The current Rotten Tomato score for SS is disappointing but I do put faith in the combined totals of Rotten Tomatoes and like the way that they collate together all of the reviews. It seems a fair and logical system for assessing how a film is being received by the critics.

My only point though is that if SS is at 30%, Bad Boys II got 23% and I thought that was a cracking piece of fun entertainment.

Indeed. With IMDB, people either rate 10 or 1. Very rarely do you have people actually give valid scores and reasoning.

And the problem is DC fanboys who just can't seem to accept that their might be flaws with their movies will rate them 10 without seeing them, whilst then going over to all the Marvel movies and rating them 1, just because of some bizarre bit of brand worship?

I mean it happened with BvS, it's happening with Suicide Squad now, it'll most likely happen with Justice League too. But give it a month or 2 and the more "fair" scores will start coming in. I mean, when BvS came out it was sitting on a 9.6/10, it's now down to a 6.9/10 and imo doesn't even deserve that, but it's certainly a more reasonable score than 9.6

watching this tomorrow. The bad reviews are a good sign for me as i loved BvS and MoS

You have a point about RT, but I still prefer Metacritic. They're bit more discerning about who they collate from, and sort the reviews into positive/mixed/negative (as opposed to merely fresh or rotten).

Suicide Squad has a current Meta rating of 42, with the majority of reviews being mixed to average.

And you're right about Bad Boys II btw.

I haven't seen Man of Steel, but yes, I think most of the negative criticism of Batman v Superman was over the top.
I watched it, and although it was flawed it was nowhere near as bad as the critics were making out. I quite enjoyed it. It wasn't great, but neither was it worse than so much guff that the critics rave about.

Nowadays I seem to be more in line with what average people think rather than official critics. Not all the time, but a lot more often than what used to be the case.

If this film is very entertaining and engages me then that's all I can really hope to ask for speaking as neither a fan nor as somebody who expects high art from superhero films.

I take the current ratings as seriously as the ones on Rotten Tomatoes.
Why would the current Rotten Tomatoes rating count and the IMDB rating not?
If some people have seen the film in a private screening would some reviewers not post their review on IMDB?
If people gave reviews on IMDB are they lying and they haven't really watched the film?

I think realistically it would be better to see how things balance out. Once the film is open to the general public the rating on IMDB may go down, and the rating on RT may go up.

Suicide Squad has had six preview screenings and three special screenings this year. That's as in, approx. 500 people per screening. And yet, the current IMBD ratings are saying that over 18,000 people have seen the film, even though the film isn't due out until today or tomorrow.

When we compare that with most pre-release films, only 1.8% of those films have more than ten 10-star ratings. Bearing it in mind that SS managed to bag 9,785 10-star ratings.

Hence, my scepticism. For me, it's better to wait a week after the release before I can take those ratings seriously.

For what it's worth, I'm actually not that keen on the layout of Rotten Tomatoes so I rarely visit the site.


I fully agree.

Well last time I looked, which was a few hours ago, it only had 64 reviews.
Obviously you're right that for it to have thousands of reviews would be ridiculous at the moment, but it only had 64 reviews listed.

Of course you're right to be skeptical. As am I, of all of the reviews.
Sometimes reviews just slate a film for it to not be to their taste, of which I've seen quite a few of that type already.
I think superhero films are an interesting genre because they are the type of film which often get severe criticism for not being the type of film a reviewer would normally enjoy because they are seen as lowbrow mainstream nonsense. Which they can be. But they can also sometimes be more than what some expect from that particular film making genre.
Sometimes they can just be good old plain action fun with CGI which reviewers can get really stuffy about, but yet you can get films from other genres which are extremely overrated, but their genre is generally more appreciated.

Edit: Update - 144 reviews now at 7.5 rating.

Just got out of the midnight premier IMAX screening.... oh boy where do I even begin....

The Positives

- The actors all have absolutely great chemistry with each other and you do feel yourself routing for them to overcome all odds to somehow carry the rest of the movie.

- The soundtrack: AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Queen, The White Stripes and a ton more are all present. When I say a ton more, I mean a ton more. It seems this film liked what Guardians of the Galaxy did and went "Lets cram as many songs in there as possible, people seem to like that!", and it does get quite tiring, but when the music is this good, I suppose you can't complain.

- The 3D used in this movie was actually quite good. If you've already decided you'll be seeing this movie, I do recommend seeing it in 3D.

- Some nice flashback sequences giving backstory (and, in the case of "El Diablo" and Deadshot, emotional depth) to the characters.

- Some cool (if very, very brief) Justice League-related cameos.

- Margot Robbie's portrayal of Harley Quinn. I know a few people on here said this was the "Make or Break" for them, so let me just confirm, Harley Quinn is the highlight of this film, even though - when you think about it - she doesn't actually really do anything. Which brings me to...

The Negatives

- NONE of the characters do anything of worth in this movie. The movie does its absolute best to distract you from the fact that there isn't any semblance of stakes at all. Even when homes, buildings and bases are being blown up by the "big bad", the movie doesn't give you a reason to care at all. This movie is honest to god the very definition of "all style, no substance".

- Will Smith. Right, so here's the thing. Will Smith is very charismatic and likeable in this movie. "But ShotDownInFlame, if he's charismatic and likeable, why is he in the negatives?" It's because he's playing Will Smith. Every single time his face was on screen I was just taken right out of the movie. Because I wasn't watching Deadshot shoot up some guys, I was watching Will Smith shoot up some guys. Plus he was so badly miscast, it really should have been somebody else, but I guess DC had to get "a name" that was guaranteed to get butts in seats.

- The Villains. As in not the "Suicide Squad" but the enemy that brings them all together. Basically, picture Michael Bay's Transformers. That level of CGI. Now imagine it, even worse. Voila! You are now picturing the enemies in this movie. Absolutely hideously awful CGI aplenty in this movie. Not to mention, this is hard to describe without going in to light spoilers, but the person who plays the central villain, is very good when NOT the central villain. But as soon as that person in question becomes the central villain they really start to ham it up big time to the point of genuine distraction.

- The Writing. In the trailers, Will Smith's character utters the line "What are we, some kind of Suicide Squad?" and that *isn't* one of the 10 worst lines in this movie. That's how poor the writing is.

- Jared Leto's Joker. Watching Jared Leto play the Joker was bizarre, every time he appeared on screen (he's in this movie for a total of about 10 minutes by the way so don't go in to it expecting Joker to play a predominant role), it felt like I was watching an entirely different movie. His scenes just felt largely disconnected from the rest of the movie, was a very odd decision.

- An over-usage of slow mo. In every single fight scene in this movie there are at least 4 uses of slow mo when a punch, or a swing, or a weapon makes impact. It gets beyond tedious when you're sitting in a 2 hour movie and you see slow motion used about 20 odd times.

- The lack of balance in screen-time for characters. This is ultimately a Deadshot/Harley Quinn movie, as I'm sure many of you were expecting. This just didn't feel like a Suicide Squad movie at all when 1/2 of the team isn't really given anything to do, meaning even less screen time for those particular members.

I'll stop now or we'll be here all night, but basically, I really wouldn't recommend this movie. I think "All Style, No Substance" sums it up absolutely perfectly and I certainly won't be chomping at the bit to see a "Suicide Squad 2". All in all, if I had to score it out of 10, I think a 4/10 sounds about right. Despite not being given much to do in the way of action, Margot Robbie is the bright spot in a movie full of disappointment.

Thanks for that review ShotDownInFlame

Margot Robbie had to be the breakout performance because from the promotional material everything seemed to have been built around her.


That's line is just crap.. Just so obvious and cringey.

I was really expecting this to be much better than it appears to be at the moment.
I've seen other reviews critical of the storytelling and the plot.
What a shame, if your review is indicative of a wider audience.
I genuinely thought that this was going to blow people away in the same way Deadpool did. One, because there was just so much energy and spirit behind the marketing and everyone wished it well, I got the sense that there was a lot of love and positivity behind the making of this film. And two, because it pretty much needed to blow people away. I just thought that the studio can't afford to mess this one up, so wouldn't.

Sounds like they should have made a Batman film with Harley Quinn in it. It seems to be such a shame that Margot Robbie seemed so perfect as Harley Quinn and the rest of the film sounds like it let her down.
The Marvel character films by other film studios seem to be able to handle multi-character superhero films well, such as The Avengers and X-Men films, but it appears that DC aren't able to deal with that kind of setup yet.

A few of my friends in Oz saw it last night and declared it as "underwhelming" and that Enchantress was annoying. The latter surprises me as she was seen so little in the trailer that I actually FORGOT about her character until they mentioned it!

This film has been shoved down our throats so much that I'm already sick of Jared Letos joker! We are going Sunday morning as my husband enjoys DC... But to be honest I'm going in with low expectations. If anyone is interested, there are a bunch of clips on YouTube which aren't the trailer and appear to me new to me. If you search for it, it's about 7:41 long.

In other news, my husband bought me a "treat" today. It was Batman Vs Superman. I was like, I'm okay thank you... 😂

Enchantress is certainly annoying towards the end of the movie, which is odd, because the beginning of the movie almost has her looking to be the breakout "surprise" character of the movie.

As for being sick of Jared Leto's Joker? Don't worry, despite all the marketing, he's hardly in the movie at all! If you've seen the trailers you've seen 66% of the Joker's scenes.

It's genuinely bizarre to me that they made this movie without giving any of the characters anything to really do. Only a few times do any of the characters actually get to show off their powers. It's all very middle of the road action, and that makes it very mediocre.

I think you're right, a Batman film ft. Harley Quinn would have been much better than this.

Brian Viner gives it 4 out of 5 in The Daily Mail.

Some of the early reviews have been downright rancorous. Well, short of quite giving it a rhapsody of my own, I thoroughly enjoyed it.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...-not-kids.html

Arguably the biggest problem with “Suicide Squad” maybe has nothing to do with the creative issues, but rather, spending $175 million (not including the cost of the extensive marketing campaign, and who knows how much was spent on reshoots) on a supersized movie featuring B and C-list DC Comics characters. The picture needs to hit $750-800 million worldwide to break even. And while many will point to the R-rated “Deadpool” as proof as that could happen — it earned $782 million globally — that movie was firstly, much better reviewed, and secondly, cost less than $60 million. So even if it “flopped,” it would’ve likely come out okay. “Suicide Squad” doesn’t have that option; it’s go big, or go home.

It’ll be interesting to see how WB is forced to pivot once again. Will there be a director’s cut of “Suicide Squad,” like ‘Dawn Of Justice,’ that the superfans will insist “fixes” the problems of the current version? Will the studio double down on their sequel plans or pivot their attention to Margot Robbie‘s Harley Quinn spinoff, with her character being one of the few highlights people can agree on? Either way, it’s becoming quickly apparent the most interesting things about WB’s comic book movies have really nothing to do with the movies themselves.


The thing that really bugs me is, of course, some people will love this film (I hope to) as did BvS (I didn't), BUT with all the material they have to work with, with the DC characters, why the hell are both these films so divisive? There really is no need. They should be equally loved by die hard comic fans and Joe Bloggs cinemagoer equally.

Marvel seem to get it right most of the time but with BvS and it seems, SS, the script/storytelling is a big hot mess.

Thanks for a great review. It seemed really balanced. I'm going to see it in IMAX 3D on Sunday and will be sure to let you know my thoughts

DC and Marvel movies aren't really for me, but I'm sad to hear that the movie is looking to be a disappointment because I know that there was some anticipation for Suicide Squad, and the fans of these films deserve quality.

If it's the ultimate edition, it's worth watching again. The editing has been significantly improved and it makes a lot more sense now.

I look forward to hearing what you think of the movie

What I don't understand is, why has the cinemagoer been short changed and people have to fork out for the dvd to see a better version of the film?

That can't be deliberate. I know Hollywood studios are pretty soulless, but surely it's far too early in the game for such a cynical money making ploy, even for them. Warner Bros are trying to build a brand to compete with Disney/Marvel and which ever way they look at it, that's going to have to be a fairly long game. They're definitely not going to achieve it by conning their audience at this stage. It's my guess that this new version is an attempt to save face, rather than rake back any lost money.

Put simply, I think the studio cocked up and the link you posted earlier in the thread explains exactly how. The studio have tried to please all of the people all of the time in an attempt to maximise not only profits but investment in the franchise, and in the process, they've ended up pleasing hardly anyone. The new version is more violent (read: losing the under 12 market), and it's 30 minutes longer (read: lose the casual viewers looking for a bit of light hearted superhero fun a la Avengers Assemble). The phrase that springs to mind is, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee".

I'm not suggesting the new cut has completely saved the movie. I wouldn't suggest that anyone who hated the tone of BvS will enjoy it any more. It doesn't fix the dour mood or some of the more contrived scenes, and it certainly doesn't fix Jesse Eisenberg's frankly absurd take on Lex Luthor. What it does do is fix the choppy editing, and it explains much more clearly exactly why "Batman Vs Superman", in a way the theatrical release didn't (to me, anyway).

I have more faith in Zack Snyder as a director than I did before I saw the new cut. I still believe he's more of a style over substance man, but I have to admit, he's delivered fairly decently on two comic book adaptations before (admittedly, by replicating the source material panel for panel). What the studio need to learn from this is to let artists be artists, and keep the money men away from the creative process. If they fail, they fail, but at least they fail with dignity.

According to this article, David Ayer maintains that the theatrical release of Suicide Squad is his cut....but then he would say that, wouldn't he?

Watched it an hour ago, the cinema was packed and everyone seemed to enjoy it

My review coming up later

It's worse than that - You have to fork out for the blu-ray as the DVD only has the standard cut with just one perfunctory extra whereas the BD has many more. The blu-ray costs on average another fiver (tenner if you want the 3D version) over the DVD so that's your reason right there.

The theatrical cut was the length it was in order to get more screenings in per day, simple as that.

LOVED IT!!! Doesn't deserve the bad reviews. Don't know what the critics are smoking!!!

It's all down to running times apparently, a longer than
average movie run time means less showings during prime time hours.