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
 

This is a weird film for me to admit I liked and I think it's because I like Sucker Punch more for what it did and less for what it is.

Taken on face value on it's strength as a movie alone, it's really not that great. The plot is tissue thin, the characters are poorly developed (there's a joke about breast size in there if anyone wants it), and the script is weak...it's pretty much just a 120 minute music video.

However, when viewed in conjunction with it's promotional material it takes on a lot of the qualities Mr. Bob discussed. It flat out tricked the overwhelming majority of it's audience into seeing it based on the allure of watching pretty little girls in fetish gear kicking high.

I'll be the first to admit that I fell for that. Being a collector of "Good Girl Art" and having worked with friends who are themselves performers of American and Victorian burlesque, I may have gone into this with a slightly different viewpoint than most. That's not to say that I wasn't still there to see the same thing as the rest of the audience.

But I loved the fact that the movie spent the majority of it's time criticizing it's audience. It blows my mind that Sucker Punch gets dismissed as juvenile and pandering while the equally great Cabin in the Woods get's praised for pulling the same trick with different cards. Or to keep things a little more current, this is the exact kind of marketing bait and switch that's getting Spec Ops: The Line so much praise right now.

So yeah, Sucker Punch, Cabin in the Woods and Spec Ops: The Line are all, on their surface pretty much middle of the road to sup par examples of their respective genres who took chances on using the tropes of their genre to turn a mirror on their audience. So why is Sucker Punch the only one routinely getting passed off as being nothing but a pandering mess?

Kargathia:

Moonlight Butterfly:
I feel like I 'get' this film mostly because I have been in abusive relationships with men and have used my imagination (and games) as a form of escapism. This film could have been taken from inside my head... I have real life parallels for both the step father and the doctor/brothel owner guy, unfortunately.

You are so right about this Bob, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

This film made me cry, I'm not sure how many people it had that effect on.

It appears perspective matters quite a lot on this, as personally I had the sense they were shooting for the whole imagination-as-escapism thing, but horribly failing at it. In my interpretation it should have been Baby Doll's imagination we'd get to see, in which the brothel easily could fit, but the action sequences felt horribly out of place, as they are such obvious male fantasies. That is not to say it can't be the preferred escapism of a woman, but it certainly does need additional background to explain for it.

In my personal opinion the best solution would've been to either make a movie about a girl using multiple levels of fantasies to escape from a wretched reality inside a mental hospital, or make an obvious satire burning the concept of "empowered" scantily clad sex fantasies to the ground - not both.

I think you are probably right about perspective, I'm in the position that I being a gamer those sequences are sort of familiar to me as well as having the ability to see it from the abuse angle.

I doubt that my experience is unique but it seems a very specialized pov to come at it from as you said.

Scrumpmonkey:
Is this ANOTHER one of those times that Movie Bob is sitting us all down and lecturing us about how his opinion is so much more valid than everyone else's? Urrrrrggggg... Honestly Bob this kind of stuff undermines your usually good work, you did this with Expendables, you did this repeatedly with the whole Mass Effect 3 thing and now you're doing it again.

It's a video essay. There's not much point to an essay if you don't think you're right. Bob has a central thesis as what the underlying intent of the film was, and he provided evidence within the film to back it up. Whether or not Suckerpunch was a good movie, or if it tried to have its cake and eat it too (which it did attempt), has nothing to do with it. Do you think Bob's analysis, which is grounded in the content of the film, is wrong?

Personally I enjoy this level of analysis. I'd rather watch a Big Picture episode where Bob digs into the content of the film, instead of giving us a Wikipedia-style summary of the surface facts.

...
One unrelated positive note about Suckerpunch was it made me re-listen to Yoav's cover of 'Where's my mind.' I didn't like it when I first heard it on Charmed and Strange, I thought it was boring, but I saw it in a new light after the movie.

The thing is Bob, the movie is kind of about misogyny, because the flick ends on the downer note you expected it to.

Why do so many people seem to think you have to fully agree with all the underlying messages in a work of fiction in order to enjoy it?

I mean, yes, Suckerpunch is at the same time a condemnation/satire/parody of the sexy-powerful-girls-kick-ass genre, while at the same time being a prime example of the genre...

But why must it be impossible to enjoy it as both? Why would it be so hard to admit that sexy girls and explosions are fun to watch, while at the same time appreciating the movie's criticisms of it?

--

I am going to ask something only partly related to this video: I watched Starship troopers once, and found it was crap, as I took it somewhat at face value and thought that, even if it was actually a parody/critique/whatever of the genre, it would have failed anyway because it was played too straight.

What I want to know is if there is something from within the movie that tells me this is a parody, or if I have to assume it that "since it is this bad, it MUST be a parody", a reasoning that doesn't fly all that well with me, since people are perfectly capable of doing shitty movies, so you can't expect me to telepathically extrapolate if you mean for it to be a parody or not.

I also want to know what purpose does it serve to play it straight, since that way you end up criticizing the genre directly, but without any strength behind such accusations (it's like if someone decided to kill someone in front of me to explain to me that is wrong to kill... This an hyperbole, of course, but you get what I mean, right?).

I am not a native english speaker, so I hope this isn't a case of "lost in translation", where the lines or the tone they were delivered in were so different after dubbing them in my language that it made it harder (or impossible) for me to really feel the irony.

Xman490:
"I'm not talking about not LIKING it. I know a lot of people who DID get it and still didn't like it, not so much people not appreciating the QUALITY of the movie as not appreciating its PURPOSE."

That sounds like your very positive review of The Cabin in the Woods. At this point in the video (first minute), I'm guessing that Sucker Punch has that underlying tone of "Yeah, we know you like this a certain way. But seriously, stop demanding it. It gets on our nerves." or something like that.

After watching this, I seem to be correct.

But anyways, I realized another parallel: Team Fortress 2's Meet the Pyro. The Pyro's enjoyment of his/her murdering spree is, like Sucker Punch's empowering war world, a completely warped version of the real world that swaps suffering and horror with happiness and magic. Maybe that's one of the reasons why people (myself included) love that Source Film Maker short.

The key difference between Starship Troopers and Sucker Punch is that ST shows the reality behind the propaganda. Everything right down the enemy they're fighting is hyperbole. The film is obviously satire to anyone who has even minor knowledge of how propaganda works. Which should be everyone.

SP just does everything that it's supposedly saying shouldn't be done, without a hint of shame. Saying "look how sexy they all are" and then bopping you on the nose with a newspaper and saying "you shouldn't be looking" isn't clever or on the bone.

It's hypocritical.

They're doing everything with a strait face, what they're supposed to be taking the mick out of. You can attribute all the parallels that you want to it, it's still doing one thing and saying another. And then saying you're a bad person for watching it or whatever.

What doesn't help it is that the film is actually just poorly executed. The fight scenes are boring, the girls are obnoxious, the situation they're in is so heavy handed and un-organic (not to mention completely irrelevant to what they're supposed to be aping) I have a hard time buying their 'pain'. It's just a mess.

When i first saw this movie i instantly got what they were going for but only because i had played a game called "insanitarium" a long long time ago that pretty much did the same thing, only in the game it was to steal an invention instead of an inheritance

Never seen the movie but heres, what will probably be my only comment on this.
While 100 percent I will say flat out sexual and mental abuse is NEVER good ever. I really don't see a connection between it and a simply admiring of sexualized females in any entertainment medium. However it is bad that if you can ONLY think of women as sex objects and nothing more, than you need therapy.

Just my two cents. I'm sure I'm wrong.

Thanks Bob. It's nice to see a critique of the film for what it was trying to do. Even if the way it was trying to do it was clumsy. Personally I think Snyder's OTT music video style hurt the central themes a bit by overpowering the significance of the onion-layer metaphors.

I loved the movie asking me to question myself and my reasons for watching it and agree that the PG rating hurt it's ability to hit harder where it needed to.

I also thought the ending was a great idea but fumbled in the execution with some lousy, rushed dialogue and poor characterization of the surviving protagonist. Still a very worthwhile film to see provided you understand it's intentions going in.

So... this is another one of those things whereby the only way to win is to not participate?

mdqp:
I am going to ask something only partly related to this video: I watched Starship troopers once, and found it was crap, as I took it somewhat at face value and thought that, even if it was actually a parody/critique/whatever of the genre, it would have failed anyway because it was played too straight.

What I want to know is if there is something from within the movie that tells me this is a parody, or if I have to assume it that "since it is this bad, it MUST be a parody", a reasoning that doesn't fly all that well with me, since people are perfectly capable of doing shitty movies, so you can't expect me to telepathically extrapolate if you mean for it to be a parody or not.

I also want to know what purpose does it serve to play it straight, since that way you end up criticizing the genre directly, but without any strength behind such accusations (it's like if someone decided to kill someone in front of me to explain to me that is wrong to kill... This an hyperbole, of course, but you get what I mean, right?).

I am not a native english speaker, so I hope this isn't a case of "lost in translation", where the lines or the tone they were delivered in were so different after dubbing them in my language that it made it harder (or impossible) for me to really feel the irony.

Its a fairly valid point. One way to differentiate it is by making it so over the top that it will make people uncomfortable about it. Of course, that can be lost in translation too... if not ridiculous or creepy enough, people may assume is just a straight example of the thing is trying to criticize.

Because of that, its extremely difficult to pull it off successfully; at least without being offensively simplistic and just spell it out for the audience.

I may have gotten the message if the movie had not induced zone out syndrome. I remember watching the start of the movie some insane asylum, brother dream, zone out, BUNNY RABBIT MECH HELL YEAH!, zone out, where is the bunny rabbit mech?,zone out, scene with the old guy, zone out, credits.
I got the idea that the men were bad for doing this to the women but I think the lack of caring about the movie or anyone in it prevented me from thinking about it. I can see your point mr. bob of movies.

DVS BSTrD:
Yeah, my problem with Sucker Punch wasn't with it being "misogynistic".
It's that it was so schizophrenic nothing seemed significant.

Well this post is more or less my own views so I have to type less. YAY!

2fish awards bunny rabbit mech most relatable character.

Genuine Evil:

jaymiechan:
.

Then there is the point that the film, regardless of whatever lofty goals it might have had, revels in the very thing it is attempting to satirize. i mean, for cripes sake, you don't even find out any of the names of the women! AKA a very humanizing element, and something that could have cemented, even if held as a reveal for the end.

As far as I understood the movie all the girls in the brothel were actually Babydoll or more specifically representations of parts of her psyche. So whenever one of them got killed it was just a part of her dying and the girl who escaped was what was left after the lobotomy =(

They weren't given names because they were all the same person.

Nope, they clearly show that each lady in the fantasies are also real in the Asylum; they clearly show the stabbing death of one of them in the Asylum level. The only questionable bit is the Mentor guy as a bus driver, but also note that that section is color-toned differently than the rest of what is established as "reality" (the cold blue-green tone).

sinsfire:

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

Not everything ends happily. The ending to 1984 was perfect for the themes it was attempting to convey. I would recommend against reading "A Brave New World" (book) but you may like Terry Gilliams "Brazil" (moive)

As for the ending in Sucker Punch I think there may be more to it then that.

I'm not saying that endings like that are bad, it's just that I personally dislike them.

Surprised that a lot of people disliked this movie.

Saw it myself and liked it, especially loved the special effects in the battle sequences which made it eye catching. The parts outside the fantasy is what made me uncomfortable. Segments that dealt with reality made me find the movie quite depressing even though in the end I give it an 8.5 out of 10 plus it gets the .5 for really making me remember the movie.

Yeah, so many people who I talked to or talked about this movie got the wrong idea or took it at face value. I think it would help if some people look deeper into things...

Although I still haven't seen it yet, so I can't I can't really talk.

I like the movie.
I usually avoid digging into stuuf like this but it's nice hearing about others thinking their asses off.
I just watch movies and either enjoy them or then not.

SnakeoilSage:
The thing is Bob, the movie is kind of about misogyny, because the flick ends on the downer note you expected it to.

What the wha? Did we watch the same film? Did you listen to the last words that were said? Have you ever heard of revenge sexploitation films?

--

Whoa, that's heavy. Of course I haven't seen the movie, but I might go see it now.

Diddy_Mao:
This is a weird film for me to admit I liked and I think it's because I like Sucker Punch more for what it did and less for what it is.

Taken on face value on it's strength as a movie alone, it's really not that great. The plot is tissue thin, the characters are poorly developed (there's a joke about breast size in there if anyone wants it), and the script is weak...it's pretty much just a 120 minute music video.

However, when viewed in conjunction with it's promotional material it takes on a lot of the qualities Mr. Bob discussed. It flat out tricked the overwhelming majority of it's audience into seeing it based on the allure of watching pretty little girls in fetish gear kicking high.

I'll be the first to admit that I fell for that. Being a collector of "Good Girl Art" and having worked with friends who are themselves performers of American and Victorian burlesque, I may have gone into this with a slightly different viewpoint than most. That's not to say that I wasn't still there to see the same thing as the rest of the audience.

But I loved the fact that the movie spent the majority of it's time criticizing it's audience. It blows my mind that Sucker Punch gets dismissed as juvenile and pandering while the equally great Cabin in the Woods get's praised for pulling the same trick with different cards. Or to keep things a little more current, this is the exact kind of marketing bait and switch that's getting Spec Ops: The Line so much praise right now.

So yeah, Sucker Punch, Cabin in the Woods and Spec Ops: The Line are all, on their surface pretty much middle of the road to sup par examples of their respective genres who took chances on using the tropes of their genre to turn a mirror on their audience. So why is Sucker Punch the only one routinely getting passed off as being nothing but a pandering mess?

I haven't played Spec Ops yet, but I understand your comparison to Cabin in the Woods. Basically Sucker Punch is getting slammed more because it turns that mirror directly onto the audience and most people don't like what they see. That's what people are knee-jerk reacting to. Cabin in the Woods pulled the same trick but in a more subtle way. Most people watching Cabin in the Woods don't get that, as the audience, we are the great despicable evil that wants the "protagonists" to suffer and the world to end. Cabin in the Woods left that part implied, while Sucker Punch actually followed through. Though in Sucker Punch's defense, it's more like the cave in Empire Strikes Back, the only evil is what you bring with you. There's no mention of rape (in fact, if you pay attention to the end, anything provable would have real world consequences and therefore didn't happen), but if you're a wanna be rapist at heart, you'll see that in the movie. So I can see where people saw something ugly within themselves that makes them want to hate the vehicle which brought about the revelation.

That and I think Samurai with mini-guns are cool.

hermes200:
Its a fairly valid point. One way to differentiate it is by making it so over the top that it will make people uncomfortable about it. Of course, that can be lost in translation too... if not ridiculous or creepy enough, people may assume is just a straight example of the thing is trying to criticize.

Because of that, its extremely difficult to pull it off successfully; at least without being offensively simplistic and just spell it out for the audience.

But that's the point: if you play it "straight", you also can't make it over the top, because if you do, you have only 2 possible outcomes, I think:

1)It becomes ridiculous, and humorous, as a result or;

2)It becomes really blatant, and you would be better off making a documentary, by that point, as it would allow you to articulate your opinion, instead of simply pointing the finger. This second version is also basically impossible to be made entertaining, as it should be bad, even if it's on purpose (if you make it entertaining, than you are doing it wrong, how can you criticize it?).

So I can't seem to be able to imagine such a situation played straight and being really meaningful.

P.s. I saw someone post above on how the fact that the propaganda as it's shown in the movie should make it clear that it was satire, but I can't help but feel that for me it kind of reinforced the "straight" feeling I got from the movie, and the fact that it would be uninteresting, even if it was satire (as in, it wasn't really subverting the scenario, at least for me).

Storm Dragon:

sinsfire:

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

Not everything ends happily. The ending to 1984 was perfect for the themes it was attempting to convey. I would recommend against reading "A Brave New World" (book) but you may like Terry Gilliams "Brazil" (moive)

As for the ending in Sucker Punch I think there may be more to it then that.

I'm not saying that endings like that are bad, it's just that I personally dislike them.

I think the idea of most of them dying has a lot to do with:
a) realism: the whole plan was childish and stupid which is a jab at empowerment fantasies.
b) you can't defeat misogyny with objectification: Babydoll tried to use her own body as a tool to free her own body. In the end, that wasn't the right solution.

Genuine Evil:

jaymiechan:

Genuine Evil:
As far as I understood the movie all the girls in the brothel were actually Babydoll or more specifically representations of parts of her psyche. So whenever one of them got killed it was just a part of her dying and the girl who escaped was what was left after the lobotomy =(

They weren't given names because they were all the same person.

Nope, they clearly show that each lady in the fantasies are also real in the Asylum; they clearly show the stabbing death of one of them in the Asylum level. The only questionable bit is the Mentor guy as a bus driver, but also note that that section is color-toned differently than the rest of what is established as "reality" (the cold blue-green tone).

the reason she sees the mentor character at the end is because she was still in the dream , so was the whole final scene in the Asylum . also the bright colors at the end were nothing like the dark grim tones we were shown at the beginning and the only parts of the movie that had any bright colors were the dream sequences, I doubt it was the real world .

also Im pretty sure the girls were only shown after the lobotomy scene.( and even if they weren't you can still bullshit around that)

No, the Asylum scene at the end fit in with the themes and patterns for the different 'levels' of reality as well. It's only the bus scene that is more questionable. Also, the LADIES (not girls, they were adults) were shown just before the very first transition into the Brothel level of escape, where the Lobotomy scene becomes Rocket (i think) doing a scenario for the Brothel show.

Of course, the Brothel alone pisses me off, due to the fact that someone who has been sexually abused does not escape that sort of thing via a scenario where THEY ARE ONLY THERE AS A SEX OBJECT.

hentropy:

Darknacht:

hentropy:
And if people are overwhelmingly confused about the purpose or message because the satire was too subtle, then the satire DID NOT DO ITS JOB. That should be film school 101: if you have a message or satire, make it effective and clear, because satire that no one gets isn't really satire at all.

The movie literally yells 'STOP' at one point early on and everything comes to a halt while a character explains to the audience the point of the movie. How much clearer could it be, if people did not get that, then its a problem with the people watching it not the movie.

Except Bob is spending not one but two videos trying to "explain" it to us all, because apparently people didn't get it enough for him and obviously critics weren't so sure, and those aren't idiots unfamiliar with subtext.

I'm not sure what part of the movie you're referring to precisely, but a satire loses its satirical edge when it becomes indistinguishable from the thing that it's satirizing.

This is a joke right?
Don't you get the point of this?
Its to turn people on.
I get the sexy little school girl, I even get the helpless mental patient, right that can be hot.
What is this, lobotomize vegetable?
How about something a little more commercial for god sakes?

I'm not saying that everyone that did not get the point of the movie is an idiot, they maybe a bit dense or they assumed that this was a 'turn your brain off and enjoy it' kind of movie so they missed the point or something. I'm not really sure why so many people can't tell that its a satire it is very easy to distinguish it from what it is satirizing.
I'm not saying that its necessarily a good movie, it has lots of flaws, but it is a satire and it does not stop being a satire just because some people did not get it.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
What if I "got" the movie, and still thought it was shit?

If you paid attention he said that he is not arguing whether or not its good, he is arguing that it is a satire.

---

Just a quick note: Having to explain what the hell the movie was trying to do means that the movie failed in explaining it.

I just hate artsy carp like what this movie tried. I didn't really get it nor do I care to. If this movie really did try to go for that big of a message well it failed. So why bother explain it?

To be clear I under got what was explain in this episode but I have no idea what Bob has planned for next week.

Abandon4093:
The key difference between Starship Troopers and Sucker Punch is that ST shows the reality behind the propaganda. Everything right down the enemy they're fighting is hyperbole. The film is obviously satire to anyone who has even minor knowledge of how propaganda works. Which should be everyone.

SP just does everything that it's supposedly saying shouldn't be done, without a hint of shame. Saying "look how sexy they all are" and then bopping you on the nose with a newspaper and saying "you shouldn't be looking" isn't clever or on the bone.

It's hypocritical.

They're doing everything with a strait face, what they're supposed to be taking the mick out of. You can attribute all the parallels that you want to it, it's still doing one thing and saying another. And then saying you're a bad person for watching it or whatever.

What doesn't help it is that the film is actually just poorly executed. The fight scenes are boring, the girls are obnoxious, the situation they're in is so heavy handed and un-organic (not to mention completely irrelevant to what they're supposed to be aping) I have a hard time buying their 'pain'. It's just a mess.

But is there really a point at which the film says "look how sexy they all are"? I missed it 3 times. I mean, obviously we know they're supposed to be sexy, but are they? I didn't see any tits, any asses, any risque poses or clothes choices; any sexual innuendos, any overtly sexual lines or noises. They have some makeup on. That's about it.

The Human Torch:

Nimzabaat:

I am enjoying just how many comments there are from those people who just didn't "get it" though. Highly entertaining.

I am honestly not sure how I should take that. Did I amuse you?

How should you take it? Not very seriously :)

You enjoyed a movie without reading anything terrible into it. That's awesome. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying something because it's beautiful or entertaining. There is more to the movie that reflects things about the character of the audience, but you only get back what you put in. So no offense intended. I was really just mentioniong a whole bunch of the earlier posts.

Then there's a whole bunch of people who saw something beautiful and fantasized that there were dicks forcefully inserted between scenes (even though it was stated at the end that Mr Big wanted to but never had). Now those people... there's something wrong with them.

Revolutionaryloser:

Abandon4093:
The key difference between Starship Troopers and Sucker Punch is that ST shows the reality behind the propaganda. Everything right down the enemy they're fighting is hyperbole. The film is obviously satire to anyone who has even minor knowledge of how propaganda works. Which should be everyone.

SP just does everything that it's supposedly saying shouldn't be done, without a hint of shame. Saying "look how sexy they all are" and then bopping you on the nose with a newspaper and saying "you shouldn't be looking" isn't clever or on the bone.

It's hypocritical.

They're doing everything with a strait face, what they're supposed to be taking the mick out of. You can attribute all the parallels that you want to it, it's still doing one thing and saying another. And then saying you're a bad person for watching it or whatever.

What doesn't help it is that the film is actually just poorly executed. The fight scenes are boring, the girls are obnoxious, the situation they're in is so heavy handed and un-organic (not to mention completely irrelevant to what they're supposed to be aping) I have a hard time buying their 'pain'. It's just a mess.

But is there really a point at which the film says "look how sexy they all are"? I missed it 3 times. I mean, obviously we know they're supposed to be sexy, but are they? I didn't see any tits, any asses, any risque poses or clothes choices; any sexual innuendos, any overtly sexual lines or noises. They have some makeup on. That's about it.

They're dressed in fitishised outfits and dance for patrons. Half of the action scenes have them in freaking school girl uniforms or some shit.

Do the math.

I find myself planting this film firmly is the bad film category. Actually more complete Garbage category. I finished it once and it was so boring and dumb I couldn't bring myself to watch it a second time when asked to do so. Frankly I never wanted to see it the first time. The trailer spells out the depth of this film clearly.

I get it, it has "levels" ooo. Not really. "Primer" has levels. This was a boring nerd service(girl nerd or guy take your pick) music video that went on way too goddamn long.

So here's my big complaint and why I can't just put this in the BLAH section. This movie tries really really hard to make you think it's a cross examination/female empowerment film, but heres the catch. All the girls are completely dumb, without any depth or character and are the least interesting characters of the film.

The worst part, you know where all the best acting and character lies? The male bad guys who actually steal every scene. So instead of getting this feeling of " GETTING HIT WITH SOME MUTHAFING KNOWLEDGE" You get a boring drab and poorly acted 1 hour + music video that says "heres some tits and guns, also you should feel bad for being a guy or whatever."

Markunator:
I'm sorry, Bob, but I still won't watch this film. These guys' views on movies tend to mean more to me than yours (no offense):

Exactly how I felt about watchmen as well this video is spot on. Zack Snyder is all surface and has no clue what character or story amounts to on film.

Bob, I got to disagree with you on sucker punch. If a tree falls in the forest but know one gets the message then that message really doesn't mean squat. If hoards of people watched the exploitable physiques of the ladies hop about on stage without any sense of irony or introversion than the film is either a pitiful failure or a noble endeavor transmogrified into cash grab midway through.

If the hot ladies were secretly normal looking women or it was a cartoon or anime maybe I could almost see it, but in this the director laterally sat down and went through a host of portfolios, only picking out the 'hottest' ones. At that point any ironic feminist message has already been tossed in the crapper. Even the baldest and ugliest of actors got to have his moment on screen and take his check home but only the most attractive of ladies, willing to bounce around in skimpy costume to the orders of their male director got to do the same. If the whole dream sequence was revealed to have occurred in the mind of a tragically hideous women at the end, or some non 'baby-doll' female had been allowed to have any role, than maybe it might have delivered some 'sucker punch' but without any nod beyond the most cursory of story tropes the movie is an exploitation piece. For the viewer their is no consequence or cost to viewing it as an exploitation picture and if the deeper statement was so easily missed it probably wasn't particularly integral or well crafted in the first place.

Its complete and abject failure makes it worse, not better; if the titanic had been designed as an ocean dredging tomb then nobody would give a crap.

 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