plot were very difficult to follow. Like Batman v Superman, it wasn't a bad film in its own right but there were many plot points which could have been elaborated on. I figured there would be more humour but there isn't.
Harley Quinn deserved more of a backstory. It was faithful to the comics but they rushed her transition from lonely psychiatrist to anarchist. It's a very compelling story of the psychiatrist attempting to turn the inmate sane but the inmate turning the tables and turning the psychiatrist insane. So much so I think there was enough material to make a Joker/Harley film on its own (though I guess a prequel could be still in the cards). Still for what we got, Harley Quinn was very well played and she definitely resembled her comic counterpart.
Will Smith ends up stealing the show from Harley. He's more intimidating and frankly more dangerous given his combat skills. The only part of the character I didn't like was having the hardened criminal with the daughter he aims to please is getting rather clichee. Still Smith himself nails his role. Harley is separated from the Joker for most of the film and so Deadshot ends up her grounding rod for most of the film. The brief scene with Batman and Deadshot did have surprisingly good chemistry.
Affleck got four scenes. Three as Batman, one as Bruce Wayne. He didn't have a lot to work with but did a good job with what he had. I feel it's premature and unfair to compare Leto to the other Jokers. The Joker doesn't have a lot of screentime and most of it is in flashbacks or dream sequences so there wasn't much room for character development.
Viola Davis may have ended up as the unsung hero with honourable mention to Joel Kinnaman. I was heavily reminded of the Nick Fury/Phil Coulson relationship from the Avengers. Without spoiling any plot points, the two use similar plot points to motivate the team.
Overall it was a very enjoyable film. The stakes are always high when you have super criminals on the loose. I am hoping for more films with these characters, particularly Deadshot and Harley. I think the reason people feel underwhelmed is that it may not have met their expectations. Expecting a humour packed film of bad guys doing bad things for an entire film was unrealistic. The first act was the strongest with the characters being introduced, the second act definitely stalls and suffers as if the film wanders aimlessly wondering what to do next but the third act redeems the film.It ends in a way in which there aren't necessarily unresolved cliffhangers but it does open up for a world of more films and excitement on what happens next.
Final grade 7.5/10
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 10 Aug 2016, 00:06
Good review, Silver. Completely agree. Have you seen my review on the film, by any chance?
I've read your review twice. I looked over it when you first posted it in the message boards, then I read it again more thoroughly after I saw the film. I thought it was well written, though I was initially hoping I'd be able to provide counterarguments to the points you raised. Having seen the film, I'm afraid I can't. You were spot on. I get that a lot of people will like this film, and that's cool. I certainly don't want to deter people who enjoyed it from discussing it here. But for me, it was a shocking disappointment. I know David Ayer is capable of better than this, and I know the source material can lend itself to superior adaptations. I didn't particularly care for the Assault on Arkham animated film, but even that was a lot better.
One thing in particular that's been bothering me is how poorly structured it was. Throughout the opening act we're given frustrating glimpses of storylines that look a lot more interesting than the central plot:
• The Joker corrupting Quinzel and her transformation into Harley
• Deadshot's relationship with his daughter and his rivalry with Batman
• The troubled romance between Flag and Moone while they're on assignment
Any one of those stories could have made for compelling viewing. Instead we're only given edited highlights in the form of musical montages and short clips. And that's another major problem I had with the film – it's composed of moments/snapshots instead of proper scenes. Take for example the Alex Ross–inspired snapshot of Harley and the Joker dancing. Sure, it's a nice bit of fan service. But that's all it is. There's no context. I've seen cosplayers and fan films recreate that image before now, but I was hoping a theatrical recreation might ground it in some kind of storyline. It's as if they shot a bunch of separate sequences and didn't know how to assemble them into a coherent narrative, so they just strung together a load of montages and set pieces with the barest minimum plot to tie them together.
I keep hearing people describe this film as "fun" and I wish I could see it that way. But I honestly didn't have fun watching it. The first half of the film bombards you with enough quick cuts and flashy images to hold your attention, but as soon as they reach the city it becomes a tedious slog. They should have made either a light-hearted comedy or a dark and serious thriller, but they try to have it both ways and it simply doesn't work. But like I say, this is just my opinion. Maybe I'll find something to like about it when the initial disappointment loses its sting. If nothing else, I'm expecting some interesting fan edits.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 10 Aug 2016, 18:25
Take for example the Alex Ross–inspired snapshot of Harley and the Joker dancing. Sure, it's a nice bit of fan service. But that's all it is. There's no context. I've seen cosplayers and fan films recreate that image before now, but I was hoping a theatrical recreation might ground it in some kind of storyline. It's as if they shot a bunch of separate sequences and didn't know how to assemble them into a coherent narrative, so they just strung together a load of montages and set pieces with the barest minimum plot to tie them together.
In terms of the Alex Ross inspired Tango scene, it's context was a simple visual reference. Illustrating the romance, or "Mad Love" between Harley and the Joker. What we get out of Harley and Joker's relationship is provided via flashbacks, and in terms of the Tango scene, it's simply a great fan service added visual reference to their 'mad love' that's decidedly edited and filmed to appear more surreal-dream-like than something more grounded and reality based.
Sure, it's a extremely edited version of Harley's origin, and I would have preferred a more detailed account, which evidently was shot, but I personally had no problem understanding the gist of what was being shown to me during my screening. If someone can watch a show like NCIS and follow the plot, then following Suicide Squad isn't even a issue.
Just saw it today.
Personally I liked it way more then Batman vs Superman, and the Chris Nolan movies.
Still not as good as the Tim Burton Batman movies or the Marvel movies in my opinion.
I'll post more of my thoughts later.
I finally saw it today myself.
For all the talk about how divisive BvS, I'd say this forum is much kinder to that film compared to SS. The consensus from what I've seen on here so far is either you love SS or you hate it.
Me? I'm split in between. It's not the worst film I've ever seen (though it's definitely the worst of the DCEU so far), but it's definitely average. A very formulaic Hollywood blockbuster.
I liked Will Smith's Deadshot and Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn. Although my gripe about Harley is her hallucination of living together with Joker and having a normal life was off given how crazy she is.
Joker had no reason being in this movie beyond the flashback scenes and the ending. I have a hard time believing Jared Leto would star in such a small role, considering all the hype behind the scenes with his antics AND deleted material I saw last week. I won't go far to say the main villain is the worst ever, but she's generic as they come.
So yeah, I can't say I was that impressed. MOS is the best film for me so far, with the BvS: UE being a close second.
^Let me be clear about one thing regarding the "deleted material" comment in my last post. I was talking about screenshots of the Joker behind the scenes and in the trailer that were removed in the movie's final cut. There aren't any deleted scenes released yet.
I've been watching some clips on Youtube recently, and I may give the film another shot. Over the coming days I'll write about the things I liked to balance my thoughts out.
The following isn't a review for Suicide Squad, but it's a comment against the hyperbolic and cynical nature of film criticism that's prevalent nowadays.
Quote
The Most Disappointing: The State of Modern Film Criticism
Anghus Houvouras on the state of modern film criticism...
If you spend any time on the internet, you've probably come across any number of stories about the incredibly negative age of media we currently waft through on a daily basis. The perception being that our current worldview is nihilistic to a fault and that even the most basic thought can be a polarizing topic that anyone can tear to shreds with animalistic anger.
It's easy to see this kind of behavior exhibited in politics where the American election cycle is a 'knives out' affair and the Brexit has left our friends in the UK in a state of paralysis. But I don't write about politics, I write about film. So for the sake of this discussion, and our latest deep dive into Binary Theory I'm going to focus on film criticism.
Film criticism has devolved into a puzzling, maddening space. Our more traditional film critics are aging out of relevance. The classic era of writers like Kael and Ebert are well behind us. There's a few writers from that era still pumping out reviews and reminding us of their existence, but they are little more than echoes; reminders of a different, less contentious time in criticism.
Our middle-aged critics like Devin Faraci from Birth.Movies.Death and Drew McWeeny over at Hitfix have settled in nicely to mainstream roles after spending a decade and a half contributing to the ruination of the artistry of film criticism. These critics were inspired by the contentious nature that Siskel & Ebert created as they argued across the aisle. Though to be fair to both of them, their frustration was usually reserved for one another. The internet age of criticism brought forth a number of changes in the online critical voice, but the one constant that connected them all was indignation.
When sites like Ain't It Cool launched in the late 1990's, there was a shift in how films were criticized. There was a time when film critics analyzed the film. Where the movie and its contents were graded from the opening titles to the closing credits. The internet era started an uglier trend where films started to be judged based on so many ancillary factors. Studios were raked over the coals for their lack of vision. A failed adaptation was blamed on 'the wrong choice' of creative talent. The movies themselves weren't just being judged, but the entire process and the people involved with their creation. Executives were named in reviews as being poor shepherds of properties. The entire system came under frequent attack.
These critics and columnists with 'inside sources' began to see outside influences bleed into their reviews. And when asked about how negatively the pop culture landscape has skewed, Faraci told USA Today: "We're in that weird position where everything sort of seems terrible and so as a result, people become negative and combative."
'Negative and combative' is the foundation Faraci and many of his peers built their careers upon. They started young and angry, and now they've achieved mainstream success they're far less interested in rocking the boat. So the indignation birthed by Siskel & Ebert and betrothed to the Ain't It Cool generation of writers has been handed off to a new crop of critics even less interested in discussing the actual movie.
So it should be no surprise to see the new generation of online film writers have an even less respectful tone when it comes to cinema. Like this article from io9 contributor Eve Peyser, who has brought the concept of film commentary to a staggering new low.
This is the kind of brain seizure inducing, incoherent nonsense that passes as post worthy. Peyser's hatred for Suicide Squad is apparent, but she just doesn't attack the movie but everything involved with the movie. She looks for empirical evidence to back up her hate, for example mitigating the record-breaking opening and mentioning financial benchmark to be considered a success:
"Suicide Squad apparently has to make $750 million in order for the studio to just break even, so it still has a long way to go."
She brings up the fact that the box office was better on Thursday and Friday and saw a decline throughout the weekend.
"On the bright side, the Associated Press reports that although there were large audiences Thursday and Friday night, ticket sales sharply declined on Saturday."
'On the bright side?'. Here's a columnist, critic, or whatever a contributor at a Gawker site calls themselves these days actively rooting for the movie to fail. The strange, all too common perspective of malice towards anything that the writer is unable to appreciate.
Here's the thing: Film criticism should be smart and surgical. It's not a flamethrower. It should never be about burning everything (and everyone) to the ground. We're living in the aftermath of the scorched earth created by Ain't It Cool News and its ilk. All of these middle-aged movie critics who basically turned criticism into one long 'the sky is falling' argument are now asking 'how did this happen?' Well, party people, you created this acidic, bile spewing monster through years of engaging in epic, endless hyperbole. What did they think would happen when the most popular voices online were attacking the studios and executives in their reviews? Or taking their personal axe grinding bias into vitriolic, soapbox standing lectures of how creatively bankrupt Hollywood is. Did they think reviewing screenplays prior to production was going to help the creative process or hurt it or naming executives they believed to be worthless while hiding under the protective freedom of being nothing more than a passionate fan?
The answer is painfully clear in hindsight, but it should have been just as obvious in the moment.
And now we're raising a generation of critics who can't even articulate what they hate about the film. Hyperbole is the only language they know how to speak. Like the aforementioned Eve Peyser from io9 (or Gizmodo, or whatever part of the sticky Gawker web she resides) who decided to unleash her ire at Suicide Squad. But here's the most damning of her many poorly constructed thoughts:
"What turned out to be deeply mediocre film. Seriously, Jared Leto should get his Oscar revoked."
Deeply mediocre? That's it? You're this upset over a movie you found to be mediocre? Christ almighty. I wouldn't want to be the film you outright hated. And the second part of that sentence; do you genuinely think that? Do you believe Jared Leto should have his Oscar revoked for his role as the Joker in Suicide Squad? Or, like everyone else these days, are you someone who can only speak in the language of pointless hyperbole, turning your flamethrower onto the scorched earth that the last generation of internet critics have left you to continue burning away the center so that only the extremes exist?
A generation of people writing about film who can't even be bothered to articulate anything other than their indignation, and badly at that.
And that, my friends, is disappointing.
Source: https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2016/08/the-most-disappointing-the-state-of-modern-film-criticism
I've never liked film critics, but ever since BvS came out, I've started to notice that a majority of their reviews are inflammatory more than ever. And let's face it, there are some websites that like to produce clickbait articles to get hits, as I suspect many who jump on the bandwagon against the DCEU. Devin Faraci is guilty of this, and so is anything that's published on Gawker Media (which by the way, is thankfully reported to be bankrupt because of losing a massive lawsuit for violating Hulk Hogan's privacy, so hopefully their days of trolling the internet are outnumbered).
I want DC movies to succeed. So when I see people cashing in on their prior 'scepticism' with scathing, gloating comments, I get annoyed. Actually, more than that. I am so invested in these characters and their success that it hurts my soul. I didn't like Suicide Squad that much, but you know what? I know how the fans of the film feel. I don't want to go on and on about how much I disliked it. It becomes a broken record, much like how the BvS haters are. So I've decided to refrain from that behaviour. I've posted my review and that's enough. The DCEU doomsayers calling for a reboot are at the bottom of my list.
Critics lost their ability to sway me long ago. If it wasn't before 2013, it was by that summer with some of the nonsensical criticisms geared towards MOS. Why was Lois on Zod's ship with Superman? It's explained IN THE MOVIE! Once I realized how pretentious most were, I waved bye-bye to the critics. The fallout from BvS did nothing but validate my stance in continuing to steer clear of the critical hive mind approach.
I heard about the negative reviews prior to me actually seeing the movie, but like MOS/BvS, I ignored the onslaught and went in with an open mind, and left reasonably satisfied. Didn't love it, wasn't blown away by it, didn't think it was the worst movie of all time either. I had fun with it.
Joker, I highly recommend seeing Suicide Squad a second time. I have done so, and was pleasantly surprised. Knowing and accepting what the film already is does wonders. To the point I feel like writing a second review to encompass my new feelings. I do hope, however, that if WB don't release an extended cut, they release deleted scenes.
Cool, bro! I'm glad you liked it better the second time around, and knowing how we're pretty much on the same page with MOS and BvS (and other movies/topics), your opinion is one I do take note of. I intend to check it out again, but trying to find the day is the tricky part. Maybe next weekend hopefully. I do wholeheartedly agree on the deleted scenes being given to us at the very least. It's better than nothing, and I really would like to see all that Leto Joker footage that was unfortunately edited out. If even just to form a better opinion on his performance. I mean, we never got to see that original cut of The Incredible Hulk that Ed Norton was pushing, but if memory serves, we did get a bunch of the deleted scenes that would have been in that cut. Like Suicide Squad, deleted scenes are better than absolutely nothing.
Oh, and I really need to start looking into video software editing one day. As I wouldn't mind just throwing back in the few scenes that were cut out of the BvS ultimate cut. As I kinda liked the shot of Superman flying in to save Lois, and boosting his speed right before he makes his entrance in that underground bunker..... :)
Waller is one of the best live action villains in the DC film series. To the point her presence makes up for Enchantress. I could mount the case Waller is the real villain of the movie, serving as the counterpoint to Marvel's Nick Fury and for my money, being a lot more interesting. Will Smith shows why he became a big name with his charisma, and Harley comes across better on a rewatch. Those three characters make the film, and to an extent, Captain Boomerang.
Conceptually, I think they made the right decision to do Suicide Squad this early. It's the precursor to Bruce forming the Justice League. The same idea but with completely different types of people making up the team.
I still maintain MoS and BvS are better, and my type of movie. But ultimately, even with a tonal change and removed content, SS represents a decent movie. And I dare say it's better than certain Marvel films. I'd take this over Iron Man 2, for example.
Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 14 Aug 2016, 22:28Critics lost their ability to sway me long ago. If it wasn't before 2013, it was by that summer with some of the nonsensical criticisms geared towards MOS. Why was Lois on Zod's ship with Superman? It's explained IN THE MOVIE! Once I realized how pretentious most were, I waved bye-bye to the critics. The fallout from BvS did nothing but validate my stance in continuing to steer clear of the critical hive mind approach.
I heard about the negative reviews prior to me actually seeing the movie, but like MOS/BvS, I ignored the onslaught and went in with an open mind, and left reasonably satisfied. Didn't love it, wasn't blown away by it, didn't think it was the worst movie of all time either. I had fun with it.
I'm sorry, but despite that was explained, it wasn't explained. It was justified. And that justification is nonsense and has no purpose because her being brought there doesn't help their purpose at all. The movie does that a lot. It explains things with nonsense. And yeah, there's a hive mind with some of several kinds of movie's detractors, but the fans have a hive mind too. They defend something using the same defense, even if that doesn't connect to the statement being made against it.
I liked the movie fine. But it had several problems. It's not a good sign for me when I'm already trying to figure out how I think a movie should have been done instead of what was done. Will Smith was good. Viola Davis was good most of the time, but she very rarely seemed disconnected from the role. Jay Fernandez's character was good for me. Harley was weaker as a character than she should have been, but the actress wasn't really the problem there, though there were moments that seemed forced. Everyone else was solid. But the Joker here is pretty lame. Performance is a little off key, but the writing pretty much loses it. With better characterization, the performance wouldn't have been a real stickler. This doesn't feel like a movie though. It feels written with disconnection between the first maybe 30 mins or more and the rest of the movie. There's very clearly an issue with the movie trying to reconcile itself between being Guardians Of The Galaxy and Batman v Superman in basic tone. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 15 Aug 2016, 10:08
I'm sorry, but despite that was explained, it wasn't explained. It was justified. And that justification is nonsense and has no purpose because her being brought there doesn't help their purpose at all.
Sure it does.
Lois was exposed by the media for knowing Superman's true identity, right? You do remember this scene, hopefully. Subsequently, she fled her apartment, and was picked up by the military, right? This is exactly why Lois was even
there to be invited to the ship by Faora to begin with, the military was keeping her close by for any alien related matters. Hence, Lois being there for the interrogation scene. Zod, who obviously was made aware of the broadcast in which Lois was outed, demanded that Lois be brought aboard his ship for intel and or mind reading that could be useful against Superman. Pretty simple, Lois was backup. They want the codex, she knows Superman, sooo ... she
might know where the codex is. That's the idea. Later on in the film, following Lois being saved from the escape pod by Superman, she even reveals that Zod's crew did infact try getting information out of her by reading her mind.
It's all right there provided for you. Just put the cheese and whine down, and pay attention.
Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 15 Aug 2016, 17:44Sure it does.
Lois was exposed by the media for knowing Superman's true identity, right? You do remember this scene, hopefully. Subsequently, she fled her apartment, and was picked up by the military, right? This is exactly why Lois was even there to be invited to the ship by Faora to begin with, the military was keeping her close by for any alien related matters. Hence, Lois being there for the interrogation scene. Zod, who obviously was made aware of the broadcast in which Lois was outed, demanded that Lois be brought aboard his ship for intel and or mind reading that could be useful against Superman. Pretty simple, Lois was backup. They want the codex, she knows Superman, sooo ... she might know where the codex is. That's the idea. Later on in the film, following Lois being saved from the escape pod by Superman, she even reveals that Zod's crew did infact try getting information out of her by reading her mind.
It's all right there provided for you. Just put the cheese and whine down, and pay attention.
I know all of that. And it doesn't help them, like I said. She's taken so they can extract something from her and they can't, because she doesn't know anything, so her being taken was pointless. She's taken to justify her being there so she can be a plot device and the movie can pretend she's not a damsel in distress. This is what I mean, the same defenses are used, even when someone points out that it isn't that problem. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 15 Aug 2016, 23:05
I know all of that. And it doesn't help them, like I said. She's taken so they can extract something from her and they can't, because she doesn't know anything, so her being taken was pointless. She's taken to justify her being there so she can be a plot device and the movie can pretend she's not a damsel in distress. This is what I mean, the same defenses are used, even when someone points out that it isn't that problem. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
You do realize that this kind of logic that can be applied to pretty much
any movie made. "Why did they take Lois on board when she didn't know anything?" Narratively speaking, exactly
how or
why was Zod supposed to know this? That's like saying, "Why didn't the prison guards take down Tim Robbins' poster off the wall before he escaped Shawshank Prison? Shouldn't they have known?" Uh, why would they?!? Can we also bring up plot devices, and/or plot holes (which doesn't apply to Lois on Zod's ship) that has been showcased in the Marvel cinematic universe, Jurassic Park, Toy Story, Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, Titanic, E.T., and scores of other movies while we're at it?
Once again, The Joker is right. God bless you, sir.
Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 16 Aug 2016, 01:27You do realize that this kind of logic that can be applied to pretty much any movie made. "Why did they take Lois on board when she didn't know anything?" Narratively speaking, exactly how or why was Zod supposed to know this? That's like saying, "Why didn't the prison guards take down Tim Robbins' poster off the wall before he escaped Shawshank Prison? Shouldn't they have known?" Uh, why would they?!? Can we also bring up plot devices, and/or plot holes (which doesn't apply to Lois on Zod's ship) that has been showcased in the Marvel cinematic universe, Jurassic Park, Toy Story, Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, Titanic, E.T., and scores of other movies while we're at it?
I don't know about the other movies, but with Shawshank Redemption, that's a logic hole more than anything, which isn't what I was talking about. If they're going to take her, the least the movie could do is give a real reason why they have to take her. Not a justification to get her on the ship so the movie can pretend she's not a damsel in distress. Lois has no reason to be taken. It's purposeless, and kinda senseless. On the flip side of your argument, there's no reason to take her when they can extract everything from Clark. A good way would be for them to be able to extract where the farm is from Lois, but only extract the image of the farm itself from Clark.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 16 Aug 2016, 03:33
I don't know about the other movies, but with Shawshank Redemption, that's a logic hole more than anything, which isn't what I was talking about.
It is when arguments like; "She's taken so they can extract something from her and they can't, because she doesn't know anything, so her being taken was pointless." are brought forth. That's like assuming the characters in the film, would somehow know everything that the viewer does.
QuoteIf they're going to take her, the least the movie could do is give a real reason why they have to take her. Not a justification to get her on the ship so the movie can pretend she's not a damsel in distress. Lois has no reason to be taken. It's purposeless, and kinda senseless. On the flip side of your argument, there's no reason to take her when they can extract everything from Clark. A good way would be for them to be able to extract where the farm is from Lois, but only extract the image of the farm itself from Clark.
Again, how would they be aware that she doesn't know anything? They wouldn't. Lois being exposed as knowing Superman automatically makes her a person of interest for Zod. Just as it did the military. It's all set up. If Superman's not aware, or doesn't know, perhaps she does? Makes alot more sense to go ahead and cross your t's and dot your i's than to inexplicably chance having to seek her out later. Plus, the last thing Zod's crew would have expected, would be the Jor-El AI taking control of the ship, giving Lois valuable information, and assisting her escape. Actually, to further elaborate, it is later revealed that the vessels Zod and his army are using possess a "Phantom Drive", and thanks to Lois, who is knowledgeable of the situation thanks to the Jor-El AI, along with Hardy and Hamilton, ultimately cause a cataclysmic reaction that quickly creates a small singularity, effectively returning Zod's ship and his people into the Phantom Zone.
Not bad for a simple damsel in distress, huh?
Just because you personally don't like the execution doesn't mean it's purposeless.
Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 16 Aug 2016, 04:13
Again, how would they be aware that she doesn't know anything? They wouldn't. Lois being exposed as knowing Superman automatically makes her a person of interest for Zod. Just as it did the military. It's all set up. If Superman's not aware, or doesn't know, perhaps she does? Makes alot more sense to go ahead and cross your t's and dot your i's than to inexplicably chance having to seek her out later. Plus, the last thing Zod's crew would have expected, would be the Jor-El AI taking control of the ship, giving Lois valuable information, and assisting her escape. Actually, to further elaborate, it is later revealed that the vessels Zod and his army are using possess a "Phantom Drive", and thanks to Lois, who is knowledgeable of the situation thanks to the Jor-El AI, along with Hardy and Hamilton, ultimately cause a cataclysmic reaction that quickly creates a small singularity, effectively returning Zod's ship and his people into the Phantom Zone.
Not bad for a simple damsel in distress, huh?
Let's remember another thing: aside from knowing crucial information in defeating Zod and company, she held her own when she shot back at her captives before making her escape from the Black Zero ship. That's less damsel in distress and more badass. 8)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 16 Aug 2016, 13:53
Let's remember another thing: aside from knowing crucial information in defeating Zod and company, she held her own when she shot back at her captives before making her escape from the Black Zero ship. That's less damsel in distress and more badass. 8)
That's true!
Edit: Wrong thread
Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 16 Aug 2016, 04:13It is when arguments like; "She's taken so they can extract something from her and they can't, because she doesn't know anything, so her being taken was pointless." are brought forth. That's like assuming the characters in the film, would somehow know everything that the viewer does.
It isn't. It's me stating that the movie shouldn't have done it, because it'd meaningless. Whether they know it or not. It's very clear that it's there to justify the character's existence. Them taking her because she may know something is silly because there's no way she can know something that Clark doesn't. The reason they give isn't a reason. it's justification and MOS has a few of those.
QuoteAgain, how would they be aware that she doesn't know anything? They wouldn't. Lois being exposed as knowing Superman automatically makes her a person of interest for Zod. Just as it did the military. It's all set up. If Superman's not aware, or doesn't know, perhaps she does? Makes alot more sense to go ahead and cross your t's and dot your i's than to inexplicably chance having to seek her out later. Plus, the last thing Zod's crew would have expected, would be the Jor-El AI taking control of the ship, giving Lois valuable information, and assisting her escape. Actually, to further elaborate, it is later revealed that the vessels Zod and his army are using possess a "Phantom Drive", and thanks to Lois, who is knowledgeable of the situation thanks to the Jor-El AI, along with Hardy and Hamilton, ultimately cause a cataclysmic reaction that quickly creates a small singularity, effectively returning Zod's ship and his people into the Phantom Zone.
Not bad for a simple damsel in distress, huh?
Just because you personally don't like the execution doesn't mean it's purposeless.
There's no rason to think that at all. If this was an interrogation, yes. But it isn't. It's magicy mind reading technology. The ability to use it on Clark makes having Lois moot. Now, again, it wouldn't be that big of an issue if there was actually a point to them taking her. There wasn't. The lack of point isn't about the character's knowing, but the story deciding to put her on there so it can contrive the character into not being a damsel in distress. And all those scenes are examples of the movie doing that. And this isn't about women. Personally I don't want Steve Trevor to be contrived into not being snything other than what he should be to me, a man that's a soldier, but can't do or understand much of anything that Wonder Woman and should really only be a love interest and damsel in distress to me. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!