New Suicide Squad trailer

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know if this is new news but...

Suicide Squad to be PG-13

The article is sardonic, but really I don't actually care. Movies can be fun without dropping f-bombs all over the place.

Wouldn't be surprised if they do like with Batman v Superman and release an R rated director's cut on video.

That way, they get the best of both worlds. They get the mass audience appeal of PG-13, and get to sell more DVDs to people who want an R rated version.

[Mr Bean]

There's only one problem with that theory. Suicide Squad is inherently an R-rated concept what with the death, the blackmail, the murder and the concept that these are villains doing bad things to badder people or their heads will explode.

Making a PG-13 Suicide Squad involves more than just toning down the swears words meaning we are getting another movie mad worse because of studio edits.

On the flip side maybe we get a Dark Knight aka an R-rated movie the studio bribed to be PG-13 or TAKEN which still confuses me on how it managed a PG-13.

[Grumman]

There's only one problem with that theory. Suicide Squad is inherently an R-rated concept what with the death, the blackmail, the murder and the concept that these are villains doing bad things to badder people or their heads will explode.

I agree that it's an inherently R-rated concept, but if they weren't glossing over the horrific aspects to make it pass as PG-13, they'd still be glossing over the horrific aspects to make it fun. (Although you could certainly argue that whitewashing the premise is more deserving of an R rating rather than less.)

[Venator]

I'm hoping it's the Taken/TDK type of affair. The ratings system is very easy to "game" - a dark-as-fuck movie full of murder and carnage and emotional abuse but light on visible blood and profanity? PG it is!

[Crazedwraith]

So the first reviews are in and...
Spoiler

It's not being approved of.:

To the point that someone wants to shut down Rotten Tomatos for being biased

Yahoo though so not the height of journalism.

[Iroscato]

Jeremy Jahns loved it, so that's good enough for me. The critics savaged BvS which I thought was very good (though certainly overstuffed and disjointed).

[Crazedwraith]

I'll probably still see it with work colleagues. I was mostly amused by the news story.

[GuppyShark]

No spoiler review:

Joker didn't do it for me, but I thought Harley was great (I'm not a existing fan of the character, I think she hit the scene after I stopped reading comics). The movie has a lot of panache.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Please, please, please, show yourself some self-respect and watch one of these before you even think of seeing this movie.

[Gandalf]

No spoiler review:

Joker didn't do it for me, but I thought Harley was great (I'm not a existing fan of the character, I think she hit the scene after I stopped reading comics). The movie has a lot of panache.

I was the exact opposite. Harley shit me to tears and Joker was decent.

[The Romulan Republic]

So the first reviews are in and...
Spoiler

It's not being approved of.:

To the point that someone wants to shut down Rotten Tomatos for being biased

Yahoo though so not the height of journalism.

Aren't critics generally somewhat unkind to comic book movies (a few exceptions, like The Dark Knight, aside)?

[madd0ct0r]

No spolier review.

Not time i spent thst i regret. Probsbly not going to buy the dvd. Harley was not perfect for me, but had wife on the edge of her seat for the first half. Deadshott was too nice. Diablo was excellent, i really liked his actor. The bbe was blandly generic sadly, almost an afterthought. The real evil was convincingly real.

[Grumman]

Aren't critics generally somewhat unkind to comic book movies (a few exceptions, like The Dark Knight, aside)?

No. All three of the Nolan Batman movies got good reviews. The lowest the Marvel Cinematic Universe has got on Rotten Tomatoes is 66%. It's just the DCEU that gets raked over the coals, and at least two times out of three that has been fully justified.

[phred]

I feel about the same. Good enough movie.

Harley was good, but not quite Harley. I didn't care for the Joker, but no one will ever beat Mark Hamill's Joker, so I may be biased. Everyone else worked for me, but I never read much DC growing up, so I have little to compare them to.

The plot wasn't glaringly stupid like BvS was, so no complaints there either.

Please, please, please, show yourself some self-respect and watch one of these before you even think of seeing this movie.

Oh look, a film snob. Some of those movies are shit too, I've seen many of them.

[Joun_Lord]

All three of the Nolan Batman movies got good reviews. The lowest the Marvel Cinematic Universe has got on Rotten Tomatoes is 66%. It's just the DCEU that gets raked over the coals, and at least two times out of three that has been fully justified.

It seems weird atleast to me the current DC movie verse is getting so much shitcompared to the Nolan's Bats movies.

Tonally they seem about the same, kinda dark and dreary. The Nolan movies had some pretty terrible writing at times (Dark Knight Rises has been raked over the coals by many).

There are some differences to be sure. One of the main differences is the fact that while the tone remains the same the center character has changed, Batmang to Superman, and that can cause some problems. The DCEU movies are also messier then the Nolan movies. Even when the Nolan movies weren't that good they had a pretty tight script (usually) even when it didn't make sense. It didn't have to set up an entire universe. Didn't have to shoe horn in other characters. It at most tended to just have sequel bait which didn't bog down the movie with its weight.

People seemed excited for SS because it seemed to not take itself so seriously, it was more like a Marvel movie. Didn't need to set up sequels or universes because it was supposed to be like a side story, already had its world fleshed out by BvS and MoS. But from what people are saying Ayer was still trying to make it a somber film totally at odds with its trailer.

I could see why people would shit on it too if its true the film doesn't live up to its trailer and hype.

A disclaimer, I didn't really enjoy the Nolan Batman's or the two new Superman DCEU movies. Bats Begin's was okay but I thought Dork Knight Returns and Rises were crappy, the Joker was overrated as fuck (he was fine but alot of what he did didn't make sense for a supposedly realistic universe and the whole "agent of chaos" shit was bullshit) while Man O' Steel was crap and BvS was mostly crap with Batman Vs Superman in a contest of who could be the most broody bastard and Jesse Eisenberg apparently thinking he was playing the Joker.

Of course I'm not exactly one with great taste. I thought Superman Returns was fine except baby Supes and Lex's girlfriend plus the stupid evil plan (though thats something that is a staple of the Donner Superman films) and didn't hate Green Lantern though I didn't exactly like it either.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Please, please, please, show yourself some self-respect and watch one of these before you even think of seeing this movie.

Oh look, a film snob. Some of those movies are shit too, I've seen many of them.

Of course they're bad; they're part of a CONSPIRACY to make people like you feel ashamed of your taste in film, and nobody actually likes them at heart. Only movies that are half adolescent power fantasy, half cherished childhood franchise reification can actually be fun. Confound you for figuring it out!

[Batman]

Yeah. Heaven forbid people prefer movies that are actually fun for the viewer.
Also, putting words in people's mouths-he said 'some' of them are shit (and he's right), not that ALL of them are.

[TithonusSyndrome]

See, you're doing it again; you're implying that people don't actually enjoy non-genre fiction, presumably because their only interest is in belittling other people who don't share their tastes rather than an earnest interest in meaningful human emotion caught on film. I'm not sure there's any way of convincing you of this, but people don't starve and labor for decades of their lives just so they can gin up some edifice intended to make you feel small, and it is a colossal act of arrogance to presume that your humiliation is the goal of their life's work.

[Batman]

I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

[streetad]

Saw this last night and I would have to concur with the bulk of the reviews. It's a total mess of bad editing, sloppy storytelling and uneven tone, partially salvaged by a couple of decent movie star performances.

Sadly, I think there was probably a much more coherent film here before a panicking studio bombarded the director with notes to 'make it more like Guardians of the Galaxy'. The script just doesn't support that kind of a film and David Ayer doesn't seem to have the deft, comic touch to pull it off. I think the only thing WB have absorbed from the success of Marvel and the relative savaging of BvS is that Marvel films have 'humour' in them, ignoring all the other, harder stuff. So you have a film that was originally probably tonally bleak, with added forced elements of 'humour' and 'fun' which fall completely flat.

For an example of the sloppy editing, try and keep straight exactly how many expendable redshirt soldiers are accompanying the main characters. It seems to fluctuate wildly and randomly from scene to scene.

Quite apart from that, Jared Leto is aggressively, obnoxiously awful as the Joker. Just terrible. He is totally peripheral to the plot and yet makes the film worse by his presence to an extent not seen since Chris Tucker in the 5th Element.

The film also features the worst, least convincing CGI villain I've seen in a long time. This stuff doesn't normally bother me but it's seriously, embarrassing, shameful CGI for a major franchise blockbuster in 2016.

On a positive note, Will Smith and Jay Hernandez as Deadshot and El Diablo are both excellent, bringing to life a couple of very generic, stock characters. I want to see more of Deadshot in an actual good movie, probably featuring Affleck's Batman. Robbie is... adequate as Harley Quinn. She can only be in my theoretical movie if she promises not to bring Jared, though.

[phred]

See, you're doing it again; you're implying that people don't actually enjoy non-genre fiction, presumably because their only interest is in belittling other people who don't share their tastes rather than an earnest interest in meaningful human emotion caught on film. I'm not sure there's any way of convincing you of this, but people don't starve and labor for decades of their lives just so they can gin up some edifice intended to make you feel small, and it is a colossal act of arrogance to presume that your humiliation is the goal of their life's work.

I don't take issue with the list itself. I take issue with the fact that your post kind of implied that theres something wrong with those of us that want to go see a stupid action flick, rather than one of these vaunted films that are all deep and shit.

Have you seen all the films on that list? Some of them are stupid action flicks also. Hell, the oldest film on the list, L'Arrivee d'un train a la Ciotat, I believe was the original motion picture. The name literally is the entire film, a train coming into a station. Meaningful thought provoking stuff there, really makes me think about the world and my place in it.

[Adam Reynolds]

See, you're doing it again; you're implying that people don't actually enjoy non-genre fiction, presumably because their only interest is in belittling other people who don't share their tastes rather than an earnest interest in meaningful human emotion caught on film. I'm not sure there's any way of convincing you of this, but people don't starve and labor for decades of their lives just so they can gin up some edifice intended to make you feel small, and it is a colossal act of arrogance to presume that your humiliation is the goal of their life's work.

What point are you really trying to make here?

In case you didn't notice, this site in particular has been dedicated to genre fiction since its inception. Most people watch movies to be entertained rather than to have some deep emotional connection, as you can obviously see through box office numbers.

[madd0ct0r]

Jesus fuvk guys dont feed the troll.

Im going to go out on a limb and say i liked this version of the joker. It makes sense in a film about harley. The mark hamil version made sense in a film about batman. Harley is a tragic figure defined by her love fir the joker, and for that love to be credible you need a badboy romantic icon joker.
I thought the joker gang costunes were excellent.

[TithonusSyndrome]

See, you're doing it again; you're implying that people don't actually enjoy non-genre fiction, presumably because their only interest is in belittling other people who don't share their tastes rather than an earnest interest in meaningful human emotion caught on film. I'm not sure there's any way of convincing you of this, but people don't starve and labor for decades of their lives just so they can gin up some edifice intended to make you feel small, and it is a colossal act of arrogance to presume that your humiliation is the goal of their life's work.

I don't take issue with the list itself. I take issue with the fact that your post kind of implied that theres something wrong with those of us that want to go see a stupid action flick, rather than one of these vaunted films that are all deep and shit.

There IS something wrong with you if you are interested in seeing a movie that is by all accounts bad at what it does - genre fiction or not - simply because it contains branded characters you've become attached to. You're the one who read this subtext that I'm trying to imply that you should feel ashamed of your tastes into it, because that's how you cope with being presented with reflective fiction - you invent this fantasy of a conspiracy to belittle your humble, honest and plain salt-of-the-earth tastes perpetuated by people who make movies that, in their heart of hearts, even they don't like themselves. It's all a big sham, and you had the right idea all along. Only "stupid action flicks" can be authentically enjoyable.

Let's take a look at another movie that may be instructive to consider in contrast to this one - Sabotage.

Directed by David Ayer? Check.
Ensemble cast? Check.
Story about a one-of-a-kind team of dangerous badasses who get hung out to dry by The Man? Check.
Action scenes a-plenty? Check.
Lukewarm to harsh critical reception? Check.

Why aren't you and people like you keen to make a special effort to see Sabotage, with all that it has in common with this movie? Branded characters, that's why. If it is "fun", then it's fun in an undignified and pathetic way, the kind that calls Walter Mitty to mind.

Actually, at least Walter Mitty had the mental tools to indulge in fantasies of his own making, rather than having to outsource the construction of them to someone else, so even that's unfair.

Have you seen all the films on that list? Some of them are stupid action flicks also. Hell, the oldest film on the list, L'Arrivee d'un train a la Ciotat, I believe was the original motion picture. The name literally is the entire film, a train coming into a station. Meaningful thought provoking stuff there, really makes me think about the world and my place in it.

Hmmm, maybe a list of the greatest movies of all time has multiple criteria, and can include films with popular appeal or cultural significance? The fact that you reflexively responded to the title of the list by going "UGH FILM SNOB" and foisted criteria of your own imagining onto it isn't any failure of the list, it's a failure on your part to properly understand what you're even reading.

[madd0ct0r]

Out of interest is trollhunter on that list?