Escape to the Movies: Sucker Punch

[lowkey_jotunn]

Definitely an enjoyable movie for me ... however one thing I didn't like, and I'm genuinely surprised it didn't draw some MovieBob ire. Poor poor editing, most notably in the fight scenes. There was WAY too much jerky, spastic, quick-cam action, where you can't actually see wtf is going on. Reminds me too much of a Michael Bay thing.


There's a quick 3-second clip in the review (around 4:07 - 4:10) during the robot fight scene, and you'll notice that in that (albeit short) clip that you never get a clear view of the action star in question. You see a snippet of boots at the start, a brief reflection in the robots face and then a screen obscuring shower of sparks for longer than all the preceding action combined. This wheat to chaff ratio plagues the robot fight scene as well as the whole steampunk-zombie-nazi part. Which is a shame. It looked like there was some well done choreography in there, I just couldn't see it.


And as a side note: Totally agree with MB about Ms. Hudgens. I had no idea who she was, and had to IMDB her after the flick. Glad to see she's branched out since her Disney days, and I look forward to seeing if she actually possesses legit acting chops. Certainly looked the part here.

 

[Zanez]

MovieBob... I am going to start watching your reviews on a weekly basis from now on, because you are such a goddam terrible movie critic that I can almost never go wrong by completely disagreeing with you.
You never cease to disappoint me, and every time I see one of your reviews, I feel as though you are trolling me, and just trying to promote a movie so you can get us all to see it, all the while snickering to yourself: "hahahaha they are all going to see a shitty movie because of me!" But you are a critic. A reviewer... NEVER should I get that impression.

Maybe I have just such a polar opposite taste in movies to you, but more and more, it seems to me with your positive reviews on films like this and Daybreakers and any number of others, that you are part of the problem with the modern film industry.

 

[demouse]

Biggest problem with people not getting it isn't comparing it to inception, it is not even understanding that it could be compared to inception.

The number of reviews i have seen where they don't even get why the brothel part is truly astounding.

 

[Cellseam]

I really can't deny that the outfits of the girls are basically male pandering, but no more than Sin City. I guess I've just seen video games and anime do so much worse that I didn't get why people thought this movie portrayal of women was so bad. It's more insulting if strong women fail in act 3 and have to be saved by men, at least here they fought.

I'm sorry you keep getting called a troll, just because you have differing opinions. I really enjoyed the movie as a crazy B movie, and I think you're right on board with the 'dreams' interpretation, I think this movie would be fun to study. But CG, not so impressive. Design wise, very impressive.

Hitting all the geek hot spots? Yeah, what's your point?

 

[DearFilm]

The worse part is the comparison to Scott Pilgram... Which I still say was a fairly terrible movie. (Except the gay guy. I'd watch it again just to see the gay guy. He tore it up.)

I think I'll watch this movie despite that though.


Edit:

Pro Tip: If you want a movie to be successful, don't compare it favorably to Scott Pilgrim.

Belated QFT

Who wants colorful imaginative game changing action movies right? Sign me up for bland terrorist fighting action movie XXXVIII.

Sucker Punch and Scott Pilgrim have no imagination. They crib notes from video games, comics, anime and geek culture in order to borrow on our good will in the hopes that we will overlook the very simple and very basic flaws in their storytelling; e.g. character, plot, tone, etc.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

It reminds me of how he panned The Expendables but praised Piranha 3D - they were both just different types of lowbrow porn for viewers who just want something to stare at, be it macho action scenes or tits and cheesy horror.

If I might stray off topic of SP for a moment and answer this little nugget.

I actually agreed with bob on both of those reviews, and while I won't speak for him, my reasons are such: Piranha 3D knew that it was low brow, borderline porn... it reveled in that fact. It cranked everything up to 11 and I loved it.

Expendables, otoh, seemed to think it was something else. They pretended like the plot actually mattered. They tried to lure you in with "every action star EVER, OMG" even though only 2 of them were present for most of it, and the two biggest names (Ahnold and Bruce Willis) had a grand total of 5 minutes of screen time, combined. Meanwhile ramping DOWN all the blood, sex and violence like they were aiming for PG-13 the whole time... then changed their mind at the last minute and told Willis to swear up a storm and bump it to R.

 

[punipunipyo]

I think by now... everyone had already watched this movie... so here is what I wanted to say about it:

I thought this movie was made after the director of the movie played American McGee's Alice, and thought "what? she got out? no way!~ we need to "fix" that!~" so the script V1.0 was done, and it went too dark, alice never gout out, and got lobotomized, vegetable-for ever!~ and his writer partner went "dud, you've gone too far(dark).." thus came V2.0, the Sucker Punch you see today, something they made to be the equivalent to a "DARK DARK Alice in wonderland"...

This movie showcased two MAJOR talents of the director:

1. Awesome Action: need not explain, the trailer says it all...

2. The ability to story telling both quick and slow:
He "posted"/"Squeezed" 50% of the plot/story in the first 10 minutes (or less), then he EXTREME STRETCHED the last 50% in the next Hour and 40 minutes!~ JUST to demo his amazing time bending ability!~ (in action sequences too!~)

Thought for a film with mostly "fillers"(awesome distraction fillers by the way...), he delivers a painful, dark story that tells about the low lives of this world... plus delivering a ending so dark, and so unclean, and so hard to forget, I actually don't recommended ANYONE who's under age to watch it (as in 18 or under)... I Truly enjoy the action, graphic, and the thrill, but I REALLY don't like the metaphors, and all the twisted things that people had to suffer through (it makes me utterly uncomfortable... and the ending plus the cheesy closing narrative... I think the movie would be better off showing JUST how happy the runaway girl is when she get home, and how all the bad guys get what they deserved (perhaps lobotomize "blue"; the key holder), AND HEY THEY MISSED THE STEP FATHER!~ he should have the biggest karma yet, and somehow, he got away!? (SUCKER PUNCH 2?)

 

[honeybakedham]

Wow... Gotta disagree with Bob.

First, SP isn't original. It's an archetype revenge fantasy we've seen or read 1000 times before, albeit in a lush and beautiful package. It will be criticized as fetishistic fanboy imagery used to sell phony female empowerment when all it is really doing is pumping up the comic book/video game generation with all the catches and hooks that make that generation cream its jeans. That's because that is true. That's what this is. And that isn't a bad thing.

{{{ THERE ARE SPOILERS AHEAD }}}
{{{ You've been warned }}}

What is a bad thing is this lackluster script that lacks any fleshed out, fully realized, three dimensional characters at all. It's chock full of bad guys. I don't hate any of them. I'm totally ambivalent. Of the six primary female leads (5 patients and the doctor), only two come close to being actual characters, and Babydoll ain't one of them. She's just Brittany Spears minus personality and plus Thorazine. It's Sweat Pea and Rocket, and as much as I wanted to care... I just didn't care at all when Rocket dies, or when then absolutely character-free Blondie or Amber dies.

The High Roller shows up and turns out to be a compassionate doctor, but why... because we only get to learn that he's a stand-up professional after he performs the lobotomy. And why do we care about Gorski? Her compassion as a doctor is matched only by her incompetence as an administrator. Plus, we've never actually met any of these characters outside of the fantasy realm of the Brothel... where people are decidedly not who them seem to be.

The orderlies serving Oscar Isaac's Blue Jones suddenly and mysteriously "don't want to mistreat these girls anymore" in what can only be described as a lazy screenwriter trying to get out of a movie before he hits the two hour mark because this ain't Watchmen and he knows it.

Changing gears... my second major criticism is that the dream sequences were ultimately irrelevant. They were all cool. Everything in this movie was cool. But none of it mattered. We watch a scene where a bomb blows up a city. No one cares because we never really know anything about what that city might be, what it might represent to the girls, or anything. And they just killed robots as they failed to defuse the bomb that destroys the city.

Earlier the Nazis are steampunk zombies... so, killing them has no real impact beyond cool fighting scenes. They also take on some of Peter Jackson's surplus orcs and a dragon, bringing the sum total of killed characters that we gave enough of a damn about to want to see killed to zero.

And its a shame...

Because I really liked this movie. I was excited to see it. I like Snyder's other films and I love Watchmen almost religiously. The cinematography is amazing. The FX are dazzling. The original soundtrack and songs recorded for this film are outstanding. In fact, I love this movie's soundtrack more than any other film soundtrack in years... even more so than Reznor's Social Network or Daft Punk's Tron. Costuming, set design, acting, go up and down the list and you gotta give an A to everything... until you get to the absolutely unengaged, uninspired script which delivers nothing to care about except a moral barely deeper than that of a fortune cookie.

 

[Bakuryukun]

The worse part is the comparison to Scott Pilgram... Which I still say was a fairly terrible movie. (Except the gay guy. I'd watch it again just to see the gay guy. He tore it up.)

I think I'll watch this movie despite that though.


Edit:

Pro Tip: If you want a movie to be successful, don't compare it favorably to Scott Pilgrim.

Belated QFT

Who wants colorful imaginative game changing action movies right? Sign me up for bland terrorist fighting action movie XXXVIII.

Sucker Punch and Scott Pilgrim have no imagination. They crib notes from video games, comics, anime and geek culture in order to borrow on our good will in the hopes that we will overlook the very simple and very basic flaws in their storytelling; e.g. character, plot, tone, etc.

No...borrowing notes from videogames, comics etc. is what gives us crap like the Resident Evil movies or the Doom Movie and a lot of mediocre Superhero movies, Scott Pilgrim on the other hand understood and respected it's roots in those mediums and found a way to portray them on film in a way that hadn't been done before (or at least not nearly enough) it's also a testament to good adaptation for the most part.

I don't know where you get the notion that the movies storytelling is basic, for one you give no examples, which makes it very hard to quantify what specifically your talking about, for another Scott Pilgrim is an Action/Comedy movie, If you didn't like the action or didn't find it funny, then fair enough there really isn't any accounting for taste, but I really don't see how Scott Pilgrim can be considered inferior to the drivel that Hollywood has been spewing out in those genres. It has quick punchy writing and pacing much like Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz did, it's main characters change and grow throughout the film, though I have heard people complain that they change too fast, which I partially agree with but at the same time can excuse because of the movies status of 'adaptation.' You can't tell me that the choreography in this movie wasn't creative, it's in a unique position because of it's Action/Comedy dual genre, in that essentially they can do anything and DID do pretty much whatever they felt like because the movie is supposed to be funny, there's really nothing they can do that will shatter someones suspension of disbelief, and it gains a lot of creative freedom because of this. I'm not really trying to change your mind or anything if it's not your cup of tea then it just isn't, but the movie on a technical level is better than your saying.

Oh yeah....this thread was about Suckerpunch...uh...go Suckerpunch?! Actually I don't know, I haven't seen it yet, probably will soon though, just to see how good/bad it is for myself.

 

[Danial]

Marmite movie is Marmite.

Still, kill bill with steam punk samurai robots. Wroth a look.

 

[DarkTenka]

BoB has spoken.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Well, I don't know what to do any more:
On one hand, I have agreed with Bob on some movies (Daybreakers, Machete) and because of his recommendations have watched some movies.
However, as of late I have begun to lose my faith in his judgement.
He hyped Scott Pilgrim and praised it beyond believe and I watched it, expecting a unicorn ride over a rainbow made of ice-cream and donuts.
What I got from it was a movie so bad that I started doubting myself.
I could not believe that this heap of bullsh*t actually received a favourable review.
The characters weren't interesting, the effects were unnecessary and half-way through I began flat-out HATING the protagonists.
Now, it seems to me that his love for Sucker Punch is based on the same sentiments, which is why I am not going to see it, but rather spend my time doing something more stimulating and interesting.
If you would now excuse me, I am gonna stare at my wall for 2 hours straight.

 

[ShadowKirby]

Just a question: Why would an abused 20 years old girl have the imagination and power fantasies of a male teenage nerd?

 

[Christopher Bryer]

Am i the only one here that remembers(or doesnt want to forget) that Zack Snyder directed the Dawn Of The Dead film?...Im i the only one that even loves that film??...I dont get it every one is like "Oh, the dude that did 300 you mean?" or "You mean the Watchmen director?" NO! well yes but what about dawn of the dead damnit!!

anyways...SuckerPunch looks ok..So who heres doing to go and see it??

 

[DearFilm]

The worse part is the comparison to Scott Pilgram... Which I still say was a fairly terrible movie. (Except the gay guy. I'd watch it again just to see the gay guy. He tore it up.)

I think I'll watch this movie despite that though.


Edit:

Pro Tip: If you want a movie to be successful, don't compare it favorably to Scott Pilgrim.

Belated QFT

Who wants colorful imaginative game changing action movies right? Sign me up for bland terrorist fighting action movie XXXVIII.

Sucker Punch and Scott Pilgrim have no imagination. They crib notes from video games, comics, anime and geek culture in order to borrow on our good will in the hopes that we will overlook the very simple and very basic flaws in their storytelling; e.g. character, plot, tone, etc.

No...borrowing notes from videogames, comics etc. is what gives us crap like the Resident Evil movies or the Doom Movie and a lot of mediocre Superhero movies, Scott Pilgrim on the other hand understood and respected it's roots in those mediums and found a way to portray them on film in a way that hadn't been done before (or at least not nearly enough) it's also a testament to good adaptation for the most part.

I don't know where you get the notion that the movies storytelling is basic, for one you give no examples, which makes it very hard to quantify what specifically your talking about, for another Scott Pilgrim is an Action/Comedy movie, If you didn't like the action or didn't find it funny, then fair enough there really isn't any accounting for taste, but I really don't see how Scott Pilgrim can be considered inferior to the drivel that Hollywood has been spewing out in those genres. It has quick punchy writing and pacing much like Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz did, it's main characters change and grow throughout the film, though I have heard people complain that they change too fast, which I partially agree with but at the same time can excuse because of the movies status of 'adaptation.' You can't tell me that the choreography in this movie wasn't creative, it's in a unique position because of it's Action/Comedy dual genre, in that essentially they can do anything and DID do pretty much whatever they felt like because the movie is supposed to be funny, there's really nothing they can do that will shatter someones suspension of disbelief, and it gains a lot of creative freedom because of this. I'm not really trying to change your mind or anything if it's not your cup of tea then it just isn't, but the movie on a technical level is better than your saying.

Oh yeah....this thread was about Suckerpunch...uh...go Suckerpunch?! Actually I don't know, I haven't seen it yet, probably will soon though, just to see how good/bad it is for myself.

Movie storytelling is basic, in that as long as you have a core base of emotional identification with a sympathetic or at least compelling main character then the rest of the movie is elevated beyond a series of moving images, which is all that Sucker Punch seems to be striving for. Scott Pilgrim, in my opinion, features characters that do grow, but grow too little too quickly. Scott is a simpering loser with no selfworth and Romona is a light-weight manic pixie dream girl - neither of them seem to have any motivation or soul until the last two minutes of the film. However, deciding to make your vacant and shallow characters suddenly vaguely real and interesting doesn't count as a story arc.

When you talk about Resident Evil, you're talking about filtering a video game plot through the Hollywood blockbuster machine. When you talk about Sucker Punch or Scott Pilgrim, you're talking about filtering a Hollywood plot through the video game choreography machine. These movies trade on what is "cool" about video games and mimic their visuals and aestetic.

 

[Moeez]

Someone explain to me how this film is about female empowerment when you have the girls as burlesque dancers that look under-age?

Funny how Christopher Nolan is going to be the producer on Snyder's Superman film. He'll probably be there to *****-slap some sense into him.

 

[Nocturnal Gentleman]

Just a question: Why would an abused 20 years old girl have the imagination and power fantasies of a male teenage nerd?

Even bigger questions: Where does most of this imagery come from since this movie takes place in the 1950s? Where would she have seen that anime mess? Why would she give a damn about samurai or their weapons? Especially since anti-Japanese attitudes were so strong then. Why would she fantasize about a war people were still shaken over? Why would she care about dragons? Some Anne Rice-like fantasy would be more believable since romance was as popular then as it is now. Where did the future robots design come from? 50s robots didn't look like that. WHY WOULD SHE IMAGINE OUTFITS LIKE THAT? Women in the 50s were still iffy about showing skin!

 

[Skratt]

Fine. I'll finally see fucking Watchmen Bob. Despite my lack of interest in it's material. And then see this right after.

Are you ever going to add your older reviews, like Watchmen and Star Trek to the Escape to the Movies archive, btw?

Watchmen was not a very good movie IMO, though I know a lot of people that did like it a lot, I just wasn't interested in the content - at all. Bought the book it was based off of on the suggestion that maybe I would like that, and the book sucked more than the movie. At least in the movie I didn't have to work at having shit shoveled into my eyes and brain.

That being said, I am still looking forward to Sucker Punch because it actually has content I am interested in.

 

[roostuf]

i want to watch it now!

Then go watch it.

Movie Bob put it up there, it will be a polarizing movie. I was very impressed with it. The soundtrack, the visuals, most of the script.

Yes, it's not a perfect movie. The one thing I was never able to figure out was exactly when the movie took place. For some reason, that just kind of bugs me when a movie is grounded in some type of reality similar to our own, but I can't figure out when it was. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention to a specific set of frames. Some of the main characters probably could have used a bit more fleshing out.

*Ahem* i live in ireland, and it wont be out til next month.

 

[II2none]

when it comes to movies like these, don't trust critics.