Sucker Punch: worst movie of the year, or just not the movie you signed up for?

[Cracker Funk]

And, RayW is right: the only time the movie is in reality is the VERY beginning. None of the movie has to do with reality after that, and in the end it's still fake. Absolutely NO stakes at all, or risk, to any of it.

Why do you say that? I see no indication of it, at all.

Snyder himself says it's sort of a commentary on audience expectation and gratification, about how they want the basic titillation that comes with seeing an attractive girl in skimpy clothing, but often have no real concern for why they act or dress in the way they do.



My problem with the movie is that he tries to have it both ways. He both wants to chastise the audience for appeasing our base instincts but offers us the opportunity to do so on a silver platter. Thus, the whole movie comes across as a mixed up mess.

EDIT: For comparison, take Funny Games. Just exchange sexuality with violence and they have basically the same theme, but Funny Games is pretty good at making you feel revolted at what's happening, whereas Sucker Punch pulls its punches, so to speak.

I mean, I agree that there are also themes of empowerment there, but the big one to me is sexuality and fetishism.

Hmm. Well, that is interesting that Snyder openly stated those intended metaphors. I think that if that was his intent, he failed, miserably. Because in the film, I see nothing that points in that direction. Is there something you see, that I missed? (honest question) Other than what he stated in the interview, what indication do we have that this film is a commentary on audience expectations and fetishism?

Now, "Funny Games", that's a whole other story. Yeah, what we were watching was revolting, but it was made exceedingly clear that the movie is about audience expectations and a condemnation of violence in film, because

Spoiler

they broke the 4th wall, and spoke directly to us!

That's a pretty big difference. If it weren't for the scenes in which

Spoiler

they break the 4th wall

, "Funny Games" would be just another in a long line of exploitative, overly-violent schlock-fests.

But "Sucker Punch" doesn't have anything like that. Nothing that I see, anyway, Nothing that is supposed to key us in to this grand commentary about fetishism and audience expectation. So, honestly, what are you seeing (specifically), that I'm not?

 

[rayw]

Why do you say that? I see no indication of it, at all.

Re

And, RayW is right: the only time the movie is in reality is the VERY beginning. None of the movie has to do with reality after that, and in the end it's still fake. Absolutely NO stakes at all, or risk, to any of it.

You remember the opening voice over in FALLEN?
The audience is kind of lead to believe it's Denzel Washington's character talking about the time he almost died, but by movie's end it turns out it was the evil spirit talking about the time HE almost died.
It wasn't DW's character at all.
It was all just a big haha misdirection/deception.

Same thing here.

We're lead to believe the opening voice over about angels being not who we think they are and blah blah blah is Babydoll, but at the movie's end it turns out that it was really Sweetpea's voice over all along and that Babydoll was her angel.

The wise man on the bus was yet another halucination of Sweetpea's ongoing psychosis, only this time it was first-person deep rather than three layers deep through the projectioned mind of Babydoll.

Think INCEPTION's dream within dreams. Here's its psychosis within psychosis.

Now, the part that kinda annoys me is that because this is all in "mental health land" it it's certainly plausable that if there ever was a reality involved Sweetpea never meets it in this story.
For all I know this whole elaborate "escape" could be, and likely is as evidenced by the wise man driving the bus, yet another hallucination.

The real "Sweetpea" is probably some middle aged post-partum schizophrenic still zonked out on thorazine safe inside her institutional room in four point restraints.

This is not Babydoll's story.
This is Sweetpea's story.
The voice over is Sweetpea narrating her "unlikely angel" goobledy gok.

 

[sonnyboo]

The strange thing to me? That someone thought this was aimed toward the same demographic that plays online games, and in two interviews we were TOLD this is for that demo.

That's because the plot was more akin to a video game than a movie. There were "levels" and even a sage who tells the players.... I mean characters.... what to do on each level. Each level ends with a boss. Sounds more like a game than a feature film.

 

[Kholi]

That's because the plot was more akin to a video game than a movie. There were "levels" and even a sage who tells the players.... I mean characters.... what to do on each level. Each level ends with a boss. Sounds more like a game than a feature film.

Right. I did notice that, a lot of the material I had seen before in popular games. Wasn't soooooo much referring to the likeness of a video game.

What I mean is that they have no idea what the gaming demo wants to see. Unless it's a straight up game adaptation, we don't want this. Scott Pilgrim is a pretty exemplary product but was marketed all wrong, and Silent Hill is a fairly close and acceptable game adaptation.

If Uncharted is done right it'll be a good show of how to attract the multi million dollar gamer demo.

Sucker Punch was just not it.

 

[Kholi]

Why do you say that? I see no indication of it, at all.

Read what Ray posted below. It's dead on. I got it from the mise en scene during the insane asylum setup. Ray picked it up from the dialogue.

Either way, it was not about babydoll, it was sweet pea the entire time.

 

[NickClapper]

We're arguing about this films like the 'depths' and 'levels' are anything other than a cynical marketing ploy. I don't think anyone involved with the project ever wanted this to be seen as a movie about feminist liberation, I just think that because it was such a terrible, terrible action movie, people are searching for depths that aren't there.

And the fact that, right at the end, they say the movie is about Sweet Pea means nothing. The whole movie is about Baby Doll and she is the clear protagonist. Just because some voiceover tells me that Sweet Pea is the protagonist means nothing. It was not a clever twist, in the Sixth Sense way, it was just more nonsense from the global purveyor of nonsense aka Mr Z Snyder.

 

[Kholi]

And the fact that, right at the end, they say the movie is about Sweet Pea means nothing. The whole movie is about Baby Doll and she is the clear protagonist. Just because some voiceover tells me that Sweet Pea is the protagonist means nothing. It was not a clever twist, in the Sixth Sense way, it was just more nonsense from the global purveyor of nonsense aka Mr Z Snyder.

The movie was told, the entire time, from the perspective of someone else... which was Sweet Pea's...

Everything that Baby Doll did was Sweet Pea trying to break her sister out of the place in real time, but they never go BACK to the asylum to show that.

I don't think anyone's arguing, as far as I can tell it's a conversation? I guess I missed the subtext though! hahaha xD

 

[Nate North]

I will say this, it was a surprise when Zack fell flat on his face, he's done some great, and completely coherent work in the past.

 

[NickClapper]

The movie was told, the entire time, from the perspective of someone else... which was Sweet Pea's...

Everything that Baby Doll did was Sweet Pea trying to break her sister out of the place in real time, but they never go BACK to the asylum to show that.

Whatever. If that did happen I didn't see it. To me it was just shitty action set piece after shitty action set piece. To my eyes it seemed like Emily Browning was our protagonist and it was just being told from the perspective of a school boy with a boner and video camera. Who knows?

I don't think anyone's arguing, as far as I can tell it's a conversation? I guess I missed the subtext though! hahaha xD

I mean: Why are we having a serious, cinematic conversation about intention, design and story concerning such an undisputed crock of shite?

There must be a contentious film which has *some* artistic merits that we can talk about instead.

 

[NickClapper]

I will say this, it was a surprise when Zack fell flat on his face, he's done some great, and completely coherent work in the past.

 

[Kholi]

Whatever. If that did happen I didn't see it. To me it was just shitty action set piece after shitty action set piece. To my eyes it seemed like Emily Browning was our protagonist and it was just being told from the perspective of a school boy with a boner and video camera. Who knows?

Well, if you didn't see it that's fine. It's not to say that it did not happen. There were, throughout the entire movie, several details that indicated who was telling the story and what was going on. People really died, but it wasn't Baby Doll doing the killing, it was Sweet Pea right before they did the lobotomy.

I mean: Why are we having a serious, cinematic conversation about intention, design and story concerning such an undisputed crock of shite?

There must be a contentious film which has *some* artistic merits that we can talk about instead.

Hahaha. I guess because it's something to talk about? Other than cameras versus story? Or what have you. And, alot of us agree that it's a bad movie with a huge budget and maybe want to see/learn WHY that happened?

Of course, if you don't want to talk about it then maybe... don't? xD I dunno how else to put it?

 

[Kholi]

I will say this, it was a surprise when Zack fell flat on his face, he's done some great, and completely coherent work in the past.

He's writer/director on this, so that pretty much explains it. Yikes~

 

[NickClapper]

Hahaha. I guess because it's something to talk about? Other than cameras versus story? Or what have you. And, alot of us agree that it's a bad movie with a huge budget and maybe want to see/learn WHY that happened?

Of course, if you don't want to talk about it then maybe... don't? xD I dunno how else to put it?

I have no problem discussing it, I just wish the discussion would go something like: 'Nick, your views about Sucker Punch are exactly and undisputedly right. Let me add your website to my bookmarks.'



PS: Zach Snyder has never made a good film.

 

[Kholi]

I have no problem discussing it, I just wish the discussion would go something like: 'Nick, your views about Sucker Punch are exactly and undisputedly right. Let me add your website to my bookmarks.'



PS: Zach Snyder has never made a good film.

LoL. Well, you aren't wrong. Everyone (just about) agrees with you or said it in a different way.

I liked Watchmen and I enjoyed 300, as well. Which, in part, motivated me to go and see a movie that I already knew looked bad from the previews/trailer. Of course, I also like Pepsi (cherry) and most people like Coke, so. xD

 

[Nate North]

Oh I see, this is because you think the 300 was a gay porn film right? You mention it quite a bit.
I'm completely hetero, and loved the 300. If seeing strong men fighting is making you think gay thoughts, I'm not so sure that's the film's fault. Never happened to me. By that standard of critique, Rocky is a gay film.

Watchmen could have used better pacing, but it was a faithful adaptation of an underground classic, so I think he gets some leeway there.

Before anyone misinterprets this is some kind of homophobic rant, it's not, I just tire of people slamming on the 300 for this contrived reason. It was really the best of it's genre, and a masterpiece among digital backlot cinema.

 

[NickClapper]

Oh I see, this is because you think the 300 was a gay porn film right? You mention it quite a bit.
I'm completely hetero, and loved the 300. If seeing strong men fighting is making you think gay thoughts, I'm not so sure that's the film's fault. Never happened to me. By that standard of critique, Rocky is a gay film.

Watchmen could have used better pacing, but it was a faithful adaptation of an underground classic, so I think he gets some leeway there.

Before anyone misinterprets this is some kind of homophobic rant, it's not, I just tire of people slamming on the 300 for this contrived reason. It was really the best of it's genre, and a masterpiece among digital backlot cinema.

I'm not going to take this as a homophobic rant.

I've never said that 300 is a 'gay porn' film because clearly it isn't. What it does seek to do is stir up homoerotic feelings, yes, in the same way that Rocky did.

That's not my problem with it (although it still doesn't appeal to me in that way) but the film is a useless piece of visual effects with totally hollow characters, no character development ('Agghh! My friend is killed ergo I am angry') and basically loads of people hitting each other with swords. That doesn't appeal to me at all.

I will accept a certain amount of leeway with 300 and Watchmen because I feel that some people might enjoy them under certain circumstances. But I do not accept this with Sucker Punch. Sucker Punch is unredeemable.

 

[Nate North]

I will accept a certain amount of leeway with 300 and Watchmen because I feel that some people might enjoy them under certain circumstances. But I do not accept this with Sucker Punch. Sucker Punch is unredeemable.

On that, we totally agree.

 

[rayw]

My gaydar must be broken.
I didn't pick up on any homo-nothing in 300.

I saw a pasty skinny girl twitch and swirl, and Lena Headly's headlights, and a disfigured monster or two or three, and all the spray paint abs were busy slashing and stabbing CGI blood spatter all about.

Maybe I'm not up to speed on the current gay scene, butt I'm pretty sure it's not blood the bears are squirting all over their twinkies.

 

[NickClapper]

I don't want to stoke the fire but I just thought I'd google it to see if anyone agreed with me and there are some funny articles (don't take any of this the wrong way):

300: Come on, let’s just admit that 300 isn’t that far removed from “The Smurfs.” Instead of 101 blue, cheery men living in Smurf Village, Zack Snyder’s film is 300 sweaty, glistening men with no shirts stabbing one another with their pointy phallic symbols. Everyone was ripped, no one wore shirts, and you could’ve dubbed the audio from a gay porn over the battle scenes and you’d never have known the difference. All that dick-swinging and faux machismo! And where the hell did they find Xerxes — it looks like they pulled him straight of a club called either Ramrod or Manhole. I’m surprised a gay bar called Thermopylae hasn’t opened up anywhere since the release of the movie. 300 not only festered with homoerotic subtext, it was probably the most popular movie among gay men in 2007. Where else could you find that many half-naked men writhing against each other on a big screen?

http://www.wired.com/table_of_malcontents/2007/03/10_reasons_why_/
http://stuffparty.net/post/1388600105/damn-straight-300-is-more-homoerotic-though

And someone who seems to have totally copied me: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=2255988&page=3

 

[JoshL]

I think Cracker and I mostly agree on the movie, but coming to different conclusions. Again, that being a personal taste thing. And I do agree with a lot of the "it's not a good movie" points, though, again, I personally enjoyed it. I understand why a lot of people didn't. I didn't, however, understand the vehement reaction that it seems to be getting. It seems like it should be a "if you didn't like it, walk away" sort of movie, but for a lot of people, it isn't.

I am a big geek. No question there; been a gamer nearly my whole life and have a Legend of Zelda tattoo. The following definitely applies to me:

Wombat, that quote you pulled up brings the discussion back to my thoughts on reading rayw's original review on the review thread. The action is, throughout the movie, vaguely uncomfortable because we can remember what's going on outside the game/fantasy sequences. As Snyder said "the men in the dark are basically me"...it's not without self awareness. He's saying that he wanted to make an extreme fantasy action film (because as a sci-fi geek he, and I, love that sort of thing). But he also wanted to be aware, and with the ham-fisted metaphor what "exploitation" really means.

That message is definitely for the fantasy/gamer crowd (of which, both Snyder and I are definitely part of). And I do think that is part of why people are reacting to the film as strongly as they are. It's saying "hey, do you enjoy this stuff? I do too. But let's be aware of the unfortunate implications that lie behind this sometimes". It is a message for that demographic, from that demographic. But it's not a comfortable message or one we would necessarily like hearing. It could have been clearer about that, but if it had, or been marketed more clearly, it wouldn't have been a "sucker punch" for the audience, so I have to think that was part of the intent.

Again, part of my enjoyment of this film has been thinking about it. Nick, you definitely didn't like it, but I do think there are things to think about it it. And that is of course, fine, so I will say that "Nick, your views about Sucker Punch are exactly and undisputedly right FOR YOU" And I already go to your site a lot, so I'm covered there I agree that if you are looking for homoeroticism, you can probably find your fix in 300, but I don't think that's the entire point.

I like thinking about movies. If a movie inspires me to think about it, I consider it a good film. Again, I'm not saying that this is Inland Empire or anything, but it DID give me things to think about. So on one hand, it is flawed in not being clearer about the messages that it had. On the other hand, being vague made me think about what I'm watching, rather than spelling everything out for me, which I appreciate. I am unsure as to which approach is, if either are, "better". Again, no wrong opinions!