Glad I didn't see it in theaters...or buy the DVD
You aren't robbing me, Zach Snyder...I saw through your ruse...
You aren't robbing me, Zach Snyder...I saw through your ruse...
The Big Picture: You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part One
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
This film is exploitation. Pure and simple, just like all those comics and video games that he claims that it is "critiquing".
If Snyder's real intention was to "critique" geek culture?s sexism then it completely failed at that goal.
Here's some quotes from this idiot:
Filmschoolrejects.com :
"Would you say the film is a critique on geek culture?s sexism?"
"It is, absolutely. I find it interesting, in a lot of ways, that this movie ? of all the movies I?ve made ? has been universally hated by fanboys, which I find really interesting. It?s like a fanboy indictment, in some ways. They can?t have fun with the geek culture sexual hang ups."
So it's not the fact that it's convoluted rubbish connecting boring over producted action scenes? It's the fact that we don't like the fact that you're making fun of "our" "sexual hangups?
Fuck this guy
"Is it wrong to enjoy seeing Babydoll in that school girl outfit, though?"
"I have no problem with this dichotomy as to why she is in the outfit. You can say what you want about the movie, but I did not shoot the girls in an exploitative way. They might be dressed sexually, but I didn?t shoot the movie to exploit their sexuality. There?s no close-ups of cleavage, or stuff like that. I really wanted it to be up to the viewer to feel those feelings or not. Does that make sense?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! He didn't shoot the movie to exploit the girls sexuality. You kinda fucked up the Zack. Ironically being Russ Meye is still being Russ Meyer no matter ho many layers of bullshit metaphor you've slapped into this turd.
"Yeah, it?s like a guilty-pleasure."
"100%. As long as you?re self-aware about it, then you?re okay."
So he's made a sexploitation movie that is a "critique" of sexploitation aaaaaand it's totally okay to enjoy it as sexploitation as along as you're self aware?
I thought the men enjoying baby-dolls dance were vile perverts? But apparently it's okay as long as they are aware that they are vile perverts....
Mr Snyder, the problem we have with this movie isn't the quote-unquote "Misogyny", it's the 1-dimensionality of the characters and the fact that there are no consequences in any of the action scenes.
It's a bloated feature-length good looking music-video. And it has absolutely nothing to say about being pro-women.
I have no problem with the sexy costumes or the basic plot; but claiming it's pro-women when it's the 21st century version of classic sexploitation cinema by claiming that it's critiquing exactly what you've created?
There are no words. Maybe hypocrisy I guess.
If Snyder's real intention was to "critique" geek culture?s sexism then it completely failed at that goal.
Here's some quotes from this idiot:
Filmschoolrejects.com :
"Would you say the film is a critique on geek culture?s sexism?"
"It is, absolutely. I find it interesting, in a lot of ways, that this movie ? of all the movies I?ve made ? has been universally hated by fanboys, which I find really interesting. It?s like a fanboy indictment, in some ways. They can?t have fun with the geek culture sexual hang ups."
So it's not the fact that it's convoluted rubbish connecting boring over producted action scenes? It's the fact that we don't like the fact that you're making fun of "our" "sexual hangups?
Fuck this guy
"Is it wrong to enjoy seeing Babydoll in that school girl outfit, though?"
"I have no problem with this dichotomy as to why she is in the outfit. You can say what you want about the movie, but I did not shoot the girls in an exploitative way. They might be dressed sexually, but I didn?t shoot the movie to exploit their sexuality. There?s no close-ups of cleavage, or stuff like that. I really wanted it to be up to the viewer to feel those feelings or not. Does that make sense?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! He didn't shoot the movie to exploit the girls sexuality. You kinda fucked up the Zack. Ironically being Russ Meye is still being Russ Meyer no matter ho many layers of bullshit metaphor you've slapped into this turd.
"Yeah, it?s like a guilty-pleasure."
"100%. As long as you?re self-aware about it, then you?re okay."
So he's made a sexploitation movie that is a "critique" of sexploitation aaaaaand it's totally okay to enjoy it as sexploitation as along as you're self aware?
I thought the men enjoying baby-dolls dance were vile perverts? But apparently it's okay as long as they are aware that they are vile perverts....
Mr Snyder, the problem we have with this movie isn't the quote-unquote "Misogyny", it's the 1-dimensionality of the characters and the fact that there are no consequences in any of the action scenes.
It's a bloated feature-length good looking music-video. And it has absolutely nothing to say about being pro-women.
I have no problem with the sexy costumes or the basic plot; but claiming it's pro-women when it's the 21st century version of classic sexploitation cinema by claiming that it's critiquing exactly what you've created?
There are no words. Maybe hypocrisy I guess.
I'm not particularly impressed with the "You Bastard" trope, and it's common application.
I just hear it too often how stories like Sucker Punch, or Cabin in the Woods, or Spec Ops: The Line, are pure genius, and some elaborate social commantery on everything in the world, you just need to decode the symbolism.
While in fact, there is no deep symbolism, just that one element, that the villain represents a stereotypical audience member. That's it.
Otherwise, many of these happen to be well-written, good stories, but they aren't any CLEVERER for the usage of that one trope. They are just throwing in a random statement about mindless entertainment. It's not any more meaningful or subtle than throwing in a random religious or political Strawman character to represent their stance on these.
Also, the problem is that most villains already ARE violent, or exploitative, or perverted, etc, and generally they are the first catalyst to start the plot (that the viewer wants to watch) by their desire to do something, so movies like sucker Punch are not significantly different from these.
For example, in Independence Day, the aliens want to blow up cities, and the audience wants to watch big explosions, therefore we could say that the aliens symbolically represent the audience's desires. In Sucker Punch, (or Cabin in the Woods), there is no underlying layer beyond that, just a few minor clues to make the villains more "audience-like", such as Sucker Punch showing them sitting in chairs drooling, or Cabin describing them with stereotypical lines such as "they want the same formula over and over again".
If in ID4, Jeff Goldblum would have had a scene where he said "What kind of monster could enjoy such destruction?" while staring at the camera, that wouldn't have made the movie any more meaningful, it only would have added a random statement about action movie audiences.
I just hear it too often how stories like Sucker Punch, or Cabin in the Woods, or Spec Ops: The Line, are pure genius, and some elaborate social commantery on everything in the world, you just need to decode the symbolism.
While in fact, there is no deep symbolism, just that one element, that the villain represents a stereotypical audience member. That's it.
Otherwise, many of these happen to be well-written, good stories, but they aren't any CLEVERER for the usage of that one trope. They are just throwing in a random statement about mindless entertainment. It's not any more meaningful or subtle than throwing in a random religious or political Strawman character to represent their stance on these.
Also, the problem is that most villains already ARE violent, or exploitative, or perverted, etc, and generally they are the first catalyst to start the plot (that the viewer wants to watch) by their desire to do something, so movies like sucker Punch are not significantly different from these.
For example, in Independence Day, the aliens want to blow up cities, and the audience wants to watch big explosions, therefore we could say that the aliens symbolically represent the audience's desires. In Sucker Punch, (or Cabin in the Woods), there is no underlying layer beyond that, just a few minor clues to make the villains more "audience-like", such as Sucker Punch showing them sitting in chairs drooling, or Cabin describing them with stereotypical lines such as "they want the same formula over and over again".
If in ID4, Jeff Goldblum would have had a scene where he said "What kind of monster could enjoy such destruction?" while staring at the camera, that wouldn't have made the movie any more meaningful, it only would have added a random statement about action movie audiences.
I like sucker punch, not for the "oh my god look at the pretty ladies" 'cos there are a fucking million of them. If I wanted to gorp at provocatively dressed ladies I have the internet!
I also didn't like it for it's apparent sexism things 'cos well I pretty much just take things at face value. I got that the girls were being violated and they were robbing stuff in order to escape ... I also got the action scenes were here escaping reality etc etc
I liked the film for one reason, those escapism scenes were awesome! I liked it for the same reason I like the expendables, any Jean Claude Van Damme, any Jason Statham, any action movie that I like.
The fact that females were doing the action scenes for once was nice but I wasn't thinking "OMG, look at them boobiez!", I was thinking "OMG, look at that 200FT guy dressed like a samuri firing a mini gun" or "OMG, look at Charlies angles killing nazi's then get into a cool little robot!".
Yeah, I liked the film for a shallow reason but where is the harm in liking it for the action?
I also didn't like it for it's apparent sexism things 'cos well I pretty much just take things at face value. I got that the girls were being violated and they were robbing stuff in order to escape ... I also got the action scenes were here escaping reality etc etc
I liked the film for one reason, those escapism scenes were awesome! I liked it for the same reason I like the expendables, any Jean Claude Van Damme, any Jason Statham, any action movie that I like.
The fact that females were doing the action scenes for once was nice but I wasn't thinking "OMG, look at them boobiez!", I was thinking "OMG, look at that 200FT guy dressed like a samuri firing a mini gun" or "OMG, look at Charlies angles killing nazi's then get into a cool little robot!".
Yeah, I liked the film for a shallow reason but where is the harm in liking it for the action?
I'm not usually one to throw my opinions around on the net about something that skirts around hot button issues (unless its the Mass Effect 3 ending) but I've had strong opinions about this film since I first saw it.
I mean, when I saw it, I got it. Though that may be a relative term. What the film was intending to do and what it actually did are entirely different things. In fact I seem to recall reading an interview with Snyder at the time of release (I'll beg forgiveness for not being able to recall the source) where he pretty much admitted that he didn't have a fucking clue what the movie was about himself.
But anyway, different layers of reality, power fantasies to sink into while the female characters are being raped etc etc.
Where I think the film totally and utterly failed was because none of it was cohesive. And the fantasy sections served no purpose at all, other than to be extended sequences of the fetishised action girls doing what they do as wish fulfilment of male audiences. The reason they fail is because they're static. They have no fucking momentum. They're empty and boring. We have a long explanation from Captain Exposition about what exactly they need to do, and then they do it. This is bad storytelling. The worst. Not only is it a case of show dont tell, its doing both. Its tell, then show.
I guess if the entire advertising campaign (and most of the films budget) wasn't so focussed on these poinless dull sequences, then it wouldn't be so bad. But it is. Why it failed so much for me was because I thought the opening sequence of the film was by far the best, most powerful few minutes that Snyder has ever directed. As far as I recall, not a single line of dialogue, but a very very clear story. So for the rest of the film to fail so miserably to make its point - or rather the point that so many critics seem to attribute to it - just...
Oh, I don't know. I know the fantasy sequences are supposed to be metaphors for Babydolls dancing skills, but they dont epitomise that for me. maybe it would have been more exploitative to do so, but I would much rather have seen Babydoll dance than to have to get dragged through some empty, messy generic action fantasy sequence that has been done so many times before. And better.
But hey, everything is relative right? I hated 300 as well. Apparently that is a bad thing too...
I mean, when I saw it, I got it. Though that may be a relative term. What the film was intending to do and what it actually did are entirely different things. In fact I seem to recall reading an interview with Snyder at the time of release (I'll beg forgiveness for not being able to recall the source) where he pretty much admitted that he didn't have a fucking clue what the movie was about himself.
But anyway, different layers of reality, power fantasies to sink into while the female characters are being raped etc etc.
Where I think the film totally and utterly failed was because none of it was cohesive. And the fantasy sections served no purpose at all, other than to be extended sequences of the fetishised action girls doing what they do as wish fulfilment of male audiences. The reason they fail is because they're static. They have no fucking momentum. They're empty and boring. We have a long explanation from Captain Exposition about what exactly they need to do, and then they do it. This is bad storytelling. The worst. Not only is it a case of show dont tell, its doing both. Its tell, then show.
I guess if the entire advertising campaign (and most of the films budget) wasn't so focussed on these poinless dull sequences, then it wouldn't be so bad. But it is. Why it failed so much for me was because I thought the opening sequence of the film was by far the best, most powerful few minutes that Snyder has ever directed. As far as I recall, not a single line of dialogue, but a very very clear story. So for the rest of the film to fail so miserably to make its point - or rather the point that so many critics seem to attribute to it - just...
Oh, I don't know. I know the fantasy sequences are supposed to be metaphors for Babydolls dancing skills, but they dont epitomise that for me. maybe it would have been more exploitative to do so, but I would much rather have seen Babydoll dance than to have to get dragged through some empty, messy generic action fantasy sequence that has been done so many times before. And better.
But hey, everything is relative right? I hated 300 as well. Apparently that is a bad thing too...
Yeah, that actually makes a whole bunch of sense.. it's very much how I found I wanted to read the movie (although I have to admit I didn't think it was as clear cut as Bob made out here) and I did wonder why more people weren't seeing that.
That said, I'm still not entirely convinced this argument gets around the misogyny angle. I don't think it's a particularly "bad" sort of misogyny, I think if it is misogyny at all it's the kind of misogyny which deserves to exist because it actually has a point. But showing women being exploited and oppressed and saying "look, isn't this awful?" is still watching women being exploited and oppressed.
To me, the problem is that Sucker Punch is so utterly pessimistic in its outlook that it doesn't ever really challenge the terms on which its characters are gendered or how we are encouraged to see them. I never really felt challenged or motivated or even really invested in any kind of struggle, and that just made it kind of boring. Even if the film was pointing out the flaws of its audience, I didn't feel like it was proposing an alternative way of viewing which might not be so crappy, it just felt like pointing and laughing at silly third wave bullshit. I guess maybe I don't think the point "people are really sexist even when they think they're not" is enough to sustain a movie. What am I expected to do about that beyond nod and say "yes, I know".
But then again I really wanted to like this movie, and I have to say I kind of did, and it is sad to see a movie which has actually bothered to think about how its characters are gendered getting called out for misogyny while all the bucketloads of unthinking, sexist crap in other movies are casually glossed over because the film hasn't put a neon signpost on it.
That said, I'm still not entirely convinced this argument gets around the misogyny angle. I don't think it's a particularly "bad" sort of misogyny, I think if it is misogyny at all it's the kind of misogyny which deserves to exist because it actually has a point. But showing women being exploited and oppressed and saying "look, isn't this awful?" is still watching women being exploited and oppressed.
To me, the problem is that Sucker Punch is so utterly pessimistic in its outlook that it doesn't ever really challenge the terms on which its characters are gendered or how we are encouraged to see them. I never really felt challenged or motivated or even really invested in any kind of struggle, and that just made it kind of boring. Even if the film was pointing out the flaws of its audience, I didn't feel like it was proposing an alternative way of viewing which might not be so crappy, it just felt like pointing and laughing at silly third wave bullshit. I guess maybe I don't think the point "people are really sexist even when they think they're not" is enough to sustain a movie. What am I expected to do about that beyond nod and say "yes, I know".
But then again I really wanted to like this movie, and I have to say I kind of did, and it is sad to see a movie which has actually bothered to think about how its characters are gendered getting called out for misogyny while all the bucketloads of unthinking, sexist crap in other movies are casually glossed over because the film hasn't put a neon signpost on it.
Duplicitous themes aside, The movie was fucking boring and painful to sit through due to factors on almost every easily observable front (characters, story, pacing, cinematography, dialogue, etc.) Perhaps that too was part of the point, but it was a shitty watch nonetheless. I remember thinking it might have been a commentary on the ADD riddled psyches of our current generation or the hollow, superficial nature of what the geek culture had become, but also thinking it had done it in a way that would have been better suited to a much shorter film. I also remember being annoyed by the generally misandristic tone the film took. We get it, men are slobbering, gawking idiots who want to sexually exploit females in every conceivable way, even in their quest for empowerment. Thank you Sucker Punch, you're so insightful.
Also, for a similar type thing that I also hated, see Funny Games.
Also, for a similar type thing that I also hated, see Funny Games.
Bob needs to simply accept he likes a bad movie and swoons over an idiot director like he is the second coming of art. It is bad enough he justifies himself getting a chubby from seeing beautiful actresses and tells us how amazing their performance was, because he is an intelectual and base instincts will never ever influence his opinion. But this is seriuosly getting emberassing...
A movie with a major fight happening off screen while the protagonists tumble over each other for no reason can't really be defended by telling us "you don't get it, durr".
Just remembered how bad the music in this movie-like thing was and that alone males this movie unwatchable to people with a resamblance of taste.
A movie with a major fight happening off screen while the protagonists tumble over each other for no reason can't really be defended by telling us "you don't get it, durr".
Just remembered how bad the music in this movie-like thing was and that alone males this movie unwatchable to people with a resamblance of taste.
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.Casual Shinji said:
hey don't worry about it, i don't think it reflects poorly on you or anythingThe Human Torch said: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.
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.FargoDog said:
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.
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.
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.Sutter Cane said:
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!
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!
That's the other Sucker Punch. You're lead to think one thing, but it turns out it's another.Storm Dragon said:
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"
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.
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.NameIsRobertPaulson said:
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.
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.
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.Sutter Cane said: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.Casual Shinji said:
hey don't worry about it, i don't think it reflects poorly on you or anythingThe Human Torch said: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.