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.

 Necroshea wrote:
Selym, just a sort of side question that you don't really have to answer at all if you choose not to, and I won't mind at all if you don't, but how old are you? You don't even have to be specific, just give me a fairly small age bracket or the like.

I'll be 17 on the 31st of march this year. I don't mind people asking, threads like this make more sense if we know who were writing to.

Fafnir wrote:And my point is that even with some thinking, the story is still really fething stupid. The simple fact is that if you think Suckerpunch is a smart film, you haven't seen many movies.

For all it's metaphor and symbolism, it only ever brings up the subjects its supposedly dealing with, and never really actually addresses them in an intelligent way. It's an overly convoluted mess that's more obsessed with jerking itself off over its own sense of depth than actually doing anything else, let alone telling a coherent story or making any of the points it tries to make actually matter. The awful characters certainly don't help either.

Unless I'm mistaken, you're disappointed that Sucker Punch wasn't the "high art" that you wanted it to be, and have ignored the fact that it never attempted to be in the first place. To make the argument that you have would also require you to say that Die Hard, or any Tony Scott movie, or any other move that does exactly what it says on the tin, is also a bad movie because they are only flashy on the surface and otherwise lacking in depth.

Of course Sucker Punch isn't comparable to Rashomon or Chinatown; but it doesn't try to compete, either. Sucker Punch is right there alongside movies like The Fall, City of Lost children, Pan's Labyrinth or The Crow.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Fafnir wrote:And my point is that even with some thinking, the story is still really fething stupid. The simple fact is that if you think Suckerpunch is a smart film, you haven't seen many movies.

For all it's metaphor and symbolism, it only ever brings up the subjects its supposedly dealing with, and never really actually addresses them in an intelligent way. It's an overly convoluted mess that's more obsessed with jerking itself off over its own sense of depth than actually doing anything else, let alone telling a coherent story or making any of the points it tries to make actually matter. The awful characters certainly don't help either.

Unless I'm mistaken, you're disappointed that Sucker Punch wasn't the "high art" that you wanted it to be, and have ignored the fact that it never attempted to be in the first place. To make the argument that you have would also require you to say that Die Hard, or any Tony Scott movie, or any other move that does exactly what it says on the tin, is also a bad movie because they are only flashy on the surface and otherwise lacking in depth.

Of course Sucker Punch isn't comparable to Rashomon or Chinatown; but it doesn't try to compete, either. Sucker Punch is right there alongside movies like The Fall, City of Lost children, Pan's Labyrinth or The Crow.

Sucker Punch was all kinds of awesome in the same way as Army of Darkness was...

 azazel the cat wrote:
Of course Sucker Punch isn't comparable to Rashomon or Chinatown; but it doesn't try to compete, either. Sucker Punch is right there alongside movies like The Fall, City of Lost children, Pan's Labyrinth or The Crow.

In type it was comparable to those movies. But execution matters, and in that regard it fell a mile behind the likes of The City of Lost Children or Pan's Labyrinth.

sebster wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Of course Sucker Punch isn't comparable to Rashomon or Chinatown; but it doesn't try to compete, either. Sucker Punch is right there alongside movies like The Fall, City of Lost children, Pan's Labyrinth or The Crow.

In type it was comparable to those movies. But execution matters, and in that regard it fell a mile behind the likes of The City of Lost Children or Pan's Labyrinth.

I agree 100%; Sucker Punch definitely isn't as good as those two. I'd say it's on par with The Crow. But that's exactly my point: I keep seeing Sucker Punch being referred to as a 'terrible movie' because it lacks the depth of writing as films it shouldn't even be compared to.

But I'm not saying that the movie is bad because it's shallow. I was just addressing Selym's points.

My argument is that it's an awful movie no matter how you look at it. Sure, there might be some action and gimmicks to draw your attention, but there's no reason to stay invested in it. Beyond its cheap pretensions, the characters and story are wholly uninteresting. Granted, a fun action movie doesn't need to have a Citizen Kane worthy plot, but there needs to be some reason to at least get involved, to root for the protagonist and want them to succeed. Without that, it's nothing more than pointless explosions on a screen.

It would have been much better had it been compressed into a 3 minute music video, honestly.

Fafnir wrote:But I'm not saying that the movie is bad because it's shallow. I was just addressing Selym's points.

My argument is that it's an awful movie no matter how you look at it. Sure, there might be some action and gimmicks to draw your attention, but there's no reason to stay invested in it. Beyond its cheap pretensions, the characters and story are wholly uninteresting. Granted, a fun action movie doesn't need to have a Citizen Kane worthy plot, but there needs to be some reason to at least get involved, to root for the protagonist and want them to succeed. Without that, it's nothing more than pointless explosions on a screen.

It would have been much better had it been compressed into a 3 minute music video, honestly.

I guess I'm just unsure of exactly what you require out of a character in order to associate / root for / whatever. For example, there is just as much reason to be invested in the Baby Doll character as there is in Snow White (probably more so; Baby Doll is nowhere near as passive as the oft-comatose Snow White). Ultimately she's a tragic character: punished for her actions, even though her circumstance required that action.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I agree 100%; Sucker Punch definitely isn't as good as those two. I'd say it's on par with The Crow. But that's exactly my point: I keep seeing Sucker Punch being referred to as a 'terrible movie' because it lacks the depth of writing as films it shouldn't even be compared to.

Yeah, in terms of craft its probably comparable to The Crow (well, the effects and production are much higher, but writing and performance is probably comparable).

I think the problem comes from subject matter though. The Crow was cheesy and shallow, but it was just a silly revenge fantasy and so its fun anyway. But the subject matter of Sucker Punch demanded something more substantial - you can't deal with sexual victimisation as just a bit of glitzy fun.

I think that's why people complain about it being shallow - not because films have to be more deep to be good, but because films about the stuff Sucker Punch dealt with need to be deeper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I guess I'm just unsure of exactly what you require out of a character in order to associate / root for / whatever. For example, there is just as much reason to be invested in the Baby Doll character as there is in Snow White (probably more so; Baby Doll is nowhere near as passive as the oft-comatose Snow White). Ultimately she's a tragic character: punished for her actions, even though her circumstance required that action.

There's more to character appeal than just ticking off the boxes of 'active', 'sympathetic' etc...

The character needs a screen presence, something that draws you to them. Exactly how that is achieved is up to the writer, director and actress, and in this case I think they failed and I think that was the conclusion of most people. Having seen Browning in the dreadful Sleeping Beauty, and while I'm loathe to criticise a fellow Aussie and very pretty girl, I think much of the blame can be leveled at her. She has a very flat, boring screen presence.

Mind you Snyder's leads are hardly the stuff of legend anyway, apart from one bearded shouty internet meme.

 Fafnir wrote:
But I'm not saying that the movie is bad because it's shallow. I was just addressing Selym's points.

My argument is that it's an awful movie no matter how you look at it. Sure, there might be some action and gimmicks to draw your attention, but there's no reason to stay invested in it. Beyond its cheap pretensions, the characters and story are wholly uninteresting. Granted, a fun action movie doesn't need to have a Citizen Kane worthy plot, but there needs to be some reason to at least get involved, to root for the protagonist and want them to succeed. Without that, it's nothing more than pointless explosions on a screen.

It would have been much better had it been compressed into a 3 minute music video, honestly.

I did not find it shallow - exciting, bleak, sad explosive perhaps, but not shallow. Many of the more lauded films like for instance Inception, the new Batman films etc I find overley long with dire plots (especially the Batman films) and no one within them that i gave a damn about. These are the films that are all about pure imagery with little to no content that is stretched over far too long a period and people who just appear on screen rather than actual have any form of chaarcter to portray. These are the films that have the depth of music video.

In the two Batman films there was only two decent roles - the Scarecrow and the Joker - and the latters plot defence and story was inconceivably over the top. Inception was even worse for me - they could have been cardboard cut outs on the screen for all the emotional investment that was possible in the paper thin characters presented in what passes for a plot.

Yet these are held up as intelligent, ground breaking and clever films - I see little to none of these traits within them. They have some nice set pieces - but nothing beyond that to stimulate mind or emotions.

Look for me Sucker Punch had a fight with a B-25 Mitchell and a Dragon. I can watch that scene a million times over and call it a day. The plot was 'followable' and still deep which is hard to do because most movies with deep plots are convluted and boring. And that all imporant 'b' word I just mentioned, thankfully doesn't apply to Sucker Punch. It keeps you interested in 'what's next?' and more so about how Baby Doll knew about the buss driver that would later go on to save the last girl.

I think most people are miffed one of 2 things didn't happen.

1. the escape into the fantasy world wasn't 'tangible'. I.E. people would have liked the movie if the girls were able to really go to those places and fight, leaving the asylum behind, for possibly bringing a giant bunny mech to kill the M.Night lookalike villian.

2. the other thing most 'film critics' would have prefered is if we were forced to see the rape, torture, etc. With the fantasy never being shown. Just dark, gritty and depressing, it would have won a freakin' oscar, and been boring as boring can be.

Ok, couple things I really really want to point out.
-The movie's main characters are a group of women that are stuck in an insane asylum and it's indicated they are abused and sexually assaulted (see the obviously heavily used rape room in the end). To escape this the main character creates a fantasy world where they are oppressed girls that are sexualized for their captors entertainment. And then the number one thing I hear is how hot the girls are. You have completely missed the point to the point where it's not even funny.

-Action scenes are boring and completely pointless. I'm not sure how the dream within a dream thing is supposed to work so I'll just stick with the basics on this. The action scenes take place within a secondary illusion and the events that transpire only somewhat mirror what happens in the first level illusion. That means that I can't actively care what happens in the steam-punk cyborg nazi zombie battle because that isn't what the real characters are going through. It's like the movie realized how boring and short the real story would be and so just threw in so much padding that it could have been confused for a discount furniture store.

-On top of being pointless and boring, the action scenes were a little bit insulting. The giant stone samurai with gattling guns aren't really there so it's all just what's going on in her head. Of course she is going to win and nothing is going to happen. The worst case scenario is that she gets shot in the illusion and ends up falling on stage. That makes me instantly not care and feel like I need to be pandered to, just to get through a dance routine. The other girls also get state of the art military gear while going up against steam punk nazi cyborg zombies (I know they weren't really Nazi's but I just like saying it) weilding WW1 era weapons. The scene where one girl casually dispatches two zombies while trying to assemble a machine gun is a perfect example.

-It's really hard to get behind the ladies as the good guys when we don't know who they really are. We only learn bits about the women through the first level illusion, and then are supposed to be ok with one of them escaping. We don't know why she was in there. We know Baby Doll was wrongly imprisoned there, but nothing about the others. They very well could have released someone who actually needed medical attention. The entire facility wasn't bad, just a couple guys as we are lead to believe.

-It's really hard to get behind any plan that is worse than just saying "Hey, go check out the rape room." We're lead to believe that all the women knew this and they all had one on one conversations with the Dr. None of them ever thought to tell her of the bad orderly?

-The plan was ultimately going to fail. It's not like the Dr wasn't going to notice that Baby Doll was lobotimized eventually.

That's a small list of reasons why I didn't enjoy the movie. I could get into more detail if I had to.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Ok, couple things I really really want to point out.
-The movie's main characters are a group of women that are stuck in an insane asylum and it's indicated they are abused and sexually assaulted (see the obviously heavily used rape room in the end). To escape this the main character creates a fantasy world where they are oppressed girls that are sexualized for their captors entertainment. And then the number one thing I hear is how hot the girls are. You have completely missed the point to the point where it's not even funny.

That wasn't the "fantasy" part. That was how they saw the asylum. The fantasy part was where they're defeating monsters, which was OTT because of being a fantasy. They were meant to be completely unrelated, but also depict what is going on in the surrounding scenes.
Also, if you found the action scenes boring, then I can't help you there, but you weren't supposed to be caring about what happened inside those delusions, you were supposed to care about what was happening in the rest of the film...

 Savageconvoy wrote:
You have completely missed the point to the point where it's not even funny.

Or, in reality, Snyder had a very muddled message with poor execution, creating simultaneously a story about sexual abuse while sexualizing the characters. Nathin Rabin I think summed it up best.

Sucker Punch would be a lot more palatable as cultural and social commentary if it were satirical, but there isn’t a satirical bone in Sucker Punch’s lithe, toned, and scantily clad body. Starship Troopers this isn’t. Fanboy sexism is a wonderful subject for satire, but the tone here is less wickedly satirical than ponderous and portentous. It also feels far too personal to register as cultural commentary. It’s telling that in the above quote about the audience for Sucker Punch being the same audience for the protagonist’s dance, Snyder includes himself.

So is Synder implicating himself as well as the audience in denying women agency, dignity, and free will by seeing them only as action figures and tools of seduction? I suspect the answer is yes, but in this case, the medium (big-budget sci-fi fanboy action) defeats the message. I respect Snyder’s aspirations, but it would be hard to imagine a scenario where they were less successfully or more confusingly realized. Depending on whom you ask, Snyder set out to make either the ultimate sexist masturbatory fanboy fantasy or the ultimate critique of sexist masturbatory fanboy fantasies. He failed spectacularly on both counts, but in true Fiasco form, there’s something fascinating and even strangely majestic about that failure.

I also liked this:

Sucker Punch is essentially pornography without the money shot. It’s PG-13 porn, a lascivious exploration of the most dazzlingly erotic dancer ever to bewitch a gentleman patron that’s almost completely devoid of erotic dancing (in the rated, theatrical version I watched, at least). It’s like a schizophrenic Coyote Ugly that secretly believes it’s a distaff Fight Club.

Selym wrote:
I'll be 17 on the 31st of march this year. I don't mind people asking, threads like this make more sense if we know who were writing to.

I don't mean to be an age-ist, but you are 16.

Is anyone surprised at the lack of blisteringly insightful film commentary?

I am sure that I, at 16, would have thought Sucker Punch was awesome as well. Of course, I hadn't seen a lot of movies at that point. A couple years later I probably would have felt a bit differently.

Maybe the best way to approach this thread is to give Selym ideas for more movies to watch to broaden the ol' cinematic horizons...?

 pretre wrote:
Maybe the best way to approach this thread is to give Selym ideas for more movies to watch to broaden the ol' cinematic horizons...?

Twilight, of course.

 Ahtman wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Maybe the best way to approach this thread is to give Selym ideas for more movies to watch to broaden the ol' cinematic horizons...?

Twilight, of course.

I was being mostly serious.

 pretre wrote:

Selym wrote:
I'll be 17 on the 31st of march this year. I don't mind people asking, threads like this make more sense if we know who were writing to.

I don't mean to be an age-ist, but you are 16.

Is anyone surprised at the lack of blisteringly insightful film commentary?

I am sure that I, at 16, would have thought Sucker Punch was awesome as well. Of course, I hadn't seen a lot of movies at that point. A couple years later I probably would have felt a bit differently.

Maybe the best way to approach this thread is to give Selym ideas for more movies to watch to broaden the ol' cinematic horizons...?

I am 41, I have seen plenty of movies, good and bad and feel Sucker Punch is one of the good ones for reasons I cited above.

Most film crictics seem to be less open minded than a 16 year old anyway and usually suffer from knee jerk reactions to films they don't personally like, or in some cases understand - even if they are being paid to go and watch the films that other people actually pay to watch...................

 pretre wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Maybe the best way to approach this thread is to give Selym ideas for more movies to watch to broaden the ol' cinematic horizons...?

Twilight, of course.

I was being mostly serious.

You're in the wrong place for wanting that.

I suggest Shawshank Redemption, Donnie Darko, Inception, Full Metal Jacket, and Cheech and Chongs up in smoke.

I never knew how badly critics hated up in smoke until I looked it up recently.

 Necroshea wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Maybe the best way to approach this thread is to give Selym ideas for more movies to watch to broaden the ol' cinematic horizons...?

Twilight, of course.

I was being mostly serious.

You're in the wrong place for wanting that.

I suggest Shawshank Redemption, Donnie Darko, Inception, Full Metal Jacket, and Cheech and Chongs up in smoke.

I never knew how badly critics hated up in smoke until I looked it up recently.

I've seen Donnie Darko, and it's not particularly great. And I've seen Inception, and that one really shouldn't have even been called "intelligent", it even assumed the audience was too stupid to work anything out for themselves...

Selym wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Maybe the best way to approach this thread is to give Selym ideas for more movies to watch to broaden the ol' cinematic horizons...?

Twilight, of course.

I was being mostly serious.

You're in the wrong place for wanting that.

I suggest Shawshank Redemption, Donnie Darko, Inception, Full Metal Jacket, and Cheech and Chongs up in smoke.

I never knew how badly critics hated up in smoke until I looked it up recently.

I've seen Donnie Darko, and it's not particularly great. And I've seen Inception, and that one really shouldn't have even been called "intelligent", it even assumed the audience was too stupid to work anything out for themselves...

There's still Shawshank, FMJ, and Up in smoke!

Also eternal sunshine on the spotless mind wasn't too bad.

For a change of pace I also recommend watching cabin in the woods.

 Necroshea wrote:

Selym wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Maybe the best way to approach this thread is to give Selym ideas for more movies to watch to broaden the ol' cinematic horizons...?

Twilight, of course.

I was being mostly serious.

You're in the wrong place for wanting that.

I suggest Shawshank Redemption, Donnie Darko, Inception, Full Metal Jacket, and Cheech and Chongs up in smoke.

I never knew how badly critics hated up in smoke until I looked it up recently.

I've seen Donnie Darko, and it's not particularly great. And I've seen Inception, and that one really shouldn't have even been called "intelligent", it even assumed the audience was too stupid to work anything out for themselves...

There's still Shawshank, FMJ, and Up in smoke!

Also eternal sunshine on the spotless mind wasn't too bad.

For a change of pace I also recommend watching cabin in the woods.

True, and I think I actually have the DVD of Shawshank in the house...

Selym wrote:

True, and I think I actually have the DVD of Shawshank in the house...

Also, in case you're unaware of what cheech and chong movies are, unless you can enjoy stoner humor movies I'd recommend passing on it.

Movies better than Sucker Punch that I can recommend:
Fight Club
Clockwork Orange
Moon
Temple of Doom
Time Bandits
Big Trouble Little China
Mad Max (and 2/3)
Brazil
Alien(s)
T2
Spirited Away
Princess Bride
Ghostbusters
Dawn of the Dead
Night of the Living Dead

and on and on...

 pretre wrote:

Maybe the best way to approach this thread is to give Selym ideas for more movies to watch to broaden the ol' cinematic horizons...?

Let's rock:

Control
Ghost in the Shell
Ghost in the Shell: Innocence
The Fountain
Mysterious Skin
Bladerunner
A Clockwork Orange
Drive
Incendies
Melancholia
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
In Bruges
I Saw the Devil
2001: A Space Odyssey
Being John Malkovich
Jin Roh: The Wolf Brigade
Paprika
Se7en
Trainspotting
Black Swan
American Psycho
A Single Man

Just a few to start you out.

Try watching Children of Men. The movie depicts an interesting look on a truly hopeless society and how savagely and compasionately they act when a glimmer of hope actually appears.

It's also very action packed near the end and the main character never actually picks up a gun, the most he did was toss one aside.

Ahtman wrote:I also liked this:

Sucker Punch is essentially pornography without the money shot. It’s PG-13 porn, a lascivious exploration of the most dazzlingly erotic dancer ever to bewitch a gentleman patron that’s almost completely devoid of erotic dancing (in the rated, theatrical version I watched, at least). It’s like a schizophrenic Coyote Ugly that secretly believes it’s a distaff Fight Club.

The first quote is apt; although it assumes Snyder attempted to make anything other than a fairy tale, which I think is incorrect. However, this quote entirely misses the mark. And on the unrated/special/whatever edition, you still never see Baby Doll dance. But even beyond that, the quote betrays its author as having no idea what Fight Club was about, either.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Try watching Children of Men. The movie depicts an interesting look on a truly hopeless society and how savagely and compasionately they act when a glimmer of hope actually appears.

It's also very action packed near the end and the main character never actually picks up a gun, the most he did was toss one aside.

It also has one of my favourite shots. If you see it, you'll know which one it is.

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, this quote entirely misses the mark.

I agree, I just thought it was an interesting phrasing.

 Ahtman wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Maybe the best way to approach this thread is to give Selym ideas for more movies to watch to broaden the ol' cinematic horizons...?

Twilight, of course.

I don't get why everyone is so down on twilight. They are some of the most brilliant comedies I've seen.

Chongara wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Maybe the best way to approach this thread is to give Selym ideas for more movies to watch to broaden the ol' cinematic horizons...?

Twilight, of course.

I don't get why everyone is so down on twilight. They are some of the most brilliant comedies I've seen.

If by comical, you mean that the depiction of vampires is laughable, I'm right there with you. I tried reading the first book though, and it was... how to describe it...