Why can't critics stand Suicide Squad?

I don't really like writing bad reviews and this movie has its bright spots (listed in my other review). However, from Rotten Tomatoes to almost everyone else, the judgment of the critics is unanimous: it is as bad as Batman v Superman. At the same time, twitter is full of fans that are so happy to define Suicide Squad the best movie ever. This post is to explore the reasons for this discrepancy, that in my opinion is due to the fact that critics and fans are looking to different aspects of the movie. Before you start making your blood boiling with anger, I am not judging which approach is better. Since my spoiler-free review was mostly focused on the great aspects of the movie (that are what fans like to search in a movie like this), here I will develop the critical points of it.

Spoiler alert: I wrote a spoiler-free review here. Everything on this post will refer specifically to the events of the movie.

Weak plot. The premise is good, you need something against a hypothetical new evil Superman. We also need someone to throw under the bus if something goes sideways, so let's make a team of bad guys. Then we realize that crazy people with bats and bullets are not going to win against an evil Superman, so let's throw in someone with magic too. The transition of the Enchantress from controlled in captivity to I want to destroy the world is not smooth, it happens way too easily. For this reason, the mission to stop her looks like a warm-up, a Peter-Parker-saves-the-kitten kind of story. When you then realize that there will not be anything more than that, here starts the disappointment about the main plot. On top of that, the messages are not so well displayed and when they are, they are not the good one. There is something dangerously close to the glorification of an abusive relationship, never addressed as abusive as it is. The redemption of the inmates is blurred as every other theme that pops out at random moments.

The Joker is irrelevant. I appreciated the performance of Leto, showing great braveness in giving a different look to a character so loved by the fans (and therefore a very polarizing topic of discussion). However, it is a fact that his presence is irrelevant to the plot. He is a disruptive force, appearing from now and then, and not really doing anything to move the plot along. The only event that affects the main characters is when he frees Harley Quinn, but such arc is resolved literally 3 minutes later when he fails. So I suspect that the Joker was introduced only to justify the flashbacks regarding the true star of the movie (Harley Quinn) or, even worse, to have cool shots for the trailers. That brings me to the next point.

Too many scenes were there only for the trailers or to set up Justice League. If the plot is weak, if the message is not clear or even absent, if (as we see in a moment) the characters are badly presented, then the risk to be a big commercial spot for a movie coming out the next year is concrete. Nowadays it is a trending habit to send the viewer somewhere else outside of the movie. I think they want to ride the success of the TV Shows' golden age we are living in. Maybe the evolution of the cinematographic techniques is to get closer and closer to what a TV series is. I still think that the difference should be very well defined or, if not, should go in the other way. For example, Stranger Things is great because it is very close to being an 8 hours movie. Since we already had a set-up movie with Batman v Superman a few months ago, every anticipation looks redundant and too much a commercial move. 

All that being said, at the Flash' cameo I jumped on my seat. Because the Flash is cool.

It falls short in the building up of the characters. I am well aware that the characters are the strong suit of Suicide Squad, in the other review I glorify Harley Quinn and friends. What I didn't like was the structure of the movie in presenting them. We spent too much time listening to someone talking about the main characters rather than seeing them. I know that all of them were never presented on screen, but this is a poor and lazy choice. For example, in Guardian of the Galaxy, we had a bunch of new characters and they presented them to us by making them do something useful for the plot. The first thirty minutes were essentially a list of names, telling us characteristic that not always were then developed. Like the difficulty of working with other of Captain Boomerang is addressed once in the bar scene (when he leaves) and resolved in the next one without any evolution or reason. I'm sorry but characterizing someone almost exclusively with flashbacks and not giving any development to the character is just poor, lazy writing. 

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the movie is holding up only because of the amazing performances of some actors (and the amazing soundtrack), that is something that fans love, but critics usually don't.

Or it can simply be that the hype for the movie was too high to be fulfilled. In any case, I found fascinating how the public is divided on this particular topic, so please share with me your thoughts in the comment section.