The Big Picture: You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part One

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

FargoDog:

Casual Shinji:
Sucker Punch wanted to have it's cake and eat it, and then through it up all over the audience.

Pretty much. Sucker Punch does have a thread of an idea of feminist sexual exploitation - but any attempt to comment on it is buried underneath layers and layers of exploitation that very thing. There's no empowerment or sense that these characters are anything other than sexualised in an action heroine fashion. You can't make a comment about exploitation and then turn around and exploit that same very thing, whilst not giving anything else in return.

Neither the acting, nor the writing, and especially not the acting allow any kind of moral message or satire to actually exists beyond a shallow glancing message that is just completely smothered by a blanket of crass, hollow sexual exploitation. What you're left with is, essentially, a film that does the exact thing it's trying to comment on - and that's not a satire or an artistic statement. That is hypocrisy made film.

Honestly, I wouldn't even have mind, or maybe even liked this movie if it was just competently made as an fantasy action film. Juvenile interpretation of female empowerment/explointation be damned.

But it's just such a mess.

I watched it after Bob's initial positive review, and I'll admit I was disappointed. Not due to any kind of misinterpretation about the message, I was well aware of what the target of the movie's criticisms was, but rather that it just felt sort of dull. The action sequences specifically designed to be alluring to my demographic just felt too drawn out and dull, which sort of gutted that part of the 'this is a striptease for you men' metaphor, and aside from that central message running throughout the film, it had very few other tricks at its disposal.

I suppose my issue could be summarized by saying that, although I understood the message of the film, at no point did it really make me feel it, which was a major failing.

Sutter Cane:

Casual Shinji:
It flat out tells you what it is about at the end. "So, fight!"

Anyone not getting it by this point must've fallen asleep because of how epically boring the whole movie was.

Well you missed the point of my post. You claimed that bob was mistaken about people not getting what the film set out to do, while multiple people on the first page admit to not getting it.

No, I got your post. It's just the usual excuse of "you didn't like it, because you didn't get it" that always sends me into a fit.

understood movie's plot, knew what "action dream" was about, AND I never thought it mean "just strip tease" I thought it was "more than that", also, "sucker punching the viewers" thing was a shocker.. never saw it coming... (hehehe punched, now looked like a panda). Why I paid to get laughed at by the film maker? why insult your viewers? power trip?

I always thought this film is Zack's way to show off 2 things...

1. How well his fantasy/sifi/action/censorship dodging ability is

2. How flexible he can manipulate "ACTUAL time-of plot", in to "Play time"; (To me) the entire plot takes place, and can be told in about 20 minutes, but he managed to do away the first half in the first 5 minutes of the movie as a MV(music video)/MTV/AMV(for the anime fans) sequence, and stretch the other half (10 minutes worth) as long as the rest of the movie!

Storm Dragon:
I liked this movie overall, but my biggest problem with it was the ending.

That's the other Sucker Punch. You're lead to think one thing, but it turns out it's another.

Sorry, I don't buy that argument. To make the argument that the film is in fact criticizing the audience that's watching it would imply a level of professionalism that this movie lacks. Terrible acting and atrocious writing plagues this film to the point where it's no longer "symbolism" or "part of the satire", it's jut plain lazy. This was most likely a fantasy piece that Zack came up with when he was 13, and only turned into a "Surprise" after the fact. Anyone remember that interview where Zack said he didn't want to show the dances themselves because he didn't want to sexualize the characters? You have so many aspects of the film, such as the bondage gear/school girl outfits, heavy make-up, and panty shots abound that shows the film has gone way past the point of sexualization, and if it were really "throwing it in the audiences face" then the argument falls flat, since the point would be to include as much as you can to illustrate how gratuitous it really is, not to shy away on one aspect because it crosses a line that has already been crossed. This is why I think Zack legitimately thought that he was making a feminist film ONLY on the basis that the women in his film were fighting, were the main characters, and weren't wearing, ahem, "restrictive clothing", and that somehow anything that even implies "submission" (such as dancing) works against that. Even then, that wasn't my biggest criticism of the film, rather my biggest problems was the terrible acting, terrible script, weak story, lack of any real danger, and just the pretentiousness of it all that because the story was "serious" or "mature" that it somehow made the film more valid. It still surprises me that people actually defend this.

Also, this is going to be a spoiler, but am I the only one who was actually offended by the film's ending? Is it really going to end with us supporting the person that is actual insane running away to go on and do god knows what? Doesn't that seem a little off to anyone else? "You may actually be insane, and there's a good chance you may be a danger to yourself or others, but you are the protagonist so all of that doesn't really matter"

10 currency says the next episode talks about how the other direction it cuts is towards the filmmakers that use the fetishized women as action heroes and pretend that they're not doing it for blatant pandering. It's a movie that picks apart the misogyny of the 'male fantasy', and it does so by using those same ridiculous male fantasies against itself.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Saw the movie, thought it was pretty good, but far too depressing at points, and as such will never watch it again.

Really? A movie about tormented young women being physically, mentally, and sexually brutalized by vicious, slavish, drooling cretins and regressing into an inner psychosis gets depressing? Never would have thought.

I've never seen Sucker Punch but it's on a list of mine of movies I'd like to see for mindless entertainment.

Now having watched this I'll be watching it more closely.

However, this episode brings to mind one of Bob's habits that annoys me. Make no mistake, his tastes often run the same to mine so I listen to him, and I've watched some movies solely because he was so enthusiastic about them, but he has a habit of 'looking' into movies and studying where they came from and why they were made that clearly leaves him incredibly biased both for and against many movies.

The new Spider Man movie is a key example of this. It seemed like he was 'fanboy' dead set against it from the first simply because the studio was required to make another Spidey movie or lose the rights to it back to Marvel. And when it came out he ravaged it with two reviews rather than with just one as typical.

He's repeatedly made it clear that one BIG problem he has as a reviewer is that he has to watch so many movies he's bored to tears at ones that follow formulas, etc. I get that. I respect him for admitting it. But I watch movies because I want to be entertained, never with my mind on how the Hollywood system works, etc.

And because I watch movies simply to be entertained, and am not obsessed with whether the makers stuck true to source material, didn't make an epic classic, etc (Fantastic Four 2), I'm a lot easier to be entertained.

Bob's got the vices of his virtues, like the rest of us. But if a movie with "messages" fails to get that message across without someone explaining it point by point then it's like listening to a comedian have to explain to an audience how his joke worked and why they should be laughing. Even when the comedian's finished he still failed to do his job because the audience didn't laugh.

Coming full circle: I haven't seen this movie, but while I was looking forward to seeing it some day as simple entertainment I'll now be looking for the underlying symbolism and messages.

Which isn't hypocrisy on my part. His habit of doing things like this just leaves me once again aware that I need to take his reviews with a grain of salt.

Which is how all reviews by others should be taken, of course.

Sutter Cane:

Casual Shinji:
It flat out tells you what it is about at the end. "So, fight!"

Anyone not getting it by this point must've fallen asleep because of how epically boring the whole movie was.

Well you missed the point of my post. You claimed that bob was mistaken about people not getting what the film set out to do, while multiple people on the first page admit to not getting it.

The Human Torch:

Hey, in my defense: I actually understood that the brothel was Babydoll's way of coping with a fantasy world and the action sequences were fantasies within that fantasy world. That's more than most of my friends got out of it. :P

hey don't worry about it, i don't think it reflects poorly on you or anything

In my opinion, the only thing it reflects on is how something that can make perfect sense to a movie director in his own head, does not mean that it makes sense to other people. Like developers of point&click adventure games sometimes come up with the most outrageous item combinations or solutions, that no one ever figures out until a game FAQ/guide is released.

Casual Shinji:
Honestly, I wouldn't even have mind, or maybe even liked this movie if it was just competently made as an fantasy action film. Juvenile interpretation of female empowerment/explointation be damned.

But it's just such a mess.

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with crass sexual exploitation in satirical films - see the filmography of Paul Verhoeven - but when that's really the only thing you've got going for you, it's extremely problematic.

I watched, I understood, I hated.

To put it simply: The movie is a hypocritical, disorganized and generally very, very meanspirited film. The whole premise of trying to pander to a crowd only too mock and condemn it when it arrives is so preposterous that I don´t even know where to begin.

It´s hypocrisy at it´s finest. "I want all the benefits of having the girlsloving crowd on my side, but I also want to claim that they are morally inferior compared to me." No. You don´t get to do that. That´s not being clever and provocative - that´s being a dick who bites the hand who feeds him.

Furthermore, the movie failed(deliberately, I´m guessing) to convey this message of """"""misogony"""""" to the people it was condemning. Why deliberately? Because otherwise people would be pissed, and rightfully so. The movie basically compares those who enjoy watching such movies to Hitler.

I didn´t provide any cohesive argument agaisnt why one shouldn´t watch such movies either. All it did was say "people who watch these movies r bad, ya´ll." Why? No reason. They just are.

Maybe the above post was a bit incohesive, but I´m really pissed at this flick. It´s one of the few movies that actually made me want to punch whoever thought of it, and that really takes something.

Err, well I think the problem here Bob is that you don't seem to get it. Unless it's covered in the second part of this entire thing, which I doubt as it would undermine everything you said here, every point you make is undermined by the actual plot of the movie. There is no real hidden meaning here because the good guys and bad guys are clearly spelled out during the film, which means that saying there is an intended audience analogy here doesn't quite work out because the movie sets out to create the clear good vs. evil seperation.

What Suckerpunch is, at it's core, is simply a surrealistic vision quest movie, which stands out by having two layers of parallel reality instead of just one. It's no differant than a movie where say a character in a coma undergoes all these wierd ans surrealistic experiences that ultimatly represent them striving to recover from their injury.

The actual "Suckerpunch" in the movie, which is actually kind of spelled out from the beginning is that the apparent Protaganist, Babydoll, is not actually the focus of the story. All of the stuff about the plot to steal her inheritance and such is just a giant smokescreen for everything that is going on, by trying to get you to care about her, where the actual point of the story is the salvation of another girl in the asylum. The narrator tells you that, as does the "cut back" scene at the beginning of the movie right before you see her Lobotomized at the beginning.

Overall the point here is that in the deepest layer of reality there is ONE character who does not have an analogy to any of the other layers of reality, the guru/mentor figure who gives Babydoll her marching orders in the dreamscapes, who is incidently a man. You do not see this character make an apperance until the very end of the movie where the actual girl who was supposed to survive, the one Babydoll was there to rescue so to speak, finally completes her escape. He actually plays a role, if an offhanded one, as a bus driver (still in a colorscape which can make you go "huh" but that's anothr whole discussion) in manipulating events directly for the first time.

The big mind trip here is of course whether he, the guiding force, is actually god, some great spirit, or whatever else.

Now granted, Suckerpunch is a movie that can be heavily debated, and I suppose the fact that it's not straightforward is exacvtly why it's gotten such mediocre reviews. We could actually argue everything that I've said, but it seems to be something of a consensus at least among those people I've talked to about the movie seriously, and I believe Zak himself is supposed to have confirmed a lot of this in a magazine interview early on, but I've never actually seen that (just heard other people talk about it). The point here is that your basic theory pretty much ignores a lot of things that happened within the movie, ranging from initial narration, to the prescence of the guru figure, etc...

It's doubtful you (Moviebob) read this, but I'm going to say two final things:

#1: Your right in a general sense of the disguised exploitation of women, though it has little to do with this movie, though your wrong about some of the specifics.

In general, women left to their own devices tend to create this same stuff for a female audience when they produce it. If you read things like "Anita Blake", "The Hollows", and other series written largely for a female audience, or just look at the artwork (statues, paintings, etc...) by female artists the differance between what they create and what men create is pretty much zero. The imagery in of itself if absolutly nothing bigoted or exploitive, women are as fond of their outlandish costumes and physical perfection as men are, and at the end of the day wind up with the same exact endgame of spectacular amounts of butt being kicked. If anything the differance is in the way stories are told and a relational as opposed to rational viewpoint and way of reaching the same exact place, but relational vs. rational and those tendencies are again another entirely discussion and dissection of writing.

BUT you are CORRECT that this trope tends to be subverted, especially by non-western creators. A lot of action-girl anime is intended to be humorous and part of the joke is how inherantly ridiculous the idea of women doing this stuff is, especially when your dealing with young girls who act extremely, stereotypically, young, and wind up inflicting huge amo unts of devestation on the bad guys more or less accidently, perhaps with an emotional trigger.

The idea of trying to subvert that back in on itself is an interesting one, but truthfully it's self defeating, as it's not common enough overall to warrent it, and such a message would ultimatly wind up knocking the entire idea which would of course also be telling women "you can't have this, there is something fundementally wrong with it" perhaps tied to the idea that something men can also enjoy or be attracted to is wrong, which is kind of counter productive, and insulting to the women (and men) who create this stuff seriously.

In some respects I think it's become too easy to project irony into campy or deliberatly corny-cool productions, where people seek a deeper meaning than is present. Certain critics pretty much demanding creators come up with arguements about irony to defend their work certainly doesn't help matters much either. Sometimes a hot girl, in a hot costume, kicking butt with a ray gun, is just what it appears to be, and there is absolutly nothing wrong with that.

In short, I think there was less subversion going on here than you. The dreamscape/vision quest idea ultimatly being a unique spin on what is otherwise a fairly grim asylym escape story, and a way of sort of playing up what would otherwise be a very subtle supernatural element. Told without the dreamscapes you'd pretty much have the escape guided by a girl hearing voices in her head, which are shockingly accurate in knowing a few things the girls couldn't otherwise know, following by the final girl unknowingly running into the source of the voice of that one girl's head. While presumably all of the corrupt forces at the asylum undergo a house cleaning due to the attention that has been garnered by the events of the story. It could be good played "straight" but this was a unique way of telling that story.


#2: Bob, look man, I respect you for knowing more about geek culture than I do, which is actually saying something, but really, I think you need to stop projecting politics onto everything. While it has less to do with Suckerpunch than a general tone of reviews, you
are seeing crap that just isn't there.

I get that you had a rough childhood as a persecuted geek, I can feel for you, heck I spent a good portion of my childhood messed up in residential facilities as I've mentioned before. Anything that is mainstream, pro-American, pro-majority, or critical of minorities is not inherantly bad. You seem to be so focused on seeing a status quo burn that you haven't really thought things through, especially in terms of an actual "big picture" so to speak. If you had, you'd notice there is actually far more of an agressively pro-liberal message in a lot of these movies, and a lot of them are pretty insane when you get down to it. It's not like your point of view (and those even more extreme) isn't represented. If anything I'd think someone like you would actually find some of what the other side has to say, when it appears, thought provoking at the very least.

Basically, I'm saying that you should probably lay off the politics a bit, I get that you like "Suckerpunch" but really, I think your projecting more depth than is actually there, because you want it to mean more than it actually does.

Oh. My. God.

The very title says it all. Any video that directly addresses the audience and tells them they are wrong about a subjective interpretation on any form of media immediately loses all credible worth. And this is just part one?

Do I even need to watch this? Do I even need to add one more to the view count and listen to Bob's gloating voice talk about why he's right 6 minutes?

If there's any actual value to this video, I'll totally watch it, but I feel like this is one of those cases where you can judge a book by its cover.

I thought the film was alright but I felt the message got abit lost in the clutter, there was alot of stuff going on in this bloody film. I felt Starship Troopers did it better as it was alot more focused, not to mention alot more in your face then Sucker Punch.

One of my biggest problems were the action scenes getting gradualy worse. The first scene with the Samurai was awesome as was the trench warfare scene, the castle/dragon scene was abit all over the place and then the train scene which was all slow mo and up close and just plain bad.

Still, I don't think its as bad as alot of critics/audiences say it was but neither do I think it was all that amazing. If your trying to make a statement and your film losses that message under its imagry, set pieces, exacution, etc, etc blah blah blah its not what I would coincider a success.

It was alright... Starship Troopers was better.

People hated it because they thought it was misogynist?

That's news to me. Everyone I know hated it because it was an incredibly poorly made movie. Even if the filmmakers really intended all the things Moviebob says they did (and I find that VERY hard to swallow), it's STILL a terrible movie, perhaps even more so in that it fails to convey its "message" to virtually its entire audience, fans and critics alike.

i'm saying this as noticing a general pattern. Bob is proving to be notoriously bad concerning gender issues in what he covers (this, the Game Overthinker "Heavens to Metroid" video) to the point that if he is going to cover it, i'm just going to tune it out. That's a sad thing, considering that otherwise, he and i agree on a lot of things. It's just the massive disconnect, but he's a guy, i'm not, we'd naturally diverge in that way.

in other words: Zack Snyder choose an overly elaborate way to point out something that's completly obvious.

I didn't want to watch Sucker Punch in the first place because I don't like that kind of stuff but never had a problem with it and then I saw Bob's review and began to hate it.
Seriously why all the hatred of men?
And it is not just this movie but a lot of movies and TV shows. I can only name two movies that aims a small fraction of that hate against women, Death Race and Death Race 2. And even in those the main male characters could not have escaped without the help of the women.
But hatred of men, here are the most recent one I remember:
Criminal Minds
LA Noire
Dead Island
Dexter(most of the main villains are men, most victims are women)
Two and a Half Men

I know that certain men do some very bad things and they do deserve to be called out on it but simply praising everything that hates ALL men is that really fair?
Am I supposed to hate my own gender because of statistics someone else is responsible for? for crimes someone else did? Because women were treated badly in movies or tv before in shows or movies I didn't watch nor condoned? Bob mentioned that the Idiot Husband trope came about because it used to be the opposite before. Well, my generation never watched the opposite, we only got to watch Homer or Fred. Why are we being punished for something most of us don't even know existed?

That's my feeling whenever a feminist thread pops up. You want to make gaming more inclusive? I am all for it. You want to ban some kind of people in online games? You should because online games would be better without them. You want female characters in games to dress or behave differently? Fine I am all for diversity and more importantly, better characterization. I only have one condition, don't blame it all on men and to do that try not to phrase your posts like you hate all men because they all look like that to me. And I have the same opinion about Sucker Punch. If you pull it off without hating on all men, fine. But if you have to hate men, well I am a man and I hate you back.

Back in the early 2000s, Kim Possible pulled off something like this without looking like it hates men.

FargoDog:

Casual Shinji:
Honestly, I wouldn't even have mind, or maybe even liked this movie if it was just competently made as an fantasy action film. Juvenile interpretation of female empowerment/explointation be damned.

But it's just such a mess.

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with crass sexual exploitation in satirical films - see the filmography of Paul Verhoeven - but when that's really the only thing you've got going for you, it's extremely problematic.

Zack Snyder can produce some cool stuff if he's kept on a leash, but when he's allowed to do whatever the hell he wants, like writting, the end result is just wet, sticky spaghetti.

This is what has me somewhat hopeful for Man of Steel. As long as he stays behind the camera and away from too much blue screen, everything will be okay... I think... I hope.

TheDrunkNinja:
Oh. My. God.

The very title says it all. Any video that directly addresses the audience and tells them they are wrong about a subjective interpretation on any form of media immediately loses all credible worth. And this is just part one?

Do I even need to watch this? Do I even need to add one more to the view count and listen to Bob's gloating voice talk about why he's right 6 minutes?

If there's any actual value to this video, I'll totally watch it, but I feel like this is one of those cases where you can judge a book by its cover.

Don't judge the video until you've watched it dude.

Im wondering if Bob is looking way to much into this movie than he needs to, you can make thing mean whatever you want if you look hard enough. I found the movie watch-able and fun for what it was but any message is lost due to the crappy acting and clichés. Why is every man portrayed as evil? Its to simple, it could have been more complicated with out the simple black and white characters. The female empowerment thing is bullshit as well, they are using their bodies to get what they want even though it insults men who use a woman's body the same way? What? A prostitute uses her body to get what she wants also and that not considered female empowerment.

Thing is, they could have played the fantasy stuff straight. As in the fightening nazis thing filmed more akin to Saving Private Ryan. None of this stripper clothes and OTT stuff and it would have made the movie better. An its ideas it was trying to communicate better.

As for the title "Sucker Punch" it has nothing to do with nerds, and more to do with what the girls were doing to the men. As in, she keeps them occupied while dancing and the rest steal the stuff. Think that makes more sense dont you?

The movie was a boring mess. The music videos were making me fall asleep. If it had been just that, I wouldn't have given half a damn and would have forgotten it already.

But then Snieder had to say that it was "empowering" and the pretentios asshat dug his own grave with this. Basically, having women only succeed in a dream world inside another dream world (because they failed horribly on the first dream layer) and having her in the end be lobotomized, while having the BALLS to actually say that it is "liberating", has to be the farthest thing to empowerment I've ever seen.

Hmm...seeing the movie that way, the film fails for me at the same level as "Funny Games" by Michael Haneke (both the original and the remake since they are essentially the same movie) does.

It wants to hold up a mirror to me saying how i kinda suck for enjoying these kinds of entertainment (simply speaking), when i really don't.

Funny Games failed for me in this case by being just gratingly paced, utterly pointless and vague, and Sucker Punch failed for me because the oh-so-pandering actionscenes, as imaginative as they were, felt hollow and insubstantial since it lacked any real excitement or danger.
And i even find enjoyment out of the original Aeon Flux Shots (wich are basically both a more comic and more straightfaced variant of this kind of pointless action)...so yeah, it just doesn't work.

Many people critcised Spec-Ops the Line in a similar way, but at least there there was a somewhat compelling character to follow and a downward spiral to unfold if you weren't into the whole "shaming" thing.

With Sucker Punch, i don't see anything but the agressively surreal facade and pointlessnes behind it.

EDIT: Buuut i admit i'm curious if Bob comes up with a good explanation (aside from the obvious one) of why the protagonist imagines herself in a horrible brothel instead of a horrible asylum instad of...you know, actually imagine a better place. (The film lost me pretty quick)

SonOfVoorhees:
Im wondering if Bob is looking way to much into this movie than he needs to, you can make thing mean whatever you want if you look hard enough. I found the movie watch-able and fun for what it was but any message is lost due to the crappy acting and clichés. Why is every man portrayed as evil? Its to simple, it could have been more complicated with out the simple black and white characters. The female empowerment thing is bullshit as well, they are using their bodies to get what they want even though it insults me who use a woman's body the same way? What? A prostitute uses her body to get what she wants also and that not considered female empowerment.

Thing is, they could have played the fantasy stuff straight. As in the fightening nazis thing filmed more akin to Saving Private Ryan. None of this stripper clothes and OTT stuff and it would have made the movie better. An its ideas it was trying to communicate better.

As for the title "Sucker Punch" it has nothing to do with nerds, and more to do with what the girls were doing to the men. As in, she keeps them occupied while dancing and the rest steal the stuff. Think that makes more sense dont you?

pretty sure Snyder has said in interviews that the title refers to what the movie itself was intended to do to the audience's expectations, so bob's interpretation is probably closer to what Snyder intended

I found Sucker Punch to be one of the most depressing things I've ever seen. It was more or less saying that regardless of how much you'd like, you can't escape your sin (

), you can't go on, save whoever you can, but fall on your sword and maybe find solace in that.

I don't get why people always focus so much on the "sexy girls". I loved the action scenes for what they are, not for the girls starring them. What hypnotized me during babydoll's dance wasn't her body, it was shiny robots being trashed.

I didn't get all these subtleties when I saw the movie, but I think my subconscious did, if only for the feelings I had as the movie closed. I had this sense of dread regarding the female characters that clearly told me the movie was *not* about female empowerment as I originally thought, but more about their victimization.

I liked the movie.

I understand why so many people don't.

I think MovieBob's analysis has merit, and agree with him on the points he makes, but also think it doesn't excuse the movie's poor execution. But, then again, I'd rather have a movie like this that clumsily tries to make a point and risks the backlash, than the dozens of mind-numbing "safe" movies we usually get.

Anyway, my two cents.

Sorry, gonna have to go with Jesuotaku and Filmbrain (I guess) on this. She just seems more on the ball than you on this issue.

I also disagree with your assessment of Bayonetta if that means anything. Looking past the surface only means something if most people can look at, then see they need to look around it or disassemble it, then get it, even some might need a little help or education to get there. If even most of the "experts" on such things pan something then the movie probably failed and possibly became that which it might have been trying to lampoon.

Man I feel like an idiot now, this explains why I've had the disconnect between my feelings about the movie and how so many others, especially critics seem to feel about it. I knew their was more to it than just "hey hot chicks doing cool shit in fetish outfits" but I could never really figure out why. Thanks bob for making sense of it. It's a shame Sucker Punch wasn't more clever and better thought out because I agree that it's intent was indeed more noble than what most people seem to have taken away from it at a mere glance.

Imo Bayonetta was quite similar in that on the surface the game appears to just be "hey hot lady in skimpy outfit kicking ass" but if you pay attention to the details the entire game she's essentially laughing at the mere idea of any man ever being capable of being anything but worthless to her as she utterly destroys everything in her path and ultimately having her greatest adversary/ally being another super empowered female.

TheDrunkNinja:
Oh. My. God.

The very title says it all. Any video that directly addresses the audience and tells them they are wrong about a subjective interpretation on any form of media immediately loses all credible worth. And this is just part one?

Do I even need to watch this? Do I even need to add one more to the view count and listen to Bob's gloating voice talk about why he's right 6 minutes?

If there's any actual value to this video, I'll totally watch it, but I feel like this is one of those cases where you can judge a book by its cover.

I get what you mean guy but its actually something I kind of like about Bob, at least when he keeps it classy. I enjoyed this vid, hell it made me realise a few things about the movie I didn't previously notice, but the moment Bob gets aggressive like he did in his Expendables 1 and Transformers 3 reveiws is the point were I kind of have to draw the line.

Also before anyone goes calling me a fanboy, I can't stand ALOT of what Bob has said he finds enjoyable e.g. Zodiac, Drag me to Hell, Clash of the Titans (I know he said it was only okay but my gawd that movie), hated each one with a passion. I don't think you necessarily need to agree with someone to find their points of veiw interesting.

I liked the vid, as I said it made me think of a few things I didn't before, curious as to next weeks topic.

Saw the title, thought to myself:

image

Hoplon:

AxelxGabriel:
Seriously dude? You went to all this trouble to make not one, but two videos just to say how better you are then all of us just because we dont like a movie you do?

Fuck you Bob and your pretentiousness.

Actually he's saying "don't hate the film because it is quote "misogynistic" but because it's a bad film."

So congratulations on not listening. or watching.

I did do both, I still think the movie was terrible.

OK Bob, you got my attention. You managed to clearly explain what this movie was actually about, which I could never articulate. I'm looking forward to Part 2. I always felt that there was something even deeper and bigger than just a criticism of "Empowered"-sexualised women in pop culture directed at its target audience, but could never quite figure it out. I only watched the movie twice overall, it became a little too disturbing once I realised pretty much exactly what you outlined in your video.

Everyone who think that the "action sequences as a metaphor for a striptease" doesn't work are missing that the entire Brothel/Burlesque sequence is itself a metaphor/rationalisation for the abuse the inmates of the asylum. So the "action sequences" could well be a lot darker than "just a striptease". For example, just think about the possible innuendo behind the phrase "action sequence" itself.

AxelxGabriel:
I did do both, I still think the movie was terrible.

Okay so at what point was he saying he was better than anyone else? Because I managed to miss that bit.

Sutter Cane:

SonOfVoorhees:
snip

pretty sure Snyder has said in interviews that the title refers to what the movie itself was intended to do to the audience's expectations, so bob's interpretation is probably closer to what Snyder intended

Maybe. I dont know to be honest. But if you are correct then what does that say about Syder? He marketed it a certain way to get those people he wanted to mock in the theatres. Because those people are the target audience, the people he needs so that his movie can make money. I find that hypercritical to be honest.

Also, in the fantasy stuff, the girls chose their outfits because its their fantasy. Which has nothing to do with men. Atleast in the mental home, if men told them to wear skimpy outfits then that would make sense.

Is your name from In The Mouth Of Madness? Now thats a good fun movie. :-)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here