If you don't want to be clever; be fun
If you don't want to be fun; be intelligent.
If you don't want to be fun or intelligent; get the hell off the screen
SUCKER PUNCH is the story of Baby Doll (EMily Browning). After her mother dies, her step-father has her wrongfully committed to a mental institution. It's there that she is put under the care of Dr. Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino) who treats her patients in "The Theater". How exactky The Theater is supposed to benefit the girls is unclear, but the film presses forward and lobs Baby Doll onto the theatre stage.
There she envisions the asylum as some sort of orphanage, but one where the orphans sing for their supper by way of a soft-core burlesque (which we never see). In this orphanage she is capable of working her goods in a way that momentarily shakes everyone from reality, thus giving her an existence within an existence within an existence. (Get all that?)
On this sub-sub-basement, she aligns herself with four other orphans: Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) and Amber (Jamie Chung). Assisted by the rather non-specific help of a Mist Miyagi-like wiseman played by Scott Glenn, the girls band together to rebel against the institution that has them locked up.
SUCKER PUNCH creates a paradox that lowers it to an unexpected level of useless. On the one hand, every fantastical thing happening in Baby Doll's head comes without stakes. Early on we understand that while the scenes are metaphors for their escape plans, there is no peril they cannot fight their way out of. Meanwhile back in the world of The Theater, the characters have no personality, no texture, and no depth. What that leaves us with is two entire planes of existence where no attention is being paid to the girls as people.
Granted in the sort of action film that SUCKER PUNCH wants to be, three dimensional characters aren't a necessity (certainly hasn't held James Bond back all these years). But because SUCKER PUNCH frames itself as an act of young female rebellion, plot and character depth are a must. It's not enough to say "You have all the weapons you need", it has to come through in the character's actions...her fortitude...hell, even her facial expression. You can't dress up a bunch of riot grrrls in come-hither outfits and load them up with guns: it completely undercuts what the film is trying to sell.
What is the moral of The Ballad of Baby Doll? That if you close your eyes you can block out the pain? That when all else fails, resort to your sexuality?? That imagining you are invincible will make it so in reality??? What are we to take away from the execution of SUCKER PUNCH? That so much violence is fine as long as it's bloodless? That young heroines must always be presented with an expression of bedroom eyes ?? And that genuine dialogue doesn't matter when you can stack the script with cliche???
If it seems like I'm being hard on SUCKER PUNCH, I'll admit I am. The whole film didn't just strike me as a bore, but also as an opportunity wasted. Here was a chance to create a stylish original property filled with potential role models. I was reminded of a recent episode of Some Cast it Hot where the topic at hand was the Bechdel Test, and here seemed to be a film that could pass it with flying colours. And while it probably eeks by, it certainly doesn't make the statement it should.
What we've been given is a film too earnest to be amusing, and too slight to be bold. It finds a rare spot on the map that will appeal to absolutely no one, and what's worse will take down with it the chances of a better story of this ilk being made anytime soon.
What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to SUCKER PUNCH.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Review: SUCKER PUNCH (Zero Stars)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
Yeah, I disagree still. I just don't understand why people are trying to place something deeper into the movie that isn't there or isn't meant to be there. I took it as a movie trying to sell girls in sexy outfits and over-the-top action and that's what I got and it was fun. I didn't go in expecting it to be The Matrix with some deeper message, which it seems everybody on the planet was expecting.
Check out my review for my own thoughts.
I agree. I saw the movie free through AMC Rewards, got free popcorn and beverage, and still wanted to walk out.
I read that one reviewer referred to SP as "The Last Airbender with bodices." comparatively, The Last Airbender is an Oscar winner.
I am getting tired of saying about movies, "visually, it's great, but the story sucks/is a rehash/is lame." Avatar, SuckerPunch, etc.
And like Black Swan, I fear that someone will hunt for meaning to say "it's so deep" -- especially with the last quote.
I will say, also, I think the last 10 minutes or so -- the part in reality -- was probably better than the rest of the movie.
Good job, man.
OH MY GOD, I AM SO DISAPPOINTED IN THIS!!!
After hearing Nick and Travis give, not glowing, but not terrible, reviews, I was ready for something moderately entertaining and mindless. All I got was mindless. This movie sucked! Nothing about it worked, not even the action, which was so boring for precisely the reason you stated. There were no stakes.
God, what a waste.
My review goes up tomorrow. It's of the same opinion as yours, only not as well worded. Check it out if you get a chance.
@ Nick... It wants to be something deeper, that's the problem. It wraps itself with this banner of empowerment and defiance, but doesn't deliver on the message.
As for the visuals and the fun factor, these visuals didn't do anything I hadn't already seen in 300 and WATCHMEN.
I can get over-the-top action and sexy girls through video games and Suicide Girls...that's not why I go to the movies.
@ Ron... Yeah I used a gift card and really regretted it.
I hear you with that last ten minutes. Now that I think about it, I have to wonder if they went one level too far. What would have happened if we'd only toggled between the world of Baby Doll's dream and the hospital, omitting the layer of the orphanage. Mighta made for a much better film!
@ Gutes... It pains me to slam on a film, it really does. But I could never paint this as "not great but not bad" - and I'm the king of that opinion! Remember that I dug on IRON MAN 2, DUE DATE, and ROBIN HOOD.
I'll be sure to give your review a read, listen to more discussion on The Matineecast.
See, I've been hearing "this is just like a movie video game," but used as a negative. Maybe I'm just a total nerd and get easily excited at things like giant gun-toting samurai, sword fights, and steampunk nazi zombies (etc.). But when I see stuff like this, I like it--I don't care if I can find similar entertainment elsewhere.
excellent review!
I was kind of looking forward to this one, I thought it might finally be a Synder film that I would enjoy (I disliked his previous ones)
but I won't bother seeing it in the Cinema now though...
Probably too much work put into a review for a movie that isn't worth it? ;) Zack Snyder is really becoming synonym with all style, no substance which is worrisome for his next movie...
@ Nick... I'm a nerd too, but so much of what I saw in this film felt like things I've seen before. The bar continues to be raised - if a movie wants to win me over strictly on "pretty pretty" and "woah, cool" then it has to bring the goods in a way I've never seen before.
If I dug it the way you did and someone asked me what I thought, I'd likely be taking the "I liked it, but you probably won't" approach.
@ Jack... If there's one comfort I can take from seeing this, it's the nature of being a sacrificial lamb and saving folks like you the cost of admission.
@ Castor... As a big Man of Steel fan myself, I am immensely worried about his next film.
As for the effort that went into this piece (not to mention the accompanying podcast), I've done my best not to phone it in when something doesn't work for me. Sorta goes back to a post Univarn did this week about critique:
I could have just declared "It sucks"...but to break down why it sucks fosters discussion that could lead to better understanding...or even...dare I say...change my own opinion!
I did actually like the film and I'm not sorry for that. It kept me interested. It had a (bleep) ton of problems and that opening Sweet Dreams scene really bugs me to no end but in the end I liked it. It's not Snyder's best film by a long shot and it definitely did not live up to my expectations but I liked it.
Maybe it's my taste in film or the fact that I have seen things in other films I can never unsee but I stick by my review.
I like Zack Snyder but Sucker Punch is so far, my least favorite film.
There are some moments and a few performances that I liked. Still, it wasn't enough for me to recommend it. I came in with low expectations other than a fun action-adventure film.
There's moments where it's entertaining but the story was a mess. I think Snyder wants to create an action version of Brazil. That was what really came into my mind.
As far as the focus on Baby Doll and her plight. I felt her character wasn't as developed as it should've been while Emily Browning seemed a little stiff in the performance.
I was more into the characters of Rocket and Sweet Pea because as sisters. They actually had motivations and brought some emotional weight to the situation. I wished the film was more about those two than everything else.
I don't dismiss it but I don't praise it either. I just hope the Nolans keep Snyder in check over what he should do with Superman.
Sucker Punch is a stupid, insipid, simpering film of little to no redeeming value other than having some great visuals. But great visuals and "kicking ass" mean nothing if the film isn't engaging. For someone to say "what did you expect? You are reading too much into it." is a massive cop out. There is absolutely nothing in this film for a viewer to latch onto unless the viewer is on a massive sugar high, is a tech nerd, or wants to jerk off in the theatre alongside a director who is jerking it all over the screen. And I was one of the reviewers who was slightly charitable towards this.
I wasn't prepared for these kind of reviews - with everyone's hopes so high - I figured there would be a lot of blind defenders... But when the first one I glanced over called it a "movie for people who hate movies" - made me wonder... Now after reading yours - I'm even more tempted not to see this... Though I may have another Roland Emmerich weekend and throw this in there for some more mind numbing...
I do have a question on your ZERO STAR rating... Does SUCKER PUNCH now set the bar for "badness" in movies for you? I don't think I've seen you give that rating before - is this now the worst film you've seen?
@ Nick... If you liked it, you liked it - I certainly can't argue with that. What you have to ask yourself is whether you liked it because it played to your taste, or if you liked it because it was good.
I've reviewed films in the past (around this time last year actually) that I dug, but that I openly admitted were bad and couldn't recommend.
@ The Void... Emily Browning seemed capable of one expression the whole film, and it never changed no matter the circumstance. I can only articulate it as a cross between her trying to divide 363 by 78 after not getting enough sleep last night both of which make her want to cry.
I actually worry about what this means for SUPERMAN...and even with The Nolans, my confidence is very much rattled.
@ Andrew... Yeah, that pretty much sums up where I'm at. But that sort of mood makes me want to ask questions more than tear something to shreds (hence the littany of unanswered questions in this post).
@ CBlaze... Know what I watched this week? STARSHIP TROOPERS. In the mood for something dumb? Go back to that and steer well clear of SUCKER PUNCH.
I don't know for sure if SUCKER PUNCH is the worst film I've seen, but it's down there. Certainly the worst one I've gone to willingly in a long long time.
With everything I've seen in all these years of hardcore geekery, there are some other clunkers. This is just one of the worst two I've been able to write about.
I'm not saying it's flawless. It definitely has some issues. And it did play to things I like, which helped. And if you look at my review, I did basically spout the whole "I liked it, but you might not" defense. And I can completely see why people wouldn't like it. However, what I can't agree with are all the "this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life" reviews that it's been getting. I just fundamentally disagree with that sentiment.
@ Nick... Sorry to hear that you can't agree with it, but I was bored watching this film...wickedly, tremendously bored. That a film can unload this sort of firepower - budget, aesthetic, marketing, effects - and still bore me is not a good sign.
You're fighting hard for this film, and I'm not going to try to convince you that you're wrong for diggin' it...but for me, it was a waste of time and money, and yes - one of the dumbest films I've ever seen.
Strangely, I had the reverse reaction to most. It seems a lot of people feel that the first 2 acts were boring and the third act is how the whole movie should have been because of the stakes it rose.
However, I thought the first 2 acts were outstanding and the film kinda started falling apart in the third act due to the lack of fantasy/action sequences.
This is actually the best review of the film I've seen. It's very eloquent and fair and follows my thoughts pretty closely: http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/03/24/movie-review-sucker-punch-is-thrilling-smart-and-deeply-flawed
@ Nick... Not here. From the moment that overwrought opening scene unfolded (complete with slo-mo button spinning on the flo and bad emo cover song) I had the hunch I was in trouble.
This film never drew me in. It wasn't a matter of things unravelling in the end...to me (and to may others it'd seem given it's low box office and overall bad critical response) this film played like an unrealized concept.
Yes, I've read one or two posts that defend the film and they still don't sway me. Since we're quoting others I'll cite Matt Brown from the MaMo Podcast:
"SUCKER PUNCH feels like Snyder concieved of the poster first and then worked backwards"
"SUCKER PUNCH feels like Snyder concieved of the poster first and then worked backwards" hahahahaha...that made my day.
I think this is a basically a grungy and angst/estrogen laced version of Scott Pilgrim only less compelling. I liked it for what I wanted to see; the visuals which I think were seamlessly integrated (love that scene where the three girls sat in front of their changing mirrors but that probably had more to do with practical trickery than CG.
basically it's a feature length music video for what ever workout playlist Snyder had on his iPod. There were no real triumphs for the girls to get the contents of their list making the escape that much more meaningless and unsatisfying. Even though I liked the blurred line between dreams and reality it didn't go anywhere. That quasi twist at the end made for a slightly better ending but it still didn't make up for everything about the plot seeming so pointless. Didn't hate it, just didn't enjoy it. Pity:(
I have ZERO interest in seeing this movie but I gotta admit, reading the reviews are quite entertaining, yours included. I do hope that he'd rein in some of that 'style over substance' for his next movie and add a bit (or a lot) more plot and character development. Please Zack, don't ruin Superman... pleeeease?
Oh, Hatter...we still have the Director's Cut...
(seriously, I want to see that now)
Wow! I am amazed at the amount of hate that this movie is drawing.
I didn't hate this at all. The acting may have seemed lacking to some, but for the graphic novel adaptation style, that is usually how characters are portrayed and that is usually how dialog is delivered. Other examples of this are Sin City, Wanted and the underrated Running Scared. I think that, given the context of the story, that it is unrealistic to expect a lot of character development for five girls who are trying to escape an insane asylum within five days.
I got exactly what I was expecting out of this movie and was very pleased!
@ Marc... Please don't mention this film in the same breath as Scott Pilgrim. But it's funny, I remember thinking how dumb the soundtrack for THE WATCHMEN was at the time...I owe that soundtrack supervisor an apology!
@ Ruth... Not sure where Superman is concerned that he'll be able to pull it off. This is two misses in a row for me, and at the box office for Snyder it's three.
@ Simon... Never knew you were such a masochist.
@ Geoff (Welcome to The Matinee)... This begs the question: If a movie isn't based on a comic book, is it still a "comic book movie"? Lord knows that certainly seemed like what Snyder & Co. were going for.
And how unrealistic an expectation is that? DOG DAY AFTERNOON happens over the course of one day, and it has oodles of character development.
Said it before, I'll say it again: SUCKER PUNCH was a missed opportunity.
I actually haven't seen the movie yet (the new releases that I tell myself I'll go see keep piling. I haven't even seen Rango yet. Adjustment Bureau was pretty good though...) but the level of hatred spewed towards it is stunning.
This is not me being dickish, honest, but how many people went to see this maybe, just maybe, hoping/expecting it to be dreck? And if so, then why did you go see it for 10, 11, 12$?
Again, I can't comment on the film because I didn't go, but the vitriol of attacks against the movie read eerily similar to good old internet bashing, the kind you get from people who pretty wanted to hate the movie. I have the utmost respect for you, Hatter, so don't take this as a criticism of your work (which I love, otherwise I'd stop visiting), just an observation I'm making as I survey the blog reviews for the movie.
@ Edgar... Fair point. To that I say this:
The movies I choose to watch I always hope to enjoy. The ones I think look dumb, or look like they aren't up my alley I tend to avoid.
I sat down to SUCKER PUNCH hoping to have some fun...that I got up two hours later wickedly bored was what led to me lashing out with venom.
As I say though - a very good question.
"THERE IS NO SPOON."
Nobody here at Twitch has floated the theory that all of these ladies are given aliases because they are simply fractions of the main characters personality. Meaning that each of them are incomplete chunks fighting to deal with the death of the sister. They all burn away in the crucible of her own hubris and self loathing. There is no abusive step-father, no mental asylum, the whole affair is simply one big fat unreliable narrator. Rocket is the optimist - Killed. Baby Doll is the 'there has to be a solution to the problem' - Killed. The other two girls, I really don't know what they do in the film, one drives vehicles, the other a traitor, they are bum-aspects of her personality - Killed. Only Sweet Pea, the grim realist, accepting of bullshit in life, soldiering on with very little joy, but at least some loyalty to protect folks, manages to end up surviving to solider on for another day, and pick up the pieces back in the real world. Scott Glenn represents 'self-help-wallowing' via cliche and that explains the inane bus sequence at the end of the film.
Ok, the film doesn't deserve this kind of consideration because it is borderline incompetent in its storytelling and boring besides. And this theory sounds worse than even that Donald Kaufman "The 3" script from Adaptation. But there you have it. It's not about empowerment, it is about moving on psychologically from deep scarring tragedy. Synder's a genius. GENIUS!
/kidding.
Oooooooh, I guess I'm glad that I left town!
@ Kurt... When I was listening to your conversation about this on The Cinecast, I couldn't agree with Gamble that it was a satire. I'm gonna play the bias card here and state that I don't think Zack Snyder is that clever.
What I am starting to believe, is that part of this mess comes down to the film being gutted by the studio - and gutted in such a way that what would help it make the point it wanted to make was left out in favour of eye-candy.
Perr-haps...under the right set of circumstances...if I'm really bored one night, I'll toss on the director's cut dvd to test the theory.
@ Beth... Yeah, while I missed you on the Matineecast, you managed to do a wicked job of dodging a bullet.
The movie has pronounced intentions of being more than just a fun movie about selling girls in sexy outfits, though. Arguing that people are just reading into a movie that's being sold by the Snyders as an attempt to examine the dichotomy between female characters exhibiting vulnerability and being strong doesn't make sense; there's a very specific expectation being placed on the film from the outset. Grant that I haven't seen it yet but there's really no way to deny that the film has some high aspirations, regardless if it succeeds in realizing them or not.
keep it up pal
@ Crump... Yeah, that's one of the things that held me back. At every turn I kept getting the impression that the films was trying to say something...that it didn't want to just play itself for thrills. Oh well.
@ Anon... I'll try. (I guess)
When I went to see TRON: Legacy they had one of those special previews for this where they interviewed cast members, the director, and what not. My immediate impression of the film based on that was: "T&A action movie that takes itself far too seriously."
Based on your review, I wasn't far off. Ladies & Gentlemen, the Golden Raspberry for Worst Picture of 2011 goes to Sucker Punch.
Just curious, is it still too early to call, or was Sucker Punch bad enough that a movie would have to actually TRY to be worse to knock it out of contention?
@ Perplexio... I think it is rather early for that, I mean it's only April right? There's still a whole summer's worth of franchises to come that may very well sink like stones themselves.
Your initial instinct was pretty spot-on...from my perspective anyway.
I just love how much debate this movie stirs up. Granted, I pretty much wound up writing a thesis on this little fiasco. I'd be curious to hear what this crowd makes of my reading...
Aside: breaking news from a girl.. Sucker Punch is far from the estrogen laced Scott Pilgrim. Not even close. For starters? Scott Pilgrim is the estrogen laced Scott Pilgrim (not a bad thing, but that film is in essence the most original romantic comedy since Shaun of the Dead).
@ Wilde (or should I call you "Dash"?)... I'll dig up your post on this fiasco today but it sounds like you & I see eye-to-eye. If you want to hear me rant even more, dig up episode 31 of my podcast - where we not only talk about what the characters in this film aren't, but where we also describe what true heroines are.
Welcome to The Matinee.
Post a Comment