You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Sucker Punch

Does Zack Snyder take drugs?

Yes, he's always on something.25%[ 3 ]
No, he is too wholesome.25%[ 3 ]
I don't know, but if he does, I want to try them.50%[ 6 ]

Total Votes : 12

Posted: Mon, 8th Nov 2010, 6:43am

Post 1 of 49

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion about this film, considering how many Zack Snyder fans there are here.

Yeah, we all know he's doing Superman, and he did the Legend of Mopey Owls, but the project I'm really interested in is Sucker Punch.

Trailer
IMDb

It's basically, "Zack Snyder's Nerd Fantasy Masturbation Machine." It's a little bit Lord of the Rings, a little bit Star Wars, a little bit Sky Captain, a little bit Casshern, a little bit softcore fetish porn, but all crazy over-the-top ridiculousness. It's like listening to all of your favorite albums at the same time. But hopefully it'll all fit together nicely.

It could very well be a completely over-indulgent flop, but it looks like a lot of fun. And I totally dig Emily Browing. I look forward to seeing this in March.
Posted: Mon, 8th Nov 2010, 2:16pm

Post 2 of 49

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Like I said on IMDb. That trailer didn't quite get me exited.

I've seen it many times to try as hard I could to get it to grow on me and nothing short of telling myself: "You'll go into the theater with the mindset of a 13-old nerd and just go with it." has worked.

I think it's because the film is trying to hard. Nothing about it felt authentic. I think it mainly comes down to the actors. They are all really hot, but I don't believe anything they say, I don't believe I how they look (why is everyone hot in the mental hospital and why do the guards look like the gangsters from Kick Ass?), I can tolerate them in action scenes because I've been conditioned from anime (even though I don't watch much anime). I don't know if Snyder knows this, but you can't take the characters from Mean Girls and put them in Sky Captain/Inception/The Matrix (ironically the main trio of actresses from Mean Girls probably have the acting chops to be in Sucker Punch). I'm hoping the film has heart and that it doesn't take itself seriously in all the right ways (like Kick Ass, NOT like Spider Man), because the world I see in the trailer makes no sense to me. Yes, it looks "awesome". Yes, I'm still considering seeing it in the cinema, but something is off.

The most unfortunate comparisons my brain made when seeing the trailer was to this and this. These are movies that think the females can be a cross between female empowerment and a boy's wet dream. I'm sorry, but that doesn't work (Sarah on Chuck almost does it thanks to Strahovski, but her chick-fights are ridiculous). If Snyder is trying that nonsense here, I'm pretty sure those characters will leave no impact on me as every time I've seen someone try that it just screamed fake. An empowered female in a short skirt and high heels (I love Castle, but Beckett's high heels annoy me to no end)? I don't think so.

I like Snyder, I liked Watchmen, I have high hopes for Superman and I expected to love the trailer for Sucker Punch, but I'm calling "Trailer Fail". I'm saying that because this trailer has the most outrageous "trailer shots" I think I have ever seen, and it still is the worst trailer Snyder has presented (excluding Legend of the Guardians). 300 had the most quoted trailer ever, and Watchmen's trailers were probably the only reason the film made any money, but this does not look good.

Last edited Mon, 8th Nov 2010, 2:48pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 8th Nov 2010, 2:30pm

Post 3 of 49

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Games want to be like movies, movies seem to increasingly want to be like games. Or at least look like them.

Unsurprisingly, this looks totally terrible for me in a "I'm for 12 year olds" kind of way. neutral
Then again, most of Snyders work does. And 300 was good fun in the exact same way. This doesn't look like fun though.
Posted: Mon, 8th Nov 2010, 5:34pm

Post 4 of 49

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Maybe this is part of what is bothering me:

Why would a bunch a of girls make up a fantasy more fitted to the mind of a little boy? (I'm not asking for spoilers, so I'm just hoping the film answers.)

I talked about heart in my previous post, but actually I think the movie's critical success hinges on the conclusion. There's going to be some sort of twist or revelation in this film (it's pretty obvious considering what we see in the trailer) and it will either sink or hold up the whole film. By critical response I mean within the demographic, "The critics" are not going to like this one bit (they said The A-Team was too loud and over-the-top, and I think that's unfair so imagine what will happen to this).

This gives me hope:

"A while ago I had written a script for myself and there was a sequence in it that made me think, 'How can I make a film that can have action sequences in it that aren't limited by the physical realities that normal people are limited by, but still have the story make sense so it's not, and I don't mean to be mean, like a bulls--t thing like Ultraviolet or something like that... It's as crazy as anything else that I have ever done. It's a movie that nobody can get made with the ending that it has and the subject matter."

- Snyder


The fact that he bashes Ultraviolet is good (because then this film is not going to be like that). The fact that he hints at some originality in the narrative is good. I say no more.

Staff Only wrote:

I say no more.
Except this: why is the forum dead? After years of posting, and even more years lurking I can't remember it being this dead. I almost made a "Dead forum bailout thread" yesterday about how Tarn got busted for taking performance enhancing drugs in a marathon he was running. Now I'm starting to think I should have made it.
Posted: Mon, 8th Nov 2010, 7:40pm

Post 5 of 49

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Y'all are way overthinking this. "Zack Snyder's Nerd Fantasy Masturbation Machine", is all you need to know.
Posted: Mon, 8th Nov 2010, 7:58pm

Post 6 of 49

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

Y'all are way overthinking this. "Zack Snyder's Nerd Fantasy Masturbation Machine", is all you need to know.
Hmm, you know, with that in mind I think I'll just go and see it when it comes out. It must be pretty fun. 300 was after "Zack Snyder's Fantasy Masturbation Machine Female Edition", and I read he said this was 300 for the lads. I was expecting a 300/Watchmen trailer when I saw it. I was more hyped for the trailer than the film (I've seen the trailers for 300 and Watchmen waay more times then I'll ever see the films, even after I got the films on DVD/Blu-Ray).
Posted: Mon, 8th Nov 2010, 8:39pm

Post 7 of 49

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I thought 300 looked horrible when it was being advertised, and didn't see it until dvd, but then it blew me away. It was still a whole lot of stupid, but it was the kind of stupid that keeps company with really awesome.

I have a good feeling about Sucker Punch, despite its superficial appearance. And if it IS as superficial as it looks, and purely eye candy for kids, I'll eat my words, but something tells me I'm still going to enjoy it.

Just out of curiosity, did you see Speed Racer, and if so, what did you think?
Posted: Mon, 8th Nov 2010, 8:53pm

Post 8 of 49

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Sollthar - I think that's a bit unfair. The panoply of different emotions that an artform such as moviemaking can result in all pretty much have their worth. It's not because a movie chooses the more primal emotions that it's necessarily less good. As in, not every movie has to be deeply cerebral, and they can all coexist.

Personally I love these kinds of "sensory overload" movies when they're done with the proper visual flair. 300 was a good example of this, as it was pretty much entirely about the "OMG BADASS" gut reaction and had no real second layer of understanding and interpretation to it... but it was so masterful in its use of that that I fell in love with it.

Scott Pilgrim is another good example of this, where the movie is completely insane and devoid of much sense, but also completely awesome in its artistic vision and very groundbreaking.

And I'm hoping Sucker Punch will be in the same vein, which it seems like it will be. So count me in for seeing this in theatres.
Posted: Mon, 8th Nov 2010, 11:33pm

Post 9 of 49

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

Just out of curiosity, did you see Speed Racer, and if so, what did you think?
I've seen it twice and I liked it, but I didn't "love it". I was hyped with the trailer and I really wanted to love it, but it left me thinking: if only I'd seen this when I was 12. I can't remember exactly why it didn't hit all the way home, but I think it was mostly that Speed Racer opted for the visual style where you can "feel" the blue-screen all around you as you are watching. Like Sky Captain or the evening weather. Lots of the scenes felt like it was just actors (foreground) and blue-screen replacement (background) and it wasn't easy to get into a film like that (Sky Captain didn't work for me for the same reason). Also the racing scenes were cool, but I would have liked that they tried to keep the feeling of weight the cars had consistent (violate the laws of physics all you want, but at least let it "feel" right). Otherwise the story was decent, the acting was good and the characters were likable so it was an all-round fun movie, but nothing stood out as really impressive other than the budget to risky project ratio.

I think the bright colours and look of the film could have worked well for me, but I would have liked less Sky Captain blue-screening and more Revenge of the Sith.
Posted: Mon, 8th Nov 2010, 11:49pm

Post 10 of 49

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

You did get that the whole point of Speed Racer and what made it so great was how completely insane it was during the racing scenes, though, right? Some of the moments in that film were damn near magical to me.

I think what it might come down to is that some people are able to go into full-on "WOOHOO" sensory overload mode during films like these, whereas others seem to not connect with it as well. Whether that's a quality or a sign of weakness, though, I can't tell.
Posted: Tue, 9th Nov 2010, 6:36am

Post 11 of 49

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Speed Racer, to me, succeeded on one word:

Brooding-quasi-philosophical-moment-of-truth-voiceover-montage-clips-and-melodramatic-musical-ending-with-orgasmic-visuals-culminating-in-a-cinematic-pulp-of-felt-importance.

That's all I'm gonna say. wink
Posted: Tue, 9th Nov 2010, 7:18am

Post 12 of 49

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Swirly checkerboards, man.
Posted: Tue, 9th Nov 2010, 12:08pm

Post 13 of 49

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Swirly checkerboards, man.
The swirly checkerboards were awesome, but nothing in Speed Racer's action scenes came even close to the raw excitement I felt during the scenes in How To Train Your Dragon and those took place in a world where gravity seemingly existed. Some people might think gravity makes things boring (which it might in the real world), but gravity is the bread and butter in action-scenes. Apart from HTTYD my favorite action-scene this year is the corridor fight in Inception, an entire scene based in gravity.

The fact that the cars in Speed Racer behaved like they were they size of Hot Wheels didn't work for me. None of the action-scenes in Ultraviolet worked for me, and nothing in the visuals impressed me in Spy Kids 3D (except when I saw it as a ten year old) or the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. Weight is everything in action-scenes unless the point is that it's weightless (see 2001 and Inception for example). Also Speed Racer (like Sky Captain, Ultraviolet, Spy Kids 3D etc.) suffered from the "CGI camera" effect, where they didn't bother pretending they shot the CGI as they would have shot live-action. When the camera follows the action with impossible smoothness, does impossible moves (like going from a wide-shot to an extreme closeup of Speed's eye) and just doesn't feel natural it bothers me. Just look at behind the scenes on Iron Man 2. The shot where Iron Man jumps from the plane and gets hit by fireworks the ILM guys got told by Favreau to make the camera move seem less "convenient". He wanted the "camera operator" to "loose" Iron Man when the firework hit and have to find him again. The shot look ten times better for it.

Just my opinion.
Posted: Tue, 9th Nov 2010, 3:59pm

Post 14 of 49

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

So you just don't like stuff that doesn't feel realistic, even when it's done on purpose to achieve a certain style? That strikes me as kind of odd, but whatever floats your boat razz
Posted: Tue, 9th Nov 2010, 5:30pm

Post 15 of 49

mercianfilm

Force: 210 | Joined: 31st Dec 2006 | Posts: 687

Windows User

Member

If this is anything like his previous work i think it'll be good! His style is very unique and a lot of people try to replicate it but ultimately fail ( A good example is all the history documentaries that came out in the last couple fo years that blatantly copy 300- the slow motion, golden tones and rock music- terrible choice if you can't make it work like Snyder)
I saw a picture of this where they were in the trenches in world war 1- it made me nervous- i was hoping it wasn't going to be another one of those american films where some specialists come in and save the Brits and re-write history. Hopefully it won't be like that and i can sit and enjoy it.
I've got high hopes for this- maybe it will eb another 300 which i think was one of his best works- Watchmen somehow didn't work for me- maybe because i wasn't aware of the comics i don't know. For me. i'm hoping this will be a return to form for him!
Posted: Tue, 9th Nov 2010, 5:35pm

Post 16 of 49

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

even when it's done on purpose to achieve a certain style?
This is an important distinction. There's a big difference to unrealistic CGI and sloppy CGI. Speed Racer is the former and Spy Kids 3D the latter (but I'm not bashing Spy Kids 3D because I do think that film kicks ass). And my point isn't really about the broad term: "realism". The chase scene in The Island is one of my favorite action scenes and I loved the waaay over-the-top stuff in Die Hard 4.0 and The A-Team. All those scenes are pretty far-fetched, but I don't want my point to sound like: "As long as the effects mimic real life." Take 300 or The Podrace in Phantom Menace. I like the look of 300 and The Podrace even though it looks like nothing that would exist in real life. My top issues with CGI are: weight, camera movement, bad tracking for compositing and scale.

If I had noticed scale problems in The Lord of the Rings from shot to shot (hobbit/dwarf/human), or in Transformers, or in Avatar (Na'vi/human) that could have ruined the whole experience of those films for me. I would condemn any VFX Award they got as a result. I know that there exists minor scale problems in The Lord of the Rings because of the relatively cheap/DVRebel style of forced perspective that Jackson often uses, but it's done masterfully and I don't notice the mistakes I've read about when I'm watching.

Also when blue-screening it is of utmost importance for my enjoyment of the shot that there are three independently moving elements at all times: background, foreground and camera and they must match perfectly. If the live-action element (often actors) in the foreground is practically parented to the camera it just looks like driving scenes in Seinfeld. Also if the tracking isn't up to scratch you get the car-scene from T2 (the wost visual effect in an otherwise groundbreaking film, after the escape the T-1000 at the mental hospital. T2 is excused because it's from 1991.) which looks awful and also ruins my entire enjoyment of the scene.

Finally there is weight. CGI objects just have to have the right weight. I think this has to do with the fact that without weight there is no tension in an action scene to me. I really like most of the amazing action scenes in Final Fantasy: Advent Children, but weight problems bother me here as well. I really have no good way of explaining this. It just must feel right. It's a bit like when they use obvious wires in an action scene. For Hong Kong martial arts films they have found a way that looks very elegant. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hero have brilliant action scenes. But in films like X-Men Origins: Wolverine or Twilight where they use wires to make someone "super-jump" it is just so obvious to me that the "jump" i.e. the actors legs didn't push off nearly hard enough to jump that high and it looks laughable. Contrast that to amazing wire-work like in Superman Returns or even in The A-Team in the scene where B.A. kicks a guy across the room. Is is pretty unrealistic that he could do that, but the speed/force/direction of the kick corresponds nicely with the guys flight across the room and it just feels right. Lucas apparently agrees with me as he cut a Force-Jump from Revenge of the Sith because he didn't like the wire-work (and I thought the deleted scene looked great compared to other super-jumps) and all the Force-Jumps I remember from The Prequels were done with CGI stunt-doubles (which looks much better). Of course with exceptions like Obi-Wan in Dual of the Fates (done with clever cutting).

I don't know if you know what I'm trying to say.
Posted: Tue, 9th Nov 2010, 5:40pm

Post 17 of 49

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Staff Only wrote:

I don't know if you know what I'm trying to say.
I'm not sure if you do, either. wink
Posted: Tue, 9th Nov 2010, 5:41pm

Post 18 of 49

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

I'm not sure if you do, either. wink
I know what I'm trying to say. I don't know if I'm saying it right. confused

Edit: In any case this has nothing to with Sucker Punch as I didn't really see those issues in the trailer. I do however wonder why Snyder downgraded the amount of big VFX houses from Watchmen (Sony Pictures Imageworks) when this clearly has more effects. Guess he thinks that he'll get more bang for his buck at smaller houses. Not that ones he has are small. More like medium.
Posted: Tue, 9th Nov 2010, 5:49pm

Post 19 of 49

mercianfilm

Force: 210 | Joined: 31st Dec 2006 | Posts: 687

Windows User

Member

Staff Only wrote:

Aculag wrote:

I'm not sure if you do, either. wink
I know what I'm trying to say. I don't know if I'm saying it right. confused

I get what you're saying and i agree with you too- there is a diferance between vfx that has been done to look incredulous and unrealistic, and vfx that has just been done badly. Die hard 4.0 was a good point actually- the whole sequence with the jet on the motorway thing was amazing! even if it was far fetched it was made to be very visually exciting for the viewer and i think it achieved that.
Posted: Tue, 9th Nov 2010, 5:52pm

Post 20 of 49

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Pooky - I loved 300! It's manly, it's puberty, it's loud and it's OMG IN YOUR FACE in that "It's for 12 year olds" kind of way. I enjoyed it immensly. I'd also argue it works on an different level too though. 300 is also, in it's own weird way, kind of clever. It's a hilarious construction of legend heroism. And most of all it's cool.

This just doesn't look cool to me. It looks lame. Very lame.
Posted: Tue, 9th Nov 2010, 5:56pm

Post 21 of 49

mercianfilm

Force: 210 | Joined: 31st Dec 2006 | Posts: 687

Windows User

Member

I think why 300 was so good was because it was such a breath of fresh air from the films that are ultra realistic and try to be historically accurate- they are usually graded in very grey and drab colours wheras 300 was so vibrant. Films like Troy sort of tried the stylised fighting and a bit of grading but didn't go far enough. 300 was crazy- but in a good way!
Posted: Tue, 9th Nov 2010, 11:24pm

Post 22 of 49

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Scott Pilgrim is another good example of this, where the movie is completely insane and devoid of much sense, but also completely awesome in its artistic vision and very groundbreaking.
Just want to say that I finally watched this today, and loved it. Awesome stuff.
Posted: Wed, 10th Nov 2010, 12:25am

Post 23 of 49

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

Staff Only wrote:

I don't know if you know what I'm trying to say.
I'm not sure if you do, either. wink
He's trying to say that it's great when stuff defies gravity, but only when it feels like there's gravity for it to defy. I totally agree. For me, one of the major failures in the Matrix's fight scenes was that nothing felt like it had any weight (I'm referring to all three films). It feels like a person could just be slapped across the room as easily as punched. Take, for instance, 1:42 and 2:13 in this video. The sound effects were no louder or more visceral and Neo was tossed through the air like a toy. Now I know these scenes are not CGI, but the point is the same.
An unrealistic camera contributes to this feeling. That one shot in Return of the King that follows the boulder as it is catapulted into the Orcs suffered slightly from this.
Posted: Wed, 10th Nov 2010, 2:38am

Post 24 of 49

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

Pooky wrote:

Scott Pilgrim is another good example of this, where the movie is completely insane and devoid of much sense, but also completely awesome in its artistic vision and very groundbreaking.
Just want to say that I finally watched this today, and loved it. Awesome stuff.
Really suggest rewatching it at least once to catch all the stuff you missed the first time. On my first viewing I really liked it, on my second viewing it went into my Top 10.
Posted: Wed, 10th Nov 2010, 2:48am

Post 25 of 49

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Really suggest rewatching it at least once to catch all the stuff you missed the first time. On my first viewing I really liked it, on my second viewing it went into my Top 10.
It's on my list of BDs to buy when I can. It's so fast paced, I know I missed a ton of stuff.
Posted: Wed, 10th Nov 2010, 4:09am

Post 26 of 49

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Yeah I'm really loving the Bluray so far - ridiculous amount of extras.
Posted: Wed, 10th Nov 2010, 10:14pm

Post 27 of 49

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

film looks crap
Posted: Thu, 11th Nov 2010, 12:40am

Post 28 of 49

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

yea u must be rite cause the smartest thoghts are alwys said with no grammer

It looks fun, but sort of like it takes itself too seriously. There are too many teary eyes and passionately-delivered lines in the first part of the trailer, the latter being continued all the way through. I'm thinking it's probably going to suffer from the same problem as the Expendables did (besides a sometimes cringe-worthy script): the action will be good, but there won't be enough of it. Look at 300's trailer: the very first line screamed "We are bada*ses!" and never stopped. Sucker Punch's trailer seemed to take too long to get to the action.

I hope the movie doesn't run on hot actresses either. I mean...they're not bad-looking, but honestly hold no interest for me.
Posted: Thu, 11th Nov 2010, 5:29am

Post 29 of 49

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

They're all pretty good actresses, though. Not just Jessica Albas and Megan Foxes thrown around like hot soup- and in that same token, they aren't all insanely hot.

Because, well, you just don't get top ten brains with top ten looks. Or so I've always seen be the case.
Posted: Sun, 27th Mar 2011, 9:56pm

Post 30 of 49

DX6channel

Force: 496 | Joined: 9th Jul 2009 | Posts: 110

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Bump.

Any of you seen it yet?
Posted: Sun, 27th Mar 2011, 10:07pm

Post 31 of 49

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Apparently it's a completely over-indulgent flop, like I posited in my first post. Bummer, but not entirely surprising. I'll check it out when it's on Netflix.

Hopefully this sh*tstorm of hate this film has received won't affect Superman.
Posted: Sun, 27th Mar 2011, 10:28pm

Post 32 of 49

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I saw it. Story is drivel, it seems like it's trying to be smart but it's just a jumbled mess of confused and ultimately pointless plot elements. It makes no sense. Production values were insane, though: some amazing cinematography, action, effects and general sense of style, as expected. Worth seeing for the dreamscape action scenes, skip the rest.

You want a completely over the top film that only guys will enjoy that will leave you completely speechless and confused afterwards? Go watch "Hobo With A Shotgun". While walking out after the movie ended, I overheard some guy say, "Let's never speak of that again."
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 12:31am

Post 33 of 49

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

I saw it and enjoyed it. It takes a fair bit of paying attention and thinking to work it out, so if you go in expecting mindless action you will likely have trouble following it. There are three levels of imagination/symbolism going on, so it can get a bit convoluted. In addition, it doesn't spell everything out in the end, so there are some questions left for you to answer yourself, again, requiring some thinking on the viewer's part.

Visually, it is superb, on pretty much every level. The camera moves/angles and production design were powerfully used to support the story and develop character. Also, the action sequences were pretty cool.
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 1:22am

Post 34 of 49

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Three levels? What three levels? Seemed to me like it spelled it out fairly clearly in the end, no?
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 1:47am

Post 35 of 49

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

The real world level, the Nightclub level and the battle world level. that's three, right? And everything that happened in the second and third levels was symbolic for something happening in the first.

I thought it did make sense at the end, but in In your first post you said the story was jumbled and didn't make sense, and now you are saying it all spelled out clearly, so I'm not sure what to make of that.
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 2:19am

Post 36 of 49

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Having seen practically every movie that has come out since January (I got out of Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2 literally seconds ago) I can safely put Sucker Punch squeaky at the bottom of the list.

This movie, and I very very very very rarely say this, was terrible. a cacophony of noise, periless sequences and a huge mess of direction that made little sense past what you could gather from really trying hard to discern- poor and mishandled use of Snyder's usually dazzlingly visual montage-set-to-intriguing-cover-song-sequences several times over; inconsistent style and acting- bad writing, poor audio leveling, indiscernible editing, and a lackluster and overindulgent ending.

The 'Where Is My Mind' opening sequence offered such huge promise and artistry to the movie, but then completely buckled under not having any idea what kind of movie it wanted to be, where it wanted to go, what angle it wanted to take, or what it wanted the audience to feel.

Aimless. That's the best way to describe it. I really, really disliked most of this movie. Even the visuals, editing, technical orchestration- it was easily the always-enjoyable-Zack-Snyder's worst attempt. I didn't care about any of the characters, I found the tone hard to read and the visuals not redeeming enough to save the convoluted narrative.

The bright spots were, as I mentioned- the opening sequence- and then the ending diatribe of the pimp/orderly and the small, but well-acted and well-shot portions with Jon Hamm.

After the enthusiastic, positive cinema of Cedar Rapids, The Adjustment Bureau, Take Me Home Tonight, I Am Number Four, Unknown, Rango, Limitless, The Lincoln Lawyer, and a few others- I knew I was bound to found a rotten egg. Sucker Punch was it.

Avoid this movie like the plague. It's not cool, it's not technically special, it's not hot or sexy, it's not fun. It's dull, messy, and a sad speedbump in the filmography of the very talented Snyder.

3.5/10
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 2:49am

Post 37 of 49

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Spoilers.

At the end, you see a bunch of elements from the nightclub level in the real world level, which tells us that it was real (the butcher is missing his knife, etc.) So there's only actually two levels, the real one and the one she makes up when she dances.

What I meant in saying it's jumbled wasn't that it was confusing, more that it felt aimless and never went anywhere. The end premise is basically that lobotomy is bliss, that the bad guy is bad, and that the girl who we've been antagonizing all this time deserved her freedom. Also, that the guru dude was actually some creepy bus driver, which made no sense as far as I can tell.


@Atom - You did at least find the whole scene with the mayor really f@%?ing badass and well-edited, right?
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 3:50am

Post 38 of 49

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Scene with the mayor in the club, or the dragon castle scene? Both portions just seemed screechingly loud and mishmashed together. Nothing particularly special.
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 4:45am

Post 39 of 49

The FE

Force: 435 | Joined: 10th Apr 2007 | Posts: 580

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

All your reviews make me sad sad I was SO looking forward to this movie, I almost saw it on Saturday night but got stuck watching Battle LA instead (which kicks ass by the way) I'm still going to see it on Tuesday hopefully. Damn it, now I'm depressed.
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 7:22am

Post 40 of 49

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Saw the movie. It would literally have been more serviceable had they gone more straight on fantasy, like The Fall (which is a modern masterpiece, in my opinion) or even more full-on exploitation with more skirt-twirling and sex-based elements.

But instead it's a terrible mish-mash in locations I don't care about (even if they look cool) with people I don't care about, with an objective I don't care about. The part of the trailer that got me intrigued was the 'you'll need to find five items', but even that wasn't really the crux of ANYTHING in the movie; because it's so indulged in random sh!t that the items are unimportant. In better movies, these would be the McGuffin, like The Rabbit's Foot or the Golden Case or Nick Fisher's watch, and we enjoy the mere fact that these items, while insignificant, gave us the plot threads of the movie we've seen.

Sucker Punch was over-the-top and action-laden, but it wasn't 'badass'. I think that was the issue. Some good acting from the orderly/pimp in a latter scene in the movie, and again in moments like Jon Hamm's few scenes, but yeah..............I actually don't think I've cared less for characters in a movie.

Right away we dive into the 'fantasy world' of the film, without explanation or reason or even an 'okay, so as the story is delivered in one world we see it played out in the fantasy world' or some hierarchical guideline for how the plot is supposed to work. But does the film start in media res to 'throw' us into the action? No......instead, we're treated to an ALL SLOW-MO FOR TEN MINUTES ALL THE TIME DRAMATIC OH SO SLOW MOTION AND SNYDER-ESQUE scene of this girl (forget her name, even, Emily Browning) to reveal that her mother is dead and her sister might get raped, or something. Ultimately it doesn't matter because the movie sets this up slowly and awkwardly to an assembly of famous cover songs that - while watching these scenes, I wished to be over. I've never prayed more for slow-motion scenes to return to regular motion so I can get on with my life.

Then we hop immediately to a mental institution, which we don't see again until the end of the film, as it's soon 'transformed' into a brothel/burlesque hall without warning or hesitation.

The movie is aimless. I didn't know what the plot was, if there was one. There was no despair felt by me for any of the characters because I didn't know on what level they were angry, or in need, or ANYTHING.

Didn't care. Not my kind of film. This had more women, more skin, but was basically a budget version of Ninja Assassin, made with 10x as much money. Skip it. I asked for my money back in the end. And I seldom do that.
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 7:25am

Post 41 of 49

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I asked for my money back
Heh, you ask for your money back after watching a film you didn't like? Is that common in the US? smile
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 7:34am

Post 42 of 49

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The sound mix was off as well. So bad we had to plug our ears for half the movie. Recently (past 2 years) I've asked for my money back a handful of times (at Tron when the 3D was oversold and only a handicapped seat on the far left of the front row of the theater was available, couldn't see ANYTHING, even within reason, and at Limitless when the audio was too low to hear the music mix) but maybe only 5 or 6 times in my life, and never for non-technical reasons (save Kill Bill, Vol: 1 when I was 13 and The Ten when I was 16) I just thought it bears mentioning that I asked for my money back because the film's poor quality was about half of why I went ahead with getting the refund.

I seldom (read: NEVER) fail to find some good in movies, and I'm always evaluating films on what they did that I enjoyed. In Sucker Punch, it was so meaninglessly indulgent that I had a hard time enjoying any of it. Even the cleavage-in-action bits.

Also, as frequent moviegoers and consumers of all the stuff at the theater (concessions, the 'card club', etc) it's pretty fundamental that if something is really, really wrong with our 10 dollar movie watching experience - as in, off projection or sound AND terrible movie - then it doesn't justify having spent that 10 dollars.

They of course don't actually refund the money, just offer free passes - which, in our case, doesn't lose them money because we'll still see a half-dozen movies in theaters every month anyhow.
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 2:27pm

Post 43 of 49

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'd say the trend is picking up if you've only done it 5 or 6 times in your life, and three of those have been since December. wink

Also, I love that you asked for your money back for an R-rated film when you were 13.
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 3:54pm

Post 44 of 49

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The trend has picked up because disparity in technology has picked up. More 3D or THX-sound or DLP-projected movies in theaters means that older theaters (or ones with many screens) have less proficiency and quality control in projection and sound sync, etc. In the few times since December, it's a largely been a 'we're messing with the reels for the 3D copy' issue.

Also, I'm older, value money more, and increasingly realize the high experiential value I put on movie-going, so I want my money - if I indeed spend it frequently at the theater, which I do - to go further and do more.

Moreover, the Kill Bill refund was with my dad, who took me to see Kill Bill after copious persuasion, as he's not a Tarantino fan. We then got into the movie and I was shocked by the rape stuff in the beginning, so we left. Yes, we didn't like the movie, but it was far from a sold out theater and we left less than 20 minutes into the film, so the only thing the theater lost monetarily, really, was the ink and paper for the tickets.

But yes, it has picked up. It's less to do with my own growing consumerism and more with an (ineffective) trend in constantly updating the 'technologies' of theatrical exhibition.
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 4:10pm

Post 45 of 49

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Interesting to even ask for a refund in a cinema. I only asked twice if I could instead visit another screening of the same price - once when I went to see a film that was advertised as being shown in its english original form but ended up being a german dub, and once when a digital projection kept freezing and crashing every 30 or so seconds.
Both times I went out less then 10 minutes into the movie

So I get the logic behind faulty technicals. Just thought you'd go and ask for a refund if you didn't like the film. That would have been interesting and certainly unheard of here. smile
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 4:17pm

Post 46 of 49

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I asked for a refund when I went to see Euro Trip and walked out a third of the way in. And I got it. They could see the look in my eyes.
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 4:34pm

Post 47 of 49

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I saw Eurotrip twice in theaters, on HBO about 10 times, bought the DVD, bought the UMD for PSP, and torrented the Bluray of it. Great film. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 28th Mar 2011, 4:42pm

Post 48 of 49

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Euro Trip is garbage...

The only time I've ever gotten a refund for a movie ticket was when I saw I Heart Huckabee's at the Austin Film Festival, and the projector broke halfway through. Everyone got a free pass. But having friends who have worked at theaters in the past, from what I understand, people ask for refunds all the time for trivial issues. There are certainly people out there who just want to complain and get free stuff. I totally understand doing it if there was an actual problem with the presentation, though.
Posted: Wed, 30th Mar 2011, 12:14am

Post 49 of 49

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

This movie was trash. I can't put into words how much this movie sucked. My company took everyone to see it during work so I'm thankful I didn't lose any money on this.

Horrible.