Sucker Punch - Symbolic? It's more likely than you think! (spoilers)

iaintgotnopants wrote:

I saw this this afternoon and I liked it. I don't really get the criticism that there isn't a plot. There's definitely a plot and I thought it was actually pretty good. Yes, the writing wasn't very good and there was some serious pacing issues. But, it had a much better plot than a mindless action movie should especially one that's main draw is "pretty girl kills lots of things with a sword".

While the action sequences were good eye-candy, I have to say the that robots-on-the-train sequence was just terrible. I think stuff like that just doesn't work in a narrow tube. You could barely see what was going on and, I think, Baby Doll disappeared for a good portion of it only to come out of nowhere to cut a robot in half. Just a dumb scene. The one other thing I found annoying was the music. Why fill you soundtrack with covers instead of the (much better) originals?

It's much easier to follow the train sequence upon the second viewing even though I lost her the first time, too.

And I thought at least some of the covers were neat because they were sung by Emily Browning herself.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

On the same site, Angie Han addresses the most common response to the most common criticism:

http://www.slashfilm.com/sucker-punch-2/

"In other words, it’s okay for ladies to kick ass and sh*t, as long as they do it in a way that turns men on. I’m not saying this was Snyder’s conscious intention – I seriously doubt it was – but that’s the message that comes across to this viewer.

Sucker Punch is straight up exploitation. There’s no winking here, or clever spins, or any of that. And that’s fine, to a point. Exploitation films have their own kind of value, and I get that. What bothers me isn’t so much the cute girls in skimpy outfits, but Snyder’s notion that women like me are supposed to find them empowering. As Jezebel’s Dodai Stewart put it: “Sucker Punch is a two-hour $82 million fetish film examining how hot sad schoolgirls look when holding weapons. Snyder should have just made a porn movie — it might have been better, and it definitely would have been cheaper and more honest.”

Absolutely, bang-on, how it came across to me.

Maq wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

On the same site, Angie Han addresses the most common response to the most common criticism:

http://www.slashfilm.com/sucker-punch-2/

"In other words, it’s okay for ladies to kick ass and sh*t, as long as they do it in a way that turns men on. I’m not saying this was Snyder’s conscious intention – I seriously doubt it was – but that’s the message that comes across to this viewer.

Sucker Punch is straight up exploitation. There’s no winking here, or clever spins, or any of that. And that’s fine, to a point. Exploitation films have their own kind of value, and I get that. What bothers me isn’t so much the cute girls in skimpy outfits, but Snyder’s notion that women like me are supposed to find them empowering. As Jezebel’s Dodai Stewart put it: “Sucker Punch is a two-hour $82 million fetish film examining how hot sad schoolgirls look when holding weapons. Snyder should have just made a porn movie — it might have been better, and it definitely would have been cheaper and more honest.”

Absolutely, bang-on, how it came across to me.

My Y-chromosome won't let me see it this way; but I won't deny it.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Why fill you soundtrack with covers instead of the (much better) originals?

Snyder addressed that in an interview. He said the original songs carry emotional baggage that he didn't want interfering with the movie. I thought the covers were really well done, actually, and I usually hate covers of songs I like.

Sucker Punch is a two-hour $82 million fetish film examining how hot sad schoolgirls look when holding weapons. Snyder should have just made a porn movie — it might have been better, and it definitely would have been cheaper and more honest.

It didn't come across that way to me. Maybe video games have desensitized me to exploitation. Or maybe some people can't see past the surface, or don't want to. Besides, it isn't the skimpy outfits that empower the girls... it's the assault rifles.

What bothers me isn’t so much the cute girls in skimpy outfits, but Snyder’s notion that women like me are supposed to find them empowering.

What I find hilarious is how women need to be constantly reminded how empowering skimpy outfits are. You know what I find empowering? Kevlar vests. Preferably the kind that cover the entire chest area.

EDIT: Messed up the quotes. Fixed 'em.

My wife just laughed when i told her that people were getting bent about the way the women in the movies were dressed and treated. She laughed and reminded me they were hot and it was just a movie. Why care about it?

Mystic Violet wrote:

You know what I find empowering? Kevlar vests. Preferably the kind that cover the entire chest area. ;)

Coward, hiding behind your armour. :p

ranalin wrote:

My wife just laughed when i told her that people were getting bent about the way the women in the movies were dressed and treated. She laughed and reminded me they were hot and it was just a movie. Why care about it?

Yeah, that was roughly my wife's reaction. It's always funny when women who are feminists and very empowered (my wife is businessperson, Ironman triathlete and generally kicks ass) aren't bothered by something supposedly exploitive. Especially when when its men who fall all over themselves to criticize it for being exploitative.

So raising a criticism is getting bent out of shape now?

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

So raising a criticism is getting bent out of shape now?

This isnt the only forum i visit for movie criticism, and yea some people out there are definitely bent about this topic.

Didn't hear no women complain about barely dressed men swinging around spears and shields.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Mystic Violet wrote:

You know what I find empowering? Kevlar vests. Preferably the kind that cover the entire chest area. ;)

Coward, hiding behind your armour. :p

There's something about not taking a bullet through the heart... It would make me feel kinda powerful.

DSGamer wrote:
ranalin wrote:

My wife just laughed when i told her that people were getting bent about the way the women in the movies were dressed and treated. She laughed and reminded me they were hot and it was just a movie. Why care about it?

Yeah, that was roughly my wife's reaction. It's always funny when women who are feminists and very empowered (my wife is businessperson, Ironman triathlete and generally kicks ass) aren't bothered by something supposedly exploitive. Especially when when its men who fall all over themselves to criticize it for being exploitative.

My husband has absolutely no interest in this movie.

3...
2...
1...

Exactly. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

[size=2]G. I. Joe![/size]

ranalin wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

So raising a criticism is getting bent out of shape now?

This isnt the only forum i visit for movie criticism, and yea some people out there are definitely bent about this topic.

So they're, like, discussing it? Saying they won't see it? It just seems the people bent out of shape are the people accusing others of being misshapen. Umbrage to umbrage, it's a baffling notion to me.

Amazon has a special on Sucker Punch posters:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=...

I wouldn't go as far to call the movie pure exploitation (Angie Han). They were be abused by the staff and the

Spoiler:

brothel fantasy world

and hooker outfits make sense in that context, but I agree with Angie Han that Snyder failed to really empower the women. Maybe Rocket. She struck me as the most kick ass, take names, and piss on their grave girl of the bunch. She had a compelling reason to do so...time for her to save her sister.

Anyway...look at a movie like True Grit (every girl needs to see this movie, just like every boy needs to watch Old Yeller). The girl in the movie is under threat, but she tackles her revenge like a warrior. She doesn't kick ass or anything like that, but the force of her will is what pushes the story. That happens to some degree in Sucker Punch, but it is a slow painful journey to that point. Ten minutes into True Grit the girl takes her stand and never wavers. She changes right away and forces the world to her vision. The main character in Sucker Punch,

Spoiler:

Sweet Pea

, is slow to that decision and much of it

Spoiler:

is handled through a cipher (Baby Doll).

Still, the girls drive the story, it is about them, and

Spoiler:

ultimately the beat evil.

A good message, but they just come of as generic superheroes, for the most part.

I can't stop thinking about this movie...I am liking it more just because of that. I have to agree with you guys who like the ambiguity. This really is different from a lot of genre movies you see. This movie won't let me go! it is just too much fun to try and decipher what really happened. We might have a cult classic on our hands. Don't laugh. It's possible.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Amazon has a special on Sucker Punch posters:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=...

Needs more Rocket. If I'm going to exploit someone, I want to exploit my favorite one

I have been thinking about the Macbeth quote and how it relates to the movie. It does seem to fit the tone and telling of the movie, plus the idiot reference may explain the lobotomy theme. It doesn't make the story more concrete, but it does inform on what to expect and may explain the structure of the film. Not sure if it was quoted in the thread so,

Bill Shakespeare wrote:

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

In the play this is spoken by a broken man, now unaffected by the pain around him, and waiting for his glorious death:

Bill Shakespeare wrote:

Blow wind, come wrack! At least we'll die with harness on our back

And now a spoiler question:

Spoiler:

Was the movie all about having a glorious death (lobotomy), to escape the pain of her (Sweet Pea's/Baby Doll's) world?

Tanglebones wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Amazon has a special on Sucker Punch posters:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=...

Needs more Rocket. If I'm going to exploit someone, I want to exploit my favorite one :)

Rocket was awesome, but Sweet Pea was my favorite. I even liked Baby Doll. The other girl's characters were not well developed at all. They should have made them quirky twins who were the sarcastic naysayers of the movie or something. They needed a personality at least.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
ranalin wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

So raising a criticism is getting bent out of shape now?

This isnt the only forum i visit for movie criticism, and yea some people out there are definitely bent about this topic.

So they're, like, discussing it? Saying they won't see it? It just seems the people bent out of shape are the people accusing others of being misshapen. Umbrage to umbrage, it's a baffling notion to me.

When someone tries to tell me i shouldnt go and see a movie because it doesnt jive with their moral compass and name calling follows i call that getting bent. I never said it involved anyone here or views posted here, but posted about my wifes reaction to it thinking others would find it amusing as i did. May want to jump off the high horse a bit.

So now I'm on a high-horse for not taking statements at face value? Well that's too bad. All I've seen is people saying "I don't like the look of this," then being jumped upon with a few of the same, tired responses. "Don't get all upset IT'S JUST A f*ckING MOVIE SO WHY ARE YOU GETTING UPSET!" "I know girls who want to see it SO WHY ARE YOU MAKING A BIG DEAL ABOUT THIS STOP MAKING IT A BIG DEAL!" etc.

Umbrage to umbrage to umbrage? This is getting ridiculous.

I know. We're totally on another level of dream.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

So now I'm on a high-horse for not taking statements at face value?

lol isnt that the argument for the movie as well? Why wouldnt you take what i said at face value? Didnt mean anything beyond what was said.

Things went boom.

What's all the ire about? I can think of a hundred other movies that are more controversial than this one and a hundred more that are less controversial. It is your perspective that determines how the movie comes off. What's so wrong about having a difference of opinion?

The movie, in my opinion, does not deserve condemnation for how it depicts women, but it really can't be praised either. That leaves a lot of room for a variety of opinions. I can definitely see where some people would be offended, but I can also see how people could care less. Like much of the movie, this aspect is also fairly ambiguous. You can probably make a compelling argument for either case.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Umbrage to umbrage to umbrage? This is getting ridiculous.

I hated Prof. Umbrage in book 5.

What?

Grenn wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Umbrage to umbrage to umbrage? This is getting ridiculous.

I hated Prof. Umbrage in book 5.

What?

Same here! She was so mean!

Jumping back a bit: I think a lot of guys assume women are going to be pissed to see sexy outfits and they make a larger stink over it. Or something. I dunno.

ccesarano wrote:

Jumping back a bit: I think a lot of guys assume women are going to be pissed to see sexy outfits and they make a larger stink over it. Or something. I dunno.

girls like being hot as much as guys like the girls to be hot.

Dirt wrote:

Didn't hear no women complain about barely dressed men swinging around spears and shields.

Also this.