Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tyyr wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:So while all you losers turn your brains off and turn into brain dead retards, everybody who has their brains turned will have way better intelligence than the brain dead retards.
Like IGN said, It's for suckers only.

I see someone has turned their jackass up to 11.

SNAP!

Warboss Narznok wrote:So while all you losers turn your brains off and turn into brain dead retards, everybody who has their brains turned will have way better intelligence than the brain dead retards.

But I'll have had a good time and you'll be busy being bored, so I'm not sure how smart your stance really is.

As to the comments on how the main character isn't in danger: The main character in an action film is never in danger. With extremely few exceptions they're all made invincible by necessity, because if they die, the movie stops.

Avatar 720 wrote:

And these critics are smarter than these teenagers think. These guys are professionals in understanding film and what is wrong with them and what is good about them.

This is where I must disagree.

You can, but he is actually right. Just becuase people have a Netflix account doesn't make them experts on cinema. And becuase people are dense we have to have this conversation every time it comes up: critics jobs aren't really there to tell people to see a movie or not and most of them know it. As people who professionally write and study cinema there job is exactly what there title says, to critique. Their job title isn't 'Recommender'. They put films more in context with the broader cinematic trends as well as the overall aesthetics of cinema. They may nudge people one way or the other on occasion if they are on the fence but most know that people will see a film regardless of what they say. Ten years from now when someone is working on a journal article these reviews will be helpful to understand how the film stood up critically in it's own time. Sometimes critics get it wrong and many have admitted as much when they went back and looked at a film again with fresh eyes. You have to remember these are people that see three or four movies a week and have to write X number of words about them as well as possible other side projects unrelated to current releases. They aren't going to the theater for the same reasons 95% of the people going to see a movie for. Watch three films a week, that you have no say over or choice in, and write no less than 500 words each on them that need to be posted for the world to see, and get back to me in a year and see if you still have the same attitude about film going as you do right now as someone who can just take it or leave it as you choose.

Tyyr wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:So while all you losers turn your brains off and turn into brain dead retards, everybody who has their brains turned will have way better intelligence than the brain dead retards.
Like IGN said, It's for suckers only.

I see someone has turned their jackass up to 11.

While lacking tact, he isn't wrong. Using the argument that you need to pretend to have a lobotomy to enjoy a film isn't exactly high praise. Yeah, the visuals are nice but that makes for good porn, not good cinema. That doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed, but just becuase something is enjoyable doesn't mean it is good, and vice versa. There are a lot of movies I respect but don't personally like, and a few I don't respect but enjoy. For some reason Balls of Fire tickles the hell out of me but I would never call it a good movie.

Tyyr wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:So while all you losers turn your brains off and turn into brain dead retards, everybody who has their brains turned will have way better intelligence than the brain dead retards.
Like IGN said, It's for suckers only.

I see someone has turned their jackass up to 11.

No kidding.

Ahtman wrote:Yeah, the visuals are nice but that makes for good porn, not good cinema.

...I always thought that was the point. My expectation of SP is that it will be action-porn, much like Shoot Em Up.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Yeah, the visuals are nice but that makes for good porn, not good cinema.

...I always thought that was the point. My expectation of SP is that it will be action-porn, much like Shoot Em Up.

Shoot Em Up was a satire, this is trying to be serious.

Warboss Narznok wrote:

So if this is not an empowering woman film. Would we see the girls dance?? NO!! It's rated PG-13!! That means no blood or girls sexy dancing!! So whats the point of putting hot girls in a strip club/brothel if we are not going to see these girls dance?? We got to keep it rated PG-13! There are some moments where it gets close to a rape scene. But we still keep it at PG-13

The "dancing" is actually rape/forced prostitution. Guess the plot was too complicated for you.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:

So if this is not an empowering woman film. Would we see the girls dance?? NO!! It's rated PG-13!! That means no blood or girls sexy dancing!! So whats the point of putting hot girls in a strip club/brothel if we are not going to see these girls dance?? We got to keep it rated PG-13! There are some moments where it gets close to a rape scene. But we still keep it at PG-13

The "dancing" is actually rape/forced prostitution. Guess the plot was too complicated for you.

That is odd, I would say the same about you and subtext. I also enjoy people calling him a jackass and than responding in kind.

Empowerment is the act of giving power and authority -- the right to control, command and determine. In the realm of women's issues, empowerment is the persuasive force reminding women of their strength and potential. Empowered women exercise authority, and when they face a troubling, misogynistic world, empowered women fight back.

The women of Zack Snyder's 'Sucker Punch' are not empowered.

Though they are given vicious snarls, swords and guns, the leading ladies of Snyder's latest are nothing more than cinematic figures of enslavement given only the most minimal fight. Their rebellion is one of imaginative whimsy in a heavily misogynistic world that is barely questioned or truly challenged. Instead of empowering their female brethren, the women of 'Sucker Punch' work as warriors protecting the male gaze and male authority.

Ahtman wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:

So if this is not an empowering woman film. Would we see the girls dance?? NO!! It's rated PG-13!! That means no blood or girls sexy dancing!! So whats the point of putting hot girls in a strip club/brothel if we are not going to see these girls dance?? We got to keep it rated PG-13! There are some moments where it gets close to a rape scene. But we still keep it at PG-13

The "dancing" is actually rape/forced prostitution. Guess the plot was too complicated for you.

That is odd, I would say the same about you and subtext. I also enjoy people calling him a jackass and than responding in kind.

Empowerment is the act of giving power and authority -- the right to control, command and determine. In the realm of women's issues, empowerment is the persuasive force reminding women of their strength and potential. Empowered women exercise authority, and when they face a troubling, misogynistic world, empowered women fight back.

The women of Zack Snyder's 'Sucker Punch' are not empowered.

Though they are given vicious snarls, swords and guns, the leading ladies of Snyder's latest are nothing more than cinematic figures of enslavement given only the most minimal fight. Their rebellion is one of imaginative whimsy in a heavily misogynistic world that is barely questioned or truly challenged. Instead of empowering their female brethren, the women of 'Sucker Punch' work as warriors protecting the male gaze and male authority.

Did I say the film was empowering to women? No, only people who criticize the movie based on some false assumption do. It's hardly a happy story for any of them. Same with the bizzare criticism that keeps popping up that "they're never in danger" considering

Watch three films a week, that you have no say over or choice in, and write no less than 500 words each on them that need to be posted for the world to see, and get back to me in a year and see if you still have the same attitude about film going as you do right now as someone who can just take it or leave it as you choose.

Critics will be sick of films, will therefore go in with a mindset that reflects that. Unless a film is super good, all the good bits with be picked apart until a flaw is found and then that flaw is written about.

It's not a greater understanding more than it is writing what you saw through the negativity goggles you wear from having to watch hours upon hours of crap week in week out.

If you're forced to watch stuff, you will eventually grow to hate it all, and this will come out in your criticisms so much so that the good points hidden beneath a 500-word rant about something you picked the film apart to find.

Avatar 720 wrote:

Watch three films a week, that you have no say over or choice in, and write no less than 500 words each on them that need to be posted for the world to see, and get back to me in a year and see if you still have the same attitude about film going as you do right now as someone who can just take it or leave it as you choose.

Critics will be sick of films, will therefore go in with a mindset that reflects that. Unless a film is super good, all the good bits with be picked apart until a flaw is found and then that flaw is written about.

It's not a greater understanding more than it is writing what you saw through the negativity goggles you wear from having to watch hours upon hours of crap week in week out.

If you're forced to watch stuff, you will eventually grow to hate it all, and this will come out in your criticisms so much so that the good points hidden beneath a 500-word rant about something you picked the film apart to find.

Good point. Also, there's this attitude that a negative review makes you look smarter. "Oh the unwashed masses like this film because they don't have the extensive skills of sitting on their ass and watching movies all day like I do. The poor fools." A critic that gives a good review to a consensus "bad" flick is at much greater risk than one who gives a bad review o a consensus "good" film. Always error on the side of negativity.

Avatar 720 wrote:

Watch three films a week, that you have no say over or choice in, and write no less than 500 words each on them that need to be posted for the world to see, and get back to me in a year and see if you still have the same attitude about film going as you do right now as someone who can just take it or leave it as you choose.

Critics will be sick of films, will therefore go in with a mindset that reflects that. Unless a film is super good, all the good bits with be picked apart until a flaw is found and then that flaw is written about.

It's not a greater understanding more than it is writing what you saw through the negativity goggles you wear from having to watch hours upon hours of crap week in week out.

If you're forced to watch stuff, you will eventually grow to hate it all, and this will come out in your criticisms so much so that the good points hidden beneath a 500-word rant about something you picked the film apart to find.

Having actually spent time around and working with critics I can safely say you have no idea what you are talking about. They do all of that becuase they love the medium, not becuase they are bitter about it or negative. Just becuase it changes how a person views film that doesn't mean it is will be for the worse. If it does generate that kind of negative attitude and hatred than you are in the wrong business.

can safely say you have no idea what you are talking about.

Then why don't you?

What you're ignoring is the fact that many people enter long-term career because they like what they're going to do, but ask them if they enjoy it 10+ years later and it's likely that their enthusiasm for it has dropped. Doing the same thing over and over gets tedious, it's the same if you eat the same food for breakfast, lunch and dinner for years. I get sick of having the same stuff over and over again.

Just becuase it changes how a person views film that doesn't mean it is will be for the worse.

What it will be doesn't matter, it's what it might be. It might be for the better, but again it might be for the worse, and because people listen to these reviews if it is for the worst, a film company can lose revenue since people are disheartened and don't go to see it, even if they would've liked it.

Avatar 720 wrote:

can safely say you have no idea what you are talking about.

Then why don't you?

I did, and I still am. Your response just reinforces the idea that you really don't know what you are talking about. How much time have you spent working with the entertainment press vis-a-vis film critics?

Ahtman wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:

can safely say you have no idea what you are talking about.

Then why don't you?

I did, and I still am. Your response just reinforces the idea that you really don't know what you are talking about. How much time have you spent working with the entertainment press vis-a-vis film critics?

You haven't actually said I don't know what i'm talking about. You've implied it and acknowledged that you can say it, but you've never actually said it.

I don't need to sepnd time working with a group of people to know something that affects almost everyone, unless film critics are somehow immune to the effects of having crap force-fed to them at every opportunity. If I eat chocolate cake for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the rest of my life, I know that I will despise it before i've been doing it long. The same can be said for a lot of scenarios, and films are one of them; watching the same clichéd garbage will not normally make you want to see more of it by the time you retire.

Now will you stop side-stepping around this?

I know most of the girls die. But never in these dream battles. The Dream battles is where the action is or what they call action.

And if this is an action packed film. Why no blood?? Maybe if they took the step to make this film Rated-R. Then Maybe I could have enjoyed the eye candy that would be in it.
There would be blood and girls actual dancing. So if you go through the trouble of having Hot Girls in a brothel in your film and tons of action with Zombies and dragons, A least go rated r.
They Idea itself sounds like an incredible Idea for a Rated-R movie!

Warboss Narznok wrote:I know most of the girls die. But never in these dream battles. The Dream battles is where the action is or what they call action.

The dream battles are an analogy. If one dies in the action sequence she's dead in real life too.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:I know most of the girls die. But never in these dream battles. The Dream battles is where the action is or what they call action.

The dream battles are an analogy. If one dies in the action sequence she's dead in real life too.

Then why didn't they use that analogy?? Why didn't they kill off characters when they were in the dream battles??

But lets think about this. If Babydoll was the only one experiencing these Dream Battles then how would they be able to die?? Only she is imagining these action sequences. So there is no way they are all connected and all the other girls experience these dream battles. So if Babydoll wanted to go into the Dream, The other girls can't because they don't establish in the movie that she also has some minding reading power or something like that.

Warboss Narznok wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:I know most of the girls die. But never in these dream battles. The Dream battles is where the action is or what they call action.

The dream battles are an analogy. If one dies in the action sequence she's dead in real life too.

Then why didn't they use that analogy?? Why didn't they kill off characters when they were in the dream battles??

But lets think about this. If Babydoll was the only one experiencing these Dream Battles then how would they be able to die?? Only she is imagining these action sequences. So there is no way they are all connected and all the other girls experience these dream battles. So if Babydoll wanted to go into the Dream, The other girls can't because they don't establish in the movie that she also has some minding reading power or something like that.

They did. As you correctly said before the crazy fantasy battles are actually a dream within a dream. Thing is I would say that Baby-Doll really is insane. She really does need some serious psychiatric help but unfortunately ended up in a corrupt asylum that has sex slavery. The first layer is her insanity the second is the imaginings of an insane person.

I don't know why your saying the other girls are going into the dream they obviously are not. This is Baby-doll's perception of events. Despite that the death's are real and so are the acquiring of items.

Avatar 720 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:

can safely say you have no idea what you are talking about.

Then why don't you?

I did, and I still am. Your response just reinforces the idea that you really don't know what you are talking about. How much time have you spent working with the entertainment press vis-a-vis film critics?

You haven't actually said I don't know what i'm talking about. You've implied it and acknowledged that you can say it, but you've never actually said it.

I don't need to sepnd time working with a group of people to know something that affects almost everyone, unless film critics are somehow immune to the effects of having crap force-fed to them at every opportunity. If I eat chocolate cake for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the rest of my life, I know that I will despise it before i've been doing it long. The same can be said for a lot of scenarios, and films are one of them; watching the same clichéd garbage will not normally make you want to see more of it by the time you retire.

Now will you stop side-stepping around this?

Not only did I say "you don't know what your talking about", I have said it thrice now. Not only do you actually show extreme ignorance of the field, if we followed your poor line of reasoning the only conclusion we could draw is that any professional must hate their job. Doctors hate the practice of medicine, lawyers all hate the law, scientists hate science, and teachers hate teaching. Of course people suffer occasional burn out in any field and some may hate it, but by and large the majority love what they do. Your argument was never that some might be negative and hate what they do, you just stated that all critics are jaded and negative, which is just a load of crap. You put up a pretense of superiority, or at least a dislike that others may know more than you, to make yourself feel superior somehow but you haven't put in the time they have or studied the subject nearly as much as most of them. The amusing aspect of this is that you criticize the critics for being negative and critical by being negative and critical. Seems more like you are attacking the wrong person/people.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:I know most of the girls die. But never in these dream battles. The Dream battles is where the action is or what they call action.

The dream battles are an analogy. If one dies in the action sequence she's dead in real life too.

Then why didn't they use that analogy?? Why didn't they kill off characters when they were in the dream battles??

But lets think about this. If Babydoll was the only one experiencing these Dream Battles then how would they be able to die?? Only she is imagining these action sequences. So there is no way they are all connected and all the other girls experience these dream battles. So if Babydoll wanted to go into the Dream, The other girls can't because they don't establish in the movie that she also has some minding reading power or something like that.

They did. As you correctly said before the crazy fantasy battles are actually a dream within a dream. Thing is I would say that Baby-Doll really is insane. She really does need some serious psychiatric help but unfortunately ended up in a corrupt asylum that has sex slavery. The first layer is her insanity the second is the imaginings of an insane person.

I don't know why your saying the other girls are going into the dream they obviously are not. This is Baby-doll's perception of events. Despite that the death's are real and so are the acquiring of items.

But the Asylum isn't corrupt. With her imagination she turns the whole Asylum into the Brothel. She imagines and turns the Asylum into a Brothel??? That's too extreme.

There are three layers in this movie

The Asylum=Reality

On top of the Asylum inside her imagination is the Brothel

On top of the Brothel that is on top of the Asylum inside her imagination is the Action Scenes.

It's a dream within a dream. It's stupid. How is she able to do this without altering the reality outside the Asylum?? What if she doesn't have powers and it's all in her head. In reality she is just thinking she is somewhere else when really she is in the Asylum and there is no way to escape. But somehow in the film they vaguely try to connect the reality with her imagination like she does have some power. It doesn't make sense.

Warboss Narznok wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:I know most of the girls die. But never in these dream battles. The Dream battles is where the action is or what they call action.

The dream battles are an analogy. If one dies in the action sequence she's dead in real life too.

Then why didn't they use that analogy?? Why didn't they kill off characters when they were in the dream battles??

But lets think about this. If Babydoll was the only one experiencing these Dream Battles then how would they be able to die?? Only she is imagining these action sequences. So there is no way they are all connected and all the other girls experience these dream battles. So if Babydoll wanted to go into the Dream, The other girls can't because they don't establish in the movie that she also has some minding reading power or something like that.

They did. As you correctly said before the crazy fantasy battles are actually a dream within a dream. Thing is I would say that Baby-Doll really is insane. She really does need some serious psychiatric help but unfortunately ended up in a corrupt asylum that has sex slavery. The first layer is her insanity the second is the imaginings of an insane person.

I don't know why your saying the other girls are going into the dream they obviously are not. This is Baby-doll's perception of events. Despite that the death's are real and so are the acquiring of items.

But the Asylum isn't corrupt. With her imagination she turns the whole Asylum into the Brothel. She imagines and turns the Asylum into a Brothel??? That's too extreme.

There are three layers in this movie

The Asylum=Reality

On top of the Asylum inside her imagination is the Brothel

On top of the Brothel that is on top of the Asylum inside her imagination is the Action Scenes.

It's a dream within a dream. It's stupid. How is she able to do this without altering the reality outside the Asylum?? What if she doesn't have powers and it's all in her head. In reality she is just thinking she is somewhere else when really she is in the Asylum and there is no way to escape. But somehow in the film they vaguely try to connect the reality with her imagination like she does have some power. It doesn't make sense.

The three layers are:

1) Reality: She's in a corrupt Asylum "brothel". I'm not sure Brothel is the right term for forced sex slavery but whatever.

2) Insanity: She's in an Asylum that is also a dance club and she's really, really good at "dancing" (psss, she's not really dancing). Note how her father turns from some douche-bag into a cardinal instantly at this level.

3) Imaginings: She's a superhero who slays dragons.

Not only did I say "you don't know what your talking about", I have said it thrice now.

Twice. You said the words but you never said them to me directly. The first time you said you 'can safely say you have no idea what you're talking about' and the second time was in your latest post but only to say that you've previously said it. Saying words and directing them at someone are two different things.

if we followed your poor line of reasoning the only conclusion we could draw is that any professional must hate their job.

'Must' or 'could'? Because I was aiming for 'could'.

you just stated that all critics are jaded and negative, which is just a load of crap.

It is a load of crap, which is why I didn't say that all critics are jaded and negative.

You put up a pretense of superiority, or at least a dislike that others may know more than you, to make yourself feel superior somehow but you haven't put in the time they have or studied the subject nearly as much as most of them.

Interesting viewpoint, I will consider how your opinion impacts the dicussion over a nice cup of 'I couldn't care less what you think'.

Your post was simply replacing assumptions and putting words into my mouth (please point where I said that critics are all jaded and negative, emphasis on the all) followed by a personal attack that has nothing to do with the dicussion.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:I know most of the girls die. But never in these dream battles. The Dream battles is where the action is or what they call action.

The dream battles are an analogy. If one dies in the action sequence she's dead in real life too.

Then why didn't they use that analogy?? Why didn't they kill off characters when they were in the dream battles??

But lets think about this. If Babydoll was the only one experiencing these Dream Battles then how would they be able to die?? Only she is imagining these action sequences. So there is no way they are all connected and all the other girls experience these dream battles. So if Babydoll wanted to go into the Dream, The other girls can't because they don't establish in the movie that she also has some minding reading power or something like that.

They did. As you correctly said before the crazy fantasy battles are actually a dream within a dream. Thing is I would say that Baby-Doll really is insane. She really does need some serious psychiatric help but unfortunately ended up in a corrupt asylum that has sex slavery. The first layer is her insanity the second is the imaginings of an insane person.

I don't know why your saying the other girls are going into the dream they obviously are not. This is Baby-doll's perception of events. Despite that the death's are real and so are the acquiring of items.

But the Asylum isn't corrupt. With her imagination she turns the whole Asylum into the Brothel. She imagines and turns the Asylum into a Brothel??? That's too extreme.

There are three layers in this movie

The Asylum=Reality

On top of the Asylum inside her imagination is the Brothel

On top of the Brothel that is on top of the Asylum inside her imagination is the Action Scenes.

It's a dream within a dream. It's stupid. How is she able to do this without altering the reality outside the Asylum?? What if she doesn't have powers and it's all in her head. In reality she is just thinking she is somewhere else when really she is in the Asylum and there is no way to escape. But somehow in the film they vaguely try to connect the reality with her imagination like she does have some power. It doesn't make sense.

The three layers are:

1) Reality: She's in a corrupt Asylum "brothel". I'm not sure Brothel is the right term for forced sex slavery but whatever.

2) Insanity: She's in an Asylum that is also a dance club and she's really, really good at "dancing" (psss, she's not really dancing). Note how her father turns from some douche-bag into a cardinal instantly at this level.

3) Imaginings: She's a superhero who slays dragons.

i don't you know the layers I am pointing out are.

Those 3 layers are the layers of dreams and imagination this movie gets into. The Asylum isn't a Brothel but she with her imagination she turns it into a Brothel. Even the Wiki of this movies says this.

That was the part I couldn't figure out for sure - were the rapes/sex in the brothel setting indicative of actual sex on the "reality" level, or of mental/spiritual rape?

As to my opinions, I liked it. It tried too hard, but it was still okay.

Bromsy wrote:That was the part I couldn't figure out for sure - were the rapes/sex in the brothel setting indicative of actual sex on the "reality" level, or of mental/spiritual rape?

As to my opinions, I liked it. It tried too hard, but it was still okay.

Real. But there are no sex scenes in the movie because that is covered up by her tenous grasp on reality.
She was trying to be a hero when saving her sister and it went horribly wrong so her mind retreats into a reality were she is: on both a unwittingly and wittingly level. Anyways, Narznok see how we're having an interesting conversation about this flick? It just goes to show that the movie has more plot and is more complex than its given credit for.

Suckerpunch is a spastic wet dream.
Is that necessarily bad?
No.
I loved it.

The visuals are stunning, but don't have the impact that they should.

*spoilers*

When Baby Doll is tied to a chair and centimeters away from being lobotomized she goes into a fantasy realm. The director just told the audience, "This isn't happening." so on some level, we stop our emotional investment; we don't care as much because we know it isn't real. So when the great fights happen, we the audience, hardly has any skin in the game. Rocket takes a punch to the face? So what? This isn't the matrix where you die in the fantasy you die in RL. And no, three girls didn't die in RL since there was no mention of multiple homisides when the Psych was talking to the lobotomist. When the director tells us that there's a twist at the end, the audience says, "Oh, ok." instead of, "WOW!" because we've turned off for over an hour now, and it's too late to get us back; it's horrible story telling.

Where does something like this work? Wizard of Oz- Dorthy goes through an adventure that we find out isn't real at the end. But because she's caught up in the strange events, instead of obviously doing a mental escape, we buy it. In the same vein is 6th Sense. If we were told that Bruce Willis was a ghost in the beginning, the rest of the movie would have been extremely dull. Never tell your audience to stop caring or you lose the tension for the rest of the film.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Warboss Narznok wrote:

So if this is not an empowering woman film. Would we see the girls dance?? NO!! It's rated PG-13!! That means no blood or girls sexy dancing!! So whats the point of putting hot girls in a strip club/brothel if we are not going to see these girls dance?? We got to keep it rated PG-13! There are some moments where it gets close to a rape scene. But we still keep it at PG-13

The "dancing" is actually rape/forced prostitution. Guess the plot was too complicated for you.

The dream violence is a metaphor for dance. Baby Doll's mind is going elsewhere (into the 2nd layer battlegrounds fantasy) while she dances in the 1st layer of brothel fantasy.

However, promiting this as a partially burlesque movie (in the trailer, hyping up the big event in the first layer of fantasy, and AGAIN showing snipets of two completed dance sequences in the credits) and not showing us those scenes was really disappointing. I'm not talking BD's dances here, but the red devil fan dancers and the white/blue/sequins dance scenes. Do not hype up things through plot and promotion if you are NOT going to deliver.

Moopy wrote: Never tell your audience to stop caring or you lose the tension for the rest of the film.

Well said. when I saw this film and she slipped into the brothel fantasy just before getting spiked I remember thinking "wait go back to the part that mattered!" and the spent an hour and a half wading through a fantasy that despite being visually stunning was nonsensical and unengaging due to the fact that it was completely inconsequential. In the big reveal they try to bring some meaning into it and make you care but it was too little too late .Especially after they killed off three of the characters- two of which were executed by the big bad like they were redshirts in the first five minutes of star trek and not characters who had undergone what passed for character development in that movie. perhaps the most annoying part of that movie was that sweet pea's fears in that movie were precisely realized- that baby doll would get them all killed by her ultimately selfish actions.
And I don't buy the theory that the other girls weren't real- why would rocket be introduced as sweet pea's sister if that were the case? If only Baby doll and Sweet Pea were real then that makes the movie even dumber because so much effort was put into trying to get you to care about the other characters (especially rocket).

Before I get off my soap box why are so many movies going this way? Whatever happened to movies with an engaging story? To movies where you care about the character(s)? Or movies that make you think? Are writers really that lazy nowadays?

Yeah this movie was ment to just get perverts to see the movie. yet a different group of people show up. FYIM im not calling you guys that.