Print Page | Close Window

Forum Members' Discussion of SUCKER PUNCH...

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: INFO on POSSIBLE 2011 RAZZIE® CONTENDERS
Forum Name: DISCUSSION & Add'l INFO on SUCKER PUNCH
Forum Discription: Here's Where to X-Press Yer Thawts -- and Find Creditz, Reviedws, Promo's, and cetera on This Film
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4911
Printed Date: December 18 2014 at 7:37am


Topic: Forum Members' Discussion of SUCKER PUNCH...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Forum Members' Discussion of SUCKER PUNCH...
Date Posted: March 24 2011 at 2:19pm
GO AHEAD, TAKE a BIG BITE OUT of THIS FILM's BODACIOUS BOOTY...  

AND HERE's the http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic4912_post40199.html - to SEE THE OFFICIAL RAZZIE® TAKE on http://www.razzies.com/forum/discussion-addl-info-on-sucker-punch_forum503.html - ...   




-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: March 24 2011 at 10:15pm
Do you know what is most annoying about this? 87% of the RT community want to see this movie! It just goes to show how much crappy, half thought-out CGI-fests are turning even the best of moviegoers into a flock of brainless sheep (sucking up to this sort of stuff) - sounds almost like a guy we once knew (moviewizguy, who is no longer with us). Not to mention it also proves HeadRAZZ's theory of whom the core audience will be. Has Inception not taught Hollywood anything? 

-------------
You see in this filmmaking world there's two types of people my friend. Those with the knowledge of film and those who think they do but really don't.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 25 2011 at 3:56am
Hehehe ... moviewizguy. Sorry, the mere mention of his name still makes me laugh inside at the thought of his weak, logic-lacking debates over why s****y movies are good.  

Originally posted by Film Reel Redemption

It just goes to show how much crappy, half thought-out CGI-fests are turning even the best of moviegoers into a flock of brainless sheep (sucking up to this sort of stuff) - sounds almost like a guy we once knew (moviewizguy, who is no longer with us).


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: March 25 2011 at 4:44am
I may be crazy, but I'm still going to see it. However, I'm going to see it just to crap on it. The reviews say that the film is bad, I mean, I listened to the audio review that's just released from Spill.com, so I'm going to see it just to crap on it. 




-------------
Pictures move, do they?


Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: March 25 2011 at 5:11am
I would be lying if I said I WASN'T excited for this. Maybe I should skip it, though.

-------------
Elizabeth Hartman and Judith Barsi are more talented and beautiful than Scarlett Johansson and Chloe Grace Moretz. Fact.

Worst Supporting Actor: Brendan Fraser/Gimme Shelter and The Nut Job




Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 25 2011 at 6:28am
20-25% at Rotten Tomatoes:"It's technically impressive and loaded with eye-catching images, but without characters or a plot to support them, all of SUCKER PUNCH's visual thrills are for naught".

Richard Roeper gave it a D:"An indecipherable, hypocritical mess that proves you can fill a movie with scantily-clad women with big guns and it can still bore one to tears".


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 25 2011 at 6:44am
Does this mean Vanessa Hudgens is back on the ballots?I know she somehow didn't get in for http://www.razzies.com/forum/memberstarted-forum-beastly_topic4873.html - - - BEASTLY .

Emily Browning, Jena Malone and Scott Glenn have been "Yeah, I've seen him/her before but I don't remember where" actors for decades,and have mostly given good performances.Too bad they'll become stars for this.The same about Jamie Chung,except she hasn't given noteworthy performances,and she has a hard tim choosing good movies.Abbie Cornish and Carla Gugino seems to be OK actresses who sometimes choose bad movies.Jon Hamm has had main roles in bad movies and very small roles in good movies.Oscar Isaac has been in good movies nobody saw and in bad movies everyone saw.

Producer,writer and director Zack Snyder is famous for making good movies with great visuals.But each movie has become closer to average movies that are saved by their visuals.

Steve Shibuya has a very odd CV.He did different crew tasks in each movie.And know he debuts as a writer!


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: March 25 2011 at 9:41am

Teenage boys may yell at me for this, but: Young ladies with sorceress' builds will not make this a passable movie. The reviews are terrible! I knew from the start this movie would fail. Zack Snyder started off well with Dawn of the Dead [remake] and 300, then his quality started to slip. Ga'Hoole got average reviews via a stroke of luck, now it's come to this.

This is my 666th post! Do not let demonic lust tempt you to see this movie!

-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 25 2011 at 12:30pm
Gotta agree. Browning, Malone, Glenn, Cornish, and Gugino are all decent character actresses (and actor) but you can only be as good as the material you're given, Chung is just a hottie who appears in bad movies (although "The Hangover 2" will be a success for her), and Hudgens is just trying to find her place in her post-High School Musical career ... and she hasn't found it yet. Although, from a shallow and superficial stand point, Hudgens would have a very bright future in the nude photography business!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 25 2011 at 12:32pm
Well, I have a pair of free movie passes, so this would be the ideal movie to use them on, since I'm curious to see it, but I refuse to pay money in order to do so.  

Originally posted by Grounder the Critic

I may be crazy, but I'm still going to see it. However, I'm going to see it just to crap on it. The reviews say that the film is bad, I mean, I listened to the audio review that's just released from Spill.com, so I'm going to see it just to crap on it. 


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: March 25 2011 at 1:35pm
GTAhater, I always found Zack Snyder way to gimicky. CGI-special effects is for him, what plot twists are for M. Night. I could seriously imagine him being as disliked as M. Night now is in a couple of years.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 25 2011 at 5:36pm
Touche', Mr. Snyder does love his green screen. Although, he would have to make a string of critical and commerical flops all in a row in order to reach the level of hatred there already is for M. Night. 

Originally posted by Vheid

GTAhater, I always found Zack Snyder way to gimicky. CGI-special effects is for him, what plot twists are for M. Night. I could seriously imagine him being as disliked as M. Night now is in a couple of years.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 25 2011 at 8:03pm
Maybe they should have called this one "Sucker Bait,"  in honor of anyone foolish enough to pay to see it...  




-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: March 26 2011 at 5:39am
And this guy was hired to direct the Superman reboot. Fate works in mysterious ways.

-------------
You see in this filmmaking world there's two types of people my friend. Those with the knowledge of film and those who think they do but really don't.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 26 2011 at 7:12am
Well, Superman IS a comic book, and Synder is DC's "go-to guy" for comic book adaptations...  




-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: March 27 2011 at 7:08am
The movie was a disappointment, but I'm not that surprised.  I knew this was gonna be bad the moment I saw a critic call it, 'The Last Airbender with bustiers'.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 27 2011 at 7:31am
Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

The movie was a disappointment, but I'm not that surprised.  I knew this was gonna be bad the moment I saw a critic call it, 'The Last Airbender with bustiers'.
It tries to cram 600 minutes worth of information into a 90 minute time frame?!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: March 27 2011 at 7:55am
Just out of curiousity, Seeing that this is a failed big budget project directed by a director with name fame could this be one of the films that may find it's way onto the final ballot.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 27 2011 at 10:42am
Yes,but I think it'd be because it has negative reviews,and because it has a forum here.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 27 2011 at 10:48am
Ouch, beaten at the box office by a "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" sequel! Even with hot girls, dragons, sword fights and a metric-f*** ton of CGI, the movie loses to a kids' flick about middle school. That's just sad! Hint, hint, Hollywood, maybe story-heavy movies should go over CGI-heavy movies, just a thought.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 27 2011 at 1:19pm
All I can say is, when a movie with half naked women gets worked at the box-office by a kids flick, we have to keep it in our thoughts.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 27 2011 at 3:13pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

All I can say is, when a movie with half naked women gets worked at the box-office by a kids flick, we have to keep it in our thoughts.
Yeah, I would love to know what the studio meeting will be tomorrow when they discuss that. "What is the world coming to when not even half naked women can promise you the #1 spot at the box office?!"

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: March 28 2011 at 9:41am
If they learn their lesson from Sucker Punch, there will be less movies with half-naked "sorceresses"*... and most movies that involve half-naked sorceresses will not rely on them. I know this is highly unlikely knowing the Hollywood corporations, but I can dream that they'd cut their losses and rethink the beautiful characters. If everything in Hollywood that does not actively seek to get Oscars or other credible awards is done just for the money, then losing revenue should teach them a lesson. What else would it take? 
 
*The slim, beautiful curvaceous build of a woman is most often characteristic of sorceresses, or powerful spellcasters.


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 29 2011 at 5:03am
And the REAL irony of "Sucker Punch" .... no actual sucker punches are thrown during the movie!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: March 29 2011 at 5:56am
If this movie actually had better sucker punchers, then I would go see not to crap on it.

-------------
Pictures move, do they?


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 02 2011 at 3:45pm
This movie reminds me of "Ultraviolet", except with triple the budget. In other words, it's hot chicks mowing down enemies left and right, and there's not much else going on.

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: April 02 2011 at 4:45pm
I liked it. And if putting in "sexy" type people in action movies as the leads is so wrong, why is it that you always see big muscular dudes as the heroes when they're guys? Do you honestly think they're not trying to appeal to women?

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: April 02 2011 at 7:37pm
I find it a bit unlikely they're trying to appeal to women. Don't ask me why, but people are more likely to take kindly to men with heavy muscles (the "Warrior's build") than even the most attractive women. I can keep on guessing as to the problem with displaying a woman's curves (the "Sorceress' build) in a film, but I wouldn't come up with a good answer. If it were up to me, either all of it would be okay, or none of it would. I didn't invent the double standard of warriors being more accepted and less talked-about than sorceresses.  

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I liked it. And if putting in sexy type peopleses in action movies as the lead is so wrong, why is it that you always see big muscley dudes as the heroes when they're guys? Do you honestly think they're not trying to appeal to women?


-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 04 2011 at 12:18pm
My theory: Because in action movies, it's like the males in the audience are supposed to want to be that muscley hero dude. Or like in "Wanted", the males are suppose to want to be that lead character who rises from the dead-end job to become a bad-ass assassin and have sex with Angelina Jolie. Women, on the other hand. are supposed to relate to the women in rom-coms, you know, finding the perfect man and career and lifestyle, etc. Worst case movie: "Sex and the City 2", which was just plain superficial and stupid. But women don't go out of their way to relate to other women running around killing things while in school-girl outifits or leather cat-suits. That's just the way it is.  
 
PS: I find it funny that Mayhem mentioned all these old Forum posters not being around, then all of a sudden, we all came back!


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: April 04 2011 at 8:08pm
I HAVE THE POWER!  

Originally posted by Michaels

PS: I find it funny that Mayhem mentioned all these old Forum posters not being around, then all of a sudden, we all came back!



-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 04 2011 at 8:52pm
The power to turn into a 6 foot tall, muscular, oily, sword wielding Barbarian in a fur thong? 
(Sorry, but you walked right into that one!)...   

Originally posted by Mayhem5185

I HAVE THE POWER!


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: April 05 2011 at 12:50am
Hey man, whatever floats yer boat!  Wink

-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 05 2011 at 8:54am
No, it's just the ability that was infamously linked to that catchphrase.
 
However, you could always turn into a blonde haired, long legged, skirt wearing, sword wielding valkyrie, if you like!


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: April 05 2011 at 1:02pm
Lol, Don't threaten me with a good time! LOL

-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 05 2011 at 7:30pm
Originally posted by Mayhem5185

Lol, Don't threaten me with a good time! LOL
Well, that's what you get for recklessly throwing around iconic '80s cartoons' catchphrases.

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: April 05 2011 at 10:21pm
Originally posted by Michaels

Well, that's what you get for recklessly throwing around iconic '80s cartoons' catchphrases.


IT'S BECAUSE THAT'S ALL I KNOW!!! 

Okay, just so i don't creep out the entire forum lets get back to the topic at hand... BLONDE HAIRED, LONG LEGGED, SKIRT WEARING, SWORD WEILDING VALKYRIE'S! 

And, on a completely unrelated note, has anybody seen this trainwreck of a movie yet?




-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: April 05 2011 at 11:49pm
I have...


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 06 2011 at 9:29am
I haven't, but it makes me think Zach Snyder shouldn't direct the next SUPERMAN. Not because he's bad or anything, but because his specialty is creating the most impresive visuals. SUPERMAN may be a superhero, but the film doesn't require that. 




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: April 06 2011 at 12:08pm
To be honoust, Vits, I think they're shouldn't be another Superman movie...  




-------------


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: April 06 2011 at 12:46pm
But didn't you hear the news? not only will there be this superman movie, but apparently they're just going to start over again just so they can make the justice league movie (Same goes for batman)... seriously who the f@#$@#$@# comes up with this crap?!?!

-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: April 06 2011 at 2:52pm
It's Warner Bros. who announced it. That's all.

-------------
Pictures move, do they?


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 06 2011 at 2:56pm
Richard Roeper called this the worst movie of 2011's first 1/4.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 06 2011 at 4:39pm
Yeah, Flash, Wonder Woman, rebooted Batman (because Nolan's version was too serious and real for what they wanted in Justice League) and of course, Justice League. Oh, and they will ALL be released in 2013. Yeah, because rushed movies are always of quality. 

This is all just DC trying to play catch-up with Marvel because they were asleep at the wheel for the past decade!  

[QUOTE=Mayhem5185]But didn't you hear the news? not only will there be this superman movie, but apparently they're just going to start over again just so they can make the justice league movie (Same goes for batman)... seriously who the f@#$@#$@# comes up with this crap?!?! [/QUOTE


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: susanmarie8
Date Posted: April 07 2011 at 6:16am
Did you even see the movie?  The two main characters break from the movie to address the issue of the imagery in the first few minutes of the film.  The director is using irony to make a point!


Posted By: susanmarie8
Date Posted: April 07 2011 at 6:20am
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

And the REAL irony of "Sucker Punch" .... no actual sucker punches are thrown during the movie!


So, you didn't watch it to the end???


Posted By: susanmarie8
Date Posted: April 07 2011 at 6:28am
I am a mature woman of 48 years and I loved this movie.  I cried at the end.  Yes, I was bored with the fight scenes, but I kinda think that was part of the point!

Emotionally, I was right where the director wanted me at the end of the movie and I was punched, hard, in the emotional gut.

I think the naysayers of this film have completely missed the point of the movie.  IMHO, there is no way this movie should be consider for the Razzies.  A film's success should be judged on whether it delivers what was intended and this movie does deliver in a huge way.

Please, tell me precisely, which lines were delivered poorly, and ask yourself first if they were meant to be campy before you judge.  Tell me which scenes were photographed or edited poorly.  Tell me where the story fails.

Re-watch the first and final five minutes of the film as a reminder of the film's message and review the movie from that point of view.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 07 2011 at 6:37am
Welcome to our Forum, Susanmarie8.

I haven't seen this movie yet, but about your comment regarding what this movie was meant to be...Let me ask you this: If you do something -- anything -- bad "on purpose," is it not still bad?



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: susanmarie8
Date Posted: April 07 2011 at 1:20pm
What, specifically, about the movie was bad?


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 07 2011 at 1:54pm
I can't answer because...
Originally posted by Vits

I haven't seen this movie yet
I was talking about movies in general.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: lyzaard
Date Posted: April 20 2011 at 2:00pm
For those of you who've seen the film, there's some really good commentary on 'Sucker Punch' here:

http://thescorecardreview.com/articles/he-said-she-said/2011/04/12/he-said-he-said-sucker-punch/19312 - http://thescorecardreview.com/articles/he-said-she-said/2011/04/12/he-said-he-said-sucker-punch/19312


Posted By: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: April 21 2011 at 5:51am
Ah, I'd rather see the RiffTrax version of Sucker Punch when it comes out...  

Originally posted by lyzaard

For those of you who've seen the film, there's some really good commentary on 'Sucker Punch' here:

http://thescorecardreview.com/articles/he-said-she-said/2011/04/12/he-said-he-said-sucker-punch/19312 - http://thescorecardreview.com/articles/he-said-she-said/2011/04/12/he-said-he-said-sucker-punch/19312





-------------
Pictures move, do they?


Posted By: lyzaard
Date Posted: April 26 2011 at 9:25am
I've enjoyed reading all the posts here...but I beg to differ with most of 'em... 

I really loved SUCKER PUNCH, and I wrote up an article defending it (it's me vs. movie critic Nick Allen), please check it out here, if you're interested:

http://thescorecardreview.com/articles/he-said-she-said/2011/04/12/he-said-he-said-sucker-punch/19312 - http://thescorecardreview.com/articles/he-said-she-said/2011/04/12/he-said-he-said-sucker-punch/19312


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: April 27 2011 at 8:44am
Oh heck, moviewizguy has really left behind an unwanted legacy hasn't he? (about the above comment)

-------------
You see in this filmmaking world there's two types of people my friend. Those with the knowledge of film and those who think they do but really don't.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 27 2011 at 1:20pm
Well, MWG did blindly (and lamely) defend ... every ... single ... movie ... listed in this forum.

Originally posted by Film Reel Redemption

Oh heck, moviewizguy has really left behind an unwanted legacy hasn't he? (about the above comment)


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: April 27 2011 at 11:36pm
That as well. It just seems that in the case of the comment by lyzzard that moviegoers have become so manipulated by the bad stuff Hollywood churns out that they start to ignorantly believe that they know better than the professional film critics and film students (of which I am one).

-------------
You see in this filmmaking world there's two types of people my friend. Those with the knowledge of film and those who think they do but really don't.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: April 28 2011 at 10:52am
The only people I think I know about films better than are those people who say anything by Uwe "Toilet Boll" Boll or Seltzerberg is a good movie. Alas, my specialty is films released in the new millennium (since 1-01-2000). I only know a little about films released in 1969 and before, so I should've been more respecting of film students.

-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 28 2011 at 1:09pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

The only people I think I know about films better than are those people who say anything by Uwe "Toilet Boll" Boll or Seltzerberg is a good movie.
Then I seriously question of these people actually know what the meaning of the term "good" is.

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: mars5846
Date Posted: May 03 2011 at 1:26pm
Nothing much about the movie. The story line was crappy and full of BS, the only thing that you can appreciate is the CGI but it doesn't mean that it was a good movie. No!! It wasn't even a good movie! And Zack would be the one directing the Superman reboot?? WTH!! Another movie to destroy. Good thing Chris Nolan would supervise the movie too. Love how he made the "Dark Knight". I hope he can control Zack's crazy antics.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 21 2011 at 10:11pm
Originally posted by Film Reel Redemption

Oh heck, moviewizguy has really left behind an unwanted legacy hasn't he? (about the above comment)
Why are you guys still talking about me? I guess I'm really popular here, huh? Wink Does this mean I can come back to the forums? Big smile


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: May 22 2011 at 5:40am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Why are you guys still talking about me? I guess I'm really popular here, huh? Wink Does this mean I can come back to the forums? Big smile
Yeah, it's called a "running gag".

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: May 22 2011 at 3:23pm
Clap


-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 23 2011 at 12:23pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Does this mean I can come back to the forums? Big smile
Who said you couldn't?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 23 2011 at 2:32pm
Originally posted by Vheid

Just out of curiousity, Seeing that this is a failed big budget project directed by a director with name fame could this be one of the films that may find it's way onto the final ballot.
I would think so. According to Box Office Mojo, it's been in theaters for two months now, and it STILL hasn't made it's budget back. But of course, I'm sure Hollywood will do their version of math in which the worldwide gross will count as it being a success in their minds. Ah, denial is a powerful thing!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 23 2011 at 2:43pm
Originally posted by Vits

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Does this mean I can come back to the forums? Big smile
Who said you couldn't?
If I had my way ... me, that's who. But hey, we can all use a good laugh, and that's what MWG's reviews are good for!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: razzledazzle
Date Posted: June 07 2011 at 5:35am
Impressive CG stuff, but horrible plot. Whatever happened to putting a good plot with good graphics?


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 07 2011 at 9:04am
Originally posted by razzledazzle

Impressive CG stuff, but horrible plot. Whatever happened to putting a good plot with good graphics?
Because good graphic and CGI = box office profit (until the audience gets wise and realizes they just threw away $10 on something with no plot).

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: 27years
Date Posted: June 07 2011 at 1:34pm
I would have loved to have seen this "amazing trance dance" she was apparently doing, just once, to see what all the fuss was about!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 07 2011 at 1:58pm
Yeah, we really shouldn't have to see the director's cut in order to know what the hell is going on in the story! A director's cut is only suppose to provide us with a few behind the scenes extras for our amusement, not withhold important information from within the plotline!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: alvin0177
Date Posted: June 08 2011 at 9:20pm
The movie was a disappointment, but must give a credit for the CGI 


Posted By: johnq
Date Posted: June 27 2011 at 6:11pm
Sorry guys, but opinions do differ.  I actually went to see the movie, and watched it (9 times), and fell in love with it.  That may not impress anyone here at Snark Central, but if you are serious about movies, and this site is kind of all over the map in that regard: Serious, Silly, Who knows? Who cares? Let's just say I take movies, good or bad, very seriously.  If you missed out on Sucker Punch, the loss is yours.  All you had to do was sit in the seat and watch the thing.  And if you actually went to see the movie, instead of quoting snippets from RottenTomatoes to show how cool you are, formed your own opinions and let the film affect you, blessed are you, your ancestors, and progeny.  It's a great film and yes, it does have it's defenders.  Recall Siskel's Law: whenever two critics watch a movie and come away with radically different opinions, it has to have something.  Sucker Punch has a lot.

I haven't been so affected by a film since, well, a film from long ago that's not for sharing.  I will say this.  You do have to pay attention when you watch Sucker Punch.  There is a lot going on.  The keys to the puzzle are there but it's not trivial to put them together.  It gives you much to think about, if you let it.

Anyway, I won't go on about it, but I think the quickest way to catch on to the film is to view it as the gender reversal of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."  (That's the book, not the grossly over-rated movie).  There are several similarities, and a few major differences.  By doing so one path to understanding is achieved.  Yes, understanding, the first stage of criticism.  What a concept.


-------------
Movies are too important to be left to the critics.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 28 2011 at 4:50am
Just because a movie takes place that a mental hospital, that doesn't mean it's on par with "Cuckoo's Nest". But 27Years did say she saw the movie ... and was not impressed. As for the anti-critic stance, you're not the first to have that opinion of them, but whether you like it or not, they are who movie goers turn to when they are on the fence about seeing a movie or not. Critics know what makes for good movie making and that's all there is to it.

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 3:43pm
Well, I've been holding off all day. Time to review something very bad.
 
The good:
 
Jena Malone: Malone's never given a bad performance and this is no exception.
 
Abbie Cornish: I haven't seen her in anything else, so I can't weigh her performance against her others, but she was OK as Sweet Pea.
 
The Mayor's song: The song that came with him was AWESOME!!!
 
The bad:
 
The acting: Jesus, this is some bad acting. I mentioned that Malone and Cornish were good and Carla Gugino and Jon Hamm were OK. Everyone else is fail.
 
The script: The script is pretty bad. While not as bad as Ehren Kruger and f*cker Greg Berlanti, it's still a P.O.S.
 
The song covers: The opening Sweet Dreams cover is OK, but everything else is TERRIBLE. The worst was what they did to Iggy Pop's Search And Destroy.
 
The ugly:
 
Oscar Isaac: This could fall under acting, but he's SO bad that I just had to mention him. He's supposed to be intimidating, but he's just annoying. He was, also, terrible in Robin Hood, which I thought was otherwise good.
 
Vanessa Hudgens: OK, who's bright idea was it to cast Gabriella as an action heroine? Also, why did I know her HSM name?
 
Zach Snyder's betrayel: Dammit Zach, before your made this, you were becoming one of my favorite directors. What made you think that this was a good idea? Hopefully, this'll just be like 1941 to Speilberg; a small bump on the road on an otherwise spotless resume.
 
Well, Snyder's next movie is Man Of Steel. I'd be wary of this because of what I just reviewed, but the fact that Christopher Nolan is writing makes me excited! Grade: C
 
Next-up: Red Riding Hood!


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 4:11pm
Gotta agree with you on all accounts. The Mayor's song was f***ing sweet, and Abbie Cornish was a standout. But yeah, why the f*** is Vanessa Hudgens even in this movie? She had like 4 scenes at the most and 5 lines of dialog in total. She's as believable as an action heroine as Mila Kunis was in "Max Payne". New rule of action heroines: if they are under 5 feet tall and look like they are barely 18 years old, they ain't action heroines! Another disappointment is Jamie Chung, she's hot and all, but she serves only one purpose during the Mayor scene and that's about it.

We need character development. Why is this s*** with jumping between realities happening and who the hell are these people, and why should I care for them? Yeah, the CGI was pretty, but a little backstory to it all would be nice, too. They needed to script doctor the hell out of this thing.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 5:18pm
Is it me,or most of your reviews are around C?I thought you'd only review bad movies.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 6:03pm

I've been considering switching from a letter-based grade to a number based one. Here's how it would match up: A+=4 stars, A, A-, B+=3 1/2 stars, B= 3 stars, B-, C+=2 1/2 stars, C, C-=2 stars, D+=1 1/2 stars, D=1 star, D-= 1/2 star, F= 0 stars.

My Just Go With It review well be up by the end of the hour.


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 10:21pm
So with the C grades, you think these movies are below average to fair, since D is poor, and F is s***?

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 13 2011 at 11:25am
Yeah, that's abot right.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 17 2011 at 3:57pm
I just saw it.The review's coming soon.I know that usually means "tomorrow",but don't hold your breath.This movie is berry hard to analyze.Meanwhile,For Your Consideration:

-Actress:Emily Browning,no.
-Supp. Actor:Oscar Isaac,no.
-Supp. Actress:Jena Malone and Carla Gugino,no.Abbie Cornish(also for LIMITLESS),neh.Vanessa Hudgens*,maybe.Jamie Chung(also for THE HANGOVER PART II),yes.
-Director:No.I know a movie that's all style no substance isn't good,but since there are no technical categories,I count them as part of this category.The directing and FX are great alone,so together with the photography...
-Screenplay:Maybe.While I need to analyze,I know right now that the script was full of flaws.But nowhere near as the worst of the year.
-Couple/Ensemble:No.
-Mis-Use Of 3D:I don't know.
-Picture:No.This was just average.

*Haven't seen BEASTLY,so I don't know if she should be under Worst Actress.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 17 2011 at 5:42pm
I also saw this movie. My two cents: 
 
Vanessa Hudgens for Worst Actress for this, as well as "Beastly". Vanessa is a beautiful young woman, but she cannot act her way out of a wet paper bag, and she appears in some of the dumbest movies possible. She could have been removed from this movie all together and the movie wouldn't be any different.
 
Worst Screenplay: The script is just flaws upon flaws; no wonder Zack Snyder never directed an original movie before! Nothing is explained, there's no depth to any of characters, and the story makes no sense. Snyder is a director (of CGI and music videos at least), not a writer.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 17 2011 at 11:15pm
Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

Vanessa Hudgens for Worst Actress for this, as well as "Beastly". Vanessa is a beautiful young woman, but she cannot act her way out of a wet paper bag, and she appears in some of the dumbest movies possible. She could have been removed from this movie all together and the movie wouldn't be any different

She's not bad at all. See her in Bandslam. She has this "girl next door" quality to her.
 
Worst Screenplay: The script is just flaws upon flaws; no wonder Zack Snyder never directed an original movie before! Nothing is explained, there's no depth to any of characters, and the story makes no sense. Snyder is a director (of CGI and music videos at least), not a writer.

Well, the fact that most of the film is rather ambiguous in nature (like what really happened in the real world), there's not much you can work with. I thought the characters were well developed as well and if you're pointing to the protagonist, well, that's explained by the ending. It was not her story.


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 18 2011 at 5:12am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

She's not bad at all. See her in Bandslam. She has this "girl next door" quality to her.
 
Well, the fact that most of the film is rather ambiguous in nature (like what really happened in the real world), there's not much you can work with. I thought the characters were well developed as well and if you're pointing to the protagonist, well, that's explained by the ending. It was not her story.
As I said, good looks and "girl next door" appeal aside, Vanessa's acting is ho-hum at best. She has yet to do anything impressive unless Disney hypes the hell out of her first. She can sing in musicals, sure, but that's about it. Looking good and being a good actress are two different things, some actresses have both qualities, Vanessa doesn't.
 
The characters were not developed AT ALL. In fact, all five main characters are forgetable and might as well be interchangable. Seriously, let's run them down, shall we: Baby Doll: the leader ... that's about it. Rocket and Sweet Pea: sisters who look out for each other ... again, that's it. Amber: handles all the machines, steals the cigar lighter ... that's it. Blondie: just there for the sake of it, rats out the other girls ... that's it. Those are not examples of developed characters. Again, bad writing on Snyder's part. I'll give the movie its due for being visually stunning, but there's nothing else to it.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 18 2011 at 12:39pm
BUT I DON'T HAVE 5 CONSOLES(***/*****):


Starring:Emily Browning,Abbie Cornish,Jena Malone,Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Chung as the girls who never throw a SUCKER PUNCH.


So what is the problem with this movie?Chung is bad.Browning is clearly miscast,but she still does OK.And so do Malone,Carla Gugino, and even Oscar Isaac who's a little over-the-top.

The female power message is hypocritical.Not because the girls use slutty outfits and weapons,but because they thought it would work as product placement(no,that's the right term,since they use the girls as objects).They know this is 2011,right?

This isn't another of those movies with a bad script joined with great effects.The effects are good,and so are the action sequences(despite getting repetitive)and the soundtrack.And the script has potential.But because Zack Snyder can't decide on which of those aspects is the main one,because there has to be a main one and he has to choose it,the visual aspects overshadow the story.

This is part of a genre that's not new but just recently has been considered an actual genre.It's called "Mind F*ck".In this movie,a girl creates another reality in her head to escape from her problems.Yet,in her fantasy she suffers from the same problems,so it's pointless.And then there's the fantasy within fantasy(the one that looks like a video-game),which is even more pointless because the juxtapositions with real life are too weak.She only needed one layer,so why couldn't she go from real life straight to the "video-game world"?

Mind F*ck movies have confusing plots open to interpretation,but the plots still need development.Here,they work on it but mostly put it aside to focus on the action.And adding the hollow characters,there's not much reason for the audience to even try to figure out the plot.

In action-adventure video-games,the player goes through several worlds that don't seem connected,and has to fight several evil beings in order to collect items.That sounds exactly like the fantasy within fantasy of this movie.However,those games have backstories.Here,we don't really know why they go through this worlds,and more importantly,which characters are evil and which aren't.This is more obvious when BABYDOLL kills that dragon out of the blue(I felt sad).So basically,a video-game is better at storytelling than this movie.I guess that's what happens when you choose style over substance,instead of balancing both.


Grades:C- in the U.S. and 4,5 in Chile.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 19 2011 at 9:22am
Originally posted by Vits

The female power message is hypocritical.Not because the girls use slutty outfits and weapons,but because they thought it would work as product placement(no,that's the right term,since they use the girls as objects).They know this is 2011,right?
I don't think the film is hypocritical at all. I see people keep mentioning the "slutty outfits" but they aren't any different from what you see in an anime where girls are kicking ass. The outfits work more as a way to keep the style of the film consistent than to show skin. If they're in a fantasy world, why shouldn't they be wearing stylized clothing? If the clothes are too "slutty," then what do you expect them to wear? Jeans and a t-shirt? What do you think that would look like when they're fighting Nazi zombies and dragons? It'd look ridiculous, of course. Also, Snyder never zooms in to the body parts of the female characters like Michael Bay does, which is another point to show that he was very much making a female empowerment film. And lastly, most of the male characters are made out to be evil and corrupt. So, again, how isn't this a female empowerment film?

And then there's the fantasy within fantasy(the one that looks like a video-game),which is even more pointless because the juxtapositions with real life are too weak.She only needed one layer,so why couldn't she go from real life straight to the "video-game world"?
Why 3 layers instead of 2? Because if they used only 2 layers, it would be too much of a change from the two worlds to make it work. You can easily picture a mental asylum changing into a brothel and they use the dancing as another world for the girls to kick ass. If they used 2 layers, what would they use in the mental asylum to get across to the fantasy world?


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 19 2011 at 9:31am
Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

The characters were not developed AT ALL. In fact, all five main characters are forgetable and might as well be interchangable. Seriously, let's run them down, shall we: Baby Doll: the leader ... that's about it. Rocket and Sweet Pea: sisters who look out for each other ... again, that's it. Amber: handles all the machines, steals the cigar lighter ... that's it. Blondie: just there for the sake of it, rats out the other girls ... that's it. Those are not examples of developed characters. Again, bad writing on Snyder's part. I'll give the movie its due for being visually stunning, but there's nothing else to it.
Well, the reason why they aren't all well developed is because the story isn't about all of them. Take Inception, for example. Leo's character is the only character that is well developed. Everyone else is oh-so forgettable. Seriously, what do we know about these people? Absolutely nothing. In Sucker Punch, the story was about the sisters and they are pretty well developed. They aren't just "sisters who look out for each other." If you simplify characters that way, you make them sound simplistic. As for the other girls, they are sympathetic enough for the audience to want them to survive because these girls don't deserve the treatment they're getting.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 19 2011 at 10:14am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

I see people keep mentioning the "slutty outfits" but they aren't any different from what you see in an anime where girls are kicking ass.
I've seen animes with naked 10-year-olds.That's not the best source.
Originally posted by moviewizguy

If the clothes are too "slutty," then what do you expect them to wear? Jeans and a t-shirt? What do you think that would look like when they're fighting Nazi zombies and dragons?
How about if they dress like the other characters?You know,like female soldiers and samurais do,which is the same as the male counterparts.
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Snyder never zooms in to the body parts of the female characters like Michael Bay does, which is another point to show that he was very much making a female empowerment film.
Yes,which is why the movie fails to be sexy.In an interview,he said something about making the movie based on geek's fantasies.Even more hypocresy,because you can tell he likes filming this.He just tries to be low-key about it.
Originally posted by moviewizguy

And lastly, most of the male characters are made out to be evil and corrupt. So, again, how isn't this a female empowerment film?
That's sexism.Another totally different thing.
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Why 3 layers instead of 2? Because if they used only 2 layers, it would be too much of a change from the two worlds to make it work. You can easily picture a mental asylum changing into a brothel and they use the dancing as another world for the girls to kick ass. If they used 2 layers, what would they use in the mental asylum to get across to the fantasy world?
If you re-read your questions,you'll realize you're talking like Snyder and Steve Shibuya writing the script trying to make it work,and at the same time leaving the things they want.It doesn't work like that.Sacrifices have to be made.If they realized it made no sense,then start over.Or just eliminate one of the layers.
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, the reason why they aren't all well developed is because the story isn't about all of them. Take Inception, for example. Leo's character is the only character that is well developed. Everyone else is oh-so forgettable. Seriously, what do we know about these people? Absolutely nothing.
Dammit,you have a point!That movie is also Mind f*ck,so it focuses more on tricking the audience.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 19 2011 at 10:55am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, the reason why they aren't all well developed is because the story isn't about all of them. Take Inception, for example. Leo's character is the only character that is well developed. Everyone else is oh-so forgettable. Seriously, what do we know about these people? Absolutely nothing. In Sucker Punch, the story was about the sisters and they are pretty well developed. They aren't just "sisters who look out for each other." If you simplify characters that way, you make them sound simplistic. As for the other girls, they are sympathetic enough for the audience to want them to survive because these girls don't deserve the treatment they're getting.
Honestly, I find the old "only the main character needs to be developed" excuse to be lame in genernal. Yes, the main character is the most important, but how are we to relate to other characters when we know nothing about them? At least the characters in "Inception" had charm to them in between their interactions with each other, and we know some information about them like their jobs and personality traits. And forgettable? Oh no, I would say Tom Hardy's charm was the stand-out of the movie, giving a performance worthy to make him the next James Bond. On the other hand, we know NOTHING about the Sucker Punch girls, who were just line reading to each other, and while Abbie Cornish showed promise, that small ray of sunlight is lost among the void that's surrounding her.
 
And again, thanks to Snyder's bad storytelling, how are we suppose to relate to how bad the girls are being treated? One girl steals from the kitchen and the cook attacks her over it. Wow, what a hell hole they are in, we should feel pity for them based on this alone! The story is just such a mess and it makes the movie very hard to like or defend outside of being decent eye candy.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 19 2011 at 11:16am
Okay, jeans and a t-shirt doesn't make sense when fighting Nazi zombies and dragons, but a Japanese school girl outfit with bare legs and a bare midriff does make sense? The only outfits that made sense were what Blondie and Sweet Pea were wearing, fully clothed in leather and chainmail. Now that makes sense. But a Japanese schoolgirl outfit and the assless/crotchless chaps that Amber wore? No, sorry, not buying it.
 
Also Emily Browning was woefully miscasted in this movie. She looks like she's 12 years old, yet we're suppose to believe she's 22? It gave the movie a slight pedophile undertone to it. And how else is it not female empowerment? Well, in order to reach her goals, Baby Doll has to do a dance that is always being described as "raw" and "lots of grinding". So doing a broaderline strip tease is female empowerment? Granted, the dance is never shown on-screen, but then we're left wondering what the big deal about this dance is.
 
And lastly, yeah, it should have been only two levels, the asylum and the fantasy world. Why? Because that would make sense. The asylum is the ideal place to show the girls being treated like crap and wanting to escape, and the fantasy world would be their mental escape. The brothel makes no sense whatever, why would Baby Doll be dreaming about a brothel of all places? That's where the movie as female empowerment falls flat, the brothel seems like just an excuse to have the girls dress like common streetwalkers, and it's all out of place with the rest of the story.
 
Here's how the story would have worked, both as a story and as female empowerment: The movie starts as it did with Baby Doll going to the asylum, keep all that. Then show how the inmates are treated like subhumans (as most inmates in aslyums are in real life) and Baby Doll wants out. She befriends the other girls, perhaps by stealing the chocolate and sharing with them, so we can keep that scene. Meanwhile, the girls are having group therapy with Carla Gugino's character, and she teaches them this self-hypnosis trick that sends them into a fantasy world that they can control, and through this method, she teaches them that female empowerment must be a way of thinking, and then a course of action. And then the story plays out with them stealing the four items, using the self-hypnosis trick to give themselves confindence, and Sweet Pea escapes, etc. That would have worked. But instead, Snyder gave us his poorly done version of "Inception", proving that while he knows how to put together pretty images, he can't write his way out a wet paper bag.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 19 2011 at 11:42am
Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

And again, thanks to Snyder's bad storytelling, how are we suppose to relate to how bad the girls are being treated? One girl steals from the kitchen and the cook attacks her over it. Wow, what a hell hole they are in, we should feel pity for them based on this alone!
Yeah!I thought the same.When BABYDOLL saved ROCKET from him,I wondered why didn't he say "She started" or something.The same when BLUE asks him why did he killed ROCKET despite doing it in self-defense.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 19 2011 at 5:34pm
And further more, with "Inception", there's so many ways look at the movie. At one point, Mal is telling Cobb that he might be dreaming his whole life of being a dream spy. If you think about it, that would explain why none of the other characters are fully developed, because they could all just be aspects of Cobb's personality; his ego, his super ego, his id, his anima, etc. With "Sucker Punch", the girls are so underdeveloped, you can't really say they are aspects of someone's personality, because they are almost the same person, we know nothing about them to tell them apart. Just because it wasn't Baby Doll's story, that doesn't mean Snyder can get away with not explaining anything about her or why she is dreaming all this up. Was her mother in brothel? Was she a fan of anime or sci-fi movies? None of this is explained at all. The only reason why it can be considered Sweet Pea's story is because she has the most screen time and the most lines (and give the best performance) and that's all. So weak!
 
And I just realized this: MWG mentioned the girls dressing up like that because that's how girls in anime dress. The big problem with that is it's called "fan service", which is just a nice way of saying "T&A". The anime girls are dressed that way to lure in horny teenage boys (or men). Yes, there are people in this world who get sexually aroused by cartoon women! So if MWG is trying to defend the movie not being sexist, that excuse is not helping his case, it only confirms that the movie makes the girls look like eye candy for perverts to enjoy.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 19 2011 at 8:22pm
Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

And I just realized this: MWG mentioned the girls dressing up like that because that's how girls in anime dress. The big problem with that is it's called "fan service", which is just a nice way of saying "T&A". The anime girls are dressed that way to lure in horny teenage boys (or men). Yes, there are people in this world who get sexually aroused by cartoon women! So if MWG is trying to defend the movie not being sexist, that excuse is not helping his case, it only confirms that the movie makes the girls look like eye candy for perverts to enjoy.

Well, isn't it obvious they have to please both sides? In Hollywood, the best thing you can ever do is to balance the beam: You want to make what you wanna make, but you shouldn't forget about the masses. I still don't see how it's sexist (and to which gender?).

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

Okay, jeans and a t-shirt doesn't make sense when fighting Nazi zombies and dragons, but a Japanese school girl outfit with bare legs and a bare midriff does make sense? The only outfits that made sense were what Blondie and Sweet Pea were wearing, fully clothed in leather and chainmail. Now that makes sense. But a Japanese schoolgirl outfit and the assless/crotchless chaps that Amber wore? No, sorry, not buying it.

But it's still appropriate for the style of the film.

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

Also Emily Browning was woefully miscasted in this movie. She looks like she's 12 years old, yet we're suppose to believe she's 22? It gave the movie a slight pedophile undertone to it. And how else is it not female empowerment? Well, in order to reach her goals, Baby Doll has to do a dance that is always being described as "raw" and "lots of grinding". So doing a broaderline strip tease is female empowerment? Granted, the dance is never shown on-screen, but then we're left wondering what the big deal about this dance is.

I think the pedophilic undertone was purposefully left there, especially in the opening when the stepfather was going to get the little sister. Along with that, the whole dancing routine is just a way for her to fantasize about her getting to kick some ass. Sure, it may seem counter productive, but she's in a brothel. What do you expect her to do in order to fantasize about fighting?

Here's how the story would have worked, both as a story and as female empowerment: The movie starts as it did with Baby Doll going to the asylum, keep all that. Then show how the inmates are treated like subhumans (as most inmates in aslyums are in real life) and Baby Doll wants out. She befriends the other girls, perhaps by stealing the chocolate and sharing with them, so we can keep that scene. Meanwhile, the girls are having group therapy with Carla Gugino's character, and she teaches them this self-hypnosis trick that sends them into a fantasy world that they can control, and through this method, she teaches them that female empowerment must be a way of thinking, and then a course of action. And then the story plays out with them stealing the four items, using the self-hypnosis trick to give themselves confindence, and Sweet Pea escapes, etc. That would have worked. But instead, Snyder gave us his poorly done version of "Inception", proving that while he knows how to put together pretty images, he can't write his way out a wet paper bag.

But the thing is that Snyder didn't make that story. Sure, the version you came up with is much simpler and easier to understand, but Snyder didn't think of that. I'm not saying that Sucker Punch has the best plot structure ever, but it's one of those films that you just have to go along with and not ask, "Why doesn't he do this instead?"

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

And again, thanks to Snyder's bad storytelling, how are we suppose to relate to how bad the girls are being treated? One girl steals from the kitchen and the cook attacks her over it. Wow, what a hell hole they are in, we should feel pity for them based on this alone!

Well, before all of that happens, it was already implied that the mental asylum is a corrupt place. Furthermore, we find out that the sisters were brought to the asylum in a shady manner. She steals chocolate because it's obvious that they get sh*t food to eat. It's like saying, "Why should I feel pity for a Jew in a camp when he's stealing bread?" The state the girls are in is bad enough and one doesn't have to go into deep reasoning to see why they do what they do.


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 19 2011 at 9:46pm
Well, isn't it obvious they have to please both sides? In Hollywood, the best thing you can ever do is to balance the beam: You want to make what you wanna make, but you shouldn't forget about the masses. I still don't see how it's sexist (and to which gender?).
Okay, what kind of female empowerment message are you sending when the lead female is a 12 year old looking girl in a schoolgirl outfit and hypnoizes people with what is described as a semi-stripper dance? Further more, at one point, Sweet Pea points out how the "play" they were "acting" in can be looked at as being "sexy". I wouldn't call that a huge red flag, but it's almost like Snyder is phoning in his true intentions. Bottom line: if it looks, acts, and sounds like a duck, chances are, it's a duck.

But it's still appropriate for the style of the film.
Pedophile undertones are appropriate for a female empowerment movie? As I said, the leather and chainmail I can understand (and some would even consider that to be sexy), but a schoolgirl outfit, not really. The girls could have been all wearing IronMan like armor, and that could have been appropriate, too, but Snyder went the way of slutty cosplay-chic. Highly questionable choice.

I think the pedophilic undertone was purposefully left there, especially in the opening when the stepfather was going to get the little sister. Along with that, the whole dancing routine is just a way for her to fantasize about her getting to kick some ass. Sure, it may seem counter productive, but she's in a brothel. What do you expect her to do in order to fantasize about fighting?
The stuff with the little sister, I understand, but it shouldn't be carried over to the "older" sister (who still looks like she's barely 13), where the pedophile undertones were hinted at again near the end of the movie. I already laid out a perfectly natural way for the girls to enter the fantasy world without the use of a stripper dance, and it also removes the brothel setting all together, which again, is never explained why she's fantasizes about such a setting.

But the thing is that Snyder didn't make that story. Sure, the version you came up with is much simpler and easier to understand, but Snyder didn't think of that. I'm not saying that Sucker Punch has the best plot structure ever, but it's one of those films that you just have to go along with and not ask, "Why doesn't he do this instead?"
But that's not how a story works. If it's just one scene you're questioning, that's okay, but when it's the whole movie, the writer did something very wrong. A good story needs plot structure, otherwise, you failed at telling the story properly. You don't just throw events onto the screen and say "just go with it". And my version isn't so simple, if it was in the right hands, where everything is explained and the characters are fleshed out. Snyder didn't do any of this, his version of even simpler: just show a bunch of images and introduce characters and events without explaining what's going on, why or how it's happening, or who any of these peopler are. He seemed more concerned about getting the girls in tight little outfits and getting as much CGI on the screen as possible. That's bad storytelling, not art.

Well, before all of that happens, it was already implied that the mental asylum is a corrupt place. Furthermore, we find out that the sisters were brought to the asylum in a shady manner. She steals chocolate because it's obvious that they get sh*t food to eat. It's like saying, "Why should I feel pity for a Jew in a camp when he's stealing bread?" The state the girls are in is bad enough and one doesn't have to go into deep reasoning to see why they do what they do.
Okay, ONE scene that shows the girls might be under strict rules, but that's all. The Jews were tortured every waking moment of the day until they died. BIG difference, in fact, you can't seriously compare the two. That's like saying a paper cut is the same as losing a limb; it's not. Again, forget about the glorifed brothel, and stick with the horrors of the asylum, give us the idea the girls are in hell on earth. Getting slapped around alittle for stealing is not a hell on earth. Getting tortured morning, noon, and night, that's hell. And again, you can't use the excuse "oh just go along with it", because that's the laziest type of writing. There's no defending this movie as a properly told story.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 20 2011 at 11:33am
If I may,I think you're both confusing the terms.Implying BABYDOLL and her sister were about to get raped was context,not undertone.The undertone has to do with their outfits,although I disagree on that.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 20 2011 at 3:23pm
Originally posted by Vits

If I may,I think you're both confusing the terms.Implying BABYDOLL and her sister were about to get raped was context,not undertone.The undertone has to do with their outfits,although I disagree on that.
Yes, it was hinted that Baby Doll and her sister were about to be raped, but then there's the pedophile undertones that I have mentioned with a 12 year old looking Emily Browning running around in a schoolgirl outfit. Had Baby Doll been played by an actress who actually does look like she's 22 or older, and she wore a less revealing outfit, I wouldn't be making this arguement.

-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 20 2011 at 3:53pm
Oh,so it's not because of the school girl outfit?Yeah,that wouldn't be fair.A lot of grown men like watching women of any age in those and it doesn't mean they're pedophiles.

Actresses need to know what type of beauty they are.Emily is too child-looking.And I think that SLEEPING BEAUTY movie coming out will be worse.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 20 2011 at 8:26pm
Originally posted by Vits

Oh,so it's not because of the school girl outfit?Yeah,that wouldn't be fair.A lot of grown men like watching women of any age in those and it doesn't mean they're pedophiles.

Actresses need to know what type of beauty they are.Emily is too child-looking.And I think that SLEEPING BEAUTY movie coming out will be worse.
The schoolgirl outfit still doesn't make any sense, but like I said, the leather and chainmail can be considered equally sexy to some male viewers. In the end, Emily Browning shouldn't have been casted for the role. And don't even get me started on "Sleeping Beauty"; you can't debate against the pedophile undertones to that movie!
 
Note to Hollywood, Emily Browning is NOT sexy looking, she looks like she belongs in junior high school; stop casting her in sex bomb roles! Give these roles to ... Emmy Rossum instead. She can act and judging by her TV series, "Shameless", she doesn't mind having to take her clothes off.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: moviecritic123
Date Posted: September 20 2011 at 9:51pm
I actually liked this movie. It's not anything great but I had fun with it. Vanessea Hudginsens looks kinda hot with a machine gun.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: September 20 2011 at 10:34pm

Emily Browning looks like a preteen despite being over 2 decades old? That's just a drop in the ocean! I easily notice when it happens:

*I mistook one of my calculus classmates, an Asian woman named Tran, who was born in 1979, for being in 1997. This is probably because she's short of stature, has 0% grey hair, fairly pale complexion, and a slim build.
*Last September, many of my old high school's 9th graders were 14 years old, but looked only 8. This year, some of the new high school freshmen look even younger! Some young girls I've seen in offices attest that their male classmates (middle school) look like they just got out of kindergarten, and after seeing one 8th grader who looked like age 6, I believe these girls. I would attribute this to lack of sunlight, high-tech medical care (including neo-natal care), and low caloric intake.
*As long as I don't have facial stubble, I look as young as 15 years old despite being 21. It figures, because I harbor an intense hatred towards fast food, tobacco, alcohol (usually), and hard drugs. I've been clean of McDonald's since April 2005. I barely get any sun exposure, and I weigh only 130 lbs / 60 kg.
 
So if Emily Browning has the face of an 11 year old, our youth may be as old as double the age of the characters they play if we're not to repeat this mistake.


-------------


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 20 2011 at 11:54pm
I know that Hollywood plays an age game with actors and actresses play younger roles when they are actually older, and older roles when they are actually younger. But when you cast an actress in a role that is going to be strongly sexual (in the case of "Sleeping Beauty"), DO NOT hire an actress who looks like she should be waiting outside of a middle school for her mother to pick her up. As shallow as it may sound, hire the actress who looks the part.

-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: September 20 2011 at 11:55pm
Originally posted by Vits

Oh,so it's not because of the school girl outfit?Yeah,that wouldn't be fair.A lot of grown men like watching women of any age in those and it doesn't mean they're pedophiles.

Actresses need to know what type of beauty they are.Emily is too child-looking.And I think that SLEEPING BEAUTY movie coming out will be worse.
 
Sleeping Beauty was in cinemas a few months ago in Australia, got a huge amount of bad reviews.


-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 21 2011 at 6:38am
GTA,you gorgot to color the years!Shocked Also,people always think I'm 15.Once,in a really dark place,and with my hair a little long,they thought I was a girl.Ironically,it takes a lot of balls to admit that.LOL
Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

Note to Hollywood, Emily Browning is NOT sexy looking, she looks like she belongs in junior high school; stop casting her in sex bomb roles! Give these roles to ... Emmy Rossum instead. She can act and judging by her TV series, "Shameless", she doesn't mind having to take her clothes off.
At first I thought you were being sarcastic,because she also has an innocent beauty.But looking back at the movies were she dressed sexy,it didn't bother me.But I still wouldn't cast her in a sex-bomb role(I don't think BABYDOLL was one).
Originally posted by moviecritic123

I actually liked this movie. It's not anything great but I had fun with it. Vanessea Hudginsens looks kinda hot with a machine gun.
That is exactly the response the makers expected.I just hope you didn't like it just for that reason.
Originally posted by jesse685

Sleeping Beauty was in cinemas a few months ago in Australia, got a huge amount of bad reviews.
Oh,I'm sure it got a huge amount of "something" from the movie's target audience.I hope someone gets this joke.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window