Escape to the Movies: Sucker Punch

[lead sharp]

For the first time in a long time I was curious to see what bob thought of this considering it's being reviewed by EVERYone and their mum as being total and complete garbage with no artistic merit whatsoever and I thought 'you know what, if bob likes it I'll stay away from it' and guess what?

Snyder's done 1 and a half good movies, 300 and Dawn of the Dead (a remake) Watchmen was horrific as both a a film and an adaptation.

I honestly fear for Man of Steal.

 

[Mister Linton]

My 10 year old daughter saw the trailer for this and said it looked awesome and asked if she could go see it with me. I'll have to check it out first (since it's PG-13) but the argument that it is only "nerd-bait" and "male-fetishism" doesn't really hold water with me.

 

[mare84]

Jamie Chung...'nuf said in my book!

 

[Ashoten]

I wish I had already went out and seen it instead of waiting for the review, but I had to be sure, now I know I'll love it


My only concern is what exactly is Bob's deal against 300? Its one of my favorite movies. And for him to call Frank Miller's work "drivel" is appalling to say the least.

What about Sin City, or Miller's adaptation of The Spirit? Bob claims he's for artistic stuff as well as grindhouse style action so what exactly is his beef?

Just because he referred to one film adaptation as "Frank Miller Drivel" doesn't mean "All Frank Miller's stuff is drivel" does it?

Anyway, since everything Bob has said about 300 seems in line with my and a few other people's general opinion of it, allow me to offer this synopsis of what the anti-300 camp tend to think: a film/graphic novel totally loaded with hyper-masculine warrior-cult crap that portrays a group of ferocious fascist bastards as being brilliant and admirable and wonderful and oh-so-brave. You might see it as "SPARTANS FUCK YEAH" and then gleefully sit watching those badasses kick the shit out of some Persians like I did the first time I saw it (and to be honest, I can't really blame you or anyone else for that matter for admiring it like that).

But to the other camp (which included me after the honeymoon period was over) the constant misty-eyed worship of un-ironically despicable, violent, super-macho piles of rage and muscle gives off the distinct impression that Mr. Miller is just stroking a broomhandle he got from watching a particularly violent documentary about a furious warrior-cult and decided o write some creepy fanfic to facilitate that rather unpleasant end.


But then, maybe I read too much into it and am too busy throwing my opinions at someone who doesn't care about them to notice how neurotic I'm being. Back in the hole I go! sorry to bother you!

Id just like to know what he thinks about Frank's other works if he thinks 300 is drivel.

Personally, I liked 300's style and its story. It was a pretty damn good adaptation. As far as the Spartans go...*rolls eyes* I supposed I must play Devils Advocate once again and come to the Spartans defense.

The Spartans where harsh, but they had to be. They made damn sure they where the baddest mofo's of the ancient world. They small kingdom, and they where surrounded by nations that where much bigger. They had to become harsh to survive. Their methods may seem cruel and maybe even barbaric by todays standards, but 2500 years ago it might not have seemed so bad.

Fair enough, if you go by the novel/film's version (althoug heven then, half of what they did was needless). The real-life Spartans were less "harsh for the good of everyone else" and more "completely insane".

And even in the film, I found it somewhat laughable that we're supposed to consider Leonidas as the best leader ever, when in actual fact he spends half the film just cocking up.

Ok I read this post and wanted to throw my hat into the mix. I think whether or not Frank Miller intended it 300(the movie) does a good job of challenging perspectives by being (to steal from what Bob said in this very review for sucker punch) burlesque.

The Spartans are purposefully shown as being over the top masculine jerks and very cruel to their own children. Yet they believe in freedom and in giving respect to each voice of the community that has earned it. Because everyone's opinion matters Lionitas feels compelled to follow the orders of the deformed oracles. The people belive in the tradition therfore he has to follow it. Deformity is directly symbolic of outdated believes and values.

When the Persian king is introduced he is suppose to be elegant and civalized. He is not stuck up about sexuality and belives in free love as depicted by the scene with his harem. He even excepts people that are deformed and ugly. Yet he owns slaves. LOTS of slaves. Enough slaves to build an empire that he uses to slaughter anyone in his way.

SO when you look at it that way there are two different cultures whos believes are very different from their actions. At least that's my take on it. And just like Bob I read to much into things

 

[DearFilm]

This movie was... disappointing. Just, endlessly disappointing.

 

[RTR]

IMHO, it could've used a little more Jon Hamm (he's awesome)

 

[tychothereborn]

Me and my friend went to see this movie yesterday night and while the entire audience sounded like everyone there hated it, me and my friend both really liked and enjoyed it and movie bob was spot on with his review.

So glad we didn't listen to anyone who said it was a terrible movie.

 

[ramboondiea]

fine! il go and watch it, but if it turns out to be crap im coming for your head bob

 

[Bourguit]

I saw it yesterday. If you go into it with low expectations, the movie will be fine for what its trying to do. But the actions scenes are so over the top you will be laughing at them at a point. Think as if someone did a good revamped version of Charlie's Angels.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Actually Oldboy was critically praised with outright negative reviews being few and far between (especially Rex Reed's racist commentary on the film).

Edit: Yikes. It is getting destroyed by critics.

About half of good movies do.

Seeing it tonight with the buddies, should be awesome.

That is just not true. Half? Really? Can you name like 10 critically panned movies that were actually good? I don't mean mixed reviews I mean panned.

Yes professionals USED to have a problem judging a film based on its intentions, but critics these days as a whole are fantastic compared to the late 90's.

I am sure critics looked at this movie expecting a thrill ride and if it got a bad score it is probably because the movie is awful...which it is.

A film I find that gets a load of critical abuse is Oldboy, yet it's easily one of the best I've seen. I know this has little to do with your point, but your first sentence made me try to think of an example. That's obviously avoiding all of the "so bad they're good" films

Oldboy? The movie that is critically acclaimed and certified fresh on rotten tomatoes? Yea I heard that was good.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/oldboy/#!reviews=top_critics

Rotten Tomatoes is the worst website for film rankings. Like how Toy Story 2 is officially the greatest film ever made? Cheers for that RT.

The Rotten Tomatoes system is flawed, although it's nice to see that it's found a lot of positive reviews. Actually, it on;y found 10 reviews in total. Whoop de doo.

I've stumbled across some huge hatred by official film critics and fans alike, mostly American. Of all the reviews I've seen, maybe 50% didn't seem to understand what was going on, nor did they enjoy it, despite being one of the finest films I've ever seen. Maybe those guys just don't get included into the RT website...

Anyway, point is that some great films DO get critically hassled

No rottentomatoes is not bad. I don't get why people think that. They take a lot of critics and base their reviews on a score from 1-4. Then they take the average...I don't get how math is bad.

Oldboy was lucky to find 10 critics in America, and fans? Who would ever listen to what the audience has to say about movies? The movie going populace is the lowest common denominator of intelligence. For example, Yogi Bear and Little Fockers destroyed the Box Office this year, while Blue Valentine fell into obscurity.

Toy Story 2 was awesome, I don't get why you are singling that out.

Sure RT is a little flawed, but all in all that is one trustworthy number...math woot

 

[Obrien Xp]

Well thank goodness I'm seeing this on Tuesday. I'll have to convince some of my friends that it's not that closely related to inception. Probably more like Paprika if anything?

 

[tomservo4prezident]

Actually Oldboy was critically praised with outright negative reviews being few and far between (especially Rex Reed's racist commentary on the film).

Edit: Yikes. It is getting destroyed by critics.

About half of good movies do.

Seeing it tonight with the buddies, should be awesome.

That is just not true. Half? Really? Can you name like 10 critically panned movies that were actually good? I don't mean mixed reviews I mean panned.

Yes professionals USED to have a problem judging a film based on its intentions, but critics these days as a whole are fantastic compared to the late 90's.

I am sure critics looked at this movie expecting a thrill ride and if it got a bad score it is probably because the movie is awful...which it is.

A film I find that gets a load of critical abuse is Oldboy, yet it's easily one of the best I've seen. I know this has little to do with your point, but your first sentence made me try to think of an example. That's obviously avoiding all of the "so bad they're good" films

Oldboy? The movie that is critically acclaimed and certified fresh on rotten tomatoes? Yea I heard that was good.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/oldboy/#!reviews=top_critics

Rotten Tomatoes is the worst website for film rankings. Like how Toy Story 2 is officially the greatest film ever made? Cheers for that RT.

The Rotten Tomatoes system is flawed, although it's nice to see that it's found a lot of positive reviews. Actually, it on;y found 10 reviews in total. Whoop de doo.

I've stumbled across some huge hatred by official film critics and fans alike, mostly American. Of all the reviews I've seen, maybe 50% didn't seem to understand what was going on, nor did they enjoy it, despite being one of the finest films I've ever seen. Maybe those guys just don't get included into the RT website...

Anyway, point is that some great films DO get critically hassled

No rottentomatoes is not bad. I don't get why people think that. They take a lot of critics and base their reviews on a score from 1-4. Then they take the average...I don't get how math is bad.

Oldboy was lucky to find 10 critics in America, and fans? Who would ever listen to what the audience has to say about movies? The movie going populace is the lowest common denominator of intelligence. For example, Yogi Bear and Little Fockers destroyed the Box Office this year, while Blue Valentine fell into obscurity.

Toy Story 2 was awesome, I don't get why you are singling that out.

Sure RT is a little flawed, but all in all that is one trustworthy number...math woot

He was saying that due to RT's flawed system, Toy Story 2 is the greatest film ever made according to them. And hey, it was good, but not greatest of all time good.

 

[winter2]

Just watched it with milady and I gotta say it wasn't awful by any means. It was.. ok.

I might have missed something but at the end when the psychiatrist was seemingly fine with the procedure, but balked at the signature.. Like who did she think authorized all those procedures? The janitor??

I do realize her signature was faked, but don't you think the psychiatrist in the institution would at least have some questions about who is the one that is authorizing all those procedures (apparently there had been quite a few of them lately) and maybe have some questions in that regard and maybe look into it?

 

[Verlander]

Actually Oldboy was critically praised with outright negative reviews being few and far between (especially Rex Reed's racist commentary on the film).

Edit: Yikes. It is getting destroyed by critics.

About half of good movies do.

Seeing it tonight with the buddies, should be awesome.

That is just not true. Half? Really? Can you name like 10 critically panned movies that were actually good? I don't mean mixed reviews I mean panned.

Yes professionals USED to have a problem judging a film based on its intentions, but critics these days as a whole are fantastic compared to the late 90's.

I am sure critics looked at this movie expecting a thrill ride and if it got a bad score it is probably because the movie is awful...which it is.

A film I find that gets a load of critical abuse is Oldboy, yet it's easily one of the best I've seen. I know this has little to do with your point, but your first sentence made me try to think of an example. That's obviously avoiding all of the "so bad they're good" films

Oldboy? The movie that is critically acclaimed and certified fresh on rotten tomatoes? Yea I heard that was good.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/oldboy/#!reviews=top_critics

Rotten Tomatoes is the worst website for film rankings. Like how Toy Story 2 is officially the greatest film ever made? Cheers for that RT.

The Rotten Tomatoes system is flawed, although it's nice to see that it's found a lot of positive reviews. Actually, it on;y found 10 reviews in total. Whoop de doo.

I've stumbled across some huge hatred by official film critics and fans alike, mostly American. Of all the reviews I've seen, maybe 50% didn't seem to understand what was going on, nor did they enjoy it, despite being one of the finest films I've ever seen. Maybe those guys just don't get included into the RT website...

Anyway, point is that some great films DO get critically hassled

No rottentomatoes is not bad. I don't get why people think that. They take a lot of critics and base their reviews on a score from 1-4. Then they take the average...I don't get how math is bad.

Oldboy was lucky to find 10 critics in America, and fans? Who would ever listen to what the audience has to say about movies? The movie going populace is the lowest common denominator of intelligence. For example, Yogi Bear and Little Fockers destroyed the Box Office this year, while Blue Valentine fell into obscurity.

Toy Story 2 was awesome, I don't get why you are singling that out.

Sure RT is a little flawed, but all in all that is one trustworthy number...math woot

I actually wrote a huge article for an independent magazine over here listing exactly why RT was terrible, but I don't want to copy and paste that, so I'll try and summarise it:

Using Toy Story 2 as an example, it was (when I wrote my article) the top of the RT rankings, effectively making it the best film in the world by default. It had the highest score, and therefore is the best, right?

RT fails as it uses more than one variable, something that anyone in science knows leads to a skewed result. The variables are the quality of the review, and the quantity of the reviews. TS2 had more reviews online than say, the Godfather, and as they both had 100% positive reviews, they are ranked on the quantity. Therefore, Toy Story 2 is better than the Godfather. You can mix and match the films of course, but that's the gist. Were a film to only get one review (however unlikely) which was positive, it would get it's 100% fresh, but say a great film that got 20 reviews got one bad one, it would only be 95% fresh. Is that fair? Does that make it worse than the first film?

What about a film that in its day was controversial, but now is considered art? That's ok to get a high grade. A film that is controversial today, but maybe considered art in the future may get terrible marks, especially from specialist reviewers, but does that impact the quality of the film?

What about those specialist reviewers? Those that work in print with a political bias, those that work on the internet with a religious bias etc? What about the "clean up media" groups? Are they going to write a positive review about a film that has nudity or violence in it, regardless of quality? Will the writer for the right wing newspaper be allowed to write a positive review of a liberal or socialist themed film?

Then there is the fact that there are more official reviews out there than get included. There have been a few pointed out to me since I made that post that are negative of Oldboy, one which even has a Wikipedia "controversy" section on the reviewers profile (which means it's somewhat noteworthy), that wasn't included on the RT website? Why is that review important enough to appear on a Wiki article, but not on RT?

Those,and more, are the reasons I can't trust Rotten Tomatoes

 

[Folio]

I didn't think the movie would be really good. I just wanted to see it for one blatant reason: Emily Browning with a katana.

(fuck-yes)

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Sounds interesting enough that I might see it, but the review did very little to actually convince me it was all that intelligent (saying it's smarter than it looks is not actually an argument). Seeing as the only movies that both me and Bob like are Doomsday and Scott Pilgrim (and I think I like Doomsday for mostly different reasons), I'll probably give it a pass, especially considering that attractive women have been known to sway his opinion of a film far more than they have mine. Honestly, I can't stand the way Zack Snyder edits, especially in action scenes, and I haven't liked any of his other movies all that much (although they did have the occasional outstanding scene). I'm rendered more distrustful of the review because I've ended up having serious issues with every use of Mulvey in discussing modern cinema I've seen lately. I suppose a "Brazil" reference is enough for me to see it if a bunch of my friends go at some point. Assuming, of course, that I'm willing to put down my copy of Neuromancer.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Actually Oldboy was critically praised with outright negative reviews being few and far between (especially Rex Reed's racist commentary on the film).

Edit: Yikes. It is getting destroyed by critics.

About half of good movies do.

Seeing it tonight with the buddies, should be awesome.

That is just not true. Half? Really? Can you name like 10 critically panned movies that were actually good? I don't mean mixed reviews I mean panned.

Yes professionals USED to have a problem judging a film based on its intentions, but critics these days as a whole are fantastic compared to the late 90's.

I am sure critics looked at this movie expecting a thrill ride and if it got a bad score it is probably because the movie is awful...which it is.

A film I find that gets a load of critical abuse is Oldboy, yet it's easily one of the best I've seen. I know this has little to do with your point, but your first sentence made me try to think of an example. That's obviously avoiding all of the "so bad they're good" films

Oldboy? The movie that is critically acclaimed and certified fresh on rotten tomatoes? Yea I heard that was good.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/oldboy/#!reviews=top_critics

Rotten Tomatoes is the worst website for film rankings. Like how Toy Story 2 is officially the greatest film ever made? Cheers for that RT.

The Rotten Tomatoes system is flawed, although it's nice to see that it's found a lot of positive reviews. Actually, it on;y found 10 reviews in total. Whoop de doo.

I've stumbled across some huge hatred by official film critics and fans alike, mostly American. Of all the reviews I've seen, maybe 50% didn't seem to understand what was going on, nor did they enjoy it, despite being one of the finest films I've ever seen. Maybe those guys just don't get included into the RT website...

Anyway, point is that some great films DO get critically hassled

No rottentomatoes is not bad. I don't get why people think that. They take a lot of critics and base their reviews on a score from 1-4. Then they take the average...I don't get how math is bad.

Oldboy was lucky to find 10 critics in America, and fans? Who would ever listen to what the audience has to say about movies? The movie going populace is the lowest common denominator of intelligence. For example, Yogi Bear and Little Fockers destroyed the Box Office this year, while Blue Valentine fell into obscurity.

Toy Story 2 was awesome, I don't get why you are singling that out.

Sure RT is a little flawed, but all in all that is one trustworthy number...math woot

He was saying that due to RT's flawed system, Toy Story 2 is the greatest film ever made according to them. And hey, it was good, but not greatest of all time good.

A lot of movies get 100%, but it doesn't mean they are the best movie ever made, it just means nothing is wrong with them.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Actually Oldboy was critically praised with outright negative reviews being few and far between (especially Rex Reed's racist commentary on the film).

Edit: Yikes. It is getting destroyed by critics.

About half of good movies do.

Seeing it tonight with the buddies, should be awesome.

That is just not true. Half? Really? Can you name like 10 critically panned movies that were actually good? I don't mean mixed reviews I mean panned.

Yes professionals USED to have a problem judging a film based on its intentions, but critics these days as a whole are fantastic compared to the late 90's.

I am sure critics looked at this movie expecting a thrill ride and if it got a bad score it is probably because the movie is awful...which it is.

A film I find that gets a load of critical abuse is Oldboy, yet it's easily one of the best I've seen. I know this has little to do with your point, but your first sentence made me try to think of an example. That's obviously avoiding all of the "so bad they're good" films

Oldboy? The movie that is critically acclaimed and certified fresh on rotten tomatoes? Yea I heard that was good.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/oldboy/#!reviews=top_critics

Rotten Tomatoes is the worst website for film rankings. Like how Toy Story 2 is officially the greatest film ever made? Cheers for that RT.

The Rotten Tomatoes system is flawed, although it's nice to see that it's found a lot of positive reviews. Actually, it on;y found 10 reviews in total. Whoop de doo.

I've stumbled across some huge hatred by official film critics and fans alike, mostly American. Of all the reviews I've seen, maybe 50% didn't seem to understand what was going on, nor did they enjoy it, despite being one of the finest films I've ever seen. Maybe those guys just don't get included into the RT website...

Anyway, point is that some great films DO get critically hassled

No rottentomatoes is not bad. I don't get why people think that. They take a lot of critics and base their reviews on a score from 1-4. Then they take the average...I don't get how math is bad.

Oldboy was lucky to find 10 critics in America, and fans? Who would ever listen to what the audience has to say about movies? The movie going populace is the lowest common denominator of intelligence. For example, Yogi Bear and Little Fockers destroyed the Box Office this year, while Blue Valentine fell into obscurity.

Toy Story 2 was awesome, I don't get why you are singling that out.

Sure RT is a little flawed, but all in all that is one trustworthy number...math woot

I actually wrote a huge article for an independent magazine over here listing exactly why RT was terrible, but I don't want to copy and paste that, so I'll try and summarise it:

Using Toy Story 2 as an example, it was (when I wrote my article) the top of the RT rankings, effectively making it the best film in the world by default. It had the highest score, and therefore is the best, right?

RT fails as it uses more than one variable, something that anyone in science knows leads to a skewed result. The variables are the quality of the review, and the quantity of the reviews. TS2 had more reviews online than say, the Godfather, and as they both had 100% positive reviews, they are ranked on the quantity. Therefore, Toy Story 2 is better than the Godfather. You can mix and match the films of course, but that's the gist. Were a film to only get one review (however unlikely) which was positive, it would get it's 100% fresh, but say a great film that got 20 reviews got one bad one, it would only be 95% fresh. Is that fair? Does that make it worse than the first film?

What about a film that in its day was controversial, but now is considered art? That's ok to get a high grade. A film that is controversial today, but maybe considered art in the future may get terrible marks, especially from specialist reviewers, but does that impact the quality of the film?

What about those specialist reviewers? Those that work in print with a political bias, those that work on the internet with a religious bias etc? What about the "clean up media" groups? Are they going to write a positive review about a film that has nudity or violence in it, regardless of quality? Will the writer for the right wing newspaper be allowed to write a positive review of a liberal or socialist themed film?

Then there is the fact that there are more official reviews out there than get included. There have been a few pointed out to me since I made that post that are negative of Oldboy, one which even has a Wikipedia "controversy" section on the reviewers profile (which means it's somewhat noteworthy), that wasn't included on the RT website? Why is that review important enough to appear on a Wiki article, but not on RT?

Those,and more, are the reasons I can't trust Rotten Tomatoes

Well you can't use it as your defining source of critics.

I use it for when I am on the fence about something. And after a point the numbers are meaningless.

For example if a movie gets an 88% and another movie gets a 96% I assure you they are basically as good as one another. You have to give RT room for error based on specialist reviews and so forth.

TS2 isn't better than the Godfather, there is just nothing wrong with TS2.

 

[soapyshooter]

Hated it

 

[RabbidKuriboh]

It looks pretty damn unique and has a pretty cool asthteic design unfortunately my friends will never give this a chance and my friends give me enough stick over me and cosplayers, that's another story for another time....