Skip to main content

Sucker Punch: A movie review

If I was to describe Sucker Punch in a single word, it would be this: disappointing. Now the reasons for my disappointment aren't as simple as "the movie was just bad." On the whole sucker punch isn't bad per se, it had a lot of potential and it just didn't deliver on that, hence the disappointment. When I first saw the trailer, I thought "hey, this looks like an interesting idea and with Zach Snyder at the helm, it should be well executed." Now I will admit that I made a mistake in assuming the movie would be good just because a director I liked was working on the film. I've been disappointed before in cases like Kurt Wimmer and the award winning stinker Ultra Violet.

Admittedly, I should have taken a clue from the fact that Zach Snyder had only directed 4 full length films before working on Sucker Punch. 300 was sort of idiot proof because it had such a simple concept, although I know all the historians were booing and hissing fervently the entire time. Watchmen was really good and was even well received critically, but maybe that's only because some of the writing was done by Solid Snake......I mean David Hayter (who knew?). Just because a writer or director has some titles under his/her belt that you liked, doesn't mean that they will always put out solid material.

So anyhow, the movie itself is not bad, it just fails to make the most of what I felt was a significant amount of potential. The first and strongest item in the films inventory was its concept: young girl gets thrown into a desperate situation and copes with the stress by shifting her perception of reality. This concept is not wholly novel, Donnie Darko did the same thing in essence, but executed the concept more deftly because it had actual character development and a plot that felt like it had some actual depth. The problem with this concept in Sucker Punch is that very little is explained, which is fine, but then the pacing falls through. You have these brilliant set pieces for the major battle sequences, but you jump in and out of them so rapidly and it feels like its coming out of no where, so I end up not really caring about these dramatic shifts in perceived reality by the characters.

The pacing seems to speed up appropriately for the major battle sequences, but there just isn't any dramatic buildup or tension leading up to the event. Its just like: moving along, nothing too special, then.....holy crap! Fighting zombie Nazis! This sort of lag and jump is fine for video games where you as a player determine the speed at which events unfold, but it simply doesn't work for a movie. The dramatic portions feel like their only there to act as bridges between the giant battle sequences, almost making them seem superfluous.

When I first saw the trailer, I made a prediction of sorts that the movie would rise or fall on the merits of the actors. However, there's very little acting in the movie. All the dialogue is short, there's no real character development, the back stories all made sense, but they were so brief I just didn't care, and finally there were the shifts in perceived reality themselves. As a frequent movie goer and a nouveau cinephile, I get the idea that the protagonist in the story alters her perception of reality to cope with the harsh situation that she's in, but if you were just passing by, it wouldn't make any sense at all. You have these dramatic shifts in reality, but only once do you really get a sense of how that shift is affecting actions in true reality. The rest of the time, you just get the appearance of crazy stuff happening without a lot of obvious correlation to the plot.

Sucker Punch would have been a lot better off if it had simply ditched the action over tones and gone it alone as a dramatic work. The harrowing story of a young girl trying to escape from an insane asylum after being imprisoned there by her evil stepfather is interesting enough. And maybe if they had done that, Emily Browning could have had some actual dialogue and a chance to really act.

On a final note, I feel that one place the movie really fell through was that they decided to go for a PG-13 rating. I understand that movie studios are out to make money and that going with a PG-13 rating is a way to reach out to a wider audience, but in this case I feel that it really tied hands creatively and ended up watering down what should have been really aggressive segments of the movie that in all honestly should've dialed up the gore and profanity and gone for the gold with an R rating. Obviously going for an R rating doesn't magically make any movie better, but I have the strong sense that in the case of sucker punch, it would only have made the movie more believable.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Max Payne: The Movie - A Review

It all started innocently enough back in '01. Some company named 'Rockstar' put out a video game. It was like playing a cross between the best cliches of pulp detective novels and a combat system right out of the Matrix films. Some crazy fool turned it into a movie, and after seeing it tonight, I came to a few conclusions. One, the first video game was better than this movie. Two, this movie was still better than the second video game in the Max Payne series. Three, a few punches can put Max Payne in a hospital bed, but he can laugh off a shotgun blast to the chest from three feet away. If you're reading this, all you care about is 'should I bother seeing it or not?'. The short answer is, if you like stuff being shot up reaaaal good, go see it! If you're interested only in seeing Oscar-worthy movies, you'll probably want to skip this one. And for those of you sticking around for my humorous take on the movie... Max Payne is a man with a past. We know thi

Public Enemies: The Cinephile's Enemy

I'm with on the false advertising in trailers thing: I think that studios that snooker you into the theater via false advertising in their trailers ought to have to pay out punitive damages in a class action lawsuit. All of the good shots of Public Enemies was in the trailer. Michael Mann owes me $10.50 for a midnight ticket after being drawn, beaten, horsewhipped, set on fire and quartered. I demand that Universal personally send Johnny Depp with my refund check, even though he and Christian Bale were the only things right wit the movie. There's very little good to say about this movie. I can't recall a lick of the score because it all sounded like source music. The only recognizable piece of music in the film is Otis Taylor's Ten Million Slaves which, if you don't buy the linked single, you get forced into buying the the whole damned album . For whatever insane reason, Director Michael Mann decided to film on cheap digital cameras.It's impossible to tell

Green Lantern: Made of Fail

If someone gave you $300 million dollars and said " Make me an awesome movie about the Green Lantern ", you might think to yourself 'Ah, twice as much money as Thor and X-Men: First Class had - easy as pie!'. If you're director Martin Campbell and you've impressed everyone with movies like Edge of Darkness and Casino Royale, but secretly hate super hero movies and Hollywood producers with an insane cunning, and really want to make an expensive pile of fail, you'd have made " Green Lantern ". The short review - don't waste your money on this unless you *literally* have nothing better to do than watch paint dry. If you like comic books, or even just action movies, AVOID AT ALL COSTS. Where to begin... I heard bad things about the movie, but I thought 'How bad could it be?'. First things first. Ryan Reynolds. Generally known for playing slightly air-headed characters with a sense of humor and formulaic Hollywood looks. Star of fifty-two