Why Critics HATE Suicide Squad

Look I'm gonna say this with all due respect. I wrote a very long detailed answer to your video that unfortunately got lost.

So when I say this, pls take this into account. Your whole video from beginning to end is utter bs.

There are loads of films heavy on exposition that are good movies (Fight Club maybe, um lets say Forest Gump, Casino. All introduce characters, ideas etc primarily through heavy handed exposition, that in itself does not give critics the right to rail road them) and you using the terrible movie Inception as an example of good exposition just shows how full of BS you are.

A film can be very flawed but if in the end it is an entertaining movie it really doesn't matter, the movie should get a certain mark just for doing the job of being broadly entertaining and very watchable. Whether it fits into some film school guidelines - (NOT RULES, GUIDELINES) that film school students take far to literally and become bad critical fascists over - it really doesn't matter. The films job was to entertain. did it do it's job? with suicide squad a resounding yes and even most critics admit it. Saying it was a mess, whatever that means or too this or that is or didn't conform to film structure is bs, unless we have now come to a juncture in film making history when critics want all films to follow the exact same format and woe betide the film maker who deviates from that by even a beat.

The reason fans are outraged by critics is because 27% for BvS and SS is beyond a joke. The fact is they just are not that bad. They are not what some fans and critics expected or wanted, but have we become so spoilt that a valid critic of a movie can be " The movie didn't give me exactly what I expected, so I don't like it." Is that really the level of critique we are willing to go to? I mean think about that for a second.

Man Of Steel sucked balls. I thought it was awful, boring, incoherent and cynical coporate film making and as much as I hate that movie, I still would not rate it 27%. It had far to many redeeming qualities and at least should be 40% for being watchable, having some great acting another 10% for being beautifully shot and having some of the best cinematography for a superhero movie ever. This is for a movie I hate.

And I'd go even further I think FF the new movie sucked. Even their I give it a 39% for at least trying something experimental that went really really wrong.

The aggregate is either false indication of what critics thought was a flawed but entertaining movie or the critics have lost their mind. Straight up. Let me say this, just to show how snobby, idiotic and wrong these critics are.

On IMDB when do you see a movie that his hailed as great ever getting terrible reviews. It doesn't happened, which shows most general audiences recognize a critical masterpiece, so why is it that critics have such a hard time recognizing fun pieces of entertainment or a good comic book adaptation. Ans: they are snobbish idiots, most of whom have not one clue what they are talking about.

That's how films like Fight Club and Big Trouble In Little China are recognized now as masterpieces years later, when at the time critics had their head so far up their own asses they couldn't see that for themselves.

Because it wasn't good