Zack Snyder's SUCKER PUNCH

[toylion]

Spoiler

Short answer to that is no.
The long answer is that, is that it has boring fantasy fight scenes that do not have any impact on the story, as it's obvious the movie will return to the lobotomy scene at the end (As soon as they mentioned the high roller I thought to myself, yeah that's going to be Jon Hamm). Also When a character dies in the bordello, or in the Playstation world, I just think who cares, it's not real anyway. The big reveal at the end is that her Stripper fantasy was her way of flashing back previous events, big deal. If she had fantasied about going shopping then Sweet Pea would have still escaped and the rest would have met the same fate. I just found that 90% of the movie was pointless rubbish. I would have been far more interested in how they would have obtained the items, if they left out the bordello stuff, and shown what happened in the real world. Zack Snyder could have still found a way to incorporate his Girls with guns fantasy, but actually have it so there is a sense of peril that could effect the real world. or is that my way of secretly saying the movie was great?

I liked it, that's all I know. And no matter what anyone tells me I'm not going to suddenly say, your right, I didn't enjoy it. I got out of it what I expected. This will have a cult following and I can't wait to get in on DVD to watch it over and over again.

 

[ironwez20]

Ahh Internet love. You can't hate them

 

[The Josh]

Spoiler

Short answer to that is no.
The long answer is that, is that it has boring fantasy fight scenes that do not have any impact on the story, as it's obvious the movie will return to the lobotomy scene at the end (As soon as they mentioned the high roller I thought to myself, yeah that's going to be Jon Hamm). Also When a character dies in the bordello, or in the Playstation world, I just think who cares, it's not real anyway. The big reveal at the end is that her Stripper fantasy was her way of flashing back previous events, big deal. If she had fantasied about going shopping then Sweet Pea would have still escaped and the rest would have met the same fate. I just found that 90% of the movie was pointless rubbish. I would have been far more interested in how they would have obtained the items, if they left out the bordello stuff, and shown what happened in the real world. Zack Snyder could have still found a way to incorporate his Girls with guns fantasy, but actually have it so there is a sense of peril that could effect the real world. or is that my way of secretly saying the movie was great?

Spoiler

Boring fight scenes? Those scenes were pretty fraking awesome. They didn't have any impact on the story? They tell you how the events of were things get to at the end. It gives you the road on how they got there. Yes, they could have gone shopping but now thats just being silly Dino. I'm sorry. The only part of the movie that I think we agree on is the end. The rest was pretty kick ass and what we saw in the both fantasies did have an impact on the real world that was just how they explained what was going on. They are using their imaginations to explain it to you instead of spoon feeding you the info from the real world.

 

[DinoLast]

I liked it, that's all I know. And no matter what anyone tells me I'm not going to suddenly say, your right, I didn't enjoy it. I got out of it what I expected. This will have a cult following and I can't wait to get in on DVD to watch it over and over again.

I would never tell you that you should hate the movie, and you have poor taste if you like it. I can't stand people who do that. No, I am just giving reasons why I did not like it, rather than just saying it Sucks, which is a big no, no at Sideshow Freaks

 

[DinoLast]

Spoiler

Boring fight scenes? Those scenes were pretty fraking awesome. They didn't have any impact on the story? They tell you how the events of were things get to at the end. It gives you the road on how they got there (it was actually have. Yes, they could have gone shopping but now thats just being silly Dino. I'm sorry. The only part of the movie that I think we agree on is the end. The rest was pretty kick ass and what we saw in the both fantasies did have an impact on the real world that was just how they explained what was going on. They are using their imaginations to explain it to you instead of spoon feeding you the info from the real world.

I can't explain it Josh, I was yawning while those fight scenes were on. It could just be that I have become a grumpy old man

 

[The Josh]

I guess.

 

[toylion]

I can't explain it Josh, I was yawning while those fight scenes were on. It could just be that I have become a grumpy old man

I was the opposite, they had me on the edge of my seat. In fact I felt like I was spinning it it, lol. Like a fast action Video game, it had me not knowing which way to look. It literally was a roller coast ride for me.
And as far as the end, they didn't really show us Sweetpea's ending in reality. She suddenly had that Alice in Wonderland dress on and the bus driver was The Wise Man.

 

[Khev]

Ah, but your theory fails on the Star Wars corollary - If you say "A New Hope" sucks because Natalie Portman is in it, doesn't mean you can't love Black Swan for the same reason.

Right but if you say that it begs the question "why?" Because left unexplained its a seemingly strange double standard. DinoLast simply asked why and IrishJedi went all on him.

 

[Khev]

I'll further point out why even the derivative nature of both films is not comparable: One wears it on its sleeve while the other pretends it's all a coincidence.

IMO a double standard is a prerequisite because Sucker Punch clearly presents itself as a pastiche of "geek" film nods. It's derivative by design. It wears it's references on it's sleeve.

Avatar never claimed to be an homage to the stories it imitates.

Neither one of you have any idea about what you're talking about.

"Its narrative roots lay in my childhood enjoyment of stories like Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars or Rudyard Kipling's The Man Who Would Be King -- the classic idea of a Westerner, a military guy, plunked down into a different culture and having to earn his way into that culture." -- James Cameron, Cinefex #120, December 2009

"Avatar was inspired by Cameron's love of the 'stranger in a strange land' narratives of Edgar Rice Burroughs's John Carter of Mars (1964) and Rudyard Kipling's The Man Who Would Be King (1888), both favorite stories of his youth. 'I wanted to create a familiar type of adventure in an unfamiliar environment,' Cameron explained, 'by setting the classic tale of a newcomer to a foreign land and culture on an alien planet. I'd dreamed of creating a film like this, set on another world of great danger and beauty, since I was a kid reading pulp science fiction and comic books by the truckload, and sitting in math class drawing creatures and aliens behind my propped-up textbook." -- James Cameron, The Making of Avatar, 2010.

And so on. The idea that Cameron was trying to portray his film as wholly original with only coincidental parallels to other stories is nonsense. He has been just as forthcoming about his inspirations as Lucas was about Star Wars and Snyder was about Sucker Punch. So to fault one film for being derivative and not another without a more viable explanation still comes across as a silly double standard.

 

[KneelBeforrSmallville]

Neither one of you have any idea about what you're talking about.

"Its narrative roots lay in my childhood enjoyment of stories like Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars or Rudyard Kipling's The Man Who Would Be King -- the classic idea of a Westerner, a military guy, plunked down into a different culture and having to earn his way into that culture." -- James Cameron, Cinefex #120, December 2009

"Avatar was inspired by Cameron's love of the 'stranger in a strange land' narratives of Edgar Rice Burroughs's John Carter of Mars (1964) and Rudyard Kipling's The Man Who Would Be King (1888), both favorite stories of his youth. 'I wanted to create a familiar type of adventure in an unfamiliar environment,' Cameron explained, 'by setting the classic tale of a newcomer to a foreign land and culture on an alien planet. I'd dreamed of creating a film like this, set on another world of great danger and beauty, since I was a kid reading pulp science fiction and comic books by the truckload, and sitting in math class drawing creatures and aliens behind my propped-up textbook." -- James Cameron, The Making of Avatar, 2010.

And so on. The idea that Cameron was trying to portray his film as wholly original with only coincidental parallels to other stories is nonsense. He has been just as forthcoming about his inspirations as Lucas was about Star Wars and Snyder was about Sucker Punch. So to fault one film for being derivative and not another still comes across as a silly double standard.

Thank you!! Someone who finaly has proof and documentation about Camerons work! Genius! Thanks for posting!

 

[devilof76]

A lot of people are more entertained by reading than watching anything at all.

<<<<<<<<---------

Still, I can enjoy Ingmar Bergman as much as I can Sucker Punch.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Netflix is constantly streaming in my studio, and I've seen plenty of movies that I thought stunk. I've never felt the need to defend my disdain of any idiotic flick in an online forum. Considering the vast output of vitriol that's been doled out here on SF, could it be speculated that many of you that are sharing your unfairly harsh critiques are really closet Punch Suckers? Perhaps many of you are fighting the urge to let go with abandon and enjoy the movie for what it was meant to be.

Just a thought.

My issue is that I sincerely, truly and devotedly wanted to love this movie. It's audacious and original (in that it isn't based on another property, a remake or a sequel) and if successful would have opened the door for even more creative stories in Hollywood. And I feel that it was visually entertaining, but I don't think it accomplished what the filmmaker set out to do and thus was a disappointment for me.

If I outright hate a film I won't bother with commenting, but if I feel something is unfairly maligned I'll defend it (see my Alice in Wonderland comments).

 

[Timinator]

If I outright hate a film I won't bother with commenting, but if I feel something is unfairly maligned I'll defend it (see my Alice in Wonderland comments).

Oh, I'm just stirring the pot, Dave. Picking at the scab so to speak.

 

[wofford29]

<<<<<<<<---------

Still, I can enjoy Ingmar Bergman as much as I can Sucker Punch.

And there's nothing wrong with that, but the capability of enjoying both wasn't what I was trying to get at. It's the which do you prefer or which do you most closely relate your entertainment values to. For me Bergman is vastly more entertaining to sit through than something like Terminator, which I also like. I'm entertained by both but much more so by one so would define what entertains me by that which I prefer, or would choose first given an option.

 

[YoNoSe]

Neither one of you have any idea about what you're talking about.

Hey, I was just plagiarizing.

I find these two movies so fundamentally different in how they assimilate and represent their influences that watching them with the same set of expectations is absurd to me. If you find that silly it's all good. You don't have to understand or agree with my opinion, and likewise.

 

[devilof76]

And there's nothing wrong with that, but the capability of enjoying both wasn't what I was trying to get at. It's the which do you prefer or which do you most closely relate your entertainment values to. For me Bergman is vastly more entertaining to sit through than something like Terminator, which I also like. I'm entertained by both but much more so by one so would define what entertains me by that which I prefer, or would choose first given an option.

I would have difficulty choosing (atleast with SP; I'd always pick Bergman over Terminator). Maybe that's why I have trouble relating.

 

[IrishJedi]

I find these two movies so fundamentally different in how they assimilate and represent their influences that watching them with the same set of expectations is absurd to me. If you find that silly it's all good. You don't have to understand or agree with my opinion, and likewise.

It's like a brick wall around here sometimes, isn't it?

 

[Khev]

It's like a brick wall around here sometimes, isn't it?

Are you really saying you're incapable of grasping the notion of common and comparable elements from otherwise very different films? How curious. Ever heard of a little event called the Acadamy Awards?

 

[IrishJedi]

Are you really saying you're incapable of grasping the notion of common and comparable elements from otherwise very different films? How curious. Ever heard of a little event called the Acadamy Awards?

I wasn't aware that we were the Academy and tasked with such a frivolous, ultimately meaningless charter.

 

[Khev]

I get that you understand the concept of making an irrelevant response. No need to demonstrate that. Do you understand that wildly different films can have common comparable elements or do you fly into a tizzy every time multiple genres are up for the same awards at the Oscars every year?