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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Well done. Very well done.

If it was a different chick, ya know, not the girl from Roswell, tryin to be all alpha, and if the fantasy scenes were, I don't know, better made... I could totally still not see this as a gem like Movie Bob does, but I could probably like it more without the pop raped music. All things considered.

I'd pay Movie Bob $100 to hear him wax poetic about a piece of shit on a white canvas too... any other takers?

Note: I liked the movie the first time. Now I'm seeing it fail? Cuz I'm sexist, eh? I can see that.

Also, can we all agree that the real hottie is Blondie? If not, I'm not sure I could see your point...

lolz

daibakuha:

DVS BSTrD:
No I wasn't Bob: I thought none of what happend actually mattered in the end and it turns out I was right.

It's a good thing you aren't a film critic, because you suck at film analysis.

Oh please, Bob is living proof you don't have to have any qualifications to call yourself a film critic.

SpiderJerusalem:

daibakuha:

DVS BSTrD:
No I wasn't Bob: I thought none of what happend actually mattered in the end and it turns out I was right.

It's a good thing you aren't a film critic, because you suck at film analysis.

Oh please, Bob is living proof you don't have to have any qualifications to call yourself a film critic.

I guess that pesky degree in film has nothing to do with his job as a film critic.

Though who am I kidding, you're one of his contentionists, you don't agree with anything he says because of some imagined slight. It doesn't matter whether or not he has a valid point, you will shoot it down, simply because it came from him.

If you enjoyed Sucker Punch you should watch Bitch Slap on Netflix. I guess

I agree, Bob, and I'm honestly surprised that so many people don't. I thought this was all rather obvious.

impocalyptic:
Sarkeesian denounced this as misogyny dressed up as female empowerment. I thought she just didn't get it then and, thanks to Bob, I now have a good reason for believing so. Someone send these vids to her!

I have a better idea! Watch this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6264-Anita-Sarkeesian-The-Monster-Gamers-Created

daibakuha:

SpiderJerusalem:

daibakuha:

It's a good thing you aren't a film critic, because you suck at film analysis.

Oh please, Bob is living proof you don't have to have any qualifications to call yourself a film critic.

I guess that pesky degree in film has nothing to do with his job as a film critic.

No, not really. Do you know how many people there are with film degrees? They hand those things out like candy.

Though who am I kidding, you're one of his contentionists, you don't agree with anything he says because of some imagined slight. It doesn't matter whether or not he has a valid point, you will shoot it down, simply because it came from him.

I have, in the past, commended Bob when there was something to commend. At the very start of his run I was actually a supporter of the cause in having a film related show for geeks on the Escapist. It was when Bob started picking lines from Wikipedia and other, better articles, holding grudges against "stupid audiences" for numerous episodes, inserting his own, childish political opinions into his videos and then got up on his high horse, pretending to be some kind of a savior of film criticism online that I stopped supporting him.

His show became derivative, him just regurgitating better writers week after week, titling his episodes like "why you are wrong" and flat out calling anyone who disagrees with him a redneck, idiot or retard. He has about as much integrity as Harry Knowles and all the ego that he didn't work to earn.

Great deep analyse - I cought most of it at first viewing, and since I didn't watch it the second time I didn't get as much out of it though. Honestly after watching Sucker Punch I wanted to watch it again, but skip all the dream dancing sequences since they didn't bring anything to the story, and were the part that people attack for being exploting woman while some argued that self awerenes cleanes the quilt.
It's a porblem of "having your cake and eating it too", which isn't illogical, but stupid. The subject that was critiqed was shown with just a commentary and a whole movie when just a bit at the end serves the message is eating too much of that god damn cake. If it was racism, not sexism that was shown than people wouldn't sit through the whole movie to get the message.

Anyway, I love all of your showns, MovieBob, keep it up :D

Darth_Payn:

Revolutionaryloser:

Darth_Payn:

Hey now, don't think like that. Zack Snyder's probably the true asshole for calling his audience the assholes for DARING to like the stuff he put into his movie.
I think the other things to hate about Sucker Punch is that, as poorly characterized as they were, we wanted the girls to escape, and only the "bitchy" one did. That last minute protagonist switch at the end was just dick-slap.

It's telling that the least trampy of the girls is the one you consider a bitch.

Well, she kind of sounded like one oin the clip Bob put in today's video, like yelling at Baby Doll for her "dancing" and calling the escape plan stupid, thus Bob calling Sweet Pea "Captain Bringdown". Showing some more of her interacting with her sister Rocket would have countered that.

And these girls' names STILL make no sense!

They're stripper names. They have names like that. Coincidentally, sci fi action chicks also have crazy names. I think there was some sort of point being made there.

I didn't really care much for the first stuff as it seemed that bob was just looking way too far into the movie, finding ways to defend it. The second part now however seems to make more sense (kinda), the only main problem is that despite it's intentions, the message didn't came through to many viewers. The movie is just too much of a mess to the simple man to handle. A sucker punch yeah, but one where people act on like "hey! why did you do that?!" then "Oooh, damn that hurt my face! This punch will be with me for the rest of my days..."
Anyways, nice try from bob but I don't know if it made a lot of people think differently about the movie in a more positive view. It didn't for me anyway...

As much as I disagree with Bob a lot of the time, stuff like this is the reason I'm still watching his stuff.

For one thing, I didn't find this movie particularly deep, or feminist, but I did like the fact that the movie diverts from doing something "sexy" exploitative to "battle scene" exploitative.

To say nothing of the fact that my interpretation was Baby Doll was Sweet Pea's Tyler Durden. (Both have sisters they tried to protect, both were sane but put in the asylum because of said sister, but like in Fight Club, in the end, the "imaginary" Tyler had to go, and they both invented the character to be the person that they felt they needed to be in order to get things done.)

In that regard, to me, the movie was inventive. Sloppy, but inventive.

So, as a chick, I liked the movie. Just don't go calling it feminist at me. But even if it does have "chicks in sexy outfits", it doesn't have to make some sort of feminist statement.

I haven't watched these two episodes.

I never saw Sucker Punch. I wasn't at all interested when it came out. When you posted the episode last week, I didn't remember what it was. You know why? That movie came out two years ago.

Seriously, Bob, why are you addressing other people's views on your opinion of it now? I would guess that the people who would still hold that against you are butt-hurts who are looking for any excuse to rail against you and aren't worth your time.

I hope next week you do one of those rare episodes where you cover something of relevance.

Off-topic: These ad-quiz captchas need to die. Whichever product removes "3x more soap scum" can kiss my ass.

castlewise:
If I'm in a certain mood I really did this kind of deep analysis of movies. Hunting for metaphors and hidden meanings can be fun. Its hard to know where to stop though. For example its probably safe to assume the curtain call thing at the beginning was put there for a reason. On the other hand, last week MovieBob included the advertising for the film as part of the film's message, and I'm not sure that moviemakers always artistic direction over their posters and trailers.

Marketing, more often then not, is handled outside of the studio and are, again more often then not, detached from the intended meaning of the film. But in the end, the film was targeting the people who would generally see "that" type of film, so its possible no shits were given about the formulaic presentation of the adverts.

That said... the typical movie goer who picks his films based on how flashy the poster is, would likely not see the subliminal side to a film.

(More on topic): I guess its also why it was criticised so harshly. Anyone who went to see the movie expected some brainless action/porn, and due to the somewhat failed delivery, left feeling that it was exactly that but with a bad aftertaste (the part of their brain that sort of knew something was off). Unfortunately, very few people, even critics, step back and survey the entire piece before writing it off, since when you see one brainless action movie, you've practically seen them all.

Thematically, bobs view of the film fits and it makes sense. I find it surprising that so few people "got" this film. Even I misjudged it (though I still won't rave about it even with this new perspective). I think this a result of indulging in so much garbage in recent rears it has actually stupefied me.

4 years of film studies (partly, wasn't the focus of my course) and I can't even read into a film that was so strongly themed. I feel bad now.

Or it really did just suck and this is Bob's way of justifying it.

Not saying that is the case mind you, just throwing the possibility out there.

Dastardly:

MovieBob:
You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

Spoilers abound in this week's finale to Bob's retrospective on Sucker Punch.

Watch Video

The two most misunderstood satires in quasi-mainstream movies in a long time: this one, and Moulin Rouge.

Moulin Rouge satirizes the whole "love conquers all" motif behind so many garbage movies and songs... and far too many people missed that point, hailing the movie as being oh-so-romantic-I-love-the-music! Basically, the movie makes fun of the very people who like it, and they still like it.

Suckerpunch had the opposite problem -- the people the movie makes fun of don't like it for exactly the reason it was making fun of in the first place.

I'm glad to hear someone else come down in favor of this movie, and for the right reasons. Aaaand I guess if most people were self-aware enough to understand satirical content aimed at them, there wouldn't be much need for the satire in the first place, huh?

(Yeah, I'm in a bit of a mood today. Apologies.)

I was under the impression that Moulin Rouge was supposed to be a loving pastiche of the big bollywood musicals, and that while the shallowness s completely intentional on that film's part, its meant to celebrate those kinds of films rather than ridicule them.

Anyone else notice that the mindless action panderfest movies Bob hates just suck, and the ones he like are actually extensive deconstructions of said mindless etc etc?

Case in point, Transformers and Sucker Punch respectively.

Seriously, I have not doubt that there is some of that in the movie, I have no doubt it's calling certain elements of nerdom out, but honestly, I think most nerds are really just like normal people. They just like at least two esoteric things. Besides, if you don't stick the landing with the satire you have failed, Bob, you have failed.

They don't hand out gold medals to gymnasts who botch their landings. :\

You know what? I am actually 100% with you on this one, MovieBob.

I remember going to the cinema expecting this movie to be more like a glorified Music Video Clip, expecting to see visually pleasing imagery and not much of a story.

I also remember leaving the cinema feeling a bit perplexed and overwhelmed with the actual story and it's metaphors within metaphors within metaphors.

I really liked the movie, but it was straining to try and follow everything that was happening.

It's not perfect. Not by a long shot. But it's not shallow, either. If anything, the problem is that the narrative goal it sets for itself is too much and it didn't manage to handle it properly.

Kinda like "the Cell", in my view, which was also marketed as a glorified Music Video Clip and was also a bit too ambitious and too convoluted for the audience to follow.

I just watched the movie due to the cool action scenes and girls in short skirts...
Well not really but I seldom try to find any hidden layers in movies.
It's cool to listen to people telling theroies thou.

Ah. "I literally physically cannot be wrong" MovieBob strikes again.
What you said is entirely reasonable. It also doesn't change a single fucking thing about the movie being a piece of shit.

MovieBob:
You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

Spoilers abound in this week's finale to Bob's retrospective on Sucker Punch.

Watch Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0

No, seriously. This is a frantic attempt to validate your poor, poor choice in a movie like.

Renegade-pizza:
I have to agree with Bob. if this film was supposed to deliver a message of some sort, then why did "nobody" get it? It was just poor delivery.

That is EXACTLY what Bob said in part one... -__-'

"The Castle Siege segment which features the possibly deliberate symbolism of Babydoll having to kill a newborn dragon and its mother with her sword. In other words, destroying traditional feminine gender roles of child nurturing and motherhood itself by rendering herself symbolically masculine via her cartoonishly phallic katana sword."

Oh boy, how can I describe my feelings behind this hilariously pretentious interpretation to a movie that doesn't deserve that credit?

Ramzal:

MovieBob:
You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

Spoilers abound in this week's finale to Bob's retrospective on Sucker Punch.

Watch Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0

No, seriously. This is a frantic attempt to validate your poor, poor choice in a movie like.

Yeah, that video will do!

A satire of bad films while being a bad film is what you're saying Moviebob, then how are we wrong about the movie? We all think it's a bad film, not everyone hates the movie because it's sexist or whatever negative connotation but that it's just an awful, boring film with boring action setpieces, cringe-worthy dialogue, and cardboard characters. There are plenty of movies that are good that are considered "sexist" or "misogynist" and dealing with difficult subject matter, like take any film of Lars von Trier.

Another satire of bad films that is great along with Starship Troopers is Adaptation. You know why that movie isn't bad? Because it still has all the technical stuff right like great acting (double the Nick Cage!), narrative, cinematography, and character development. You don't skimp out on those details.

SL33TBL1ND:
I agree, Bob, and I'm honestly surprised that so many people don't. I thought this was all rather obvious.

impocalyptic:
Sarkeesian denounced this as misogyny dressed up as female empowerment. I thought she just didn't get it then and, thanks to Bob, I now have a good reason for believing so. Someone send these vids to her!

I have a better idea! Watch this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6264-Anita-Sarkeesian-The-Monster-Gamers-Created

Seen it. And I mentioned her because she blew up over this film as opposed to when she was talking about recurring tropes in games where she was quite calm.

Another week wasted on this crappy movie.

I got pretty much everything that Bob has said in part's I and II (asides from the 3rd wave feminism bit) when I went to the cinema to see this film originally. I thought it was excellent. However none of my friends picked up on any of these small details that really change the way you interpret the film.

It's kind of like pausing and rewinding the scene in the original Total Recall where the assistant says "Oh blue sky in mars, that's a new one" at the beginning of the movie. Blows some peoples minds. Other people heard it the first time and actually listen to a movie.

I'll give it this, I think the advertisers failed on this one as 90% of the audience thought they were seeing a popcorn guzzling action fest and left their brains outside the theatre, rather than going in with some parts of their brain switched on and listening and willing to accept what the director puts in front of them and let it sink in rather than just taking it at face value.

Back on to Suckerpunch and the plot. It was excellent, and it is very rewarding to rewatch this movie a few times and let the lobotomy, extend cut ending bits, and interesting intro god-voices (i.e. the fact that sweetpea is the one talking to the audience at the beginning as baby doll is driven to the asylum (and not baby doll as you originally think) - this is when she is saying that stuff about guardian angels). i.e. babydoll is sweetpea's guardian angel.

Fair message, but too vague for most audience members.
I still don't want to see the film, if only because the kinect direction style annoys me (from the clips I have seen), and now I know that it's meant to be wagging its finger at me and condemning me for the crime of watching it.

Eternal_Lament:
I wasn't referring to the "Women are empowered, therefore it's feminist!" line of thinking in regards to it being "updated".

I wasn't either. That's why I used a paragraph.

Eternal_Lament:
Rather, that Zack Snyder created this story when he was 13, and when he had the chance to make it he tried to "update" it with standard conventions in regards to what he perceives as feminism, but because the overall concept doesn't work with the update that it becomes a mess. It's the conflict between the 13 year old Zack and the adult Zack where I was referring to the failure in the "update".

The movie is indeed flawed in my opinion, but I still don't feel the "rough edges" of the update. I think that the transition between the cabaret and the fighting scenes are exactly like Snyder wanted, not a byproduct of a conflict of interests. They just happen to suck.

For those saying that the film possessed too many fanciful layers, try watching "Inland Empire", and to a lesser extent "Mulholland Drive". There's a really solid, consistent message buried in "Mulholland Drive" that takes a lot of thinking and logical analysis to pull out, but when you find it, its solid and completely recasts the movie. If you don't take the time to pull out the plot it looks like a schizophrenic nancy-drew novel with a random nude scene and a spanish song, followed by a really depressing, mundane catalog of someone's hatred. "Inland Empire" on the other hand...I'm not sure where that was going. I trust there's a message somewhere, but I'm not going to find it.

Either way, the twists Bob is presenting here are solid, standard, and when pointed out feel almost heavy handed. The reason they are SO easy to overlook is because Suckerpunch was advertised like a bad action film, and if you go into it with that mindset (which it is hard not to) you WILL overlook the more traditional artful twists that ARE present in this film.

Thanks for your interpretation; I really enjoyed it.

The trailers of the movie caused me to want to watch it, but I was reluctant because the sexualization of the characters made me question the wisdom of watching it with my wife (the only way I watch movies). Last week, I finally decided that it couldn't be too bad if it was PG-13 and sat to watch it. I was surprised when the fantasy action violence scenes, the scenes that looked so good in the trailers and made me want to see the movie, left me thinking, "eh, ok, I feel like I have to be immature to enjoy these." Thanks to your interpretation, I feel like that was the whole point of the movie.

Despite your insightful and extensive interpretation, I feel like you missed one aspect of the role of Scott Glenn. I understand that feel divine intervention is an overused cliche in movies, but I think the producers might have used it in this case. At the beginning of the movie, the narrator talks about angels that guide us and help us survive through our darkest hours. She goes on to say that these angels often even speak through the monsters that haunt us. This opens the possibility that Scott Glenn could therefore be the angel encouraging Sweet Pea, speaking through Baby Girl, who is tormenting her with unrealistic plans that will hurt the sister she loves.

Someone mentioned that if Sweet Pea is having the visions, as the ending might imply, then she is clearly insane, needs help and thus shouldn't be escaping. However, the movie tells us that Sweet Pea went in on purpose to follow Rocket.

I'm not a prude, but this film made me really uncomfortable... Anyone else feel that?

Bob, this was a fantastic review full of depth, analysis and actual contextual examples put forward to back-up each premise. The format alone deserves some considerable credit because you effectively argue your point while still managing to be entertaining. I have to say, this is one of the best reviews I have seen and/or read dealing with this particular movie and in my opinion you nailed it.

Congratulations aside, I wanted to add something to your bullet-point list of what this movie was doing that you probably found painfully obvious and cut from the final draft before recording audio. The very fact that the lobotomy is effectively turning these women into mere physical objects reflects the final mutilation that the patriarchal power-structure inflicts on women. That is to say, the heroines of these stories don't die ... they lose their ability to think and are rendered into society as only flesh. I just think it's at the heart of what stakes the heroines of the story have AND the stakes of 'new-wave' feminism.

I have had plenty of heated discussions about the nature of this film's theme and its relation to exploitation film, comic books, etc (of which I am a fairly big fan). I think it is also important to look at the demonization of masculinity that is also explored in this film rather brilliantly in the backdrop of everything.

Honestly, the 'Sucker Punch' for me was going to a movie to see scantily clad warrior women blast beastly bad-guys but I left not only thinking about the ramifications of my interest, but guilty, dirty feeling, and strangely excited; not unlike going to a strip-club and remaining sober the whole time.

Sucker Punch reviewed by Mark Kermode

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzfwDkwUGnM

I have to agree with Mark Kermode.
While I did enjoy Watchmen and 300, there really is no depth to these films. So I'll agree that Zack Snyder makes pretty superficial films. They look and sound fantastic, but have nothing inside them.

Bob wanted to see something and so he found it. If you look hard enough into mashed potato you can find an image of Jesus. That's what Bob did.

A great pair of videos, MovieBob.

I left the cinema after seeing this thinking the title never meant more than the "this isn't my story" reference and the lobotomy going ahead.

Examining my reasons for going to see the film? Well I remember agreeing to go see it with a friend providing we both had low expectations, and afterwards leaving the cinema thinking "well... what the hell was that?"

It never occurred to me that the problem with the film was that a lot of thought went into the film and it failed in its execution to convey the message. I'd left thinking the film was [a] just a hodgepodge box ticking that the marketing department approved as gimmicks and or [b] a mess of 2 films of two very different tones suited to two very different age ratings that had their scripts mashed together and lost a lot of comprehensibility in doing so.

I'm not ashamed to say that I need some films explained to me, I don't have an intuitive comprehension of the media others have. I was still trying to wrap my head around what had happened in the last seen when yet another ton of both implicit symbolism and explicit satirical visuals were getting blasted at me.

I can't simply hyper-thread that as its thrown at me, my brain isn't a damn multi-core processor. Hell, a large part of the reason my friend and I went with such low expectations was we were expecting the Michael Bay aesthetic of "too much crap happening on screen at once ruining the narrative".

Not so much a Sucker Punch in that respect: we had expected it to screw that much up and it did precisely that.

WHile the analysis may work, there is problem to me: Poe's Law. "The parody of fundamentalism is indistinguishable from the fundamentalism" (rephrasing it, of course). The movie may want to have the message explained in these two videos, but is plays the whole thing so straight that is just exactly as the thing it wants to parody. That is what it feels to me. (Which also means that it may eb a striaght example that Bob if mistaking for a parody). It lost all of its power and meaning by itself.

But well, I'm very literal minded and fixating on details to support an interpretation (although usual for the medium and a lot of arts) feels to me like missing the forest because of the tree. BIt that is just me feeling that Bob is hanging in the tinest details to justify his perception.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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