Movie Review: Sucker Punch (2011)
Zack Snyder's barely legal wet dream set to a Bjork remix
Photo: Warner Bros.
Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake showed the promise of a fun and exciting young director. 300 delivered on that promise but also showed the first signs of story taking a back seat to visual effects. 2009's Watchmen seemed to complete the metamorphosis as Snyder completely gave in to eye-gasms and fanboy gloss. So I can't say it comes as a surprise that Sucker Punch mercilessly pummeled me into unconsciousness.
The cast includes Emily Browning, Vanessa Anne Hudgens, Abbie Cornish, Jamie Chung, Jena Malone, Carla Gugino, Jon Hamm, Scott Glenn and Oscar Isaac. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Sucker Punch" is a Warner Bros. release, directed by Zack Snyder and is rated PG-13 for thematic material involving sexuality, violence and combat sequences, and for language. The running time is 2 hours.
Set during the 1950s, Sucker Punch centers on a girl we'll come to know as Babydoll (Emily Browning) following the accidental death of her younger sister whom she was trying to save from their step father's sexual advances. In an attempt to hide what really happened, Babydoll's step father commits her to a mental hospital and pays off an orderly (Oscar Isaac) to expedite a lobotomy. But before that can happen, she slips in and out of one imagined reality into the next where she and her new found friends attempt to escape the confines of the institution holding them captive.
This Shutter Island scenario is only the start as reality gives way to layered imagination. We're not talking all out Inception here, but what we first see as a mental hospital gives way to a '50s nightclub and Babydoll is no longer a patient, but one of several lingerie-clad hookers dancing for dollars.
Joining Babydoll are Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), Amber (Jamie Chung) and Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish). Equipped with names you'd give a child if you wanted their career paths to end in the arms of Ron Jeremy, this fist of softcore fury teams up to break out.
With the story before you, understand the set up is by no means the problem with this film. Described by Snyder as "Alice in Wonderland with machine guns," it's actually the seed for a potentially fun story. It's just too bad this seed grows into a weed. Lacking in any kind of valuable sustenance all you want to do is kill it.
As Babydoll slips into her alternate reality she and her fellow inmates face off against a zombie army, dragons, giant samurai warriors and armed robots. This is where Sucker Punch becomes almost abusive of its audience. Rock music, explosions and gun fire blend into a cacophony of noise accompanied by whip pans and Snyder's continued use of exaggerated slow motion. Our heroines battle with all their might, but your concern is not with their well-being, but instead with when it will come to an end so you can give your eyes and ears a rest.
Complaints aside, Snyder's visual talent is not to be ignored. The guy knows how to make things look cool. His trailers show promise of a cinematic orgasm set to the tune of the latest Bjork remix, whetting your appetite for a theatrical experience unlike any you've seen. Unfortunately, visual style gives way to excess. Snyder is out of control as he even decides a bucket of falling potatoes deserves a dramatic slow motion shot as they crash to the ground. Potatoes!
The editing of this picture also appears to be an afterthought. At one point it felt as if an entire reel had gone missing and in another instance a conversation is had nearly 10 minutes after it should have probably occurred.
Snyder doesn't do his actors any favors either. Emily Browning struts around like a 16-year-old looking for her cyber stalker, Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Chung play the vixen roles, Jena Malone plays the hardcore innocent and Abbie Cornish simply sees her reputation as an actress tarnished as she gets every ounce of corny, over dramatic push back dialogue one film can handle.
The majority of the film's dialogue, though, belongs to Carla Gugino as the hospital's head psychologist and Oscar Isaac as not only a hospital orderly in the real world, but the equivalent of a pimp in the imagined one. Then there's Scott Glenn (The Right Stuff) as he channels David Carradine's Kill Bill persona as Babydoll's dreamworld guide known only as Wise Man. Glenn is given the distinguishable duty of delivering such clever battle cries as, "Don't ever write a check with your mouth you can't cash with your ass." Uh… what?
As the stupidity rains down around you, at last you must try and decipher what all of this means.
Sucker Punch left me with the message that while being raped and abused it's probably best to dream about gunfights and massive explosions. When Babydoll slips into her dream world we're never witness to the hypnotic dance she supposedly uses to distract her audience from what's really going on. Of course, this isn't really a "dance," but instead a distraction from the abuse of a 20-year-old girl at the hands of lowlifes. What does this ultimately offer us? As far as I'm concerned, nothing.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 98 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Oh wow.
This is one of those movies where after seeing the second trailer you say to yourself "I don't care what the critics will say, i have to see this" and being a big fan of 300 and Watchmen, I most probably will.
But with a grade like F, i have to admit i am thinking twice.
Okay….it IS eyecandy…BUT I LOOOOOOVVVVVED it
If you're male and under 20, you may like it. Otherwise, all the eye candy in the world can't sweeten up this turd. It's a long, drawn-out, incoherent series of video-game-style battle scenes, played out by lingerie models.
Seriously. This is one of the absolute worst movies I've ever seen. And I've seen "The Room"! :-D
Overly critical is an understatement. If you go to the movie with the intent on seeing a great movie, this movie will deliver. If you're going to see a movie to point out its flaws, guess what? You're going to find its flaws.
The movie was original, incredibly stylized, and well executed. I would give it an A-.
ouch, what will be the first great movie of 2011!!!!!!
anyone? pleaseee god ive only seen rango this year and god i hated it
I don't normally like procedural/courtroom films or TV shows, but I liked The Lincoln Lawyer a ton. It probably won't make anyone's top ten list of 2011, but I thought it was very well shot, acted & directed.
It's Win Win, in my opinion. I also thought The Adjustment Bureau was pretty damn good.
This movie always looked pretty lame to me; sure, the trailers were flashy and full of pretty girls kicking ass, but the film looked like it'd be a pointless exercise to me. And this is coming from a guy who is quite literally in the target demographic.
However, that F made me completely curious. I think this is the trainwreck I've been waiting for. Drive Angry wasn't it. Maybe Sucker Punch has what it takes to be "The Last Airbender" of 2011.
Why do critics like brad hate fun?
It's like they are allergic to the stuff.
Sorry Brad
Oz, that's exactly what I've been noticing too, with several recent films. Brad, I usually love hearing your opinion and take on movies, but this review does feel a bit unnecessarily hateful towards what's just supposed to be a fun, cool movie. Sorry if my rant below was a little too harsh, but I just felt I had to say something about my growing concern about the trend Oz mentioned.
Brad hates what? The guy gave a B- to Clash of the Titans (agree completely) and C+ to Battle LA, just to name a few examples. This is a mess. It is not a fun movie.
They don't hate fun. They hate bad movies.
Please don't tell me you're one of those ignorant people who thinks critics hate action movies and dumn fun because it says more about yourself.
Battle: Los Angeles was given a good review. Iron Man and Iron Man 2 they've given good reviews to.
They don't hate Sucker Punch because it's fun. They hate it because it's a bad film, the badness removing any possibility of it being fun.
Reaccess your opinions, they're wrong.
first of all, it's impossible for an opinion to be wrong. Secondly,i really loved the movie,espescially with the imax experience. I respect brads and everyone elses opinion of the film, but this is mine, and I've reaccesed it plenty.
Maybe Brad knows a little bit about movies. Because this one was crap!
I'm honestly bothered by how critics have been thrashing this movie in such a ridiculous, by the book way. You could probably find the same reasoning almost word for word in a dozen or more reviews, and them some. It's like all these people went into the movie with a preconceived notion of what the movie was going to be, and no matter what they actually saw, they judged the movie based on that, I'm sorry to say it, completely close-minded notion.
I just might end up in the minority on this film, and I'll accept that, but I had a total blast with it. I don't think it was trash, I don't think it was just some 13-years old's fantasy. I thought it was a fun, original, and visually thrilling piece of entertainment. Was it perfect, no, probably not. But it was at least trying to be something interesting, and I think it succeeded in that regard. I urge everyone that was interested in seeing it to not be dissuaded by any reviews you read, and check out the movie for yourself and make up your own mind.
+1
-1
Just like how Transformers 2 was trash, eh?
Wow an F? Really, that's really too sh*tty of a rating… This has got to be the most entertaining movie of the year thus far. I enjoyed every bit of this movie. No it didn't have the best dialog nor script, but it sure did deliver on fun. B- from me.
"This has got to be the most entertaining movie of the year thus far."
I'm constantly baffled by why people keep falling back on this point, the 'because i enjoyed it, it can't be a bad film in the eyes of others' opinion
Brad saw the film and gave HIS opinion on it, you have seen it and you have YOUR opinion on it. If you liked it fine but don't rag on other opinions because they don't match yours, in most cases they never will and just because Brad gave it a bad review shouldn't detract from your experience.
do you see SKYLINE? you're going to love it
Please do not go see this…the only thing that could have saved this train wreck of a movie would have been an NC-17 rating…some T and A would of at least kept me from killing myself
Sometimes.. Crtics should go to hell!
And some commenters too!
I love the wit in your attacks. Thought about a sand-up career?
Wow, an F!? Guess I won't be seeing this in theaters anymore. The question nobody has asked is what are its chances for art direction Oscars? I feel like the movie may suck, but judging by the trailers, it has a fair shot at art direction and possibly even special effects.
The tagline of your review made me LOL. Not that I had plans to see the film in the first place.
Yeah, I'll be avoiding this one. It looked pretty bad to begin with.
terrible movie.
Brad, i recently saw a screening of Hobo with a Shotgun. It was pretty good.
Though I must say, the concept is actually pretty enticing.
Also: Emily Browning is ten times better an actress than she is here.
From what I've read, the movie required some heavy edits that Zach did not want to do to please the stupid MPAA. He's already announced that there will be a directors cut Blu-ray that will have all the edits put back in. Hopefully that will help some…
Zack Snyder is a great detail creator , why! Because his goal is to live a legacy which all directors do too.
"Potatoes!" I laughed out loud.
Great review, Brad. At first I was thinking this would be one of those movies that is entertaining but really dumb and fun to watch just to make fun of… in a "Transformers" kind of way. Now I am seriously reconsidering where I spend my $10.
first off.. stop the Fucking Inception comparisons to things (IT was okay it wasn't the holy grail of movies).. ONCE AGAIN.. IT LOOKS LIKE FUN & YOU ARE NOT LIKELY THE TARGET AUDIENCE. That drives me insane.,.. well the script this the visuals that.. each movie has a market and an audience sometimes they miss both (HELLO, MARS NEEDS MOMS) so to hear read an Adult mans review or Adult womans review on whether they think this is good is plain silly.. it just doesn't matter.. I took out of it what I wanted – it's visually awesome and fun.. that's EXACTLY what i wanted and expected in no way did a trailer like that suggest anything more.. seriously.. can we stop pretending that we're all going for a good story when 90% of trailers like this explain nothing and are just visual feasts and that's what gets us there.. AHHHHHHH
Wow,someone got up on the wrong side of bed this morning. :-)))
You have your own opinion and that's GREAT. No need to swear and spew the white stuff.
@Agreed – A good review is objective, properly critical and willing to praise what deserves to be praised. One need not agree with a critic's take for them to be worthwhile.
This is the thing that bugs me – the "don't analyse it" argument that mischaracterises critics. Nobody ever stated the movie needed to be deep or smart or sophisticated or intelligent or any other pretentious word.
It isn't as if reviewers ignore "fun" and "entertaining" while writing their pieces. Hell, I loved Face/Off and Die Hard, and Demolition Man is inexplicably among my top twenty all-time movie watches – choices I can hardly argue are reasoned or intelligent. But they're fun and exciting and engaging – I don't care how stupid they are, they are well-made films. Many critics will, surprisingly, agree of films like Face/Off and Die Hard (despite a few loud voices in protest). Hell, Star Trek from the year before last was a big fun blockbuster that managed to get huge critical support.
Just because the movie tries to be fun and entertaining doesn't mean it's good or underrated. It has to succeed to be worth our time, just like it isn't enough for a movie to try to be smart or deep or thought provoking. You betray a stronger bias than the reviewers you seek to critique.
Sorry for the rant.
Just take it easy, guy. It's an OPINION.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/sucker-punch,53611/
Looks like someone might be doing a bit of light plagiarizing. Just to let you know.
obvious troll is obvious
Because both reviews are negative and well-written, you assume plagiarism? They're otherwise nothing alike.
Are you referring to yourself? What in god's name was "plagiarized"?
There was no plagiarism there, sir. I'm not sure you are aware of what that is. Please reexamine the definition of the word.
I am going to stand up for Brad on this one, sight unseen (I confess!). It seems like the underlying message here is pretty dangerous and detrimental to its audience (a young audience which can stroll into a PG13 film). It is not enough to be loud and flashy. A piece of junk can be a piece of junk and appreciated as such. But Snyder has been talking this up as a great future classic. I will reserve judgement for myself on Sucker Punch, but Brad seems to have been fairly spot-on lately, as far as I can tell.
Having admitted in your article that you think the visuals were well done, how in turn can you give this film an F, an F implies there was nothing of value at all in the film.
While I completely agree that a decent narrative was lacking, that shouldn't have been your expectation if you had seen any of the trailers. If you go in expecting a visual and auditory feast, that is exactly what you will get… if you are expecting the acting quality of the fighter, or the script integrity of the kings speech, then spend your money elsewhere.
Very few films can juggle astonishing visuals & audio with powerful acting and scripting (though in the last year both inception and 127 hours managed to do so… kudos). If I went into the kings speech expecting intense visual stimulation and an original soundtrack, I would have given it an D, at best. As it is, I think it was a well acted piece of film with a solid storyline, I'd give it in the B-B+ range. With Sucker Punch, based on totally separate criteria, I'd give it a B-B- range.
If you know what you are going to see, Sucker Punch can be a very entertaining break from reality. Just don't expect life changing revelations from the script or acting, enjoy it for what it is, a visceral feast for your eyes and ears (leave your brains at home).
I'd disagree on your basic premise. Transformers 2 had solid effects and sound design, yet was agonizingly long and terribly written; ie an F. Grades, which mean far less than an overall feeling which the review puts forth, are based on an overall observation.
while i agree that transformers 2 had a horrible plot & was terribly acted, I saw that for the same reason, for the spectacle of it. the fight scene in the forest was phenomenally done & the satisfaction of watching my childhood playthings come to life was priceless. I dont think it warranted above a C-C+, but once again, there were pieces of that movie that I enjoyed, even if they had nothing to do with the plot or acting.
An F means there is absolutely nothing "solid" in the film. If you admit that there are "solid" effects and sound design in Transformers 2, it's by definition not a film you could goive the worst possible grade to. You admit that some of the people who worked on the movie did a good job, so no matter how small it is, there is still SOMETHING of value. "Overall observation" that you are talking about has to include all aspects of the film, effects and sound too. To put it simply you are just contradicting yourself.
Nick – I'd disagree again. Every film has something solid in it, whether it's the foley work, credit design or a decent performance. Leap Year, for example, is well lit, has a decent performance by Matthew Goode as well. However, the bad in it far outweighs anything else. To me, the equivalent is a terribly written song, horribly produced, but with a drumbeat that keeps time well. The overall can be brought down by certain elements being atrocious.
To me, an F just means the reviewer hated it, even if there were some technically sound aspects to it. If you hate it, you hate it.
I agree, Susan. Look at how the letter grading system is used in schools. Someone is given an 'F' if they score below 50%. Someone doesn't have to receive a 0 to receive an F. This is why I use the /10 rating system, and Sucker Punch, to me, is a 0.5/10. The only film I've ever given a 0/10 to is actually Transformers 2, as I found nothing, not even the effects, impressive.
I'm still surprised when I see people get this mad about someone's opinion. This is a review, feel free to discuss it but don't say that an opinion is wrong, it just makes you look like an idiot. Potential spoilers ahead!!!
Now, I wouldn't give this movie an F but I see what Brad means. I liked some of the action scenes but I didn't care for the story and the characters at all. I was well aware that this was a movie where you shouldn't think too much, but that shouldn't stop a movie from having interesting characters where you at least care about a bit (even if it's just because they're badass). Snyder has shown that he can do that in my opinion, I liked his remake of Dawn of the Dead and cared for the characters in that movie (especially CJ! :)). I liked Watchmen as well and consider Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach to be one of the best performances in a comic book movie to date. But here it didn't do anything for me. Babydoll gets lobotomized and I wasn't shocked or anything. What was the point that this movie tried to make? It just wasn't clear to me.
I'm not someone who can't enjoy brainless movies. Last year I really liked The A-Team, Machete and 2012 even if they were flawed. But I had a great time just because they were ridiculous, cheesy and over the top and they sold it. But Sucker Punch just didn't work for me. The visuals are stunning, there are some great action scenes but inbetween it was uneven and none of the dialogue made me care in any way for the characters. At times it felt like they took good action scenes from other movies/games and created a story around it.
You just summed up everything I've been trying to say!
Wow. That was harsh, but still, you don't give F's for no reason.
seen it a while ago, i gotta say that it gets a grade of C, honestly this is a movie that's just fun, fun and fun. although there were some dragging points of the movie but honestly, its not a movie that critics would love but its something about the fun factor.
Well, I think Brad nailed it.
i liked 300 for the shirtless actors and the score even if it was a piece of junk in my opinion and because of this movie, Gerald Butler is more or less an A list action actor and here i feel i'm not the good people to see the movie(i'm a 30 years old woman)
Why do I feel this thread might be more interesting than the actual film?
A reviewer can write whatever review they decide is appropriate for the film in question, based on their opinion, that's quite obvious. It's also the case that said reviews won't likely ever be agreed with.
But on the other hand, aren't we letting (perhaps) too many movies off the hook with the 'Your meant to turn off your brain' these days. I mean, I don't count myself out of doing that, but it seems to be an argument used more and more as a reason that someone 'should' like a given film. That, I think, isn't always a solid reason to let a movie off the hook.
Wasn't the point earlier at Christmas time being that thanks to films like Inception, True Grit, The King's Speech, Black Swan, The Social Network that the great thing was you DIDN'T have to switch your brain off and be pulverised by nothing but visuals because these were all successful films that had stories and some involvement to them without having to switch off. Not to say they were all complex, but more than 'just sit back and drool' sorta stuff.
There IS a place for such films……….but EVERY major film?
Just a musing I had reading down the comments.
Oh man, what a bad film. It's not the worst I've ever seen, or even the worst I've paid to see, but it's awful. As I was watching it I was thinking it probably wasn't an F for me, maybe a D-, because some of the early action was mildly cool, even though it contributed nothing to the plot and was basically like a passive video game. But even the action got repetitive and boring by the end.
I will say though on the acting front that I thought Jena Malone and Abbie Cornish gave decent performances, or at least did the best they could with the terribly written material. They were certainly better than Emily Browning, who was completely flat the whole time, as were Jamie Chung and Vanessa Hudgens…not to mention those last two played completely pointless characters.
All in all, I feel like I need to scrub my brain out after watching this film.
I have to say, movies like 'True Grit', 'Black Swan' or 'The Fighter' are GREAT movies. Oscar worthy/nominated movies that are outstanding. But they are movies I wouldn't spend money twice at the theaters on. 'Sucker Punch' happens to be one of the enjoyable ones where I'd GLADLY pay twice to see; just saying.
True Grit was AMAZING. I've seen it three times! Sucker Punch, on the other hand, was awful. And that's coming from someone who loved 300 and Watchmen, and even liked movies like Clash of the Titans and Battle: Los Angeles!
hey guys i might be seeing a movie tomorrow and im not sure if i should see Limitless or Sucker Punch. if you can, tell me which one you enjoyed more if you've seen them both. thanks
PO-TA-TOES! Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew, boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew…
Oh, and by the way, Sucker Punch sucked. I loved 300, Watchmen and even Legend of the Guardians, but Sucker Punch was just terrible.
To each it's own everybody but I thought Sucker Punch was one of the most enjoyable flicks i've seen in a long time the same with another movie critics bashed Battle: Los Angeles. I also thought Sucker Punch was well, i wouldn't say "original" because it had a little mix of Inception & The Matrix in ther but "different", it's the most different movie i've seen since Inception. My grade A+
Brad I must say, I agree with your reviews often.
However, the fact that you put a piece of garbage movie like Scott Pilgrim in your top 10 really bothered me.
DON'T YOU DARE INSULT SCOTT PILGRIM!!!!!!!!
Sorry. I love Scott Pilgrim; I couldn't hep myself.
An F…insanity. This movie was original with really amazing visuals and good acting. There was nothing "wet dream" about it. Nobody was underaged. Zach Synder is one of the greatest filmmakers of today besides Nolan and Anderson.
I, myself am a current film student and I was insulted by this film. I've been working in theatre for the last 3 years, as a director, actor and lighting designer and let me tell you our budgets are miniscule!!! Zack Synder has been given a scandalous amount of money to make a film that adds nothing to the world we live in! IT IS NOT FUN! Slo-mo potatoes are boring! With this size of a budget I want to see something that makes me feel alive i.e The Dark Knight, Inception or Toy Story 3.
It is time we forget about the likes of Zack Synder or McG and start trusting directors like Shane Meadows or Lenny Abrahamson who deliver time after time!
Brad, you need to check out Dead Man's Shoes, This is England, Adam and Paul and Garage. Seriously man forget U.S films just for one week and do a piece on the UK and Ireland!!
I don't understand the arguments that if you ignore the flaws, you can have fun and that's what matters. Personally, I hate watching a film when I know what's happening is insulting my intelligence. Call it pride or whatever you want, but it just isn't fun to me. Great effects, great one-liners and cool sequences cannot repair the fact that whatever happening is making me think "That doesn't make sense". It's not an argument to say "it's fun" if you just ignore your intelligence and watch it as a "popcorn flick", because to me, acting stupid for 2 hours and a half for a few giggles is not fun at all.
No, I think you're a film snob. I hate Sucker Punch, but that's not because it didn't "make me think", it was because the story didn't make any sense, the ending made the whole thing pointless, it tried to be three movies in one, and all of the good parts were in the trailer. I can, however, apprecnaite an entertaining popcorn movie, despite its flaws. I love TRON Legacy, for instance, because I had a great time watching it. Yes, the dialogue was flat at points, but the visuals and sound were amazing, the story was engaging, and I really enjoyed myself watching it. On the other hand, I didn't really like Citizen Kane because it was boring and outdated, even though it was a well made film. Not every movie has to be intelligent and well-acted for it to be a good movie.
"Not every movie has to be intelligent and well-acted for it to be a good movie."
I don't think that's what Feedback was saying at all. I love "light" movies that aren't necessarily "intelligent" movies too. But like "Feedback", this movie had me thinking, "That doesn't make sense." To continue watching the movie, and to continue trying to *enjoy* it, I had to keep telling myself, "Oh, well. Just stop trying to figure out what that meant / how that happened", etc. And I kept having to do that over and over, until I finally got annoyed with it. So, yeah, I would say I felt this movie insulted my intelligence, too. And I'm definitely not a film snob.
I'm not defending Sucker Punch. I explicitly said at the beginning of my post that I hate it! I'm just saying that there are plenty of good movies that don't "make you think". Sucker Punch is a confusing mess, but that doesn't mean all fantasy/sci-fi movies are.
awesomely awesome review brad, even though i havent seen this one yet, i bet its terrible. i fell asleep halfway through the trailer. if i wanted to see what this movie offers, i got video games for that. im not going to put myself through this childish BS.
super 8 is the only hope! JJ Abrams always delivers.
Oh well. Sorry you felt that way Brad but it is just oozing with too much awesome to ignore.
All parts that were oozing with awesome were in the trailer. As much as I hate Sucker Punch, I've got to admit that the trailer blew me away.
I went into the movie expecting fun popcorn flick, and thinking screw what the critics say. This movie was flashy and made things look cool in action scenes and cgi but the movie sucks. It was a bit hard to know and you get confused, until someone let's you know or re-assure what's happening. I see a directors cut for this cause it felt it was missing some stuff to let viewers understand what's happening.
I don't think I have ever liked anything Zack Snyder has made, and I assume this movie is no exception. I have been worried about the new Superman movie once I was heard he was directing it. It was also a pretty uninspired choice, in my opinion.
Funnily enough, This review made me curious enough to give this a watch….and i found it moderately entertaining….a harmless diversion actually…definitely doesent deserve an F..i don't know which movie u watched …but then you are entitled to your opinion..as much as i am entitled to disagree with it..
And no need for any other commentator to come charging at me just because i disagree with Brad..For every negative there are positives which make this a decent watch..
The visuals r imax-worthy…yes, the story is paper-thin, but its not meant to be a character-driven piece…yes, there r plot holes u can drive a truck through but they dont emerge as deterrents big enough to make it boring…Dialog is corny but serves its purpose..
For my money, the biggest disappointment of 2011 uptil now remains Battle : LA….now, thats one piece of trash…you go in to watch an alien invasion action extravaganza & u get an expensive, badly done recruitment video for marines…hows that for being pretentious….every single line of dialog is cringe-worthy & so corny, i couldnt actually believe somebody was paid to write it…
Compared to that, this is a masterpiece…at least it delivers what it promised in the previews..i just think you went in with preconceived notions & were irritated it didnt fulfill those parameters…so what do u do, u give it an F of course !!…
Battle: LA wasn't perfect, but it was a hell of a lot better than Sucker Punch. At least I had fun watching Battle: LA.
The Movie Sucker Punch is simple child porn. The movie actors are terrible, the one liners are useless, the storyline intangible, the ending ridiculous. To place emphasis in a film where the dreams of children are displayed in glorious over-sexed action sequences to cover-up the inglorious molestations, rapes and killings of those children in the real world are reprehensible.  The companies that support this film should be ashamed to allow this to enter our communities, or have it represent any level of American Film. What’s next a child showing his dreams of being a Superhero as he is being molested by a Priest. Future films should not be given or created by people with such a perverse view of life. This film in not worthy to be shown in the present or even maintained for the future, it contains the worst of society, not the best, and that is something I do not find entertaining.
I smell censorship! Say no to censorship! Don't see it if you don't like it!
I just got back from watching Sucker Punch and I gotta say it delivers everything it promised for those who enjoyed the trailer. It has awesome action and CGI, story is not too bad either…sure it is short on character development but I didnt really care about that in this case. I recommend it!
I was intrigued by the trailer for this movie, and will probably still see it in the theatre despite this rating by Brad (which he is entitled to, by the way).
However, that is how I approach every movie that I'm interested in: read and respect the reviewer's opinion, and then see the movie for yourself and judge it on your own.
Without sounding too preachy, that is what a democratic society is all about (at least where movies are concerned), isn't it?
I'm often thought of as a "snobby film buff" because I do sometimes hold a negative opinion of most mainstream films. I'm not saying that as some big hipster indie-fan – it's not as if I dislike a movie simply because it's popular, I just generally find that the films we're allowing on screen these days are getting progressively worse and worse. That being said, I still sometimes enjoy a stupid action movie that serves as little more than escapism. Based on the highly intriguing second trailer, that's what I thought I would be getting with this film. I was not concerned with the critical reception, I just wanted to see attractive women fighting dragons with machine guns. Sometimes, we all need to cut loose for a bit.
However, this film did not even offer that. There was nothing fun or entertaining about it. All of its flaws have already been pointed out. It's too long, the story is ridiculous, the acting is atrocious, the slow motion gets incredibly tedious, and we're left at the end feeling like nothing we just saw had any point whatsoever. The action sequences were actually the worst part of it all, and that's surprising from Zack Snyder. The editing was god awful – everything was so fast and shaky that it made me sick to watch. Unlike most people, I did not even find the visual effects to be all that impressive. Everything looked cartoony and unconvincing. Not only that, but those sequences served no purpose whatsoever but to (unsuccessfully) distract the audience from how terrible the rest of the film was. People are saying the movie had mass amounts of 'awesome' packed into it, and that's all I wanted, but nothing about the movie was awesome. Somehow, Snyder managed to make all of the chaos and stupidity on screen feel not only formulaic, but boring. And then the ending was the worst part of it all. They try to shove in some pretentious bullshit about guardian angels that has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the film, and the final monologue had me and my friends dashing out of the isle before the last line was even spoken. And when it was spoken, we practically fell to the floor.
I'll be stunned if anything worse in 2011 comes along.
I really enjoyed the movie…but in terms of a bad big buget movie coming out in 2011, my money is on Transformers 3 :)
Just figured out Emily Browning sang like three of the songs in the movie.
I'll admit that this is not the greatest movie ever made; being near wholly art and style, with little story and character development. However, it was a fun ride and I, along with many folks I know, were entertained regardless- which is the essential, defining and overall point to movies in general. While certainly not worthy of cinema hall of fame, conspicuous talent and effort were poured into it and it provided a worthwhile trip to the theater and for that I'd have given it a B- or a C+. But to see an F immediately stamped on while "The Last Airbender" is generously given a C- severely dampens my respect for this website (which has been my browser homepage for 3 years, now I'm having second thoughts)
It's not so much about respect, maybe you and Brad's opinions just don't mix well lately. I definitely don't like some of Brad's critiques, but hey, I'm not complaining.
I understand that people have different opinions and I'm willing to see where others are coming from, but this review here spouts off dozens of complaints without single solid argument. Once again, I'm not professing this movie to be great. "The Last Airbender" is obvious drivel from the surface to the core, and it's considered higher quality than this? No thanks.
I wouldn't have minded this negative review nearly as much if the review for "The Last Airbender" were more deservedly harsh. My friends and I were irate for spending money and wasting our time for weeks after seeing it. It's not that I'm expecting that everyone love Sucker Punch, I not going to be that naive or closed-minded, but the review for that and this film are awfully misplaced.
Couldn't have said it better Joe, I back this up 100%.
Damn Joe, I was JUST about to post something about that too…. 'The Last Airbender' shouldn't be graded higher than this at all… I thought that movie was straight to dvd quality… I mean at least 'Sucker Punch' didn't use dudes in place of gals as they used "middle eastern" people in place of obvious "oriental" people.
Brad Brevet's grade of F is right on the mark.
His concluding paragraph says it all.
This movie was was utter nonsense and a complete FAIL.
Brad! looks like this one is your most controversial review all time…
And you can see why..most of users are against you!
Wow Brad lol… This is the crazy responds ive seen you get on a review! Its nuts. =)
I Love how people follow your view with such passion, i swear you could start a cult at this rate. Also all the people complaining about your review have a right to rage… But honestly keep the raging some where else. =) Brad i read like 95% of your reviews, and i use to post on rope of silicon forums. How ever long ago that was lol… it must be like 4 or 5 now? I like seeing your point of view, but it never scares me off from a movie. I personally think everyone should forum there own opinion. I didn't mind this movie all that much, although it was unorganized an a little hazy. I don't think the director knew the point of view he wanted to portray. I would of given it a D+ C-. Also i think this movie was made for a certain audience and if you aren't a member of that audience you most likely will not like it.
The fact that the movie brings with it so much feelings and mixed opinions from people is exactly what makes it so interesting. Its not the best movie if you follow all the criteria a really good movie should have but it is entertaining and it is something people will remember, just as people still remember and talk about 300, also a movie with mixed feelings and opinions.
Now the combo of great visuals, great action, and hot girls most of the time dont equal a movie to remember, and its not usually my kind of movies to enjoy. But I do have to say that this movie grabbed hold of me and kept me in my couch the whole time without any breaks, simply because it was a very entertaining movie. No no, not a great movie, but an entertaining one that will stick in my mind.
I am confused as to why a "fun" movie includes the "real life" setup of abused children?Whats fun about that?It just seem pretentiousness and exploitative.
Oh, and Last Airbender was an F. When the cartoon original has better acting than the live action imitation, you have failed utterly.When the 3d in youn credit sequence is more impressive than the giant wall of water, your'e efforts are laughable.
When your aliens cross the cosmos to eat our brains but forget their rain coat-wait wrong movie….