Sucker Punch

Oh goody another movie

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Another...ironing movie?

I like movies, I have to watch something while or I would go mad

... Nebs... you always have a way of making me laugh when I need one... thank you...

__________________

Nebs, are you my Mum? I think she's only seen about 3 films in the last 20 years that she wasn't ironing during.

Y'see Yoda, this is the kind of thing you don't need to be doing. However, as we're going on...

It's based on the available infomation. Information which, it sounds like it me, after reading, you pretty much agree with my conclusion, but have some kind of misguided, "every film deserves a chance" mindset which means you won't say so.

OK, now this is definately a personal thing. I freely admit it and have no expectations that anyone else will or should believe me. Sometimes, I hear a title and I know, not think, know I don't want to see that film. Only once this has happened and I changed my mind and that was Shrek, which I decided wasn't a stupid title once I found out it was animated. Again, I don't know why it being animated made a difference, but it did and I changed my mind and started to read about it.

You see, it doesn't matter why a film's called what it is. I don't care at this stage. TBH, I rarely care. I don't care why Silence Of The Lambs is called that (I know, BTW, I just don't care) and the film isn't any better or worse because of its title. This isn't about quality, it's about instinct. For example, the moment I heard the title The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus, I knew I didn't want to see the film. Once I found out it was Terry Gilliam, then I thought it'd be crap but, before that, I just didn't want to see it. It's a stupid title. As I said, I dont' expect you or anyone else to understand or agree. It's just the way it is.

I wouldn't say I deducted points for DotD being a remake, just that I was a built in audience for that one and was going to see it. They are markedly different films, but that central setting is crucial to both and it's just so perfect. I'm not really a zombie fan. The original DotD is far and away the best zombie film I've ever seen and the only one I love and, I think, the setting is so much to do with that.

Maybe "hack" was a tad harsh, maybe not. He's McG with better PR, but I'm yet to see anything that sets him apart from the herd. 300? Terrible film with some of the poorest dialogue I've heard in years... And that's after being leanient with it because it's an action film and, therefore, I don't expect to hear good dialogue. It was bad, even for action films. Watchmen? Christ how padded was that? That's an hour's worth of story stretched out to 3 hours (directors cut) if ever I saw it. Now, I know that's not strictly his fault, he had a respected source material to work with and had to decide what to keep and dump. However, you're hardly ever going to please fans that devoted, so you may as well, at least, make a good film and hope for the best. That wasn't a good film. It was pretty so-so with one of the worst love scenes I've ever seen and I've seen Showgirls.

Well, really, the only problem is that most people don't bother to disagree with something unless they feel very strongly about it one way or the other. So disagreeing as a matter of degree with something just makes me sound like a bigger fan of the project than I am, is all.

Sure, but when there's so little information we don't have to go with a or . We can go with a .

I could've sworn I had a sideways thumb, actually. Crap, would've been perfect there.

Zuh? I wouldn't say I agree with your conclusion. I'm not jumping up and down but I'm clearly a bit more optimistic about this film's potential than you are.

Believe me, I'm not holding back what I really think to uphold some kind of pre-release decorum. I'm just thinking of all the times I thought something sounded stupid based on nothing more than a plot summary and a poster, and it wasn't.

Fair enough. In case it's at all interesting, 90% of the time I have a similar instinct. I just usually try not to put too much stock in it since, as you say, the title usually has nothing to do with the quality of the film. But the initial reaction is there, anyway.

Man, I've heard a lot of complaints about Watchmen, and I have a few of my own, but this is the first (and possibly last) time I've ever heard someone suggest that it was padded, or just an "hour's worth of story." There was tons going on. As is the case with most adaptations, he had to cut it down severely as it was.

You're right in that 300 should kind of get a pass on its dialogue, and that it should be judged in the context of the type of film it is. And with that in mind, surely you think it was well directed, yeah, if not well written?

Sorry, but there's no infomation in this brief synopsis that makes me think I'd like to see it. Comicbook, sci-fi/fantasty set in the 50's? No thanks. However, just to make it clear. Yes, Carla Gugino is the only reason I'll take another look at this when a trailer appears and, yes, if it looks good or better, then I'll say so and, yes, if Drew Barrymore was in it then I'd definately see it, no matter what.

You definately should. I was thinking the same thing when I saw the . I thought; "we should have a sideways thumb."


OK. It just sounded like you were giving it a chance, even though you didn't think it'd be any good. If I misread that, then I was wrong and didn't mean to put words in your mouth. At least, not ones that you actually weren't thinking.

Also, of course you're more optimistic than I am about this film. You're not the #1 pessimist on this board are you?

That's fair enough. I'm pretty much doing the same thing. All the times I've seen titles, trailers, posters, etc and thought; "I'm not going to like that." and it turns out I was right. The Fast And The Furious, Gladiator, Star Trek films, LotR, Harry Potter, Watchmen, I could go on and on.

What can I say? I'm unique.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it was just uninvolving and uninteresting and that's why I felt they were hanging about and padding it out. After all, I didn't think it was a story worth telling in the first place. Like most stories in this genre (comicbook films), I feel they probably work better on the page than the screen.

But even if we judge it in the context of the type of film it is, that can't make it a good film, can it? Even if you say it's good for an action film, that's not the same as saying it's a good film, is it? I mean, my niece can read well for a 4 year old, but she's can't read well.

Was it well directed? I don't think so. I really didn't like anything about the film. At least, nothing I can remember. I hate CGI blood, therefore I didn't care for the action scenes in the main. Hated the cinematography and art direction. The acting? Well, it was Gerard Butler, so it wasn't going to be good, was it. I guess he managed to grunt his way through it like a poor man's Russell Crowe (another ridiculously overrated performance, BTW) which may've been all that was required so, even though I didn't like it, maybe there was little else to do with it. Maybe, for once, he was given material that wasn't even up to his miserable talent?

Anyway, we've really drifted from the topic of Sucker Punch, haven't we?

Damn it, HK. I gave you positive rep for making me laugh, but I should've waited until I'd finished reading your whole post. You just HAD to get that jab in at Russell Crowe, didn't you?

TBF, if it was a jab at all, it was more a jab at those who overly praise it, not at the man himself or his performance.

Also, I was just getting it out there, before someone took me to task over Butler's performance and comparing it to Crowe's. Maybe no one would, but I just wanted to make my position clear. Not everyone knows me like you do.

Well let's not forget that, if I remember correctly, you find Gladiator to be painfully average in general.

I think Crowe was amazing and I don't think that's "overpraising" anything.

Gerard Butler, and 300 as a whole, are another story entirely.

You are remembering correctly, so I guess I was having a jab at yo(not specifically, but as one of those overpraising Crowe) and his 'growl and scowl' performance.

'Growl and scowl'? I think you're confused there. Maximus experienced a far greater range of emotion than that and Crowe did well to express those emotions.

You know me, honey, I just call it as I see it. I think those well expressed emotions you saw were probably the growling.

Actually, with the possible exception of the kid playing Lucius, I felt the entire cast turned in amazing performances - which directly led to one of them becoming my favorite actor and another taking the #2 position.

And I still think you're confused. Or just flat out wrong. Maybe both.

Well, we'll leave it there, because I feel I could really piss you off with some of my other observations/remeberances from Gladiator.

I think you overestimate my sensitivity regarding my favorite movies. I won't get pissed off, I just might think less of your cinematic taste is all.

Speaking of, I still don't really know much of what you like. I mean, I know what silents you hold in high regard, I know you enjoy Blackadder and you'll watch anything that stars Drew Barrymore, but beyond that?

Ah, all will be revealed in good time, Miss Vicky. I think this final push I'm having at my top 100 is going to produce a completed list. Still a month or so to go, but I do think it'll happen this time.

&feature=player_embedded

Nope, still not interested.

Definitely looks like one of his more stylized films. I've enjoyed everything Snyder has done so far, this one looks to be testing it though.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews