Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure if you picked the most minor nitpicks on purpose but none of those are really why I'd say it's a bad movie. In my opinion it's because the execution is just poor overall. If you watch the newer suicide squad it does pretty much all the same things as the first one but better.
They're there to fix a problem caused by the government that sent them. Harley deals with attraction to a toxic and evil man. Some have super powers and some don't.
The difference is the characters are interesting, likeable, funny, and you get to learn about their back stories and see some character development for all of them. Everything in the original just comes across as forced and only a few of the characters get any real focus.
I sum it up as the difference between killer croc and king shark. Killer croc just looks bad and is basically a 1 dimensional black stereotype that's just there and maybe does something twice the whole movie. King shark is a dumb lovable monster that bonds with the team and actually has a presence beyond monster guy go do the thing we brought you for. They're both supposed to be major parts of the team as the heavy hitters but you could take killer croc out of the first one and the movie would be unaffected.
I went thru the reviews on rotten tomatoes. These are not my arguments. They are the ones produced by people who don't know what Wikipedia is evidently.
I am not claiming it is Shakespeare. It is an enjoyable movie and the arguments I heard about why it was bad are not great. Critics are inconsistent and subjective. What's more they seem peer obsessed over customer obsessed. When I read a film review I want to know if the movie is worth spending money on, not if the critic was in a bad mode that day or if they want to suck up to someone else.
They forgave Kubrick for sins they made this movie pay for. Here check this out: go name 2 humans from 2001 without searching online. About 9 are identified by name and everyone can only remember 1. Seems a bit one dimensional with not enough backstory doesn't it? How about the pacing in 2001. Are you going to tell me you didn't fall asleep in the middle? And yet he is given a pass. One is considered one of the best movies of all time and the other is shat on by critics. Yet both had the same "sins".