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

AxelxGabriel

New member
Nov 13, 2009
175
0
0
Hoplon said:
AxelxGabriel said:
Seriously dude? You went to all this trouble to make not one, but two videos just to say how better you are then all of us just because we dont like a movie you do?

Fuck you Bob and your pretentiousness.
Actually he's saying "don't hate the film because it is quote "misogynistic" but because it's a bad film."

So congratulations on not listening. or watching.
I did do both, I still think the movie was terrible.
 

aaron552

New member
Jun 11, 2008
193
0
0
OK Bob, you got my attention. You managed to clearly explain what this movie was actually about, which I could never articulate. I'm looking forward to Part 2. I always felt that there was something even deeper and bigger than just a criticism of "Empowered"-sexualised women in pop culture directed at its target audience, but could never quite figure it out. I only watched the movie twice overall, it became a little too disturbing once I realised pretty much exactly what you outlined in your video.

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

Hoplon

Jabbering Fool
Mar 31, 2010
1,840
0
0
AxelxGabriel said:
I did do both, I still think the movie was terrible.
Okay so at what point was he saying he was better than anyone else? Because I managed to miss that bit.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
Sutter Cane said:
SonOfVoorhees said:
pretty sure Snyder has said in interviews that the title refers to what the movie itself was intended to do to the audience's expectations, so bob's interpretation is probably closer to what Snyder intended
Maybe. I dont know to be honest. But if you are correct then what does that say about Syder? He marketed it a certain way to get those people he wanted to mock in the theatres. Because those people are the target audience, the people he needs so that his movie can make money. I find that hypercritical to be honest.

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

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

Baneat

New member
Jul 18, 2008
2,762
0
0
I got it, I just hated it. I actually saw it because MovieBob said it was good, that should be endorsement enough. It completely lacked any focus at all and only hinted at making a deeper point, never doing so. It sucked, let it slide.
 

aaron552

New member
Jun 11, 2008
193
0
0
Oskuro said:
I didn't get all these subtleties when I saw the movie, but I think my subconscious did, if only for the feelings I had as the movie closed. I had this sense of dread regarding the female characters that clearly told me the movie was *not* about female empowerment as I originally thought, but more about their victimization.

I liked the movie.

I understand why so many people don't.

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


Anyway, my two cents.
I don't think Bob has at any point claimed that Sucker Punch was a great or even good movie. The entire point of these videos is to point out the subtle and not-so-subtle things that most viewers and reviewers (your comparison to Spec Ops: The Line is quite apt) are missing.

I also think that the movie was somewhat poorly executed. I felt that it tried to do and say too much at once. I thought it was both quite clever at times and not as clever as it thought it was.

Intentionally and unfortunately, most people didn't go to see a "clever" movie which is why, I think, most people didn't "get it".
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
I get it, but the fact the movie is all over the place, the action sequences are pointless, cliche and not particularly well executed (they are the epitome of "all flash and no substance"), it over abuses slow motion, its so disjointed that it looks closer to a collection of music videos, the acting is pretty bad, the characters are bland, the motivations are inexplicable, the escape plan is nonexistent, the plot is thin and it can't decide which world is the real world (at the end, it even goes for the most cliche of tricks on that kind of "worlds within worlds" movies, by introducing a character from the fantasy worlds as a character in the real world that knew everything all along)

I am sorry, I get that the movie is not misogynistic and it tries to show misogynists as awful and pathetic, but when it fails it execution and still insists on being subversive, it doesn't come out as smart, it comes out as this:

At least the music selection was good, although I wasn't really a fan since I found it loud and intrusive.
 

Krantos

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,840
0
0
It was a different movie. The biggest problem I had was the character development.

To illustrate what I mean, read the synopsis on the back of the DVD case some time. Now watch the movie.

See what I mean? A lot of the characters get more characterization and development on the DVD case than they do in the movie.

The movie could have been good, but that would have meant less time spent shooting Nazi Zombies and fighting dragons.

It felt like they tried to deliver a tight character driven story, but forgot to develop the characters.
 

Carnagath

New member
Apr 18, 2009
1,814
0
0
Yes, clearly, as a "fan" of that medium, because I find the female form arousing, often obsessively, I am the worst type of human being on the planet, and worth representing, in "movie symbolism" terms, with overindulged old men who smoke cigars, frequent brothels and sexually abuse women. To the people who made this movie: how about go fuck yourselves with a cactus?
 

samus17

New member
Jun 5, 2010
31
0
0
Sorry Bob, but this video (and I'm going to assume, the next as well) are only coming off as you grasping at whatever theory you can to save some face for your review of this movie.

To put it blatantly: YOU ARE OVER-THINKING THIS MOVIE!
So far what you have told us is just scrambled connections that any nerd comes up with when looking for some deeper meaning (see: ANY valve ARG thread)

You're telling me that this movie was trying (and failed) to be a deep "sucker punch" to the crowd viewing and objectifying women and as- BLAH BLAH BLAH; I don't buy it.

Look at who wrote and directed this movie; Zack Snyder.
Now let's look at his history...Dawn of the Dead, 300, and Watchmen.
Well the first two sure as hell aren't "Deep"
..BUT WAIT, WHAT ABOU-
He directed Watchmen, he didn't WRITE IT.

This movie is nothing but what Snyder was good at: AWESOME COMBAT AND SET-PIECES
Everything else: plot, characterization, ect aka any level of actual "DEEPNESS" and stuff to "GET" falls short.

Bob, I know your second video is coming either way, but know that most of us won't buy it.

Just own up to it: You were the target audience, you were pandered to, and you liked it despite its glaring flaws. Just say that you enjoyed a bad movie, it's FINE! But DO NOT try and tell us we didn't "GET" what the movie was going for so that you can somehow feel validated in your enjoying it. It was a soulless movie that portrayed itself as deep when there was NOTHING substantial about it.
 

Raso719

New member
May 7, 2011
87
0
0
This movie, to me at least, perfectly exemplified why we can't ever have nice things (or at the very least things that attempt to be different).

Because when people don't know what they are seeing they assume it's something negative. Because people can't tell the difference between satire and something more serious. Because people don't WANT to tell the difference between satire and something more serious. Because if something breaks conventional design philosophies or the script doesn't read like someone filled in an ad lib people become confused and defensive and angry. Some people desperately need to dislike the movie and won't even watch the move to give it a chance to prove it wrong (though I suspect that most people who did finally give the movie a chance want to hate it so much that they would be unable to see anything but all of the negative aspects they've been told the movie entails.).

In all honesty, too, I would very much like to see a movie where girls dressed as schoolgirls fight robots and nazi zombies with pistols and katanas. But you know what? I have no allusions as to how trashy that sort of movie would be. I love me some cerebraly stimulating thrillers or introspective piece that critiques social norms but I think you can both like Martin Scorsese and Michael Bay movies so long as you remember that the latter is nothing more than destruction and military porn and the former is more highbrow and meaningful.

I think the problem comes when we have to assume that every movie must be made to be enjoyed by everyone. It's this notion that demographics don't matter and every movie or game or song is made to be sold to everyone. I've never felt this to be the case and yet more and more people seem to be under the impression that everything has to be for everyone. This has lead to nothing but a slew of mindless and generic mush. It turned Star Trek into a show for nerds, by nerds of nerds into an action movie that dude bros and the average moron can enjoy with their brains shut off. It has turned many a Hollywood anime or video game adaptation into terrible movies that often neither appeals anime and video game fans or anyone else.

But this notion that we can no longer target groups of individuals smaller than the entire human race is only further compounded by the fact that little is done to target female consumers, gamers and movie goers in a meaningful manner. I feel that movies do a better job at this than video games do but even so there is this implication that all women are part of a hive mind and lack the diversity of tastes that men have. You'll be hard pressed to find a science fiction movie that is marketed primarily towards women, for example, but you will find no shortage of science fiction movies marketed EXCLUSIVELY towards men and for men.

I believe that if there were more movies that pandered to the raunchier tastes of women (you gals have them, don't you dare pretend like you're all pure, and innocent angels) and fetishzed men that more people could would look past movies that fetisized women. In doing so it would be clear that there are simply some movies that pander to different people with different tastes and then maybe we could all enjoy what we like with out always having someone nagging in our ears about how we are terrible people for liking certain things.
 

mcnally86

New member
Apr 23, 2008
425
0
0
Scrustle said:
Finally, someone is actually taking a worthwhile look at this film instead of just dismissing it as sexist pandering. I really liked this film myself.

I never really found the film misogynistic. I never felt like the movie was trying to make me look at the girls as sexually appealing, despite their costumes. They were just a side effect of the world the film was set in. The whole criticism of how the film is supposed to be dressing up soft porn as "empowerment" seemed so forced to me. It didn't feel like either of those. Maybe people just threw that criticism at the film because that's what people usually say about films that look like this. They didn't bother to look closer, or simply accept that there might be narrative reasons why the girls are dressed as they are, and not just to titillate the audience.

But the metaphor of the strip-tease and the action scenes and how that relates to the viewer sounds really interesting. It makes a whole lot of sense. I always had a feeling there was more going on in that film that it was letting on. The layers of fantasy weren't just Inception-esque plot devices to allow them to change scenery, they had meaning to them. I kind of got that the action scenes were analogous to the strip-tease, but adding the viewer in to the metaphor is genius. I never thought of that myself, but it makes perfect sense.
See I don't think that makes sense. Maybe if it was a short film it would have that impact but at feature length it was silly. Either you have someone liked the "sexy dance party" and then get insulted that the movie calls them pig or you have someone watch the "sexy dance party" and say, "you know what? Movie you are right these people who enjoy you are pigs". The problem is the first viewer still gets to enjoy the rest of the movie drooling at it and the second is forced to walk out of the movie theater or see women get debased and molested again and again for the first ones enjoyment.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
Okay... really I don't think the main criticisms of the movie was that it was blatantly misogynist, but rather hating men and objectifying women. The men are all pigs in the movie who can't seem to look at the girls without wanting to rape them. If that's supposed to be the "sucker punch" I'm feeling, as if the movie is trying to make me feel bad about ogling at unrealistically hot and CGed women fighting robots? Yeah, that doesn't make it good. It makes it bad, and Zach should feel bad. 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.

But in reality most people hated the movie because the acting was terrible, the dialogue was terrible and the "plot" made no fucking sense whatsoever. I mean, I could go on a Red Letter Media-esque novella-length rant about why Sucker Punch was one of the worst Hollywood movies of 2011 and of the last 5 years, but I'd rather not unless someone really cares enough about my opinion to warrant it.
 

Sejborg

New member
Jun 7, 2010
85
0
0
Your point, Bob, is pointless.

A movie needs to work at face value. And it don't. The movie is boring and lacks tension. Making your little "analysis" or whatever it should be called, don't change a thing.
 

Nimzabaat

New member
Feb 1, 2010
886
0
0
The Human Torch said:
I saw Suckerpunch several times after I bought it on Blu-Ray (it went out of movietheatres very quickly in my country, so I missed it there), and I really enjoyed it.

I got the fantasy within the fantasy, but not for one moment did any thought of feminism, opressed and stereotypical females and audience mocking come to my moment. My girlfriend watched this movie with me, she missed the message as well.

For a movie that is supposed to carry over this message, it really sucks at doing so. And perhaps that is it's major flaw.
Well basically there are some people who project their own rape fantasies into the movie *cough* Bob *cough* and some to who if it's never mentioned/implied/shown then it's just not there. There is dominance and abuse going on, but bear in mind that "Level 1" is the "real world" with real consequences and anything that can be proven gets punished. (which totally lost me when two of the characters get killed and are then prety much erased, unless they were simply figments in "Level 2" that didn't have counterparts in "Level 1").

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