So does the fact that I have never had the desire to watch this film, mean that I am not a stereotypical drooling Geek misogynist?
The Big Picture: You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It did seem as if the bus was the only real place in the movie. But my feeling was that Sweet Pea was a mentally disturbed woman and everything including Baby Doll where just the fears in her imagination. We don't know who or why Sweet Pea is fleeing only the deep rooted fear of being caught.
Sadly the movie just doesn't pull of the what's real and what's not real as well as films like The Wizard of Oz or the original Total Recall. After the film has failed on so many levels it no long feels worth digging for the answer even if it's a good one like an abusive husband.
Sadly the movie just doesn't pull of the what's real and what's not real as well as films like The Wizard of Oz or the original Total Recall. After the film has failed on so many levels it no long feels worth digging for the answer even if it's a good one like an abusive husband.
That's cool...
As I said last week, your analysis doesn't really affect me in any way. I was one of the VERY few who loved it on it's own shallow, vacuous, sexy merits.
Interesting nonetheless. I think it would be a really neat idea to take a look at other things Snyder had creative control over just to see if he really is as smart as you make him out to be.
As I said last week, your analysis doesn't really affect me in any way. I was one of the VERY few who loved it on it's own shallow, vacuous, sexy merits.
Interesting nonetheless. I think it would be a really neat idea to take a look at other things Snyder had creative control over just to see if he really is as smart as you make him out to be.
...You said TiDUS, and funny, I misread "TiTUS". Movie with Anthony Hopkins (1999).themilo504 said:
I put it on a shelf not far from "Sucker Punch". If only because it got similarly layered structure.
... I liked "Sucker Punch" because it had babes with kick ass swords & guns. Is that wrong?
<
I think this is valid, a good movie and good message/noble intention are two different things much like a good character being morally upstanding as apposed to a good i.e well acted, well written, Good as a quality description.
For me the 3 layer approache is the fatal flaw as it abstracts the points into obscurity, the mindless stuff doesn't encourage reflection on the rest of the movie but simply disengages the audience with the piece.
The why question about why is the poor treatment sexy to me is an incoherent question, think back to the britiny spears sexy school girl days, the costume was largely irrelevant men would and do find her attractive in spite of it she didn't require it to be considered attractive.
The context doesn't apply, men don't find the abuse sexy, to do that would require the females to not be sexy in any other situation, it's an already reasonably attractive cast of females so that anything they do is irrelevant, the men will find them attractive no matter what they do, say, wear, life circumstances.
men saw the sexy girl team in the advertising (the movie is watched after the tickets have been paid for) well before the premise of the world the story takes place in.
It's very similar to the twilight complaint that it encourages female desire for abusive partners when really the lead actor is already desired by females no matter how he behaves, the advertising was an unashamedly here is lots of young attractive men wearing little clothing, it made the puzzlement of people wondering why adult women not in the "young adult genre" market would see the movie in droves, strike me as odd when it was clearly women acting on their own salacious desires, clearly displayed in the marketing and the lead actors knowledge of exactly what he was paid to do which was look pretty for a female audience.
A sucker punch you don't see coming but what about the fact that it either missed or wasn't even felt by the target?
Also how short is the rest of the cast supposed to be if a 1.73m tall women can tower over them?
For me the 3 layer approache is the fatal flaw as it abstracts the points into obscurity, the mindless stuff doesn't encourage reflection on the rest of the movie but simply disengages the audience with the piece.
The why question about why is the poor treatment sexy to me is an incoherent question, think back to the britiny spears sexy school girl days, the costume was largely irrelevant men would and do find her attractive in spite of it she didn't require it to be considered attractive.
The context doesn't apply, men don't find the abuse sexy, to do that would require the females to not be sexy in any other situation, it's an already reasonably attractive cast of females so that anything they do is irrelevant, the men will find them attractive no matter what they do, say, wear, life circumstances.
men saw the sexy girl team in the advertising (the movie is watched after the tickets have been paid for) well before the premise of the world the story takes place in.
It's very similar to the twilight complaint that it encourages female desire for abusive partners when really the lead actor is already desired by females no matter how he behaves, the advertising was an unashamedly here is lots of young attractive men wearing little clothing, it made the puzzlement of people wondering why adult women not in the "young adult genre" market would see the movie in droves, strike me as odd when it was clearly women acting on their own salacious desires, clearly displayed in the marketing and the lead actors knowledge of exactly what he was paid to do which was look pretty for a female audience.
A sucker punch you don't see coming but what about the fact that it either missed or wasn't even felt by the target?
Also how short is the rest of the cast supposed to be if a 1.73m tall women can tower over them?
I'm willing to go along with your critical analysis. Just the characters were so freakin' bland and interchangeable that when Sweet Pea got out I had already forgotten who she was to the story.
Yes, the action scenes were supposed to be shit, that's why it's good.
...
Riiiiight.
Hey Bob, you should do a Big Picture episode about Scrotie McBoogerballs next week.
...
Riiiiight.
Hey Bob, you should do a Big Picture episode about Scrotie McBoogerballs next week.
The debate over whether or not Sucker Punch is a good movie is a moot point: you either like it or you don't, much like every other movie out there. I believe Bob made same great points and the transitions between scenes/worlds is one of the biggest take-aways I have from not only this but the commentary on the DVD as well. They are very important but everyone seems to miss them. Even when I first saw this movie I never saw it as "just another action film" but one that was more a love story to Freud and the layers of the subconscious than anything else.
That aside, I always believed that the ending, and Sweat Pea's escape, was more Baby Doll letting her inner self (Sweat Pea) go. Baby Doll was accepting her fate but never letting her spirit die, ie Sweat Pea, because she is, after all, having a lobotomy. That's how I understood the ending and that Sweat Pea was able to live a life away from all the horrors that had just happened in a world referenced briefly at the very beginning of the film. Why else would Baby Doll let Sweat Pea go?
The other thing that may have helped the case here was the Wise Man and what he says when he meets Baby Doll for the first time. There were five things baby Doll needed to escape but "the fith is a mystery.. Know that It will be a deep sacrifice, and a perfect victory."
That aside, I always believed that the ending, and Sweat Pea's escape, was more Baby Doll letting her inner self (Sweat Pea) go. Baby Doll was accepting her fate but never letting her spirit die, ie Sweat Pea, because she is, after all, having a lobotomy. That's how I understood the ending and that Sweat Pea was able to live a life away from all the horrors that had just happened in a world referenced briefly at the very beginning of the film. Why else would Baby Doll let Sweat Pea go?
The other thing that may have helped the case here was the Wise Man and what he says when he meets Baby Doll for the first time. There were five things baby Doll needed to escape but "the fith is a mystery.. Know that It will be a deep sacrifice, and a perfect victory."
Hold on let me get this straight, bob admits that there are problems with the movie, and says he doesn't blame people for not liking it (so long as they understand what the movie was trying to accomplish), and people are attacking him in this thread for supposedly saying that if you didn't like the movie you're wrong, despite the fact that's nearly the opposite of what he said at the beginning of part 1.
What do you people want from him?
What do you people want from him?
The only decisions- active, action-requiring decisions- that Sweet Pea makes during Sucker Punch are at Babydoll's spurring. Her "decision" to stay at the asylum with Rocket is made before the movie even begins, and is arguably one born of blind loyalty. And her initial, disapproving reaction to Babydoll could be seen as an "automatic response to a perceived slight"- in this case, the "new girl" coming in and shaking up her place in the pecking order.Revolutionaryloser said:
It simply tries to hard to tell a simple tell on to many levels and loses itself in the process.
Still its kinda neat on many levels.
Still its kinda neat on many levels.