That's not my point, my point is the FEMALE based cast members were touting the female empowerment message that is in the movie and frankly why wouldn't they?
Okay, now I've seen it. It wasn't a god awful piece of shit, but it was just a regular piece of shit. I'd give it a D. It was better than Battle: LA, but not by much.
I still contend that there was nothing woman-empowering about it. They wouldn't have known what to do without the man telling them what they needed and how to go about getting the quest items. It's like saying that Charlie's Angels was empowering. They needed a man to help them and I saw more undies than a Victoria's Secret catalog (not that I can complain too much about that). Moreover, they were such bland characters that it only served to enhance the fact that they were just nothing more than fun bags and long legs in the skimpiest outfits Snyder could find. And why was the man who was helping them nothing more than a fortune cookie? Spouting off constant meaningless shit phrases before every CGI mess.
There just doesn't seem to be much of a purpose to this movie. It's not a character piece because the girls have no character, so it's hard to care about them when the shit hits the fan. The action seemed only to exist to pad the movie. It's a lot of time spent watching an expensive effects demo that might have been better spent making me like or give a shit about any of these characters. With each movie Snyder makes he comes closer and closer to being a parody of himself. His constant overuse of speed ramping is so fucking obnoxious as to detract from the movie on a nearly constant basis.
I also don't get why he had the multiple layers. It would have been much more satisfying to actually see how the dream worlds affected the actual world than how the dream worlds affected the dream world... It kind of came off like a movie written by a normal schlub trying to impress people and make them think it was a really smart movie.
I still contend that there was nothing woman-empowering about it. They wouldn't have known what to do without the man telling them what they needed and how to go about getting the quest items. It's like saying that Charlie's Angels was empowering. They needed a man to help them and I saw more undies than a Victoria's Secret catalog (not that I can complain too much about that). Moreover, they were such bland characters that it only served to enhance the fact that they were just nothing more than fun bags and long legs in the skimpiest outfits Snyder could find. And why was the man who was helping them nothing more than a fortune cookie? Spouting off constant meaningless shit phrases before every CGI mess.
There just doesn't seem to be much of a purpose to this movie. It's not a character piece because the girls have no character, so it's hard to care about them when the shit hits the fan. The action seemed only to exist to pad the movie. It's a lot of time spent watching an expensive effects demo that might have been better spent making me like or give a shit about any of these characters. With each movie Snyder makes he comes closer and closer to being a parody of himself. His constant overuse of speed ramping is so fucking obnoxious as to detract from the movie on a nearly constant basis.
I also don't get why he had the multiple layers. It would have been much more satisfying to actually see how the dream worlds affected the actual world than how the dream worlds affected the dream world... It kind of came off like a movie written by a normal schlub trying to impress people and make them think it was a really smart movie.
You say there's nothing female empowering about it because they were taking orders from a man, but you seem to not notice that man was in the imagination of Baby Doll (I actually think it was Sweet Pea's mind, but let's try and keep this as simple as possible for now.) That man didn't exist in any reality, he existed as a figment of the imagination of the one telling the story...as those levels were all in the teller's mind (again, the whole story is, but simplicity.) A desire for an honourable father figure is not anti-feminist or anti-female empowerment.
Also, I've commented several times that the way the women are dressed serve multiple purposes. WHY do you see all that skin and think of it merely sexually? The men in 300 wore far less than any of the characters in Sucker Punch, and there were no debates about the sexualization of the characters and how it was all about eye candy to drool and masturbate over. Every Schwarzenegger and Stallone movie in the 80's, they had to remove their shirt and get oiled up, but no one comments on the sexual ramifications of that. Why is that? The fact you see them sexually just because they're dressed that way is part of the problem and something the movie wants you to think about. Why are the men in 300 not, as you so charmingly put it, "fun bags?"
It's definitely arguable that the characters were not well written and that undermines the depth of the theme the film was going for. But also, the film in no way is going for a traditionally narrative structure with plot and characterization. The film is more art experiment, the entire thing is metaphor and in no way literal. Again, this is why the movie opens with a curtain opening displaying a stage exactly like the one represented in the "theatre" of the asylum...the theatre of the mind. This is as much about the way the story is being told as the story itself.
As for CGI messes and the problems with speed ramping and such...the only thing to say here is that you don't enjoy Snyder's style. I'm not gonna' argue with you there, you don't like the way he makes movies...that's cool. It's not for everybody.
As for your last paragraph, like I said, the movie has nothing to do with traditional narrative or storytelling. It's all metaphor and not to be taken quite so literally. The very medium this story is being told in, how it's being told, is part of the story. You may not like that, and that's fine. But I think there's more to see in the film if one realizes it's point is not in a traditionally narrative structure but in its themes and considerations.
In the end, I think the fatal error Snyder made is in trying to make the film too palatable for the audience he was trying to sucker punch, because it was in that effort in which he undermined his own message. But again, that could be to the studio cuts, as well. So we'll have to see.
It would seem that Snyder was successful in accomplishing what he wanted with the film. He literally intended a "Sucker Punch", and got one. I'll be getting this on DVD and like I said before, think we'll be getting a director's cut with the 18 minutes of deleted footage included. I hope the score is released as well. Bates nontraditional rock based music mixed with Marius DeVries more traditional operatic themes was amazing.
I think we'll just have to disagree on this. I see the desire for an honorable father figure and the creation of such a figure, even as a figment of the imagination, demeaning to the point of the movie if it was empowerment. It says that if you, as a woman, don't have any good men to take orders from in your life, make up a good man in your head and take orders from him. Yeah, I'm being a bit glib there, but I just don't see empowerment in that.
Well, "fun bags" refers to the breasts, just so you know. And of course all of the men in 300 were presented sexually, but no one ever claimed that the point of that film was to try to empower men and stop using them as sex images. I don't have a problem with women (or some men) enjoying the scantily clad men in 300 just as I don't have a problem with men (and some women) enjoying scantily clad ladies in equally exploitative films. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the beauty of the human form and there's plenty of that in both films. The problem is that this one tries to say "it's so wrong to objectify" while simultaneously objectifying the hell out of women. Whatever his intent was, I guarantee no one was thinking about the plight of the woman in the cinema and was thinking more about heaving bosoms and fantastic gams in tiny, tiny outfits when they walked out of that theater. And why do we see all that skin and think sexually? Because we're human and we're wired to do that. And all that sexy woman flesh in this movie was really good at doing that.
I understand that, my point is that Snyder is just not an adept enough storyteller to do this and do it in a compelling fashion. The phrase "sloppy mess" ran through my head frequently while watching this movie.
Fair enough. I just think that like John Woo using doves, if you use something frequently enough, it starts to become a joke. I thought Snyder's more normal direction of Dawn of the Dead was quite good and not once (that I can remember) did we have to see a speed ramp.
I understand this, but again, it's just not well done enough and Snyder just isn't a strong enough writer to tell this story outside of traditional narrative structure and have it have any sort of real meaning. It's just a mess of images and events that don't really have any effect on each other and as metaphors they don't work terribly well either.
And see Bishop76, after those comments, I'm almost in the same corner with you. Thank you for seeing the film. We still disagree...I really don't think the Father Figure was giving them orders, he was a guide, and I think there's a huge difference. Everybody, man and woman, needs honourable representations of male and female when growing up and developing their impressions of the world. He was the honourable male that the narrator needed. I also don't think the men in 300 were presented sexually at all, especially not just because they were barely clothed. Barely clothed does not equal sexual...at least it shouldn't. But again, agree to disagree.
I don't think the film...as the theatrical cut stands, anyway...is entirely successful. There are things in the film that are questionable and undermine it's intent. There is the question, for example, how do you present sexualized women to comment on "them being sexualized is bad" without sexualizing them with the glorifying power of cinema? That's a question and a feat I'm not entirely sure Snyder was up to.
However, even though I see this theatrical cut as deeply flawed, I give Snyder enormous credit for trying something with the blockbuster medium. Did he fail? Perhaps. But I'd rather see a talented filmmaker getting budgets and opportunities to make things like this...a deeply flawed experiment at something meaningful within a traditional formula of meaninglessness...than see another godawful Transformers movie or something. In the end, I'd rather see someone attempt something meaningful and different and fail than maintain status quo and have sex and violence and robots and make a billion bucks for no reason other than to have sex and violence and robots and make a billion bucks.
I think Sucker Punch is the most subversive and interesting big budget action film I've seen in some time, regardless of whether it succeeded or not.
I don't think the film...as the theatrical cut stands, anyway...is entirely successful. There are things in the film that are questionable and undermine it's intent. There is the question, for example, how do you present sexualized women to comment on "them being sexualized is bad" without sexualizing them with the glorifying power of cinema? That's a question and a feat I'm not entirely sure Snyder was up to.
However, even though I see this theatrical cut as deeply flawed, I give Snyder enormous credit for trying something with the blockbuster medium. Did he fail? Perhaps. But I'd rather see a talented filmmaker getting budgets and opportunities to make things like this...a deeply flawed experiment at something meaningful within a traditional formula of meaninglessness...than see another godawful Transformers movie or something. In the end, I'd rather see someone attempt something meaningful and different and fail than maintain status quo and have sex and violence and robots and make a billion bucks for no reason other than to have sex and violence and robots and make a billion bucks.
I think Sucker Punch is the most subversive and interesting big budget action film I've seen in some time, regardless of whether it succeeded or not.
I'll take a moment to thank Bishop76 for seeing the film as well. I don't care if one doesn't like a film but at least see it before judging it, can't stress that enough 
I'll get off my high horse now before I fall on my arse lol.
I'll get off my high horse now before I fall on my arse lol.
Think it has pretensions to be Brazil for the Xbox generation, but maybe Return To Oz more appropriate. But what you see in the trailer is basically what you get (extended) with a lot of talky stuff in between.
Given the meta-context, quite appropriate By and large, have to agree with Bishop76s critique.
Given the meta-context, quite appropriate
By and large, have to agree with Bishop76s critique.
Last edited:
I loved this movie it was great . who was the actor that played the mentor . he looked like david carridaine if that is the right spelling of the last name . Now she goes into a mental instution right ? and then it ends up turning into a play and I am not sure where there at this point. some of it is confusing to be sure . But over all
I loved it and I agree with admiral young see it before you bad mouth it .
I loved it and I agree with admiral young see it before you bad mouth it .
Scott Glenn
The brothel reality was used by Babydoll as an escape from her reality of being in the Asylum. Was she better off in the brothel reality? Not really, she was still a prisoner, but it helped her deal with her situation better.
Maybe this will help. There are 3 layers in the film.
- First, the real world, the mental institution. It is a dark and depressing place. The girls are pretty much prisoners. Some of what happens in the imaginary worlds mirrors what is happening in this world.
- Second, in Babydoll's imagination, the institution is a brothel. It started out as a play about lobotomy. This is where the majority of the movie takes place. Most characters/roles are altered. The female patients are showgirls, Blue is the owner, etc.
- Third, the imagination within the imagination. In the brothel, Babydoll's "dance" becomes an action sequence, fighting samurais, dragons, and robots.
He's one of those great 'craggy' character actors like Lance Henriksen. Both would make good Vulcans and/or Romulans in Trek
Worth googling. Not sure how many big films he's been in (Bourne, I think) but for me his great performance is astronaut Alan Shepard in The Right Stuff
You've never seen Backdraft, Silverado, The Silence of the Lambs, The Hunt for Red October or The Bourne Ultimatum?
He was also the original Man on Fire.
I think you're putting more thought into this than Snyder did. I would agree that he was a guide if he was helping the girls to discover themselves or find their own way out or something like that, but he pretty much tells them what they need and then reads a fortune cookie to them before each "mission" where they seek the items he told them they need. Without his presence in this movie, they wouldn't have known how to go about helping themselves. I know he's an imagination construct (who is somehow real at the end... but whatever) but why couldn't Snyder have cast a woman in that role? Might have gone a lot further toward making any sort of strong point about standing on your own.
I don't think that was the sole intent, but any time I hear a woman talk about 300, it's not usually because they loved the kick-ass action or the thrilling plot. It's more like the loved the kick-ass abs and rippling pecs.
This we agree on, though I'm not sure an extra 18 minutes would save this movie. It's just so fundamentally flawed. If those 18 minutes are some character work, it might help as most of these girls are pretty much nothing characters.
I think it had potential to be those things, and I do like that it took a chance, but it was pretty awful and ultimately what that says to the studios is that the audiences don't want to watch experimental films, when in reality audiences just don't want to watch bad films. If we could get an experimental film that was great, it'd be better.
I'll take a moment to thank Bishop76 for seeing the film as well. I don't care if one doesn't like a film but at least see it before judging it, can't stress that enough
lol - not a problem - I usually like to see something before I trash it too.
Also, understand it before you love it.
I think a big part of my problem with it after thinking about it today is how fundamentally flawed the premise is. I get that she needs to create an altered reality for herself to get through the shit that is living at an asylum, but I have a problem with her creating a reality that's so bad it requires her to create another reality within it. Usually that first reality is created as an escape from a pretty shitty place - so why would you make the place even shittier than it already is?
As for the title, I think it's been overthought too. I think it's far more literal than people think. Sure, you can try to attach any meaning you want to it about how it lured young boys in with promises of scantily clad ladies and 'splosions and gave them a movie about how wrong it is to exploit women, but I think just meant that the focus of the story being changed at the end was the Sucker Punch.
At some point the mentor says "you have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything" and that's how I feel about this movie. You have to stand for quality movies or you'll just keep getting shit like this.
Just got back from seeing this and I really don't get the negativity. Was it a matrix-like masterpiece? No. Was it anywhere near as bad or messy as some made it out to be? I really don't think so. Yes, it could have used a bit more plot and dialogue and a few less music videos, but there were some pretty neat stuff going on in there. At times, it even reminded me of inception (though not as intelligent) or the matrix.While the meaning wasn't overly deep, it was still present and it was clearly more than a collection of slo-mo fights and music.
All in all I'd give it an 8/10. It could have been a bit more clever or intelligent in places, but for I enjoyed it for what it was.
All in all I'd give it an 8/10. It could have been a bit more clever or intelligent in places, but for I enjoyed it for what it was.
Yes please. I thought it was a shame the musical numbers got relegated to credit background fodder, and from what I understand some of the action was removed too. I'm curious how the extra stuff will add (if at all) to the film.
^ The actual soundtrack by it's self kind of sucks in my opinion. That being said it works mixed with the movie and combined with the score (which we didn't unfortunately hear enough of in the film, or it was disguised and overshadowed by the sound effects during editing which kind of sucks). I can't believe I just admitted to liking a Tyler Bates score!!!