Sucker Punch

[Barbarian MD]

So... Is anyone else as excited as I am about this movie?

[Dr.Epic]

This movie looks like Tank Girl meets Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.

It could be good.

[Callos_DeTerran]

So... Is anyone else as excited as I am about this movie?

Yes. Yes I am. I even plan to go see it on Friday when it comes out. In theaters...I don't do that often. xD

[Physics_Rook]

I'm cautious about. Mainly because I'm not sure that I trust this to be anything other than so terrible it's great, and in that regard, I'll still probably go and see it.

Who knows though, I've been wrong about some movies before, but in general I trust when my movie sense tingles.

To give my opinion a little more context, it might help to know that there is no one who can convince that either of the last two Hulk movies were anything but atrocities against mankind. I also enjoyed the second Iron Man, but not nearly as much as I enjoyed the first.

Sucker Punch does look interesting, but only if the trailers have really lied (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeverTrustATrailer) to me.

[Lord_Gareth]

I want to see this so bad that the anticipation is causing me physical pain.

[The Rose Dragon]

If Sucker Punch doesn't turn out to be action-comedy gold, I will kill myself. Other people may die also. I'm playing this by the ear.

[Lord_Gareth]

If Sucker Punch doesn't turn out to be action-comedy gold, I will kill myself. Other people may die also. I'm playing this by the ear.

I vote that you instead kill the creators of 2012: Doomsday, thus bringing justice to Earth.

[Muz]

I've seen the ads, but...what is it? (Can someone explain in a manner that doesn't include a hyperlink? :smallwink:)

[Barbarian MD]

Girl committed to an insane asylum. The crazies embark on through Wonderland in order to escape.

[Keld Denar]

I'm actually going to see this tomorrow in a sneak preview screening for critics. I'll give you guys the thumbs up/down afterwards if you'd like.

[Dvandemon]

This movie looks like Tank Girl meets Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.

It could be good.
It is described as AiW with guns so...:smallbiggrin:
I've seen the ads, but...what is it? (Can someone explain in a manner that doesn't include a hyperlink? :smallwink:)

Girl is committed to a Bedlam House by her evil stepmama. She must use the assistance of the other crazies in her fantasy world (so she's acting in the real world but using escapism to help) to gain the components to escape. The pieces to freedom are: a map, a fire, a knife, a key and...a mystery. She must complete her quest in five days before she is lobotomized in the real world. It has a WWII fighter plan v. a Dragon and girls with lethal weapons so...I'll definitely see it :smallbiggrin:

@V:Only a truly awful person could ruin such high concept :smallwink:

[toasty]

Girls+Mini Skirts+Fantasy World +Guns + Robot Samurai

This can't go wrong, can it?:smallbiggrin:

[Dr.Epic]

Girls+Mini Skirts+Fantasy World +Guns + Robot Samurai

This can't go wrong, can it?:smallbiggrin:

How could the Star Wars prequels go wrong?

[Warlawk]

It *looks* really nice, but eye candy doesn't make for a good movie.

Considering the history of such movies, any action flick with an all girl "team" pretty much gets strike 1 and 2 right off the bat. I really want it to be a good movie, and it looks like it has some nice potential, but at the same time I'm pretty sure it's just going to be awful.

[Gaius Marius]

The trick is simple:

Expect an awful movie.

Expect an awful movie.

Expect an awful movie.



You heard me right, people?

Expect an awful movie.

[toasty]

How could the Star Wars prequels go wrong?

Ahh, but see the Original Star Wars had several things going for them:
Hyped up as awesome sequels to a great, great, trilogy.
Awesome plot.

THis movie will have neither an awesome plot nor it is being hyped as the greatest sequel to the greatest movie ever. Its going to have a horrible plot, bad, bad, acting, and plenty of cheesy lines.

BUT girls in miniskirts chopping up robot samurai will make it worth it. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Actually, the Star Wars plot was not that good. But it had good themes, good strong themes and good strong stock characters. Plus Lucas got "lucky" and found himself some good, though somewhat unknown, actors like Harrison Ford.

[Dvandemon]

QUESTION FOR YOU GUYS!:

What do you expect from this movie, fantasy-world wise (i.e. what kind of awesome RandEncounters do you expect)?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Me and mah bud are seeing this, no lie!

[Keld Denar]

Taking the light rail up to "teh big city" tonight to go see this! I'll let you guys know how how bad it is!

My expectations are low. I'm not going expecting Shakespeare. I just want to see a bunch of chicks in miniskirts fly fighterjets against dinosaurs and fight pirate cyborgs with katanas that can cut a tank in half (I saw it on youtube). Its gonna be ~90 minutes of eye candy, possibly with an interesting plot twist at the end. If its any more than that, I'll be pleasantly surprised!

[Obrysii]

BUT girls in miniskirts chopping up robot samurai will make it worth it. :smallbiggrin:

So it's basically any d20 modern game?

[toasty]

So it's basically any d20 modern game?

I dunno, never played d20 Modern. :smalltongue:

[rayne_dragon]

I have plans to see this with some friends. It looks amazing in a purely visual context and the plot has the potential to be done in a way that makes it interesting an thoughtful. I think it will be worthwhile for the eye-candy factor alone, but I think it may actually be the kind of movie I like if they handle the plot well.

[toasty]

I have plans to see this with some friends. It looks amazing in a purely visual context and the plot has the potential to be done in a way that makes it interesting an thoughtful. I think it will be worthwhile for the eye-candy factor alone, but I think it may actually be the kind of movie I like if they handle the plot well.

You are going into this movie with the wrong attitude. There will be no plot. There will be no acting. There will only be amazing special effects that do not in any way rape or destroy characters we have grown to love (*Cough* Transformers *cough* GI Joe *cough*)

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

As someone who had never seen the original Transformers or GI Joe, those movies were awesome, especially GI Joe.
Seeing this movie this weekend, fo sho. :smallcool:

[Erts]

With visual effects and CGI getting better and better, is it really that impressive to watch pseudo bondage action porn while girls in miniskirts and katanas kill each other? I'm all for spectacle without plot (which is what this is), but it doesn't seem to be like anything we haven't seen in stereotypical anime yet. Sorry, I just don't think I'll shell out the money to see it.
Dr. Epic summed it up really well, but I don't think it will be my cup of tea.

[toasty]

As someone who had never seen the original Transformers or GI Joe, those movies were awesome, especially GI Joe.
Seeing this movie this weekend, fo sho. :smallcool:

You mock my pain. Cookies for reference

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I looks brilliant. I can't wait to see it. I'm a fan of guns, scantily clad women, and Alice in Wonderland - so I should LOVE it.

[Moff Chumley]

The trailer used two of my favorite songs (When the Levee Breaks by Zeppelin and Panic Switch by Silversun Pickups), but it looked like a game of Exalted. I don't like Exalted. I don't like Exalted with a fiery passion that has consumed half of the staff and many of the regulars at my FLGS.

I will not be seeing this movie and I will be ignoring all positive things anyone has to say about it. :smalltongue:

[Tavar]

Bwah? You don't like Exalted? Why?

Also, the movies not really that similar to Exalted. Unless any movie with heroes facing long odds suddenly means it's exalted.

[Keld Denar]

Ok, so I saw it tonight, and I'm still confused. There are a couple of really twisty twists that...just kinda leave you like, huh? Like, not even things that make sense at the end, like the end of say, 6th Sense. I don't think I've ever left a movie so confused. I definitely want to watch it like, 5 more times just to get a better grip on things.

Visually, it was AMAZING! The 4 major fight scenes were epic. One had robot samurai, one had steam punk nazis, one had orcs, knights, and a dragon, and one had gun toting robots that look kinda like the guys from iRobot, with guns, on a train chase that kinda reminded me of one of the first Unreal Tournament levels. Lots of bullet time slow-motion scenes. It was actually really really clear to follow though, unlike the fight scenes in say, Prince of Persia, which were dark, fluttery, and difficult to tell who was who.

Surprisingly, not a whole lot of T, but a decent amount of A, if that's your thing. All the outfits were HOT, and the missmatched weapons were kinda charming.

Surprisingly enough, I didn't think there was a whole lot in this movie that really stood out as something that stands out. I mean, as random as steam punk nazis and mix/matching a katana (that can cut through tanks, btw) and a 9 mil pistol (not to mention the one chick who duel wields flintlock pistols in close quarters when she can't use her assault rifle) was, nothing really stood out in a way that didn't fit. The characters were still believable, even though they were over the top. The plot was wierd, but still rather solid, in a cliff-hanger kinda way. I mean, I still don't know what exactly was going on, but I don't feel like anything was out of place, if you know what I mean.

I do have to ask though, was this movie inspired by something? Like, a graphic novel or something? I dunno, I just got that impression.

[WhiteHarness]

...a katana (that can cut through tanks, btw)...
Yeah, that's the ultimate deal-breaker for me right there. No thanks; I'll give this one a miss. I've had it up to here with the pop-culture "k3wln3$$" of the katana. I have no interest whatsoever. It's pretty clear that I'm not even remotely close to this film's target demographic...

[Thialfi]

I am expecting something like The Matrix Reloaded. A ludicrous plot that takes itself way too seriously but jammed packed with glorious eye candy.

That would be fine by me. I loved the Matrix Reloaded. I can ignore the silly parts and enjoy the incredible action.

[Lycan 01]

It looks like somebody tried to mix Alice in Wonderland with Warhammer 40,000 or something. The premise sounds interesting, but I'm expecting it to be squirming mass of fail glossed over with special effects and scanty clothing. I'll pass.

[Lord_Gareth]

Yeah, that's the ultimate deal-breaker for me right there. No thanks; I'll give this one a miss. I've had it up to here with the pop-culture "k3wln3$$" of the katana. I have no interest whatsoever. It's pretty clear that I'm not even remotely close to this film's target demographic...

You do know the whole movie is essentially set in her head, right? Expectations of realism (of any kind) are, ah, a little misplaced. Folks, just sit back, relax, and watch stuff blow up. It's been awhile since we've had a redonkulously over-the-top explosion-fest, and I for one intend on enjoying it.

[The Rose Dragon]

You do know the whole movie is essentially set in her head, right? Expectations of realism (of any kind) are, ah, a little misplaced. Folks, just sit back, relax, and watch stuff blow up. It's been awhile since we've had a redonkulously over-the-top explosion-fest, and I for one intend on enjoying it.

The part that annoys me is that the majority of people who dislike the katana hype would not bat an eyelash if it was a Western broadsword instead. Not all of them, mind you, just the majority.

[Lord_Gareth]

The part that annoys me is that the majority of people who dislike the katana hype would not bat an eyelash if it was a Western broadsword instead. Not all of them, mind you, just the majority.

But...what if it was a daiklaive?

[The Rose Dragon]

But...what if it was a daiklaive?

Daiklaves are inherently magical. They don't count.

[toasty]

Yeah, that's the ultimate deal-breaker for me right there. No thanks; I'll give this one a miss. I've had it up to here with the pop-culture "k3wln3$$" of the katana. I have no interest whatsoever. It's pretty clear that I'm not even remotely close to this film's target demographic...

If you take the movie realistically you fail. Its fantasy. Its over the top action fantasy.

Of course, if you don't like that kind of stuff, fine by me. But remember: its not meant to be realistic, and the rule of cool always wins in that situation.

[Gaius Marius]

If you take the movie realistically you fail. Its fantasy. Its over the top action fantasy.

Of course, if you don't like that kind of stuff, fine by me. But remember: its not meant to be realistic, and the rule of cool always wins in that situation.

Actually, it's even funnier. Since it happens in Fantasy (like, in someone's head) you could almost EXPECT the Katana to be supercutting.

[Pentachoron]

I do have to ask though, was this movie inspired by something? Like, a graphic novel or something? I dunno, I just got that impression.

It was not. It's actually Zach Snyder's (Watchmen, 300, Dawn of the Dead, Superman: The Man of Steel) first film that isn't based on a pre-existing work. He has very much, though, honed his style in the realm of adapting graphic novels.

[Shpadoinkle]

It *looks* really nice, but eye candy doesn't make for a good movie.

Considering the history of such movies, any action flick with an all girl "team" pretty much gets strike 1 and 2 right off the bat. I really want it to be a good movie, and it looks like it has some nice potential, but at the same time I'm pretty sure it's just going to be awful.

This pretty much sums up my feelings. The trailer looks pretty cool, but... I'm not expecting it to be anything but an okay action movie.

It's from the same director who did 300 and Watchmen, and those were both pretty good, but this one... The trailer just strikes me as one of those trailers for movies that they expect is going to be the next piece of cinema history, but turns out to only be okay and is totally forgotten in a year or two.

[Axolotl]

I'm looking forward to this quite a lot. Hell it's the only film of 2011 I was really waiting for. Snyder has shown he's a good director but I've not liked his previous films because of the fact they're adaptations, either of works I dislike in themselves (300) or of works that any adaptation is redundant (Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead). I want to see what he does from his own imagination. If he can keep up the level of visual flair and variety from the trailers and combine it with the level of action he's had in previous films then it could be a brilliant film.

[BRC]

I'm still not sure about it. The Trailers make it look very fun indeed, and the whole "Escapist Fantasy" bit gives them license to have kickass action sequences without even the pretension of realism, but I'm worried that it will go too far, that the action sequences will become totally mindless.

My fear is that it will be a somewhat mediocre movie about a girl trying to escape from a mental institution, and every 20 minutes or so they push a button and we get the same actresses playing scantily clad super soldiers, then it jumps back to the mental institution. That they won't really connect the battle scenes with the rest of the film. Lots of flashy combat won't entertain me for more than about 10 minutes if I have no idea what they are fighting for; so Scantily Clad Chick chops a tank in half with a sword, what does that mean? Since the battle scenes are part of an escapist fantasy, the Tank isn't really a Tank, so it has to be something, but what?

In order for the movie to succeed, everything in the "War" world will need to correspond to something in the "Real" world. We will need to be able to clearly connect every piece of action in the War world with an action in the Real World. I need to know what that Tank is, and what really happened when it got chopped in half. We should be able to chart it, Step by Step.
Tank being Chopped in Half= Standing up to a bully, sneaking past an massive robotic sentry= sneaking past one of the orderlies. Winning a swordfight = evading the questions of a doctor trying to get the girl to say something that makes her sound crazy. Breaking a friend out of a POW camp= getting rid of the mind-numbing meds she's been put on that are turning her into a vegetable. Charging an entrenched line of infantry=trying to get through a locked door, ect. Everything must mean Something, or else nothing means anything.

If they can pull that off that connection, then they will have a good movie, perhaps even a great one. They could combine a tragic, emotional drama (A girl trying to avoid being lobotimized) with the type of adrenaline pumping action (and we know Zack Snyder can do action) that everybody enjoys.

If they don't have that connection, if the movie consists of the girls in the Asylum trying to do something, a "War World" action scene, and then we're shown that they succeeded. If we don't understand what is going on in both worlds, then we've got two halves of two different movies cut together: One a dramatic film with no action (Action here meaning "overcoming conflicts" not 'fight scenes"), and an action movie (here meaning Fight scenes) with no context or meaning.

[Syka]

I'm a little...iffy.

I liked 300, which I feel is similar to this on the eye candy spectrum (but for women). The thing about 300, though, is it also had an engaging storyline that meant guys could enjoy it to and I actually forgot about the eye candy in most scenes.

Hearing that Snyder mentioned that this was a fetishization...made me worry a bit more. I don't mind eye candy if the plot is good enough. Knowing it's based off of his own storyline AND that it's fetishized just makes me worry that it's going to be all "Omg hot chicks in skimpy outfits fight stuff."

I could be wrong, but it's a reasonable concern.

[One Tin Soldier]

I have never heard of this movie before today. I have no idea how objectively good it will be.

But the trailer showed me hot chicks fighting dragons and robot samurai with gatling guns while Led Zeppelin plays in the background.

So I think I'm going to see it. :smallsmile:

[Axolotl]

The thing about 300, though, is it also had an engaging storyline that meant guys could enjoy it to and I actually forgot about the eye candy in most scenes.Are you saying people liked 300 because of the story? Really?

[Syka]

Actually, yes. I'm a classics nerd. It wasn't historically accurate, nor did it pretend to be, but it was good.

I also enjoyed the graphic novel, though. Plus the way the entire thing was shot was pretty awesome, to me.

[Keld Denar]

My fear is that it will be a somewhat mediocre movie about a girl trying to escape from a mental institution, and every 20 minutes or so they push a button and we get the same actresses playing scantily clad super soldiers, then it jumps back to the mental institution.
It is kinda like this, a little. The escapist fantasies happen when Babydoll is dancing. Her dancing is so captivating due to the fact that her mind is involved in her escapist fantasies, that it enthralls all who watch. I guess there could be a little suspension of disbelief there, but given that thats the premise of the whole movie, its easy to excuse.


That they won't really connect the battle scenes with the rest of the film. Lots of flashy combat won't entertain me for more than about 10 minutes if I have no idea what they are fighting for; so Scantily Clad Chick chops a tank in half with a sword, what does that mean? Since the battle scenes are part of an escapist fantasy, the Tank isn't really a Tank, so it has to be something, but what?

In order for the movie to succeed, everything in the "War" world will need to correspond to something in the "Real" world. We will need to be able to clearly connect every piece of action in the War world with an action in the Real World. I need to know what that Tank is, and what really happened when it got chopped in half. We should be able to chart it, Step by Step.
Tank being Chopped in Half= Standing up to a bully, sneaking past an massive robotic sentry= sneaking past one of the orderlies. Winning a swordfight = evading the questions of a doctor trying to get the girl to say something that makes her sound crazy. Breaking a friend out of a POW camp= getting rid of the mind-numbing meds she's been put on that are turning her into a vegetable. Charging an entrenched line of infantry=trying to get through a locked door, ect. Everything must mean Something, or else nothing means anything.

They do actually do a pretty good job of this. Its especially apparent in the 3rd scene, but I won't go into any more details because I don't want to spoil. The first scene involves a fair bit of exposition as to how the fantasy impacts reality, and the subsequent scenes, and the rest of them tie in a fair bit to whats going on.

Also, the bad guy is REALLY good. You will love to hate him. Trust me.

The ending does throw you for a loop. Its not really 6th Sense-ish, but it is really...loopy.

PS, don't bother staying through the credits unless you REALLY like credits. There's nothing after them like there is in most Pixar movies and a few other shows like Iron Man or Dawn of the Dead.

PPS, we had cosplayers at our screening. There was a girl dressed as Amber from the WWII steam punk nazi scene. She was rediculously hot in that outfit. God bless the cosplayers!

[BRC]

I peeked at some reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and none of them liked it. The most positive one I looked at seemed to applaud Synder for trying and failing rather than succeeding by playing it safe.


I get the impression it's the type of movie I will go into thinking it sucks, love while I'm watching it, and then decide it's terrible after I leave the theater.

[Keld Denar]

I left the theater kinda in a daze. I didn't really know what to think, the ending was just that...yea. I didn't think "man, this was amazing", I didn't think "man, this was terrible", and I didn't even think "man, that was average". It was more like "man, I have no idea what to think".

Thinking about it the next day, I'm liking it a lot more than then. I've been thinking a lot about it, and am drawing some connections I didn't make at the time. I'll definitely be renting it a few times when it comes out at Red Box, simply because I want to watch the whole thing threw about 3 more times to make sure I got it all.

All in all, I highly recommend it, even if you are skeptical.

[toasty]

Actually, yes. I'm a classics nerd. It wasn't historically accurate, nor did it pretend to be, but it was good.

I also enjoyed the graphic novel, though. Plus the way the entire thing was shot was pretty awesome, to me.

For the record, I disliked 300 particularly because it took a classical myth and blew up into something completely and totally stupid. The action was amazing. I LOVE the action. But the plot was completely blown out of proportion and that ruined it for me.

This movie shouldn't have that problem. :smallsmile:

[Axolotl]

For the record, I disliked 300 particularly because it took a classical myth and blew up into something completely and totally stupid. A myth? What myth?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

A myth? What myth?

Well, a mythologicized version of a historical event.

It's a dramatization of a graphicalization of a mythologicized version of a semi-historical event.
whew.

[BRC]

For the record, I disliked 300 particularly because it took a classical myth and blew up into something completely and totally stupid. The action was amazing. I LOVE the action. But the plot was completely blown out of proportion and that ruined it for me.

This movie shouldn't have that problem. :smallsmile:
300 knew exactly what it was supposed to be: mindless action surfing on a flood of raw testosterone. It succeeded on that front with flying colors.
300 was exactly what it tried to be, the question is, was it trying to be a good movie?

I was talking about Avatar with somebody, and I brought up how the plot sucked. The person I was talking to responded "Well, all it was trying to be was a visually impressive movie". I don't think that's an excuse. You can't make a bad movie and justify it by saying you weren't trying to make a good one.

The thing about Zach Snyder, at least as I understand it (Don't ask where I got this impression) is that he is very good at translating his vision to the screen. His movies always seem very consistent and deliberate, and I get the impression that what gets to the screen is exactly what he wanted. I imagine him watching his own movies over and over again, loving every minute of it.
The problem is that Snyder's idea of what makes a great movie doesn't always sync up with everybody else's.

Mind you, I have seen exactly two movies by him (300 and Watchmen) each exactly once, so feel free to ignore everything I say. I have a habit of forming opinions far faster than I gather information.


Edit: as far as I can tell,
300 (The Movie) was an adaptation of 300 (The graphic novel) which was inspired by 300 Spartans (An older movie about the battle of thermopoly), which was inspired by the actual battle.

[toasty]

@BRC: I think I disagree with your idea a bit. Just because someone else created a better plot doesn't mean your plot sucks. In comparison, it does suck, but that's not the point. Furthermore, a movie with modest goals but succeeds in achieving those goals, is going to be a better movie than one with extraordinary objectives, but one that fails horribly.

My point being that sucker punch has specific goals, I feel like, and having a good plot is not one of them. How many people, given the ads, are going to see this movie because they expect a good plot? I'm hoping that no one actually goes to this movie expecting anything but some crazy action and maybe enough of a as semblance of a plot to justify that action, because the ads did their work.

@300: Yeah, its a reinvisionment of a more heroic version of an historical event. However, it takes that heroic version to epic, and indeed stupid, levels, if you ask me. If you want a crazy awesome story like that, find one that really happened, or invent one. Maybe that's why Synder did this movie...

[Mystic Muse]

You mock my pain. Cookies for reference

"Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

[toasty]

"Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

*awards internet cookie*

[Mystic Muse]

*awards internet cookie*

*nomnomnomnom*

This particular movie doesn't look very appealing to me. It looks like they're trying to do too much.

[BRC]

@BRC: I think I disagree with your idea a bit. Just because someone else created a better plot doesn't mean your plot sucks. In comparison, it does suck, but that's not the point. Furthermore, a movie with modest goals but succeeds in achieving those goals, is going to be a better movie than one with extraordinary objectives, but one that fails horribly.


It doesn't, but your plot sucking means your plot sucks.

And a movie with modest goals is fine. What I don't like is a movie with limited goals.

In my mind there are some core components to any movie: Plot, Writing, Acting, Cinematography, and some others that I'm probably missing and will be painfully obvious the moment somebody points it out. Now, depending on the movie you add other elements, Comedies need humor, action movies need action, ect. But you need those four core components.
Now, obviously the goals of a film DO matter. You wouldn't say Kill Bill fails because it's not funny, or that Airplane! fails because it doesn't have thrilling fight scenes. But, you can't ignore those core components, and I hate it when people treat plot like an optional extra for a major film. A Plot is what separates a film from abunch of scenes shown next to each other.

I'm okay with a movie having a mediocre plot and being good for other reasons, but I hate it when people say that a movie can't be blamed for having a stupid plot because they weren't trying to have a good one. If a movie has stupid plot but great action, I give it points for the action and take away points for the plot.


On the other hand, I love the Marx Brothers, and it's not like their films were masterpieces of storytelling, so yeah.

[Syka]

I'm not expecting a spectacular FILM. I'm expecting an entertaining movie with an engaging plot.

I went in to 300 understanding it was an adaptation of an adaptation of a fictionalization of an historical event. So I was OK with it taking it to grandiose levels. It didn't try to be anything other than that, unlike other movies (coughAlexandercough). But I thought the plot was solid, the cinematography quite excellent, etc. The casting was particularly good, especially the Queen.

Watchmen I was more neutral towards. I enjoyed it but didn't want to particularly see it again (did love the end, though).

A movie like the Expendables, which was almost literally just explosions and "Oh hai Ahnald.", I didn't like. I thought I'd like it, I thought it'd be at least a bit more cohesive than it was. But it wasn't.

In my mind, buff bodies cannot carry a movie. 300 had more than buff bodies (for me). I hope Sucker Punch has more than buff bodies because I would LOVE to see another movie that puts women in kick butt roles without completely sexualizing them and riding on it. Kill Bill is one of the few female-protagonist action movies I can think of to successfully pull that off.

[Moff Chumley]

That's because Quentin Tarantino is capable of anything, no matter how difficult or even contradictory.

[Keld Denar]

BTW, since BRC mentioned it, the acting in this movie is pretty awesome. The actress who played Babydoll is freakin brilliant. The gals who played Sweet Pea and Rocket were pretty kickass too. Amber was just gorgeous. The main bad guy, Blue, was the kind of villian you walk away from wishing you could eviserate in an explosion of blood and gore, resurrect, and eviserate again because once isn't enough. You just HATE him. The guy litterally brings sleazy to the next level, from his suit to his moustache, you just want to boot him in the head.

And like I said, the plot wasn't bad. It was just REALLY wierd, and kinda twisty. As I said, the ending is kinda funky, and I'm guessing a 2nd or 3rd watch will make a bit more sense, but I don't want to give away any spoilers.

About the weakest plot area is the explaination of the 5 items they need to escape. It ends up making sense, but when Babydoll explains it, and everyone buys it on her bare bones explaination, I kinda went...huh? But that was about the only weak point in the plot, and even that stands up a bit better after you finish the movie and figure out whats going on.

[Syka]

You're actually making me feel better about the movie, Keld. :)

What almost swayed me was seeing that the girl who played Violet in Unfortunate Events is headlining, and Jon Hamm plays the villian. I'll see pretty much anything with Jon Hamm or John Slatterly in it solely based off Mad Men. :smallcool:

[thompur]

It is kinda like this, a little. The escapist fantasies happen when Babydoll is dancing. Her dancing is so captivating due to the fact that her mind is involved in her escapist fantasies, that it enthralls all who watch. I guess there could be a little suspension of disbelief there, but given that thats the premise of the whole movie, its easy to excuse.



They do actually do a pretty good job of this. Its especially apparent in the 3rd scene, but I won't go into any more details because I don't want to spoil. The first scene involves a fair bit of exposition as to how the fantasy impacts reality, and the subsequent scenes, and the rest of them tie in a fair bit to whats going on.

Also, the bad guy is REALLY good. You will love to hate him. Trust me.

The ending does throw you for a loop. Its not really 6th Sense-ish, but it is really...loopy.

PS, don't bother staying through the credits unless you REALLY like credits. There's nothing after them like there is in most Pixar movies and a few other shows like Iron Man or Dawn of the Dead.
PPS, we had cosplayers at our screening. There was a girl dressed as Amber from the WWII steam punk nazi scene. She was rediculously hot in that outfit. God bless the cosplayers!

Thanks for that Keld. I usually stay through credits of genre films for that reason(even if I really have to pee). So now I know I can leave after the cast list.

[thompur]

I just got home from seeing Sucker Punch. It is a lot of fun. The action scenes are very well done, and fit into the film very well. And I really liked the music.
Oh, and there are no Nazis. They're WWI germans, not WWII. FYI

So I definately recommend it!

[Keld Denar]

Oh, yea. Music. I want to buy the sound track. Like, right now! Awesome.

[Barbarian MD]

Just got home from seeing it.

Loved the music. Loved the fight scenes. Loved the concept of the movie. Loved the fact that there were two levels of delusion. I'll admit that the ending was quite predictable. But I do wonder about one thing...

What happened to the other girls? Did they even exist? Surely they didn't actually get killed, though perhaps the one that was stabbed might have if there was a struggle for the knife. Did they even exist at all?

I ask because no mention was made by the doctor of them. She mentions the fire, and the stabbing, and the escape, but not of any of the other girls. Might they merely have been caught?

[rayne_dragon]

I'm liking the sounds of this movie more and more. Given that it seems to inspire confusion and has twists, I think it may end up being the kind of movie I like with at least the level of plot I was hoping for. As long as it is enough to hold together the fight scenes, I'll be happy, but it sounds like it will actually be more than that.

I have plans to see it on sunday. :smallcool:

[toasty]

Imma gonna see this movie right now. :smallbiggrin:

[Aiani]

Just saw this. I thought the story was kind of crazy but the fight scenes were just so cool that I don't really care. I loved the ladies crazy outfits and the choreography of the fights was just awesome. Also I agree that the bad guy is very hate worthy.

[toasty]

The plot makes no sense. I don't care. Those were some of the greatest action sequences I have ever imagined, let alone seen actually played out on screen.

[Nomrom]

just saw this with some of my friends. I thought it was really good. But both my roommates hated it and my other friend thought it was alright. Granted, they spent the whole time discussing how the things they did were unrealistic so I'm not sure they grasped the point of the movie at all. The plot does still confuse me though.

[Raistlin1040]

I don't really know how to feel either. Yes, the ending was obvious, but I still felt kind of cheated by it. Thematically and conceptually, brilliant. Visually astounding. Execution...decent. It just felt like there was so much buildup that they couldn't actually pull off the right ending and so they copped out by using the ending they did. I left the theater depressed by the ending, although I really liked the rest of the movie.

[Warlawk]

For those who have been out to see it, how bad was the "fanservice" in the pic? Was it pretty ridiculous with short skirts and such as seen in some of the trailers or was it just pretty passing and they didn't really focus on it too much?

I mean, a little is ok but too much just ruins it. It you want excessive levels of fanservice, the internet can deliver, we don't actually need it in the movie.

[Barbarian MD]

Fan service was about what you'd expect from watching the trailers. No more than that. Everything outside the fight scenes was more "normal."

For those of you confused, I humbly offer an explanation:

Beware, detailed plot summary ahead.



If reading this via email update, beware that there are spoilers!




You've been warned.




Stop reading.

Okay: Baby Doll's mom dies, leaving her and her sister with her stepfather. Stepfather reads will, which gives everything to daughters. He drinks himself into a violent rage and ends up killing the younger sister. He blames it on Baby Doll and carts her off to an asylum, paying an orderly to have her lobotomized so that the police cannot discover the truth. The doctor who does lobotomies will come in five days.

The next montage shows her life there in snapshots, ending with the lobotomy hammer falling.

[Now, at this point as I was watching tenmovie, I thought everything that she imagined might be happening in that split second before being lobotomized, but that's not he case. Instead, We now jump back in time and into fantasy.]

A girl yells "stop!" and the camera backs up to reveal an institution scene played out by scantily clad women in a theatre. The actress that was in the chair complains that this fetish scene is stupid to the orderly, who is now not an orderly, but the owner of a brothel. The counselor is now a dance instructor. Baby Doll is no longer at an institution, but is rather the new girl at a brothel, and a "high roller" [lobotomy doctor] is coming in five days. This is all fantasy, Baby Doll's way of coping with what's going on. From here on, everything that happens is seen through this fantasy--we do not see the institution again until we return to the lobotomy scene.

Now, she is told to dance. Each time she dances, she enters a SECOND level of fantasy (this script was apparently written long before Inception came out, but it's the same concept). Apparently, Baby Doll is so captivating when she dances that she entirely holds the attention of men. During these dance fantasies, Baby Doll fights some fantastical battle with the aid of an old guru who gives her weapons and tells her how to escape. This represents her dance, and her success at holding their attention. The other girls soon enter these battle-fantasies, as they work to steal the necessary items for escape. These are stolen on three levels-the battle sequence, with snaps back to the brothel where thy steal the mundane equivalent, and the real-world equivalent that we never witness.

They steal a map, a lighter, and a knife before things go down hill. During the knife scene two (three?) malfunctions happen on the different levels: a bomb explodes in battle, a radio wire is short-circuited in the brothel, and an unknown misfortune may OR MAY NOT happen in the real world. Whatever happens, the brothel cook catches them and stabs one girl in the brothel-fatasy (she dies in the explosion in the battle-fantasy). Two more are executed by the brothel owner in the aftermath. The brothel owner tries to rape Baby Doll, and she stabs him with the stolen knife, taking his key. This represents them stealing a real-life map, a lighter and a knife. Who knows how this was actually accomplished, as we do not see it take place in the real world. We do know, however, that these items are actually stolen and Baby Doll does stab the orderly and take his key. He may have been trying to rape her in real-life, but that is merely supposition.

Note that we NEVER see the real-world equivalents of any of these girls with one exception. We have no idea if they were even real or what happens to them in the end. One is killed in a battle-fantasy and dies in the brothel fantasy. Two more are killed in the brothel fantasy. I have doubts that these three girls were actually killed in the real world. The first to die might have been, but again, I doubt she really exists as we perceive her. My guess (and this is entirely my guess) would be that Baby Doll and the girl we see in real life are the only two really there at all, or maybe they used some crazies to help them as they made their escape attempt. She may not have even been caught taking the knife, but merely fantasizes the altercation to eliminate her imaginary friends and provide herself with a reason for them not coming, too. Again, we don't know.

Anyway, Baby Doll unlocks the remaining girl, and the two escape by setting a fire that unlocks all the doors (this is a true feature of hospitals, by the way--it makes fire alarms on the psyc unit rather interesting, but I digress). Just when they are about to escape, They encounter people outside that will certainly spot them. Baby Doll sacrifices herself by dancing for them (real-world equivalent unknown), while the last girl escapes, taking a bus out of town.

The movie jumps back to the lobotomy scene, which is then completed. We are firmly in the real world again. Real-life doctor confirms that she stabbed an orderly, started a fire, and helped another girl escape. The doctors discover that the order was illegitimate and therefore the evil orderly is discovered. Lobotomized Baby Doll is a brain dead zombie. Yay modern medicine. We see te real-life escapee board a bus with the help of the bus driver, who just happens to look like the battle-fantasy guru that helped Baby Doll escape Movie ends.

[Aiani]

The fan service in the movie didn't bother me too much. I mean their outfits are sexy and all but they were also kind of cool. They reminded me of video game outfits but honestly a lot of video game clothing is far worse (Dead or Alive, I'm looking at you).

[Lord Loss]

I have a feeling I'm going to love (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/2962-Sucker-Punch) this movie. I'll watch it sometime soon.

[thompur]

Oh, by the way. One of the previews before the film was for the "Rock'em Sock'em Robots" movie. They didn't call it that so they wouldn't have to pay royalties to Mattel. It looks really stoopid. ;-)

[tyckspoon]

Oh, by the way. One of the previews before the film was for the "Rock'em Sock'em Robots" movie. They didn't call it that so they wouldn't have to pay royalties to Mattel. It looks really stoopid. ;-)

I know, right? I'm still gonna see that one. It's going to be horrible, but I don't care. It's Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots The Movie. :smallbiggrin:

[Barbarian MD]

I don't recall this preview at all. What movie was it? What happened in the preview?

[Tavar]

Is it this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei5l3r1dV4I)?

[Barbarian MD]

We totally got a different set of previews.

I went to a Regal in Georgia, perhaps that made the difference.

[toasty]

Is it this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei5l3r1dV4I)?

That too looks like a fun movie. I didn't see that preview when I saw Sucker Punch though. Strange.

[Lappy9000]

About the weakest plot area is the explaination of the 5 items they need to escape. It ends up making sense, but when Babydoll explains it, and everyone buys it on her bare bones explaination, I kinda went...huh? But that was about the only weak point in the plot, and even that stands up a bit better after you finish the movie and figure out whats going on.I could definitely see that. I mostly wrote that off as "they're in an insane asylum and some of them are quite likely to be actually a little unhinged."

Overall, movie was pure awesome plus steampunk zombies.

[Barbarian MD]

Speaking of steampunk and trailers: Steampunk Three Musketeers???

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Just got back from watching it.

Great action scenes, and I mean great action scenes, plenty of mindscrew, some serious mood whiplash at times, good acting and a flipping amazing sound track. Quite an experience, all in all, and one that'll take some processing before I can form a full opinion - right now all I can think is "wow" and "what the <expletive>?".

I was rather taken aback by the fanservice though. It's pretty much constant throughout the movie, but for some reason it manages to stay in the background, for the most part. In-your-face fanservice annoys me a lot, but I didn't really notice it most of the time. Which seems contradictory, but there it is. :smallconfused:

[toasty]

Overall, movie was pure awesome plus steampunk zombies.

I honestly feel like the IDEAS alone were worth watching. I'd watch a movie like this with just "monster of the week" type action sequences. No real plot, just awesome action sequences, again and again, and again.

But then again, I'm a geek. :smallbiggrin:

[Dante & Vergil]

I myself just got back from seeing it. Pretty bizarre, but the action sequences were pretty good, and the ending a bit weird, but all in all a fun movie to see.

[toasty]

I myself just got back from seeing it. Pretty bizarre, but the action sequences were pretty good, and the ending a bit weird, but all in all a fun movie to see.

It took me a while to figure out the ending, but it all makes sense now, honestly. It wasn't the greatest plot ever, but it was a good one.

[Jokasti]

This movie was amazing... I shall be purchasing it forthwith, soon as it comes out. The action, the plot, the music, the ending.... I loved it. I loved how Sweet Pea was narrating and Babydoll was singing in the beginning, it really tied their roles together, I think, on a second viewing.

[rayne_dragon]

So, I just got home from seeing this as well. I lucked out and missed all but half of one trailer before it started. :smallbiggrin:

I really liked this movie. It avoided some issues that I was worried it would end up making a big deal about and the level of fanservice was fine, especially for a movie that was mostly advertised on strength of eye-candy visual effects. In fact, I actually thought they could have gotten away with even more fanservice than they used - although I'm glad they were more tasteful than they had to be. I felt the plot was rather well done. I think it could have been done in a different way, and that maybe it would have been better done differently, but I still think it works very well. I don't think I've seen a better movie than this one before Dark Knight and that Sucker Punch compares quite well alongside other movies I liked such as Logan's Run, Donnie Darko, and True Grit (not the recent revision, which I haven't seen yet). Also, it has some of the best uses of music in a movie that I have ever seen.

Interestingly, I had been expecting the old guru man to turn out to be the labotomy doctor.

I am not dissappointed by this movie at all, and I had higher expectations for it based on the trailer than most people seem to have had for it. I think I will be definitely buying this on DVD when it comes out. I don't think it quite qualifies as one of my favourite movies, but I'll need to see it a couple of more times before I'm sure on that.

Edit: I would also actually play a videogame based on this movie - which I think is a first.

[unosarta]

Oh man, I saw this yesterday. Such a great film.

I went with two friends. For one of them (a Chinese exchange student), it was her first time in a U.S. cinema. Ever.

The other is... well, kind of obstinate in her taste for movies.

Anyway; me and the Chinese exchange student loved it. My other friend disliked it, verily. I normally wouldn't have a problem with her opinion of the movie, but literally the only reasoning behind it was "it was too loud."

It wasn't the huge amount of fanservice, nor the gratuitous violence, nor the twisty plot (which apparently she also had problems with, which made me really shake my head, since I didn't take any second thoughts to understand what was going on :smallconfused:), but literally because it was too loud. Is it just me, or is that not a very good reason to dislike a movie?

Anyway; absolutely fantastic movie. I wrote a review for a friend on facebook, I am going to go find it now...

Boom O'Splodey: I have heard the most reversed reveiws of this...one things for sure. It's either going to be terrible or fantastic, nowhere inbetween.

Me: It was very... in its genre. And it knew it.

Me: Like, it felt like the movie was kind of branded toward a certain group of viewers, and the movie knew that.

Me: And it worked in this really poignant plot and story inbetween the violence, the action a tool to push the plot forward, and show the connections between the characters.

Me: It was very, very well crafted, and very well thought out.

Boom O'Splodey: Is that genre "action stylings of watchmen with script cues from Scott Pilgrim", or "OH LOOK PRETTY GIRLS BLOWING STUFF UP! BOYS ARE BAD GUYS, WE'RE DIFFERENT!"?

Because I honestly can't tell from the trailer

Me: The target audience was mostly nerdy straight guys.

It went through all of the genres that that audience likes, WWII, High Fantasy, Anime-esque, Sci-Fi. But while it did, it used those settings to describe what was actually going on in the movie through some really exquisite finagling. I respect the director for his ability to traverse the settings and still keep the movie feeling put together.

Me: Like, he used the action as a way to show how the main character was receding into herself and also how to explain what she was seeing and doing through the movie.

And honestly, for me, it worked. The message the movie was sending was very strong, the action over-the-top, but only for the purpose of showing the main character's psyche, and the character interaction and dialogue weren't bad.

Me: And the pacing and tension were actually pretty good. The scenes WITHOUT violence were some of the most tense for me, especially a few of the ones towards the end of the movie.

Boom O'Splodey: Well, that's exactly what I wanted to hear. Your review is now the only one that counts, until I see it. Honestly, I'm just hoping it doesn't turn into a "look at me, I'm different! LOOK DAMMIT LOOOOOOOOK!" as apposed to your 10 comment review. I'll see it as soon as I can to figure that out on my own.

But I swear to god, if it disappoints me, I'm taking your left pinky Kotarou.

Me: OH GOD. I RETRACT ALL OF MY COMMENTS, DON'T HURT ME.

[Primal Fury]

It... it felt like they were trying to hit me over the head with some sort of "female empowerment" message. That made it pretty difficult to enjoy the movie. The action scenes and music were nice, but were brought down by the... non-fantasy parts.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Edit: I would also actually play a videogame based on this movie - which I think is a first.

Video game? I watched Sucker Punch and was able to detail EVERYTHING that happened, almost down to page numbers, for a d20 modern game. Hell, I wished half the d20 modern games I think up were as cool as Sucker Punch is. :smalltongue:

[nihil8r]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sucker-punch-2010/

:elan: i'm helping!

[Callos_DeTerran]

It... it felt like they were trying to hit me over the head with some sort of "female empowerment" message. That made it pretty difficult to enjoy the movie. The action scenes and music were nice, but were brought down by the... non-fantasy parts.

...I'm honestly curious about how you got that.

[TheArsenal]

So... Is anyone else as excited as I am about this movie?

I hate movies with one sided Girl fights "Spoofing" sexified girls.

Probably not going to go.

Edit:

Enough with the ****ing Feminism. I get it! Make a character with a point! And stop pretending to be artsy, its just Cinema Greese.

[unosarta]

I hate movies with one sided Girl fights "Spoofing" sexified girls.

Probably not going to go.

Edit:

Enough with the ****ing Feminism. I get it! Make a character with a point! And stop pretending to be artsy, its just Cinema Greese.

What? This movie has literally nothing to do with overt feminism, is directed by a man, and doesn't even feature that as its main theme or point.

Seriously. Why are you saying it has feminism just from the trailer. If you haven't see the movie, you cannot say if or if not it has feminism, and believe me, it has pretty much nothing to do with feminism. Yes, the characters are all female, and the main villain is male, but other than that, there is no similarity. At all.

[TheArsenal]

What? This movie has literally nothing to do with overt feminism, is directed by a man, and doesn't even feature that as its main theme or point.

Its when there is a Woman, fighting comically inept men. With stereotypically one sided fights.

[Deth Muncher]

Today's Manly Guys Doing Manly Things (thepunchlineismachismo.com) talks about this movie to awesome effect.

[unosarta]

Its when there is a Woman, fighting comically inept men. With stereotypically one sided fights.

:smallconfused:

Yeah, no. None of the enemies they actively fight are male. In fact, none of the enemies they actively fight have a gender at all. There are undead samurai, whose faces are covered by masks, and who beat the crap out of Babydoll, there are WWI soldiers, but they are all undead steam-zombies, with no gender, and then she fights a dragon, who is ostensibly actually female. Finally, she fights robots, who have no gender.

Again, you can't really make judgments on the film that are this specific until you've seen it.

[TheArsenal]

Again, you can't really make judgments on the film that are this specific until you've seen it.

Yeah Yeah, your right.....Unless it has Shoe Le Buff in it or however it is spelled.

[Tavar]

What's the hate for Shia La Beouf?

[Knaight]

Its when there is a Woman, fighting comically inept men. With stereotypically one sided fights.

You do realize that the fights are essentially figures of her imagination? Moreover the situation the character is in is one that would lend one's daydreaming towards escapism and exxageration.

Moreover, its an action movie. Protagonists in action movies have a tendency to just mow through unnamed characters -there are exceptions, sure- regardless of the sex of the protagonist. Rambo guns down hundreds in every film, Neo does the same in every bad film, and if one looks at anything which drew inspiration from Wuxia then you have to consider cases like Hero, in which a pair of main characters storm the fortress of an emperor successfully. For any of this to work, the protagonist has to show a level of aptitude far beyond that of the nameless mooks, which essentially requires ineptitude on the part of all but the protagonist and handful of opponents that they make meaningful.

[TheArsenal]

What's the hate for Shia La Beouf?

Bad actor. Every movie I saw him act in I hated. Hes sort of like a curse.

[Primal Fury]

The feminism came from the non-fantasy portions.

The step-father, the orderlies, the cook, all of them were men, and all of them were cast in a rather... unflattering light. The scene where the cook almost got his throat cut for instance. Rocket wasn't just standing around innocently, she was stealing food, and (no offense to him of course) he's fat as all outdoors and would probably get blamed for missing food, and she slaps the crap out of him when he calls her on it? Of course he's going to be pissed. And yet that little detail, the whole reason for the altercation, is left out of her story when she tells what happens. :smallannoyed:

Another thing. Rocket is explicitly called out as having two parents, right? And yet as she's dying, she tells her sister to tell their mother that she loves her. What about the father? Rocket's words were (roughly) "My sister never really had a problem with mom or dad" leading us to believe that she had issues with both of her parents, leading to her running away. And yet Rocket ONLY tells her sister to pass her love to their mother, leaving the father out completely. So she's forgiven mom, but not dad? Even on her deathbed?? :smallconfused:

Hell, even at the very end, when the orderlies bring the lobotomized Babydoll to the bathroom, the others do nothing about it except walk away. Are we to believe that... what... four other men would just let that happen? That we are so entrenched in our animal natures that we'd just let the "alpha male" do whatever the hell he wanted? Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call bull**** on that one. :smallmad:

Also, I really hated the fact that we didn't actually get to see this dancing that was supposed to be "irresistible" to men. I understand that the action was supposed to represent how awe-inspiring her dancing was, but I think they relied to much on special effects for that. They could have shown us the human element once. :smallfurious:

I knew I shoulda went to see Battlefield: Los Angeles instead. :smallannoyed:

[Syka]

After reading this (http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/interview-zack-snyder-on-the-sexuality-and-world-of-sucker-punch.php) interview with Snyder, I think I want to wait until I can see the director's cut.

Also, apparently it's more supposed to be a commentary on the objectification of women in nerd culture (don't even deny it's there...go to any con, and you'll see it in spades) than 'female empowerment', so to speak. I think it's interesting that he took that on. Just from talking to Boyfriend, I know it's not always easy to write the opposite sex in a convincing way, and I'm glad he let the actresses run with their roles.

[Z3ro]

The feminism came from the non-fantasy portions. The step-father, the orderlies, the cook, all of them were men, and all of them were cast in a rather... unflattering light. The scene where the cook almost got his throat cut for instance. Rocket wasn't just standing around innocently, she was stealing food, and (no offense to him of course) he's fat as all outdoors and would probably get blamed for missing food, and she slaps the crap out of him when he calls her on it? Of course he's going to be pissed. And yet that little detail, the whole reason for the altercation, is left out of her story when she tells what happens. :smallannoyed:
I may be misremembering, but wasn't the problem not that the cook rightfully stopped her, but that he was going to rape/murder her? In essence, him overindulging in the punishment?


Hell, even at the very end, when the orderlies bring the lobotomized Babydoll to the bathroom, the others do nothing about it except walk away. Are we to believe that... what... four other men would just let that happen? That we are so entrenched in our animal natures that we'd just let the "alpha male" do whatever the hell he wanted? Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call bull**** on that one. :smallmad:
Wasn't it that they were on his payroll? So if they stopped him they'd stop getting paid, right? That I totally believe.


Also, I really hated the fact that we didn't actually get to see this dancing that was supposed to be "irresistible" to men. I understand that the action was supposed to represent how awe-inspiring her dancing was, but I think they relied to much on special effects for that. They could have shown us the human element once. :smallfurious:


This I have to vigarously disagree with. No matter how well she danced in real life, there was no way the movie cold have conveyed a dance so amazing everyone sat enrapt. My wife actually comment (and I agreed) that she was glad they didn't show the dance in real life. If they did, you'd probably be commenting that the dance wasn't so amazing and that you didn't believe it would hold anyone's attention like it did.
Also, the dancing was, itself, a fantasy as well. It was no more real than the action scenes.

[Primal Fury]

Also, apparently it's more supposed to be a commentary on the objectification of women in nerd culture
Hm. I can actually see that. I guess I was paying attention to what felt the most obvious to me. Interesting.


Wasn't it that they were on his payroll? So if they stopped him they'd stop getting paid, right? That I totally believe.
Now that I think about it... They were part of it too, weren't they? So they would've gotten fired and arrested as well. Scratch that then.

Still could've been much better though.

[Warlawk]

Just a thought... but the posts and quotes of Primal Fury really should be in spoiler tags shouldn't they? I mean the movie has been out for less than a week, the thread was started pre-release and does not have [spoilers] in the title. I'm not going to go check the rules, but at least out of basic respect can you guys please edit and put those in spoilers like everyone else in the thread has done?

The movie has only been out a few days and a lot of people haven't seen it yet.

[Primal Fury]

Oopsey derp. :smallredface:

[evildmguy]

I liked it. I enjoyed it. A fun popcorn movie.

I agree it's good we didn't see a dance. It wouldn't have been as good as the action scenes.

As someone else on another board said, it's too bad that it wasn't Rocket that made it and Swea Pea that died because then Rocket would have to deal with her sister dying after coming after her but she made it.

[thompur]

The feminism came from the non-fantasy portions.

I knew I shoulda went to see Battlefield: Los Angeles instead. :smallannoyed]

Trust me PF, you picked the right one. Even if you didn't like Sucker Punch, at least it made you think. B:LA was sooo predictable and unimaginative.

[Callos_DeTerran]

As someone else on another board said, it's too bad that it wasn't Rocket that made it and Swea Pea that died because then Rocket would have to deal with her sister dying after coming after her but she made it.

I don't think that would have worked as well. Rocket went into it knowing the risks to everyone involved, practically without hesitation. Sweet Pea didn't WANT to get involved because of those risks. I think it's more poignant that the one who, initially, didn't want anything to do with the plan is the one that survived it, not only because she survived but because she now needs to cope with fact she no longer has a sister to protect, an over-riding force in her life.

[Primal Fury]

Trust me PF, you picked the right one. Even if you didn't like Sucker Punch, at least it made you think. B:LA was sooo predictable and unimaginative.
*Grumble grumble* Fair enough. :smallannoyed:

I'd rather see something that got my brain juices flowing on some level (even if it was out of hate), than something that was completely and absolutely mindless.

[Syka]

Trust me PF, you picked the right one. Even if you didn't like Sucker Punch, at least it made you think. B:LA was sooo predictable and unimaginative.

I really liked Battle: LA. The dialog was (mostly) OK, the acting was good (at least on the original group's part), and the CG wasn't overdone. Plus it wasn't an alien movie, it was a war movie that just happened to feature aliens as the opponent. It lost me towards the end because the focus shifted, but while it was just on the group and how they coped, I loved it.

Completely original? Naw. But it was entertaining, well executed, and had some fantastic actors.

[CrimsonAngel]

I have high hope for this movie. It looks really good, and my kind of movie.

I hope it makes my eyes and imagination ORGASM.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Saw this movie.
1st of all: Brilliant soundtrack. Wonderfully picked rock songs, each one lovingly reimagined? Yes please!
Secondly: Absolutely brilliant fight scenes. Brilliant cinematography.
Thirdly: Very confusing mind-screwery abounds.
Last, all the girls were quite decently acted.
Rocket wins everything, she's my favourite.

[Barbarian MD]

After reading this (http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/interview-zack-snyder-on-the-sexuality-and-world-of-sucker-punch.php) interview with Snyder, I think I want to wait until I can see the director's cut.

This? This right here makes this a freaking brilliant movie. I wish I had fully caught this subtext while watching it.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I just decided, I am buying the soundtrack. Just listening to their version of "Sweet Dreams" is blowing me away.

Edit: Actually, I might just buy the movie. I would watch it again, quite a few times.

[Abies]

I saw the movie on Monday, here are a couple of thoughts.

Warning: If you have read through four pages of a message board thread, you have no right whatsoever to complain about spoilers. I'll use them anyhow, just to appease the most gentle users.

Observation: Others have said the brothel was Babydoll's fantasy. It was not, That was Sweetpea's fantasy construct. The brothel had absolutely noting to do with Babydoll's story. Her fantasies were the action sequences. The two were entirely separate.

Question: I have only seen it once, so I can not recall: Were Rocket, Jade and Blondie ever actually seen in the "real" (asylum) reality? Or were they simply constructs of Babydoll and/or Sweetpeas' fantasies?

Followup Question: If Jade, Blondie and Rocket were real people, what "really" happened to them?

Complaint: the action sequences had no bearing on what was supposed to be going on in the real world beyond the grand concept. "We're getting a drink of water" in the fantasy portrayed in no way managed to translate the actual actions necessary for that "mission". As a consequence, the action portions were totally meaningless. Yes, they were fun to watch, but without a broader context, who gives a flip. They did not even relate to each other... I find that lazy. Don't get me wrong, mastubatory fantasy combat sequences with cute girls are all well and good. But I suppose I'm not all that accustomed to seeing totally meaningless action for the sake of action, offering a remotely meaningful context would have been nice.

Observation: We were shown that Babydoll was incarcerated unjustly. However, Sweetpea's story was all hearsay. Who's to say she wasn't totally insane? And if so, maybe letting her go was not such a good idea.


All in all, I found it an enjoyable movie. I experienced none of the confusion others have expressed (though that is par for the course). The layers of the story were easy to follow. The action scenes were enjoyable (even without a larger context). I can see how he overall message of the story can be meaningful. The message is a bit simplistic, but still has its merits.

[Barbarian MD]

"...Sweatpea's fantasy..." I don't follow. On what basis do you make this statement? our only interaction with her is when she gets on a bus.

And yes, I already talked a bit about the other girl's existence in an earlier post. We really have no clue whether they exist at all or how much function they have.

[Tyndmyr]

The feminism came from the non-fantasy portions.

Er, if women facing male antagonists is automatically feminism...no. Just no. Not all women were good. Not all men were evil. It was a mix.

Spoiler contains rebuttals to plot points.


The step-father, the orderlies, the cook, all of them were men, and all of them were cast in a rather... unflattering light. The scene where the cook almost got his throat cut for instance. Rocket wasn't just standing around innocently, she was stealing food, and (no offense to him of course) he's fat as all outdoors and would probably get blamed for missing food, and she slaps the crap out of him when he calls her on it? Of course he's going to be pissed. And yet that little detail, the whole reason for the altercation, is left out of her story when she tells what happens. :smallannoyed:

Well, the cook is unflattering, sure. As seen in the mind of someone who is trying to escape from an asylum. An orphan swiping a bit of food and getting beat for it, etc is relatively obviously bad. There was definite implied threat of rape/murder, too. The fact that she left out her minor thing that wasn't really relevant to her point and would only make her look bad is...extremely human. People do that ALL the time.


Another thing. Rocket is explicitly called out as having two parents, right? And yet as she's dying, she tells her sister to tell their mother that she loves her. What about the father? Rocket's words were (roughly) "My sister never really had a problem with mom or dad" leading us to believe that she had issues with both of her parents, leading to her running away. And yet Rocket ONLY tells her sister to pass her love to their mother, leaving the father out completely. So she's forgiven mom, but not dad? Even on her deathbed?? :smallconfused:

We don't know that her dad is still alive. We're not sure how much time has passed, but apparently it's a significant amount.


Hell, even at the very end, when the orderlies bring the lobotomized Babydoll to the bathroom, the others do nothing about it except walk away. Are we to believe that... what... four other men would just let that happen? That we are so entrenched in our animal natures that we'd just let the "alpha male" do whatever the hell he wanted? Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call bull**** on that one. :smallmad:

Er...did you watch this? They objected to it. There were two other orderlys, IIRC. He managed to get them to leave, but then the cavalry shows up and the guy ends up busted. So...no, it's not about just "letting that happen". It's merely showing his depravity exists in the real world as well, before the obligatory justice being meted out to him.


Also, I really hated the fact that we didn't actually get to see this dancing that was supposed to be "irresistible" to men. I understand that the action was supposed to represent how awe-inspiring her dancing was, but I think they relied to much on special effects for that. They could have shown us the human element once. :smallfurious:

It's not a movie about dancing, though. It never promised to be. Sure, it's a bit of a tease, but upon thinking about it, I don't think there's any dance where someone wouldn't go "eh, I wouldn't be that captivated by that". It's something you almost have to leave unshown.


Oh, and yes. It all is an allegory for what happened in reality. I suppose that doesn't need spoiler tags, since the female asylum character outright tells that to the doctor.

All in all, I was quite happy with it. Adequate plot, certainly never slow, excellent music and visuals. Very solid acting and shooting. I'll probably hit it up again.

I'll probably go watch Battle for LA, too...but I expect that to be roughly a mash-up between War of the Worlds and Independence Day. I'm ok with that.

[Warlawk]

Warning: If you have read through four pages of a message board thread, you have no right whatsoever to complain about spoilers. I'll use them anyhow, just to appease the most gentle users.


That may be your opinion, but the Board Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=24&a=1) directly contradict your opinion. If the thread title doesn't have a [SPOILER] tag, said spoilers need to be in tags, period. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I've read the whole thread because hearing opinions and such on it is useful in deciding if I want to use one of my rare theater trips to watch it. I'm also not one to be overly worried about spoilers, it won't ruin the movie for me, but that doesn't change the fact that it is straight up stated in the rules how this situation should be handled.

Spoilers Outside of a Spoiler Thread or Not Under Spoiler Tags
Some posters can't see a movie the day it comes out or read that book the day it comes out. So please either mask spoilers with the appropriate tags or post a thread with [spoiler] in the title if you wish to discuss something that people may or may not wish to view due to spoilers.

[rayne_dragon]

Complaint: the action sequences had no bearing on what was supposed to be going on in the real world beyond the grand concept. "We're getting a drink of water" in the fantasy portrayed in no way managed to translate the actual actions necessary for that "mission". As a consequence, the action portions were totally meaningless. Yes, they were fun to watch, but without a broader context, who gives a flip. They did not even relate to each other... I find that lazy. Don't get me wrong, mastubatory fantasy combat sequences with cute girls are all well and good. But I suppose I'm not all that accustomed to seeing totally meaningless action for the sake of action, offering a remotely meaningful context would have been nice.


I think that the action sequences were more symbolic of how powerful and effective the dances were in entertaining those viewing them. Since I have no doubt that any dance would be less enjoyable than the action sequences I find this rather acceptable. Also, I believe that Syka posted a link to an interview with the director on the previous page; in that interview the director explains that the fantasy sequences are, in a way, a criticism of sexist fanboys/geeks/whatever. Plus the sequences are meant to be disjointed and weird to lend that proper crazy/asylumesque feel to the movie.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I don't follow. On what basis do you make this statement? our only interaction with her is when she gets on a bus.

And yes, I already talked a bit about the other girl's existence in an earlier post. We really have no clue whether they exist at all or how much function they have.

Actually, and I'm not sure mind you, I think you see Blondie and Amber at the very beginning when the Step Dad is being shown the theater. They're the two who start fighting over the game, I think. Rocket might be there as well, but if so then I missed her.

As for what really happened to them...well...it's possible they 'lost' in other ways the doctor would have no way of knowing about. They're 'deaths' in the fantasies might be their will's being broken, getting raped, and possibly even being killed in real life. I only mention that last bit as a small possibility because if they died, and Gorski didn't know about their involvement in Baby Doll's plans, she wouldn't have any reason to bring up their deaths to a lobotomist when she's talking to him about Baby Doll.

Personally, I want to see the original ending. x.x It now eats at me.

[Abies]

I don't follow. On what basis do you make this statement? our only interaction with her is when she gets on a bus.

And yes, I already talked a bit about the other girl's existence in an earlier post. We really have no clue whether they exist at all or how much function they have.

I base that on the fact that Sweetpea was the one up on the stage when Babydoll entered the "theatre" room in the asylum. Sweetpea is the one who takes that place of the lobotomy patient, it is readily apparent she is the "first person" in the brothel scenes.

Also, Babydoll says as much when they are escaping at the end "This was always your story, etc..." Since they were still in the brothel fantasy at that point it is clear it was her fantasy.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

I think that the action sequences were more symbolic of how powerful and effective the dances were in entertaining those viewing them. Since I have no doubt that any dance would be less enjoyable than the action sequences I find this rather acceptable.

That was my take on it.
Q: So how awesome was Baby Doll's dance?
A: As awesome as 12-foot demon samurai with chainguns and rocket launchers.

[Primal Fury]

That was my take on it.
Q: So how awesome was Baby Doll's dance?
A: As awesome as 12-foot demon samurai with chainguns and rocket launchers.
That's another thing that bothered me. The action scenes were supposed to represent how awesome the dancing was, but the actions scenes felt overdone, and downright corny. Does that mean the dancing was the same? I mean... Samurai? Cool. Demon Samurai? Also cool; there are definitely stories where such things have existed. Then we jump to 12 foot demon samurai with chainguns and rocket launchers. What.

It just seemed sorta... stupid. And I don't think that's what they were trying to convey.

[Gaius Marius]

That's another thing that bothered me. The action scenes were supposed to represent how awesome the dancing was, but the actions scenes felt overdone, and downright corny. Does that mean the dancing was the same? I mean... Samurai? Cool. Demon Samurai? Also cool; there are definitely stories where such things have existed. Then we jump to 12 foot demon samurai with chainguns and rocket launchers. What.

It just seemed sorta... stupid. And I don't think that's what they were trying to convey.

It was fanservice. Nerd fanservice, the whole movie is a well-written fanservice station.

Was I the only one who got a strong Leonard Nimoy feel from the Mentor Figure?

I like the interpretation that one of the character is the other char's guardian angel. Definetly acts like it. You can say the same about that Mentor Figure, too.

Finally, I am officially in love with Amber, and will build an autel to her sexyness and awesomeness :smallbiggrin:

[ZombyWoof]

This movie was good in so far as if yo utook it as a string of pilots for movies the director SHOULD have made.

The plot was shaky and convoluted, the "artsy" level was way over-the-top, and the level of "bad" at which they showed the vast majority of males was over-the-top.

[unosarta]

This movie was good in so far as if yo utook it as a string of pilots for movies the director SHOULD have made.

The plot was shaky and convoluted, the "artsy" level was way over-the-top, and the level of "bad" at which they showed the vast majority of males was over-the-top.

Can you give some examples? You mention that the plot was shaky, can you say exactly how? Can you give some reasoning behind why you say the "artsy" level (what does that phrase even mean? :smallconfused:) was "way over-the-top"?

[SlyGuyMcFly]

That's another thing that bothered me. The action scenes were supposed to represent how awesome the dancing was, but the actions scenes felt overdone, and downright corny. Does that mean the dancing was the same? I mean... Samurai? Cool. Demon Samurai? Also cool; there are definitely stories where such things have existed. Then we jump to 12 foot demon samurai with chainguns and rocket launchers. What.

It just seemed sorta... stupid. And I don't think that's what they were trying to convey.

A case of very varying mileage (like everything in the movie, I guess). I found the action scenes highly enjoyable in a non-conry, non-ironic way. Sure, it was SFX porn in the same way Avatar is SFX porn, but it was some damn good SFX/Action porn and deliciously over-the top. But I guess that's the thing - I like over the top. I like it a lot.

But de gustibus non est disputandum and all that. I can easily see why it'd seem too overdone for a lot of people.

[Mordokai]

That's another thing that bothered me. The action scenes were supposed to represent how awesome the dancing was, but the actions scenes felt overdone, and downright corny. Does that mean the dancing was the same? I mean... Samurai? Cool. Demon Samurai? Also cool; there are definitely stories where such things have existed. Then we jump to 12 foot demon samurai with chainguns and rocket launchers. What.

It just seemed sorta... stupid. And I don't think that's what they were trying to convey.

You kidding? 12 foot demonic samurai wielding gatling gun from trailer was the very reason I went and see this movie! :smallbiggrin:

And I must say, I don't regret it one bit :smallsmile: Yeah, it was a little confusing, especially the end of it, but everything more than makes up for it.

[Plato Orikalkum]

That's another thing that bothered me. The action scenes were supposed to represent how awesome the dancing was, but the actions scenes felt overdone, and downright corny. Does that mean the dancing was the same? I mean... Samurai? Cool. Demon Samurai? Also cool; there are definitely stories where such things have existed. Then we jump to 12 foot demon samurai with chainguns and rocket launchers. What.

It just seemed sorta... stupid. And I don't think that's what they were trying to convey.[/QUOTE]


If you weren't expecting completely over-the-top action scenes, then you probably hadn't watched the trailer.

I certainly think a lot of the arguments against the film were valid, while still liking everything about it. It was a well-plotted film about survival and inner strength that happened to feature chaingun-wielding giant samurai, orcs and robots. I give it an A for Awesome. :smallsmile:

[kyoryu]

So, based a little on Snyder's interview...


I've come to have a higher opinion of this movie (having seen it twice) than when I first saw it. It's actually a pretty bold movie. And the name is perfect - practically the only name that could work, and it works on many levels.

Structurally, there's three levels of the movie. Reality, the Delusion, and the Fantasy.

Reality and the Delusion (the brothel) are tightly connected. The Delusion is a different way of seeing events in Reality - but at least significant events in the Delusion have counterparts in Reality.

We'll get to the Fantasy a bit later.

So what's happening in Reality? My belief is that Blue is pimping out the girls in the asylum, at a minimum to the other orderlies. Dr. Gorski is at least somewhat aware of this, but Blue has something on her that prevents her from taking action - possibly due to lack of proof, and even denial on her part.

The five girls (I believe I saw at least some of the missing three before we enter the Delusion, specifically Rocket, she's pretty distinctive looking) hatch a plot to escape the asylum. It's a simple plot - get the key, start a fire to trigger the automatic mechanisms and create a distraction, and get the heck out of there. The knife's a backup in case something goes wrong, as it probably will.

For each item, the same basic plan takes place. Babydoll distracts the target, while another girl gets the appropriate item. How does Babydoll distract them in Reality? I'm not entirely sure. It may be the equivalent of a lap dance, and it may well be actual sex. It may be different in different cases. So the plan is based on a figurative sucker punch - distract the opponent and then hit 'em when they're not looking.

Her "dance" - her therapy - is extremely seductive, as it's the only weapon she has left. It starts the men drooling over her, and gives her the power to distract them. But when she dances (which I believe in the first case is her therapy, but afterwards isn't), she goes into the Fantasy. Is it her Fantasy? Maybe. But more importantly - it's our Fantasy.

In the Fantasy, we, the audience become the dirty old men watching Babydoll. We ourselves are distracted from the Reality, and even the Delusion, of what is happening, just as the dirty men in the movie are. We are distracted from the real plot, from what is really happening, by gratuitous sensation with no meaning. People have complained about the Fantasy sequences not being related to either Reality or the Delusion - but they're not supposed to be. That's the *point*. And that's the second sucker punch of the movie. A movie that has high levels of fanservice, and is directly aimed at the fanboy market, then has the nerve to throw our own fetishization and objectification of women in our own faces. WE are the cook. WE are the mayor. WE are Blue.

That's actually another point in favor of the "The Delusion is Sweetpea's Delusion" argument. The Delusion has meaning, while the Fantasy has none - which is exactly what Sweetpea says about Babydoll's dance.

And that's the third sucker punch of the movie. We go in expecting a light fluffy fun action movie. And we get that - but while we get that we're getting a hefty dose of our own objectification of women smacked in our face. We get exactly what we ask for, and then we're forced to look at exactly what it is we asked for, and why, and what that says about us.

That's why even when we're in the Fantasy, and the girls are dressed outrageously, the direction does not focus on the sexual aspects of the girls. It's up to us to see that, to whatever level we do. If we see fanservice, it's because we're looking for it. Snyder's not calling attention to it, but he's not hiding it either. He's allowing us to either look for it, or not. I mean, come on - even in this thread we've got people claiming that thevery same sequences are both fanservice and have a feminist POV. How is that even possible? It's because we are finding what we are looking for.

So yeah, I think it's a pretty bold movie. It's a movie aimed at straight, fanboy males that does it's best to call out the poor attitudes of straight fanboy males. And that's awesome.

But Mecha fighting steam-powered WWI zombie Germans are awesome, too.

[Om]

Tara Brady didn't like it (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/theticket/2011/0401/1224293476708.html). That's my mind made up

[Gaius Marius]

So, based a little on Snyder's interview...


I've come to have a higher opinion of this movie (having seen it twice) than when I first saw it. It's actually a pretty bold movie. And the name is perfect - practically the only name that could work, and it works on many levels.

Structurally, there's three levels of the movie. Reality, the Delusion, and the Fantasy.

Reality and the Delusion (the brothel) are tightly connected. The Delusion is a different way of seeing events in Reality - but at least significant events in the Delusion have counterparts in Reality.

We'll get to the Fantasy a bit later.

So what's happening in Reality? My belief is that Blue is pimping out the girls in the asylum, at a minimum to the other orderlies. Dr. Gorski is at least somewhat aware of this, but Blue has something on her that prevents her from taking action - possibly due to lack of proof, and even denial on her part.

The five girls (I believe I saw at least some of the missing three before we enter the Delusion, specifically Rocket, she's pretty distinctive looking) hatch a plot to escape the asylum. It's a simple plot - get the key, start a fire to trigger the automatic mechanisms and create a distraction, and get the heck out of there. The knife's a backup in case something goes wrong, as it probably will.

For each item, the same basic plan takes place. Babydoll distracts the target, while another girl gets the appropriate item. How does Babydoll distract them in Reality? I'm not entirely sure. It may be the equivalent of a lap dance, and it may well be actual sex. It may be different in different cases. So the plan is based on a figurative sucker punch - distract the opponent and then hit 'em when they're not looking.

Her "dance" - her therapy - is extremely seductive, as it's the only weapon she has left. It starts the men drooling over her, and gives her the power to distract them. But when she dances (which I believe in the first case is her therapy, but afterwards isn't), she goes into the Fantasy. Is it her Fantasy? Maybe. But more importantly - it's our Fantasy.

In the Fantasy, we, the audience become the dirty old men watching Babydoll. We ourselves are distracted from the Reality, and even the Delusion, of what is happening, just as the dirty men in the movie are. We are distracted from the real plot, from what is really happening, by gratuitous sensation with no meaning. People have complained about the Fantasy sequences not being related to either Reality or the Delusion - but they're not supposed to be. That's the *point*. And that's the second sucker punch of the movie. A movie that has high levels of fanservice, and is directly aimed at the fanboy market, then has the nerve to throw our own fetishization and objectification of women in our own faces. WE are the cook. WE are the mayor. WE are Blue.

That's actually another point in favor of the "The Delusion is Sweetpea's Delusion" argument. The Delusion has meaning, while the Fantasy has none - which is exactly what Sweetpea says about Babydoll's dance.

And that's the third sucker punch of the movie. We go in expecting a light fluffy fun action movie. And we get that - but while we get that we're getting a hefty dose of our own objectification of women smacked in our face. We get exactly what we ask for, and then we're forced to look at exactly what it is we asked for, and why, and what that says about us.

That's why even when we're in the Fantasy, and the girls are dressed outrageously, the direction does not focus on the sexual aspects of the girls. It's up to us to see that, to whatever level we do. If we see fanservice, it's because we're looking for it. Snyder's not calling attention to it, but he's not hiding it either. He's allowing us to either look for it, or not. I mean, come on - even in this thread we've got people claiming that thevery same sequences are both fanservice and have a feminist POV. How is that even possible? It's because we are finding what we are looking for.

So yeah, I think it's a pretty bold movie. It's a movie aimed at straight, fanboy males that does it's best to call out the poor attitudes of straight fanboy males. And that's awesome.

But Mecha fighting steam-powered WWI zombie Germans are awesome, too.


Damn it. Now you make me feel like a pervert. :smallfrown:

[toasty]

I really fail to understand why people don't like this movie and are ripping it apart for doing exactly what it claimed to do. Its a movie with girls in miniskirts shooting samurais. You can look for a deeper meaning if you want (and there apparently are, proving that Synder is not some sort of meaningless hack), but that really alone should be enough, I feel like, to sell this movie.

I guess most people just aren't interested in B-17s dogfighting dragons and Steampunk-Zombies :smallsigh:

[Gaius Marius]

I really fail to understand why people don't like this movie and are ripping it apart for doing exactly what it claimed to do. Its a movie with girls in miniskirts shooting samurais. You can look for a deeper meaning if you want (and there apparently are, proving that Synder is not some sort of meaningless hack), but that really alone should be enough, I feel like, to sell this movie.

I guess most people just aren't interested in B-17s dogfighting dragons and Steampunk-Zombies :smallsigh:

The hidden depth is actually what I liked so much about it. thing is, this movie isn't something that'll slap you on the head with it.

I.. I actually am disturbed by kyoryu's interpretation of the available fanservice (both sexy and nerdy). I am not sure if I am so proud to like that movie anymore.

20% rotten rating on Rottentomatoes is actually impressive. Maybe reporters don't like to think in their job? They like "easy" movies?

[Coidzor]

A friend of mine thought it was supposed to be a spiritual successor to Heavy Metal while we were watching it, up until about the 2/3 mark.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

So, based a little on Snyder's interview...


I've come to have a higher opinion of this movie (having seen it twice) than when I first saw it. It's actually a pretty bold movie. And the name is perfect - practically the only name that could work, and it works on many levels.

Structurally, there's three levels of the movie. Reality, the Delusion, and the Fantasy.

Reality and the Delusion (the brothel) are tightly connected. The Delusion is a different way of seeing events in Reality - but at least significant events in the Delusion have counterparts in Reality.

We'll get to the Fantasy a bit later.

So what's happening in Reality? My belief is that Blue is pimping out the girls in the asylum, at a minimum to the other orderlies. Dr. Gorski is at least somewhat aware of this, but Blue has something on her that prevents her from taking action - possibly due to lack of proof, and even denial on her part.

The five girls (I believe I saw at least some of the missing three before we enter the Delusion, specifically Rocket, she's pretty distinctive looking) hatch a plot to escape the asylum. It's a simple plot - get the key, start a fire to trigger the automatic mechanisms and create a distraction, and get the heck out of there. The knife's a backup in case something goes wrong, as it probably will.

For each item, the same basic plan takes place. Babydoll distracts the target, while another girl gets the appropriate item. How does Babydoll distract them in Reality? I'm not entirely sure. It may be the equivalent of a lap dance, and it may well be actual sex. It may be different in different cases. So the plan is based on a figurative sucker punch - distract the opponent and then hit 'em when they're not looking.

Her "dance" - her therapy - is extremely seductive, as it's the only weapon she has left. It starts the men drooling over her, and gives her the power to distract them. But when she dances (which I believe in the first case is her therapy, but afterwards isn't), she goes into the Fantasy. Is it her Fantasy? Maybe. But more importantly - it's our Fantasy.

In the Fantasy, we, the audience become the dirty old men watching Babydoll. We ourselves are distracted from the Reality, and even the Delusion, of what is happening, just as the dirty men in the movie are. We are distracted from the real plot, from what is really happening, by gratuitous sensation with no meaning. People have complained about the Fantasy sequences not being related to either Reality or the Delusion - but they're not supposed to be. That's the *point*. And that's the second sucker punch of the movie. A movie that has high levels of fanservice, and is directly aimed at the fanboy market, then has the nerve to throw our own fetishization and objectification of women in our own faces. WE are the cook. WE are the mayor. WE are Blue.

That's actually another point in favor of the "The Delusion is Sweetpea's Delusion" argument. The Delusion has meaning, while the Fantasy has none - which is exactly what Sweetpea says about Babydoll's dance.

And that's the third sucker punch of the movie. We go in expecting a light fluffy fun action movie. And we get that - but while we get that we're getting a hefty dose of our own objectification of women smacked in our face. We get exactly what we ask for, and then we're forced to look at exactly what it is we asked for, and why, and what that says about us.

That's why even when we're in the Fantasy, and the girls are dressed outrageously, the direction does not focus on the sexual aspects of the girls. It's up to us to see that, to whatever level we do. If we see fanservice, it's because we're looking for it. Snyder's not calling attention to it, but he's not hiding it either. He's allowing us to either look for it, or not. I mean, come on - even in this thread we've got people claiming that thevery same sequences are both fanservice and have a feminist POV. How is that even possible? It's because we are finding what we are looking for.

So yeah, I think it's a pretty bold movie. It's a movie aimed at straight, fanboy males that does it's best to call out the poor attitudes of straight fanboy males. And that's awesome.

But Mecha fighting steam-powered WWI zombie Germans are awesome, too.


Nail. Head. Impact. (http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/Asteroid_impact.jpg)

I've been mulling the movie over since I watched it, and you've put in words a whole bunch of notions I was having trouble verbalising. I do believe you are spot on about it.

[kyoryu]

A couple other things I've thought about over lunch...


There seems to be a range of how "delusional" the Delusion is. At times (the fight with the cook) it seems very close to Reality - the bitten down nails and generally grubby appearance of everyone. At other times, it is extremely disassociated from reality (any scene in the theater). Is this relevant? Is it all Delusion, just at some points the girls are forced to be grubby while they work? Or?

Whose Delusion is it, really?

Babydoll:

For: she's medicated the whole time, which seems to lend credence to a persistent delusional state.
There's no Delusion scene after her lobotomization.

Against: The whole "my dance has meaning" speech.
The fact that we're informed that it's Sweetpea's story.

Sweetpea:

For: The "my dance has meaning" speech, combined with the meaning in the Delusion vs. the Fantasy
It's Sweetpea's story.

Against: She's not medicated.

The men in the facility - specifically and primarily Blue:

Here's the possibly controversial one. In Reality, Blue is an orderly who has some leverage that allows him to abuse institutionalized young women and pimp them out to other employees of the asylum. He's scum. In the Delusion, he's rich and powerful, and has wealthy, important clients. His girls are beautiful and desired by all. The brothel is his fantasy of being a big shot. Many if not most of the Delusion scenes involve him. On the sliding scale of Delusion (that I mention above), the most Delusional scenes generally involve him as well (though there are a couple of exceptions).

For instance, the scene with the cook is very low on the Delusion-o-meter. It could easily be in reality. Even Babydoll's outfit is relatively tame and even a bit grubby. Also, note the quality of the light - this is a pretty big clue. The lighting in that scene is far closer to the lighting of the asylum scenes before the transition to the Delusion than it is to the full-on Delusion scenes.

And then Blue enters. And, guess what - he's the first element in that scene that is clearly and completely Delusional. He's accompanied by the two other orderlies. But they're not orderlies, they're bodyguards because he's so important.

The entire Delusion is based on the perception of Blue. It feeds Blue's fantasy life. Dr. Gorsky, instead of being a psychologist helping the girls, is a madame that prepares them for their "clients." In reality, the "dance" is to help the girls, while the men that watch them re-enact their worst nightmares (which are almost certainly in many cases sexual - for instance, Sweetpea's in the opening sequence certainly has a sexual vibe to it) get off on it - and presumably pay Blue for time with the girls.

The girls get transformed from insane women that need help, and are grubby and unkempty, into beautiful, desirable women - prostitutes, as that's how Blue sees them. This feeds Blue's fantasy as well - pimping out grubby insane women is nasty and dirty and low. But pimping out beautiful, glamorous girls makes him bigger and more important by reflection.

And of course, Blue himself. He goes from being a sick, disgusting orderly to being a big shot - a man who is friends with high rollers and the mayor. While other people in the fantasy get higher status, in many cases their status is completely unrelated to anything in reality. But in all cases, they make Blue's reality better, more glamorous, more interesting and powerful.

It makes sense. Why would the any of the girls create a Delusion of a bordello? Why not create a Delusion that gives them an existence where they have some power and control? The Delusion doesn't do that - but it *does* raise Blue's status. It *does* reaffirm his view of the world - women are whores and tools to be used, and he is important and powerful and respected. The Delusion completely reflects Blue's view of the world - nobody else's.

So if it's Blue's Delusion, then why does it end with Babydoll's lobotomy? Because here, finally, was proof. The lobotomy was the proof that Dr. Gorski needed to get him put away, and end his power over the girls. Black and white, written proof in the form of a forged signature. The lobotomy of Babydoll destroyed him. She became free of the institution in the only way that she likely could (a 20 year old woman accused of murder and diagnosed as insane in the 20s? She faced a terrible life no matter what). But in the process, she freed all the women of the institution from the predations of Blue.

In her perfect sacrifice was complete and total victory.

[Om]

20% rotten rating on Rottentomatoes is actually impressive. Maybe reporters don't like to think in their job? They like "easy" movies?This is true of course. Sucker Punch is an intensely deep and challenging movie (bening far more than simply "B-17s dogfighting dragons and Steampunk-Zombies") and film critics are notoriously fearful of anything that even hints at intellectual exercise or pretence. Its why they repeatedly slam films like Inception or The Wrestler, and its why you are right and the vast majority of professional critics are wrong

Or, to be slightly more serious, it does indeed require more than CGI dragons to impress people. I can appreciate that some people enjoy a bit of eye-candy but others enjoy more than simply vapid 'fanservice' from a film

[Keld Denar]

Wow, kyoryu, that actually makes a TON of sense. Very well thought out, kudos. I always wondered that there was something that didn't make sense in why the fantasy took the form of a brothel...

[kyoryu]

This is true of course. Sucker Punch is an intensely deep and challenging movie (bening far more than simply "B-17s dogfighting dragons and Steampunk-Zombies") and film critics are notoriously fearful of anything that even hints at intellectual exercise or pretence. Its why they repeatedly slam films like Inception or The Wrestler, and its why you are right and the vast majority of professional critics are wrong

Or, to be slightly more serious, it does indeed require more than CGI dragons to impress people. I can appreciate that some people enjoy a bit of eye-candy but others enjoy more than simply vapid 'fanservice' from a film

Sucker Punch is a challenging movie. It's also a movie that targets, and challenges, a very specific audience - of which movie reviewers tend to not be a part of.

You have to think that the "cool" parts of it are "cool" for it to have any meaning. If you view them as juvenile and gratuitous, you'll miss the entire point of the movie.

If you don't fall for the distraction, you can't get hit by the sucker punch, after all.

[toasty]

You have to think that the "cool" parts of it are "cool" for it to have any meaning. If you view them as juvenile and gratuitous, you'll miss the entire point of the movie.

And this is why I hate reviewers. They aren't really objective. They just review stuff and give you their opinions on it based on their narrow views. Sucker Punch, even if you don't look at it on a very deep perspective, its a great movie. Its a brilliant movie if you look deeper.

[Callos_DeTerran]

And this is why I hate reviewers. They aren't really objective. They just review stuff and give you their opinions on it based on their narrow views. Sucker Punch, even if you don't look at it on a very deep perspective, its a great movie. Its a brilliant movie if you look deeper.

This. It's why I prefer to go into movies blind, or based on the opinions of friends with similar tastes to mine. That way my expectations aren't too high or too low, but just right.

I just hope Synder doesn't get put off by all the bad reviews and poor returns and doesn't make an original movie again, cause I love Sucker Punch.

[Gaius Marius]

Btw, Kyoryu, I TvTrope'd your post. Go and take it out if you don't like it :smallwink:


I am trying to spark interest in the mind of some people on my facebook. I had to come up with something quick, yet interesting. What do you think:


Is it just a movie aimed at the male nerd audience, interested in showing only cool gratious action scenes and sexy women?

Maybe. If that's the only thing you look for, then yes. If you look for more... that movie might surprise you. Enjoy the ride, open your mind.

[Om]

I just hope Synder doesn't get put off by all the bad reviews and poor returns and doesn't make an original movie again, cause I love Sucker Punch.I doubt Synder will have a choice. Its possible that its already ruined his chances of doing Superman (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2011/mar/31/zack-snyder-justice-league-christopher-nolan-superman) and a critical and (potentially) commercial drubbing on this scale could well end his career. I would not be upset if this were the case


And this is why I hate reviewers. They aren't really objectiveWhat? You're agreeing with the assertion that you'll only appreciate the film if your the target audience (presumably one that thinks that teenage girls in stripper gear fighting CGI creations is "cool") by complaining that reviewers aren't "objective"? :smallconfused:

If you like the film then that's great; just don't pretend that all the reviewers are somehow unqualified to pronounce a verdict on a film that you happen to like

[Coidzor]

I doubt Synder will have a choice. Its possible that its already ruined his chances of doing Superman (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2011/mar/31/zack-snyder-justice-league-christopher-nolan-superman) and a critical and (potentially) commercial drubbing on this scale could well end his career. I would not be upset if this were the case


I would be. This movie's flaws are nothing compared to Uwe Boll or M. Night Shyamalan, so, if nothing else, it would seem very cosmically out of whack for him to never work again because of Sucker Punch while Uwe Boll is, well... yeah...

[kyoryu]

I would be. This movie's flaws are nothing compared to Uwe Boll or M. Night Shyamalan, so, if nothing else, it would seem very cosmically out of whack for him to never work again because of Sucker Punch while Uwe Boll is, well... yeah...

I don't remember the details, but I recall reading somewhere that Germany basically finances Uwe Boll for some unknown reason. His films don't even need to make money, or be good. They just need to meet certain criteria - which is probably why he buys video game licenses (cheap) and gets B-rated stars.

[The Glyphstone]

German tax law loopholes, yeah - it means he makes a profit even on movies that bomb horribly, so German financiers keep bankrolling him.

[Coidzor]

The reasons why he has done what he has done are kind of irrelevant in face of the doing of them at all happening and not resulting in some kind of retribution from the universe.

[kyoryu]

The reasons why he has done what he has done are kind of irrelevant in face of the doing of them at all happening and not resulting in some kind of retribution from the universe.

While this is true, I'm actually somewhat relieved that nobody, not even Uwe Boll, actually thinks they're good movies, and that nobody is financing him under the delusion that he'll actually make a good movie.

[The Glyphstone]

While this is true, I'm actually somewhat relieved that nobody, not even Uwe Boll, actually thinks they're good movies, and that nobody is financing him under the delusion that he'll actually make a good movie.

Doesn't he think that he is the only [CENSORED] genius in the whole business?

[Philistine]

Wasn't Uwe Boll the guy who said that anyone who calls his movies crap should meet him in a boxing ring?

[Lurkmoar]

^ He did beat that one guy, whatshisname, Lowtax I think? He declined against Seanbaby though. Seanbaby does Muay Thai or Krav Magra or somehting.

I'll probably go watch this film this Friday. Think I've been good about avoiding spoilers.

[Bhu]

Saw this tonight surrounded by a sea of 6 year old girls and their moms who took their daughters to 'watch some girls kick ___".


Surreal experience to say the least.

[Om]

I would be. This movie's flaws are nothing compared to Uwe Boll or M. Night Shyamalan, so, if nothing else, it would seem very cosmically out of whack for him to never work again because of Sucker Punch while Uwe Boll is, well... yeah...Which is a fair enough point (leaving aside my fantasy of seeing all three get lost deep in the Amazon) but very few people are under the illusion that Uwe Boll is a complete hack; including Uwe Boll. The same cannot be said of Synder, whose stock was flying bizarrely high before this career disaster

[Callos_DeTerran]

Which is a fair enough point (leaving aside my fantasy of seeing all three get lost deep in the Amazon) but very few people are under the illusion that Uwe Boll is a complete hack; including Uwe Boll. The same cannot be said of Synder, whose stock was flying bizarrely high before this career disaster

Why's it bizarrely high? I've enjoyed, immensely, 300, Watchmen, the Dawn of the Dead remake, and Sucker Punch. Heck, Watchmen was my favorite movie to watch last year and, so far, Sucker Punch is topping that same list this year. In my opinion, Zack Synder has, reliably, created better movies then a bunch of other directors recently and is on par with Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins was alright, the Dark Knight was great, but I only found Inception 'decent').

Nor would I call Sucker Punch a career disaster.

[BRC]

Why's it bizarrely high? I've enjoyed, immensely, 300, Watchmen, the Dawn of the Dead remake, and Sucker Punch. Heck, Watchmen was my favorite movie to watch last year and, so far, Sucker Punch is topping that same list this year. In my opinion, Zack Synder has, reliably, created better movies then a bunch of other directors recently and is on par with Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins was alright, the Dark Knight was great, but I only found Inception 'decent').

Nor would I call Sucker Punch a career disaster.

I read somewhere that, from a box office perspective, it actually hasn't done that badly. It's just that the movie cost so much to make that it's gotten nowhere close to turning anything that looks like a profit, combine that with it's being panned by critics.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I read somewhere that, from a box office perspective, it actually hasn't done that badly. It's just that the movie cost so much to make that it's gotten nowhere close to turning anything that looks like a profit, combine that with it's being panned by critics.

I just read something similar on Wikipedia actually. That it opened number 2 (behind a Diary of a Wimpy Kid movie) and has made...


As of April 4, the film made $50,635,494, worldwide.

That. Course, I don't know how much it cost to make in the first place, so I don't know if it's anywhere close to the cost to make it.

[toasty]

Wiki reports a budget of 82 million. It'll make its money back. That is to say, it should break even, if not in theaters then at least through DVD sales, etc. But then again, most movies manage to do that.

I do honestly hope Hollywood gives Snyder another chance. I loved this movie so much.

[rayne_dragon]

From the sounds of it, Synder isn't expecting it to make a huge amount of money. It seems very much like his pet project where he does mostly what he wants to regardless of the consequences. I rather hope that it turns a profit once DVD sales are taken into account - I really want to see the director's cut of it.

I'd like to note that, oddly enough, I didn't care for Synder at all before this movie.

[Om]

Why's it bizarrely high? I've enjoyed, immensely, 300, Watchmen, the Dawn of the Dead remake, and Sucker Punch. Heck, Watchmen was my favorite movie to watch last year and, so far, Sucker Punch is topping that same list this year. In my opinion, Zack Synder has, reliably, created better movies then a bunch of other directors recently and is on par with Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins was alright, the Dark Knight was great, but I only found Inception 'decent').Whereas I consider him to be a glorified ad director whose visual panache often masks a yawning chasm where story and characters should be. It really is vacuous entertainment. That Hollywood suits consider(ed) the man to be some sort of visionary is truly bizarre


That. Course, I don't know how much it cost to make in the first place, so I don't know if it's anywhere close to the cost to make it.To put this in perspective, 300 (budget of $65m) made over $70m (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=300.htm) on its opening weekend. Compare with Sucker Punch's $19m. Of course even this is better than the Legend of the Guardians opening of $4.5m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_the_Guardians:_The_Owls_of_Ga%27Hoole#Bo x_office)

Now the film will almost certainly recoup its losses and is hardly a complete flop, but its unquestionably a box office disappointment. Hence the nerves of entrusting Superman (which is far too big to risk under-performing) to Synder

[Callos_DeTerran]

Whereas I consider him to be a glorified ad director whose visual panache often masks a yawning chasm where story and characters should be. It really is vacuous entertainment. That Hollywood suits consider(ed) the man to be some sort of visionary is truly bizarre

Well...why do you consider it vacuous entertainment? :smallconfused: I mean...I point back to the rest of the thread and the interview with Synder himself to give an example that the movie has hidden depths and quite good ones, so I'm not sure I understand your criticism here.

[BRC]

Whereas I consider him to be a glorified ad director whose visual panache often masks a yawning chasm where story and characters should be. It really is vacuous entertainment. That Hollywood suits consider(ed) the man to be some sort of visionary is truly bizarre

To put this in perspective, 300 (budget of $65m) made over $70m (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=300.htm) on its opening weekend. Compare with Sucker Punch's $19m. Of course even this is better than the Legend of the Guardians opening of $4.5m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_the_Guardians:_The_Owls_of_Ga%27Hoole#Bo x_office)

Now the film will almost certainly recoup its losses and is hardly a complete flop, but its unquestionably a box office disappointment. Hence the nerves of entrusting Superman (which is far too big to risk under-performing) to Synder

Except that Synder's done well with comic book adaptations. Sucker Punch may not have done well, but I would hardly call it career-ending.from what I've heard, Sucker Punch's biggest problem is the concept. Once you get past hallucinating schoolgirls in skimpy outfits fighting steampunk WWI germans, it's supposed to be quite well done. The end result may be that, from this point on, Snyder's career consists of him making adaptations of other people's work, or at the very least being kept on a tighter leash in terms of designing his own projects.

You say his visual Pananche mask a chasm where story and character should be, so why not apply that Pananche to somebody else's story and character. It worked well in Watchmen I thought, and 300 was mindless because it was based off an equally mindless comic.


Now, on the other front, Snyder's work can easily be seen as mindless. I havn't actually seen Sucker Punch yet (I'm hoping to fix that), but if it has hidden meaning, it may be hidden under layers of mindless drivel.

The way I see it, a well done hidden meaning should be hidden well enough that it is not immidietally apparent, while at the same time being accessible enough that the audience can find it on their own. If everybody walks out of the theater thinking "That was a pointless movie", then you have a pointless movie. You may have intended to create a deep look at one person's struggle to find themselves amidst a world that demands they conform (just coming up with a random message, I don't think this is the purpose of Sucker Punch), but if the audience doesn't realize that unless they read an interview where you explicitly say that, then it doesn't count. What you Intend is irrelevant, it's what the audience Sees that matters.

[Om]

Well...why do you consider it vacuous entertainment? :smallconfused:Because its all style and no substance. I don't believe for a second that there is some deeper meaning to Sucker Punch that excuses a lack of decent characterisation, dialogue or plotting, and I certainly don't accept the excuse that dancing girls in school girl costumes is somehow empowering. That's akin to fighting racism by making a minstrel show. Its worth noting that some of the most important criticisms levelled at the film, as opposed to merely worrying about Snyder's lack of craft, have come from women's groups

But then for me this isn't just about Sucker Punch. I found 300 to be absolutely boring; nothing more than slow-as-treacle fighting and bellicose shouting tied up in an interesting visual package. Watchmen was slightly different in that Snyder failed (beyond the opening montage) to stamp anything of himself on the story and almost created a panel-by-panel reproduction of the comic. Which was disappointing to say the least. In both cases we have a director who contributes nothing but a visual motif. Its no surprise that when he does actually does create a novel setting its filled with nothing but visual extravaganzas and empty of almost all the attributes that make an interesting film. It doesn't even make an exciting one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaU0DyP2-XA)


The end result may be that, from this point on, Snyder's career consists of him making adaptations of other people's work, or at the very least being kept on a tighter leash in terms of designing his own projectsQuite possibly. Realistically its unlikely that this one film is going to suddenly end what has been an exceptionally hyped career. M. Night Shyamalan is still making films after all

But he could well lose Superman. This film is big and has to be a success for the studio. Sucker Punch has raised all sorts of uncomfortable questions for the suits as to whether Snyder is the right man for the job. Certainly Chris Nolan's role as 'consultant' will be a lot larger than most originally anticipated

[Coidzor]

I found 300 to be absolutely boring; nothing more than slow-as-treacle fighting and bellicose shouting tied up in an interesting visual package. ...So why are you faulting the director so intensely for being vacuous when it's a reproduction of someone else's bellicose shouting and slow-as-treacle fighting? Are you saying he's a bad director because he took the job to do 300 at all?


Watchmen was slightly different in that Snyder failed (beyond the opening montage) to stamp anything of himself on the story and almost created a panel-by-panel reproduction of the comic. Which was disappointing to say the least.

Why? Does the director have to put in a jarring change from the source material to please you? What do you mean?


In both cases we have a director who contributes nothing but a visual motif. Its no surprise that when he does actually does create a novel setting its filled with nothing but visual extravaganzas and empty of almost all the attributes that make an interesting film. And these attributes would be, what exactly? Story elements? You want him to just do a complete rewrite of established stories that he's just translating to the big screen?

[Om]

...So why are you faulting the director so intensely for being vacuous when it's a reproduction of someone else's bellicose shouting and slow-as-treacle fighting? Are you saying he's a bad director because he took the job to do 300 at all?No, because he failed to imbibe it with anything of his own. A director is not some faithful scribe, diligently making bigger replicas of holy icons. I expect him to stamp his own image on the film, to employ his crafts to make the film as good as possible. If the comic's script is bad then (yes) make rewrites, if this or that concept won't work on the big screen then ditch it, if the narrative structure needs tweaking then do so, etc, etc. All the stuff that needs to be done to make such that a good comic (or TV series or book or whatever) translates into a good film. And if a director doesn't do that then he ends up with, at best, an eminently forgettable one

Watchmen falls squarely into that latter category. I want a film version of Watchmen, not a simple visual reproduction of a comic that I've read plenty of time already


And these attributes would be, what exactly? Story elements? You want him to just do a complete rewrite of established stories that he's just translating to the big screen?No I want him to adapt them to be big screen, not "translate"

But then Snyder falls flat even on the mundane mechanics of making a film. In print the the art and pacing of 300 provide a certain dynamism. In film this comes across as endless slow-mo prancing about. Once you're done admiring the aesthetics (and abs) there's little left to entertain you. The action is far flatter than even the typical Hollywood blockbuster. Which is one of the funnier criticisms levelled at Sucker Punch - it somehow makes pitting bombers against dragons exceptionally boring

[Gaius Marius]

Watchmen falls squarely into that latter category. I want a film version of Watchmen, not a simple visual reproduction of a comic that I've read plenty of time already

I personnally feel Watchmen is one of the best cinema piece coming out of 2009, and that the movie in superior to the comic book. I don't see exactly what kind of criteria you are using to judge Snyder's skills, as he was faithful to the origin material, managed to include a very high number of subtle reference to the original material.

Yet, he applied his style, and with gusto. It's not everybody who can pull of Manhattan's scene where he describes his past. Plus, Snyder's selection of the music for that scene was more than spot on.

Snyder have managed to make a wonderful mix of great visual and audio stimulation to draw us into his story. I don't understand what you wanted more of him. He made the deliberate (and fan-serving) choice of sticking with the origin material. Many people judged that Peter Jackson's deviations of Lord of the Rings' storyline was outrageous.

Well, that was PJ's choice of what makes a good movie. Sticking or deviating to the source material is an artistic choice, not something you can judge by itself, but how good the director pulls it off. PJ's deviations were good, Snyder's sticking with Watchmen was pure awesome.

Don't just make an arbitrary line saying what's good and what's not, regardless of how the director decided to go at it.


No I want him to adapt them to be big screen, not "translate"

If you feel that's what's best, then start directing movie adaptation from books yourself, and make the choice to "translate". I hope you pull it off well.

Because a bad "translation" will always be inferior to a good "adaptation". Why do you have to impose your own view of what's an appropriate treatment of a source material to determine if a movie is good or not? Again, look at the work done, not at the strategic choices made.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Because its all style and no substance. I don't believe for a second that there is some deeper meaning to Sucker Punch that excuses a lack of decent characterisation, dialogue or plotting, and I certainly don't accept the excuse that dancing girls in school girl costumes is somehow empowering. That's akin to fighting racism by making a minstrel show. Its worth noting that some of the most important criticisms levelled at the film, as opposed to merely worrying about Snyder's lack of craft, have come from women's groups

Okay...what lack of decent characterisation, dialogue, or plotting are you talking about? Can you give me an example? I found the dialogue and characterisation spot on. Could it have been more in-depth? Maybe, but I think that would have actually detracted from the movie considering you're dealing with two levels of characterization, that of the people in the brothel fantasy and the asylum. Instead, the dialogue and characterization is concise and to the point. You get a clear idea of what the characters are like within a couple lines from them, which is more important then lots of dialogue but an unclear character/personality. That and I don't trust 'X groups' on their opinions because they aren't exactly unbiased. Most of the time they seem to be looking for the slightest hint of insult to latch unto, even if it's nonexistent or not intended.

Nor is the movie about female empowerment (successfully or not), and I'm not sure where people are getting that idea. Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angles Times says it doesn't objectify or empower women, and that's where I put my belief. You could take away a message of female objectification/empowerment I suppose, but it means you went into the movie looking to take away a message along those lines. Heck, the claims of misandry have more substance then ones of misogyny/anti-misogyny. The film's a critique on geek culture’s sexism and objectification of women in Synder's own words and it serves admirably in that regard, or even a critique on film-makers making 'commercialized' movies instead of what they want to make.


But then for me this isn't just about Sucker Punch. I found 300 to be absolutely boring; nothing more than slow-as-treacle fighting and bellicose shouting tied up in an interesting visual package. Watchmen was slightly different in that Snyder failed (beyond the opening montage) to stamp anything of himself on the story and almost created a panel-by-panel reproduction of the comic. Which was disappointing to say the least. In both cases we have a director who contributes nothing but a visual motif. Its no surprise that when he does actually does create a novel setting its filled with nothing but visual extravaganzas and empty of almost all the attributes that make an interesting film. It doesn't even make an exciting one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaU0DyP2-XA)

And yet...the panel-by-panel reproduction of the comic (I'll have to take your word on that) is what an adaptation is. How many books-turned-movies have you heard about that bombed horribly because of fans howling about the liberties the director takes with the source material to turn it into something it's not? Watchmen was meant to be Watchmen, not Zack Synder's Watchmen.

...And I have to ask, I'm not trying to be insulting, but have you even watched the movie yourself or are you just going by reviews and second-hand information? I keep getting the impression that you haven't seen the movie yourself and I'm curious if I'm right or not. Cause it's placement as ranking #2 movie would suggest that the general public disagree with critics about the merits of the movie. Hell, I've gone to see it twice in theaters (something I've only done once or twice) and, if given the chance, I'd see it a third time as well and still not feel cheated. It's exciting, kept me on the edge of my seat, and made me think about it even though I was expecting something that was just visually nice (and it really does have wonderful visuals).

[kyoryu]

I found the dialogue and characterisation spot on. Could it have been more in-depth? Maybe, but I think that would have actually detracted from the movie considering you're dealing with two levels of characterization, that of the people in the brothel fantasy and the asylum.

Arguably, more characterization would have been an error, since


There's a good amount of evidence that the Bordello is Blue's fantasy/delusion, not the girls'. Hints to that include, among other things, Babydoll's name - it's the nickname that Blue gave her in the beginning of the movie, in Reality.

[MammonAzrael]

Saw this tonight surrounded by a sea of 6 year old girls and their moms who took their daughters to 'watch some girls kick ___".


Surreal experience to say the least.

...this makes me sad. This was not a movie to show little kids, much less an example to hold up of "girls kicking ___."

I saw it last night, along with Red Riding Hood, and both movies receive a profound "meh" from me. The effects were pretty cool in general, and the dragon was great. Aside from that, I simply didn't get into it. I never cared about the characters, and the movie was too choppy and...*shrug* I don't expect to ever see it again.

Amusing aside, when Red Riding Hood first started to play, I felt more like I was watching another one of Babydoll's imagination-dances. :smalltongue:

[VanBuren]

This is true of course. Sucker Punch is an intensely deep and challenging movie (bening far more than simply "B-17s dogfighting dragons and Steampunk-Zombies") and film critics are notoriously fearful of anything that even hints at intellectual exercise or pretence. Its why they repeatedly slam films like Inception or The Wrestler, and its why you are right and the vast majority of professional critics are wrong

Or, to be slightly more serious, it does indeed require more than CGI dragons to impress people. I can appreciate that some people enjoy a bit of eye-candy but others enjoy more than simply vapid 'fanservice' from a film

You almost had me there in the first paragraph. Well done, sir.


Most of the time they seem to be looking for the slightest hint of insult to latch unto, even if it's nonexistent or not intended.

I think that's a gross misrepresentation, frankly.

[JabberwockySupafly]

I really fail to understand why people don't like this movie and are ripping it apart for doing exactly what it claimed to do. Its a movie with girls in miniskirts shooting samurais. You can look for a deeper meaning if you want (and there apparently are, proving that Synder is not some sort of meaningless hack), but that really alone should be enough, I feel like, to sell this movie.

I guess most people just aren't interested in B-17s dogfighting dragons and Steampunk-Zombies :smallsigh:


I didn't like the movie, and I am very much so the target demographic. Heck, most of my major "nerdgasm buttons" are in it, down to the Steampunk/Clockpunk German Soldiers (Nitpick: They are not Nazis, as some have called them. It was meant to be WWI. Nazis were WWII. Those guys would've been... what? Deutsches Heer? Correct me if I'm wrong here people, my WWI history is fuzzy at best.)

To be honest, I didn't like the movie because I felt it didn't do what it claimed, or at least not enough. It's being touted as a "non-stop action thrill ride"...The movie is around 100 minutes long. The 4 actions scenes in total make up, what? 20 to 30 minutes of the film? That's upwards of 80 minutes of exposition and a lot of what amounts to filler. Don't get me wrong, those action scenes were amazing and I thoroughly enjoyed them, but that was all I really seemed to enjoy about this movie.

I don't think the movie's plot was nearly as deep or brilliant as a lot of people on here are claiming, either. There whole story just felt... sloppy and unfinished, as if the actual plot was tacked on at the last moment when Mr. Snyder realised "Oh crap, I have to have something to justify this 30 minutes of brain-melting CGeye-candy."

I felt the movie tried too hard to be too many different things and ended being a "jack of all trades, master of none". An action movie that (if you really think about it) didn't have that much action, a thriller that really wasn't all that thrilling, and a mystery that wasn't mysterious. Toss in a healthy dose of "the fight for freedom is always the good fight" and "the power of friendship conquers all" for good measure, and top it all off with a few Whedonesque female characters.

The film attempted to be an unabashed fanservice film and a Serious Piece of Art all at the same time, and failed to accomplish either of them.

Am I saying people on here are wrong for liking it? E Gads no. My opinion is just that. I hated District 9 and Avatar, but I will gladly sit down and watch the Blade trilogy over & over again without getting bored. I just felt... let down by it. I can at least take comfort in the fact that it will still be better than the live-action Akira Hollywood is making.

And I will most likely re-watch it when it hits DVD or BluRay, and who knows? Maybe I'll enjoy it more in the comfort of my own home.

[Coidzor]

The film's a critique on geek culture’s sexism and objectification of women in Synder's own words and it serves admirably in that regard, or even a critique on film-makers making 'commercialized' movies instead of what they want to make.

Yeah, the main problem with this is that there's no real clear indication that we're supposed to see any of the men as identifiably geek and the only indication that we have that we're supposed to feel bad for going to see a movie that had trailers that promised an interesting twist on a premise for an action movie because we're sexist neanderthals is his words on the movie.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I think that's a gross misrepresentation, frankly.

Distinctly possible, I try to limit my contact to such groups so I only really hear about the extremist ones that get in tizzy fits about absolutely nothing. Distinctly possible that's colored my opinion of them.


Arguably, more characterization would have been an error, since


There's a good amount of evidence that the Bordello is Blue's fantasy/delusion, not the girls'. Hints to that include, among other things, Babydoll's name - it's the nickname that Blue gave her in the beginning of the movie, in Reality.


Like I said myself, more characterization may or may not have been in error. :smallwink:

Though...
How does your theory that the bordello is Blue's fantasy/delusion match up to the original ending scene between Baby Doll and the High Roller? I don't know the details since I haven't seen it myself, but it has a minor romance scene between the two before the H....Never mind, just figured out it fits perfectly. x.x

[Bhu]

...this makes me sad. This was not a movie to show little kids, much less an example to hold up of "girls kicking ___."



The only two males there were myself and the guy I went to watch it with. WHen it was over we turned to look at each other and basically said the same thing:

"Man I do not want to ever have the conversation those women are gonna have with their kids tonight."

[Triscuitable]

If Sucker Punch doesn't turn out to be action-comedy gold, I will kill myself. Other people may die also. I'm playing this by the ear.

Did you kill yourself? I hope you didn't. That'd be sad to kill yourself over a movie like this.

[shadow_archmagi]

Saw this movie. Enjoyed it! I wouldn't say it was comedy gold, but it was certainly action gold.

I feel like this is what would happen if they made a whole bunch of movies without many special effects, and so the special effects team got bored and made their own movie.

Also, is it just me, or was the protagonist some kind of strange, gender-bent Keanu Reeves? That is, she had like, two modes:

1. Magical murdering machine that flies around and makes karate and bullets.
2. Deep sadness.

Ordinarily I'd complain, but honestly, Keanu never bothered me that much, so girl-Keanu in a short skirt isn't going to bother me either.

[Psyren]

I saw it and loved it. I understand why the reviews panned it though, Hollywood hates bittersweet endings.

[VanBuren]

I saw it and loved it. I understand why the reviews panned it though, Hollywood hates bittersweet endings.

Er... what? I can think of several examples right off the top of my head that would indicate otherwise.

[Coidzor]

The only two males there were myself and the guy I went to watch it with. WHen it was over we turned to look at each other and basically said the same thing:

"Man I do not want to ever have the conversation those women are gonna have with their kids tonight."

Well, depending on how well those women handled it, it's all for the good as that's the sort of thing mothers are supposed to prepare their daughters for about the world.

[MammonAzrael]

I saw it and loved it. I understand why the reviews panned it though, Hollywood hates bittersweet endings.

Errm...you found that bittersweet? You didn't see it coming from 10 miles away? I mean, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Personally, I felt like it was so obvious and overplayed that it sucked any caring I could have had for the characters straight from the scene. I literally rolled my eyes.

Also, completely agreeing with VanBuren.


Well, depending on how well those women handled it, it's all for the good as that's the sort of thing mothers are supposed to prepare their daughters for about the world.

They're...supposed to prepare their daughters for abusive fathers, mental asylums pulled from cliches and nightmare stories, and forced prostitution? :smallconfused:

And even if they are, or I'm totally missing your point (which is more likely), how likely do you think the women who took their young daughters to this movie to see girls kicking ass are going to handle it well at all?

[Bhu]

Well, depending on how well those women handled it, it's all for the good as that's the sort of thing mothers are supposed to prepare their daughters for about the world.

I think they were sabotaging them more likely than preparing them. Anytime the cook or one of the male orderlies or the stepfather beat/abused/attempted to rape/ or tried to kill something female you could hear a lot of "see honey that's what all men are really like" comments (or something equivalent thereto.


Not something you should probably be doing to 6 or 7 year olds...

[kyoryu]

On my third viewing, I picked up a few other things.

Sweetpea makes a comment about a girl being lobotomized not being sexy, and that they should do something more commercial and sexy.

The fact that it's basically a movie about a girl being lobotomized, and then turns into something "more commercial and sexy" is pretty meta.

[Coidzor]

They're...supposed to prepare their daughters for abusive fathers, mental asylums pulled from cliches and nightmare stories, and forced prostitution? :smallconfused:

That there will be men who are abusive to know about and beware of and avoid, and not only for one's own sake but for the sake of one's offspring as well, that there are those who will try to use authority or force to get what they want physically from them, that institutions are not necessarily for the good of anyone they come in contact with or have power over and should not be allowed to pass without question.

Some other stuff too, I imagine.


And even if they are, or I'm totally missing your point (which is more likely), how likely do you think the women who took their young daughters to this movie to see girls kicking ass are going to handle it well at all?

Better to see their failure staring them back in the face when they have a little time to maybe do damage control than to not deal with it at all and have their daughters pass into the world completely uniformed of the unfortunate realities.

[MammonAzrael]

I suppose you just have a much more positive and optimistic view of these women. And for the girls sake, I hope you're right.

[Psyren]

One critical mistake I think the film made was getting a PG-13 rating. The subject matter was just a tad too dark.


Errm...you found that ? You didn't see it coming from 10 miles away?

That she'd sacrifice herself to save the girl who didn't belong there? Of course I did. They prophesied it, after all. The key was in finding out how it would happen.

My question is, did the other girls (other than the two sisters) even exist?

Also guys, quoting white text kind of defeats the purpose :smalltongue:

[Callos_DeTerran]

One critical mistake I think the film made was getting a PG-13 rating. The subject matter was just a tad too dark.



That she'd sacrifice herself to save the girl who didn't belong there? Of course I did. They prophesied it, after all. The key was in finding out how it would happen.

My question is, did the other girls (other than the two sisters) even exist?

Also guys, quoting white text kind of defeats the purpose :smalltongue:

Yeah, Amber, Blondie, and Rocket all really did exist in the asylum. You see them all sitting at one of the tables in the theater together right before Baby Doll looks up at Sweet Pea (and vice-versa) and the movie flash-forwards to the fantasy...Which makes it all the more intriguing (and ominous) about what really happened to them.

[MammonAzrael]

One critical mistake I think the film made was getting a PG-13 rating. The subject matter was just a tad too dark.

That she'd sacrifice herself to save the girl who didn't belong there? Of course I did. They prophesied it, after all. The key was in finding out how it would happen.

My question is, did the other girls (other than the two sisters)?

Also guys, quoting white text kind of defeats the purpose :smalltongue:

Fair enough. I guess by that point I just didn't feel invested in the characters enough to really wonder.

As for quoting...good point. I don't really think about it, since on my monitor at least, it is incredibly difficult to read the white text against that pale brown background color.

[Coidzor]

One critical mistake I think the film made was getting a PG-13 rating. The subject matter was just a tad too dark.

Indeed. I'd have to agree with you there. Of course, if they made it an R, they'd have had to inflate everything gratuitously in order to feel like what they were doing was worth it probably. :smallyuk:


Also guys, quoting white text kind of defeats the purpose :smalltongue:

But people get angry at me if I respond without quoting. :/


I suppose you just have a much more positive and optimistic view of these women. And for the girls sake, I hope you're right.

Well, if they're actually the type to want their girls to see that girls can kick ass, I probably am affording them more optimism than they deserve just for being random people that are barely real to me, but I can't really fault them for not anticipating the sheer amount of ...depravity... in the atmosphere, mostly because there was nothing to indicate that was going to be a focus of the movie in the way the movie was sold to the public as far as I saw it promoted.

On the other hand, it might just be that I feel that even if they messed up it wouldn't really be all that worse than if they did nothing to prepare their daughters at all and their daughters didn't see this movie.

[Psyren]

Yeah, Amber, Blondie, and Rocket all really did exist in the asylum. You see them all sitting at one of the tables in the theater together right before Baby Doll looks up at Sweet Pea (and vice-versa) and the movie flash-forwards to the fantasy...Which makes it all the more intriguing (and ominous) about what really happened to them.

I phrased that badly. I know they existed - but were they actually part of Baby Doll's antics, or did she simply insert three faces that stood out to her into her vivid Inception-dive?

Sort of how the bus driver kept cropping up too. (Actually that was the biggest mind screw of all, but never mind.)

[Serpentine]

I'm ambivalent about the movie. On the one hand, it looked amazing. The action scenes, the special effects, the costumes... everything was gorgeous. Some reviewer said something about how the girls are dressed sexily, but sort of for the female gaze rather than the male one - they're playing dress-up, rather than slutting it up. I agree with that, although I couldn't really pinpoint where the difference lies.
On the other hand... I dunno. It stretched out a bit too far, the story wasn't quite engaging, the characters weren't especially fleshed-out - and, perhaps most significantly, because so much of the story happened in fantasies, there isn't much of the real characters at all, and thus I found it hard to really care about what happened to them. Their fantasy-fates were ----sad----, but their "real" ones... Meh.

So, I don't know. Nice to look at, but it seems like there was a lot of wasted potential story-wise, and sort of a shame for what could have been a really good female-oriented action movie to fall so flat.

[ZombyWoof]

It's a hella good movie (I've decided) just because it trolls my stuck-up coworker who thinks she's the end-all be-all. Even mentioning it got her on a 30 minute tirade about how exploitative it was.

[Serpentine]

:confused:
Now, see, that's a view I can't agree with at all. I think if anything it's made for women, not exploiting them.

[ZombyWoof]

I dunno it seems like there was a lot of male-fantasy in there too. I described it as "a bunch of moderately to very attractive women blowing everything up." Really I can see where she was coming from (since it's a movie that's essentially about rape) but I agree, it was clearly SUPPOSED to be "action flick for chicks" and empowering.

I feel it fell somewhat flat of the intended goal just because of how asinine it was and how the movie's "plot" was really just filler between excellently choreographed action scenes.

Of course the fact that I can send a particularly annoying person into convulsive fits just by mentioning that I thought the lead girl was really hot in her school-girl outfit killing giant robot ninjas with a katana :smallamused:

[Coidzor]

:smallconfused: That seems... dangerous.

[Avilan the Grey]

I haven't seen it. It looks like a movie I would have been all over at 15, but now at 38 it just looks... Meh.

The trailers so far has showed me this:

EVERYTHING is turned up to 11. Girls have sexy clothes. The girls are nuts*. And it is entirely running on special effects.

It looks way too much like a cross between Matrix, Constantine, Sky Captain and Flying Daggers to me. To me it means "Stay away at all costs".

*Is it just me that thinks that judging from the little info you get from the trailers, the main girl really SHOULD be in a mental hospital and does not belong among healthy people?

[Gaius Marius]

*Is it just me that thinks that judging from the little info you get from the trailers, the main girl really SHOULD be in a mental hospital and does not belong among healthy people?

I've seen the movie.. and let me just tell you that this opinion is... debatable.

You should give it a try, and keep your mind open.

[kyoryu]

One of the unfortunate things about this movie is that it works best with multiple viewings, but the surface-level movie isn't really good enough for most people to watch multiple times. Ah, well.



So, I don't know. Nice to look at, but it seems like there was a lot of wasted potential story-wise, and sort of a shame for what could have been a really good female-oriented action movie to fall so flat.

The movie isn't really about the plot, which is (as you've pointed out) pretty basic. It's about the audience and how they interact with the movie.


I phrased that badly. I know they existed - but were they actually part of Baby Doll's antics, or did she simply insert three faces that stood out to her into her vivid Inception-dive?


You're assuming that the Delusion (the brothel) was Babydoll's. I believe it is Blue's.


I dunno it seems like there was a lot of male-fantasy in there too.

Deliberately. And it had nothing to do with the plot, at least what was happening in "reality". Deliberately.


Really I can see where she was coming from (since it's a movie that's essentially about rape) but I agree, it was clearly SUPPOSED to be "action flick for chicks" and empowering.


No, it was supposed to be a critique of sexuality and geek culture. Check out the interview with Zack Snyder earlier in the thread


*Is it just me that thinks that judging from the little info you get from the trailers, the main girl really SHOULD be in a mental hospital and does not belong among healthy people?

Nope, not really.

That's reasonable if you think that the brothel Delusion is hers, but if you believe as I do that it's Blue's Delusion (and there are clues), then there's no real reason to believe that she's crazy.

And since I'm the same age as you, I'd suggest you read the Zack Snyder interview earlier in the thread, and possibly even some of my posts, before you see the movie. I think you'll see it in a different light.

[Philistine]

The problem, of course is that if you need to read director interviews and Wild Internet Speculation in order to get the "correct" message from the movie, then clearly the movie itself does not actually convey that message. If you can only see this purported meta-criticism of fanboy culture when you specifically go into the theater looking for it, then what you're seeing is almost certainly a manifestation of Confirmation Bias rather than any quality the film possesses.

Even the movie's most ardent defender apparently didn't see any of that in the film until after being informed that it was supposed to be there (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10701804&postcount=136). So I think it's safe to say that if Snyder meant the movie to be a deep meta-criticism of fanboy culture, then he completely and utterly failed to accomplish his goal.

[Coidzor]

No, it was supposed to be a critique of sexuality and geek culture. Check out the interview with Zack Snyder earlier in the thread

And failed at that, since the sex angle wasn't played up in the trailers, the action angle was, so there was no real meta-context to cause introspection amongst geeks to think they were being called out until he gave that interview.

And, well, death of the author and all that jazz.

[kyoryu]

So I think it's safe to say that if Snyder meant the movie to be a deep meta-criticism of fanboy culture, then he completely and utterly failed to accomplish his goal.

Oh, I'm pretty sure it's also a criticism of the Hollywood process of making movies. One of Blue's roles is pretty clearly a stand-in for the movie studios (maybe producers), with Dr. Gorski taking the part of the movie director.

But, yeah. The marketing for the movie didn't reinforce the message at all. The message was not particularly obvious in the movie, and as I've said before, it's a shame that the surface-level movie frankly isn't that great, and that the other things only get noticed after a few viewings.

So, yeah, he definitely failed on that level. Movies with multiple levels like that can work, but generally only do so (overall) when the surface level is good enough, on its own, to warrant praise and repeated viewings. Blade Runner is a decent example of a movie that succeeded in this regard.

[Psyren]

You're assuming that the Delusion (the brothel) was Babydoll's. I believe it is Blue's.

I... didn't think of it that way. Yes, that would indeed suggest a grim fate. :smallfrown:

[Serpentine]

*Is it just me that thinks that judging from the little info you get from the trailers, the main girl really SHOULD be in a mental hospital and does not belong among healthy people?I don't think that's an unreasonable way to take it. She may well have been driven mad, but the reason she's there is unjust and, wellshe's probably not so irredeemably insane that lobotomy's the way to go.

The movie isn't really about the plot, which is (as you've pointed out) pretty basic. It's about the audience and how they interact with the movie.Care to elaborate? Or at least repost the interview?
Which one's Blue, again?

[Bhu]

Blue is the main bad guy among the orderlies (i.e. the pimp)

[Devonix]

One thing that I seriously am not understanding is how people are saying that this movie is totally anti Men. There are a total of 2 really evil men in the entire movie. Blue and Babydoll's Father. Every other act of evil commited is a product of Babydoll's imagination because of what has happened to her. Also The Mentor Character is Male.

We have no evidence that the Chef in reality attempted to rape anyone nor any evidence of a corrupt "Mayor" character doing anything. and the High roller... well we all know what was really up with him.

[Coidzor]

Blue is the main bad guy among the orderlies (i.e. the pimp)

I prefer to think of him as trashy pseudo-mustache guy myself.

Also, IIRC, the drugs that they gave to people who were in such places along with the conditions of such places definitely could have an impact, especially on someone who survived a very traumatic experience and was fragile from that.

[Psyren]

She may well have been driven mad, but the reason she's there is unjust and, wellshe's probably not so irredeemably insane that lobotomy's the way to go.

True, but at the same time,
the accidental murder of her sister may have left her wanting to forget badly enough to accept lobotomy in the end. This is hinted at when Rocket asks her "have you ever done something you wished you could take back?" and she becomes very sad before answering yes.

And later, right after performing the deed, the doctor remarks that she looked almost as though she wanted him to do it.

Now, one problem I did have with the movie - one of the central themes was supposed to be female empowerment, and Movie Bob was definitely right about that - except the one fact he did gloss over, was that the girls' mentor and the show's source of wisdom was a man. Furthermore, the "matron" of their burlesque house (the doctor) was shown being almost painfully subservient to Blue, and even appearing to desire him sexually despite his psychopathy.

[Devonix]

True, but at the same time,
the accidental murder of her sister may have left her wanting to forget badly enough to accept lobotomy in the end. This is hinted at when Rocket asks her "have you ever done something you wished you could take back?" and she becomes very sad before answering yes.

And later, right after performing the deed, the doctor remarks that she looked almost as though she wanted him to do it.

Now, one problem I did have with the movie - one of the central themes was supposed to be female empowerment, and Movie Bob was definitely right about that - except the one fact he did gloss over, was that the girls' mentor and the show's source of wisdom was a man. Furthermore, the "matron" of their burlesque house (the doctor) was shown being almost painfully subservient to Blue, and even appearing to desire him sexually despite his psychopathy.

Yes the Matron/doctor did behave that way in the fantasy but I attributed that more to the trauma experienced by babydoll as she would have difficulty seeing a strong female other than what was being created by herself. Hence why she did not reach out to the doctor in the real wold and explain what was happening. She didn't believe that the doctor would do anything. Likely having something to do with the relationship between her mother and stepfather.

Since we all know had anyone come forward and told the Doctor in the real world teh entire problem in the movie would have been avoided.

[Avilan the Grey]

And since I'm the same age as you, I'd suggest you read the Zack Snyder interview earlier in the thread, and possibly even some of my posts, before you see the movie. I think you'll see it in a different light.

Well I agree with Philistine; if you have to see the interview with Zack and / or go to WMG pages on TVTropes to get the plot, the movie isn't good. I mean it's badly made. Just like if you are hitting people over the head with a message, burying it too deep behind weird stuff is not the way to go.

I think I will stay away from it. But then I am a grown man who's favorite movies are Pixar and the like...

Edit: Oh and I just realized something else. Zack is the guy who did the laugh-fest 300 (it was so bad it's good, unlike the comic which is just bad, but the Frank Miller is so overrated it's sickening) and Watchmen (which I didn't see, since I loathe the comic).

Yeah. I think I will re-watch Rango instead, thank you very much.