It's not something to get overly upset about I agree. I would say too that he uses the effect well in his film. The only times where I can think of where it's used in "Sucker Punch" are the first fight that Babydoll has against the Giant Samurai where she flips and twists dodging attacks, and then again in the train/bomb sequence as Rocket makes her sacrifice I think there's a bit of it. I don't remember it being used elsewhere though I'm sure there was more than just those two instances.
I did not have to watch any interviews to understand what he intended. It seemed pretty evident in watching the movie.
It seemed apparent enough to me.
Checkmate
Commodore
Every movie must be Oscar material.
EVERY. MOVIE.
And if it isn't, every little Internet poster with a fist up their ass must rant and rave about how horrible it is, all because they have no idea how to enjoy a mindless popcorn flick. And if even that isn't sufficient, they must feign ignorance and claim an inability to follow even the most simple of plots in said popcorn movies.
So yes, Sucker Punch isn't winning any Oscars for brilliant storytelling. Oh no! The horror! The horror of it all! By default, if it's not an Oscar movie, it must be the worst movie of all time! There's only two possible outcomes! /wrist
EVERY. MOVIE.
And if it isn't, every little Internet poster with a fist up their ass must rant and rave about how horrible it is, all because they have no idea how to enjoy a mindless popcorn flick. And if even that isn't sufficient, they must feign ignorance and claim an inability to follow even the most simple of plots in said popcorn movies.
So yes, Sucker Punch isn't winning any Oscars for brilliant storytelling. Oh no! The horror! The horror of it all! By default, if it's not an Oscar movie, it must be the worst movie of all time! There's only two possible outcomes! /wrist
So, you rant about drama queens while simultaneously being the biggest one in this thread?
I don't need every movie to be Oscar worthy, but this wasn't a fun popcorn movie. There was never any tension or excitement during the action scenes because there was no risk and I didn't care about the characters at all. For a popcorn flick to be good, it still needs to have a plot that makes sense (and while I can follow what was happening, it was completely nonsensical and just plain stupid) or characters we can relate to or like and not just for their sexy clothes and nice bodies. Either that or this movie could have taken itself a lot less seriously and been a lot more fun. Don't tell me that Snyder didn't think this movie was way smarter and more "important" than it was.
I don't need every movie to be Oscar worthy, but this wasn't a fun popcorn movie. There was never any tension or excitement during the action scenes because there was no risk and I didn't care about the characters at all. For a popcorn flick to be good, it still needs to have a plot that makes sense (and while I can follow what was happening, it was completely nonsensical and just plain stupid) or characters we can relate to or like and not just for their sexy clothes and nice bodies. Either that or this movie could have taken itself a lot less seriously and been a lot more fun. Don't tell me that Snyder didn't think this movie was way smarter and more "important" than it was.
Last edited:
Well, he's not a hack, but he's not very good either. He's an adequate director. His movies are all visually spectacular, but the performances he gets are generally lifeless and his editing and constant use of speed ramping is amateur at best. His films, while visually vibrant, fall flat in every other area.
He really would be much better as an art director or cinematographer than as the director of his films. And he definitely, definitely shouldn't be a writer.
Did you work hard to miss every single point in the thread or does the gift come naturally?
I completely, respectfully disagree...especially concerning Watchmen. While Malin Ackerman's performance was maybe a bit wanting, the rest of the performances were great. And how anyone can complain about the editing in that film, I have no idea. It is masterfully edited, telling a very complicated and involved story, with multiple timelines and a multitude of character perspectives, with a very deft and steady hand.
The performances in 300, as well, were all around wonderful, I thought.
And again with the speed ramping.
It's hardly used in an amateur way...just not in a way you like, I would think.
The only really good performance in Watchmen was Haley (and maybe the guy who played the Comedian) but other than that it was really weak. As to the editing in Watchmen... well, I still think it was pretty poor but I will grant that it's a tough story to cram into 2-3 hours. I still think it's an unfilmable story in anything other than an HBO miniseries format.
As for the speed ramping, again, it shows that he's really a one trick pony. It worked in 300 and it seemed like it was a stylistic choice in that film. But now we see that he uses it in every action scene in every movie he makes, it really means nothing other than he just likes the look, regardless of subject matter. It's amateurish.
As for the speed ramping, again, it shows that he's really a one trick pony. It worked in 300 and it seemed like it was a stylistic choice in that film. But now we see that he uses it in every action scene in every movie he makes, it really means nothing other than he just likes the look, regardless of subject matter. It's amateurish.
Just saw it myself this afternoon. I saw a trailer a while ago, but didn't know too much about it really. I think I saw it got some negative reviews but I really don't pay attention to reviews anymore anyway. I just wanted to see based on Zack Snyder, having most enjoyed (no, loved) Dawn of the Dead, 300, and Watchmen. Oh, and I knew it had some hot girls in it, so that was a plus.
Thought it was great fun, like I say about other films, I don't know what detractors problems are and I really don't care. It definitely had Snyder written all over it, but for me that's is no bad thing whatsover. Just release your inner fanboy and enjoy.
The scene with Babydoll fighting those giant robot samurai's was awesome!
Oh, and Jena Malone...
Great soundtrack too
Thought it was great fun, like I say about other films, I don't know what detractors problems are and I really don't care. It definitely had Snyder written all over it, but for me that's is no bad thing whatsover. Just release your inner fanboy and enjoy.
The scene with Babydoll fighting those giant robot samurai's was awesome!
Oh, and Jena Malone...
Great soundtrack too
Does Fincher's wandering camera make him a one trick pony?
Does DePalma's single take make him a one trick pony?
Does Mann's epic gunfights make him a one trick pony?
Does Wes Anderson's quirkiness make him a one trick pony?
Does Paul Thomas Anderson's epic, slow, deliberate storytelling make him a one trick pony?
Does Terry Gilliam's strangeness make him a one trick pony?
Does David Lynch's otherworldliness make him a one trick pony?
All these filmmakers, and many more, have techniques and styles that for the most part they replicate in almost every movie they make. Are they one trick ponies?
Since I'm talking about a specific technique used, I'll only respond to your examples that are relevant. Epic gunfights, quirkiness, deliberate storytelling, strangeness, and otherworldliness are not technical, camera motion techniques used to augment a story. Certainly every director has their own quirks, but they all don't constantly use slow-mo, speed ramping, fades, or star wipes in all their movies no matter the subject matter like Snyder does. And as for the two that are relevant - the wandering camera and the one-shot, they are techniques used by those directors as necessary to the story and not constantly.
Moreover, most people wouldn't be able to recognize a one-shot scene or a wandering camera if you shoved it sideways up their ass. Both techniques are relatively non-invasive to the viewer, unlike a technique that slows time, then speeds it up and is used 2.3 million times per action sequence.
Moreover, most people wouldn't be able to recognize a one-shot scene or a wandering camera if you shoved it sideways up their ass. Both techniques are relatively non-invasive to the viewer, unlike a technique that slows time, then speeds it up and is used 2.3 million times per action sequence.
Last edited:
I don't think a particular director's "technique" (or style) necessarily makes him (or her) a "one trick pony." But I daresay that each of those examples are from directors who, more often than not, utilize their style to emphasize story or character or theme -- to deepen the overall film in some way. It's been a while since I've seen Watchmen, so I cannot remember how Snyder's speed-ramping was used. But the speed-ramping effect in Suckerpunch, despite the the otherwise very compelling visuals and choreography, certainly felt gratuitous and even amateurish -- which I think was partially (mostly?) a by-product of the action-fantasy scenes lacking any tangible storytelling depth or drama.
EDIT
To put it another way: If the speed-ramping had some purpose other than "it looks cool to the director," I don't think its use in Suckerpunch would be as objectionable. Take, for example, the music-video opening montage. That, too, is another one of Snyder's styles (or "quirks") but it's not as objectionable because it's part of advancing the story.
EDIT
To put it another way: If the speed-ramping had some purpose other than "it looks cool to the director," I don't think its use in Suckerpunch would be as objectionable. Take, for example, the music-video opening montage. That, too, is another one of Snyder's styles (or "quirks") but it's not as objectionable because it's part of advancing the story.
I saw the movie last night and the only thought I couldn't get off my mind was this:
What if Baby Doll's "dance" was
Just wondering...
What if Baby Doll's "dance" was
her being raped by the asylum personnel? I mean, a brothel is a place where sex happens, and Baby Doll is the "new kid in town" so she has that fresh aspect that the other no longer have. Remember that they all danced at one point. That's certainly the reason why women are in a way objectified and most certainly why there's no real raunchy imagery or sequences
Just wondering...
I think that he is talking about the real world, not the first fantasy.