(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi205.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb52%2FThe_Playlist%2FJuly%25202010%2Fsuckerpunch2.jpg&hash=1564d46ed735dde4c192fc07d0ef18d08bec02bd)
[click to enlarge]
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi205.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb52%2FThe_Playlist%2FJuly%25202010%2Fsuckerpunch1.jpg&hash=a2ebbfa9c8f57bc7420dda39bc7ecdf33571b05d) (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=68188)
Directed by: Zach Snyder
Screenwriter: Steve Shibuya, Zack Snyder
Starring: Emily Browning, Vanessa Hudgens, Abbie Cornish, Jamie Chung, Jena Malone, Carla Gugino, Jon Hamm, Oscar Isaac, Scott Glenn
March 25, 2011
Set in the 1950s, Sucker Punch follows Babydoll who is confined to a mental institution by her stepfather, who intends to have her lobotomized in five days. While there, she imagines an alternative reality to hide her from the pain, and in that world, she begins planning her escape, needing to steal five objects to help get her out before she is deflowered by a vile man.
http://suckerpunchmovie.warnerbros.com/
Now if only Zach Snyder could make this something that doesn't suck and disappoint.
mod there is no way to know that those pictures are clickable just by looking at them. it is definitely too much to expect for ppl to swipe over ever single pic you post in the off chance that it may actually be hiding a link. in this case it would have been nice to know that clicking the posters leads to more information and bigger versions of the posters.
this is the same thing that happened in the social network site when the reelist failed to notice (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=10345.msg293913#msg293913) that the "we will never forget" pic you posted was actually a link to the imdb page of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. i only discovered it accidentally myself when i went to quote something else.
this is the same mentality you display when you never title your album covers. you have also shown this when you have posted youtube links without any explanation as to what may be found on the other side. make the links obvious or don't post them at all. you provide a lot of useful information in a user-friendly way so it is just perplexing to me when you repeatedly show a total disregard for basic news-sharing decency.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fliteratehousewife.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F03%2Fsorry_cat.jpg&hash=6c0fbe40741e7f326af1008e182433de96122709) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpjVgF5JDq8)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi7.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy251%2Ffbv%2Fdailyhanks.gif&hash=2f76f20344852350f480eb60acd6b64b8b06638d) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDqO5iiPoog)
haha that mike jackson and brett rat clip never gets old. NEVA!
Wow, what a dick! (P's response to Modage)
Quote from: PrivateJoker on July 24, 2010, 12:01:56 PM
Wow, what a dick! (P's response to Modage)
who the fuck are you?
first of all, as a newb, you should maybe realise some people here have "known" each other for a while so that a post like mine is actually not that harsh to someone like Modage especially when i wasn't pointing things out purely to be a dick.
likewise, as someone who has been posting here a long time i am aware that newbs are fucking idiots which you have instantly shown yourself to be, and the fact that you called me out on your very first post out of nowhere also signifies that you're probably a troll, or possibly someone who has been banned before and is now pretending to be a newly registered stupid asshole..
April Fool's!
Hahaha...
Geez, chill out, P. Your initial gripe was very only childish and while those of us who have been here awhile are used to it from you, someone who hasn't been may not be.
We want new members on this board, not less.
private witt?
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/suckerpunch/
Basically, it's Pan's Labyrinth for video-game-obsessed adolescents.
Yeah, as Snyder's teasers go, this is pretty disappointing. Shows too much without showing you anything.
New Trailer here. (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/suckerpunch/)
Meatgirl empowerment propaganda.
It's a movie for those faux feminists who always talk about hear me roar but always go from one boyfriend to the next.
No way, this is totally for dudes.
I already hate this movie.
Looks pretty terrible, but I'm happy that Scott Glenn is successfully picking up the slack left by David Carradine chokebating himself to death.
that's cool that a hot girl needs to fantasize like an angry dude in order to escape. It's Axe Bodyspray: the movie.
Quote from: RegularKarate on November 04, 2010, 03:32:20 PM
No way, this is totally for dudes.
Yeah, but have you SEEN movies made for women? Yeesh! Hey, broads! Go watch Eat Pray Love and then make me some dinner, am I right, guys?
well, i'm sure modage and myself will see it, enjoy it and forget about it, as it was intended.
I don't love this new trailer, but yeah you're totally right. That's what's going to happen.
I guess that's how zack snyder's movies make that cash to fund his next films, by being enjoyed and forgotten.
but there's certain fun that is to be derived from not enjoying his films - moreso than any other filmmaker right now. I mean, it's easy to shit on transformers or funny games, and relatively straightforward too - you show discontent and everyone gets it. but a zack snyder movie - he gets so many things gorgeously wrong that it's possible to be disgusted by entirely legitimate and unrelated reasons. you can call him soulless QT (or even more soulless), you can call him scott pilgrims minus wit, you can go so far with each criticism and have so much fun with it. his bad films bear repeating 'cause everytime you watch it you can get offended by all the different frameworks and keep on coming up with ways to be disgusted. why would anyone want to enjoy something that's sooo meant to be torn apart is beyond me.
he's the tea party of hacks.
Quote from: MacGuffin on November 04, 2010, 03:12:33 PM
New Trailer here. (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/suckerpunch/)
an entire Z a c k S n y d e r film of Emily Browning's face?
i might buy that on blu-ray.
^WERD. I've been on her face for awhile.
Quote from: Stefen on April 24, 2009, 05:20:36 PM
I watched this last night. It sucked but the girl that's in it is so pretty. She has the most beautiful lips I've ever seen.
I ain't gonna lie, I thought she was under 18 and only made this post when I found out she was actually 20.
Director's Cut Of 'Sucker Punch' 18 Minutes Longer, Will Feature Full Musical Number
Source: The Playlist
"Sucker Punch" opens tomorrow, and reviews are beginning to trickle out this morning. While you'll have to wait a bit for our full assessment we'll say this: we agree with the general consensus out there. But for better or worse, the film is a Zack Snyder fantasy writ very, very large but even he has to play by the rules. With the studio requiring a PG-13 rating for the film, it was inevitable that the helmer would have to make cuts to get it there. As Emily Browning recently revealed, a steamy scene between her and Jon Hamm got the axe for being too sensual, but it appears that's just the tip of the iceberg. We caught up with Zack Snyder's wife and his producing partner Deborah Snyder during press rounds for the film, and she revealed they had to make multiple edits to the film to get it squared away with ratings folks adding, that some big sequences didn't make the theatrical version of the movie. "There's 18 minutes of extra footage," Deb Snyder said. "A lot of more battle sequences, a lot of content things—we had to go back to the MPAA like five times—we were able to put back. The biggest thing we took out of the film, in the credit sequence we have the [musical montage] of [Roxy Music's] "Love Is The Drug" (sung by Carla Gugino and Oscar Issac) and that was actually conceived as a glimpse of what life was like in the every day brothel world and the shows they put on. It was actually at the beginning of the movie in its entirety, but we took it out because when we put it in the film it just looked like the place was too much fun and there wasn't enough jeopardy. It was really elaborate and beautiful and in the next sequence Baby Doll [Emily Browning] is crying to get out and [it didn't work tonally]." Speaking with Collider, Zack Snyder elaborates on how the tone was a difficult, but reveals that cut footage will be on the eventual director's cut of the film. "They were just like, 'It's too creepy, it's too dark,'" Zack said. "We cut a bunch of violence—on the BluRay there's more action—[because] you can only kill so many guys [before] they go, 'No, it's rated R.' Even if they're robots or whatever, they're not into it. There were a couple scenes that crossed the line for them, even if nothing happens in them. Just the tone was wrong." Also removed from the finished film are all the dance sequences that had been planned, but that can still be glimpsed in the film's closing credit sequence. "...it's something we really liked so we thought wow, we can use it in the end titles," Deborah Snyder told us. "But so much work was put into it and the girls really loved it because they had to learn these big elaborate dance numbers that we felt like could live on in the extended cut." But before Snyder fans get too bummed out, there is plenty of spectacle in the movie so don't worry about not getting enough bang, fishnets, robots and Nazi zombies for your hard earned buck. "Sucker Punch" opens tomorrow.
Quote from: cronopio 2 on November 05, 2010, 02:02:31 PM
well, i'm sure modage and myself will see it, enjoy it and forget about it, as it was intended.
Unfortunately not the case. Saw it last night, it's a disaster. Review soon...
I have to hand it to Snyder. He makes movies that I know will suck, but I also know I will watch.
I am extremely confident this movie will be terrible, but I will definitely see it. And not in the same way that I'll see Transformers 3.
It's the first time he's not relying on adapting other people's work to get a movie out. That should be good for something, but this still looks entirely derivative. When I see the trailer it reminds of Skycaptain and the World of Tomorrow meets Planet Terror, or something. It looks like a pretty cool ride, but I don't want to sit in a theater to see it. Watchmen was good ONCE, that was when I saw it in the theater. I bet I'll like about 75% of this and then it'll really get tired and I won't want to touch it again. It's all that green screen bullshit. Oh, and I'm glad to know other people here hate his films. So many people said his Dawn of the dead was an improvement on the original, I wanted to choke them so hard.
No, this one is different. Dawn, regardless of being a remake of a classic, works as a film. It's a successful zombie movie. 300 is a visually stunning, stylized, action movie. It works, it was hugely influential. Watchmen has great parts, but isn't entirely successful. Duh, it was adapting an "impossible to adapt" book. This does not work, at all. As a film.
from my blog (http://modage.tumblr.com/post/4069409703/sucker-punch-review):
To get something out right off the bat, I've really liked all of director Zach Snyder's previous films. "Dawn of the Dead" was a surprising remake that stands on it's own, "300" is one of the most visually influential action movies of the past decade and "Watchmen" is ambitious and flawed but still great in parts. Snyder is at the very least an incredibly strong visual filmmaker and the premise of "Sucker Punch" would allow him to go all out: a young girl institutionalized by her wicked stepfather retreats to an alternative reality as a coping strategy where she must fight Nazis, robots, zombies and dragons. The first film of Snyder's not based on previously existing source material, this was clearly a chance for Snyder to get all of his fetishes out in one place. Even if the film was overstuffed with ideas, it would at least be provide for some very cool sequences.
But I was concerned about "Sucker Punch" from the first teaser. Because Snyder shoots such pretty pictures, he's gone two for two with incredibly amazing trailers, but something about this one was off. Instead of thrilling, the film just looked like an expensive videogame. Tried to remain optimistic even when advance word was not great but unfortunately the film is a disaster. The story is as described but Snyder manages to suck all of the fun out of it by making a poorly written, ugly, uninvolving mess. There are no characters. The film opens with Baby Doll (Emily Browning) fighting her evil stepfather after he's murdered her mother but does so like a stylized music video to a remix of the Eurythmics "Sweet Dreams."
Unfortunately, this is all we really get to know about the lead in the film, as after this point her only motivation is to escape the mental hospital she's placed in. And it's all downhill from there. The other "characters" are capable actresses in tiny (but awesome) outfits unfortunately standing around with nothing to do. There are some horrible sequences of attempted emotion that completely fall flat as do the action sequences which are completely deadening and repetitive. There are no stakes, no consequences and nothing invested so each time the girls retreat into this fantasy world to fight fantastic creatures set to a remix of a familiar song, our brains switch to "sleep" mode because we don't know anything about them or care.
The "symbolism" in the film just completely misses the mark. ("Ohhh, so the cook is the cook!") There was a real opportunity for a Wizard of Oz retreat into these fantasy worlds but the film goes 2 levels deep (first level: we're in a pretend brothel, second level: we're in a pretend fantasy fighting world) without ever checking back into reality until the very end of the film. And the dialogue is bad. Scott Glenn (cast as David Carradine) gets the worst of it spouting nonsense cliche after cliche ("If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"). The girls are game for anything but are let down by a story that gives them nothing to do. Snyder wanted to make a film about strong female characters but there is a sequence towards the end when literally every woman in the room is crying and the emotion completely falls flat, it's embarassing.
"Sucker Punch" is an incredibly ambitious, even admirable failure, but the film absolutely does not work. It's a juvenille, leaden disaster but hopefully now that Snyder has gotten this out of his system he can learn from his mistakes.
The premise sounds a lot like A Little Princess.
I was actually looking forward to this, but these reviews are seriously killing the buzz. The premise sounded interesting, and it definitely seemed like it had something going for it with the changing environments and charismatic leads (with some girl power thrown in) -- but sounds like it's all show, no heart. Now I'm afraid going to see this might tick me off, with me yelling at the movie screen "This could have been SO MUCH BETTER!", throwing my popcorn at the credits and storming out.
I try to avoid posting everything I write elsewhere, but I thought I'd share this piece (http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/?2011,4,263) from my site - if only because my views on this movie seem to fly so much in the face of received opinion. Any conversation generated with anyone who's seen it will also be helpful in sorting my thoughts for the longer piece that I'll be writing.
Sucker Punch
Filmmaking: 3 / Personal enjoyment: 4
Locked away in a nightmarish mental hospital by her evil stepfather, 20-year-old 'Baby Doll' (Emily Browning) turns to fantasy: first imagining herself as the victim of a baroque brothel, then leading the mental escape of herself and her fellow prisoners via an escalating series of battles against various mythical foes.
Save one or two dissenting voices, Sucker Punch has become (true to its name) the kind of critical punching-bag that only emerges every so often - the sort of film that's assumed terrible from the outset, and whose reviews are thus a matter of one-upmanship, each critic eager to slam it harder than the last. What's so strange about that in this case is that this movie, while certainly no masterpiece, happens to be quite obviously very interesting.
I would suggest that the extraordinary degree of blanket hatred stems partly from simple herd mentality - a desire to engage in all the fun, negative rhetoric. But the film also ticks a few boxes that usually encourage knee-jerk rejection - in particular, a focus on manifestly artificial style over plot or believable characters (as if this hierarchy is ever considered a de facto problem in, say, Godard). Equally, the film's very interestingness is perhaps something of a problem too: this is unmistakably a movie with a certain amount of ambition, both in structure and theme, and if you're already primed to dislike it, this is only likely to increase your wrath. Another very common objection is to the film's sexual politics, which I will address in more depth in the Alternate Take. For now, suffice to say that it should be impossible to discuss Sucker Punch's treatment of gender without recourse to the concept of irony. Some reviewers seem to believe they're catching the film out by noting that its main characters have names like 'Blondie' and 'Sweet Pea', or that its costumes are fetishistic an infantilizing. These are clearly things that the film is very self-consciously playing with and (to a degree) parodying, rather than merely presenting at face value. Irony alone is by no means a defence against accusations of sexism, but to ignore its presence is to fundamentally misrepresent the way Sucker Punch is addressing us.
Portions of the movie practice an almost textbook version of the kind of throw-it-all-in-the-pot approach to aesthetics and history that so many people object to in postmodernism: treating imagery only as images rather than engaging with their meanings - hollowing out everything to leave only surface. To wit: at one minute the girls are fighting samurai giants, then steam-powered WWI Germans, then dragons, then futuristic robots, and so on... Similarly indiscriminate is the approach to music: questionable covers of rock classics intermingle with original versions, which intermingle with remixes (in some ways, this feels rather like a cinematic equivalent of the 'mashup'). If this is something you'll object to on principle then you will most assuredly despise Sucker Punch. If, like me, you're willing to take it as a logical extension of the film's committed indulgence in a gigantic game of pop culture hopscotch, then there's hope for your relationship with the movie.
Indeed, it's more than possible to enjoy the film - if so inclined - on the level of its sheer absurd, incoherent insanity, which at times pushes it almost into the realm of the avant-garde. To some extent you have to settle into a quite particular headspace to get the most out of the experience. A frequent complaint has been how difficult it is to feel emotionally involved in any of the madly over-the-top action sequences, since - because we know them to be fantasies - there is essentially nothing at stake (very unusual for plot-and-character-centric mainstream Hollywood). This is true, but I must say that I considered this strategy an absolute treat. As someone who often finds himself dozing during the action scenes of contemporary blockbusters, I greatly appreciated being relieved of the responsibility of feigning to care about the perils on display. Because of this lack of danger, the fight scenes become purely, unrepentantly aesthetic experiences, allowing Snyder's meticulously silly choreography and flashy techniques to be appreciated for their garish beauty and skill rather than serving as mere annoying window dressing. The most pertinent comparisons for these crazy flights into plotless sound and movement are, firstly, videogames (which, again, instinctively raises critical ire - because gaming is inherently bad, right...?) and, perhaps more tellingly, the legendarily excessive musical sequences of Busby Berkley (a poster for Golddiggers of 1933 appears in the background of a number of scenes).
Beyond these depthless pleasures, there is also a kind of seriousness at work in Sucker Punch, which will have to wait to be discussed in detail. Yet to avoid disappointment do be warned that the movie will feature nothing approaching 'real characters', nor does it have much in the way of a credible narrative - in fact, some of its worst moments come as a result of trying to provide such things. It is also far, far, from the unproblematically 'girl power' adventure that Snyder perhaps believes it to be. But it is also compellingly mad, rather fascinating in its thematic and narrative construction, and passes the Bechdel Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLF6sAAMb4s) to boot. I find myself unable to say anything approaching this about most recent action films, thus convincing me that - at the very least - this film deserves much better than near-unanimous derision.
I actually think I might like it too, I've been looking forward to it since seeing the trailer. The only thing I guess I can agree with in most reviews is they shouldn't have pussied out and gone for a full R, but I guess that could also be defended if Snyder's intending it to be female empowerment to young girls.
So I've now written my massive exegesis on why this is some kind of depressed, angry feminist masterpiece, for anyone interested: http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/?2011,5,299
Very interesting read. I'll definitely have to check out the film now.
I definitely agree that the allegorical side of the film works better than it's been given credit for, but where the film falls flat on its face is at the surface level. You can have all the hidden meanings you want, but if the literal meaning of what's happening on-screen is disjointed and unsatisfying, then it simply becomes an exercise in criticism, not a personal artistic experience. I do think the movie will be remembered better than it was received, though.
But you can't separate out the allegory from the rest of the film - it's the whole purpose of the movie! And if you watch the film whilst aware of its metaphorical logic it is far more coherent. Personally, I already very much enjoyed the film the first time for many reasons, but partly because I was so fascinated by what it was doing conceptually. I agree that it's far from perfect, and my 'masterpiece' reference above was certainly over-egging it somewhat. But not much of it seems "disjointed" to me, taken in the context of what it's trying to do.
Woah, okay. I had some hopes in this film since it had some of my favorite young actress's of today (and Carla Gugino, one of the sexiest older women I have ever had fantasy's about) beating badass's of all kinds but I wasn't connected. The dialogue is terrible and what they did to one of my favorite Beatles' songs almost seems blasphemous. I just couldn't exactly get into it but the visual set pieces are some of the best I've ever seen in my life. I know what its trying to say about fe about female empowerment but again, I wasn't emotional connected. Not that I need to be emotional connected to every film, especially an action film but it fell flat for me. An fantastic misfire
Bottom Line: If You Have It on Blu-ray, Its great to put on at a party. Jon Hamm has a cameo is in this which surprised me.