So... Sucker Punch...

[epocalypse]

Sucks. But not for the reasons you probably think it does. Simply put, it sucks because of a (HERE BE SPOILERS:) narrative failure in the third act. What is that failure, you ask? The main characters lose. 3 of the core team of 5 die quickly in a way which is so unearned but so bluntly telegraphed that you'll be saying to yourself "c'mon, he can't possibly be that stupid and trite" but oh no, he is. This is not even mentioning the fact that it is completely unclear if the characters do die, since they are only seen to die in the first level of fantasy, and never mentioned outside of it. Then, the main protagonist is lobotomized, and the least likable character of the core group escapes and is declared "super secret stealth protagonist" for no good reason. Then, get this, the villains do get comeuppance, but pretty much due to flukes and coincidences which if they had happened MOMENTS BEFORE would have saved the main character's mind. Essentially dashing what should have been a message of "redemption and freedom can be found in the fantasies of the mind", which I believe was Zach Snyder's intention, he instead leaves a cluttered, uncertain message that fantasy is the last vestige of the weak. These could have been strong, fun, female characters (which most of them are until they're suddenly destroyed) but instead, there seen as diluted and childish. (this partially has to do with the one flaw which occurs through out the movie, which is that the supposed real world is featured so little and in such a tertiary way that the film seems almost entirely ungrounded, making us not so much unsure of what was real and what wasn't in any interesting way, but instead not giving us enough concrete matter to know if we should care at all, and the one character we do have enough confirmed data to get attached to get's lobotomized. Zach, if you read this, man, I don't think you're bad as people say you are, but STOP FUCKING KILLING EVERYONE WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EARNED IT.

The ending sucks of what was otherwise a fun though flawed and visually intriguing film (really, if we're being frank, Snyder is more the Wachowski Brothers/Siblings by way of Baz Luhrmann then he is another mindless actioner ala Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich, but, and this is going two for two for me, he has a penchant to ruin his endings. He knows plenty about visual storytelling, but just plain storytelling is his weakness.

[Matt]

This is not directed at you, just the world at large:

I will be seeing this tomorrow. Reviews went up today. I'm already tired of people telling me I'm going to hate it.

At this point I want to see it to get it over with.

The amoubnt of vitriol being spewed at it by even nerdy film reviewers and film-viewers (moviebob notwithstanding) has me thinking it's either being panned because it legitimately sucks, or (given that people seem to be largely incapable of panning it without panning scott pilgrim and watchmen in the same breath) they're panning it because they're idiots. And the way it's being responded to in general has me leaning toward the latter.

I haven't read your spoilered out part yet, and I'll be reviewing it in my thread when I see it, but yeah. I find it really hard to believe that this film could evoke the kind of venom it is on the balance of it's merits (or lack thereof) alone.

-m

[Master Gunner]

So what I get from the spoilers epoc, is that you don't like the film because it...sucker punched you?

[Vanguard]

I literally just got back from seeing the movie. Sure, it was a "fun" movie, and damn did it look good, but I think I'm going to have to stop and think about what my opinion on the story is. There are just so many odd things...

Alright, screw it. Spoilers be here: What the hell happened to Blondie and Amber, or for that matter Rocket? Are they dead in the real world or not? I mean Gorski mentions things like the fire and Sweet Pea escaping as parallels to the fantasy, but nothing about the other girls. Are they dead? Alive? In lockup, just fine? What?!

Speaking of the girls, exactly how involved were they in Babydool's fantasies? Sure, the "main" one was clearly the real world with a bit of burlesque shine glossed over it, but what about the trenches, the castle, the train? Were they "part" of that, were they sharing the fantasy, or was it just Babydoll's brain processing the information in another way? And while we're at it, what the deal with that Old Man? He's real?!

What the hell is going on? Why is it so convoluted? I don't get it. Why am I even here? God dammit!!

*ahem* Perhaps I just don't "get it" and I wasn't reading as deeply into it as, say, Moviebob did. Still, this is a damn good movie. The visual style is downright striking and I'm already making plans to blatantly rip it off, the acting is great (yes, even Vanessa Hudgens), the soundtrack is amazing and brought us a cover of one of my favorite songs by The Pixies ever written, and aside from a few things in the plot that I'm yet to grasp the story was fairly solid.

Meh, I decided when the credits started to roll that this is one of those movies that you have to watch more than once for everything to click, so take my insane ramblings with a dumpster truck full of salt. Odds are that I simply missed a thing or two. After all, when you have attractive ladies in lingerie killing things with guns a thing or two tends to slip under the radar.

~V

[epocalypse]

Gunner, that'd be true if I didn't SEE IT COMING IN THE FIRST TEN MINUTES. My problem is that, to truly have sucker punched, he would have had to defy my expectations for Snyder (go in for this big visual tapestry, set me up for the let down, and then pow, hit me with an actual twist that brings our characters to meaningful and earned growth) instead, I saw a let down coming, went to block it, blocked it, and then was like "really, you bring me out for this? To do the same thing you did all those other times? And then you don't even give me good motiongraphics in the credits, the one thing I thought I could always rely on you for?" I let myself believe for a second that Zack might have grown a bit, but instead he did the same thing that's been bumming me out about his work since Watchmen, screwed up the ending. It's like someone gave me candy with a bitter garlic center. The whole reason I dislike the film is that I liked the first two thirds of it quite a bit, just enough to sort of get my hopes up, and then, bang, weak ass ending.

[Master Gunner]

...That is exactly what I meant by sucker punch. You let yourself believe, for a second, that Zack might have grown up a bit. The first two thirds of it were enjoyable enough to start to get your hopes up, and BAM, weak-ass ending. I have not seen the movie yet, but it all seems rather appropriate to me.

[epocalypse]

This is not directed at you, just the world at large:

I will be seeing this tomorrow. Reviews went up today. I'm already tired of people telling me I'm going to hate it.

At this point I want to see it to get it over with.

The amoubnt of vitriol being spewed at it by even nerdy film reviewers and film-viewers (moviebob notwithstanding) has me thinking it's either being panned because it legitimately sucks, or (given that people seem to be largely incapable of panning it without panning scott pilgrim and watchmen in the same breath) they're panning it because they're idiots. And the way it's being responded to in general has me leaning toward the latter.

I haven't read your spoilered out part yet, and I'll be reviewing it in my thread when I see it, but yeah. I find it really hard to believe that this film could evoke the kind of venom it is on the balance of it's merits (or lack thereof) alone.

-m

Matt, I respect that you're not directing this at me, but, and just let me say this, I think the film is worth seeing at least once. You also may already know, I loved Scott Pilgrim (though I do think it is mildly flawed, not quite reaching it's full potential) and as you might not know, had a very similar reaction to Watchmen that I did to this (thought it was an amirable attempt, but that the ending ruined it for me and soured the experience, though for different reasons). I don't think the film is horrible, in fact, that wouldn't have been as bad. I think that it's a movie which loses itself in the third act, and, because of that, was really disappointed at the end. For me, this film is like if you were making Scott Pilgrim, and then at the end tried to suddenly show that it was all fantasy inside scott's head, or had him end up with Knives, or hell, actually had Gideon kill him. The ending wasn't earned. Please, do see it, and hit me back with your opinion (I find many of the reviews of it unfair, though as to Bob, I see this as just another film where I disagree with him on one major issue). I think that if Snyder can escape his penchant for ending movies like this, he has a chance of actually becoming something like Terry Gilliam in his work, but he needs to learn how to satisfyingly earn his endings.

...That is exactly what I meant by sucker punch. You let yourself believe, for a second, that Zack might have grown up a bit. The first two thirds of it were enjoyable enough to start to get your hopes up, and BAM, weak-ass ending. I have not seen the movie yet, but it all seems rather appropriate to me.

Perhaps a sucker punch of dissapointment (though that's getting a bit recursive), but still, it's a battle he lost, because he was trying to surprise me, and he didn't. He could have earned a similar ending to this, hell, even surprised me with it, but that's not what he did, instead, he got me just on his side enough to give him a chance, but not enough to let my guard down.

[Jillers]

I just don't think Snyder is a good director. I think he's a great art director, but art direction and directing actors and story are different things entirely.

I just feel that Snyder looses any story he wants to tell because he gets too involved in the visual style

IMO. YMMV

[xdeathknightx]

From what I am reading I basically called the ending months ago

[Alja-Markir]

Personally, I'm not going to see it.

Putting aside the reviews, the critical analysis, and all that, I personally just don't care for gratuitous violence, gratuitous sex appeal, and gratuitous obvious CGI and film fakery all in one film. At least not when the film takes itself so seriously.

A friend of mine pointed out that I wasn't as negative about Machete, which arguably is gratuitously violent, gratuitously sexual, and could be said to be full of obvious film fakery (although I think it's not nearly on the same level). My response is that the style and tone of Machete are completely different beasts. Machete doesn't take itself seriously - rather, it goes to great lengths to be hilariously over the top. Given that it was originally a gag trailer for a non-existant movie to begin with, this isn't surprising.

But everything I've seen so far about Sucker Punch has been worrying.

Now, I haven't seen the film. Maybe it's very intelligent. But it's marketing campaign isn't. The key selling point of the film is "badass edgy troubled teenage pin-up girls in violent, gritty, alternate reality fantasy world!", without a shred of self-awareness or facetiousness. They seem to be trying too hard to make this appeal to a very certain demographic, and they're entirely too serious in their presentation of the film.

Why is Machete funny and enjoyable? Because it is aware of its own ridiculousness. It is lampooning an actual genre of film which most people immediately recognize as terrible: old school exploitation films. The original films being made fun off were just awful - threadbare plots, senseless violence, absurd sexualization, and utterly serious presentations. These films actually thought they were good. Machete knows better. It knows it's a completely absurd concept to begin with - so then it ramps it up way over the top and makes fun of itself constantly. And in doing so, it becomes oddly meaningful. It pokes fun at itself, which in turn allows it to poke fun at everything else without feeling imbalanced.

Sucker Punch doesn't sound like it does that at all. It seems to take itself entirely seriously, but without the benefit of critical self analysis. It's like a stalker who thinks they're simply being romantic. They don't see their flaws as flaws, but rather as boons. After all, how many potential lovers would go to such great lengths to show their affections? How many other people stay up at night thinking about you, watching over you, cherishing you, obsessing over you? Who else would bare their heart in raw, emotional poems, expressing their unquenchable thirst for your flesh and your soul?

Sucker Punch just appears to be trying way too hard. It's like a little girl dressing up in an outlandish outfit, but not for fun or because she likes the look - no, she's desperate for attention. She needs you to notice her. And when you don't, she tries even harder. She begins dressing sluttier and sluttier, starts swearing and being violent, and after a while takes up theatrics and drama all just to shock people and win attention, any attention at all, just someone for the love of god pay attention to me!

~Alja~

[Alja-Markir]

Addendum

I just went and watched Movie Bob's video... and he point out something I agree with wholeheartedly. Sucker Punch is burlesque. Now, I personally don't particularly care for burlesque, but at least most burlesque is meant to be humorous. Sucker Punch is just meant to be provocative.

And that's it. No deeper message, no greater purpose, it just wants to shock and provoke. Bob says that Sucker Punch is about dreams, and that might be true, but what's the goddamn point?

You want a great film about dreams? Here's one of the best.



Paprika deals entirely with dreams, but it concerns itself with their effects on us and our effects on them - with both the dangers and the benefits of dreams and fantasy. Moreover, the story isn't just a dream - the action and drama aren't just fantasies in the heads of the main characters.

No, in Paprika the dreams are actually merging with reality. It's not that the characters are unable to differentiate dream and reality, it is that the two are literally becoming one at times. And the effects of the dreaming are profound and tangible - characters grow as people, they develop and change, confront their own demons, and ultimately reflect upon themselves in way that allows us to reflect upon ourselves. We can identify with these people, and we can see ourselves in their feelings and their actions and their struggles.

What does Sucker Punch offer? According to Bob, a bunch of princesses locked away in a tower by their wicked stepmother, dreaming about fantasy to escape reality. What is the viewer supposed to take away from that? How are we supposed to identify with these utterly unbelievable and cliche characters? What deeper meaning does the film offer us other than "Hey, dreams are weird and we use them to escape from unpleasant realities, amirite?"

Bob also talks about Snyder's supposed skill as a film-maker, his playing around with things behind the scenes, and his cinematography and the like. I call bullshit.

Paprika blows him out of the goddamn water without any competition. You want an amazing experience that will satisfy your inner film nerd? Paprika pushes the envelope right from the start, and then keeps pushing it the entire goddamn way to the finish. The artwork is gorgeous, the "cinematography" of the animation is top notch, the immersion is practically tangible, the characters are vibrantly written and superbly acted, and everything just clicks. Better yet, it's not eggregiously cliche and painfully generic.

~Alja~

[epocalypse]

Alja, while I agree Paprika is fantastic (one of my favorite films, bar none), and, as I said, I thought that Sucker Punch was actually okay until it screwed itself over in the third act, isn't putting it up against Paprika a little bit like using an M-16 to fend off a new born?

[Alja-Markir]

Cinema is an artform. If we want more good films, we need to maintain a set of standards. We need to hold films like Sucker Punch up to the best of films, so we can see just how pathetically mediocre they are.

Because millions and millions of dollars go into making these movies. Because Hollywood forces many of the best and brightest to compete with many of the worst and stupidest for resources and screen time. Because for every uninspired, multimillion dollar extravaganza of mediocrity, we could instead be funding dozens or hundreds of independent films. Because when we settle for mediocrity and utterly ignore excellence, what reason will people have for striving to go above and beyond?

~Alja~

[Matt]

Sucker punch didn't suck.

It was imperfect, for sure, but it didn't suck.

Also: clockwork steam-powered zombie nazis.

that is all.

-m

fwiw: epoc is totally bang on in his assessment (the spoilered out part), though I'm less inclined to call the ending a total narrative failure, so much as a misstep. But our group differed wildly on the extent to which we were ok with the films resolution, and how we understood it.

[epocalypse]

Thanks Matt! And Alja: two things: first, you don't need to tell me cinema is an art form. I have sPent the better part of the last decade devoting myself to learning the craft and skills of narrative art forms, film, both live action and animation, chief among them (as well as prose and graphic novels) and have no greater aspiration than to become a master transmedia narrative artist, and with more and more opportunity and ability to create appearing every day, it is becoming, I have absolute faith in the quality story and art to find it's life in longevity.

Second my point isn't so much that you need to go easy on Sucker Punch via not putting it against Paprika, but that you are being unfair to the former, a film you haven't seen, mind you, and from which you are basing most of your views on from, I believe, a source apt to misinterpretation and over simplification (sorry bob, I just don't agree with you on much). We can better admonish the film by looking at what it does right and wrong, for its pit falls are worse in the face of the fact that most of the film leading up to them was better than I was expecting. I'd say that film most reminded me of Terry Gilliam and Baz Luhrmann, not directors who come to mind when a work is visually bland or unoriginal. However, much like and perhaps even more so than these men, Snyder gets lost in his visual nirvana. The reason he disappoints me is not because he's a useless fuck like Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich, but because I can't shake the feeling that he is a better filmmaker than he is allowing himself to be. Perhaps all he needs is a good story editor, or maybe he is truly fit to be only a visual coordinator, but what disappoints me is that i see something of worth being wasted in Snyder's films. Part of the reason that I was curious for sucker punch was that it was his first straight to screen film; but all he was able to prove is that he is still unable to escape the formula of the heroic tragedy, and that it still happens to be the story he is least fit to tell.

I agree with you, mediocrity should be ignored and belittled, but a film whic was, flawed and as outright failed as it may be, an original and impassioned attempt to tell a personal story, should not be given such brazen criticism based on hearsay. And you do not need to use one of the greatest films of all time, the magnum opus of great master, as a blunt instrument to take this film to do it. It lessens the work and draws false parallels. You want to smash this film into the ground properly? Go and see it on netflix and then compare and contrast it to Brazil, a film in which it shares far more pedigree. Sucker Punch is not about dreams in the way Inception or Paprika is, it's about fantasy, and escapism. That is where it stakes it's claim, and eventually, where it falls apart.

I don't believe in rewardiv mediocrity, Alja, I believe in constructive criticism.

[CommanderKeen]

I enjoyed it. I enjoyed that despite the various costumes, none of them were really all that gratuitous but none were worse then the typical cheerleader outfit that you would see on Glee or what have you. It's an almost Buffy-esque portrayal of strong women playing leads.


Spoilers!I'm surprised no one has brought One flew over the cuckoo's nest in yet. Basically serial criminal is brought in as the lead and makes friends with those in the ward. End of story, he gets lobotomized in order to allow for a good person(the chief) to leave the asylum. Sweet Pea is the chief, and throughout the film there are various allusions to that. Rocket going on how it's her fault that Sweet Pea was there and that Sweet Pea had no real issues. I certainly think that could have tightened up and got lost in the general escape plan but it was there.

More Spoilers.
I enjoyed that there was much more of the Asylum/Burlesque club then suggested by the trailer. It's a convoluted story in that we start with Babydoll being the protagonist and then it's Sweet Pea, but I can live with that.

As for was it just babydoll doing her dance, or all five of them? I think it was all five and it was a somehow magical imagination=reality thing, mainly because they do all show up in the asylum early in the film and seem to be imagining the burlesque club with the others Do I care that wasn't explained? No. Should I? No. Also, what lends to this theory is that Sweet Pea recognizes the bus driver, and the bus driver helps her out.


TL;DR I enjoyed it.

[LogicSword]

I went to see it today (because for some reason it takes a whole week for England to get films after America. Because of, you know, the language barrier) and I thought it was fantastic. Not the best film I've ever seen, but certainly not the worst by a long chalk. Definitely getting the Blu-Ray.

Also, the opening is amazing. I think it's probably my favourite film opening.

[Matt]

Also, what lends to this theory is that Sweet Pea recognizes the bus driver, and the bus driver helps her out.

See, I read that scene to be entirely in babydoll's mind, and part of the burlesque level of her imagination. We'd never find out what happened to sweet pea in the real world, and neither would babydoll. In fact, we're never even introduced to sweetpea in the real world. We know literally nothing about her. The real sweetpea could easily have been an actual mental patient that is running loose. The only connection we have to the character is through the imaginary word.

Besides, at that point in the film all babydoll would have left were imagingings - her personality having been totally destroyed. This interpretation also seems to fit better with the film's message of escapism. As a story about empowerment it's all over the place - as a story about escapism fantasy, it's actually quite well constructed (and a little bit subversive).

-m

[Matt]

Also, the opening is amazing. I think it's probably my favourite film opening.

Watchmen.

That is all.

-m

[Jillers]

Just putting this put there:

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag/sucker-punch/

[Drinnik]

I really, really enjoyed it. SPOILERS: I can see why Movie Bob compared it to Brazil. It took me a while to get into it and I didn't 100% buy into the shared Burlesque delusion, but other than that, I think it worked quite well.

The action sequences were well imgained (if you'll excuse the pun), and it wasn't too conveluted or confusing. But with a title like Sucker Punch, how did people expect everything to go off without a hitch?

Best description of the film I've read is from TV Tropes; It's Alice in Wonderland via Chicago.

[iamevilchris]

Best description of the film I've read is from TV Tropes; It's Alice in Wonderland via Chicago.

i think this is the best possible description.

edit: it's a comic. no spoilers.

[Xtasisanu]

I didn't go see Sucker Punch for an amazing storyline, because these days to see a movie with a storyline that is going to be original or amazing is sort of letting yourself down, but I enjoyed it for what He does, action and nerd pandering. Otherwise if I wanted a movie that was going to make me think I would lean more toward Christopher Nolen. /shrug

[korri]

I just saw Sucker Punch today, and I have to admit, I was pretty confused. Were we supposed to know that the burlesque thing was part of her imagination the whole time? I was really confused as to why a mental hospital was hosting shows and whatnot, and where the guy's mustach went....

Otherwise, I thought it was decent.

[Xtasisanu]

The Burlesque brothel was her imagination, and her fighting everything and destroying shit was her imagining what she was doing when she was "dancing" over all nothing was "real" except for her attacking the guy with the mustache (aka trying to rape her in real life) and setting the closet on fire. In the end she was completely bonkers.