Sucker Punch (Zack Snyder) [Archive]

trotchky

07-27-2009, 10:03 PM

After seeing Watchmen, I'd say he has a bit of talent. Dawn of the Dead is an excellent film as well. I hated 300, because the story is so damn boring, and I didn't like the style of filming.

I think you best save your ire for "directors" like Denis Dugan and Irvin Winkler, lest anyone thinks you are one of those people who automatically see a moving camera in a film they don't like as a crime against humanity.

In other words, I think you're full of shit on this one :)

Why should I save my ire? Snyder is a terrible director and I hate his films.

Granted, I haven't seen Dawn of the Dead, but in Watchmen the fact that his camera moves isn't what bothers me, it's that he has no clue how to frame a striking composition or communicate human emotion through his form. Any mild success Watchmen achieves (the Dr. Manhattan flashback sequence, for example) I attribute entirely to the strength of the source material; Znyder sure as hell doesn't do it any favors.

Take the scene set in Vietnam where Blake kills the pregnant woman. In the comics, Dr. Manhattan asks Blake something like, "You're eager to leave?" His inability to grasp why a soldier in Vietnam might be "eager to leave" says more about his lack of humanity than his not "turn[ing] the gun into snowflakes." So much in Watchmen, the book, happens between the lines: when Blake remarks that if America lost in 'Nam it would have driven us crazy, he's not talking about "us," he's talking about himself. That's lost in Znyder's adaption, either because he didn't recognize it in the book to begin with or he just sucks at directing.

Why do all the female actors in Watchmen deliver the weakest performances? I don't think it's because they're bad actors, I think it's because Znyder has no clue how to direct women. His film is the work of a brute, plowing through and flattening intracices as he piles on the spectacle; the spectacle being one of things Watchmen sought to deconstruct and critique to begin with.

So, no, I don't think I'm full of shit on this one. I think Znyder is a shit filmmaker. It'll be interesting to see what he does with an original script, though.

Grouchy

07-27-2009, 10:27 PM

So, no, I don't think I'm full of shit on this one. I think Znyder is a shit filmmaker. It'll be interesting to see what he does with an original script, though.
Sure, he's definitively a spectacle director as opposed to an actor's director, which makes him all kinds of wrong for something like Watchmen. Still, worst in Hollywood? Not by a long shot.

I'm actually looking forward to this for the same reasons you mention. I'd like to see him direct a story that hasn't got a huge fanbase behind.

Ivan Drago

07-27-2009, 10:49 PM

trotchky, your avatar makes up for your recent post.

Spun Lepton

07-27-2009, 11:04 PM

Interesting story idea. I'm curious to learn more before I create any expectations.

Watashi

07-28-2009, 12:19 AM

Zack Snyder's favorite film of all time is Nostalgia. He's a HUGE Tarkovsky fan.

He said that at the Watchmen screening I went to last Saturday.

Sycophant

07-28-2009, 12:32 AM

Y'know, I said this recently, but I'll say it again. I'm pretty confident Zach Snyder means well.

Kurious Jorge v3.1

07-28-2009, 12:37 AM

Zack Snyder's favorite film of all time is Nostalgia.

I also heard Renny Harlin's favorite film is Out 1: Spectre

MacGuffin

07-28-2009, 12:47 AM

I also heard Renny Harlin's favorite film is Out 1: Spectre

According to Armond White, Michael Bay is influenced by 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her and Made in U.S.A.

BuffaloWilder

07-28-2009, 01:33 AM

Zach Snyder is pretty bad. How many slow-motion zoom ins do you think he'll average in this one, on a scene-by-scene basis?

trotchky

07-28-2009, 02:00 AM

Y'know, I said this recently, but I'll say it again. I'm pretty confident Zach Snyder means well.

I'm pretty confident most bad directors mean well. Why does that matter?

Sycophant

07-28-2009, 02:21 AM

I'm pretty confident most bad directors mean well. Why does that matter?

I'm not sure why I said it there, actually, as it's kinda out of place. But it's what keeps me from wanting to punch most of them in the face.

It's also unsurprising that bad directors might like someone like Godard and Tarkovsky. Appreciation or even influence by good directors does not necessarily mean a good result.

Again. Tangential/somewhat off topic.

MacGuffin

07-28-2009, 02:27 AM

It's also unsurprising that bad directors might like someone like Godard

If you're talking about Michael Bay, I'm guessing it's just Armond White being speculative again because Criterion just put out two new Jean-Luc Godard movies on DVD.

Derek

07-28-2009, 02:45 AM

If you're talking about Michael Bay, I'm guessing it's just Armond White being retarded.

Fixed.

trotchky

07-28-2009, 08:37 AM

actually, now that i think about it, "first artwork on t-shirts" basically says it all about znyder

Skitch

07-28-2009, 11:35 AM

So, no, I don't think I'm full of shit on this one. I think Znyder is a shit filmmaker. It'll be interesting to see what he does with an original script, though.

:lol:

So you think he's a shit director, probably the worst director in Hollywood, but you're in for his next film!

[ETM]

07-28-2009, 11:59 AM

Hmm... Snyder is simply not the worst in Hollywood, and it's a pretty silly thing to say with so many worthless films out there. There is always some redeeming quality to anything he's done. Why does he have to invade areas better directors have covered already to prove himself? People don't hate on Bay because he's reached some singular level of awfulness - he's just making the kind of films that other directors would have made better. Snyder has his own thing, and I'm fine with that. I don't have to like it.

I'll just say that there's about as much sense in Kiarostami doing Watchmen as in Snyder making Ta'm e guilass, and it tells about as much about them as directors.

Dukefrukem

07-28-2009, 12:12 PM

I feel he's getting a bad rap because all three of his films have been highly acclaimed blockbusters. Of course DotD didn't have the budget that Watchmen had, but the style sure does fit for a comic styled Watchmen movie (the slow-mo shit, which is present in all three of his films)... I think the producers of Watchmen saw this and signed him up immediately. How about we wait until he has at least four films under his belt before we denounce him as a bad director? Plus DotD is a great remake.

Sycophant

07-28-2009, 02:38 PM

How about we wait until he has at least four films under his belt before we denounce him as a bad director?

Well that's arbitrary.

Eleven

07-28-2009, 04:59 PM

Yes, but how visionary will it be? 60%? 33%?

trotchky

07-28-2009, 10:29 PM

:lol:

So you think he's a shit director, probably the worst director in Hollywood, but you're in for his next film!

i might see it, i might not. what difference does it make? unlike baby doll or clipper ship captain, i'm not up my own ass about oh my god there are so many good movies to see why would you be stupid enough to waste your time on a stupid movie. it's ten bucks at most and 2 hours of my time. not a big deal either way.

Skitch

07-29-2009, 02:08 AM

i might see it, i might not. what difference does it make? unlike baby doll or clipper ship captain, i'm not up my own ass about oh my god there are so many good movies to see why would you be stupid enough to waste your time on a stupid movie. it's ten bucks at most and 2 hours of my time. not a big deal either way.

Thats cool, I can respect that. Though it does seem as though you voice it to be a big deal when you say things like worst director in Hollywood. You make it seem as though you were violently ripped off.

trotchky

07-29-2009, 02:26 AM

Thats cool, I can respect that. Though it does seem as though you voice it to be a big deal when you say things like worst director in Hollywood. You make it seem as though you were violently ripped off.

no, i'm just passionate about things i don't like.

alternately, things i like a lot.

BuffaloWilder

07-29-2009, 03:58 AM

Snyder is not a visionary. In fact, two of his three films expressly contradict this notion if we're to take that word literally, and the other is a remake that's - oooookay, I guess.

MacGuffin

07-29-2009, 04:01 AM

i might see it, i might not. what difference does it make? unlike baby doll or clipper ship captain, i'm not up my own ass about oh my god there are so many good movies to see why would you be stupid enough to waste your time on a stupid movie. it's ten bucks at most and 2 hours of my time. not a big deal either way.

I only partially feel that way, for the record. For example, there's probably always going to be something I'd rather watch than this.

EDIT:

Snyder is probably the worst director in Hollywood, or if he isn't, he's certainly the worst whose films I've seen.

Wait, what the hell? So was that just an unmotivated attack?

trotchky

07-29-2009, 09:09 PM

Wait, what the hell? So was that just an unmotivated attack?

on who? you? don't flatter yourself.

MacGuffin

07-29-2009, 09:23 PM

on who? you? don't flatter yourself.

Well, if my head is up my ass for not wanting to see a movie by someone I call "the worst director in Hollywood", then so be it!

trotchky

07-29-2009, 09:27 PM

Well, if my head is up my ass for not wanting to see a movie by someone I call "the worst director in Hollywood", then so be it!

i don't want to see the movie, i just don't think it's a huge deal either way. maybe it'll be a rainy sunday afternoon and nothing else is playing. who knows?

MacGuffin

07-29-2009, 09:40 PM

i don't want to see the movie, i just don't think it's a huge deal either way. maybe it'll be a rainy sunday afternoon and nothing else is playing. who knows?

I guess the main deal is that I go to the library a lot and they have a lot of Audio-Visual materials, and so I usually leave that place with about 9 rented DVDs and then I also get three out from Netflix. I don't have the luxury of seeing rainy days here and whenever I go outside the sun gives me a headache. I try to keep the temperature inside of my home relatively cool and I usually close my blinds (especially when I watch a movie) until late at night when the sun starts to set.

By then I usually already have a headache and so going out to the movie theater to see whatever is playing is not usually an option I'd like to honor, especially considering the theater closest to me is awful and I'm never going back there again. So that leaves me with the option of seeing a movie like this on DVD.

The internet website for my library usually can tell you how many holds an item has on its respective page, and it's normally the new releases people care most about (although, I've sometimes found that for items where there aren't a lot of holds, people will put those on hold to for whatever reason — I don't think it's the fact that it's rare that they want it so much as it may be a) hard-to-find or b) someone wanting something they have little of), so that about says how I could see a movie like this at my library.

Although, sometimes they will have movies people forgot about that are new releases. I can't say off the top of my head a movie like that, but basically, any new release that generally wasn't given much publicity because it sucked or because it was underlooked, may be able to be found there, although it's doubtful. They'll probably just not order as many copies and the copies that they do order will be checked out or on hold. As for Netflix, I have 132 titles in my queue right now. I used to have a lot more until I deleted them all when I was going to watch all Criterions. Then I deleted all of those when I didn't want to do that and just put 3 movies on my queue at a time.

Then I added a lot of stuff to the queue and I want to see most of it. In fact, I'd rather see all those than this. Outside of those, there are thousands of movies I also want to see, I'm sure, and thousands others I haven't discovered yet. One of the great things about movie-going is discovering movies. When someone names a director I haven't heard of, I usually look them up out of interest. I think it was Kiyoshi Kurosawa who said he was a fan of the movie Mill of the Stone Woman, so that sits at #128 in my queue. I want to watch it.

I guess then you could say that I'm not a very casual movie-goer and I guess that's fine by me. I think ahead about the things I watch. Of course, sometimes I find it hard to find time to watch them. So that's basically how I think about watching movies like this. They're just not my top priority. Maybe if it rained more.

trotchky

07-29-2009, 09:48 PM

yeah, i'm not reading that. paragraphs, dude.

MadMan

07-30-2009, 08:52 AM

I dug Watchmen, alot, and I also enjoyed 300. Haven't seen his Dawn of the Dead remake yet, but I've heard good things. Not sure how any of this qualifies him as the worst director in Hollywood, especially with Brett Ratner and Michael Bay running around, but then I also didn't bother to read the entire thread :P

eternity

07-30-2009, 09:30 AM

Snyder's alright. He's not great, but he's alright.

B-side

07-30-2009, 09:44 AM

I like 300.:cool:

Skitch

07-30-2009, 10:47 AM

I like 300.:cool:

Me too. :pritch:

Sxottlan

07-21-2010, 09:39 AM

First pic? From EW:

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/sfs/suckerpunchcast-2-large-sfmovies129.jpg

Fezzik

07-21-2010, 11:24 AM

I liked Watchmen, thought 300 was ok, but I don't understand the "Snyder is a visionary" talk.

Both these movies were adaptations of graphic novels and in both, Snyder admittedly tried to keep the look of the films close to the look of the source material, sometimes framing shots exactly as they were framed in the original book.

I don't understand how that makes him visionary.

Dukefrukem

07-21-2010, 02:15 PM

It's more of the style and less on how the movies were shot. 300 and Watchmen both heavily relied on imagery to involve most of the "wow" factor and all three of his movies dabble in slow-mo, which arguably allow a lot of these shots to be ON SCREEN for longer. If anything, I think the visionary tag is a marketing thing.

number8

07-21-2010, 05:12 PM

I don't think anyonebut trailers call him visionary.

Sxottlan

07-23-2010, 07:38 AM

New posters. Definitely want the first one. I'm liking the steam punk vibe I'm getting here (especially if you check out the film's website).

EDIT: Okay, they appeared here before, but now they're not showing up. So I guess go here (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=68188).

EDIT 2: Saved a pic to my Photobucket account:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/suckerpunchbabydollsmall.jpg

BuffaloWilder

07-23-2010, 03:04 PM

I think you best save your ire for "directors" like Denis Dugan and Irvin Winkler, lest anyone thinks you are one of those people who automatically see a moving camera in a film they don't like as a crime against humanity.

I'd like to confront this, by the way - you know I'm a big proponent of the importance of kineticism in cinema, what with all the George Miller love and whatnot. And, I still think Snyder is pretty terrible

Spinal

07-23-2010, 04:24 PM

Zack Snyder is bad, but he's watchably bad. Heck, even 300 isn't boring, at least.

Raiders

07-23-2010, 04:27 PM

I would rather have been bored by 300 than what actually happened.

D_Davis

07-23-2010, 05:11 PM

I fell asleep during 300. I think that means it was boring.

Ivan Drago

07-23-2010, 06:26 PM

Me too. :pritch:

Me three.

transmogrifier

07-23-2010, 11:30 PM

I'd like to confront this, by the way - you know I'm a big proponent of the importance of kineticism in cinema, what with all the George Miller love and whatnot. And, I still think Snyder is pretty terrible

Worst in Hollywood? Worse than Denis Dugan and Irvin Winkler?

BuffaloWilder

07-23-2010, 11:52 PM

Worse. As a director, Winkler's work isn't really unique enough to make any note about, and Dugan earns a little praise (of my heart), if only for Happy Gilmore and Problem Child, the former because it's - well, it's funny - and, the latter because it and its sequel are so terrible that it's inspired a giant internet meme.

transmogrifier

07-24-2010, 12:26 AM

BuffaloWilder

07-24-2010, 04:06 AM

Well, let's just say, I much prefer being stabbed in the thigh with a large shard of glass to your opinion.

:)

Qrazy

07-24-2010, 04:11 AM

And let's just say sucker punching people is less interesting than talking owls.

number8

07-24-2010, 07:57 PM

Just saw trailer. Ridiculous.

Sxottlan

07-25-2010, 07:46 AM

I didn't know this was actually an original premise by Snyder.

BTW, I really like 300 and absolutely loved Watchmen. I'm quite enjoying Snyder's work right now.

Just saw trailer. Ridiculous.

Ridiculous good or ridiculous bad?

Watashi

07-26-2010, 11:28 PM

Ridiculous good or ridiculous bad?

Both. For some reason, it looks like a movie that D_Davis would probably make if he had an unlimited budget.

The trailer is actually online now. (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/suckerpunch/)

megladon8

07-26-2010, 11:57 PM

I like Zack Snyder.

I thought 300 was a great action romp. It felt like the type of movie which, if it had come out in the '80s, would now be celebrated as a cheesy action classic along the lines of something like Commando.

And I thought he did about as well as anyone could with Watchmen. I was really surprised with that one. I really didn't think he would do the material justice, and while I still believe a truly perfect, brilliant translation of that work is impossible to put on film, he did a damn good job.

He's also a really, really nice guy. My very first celebrity interview was him and Gerard Butler.

number8

07-27-2010, 02:49 AM

Ridiculous good or ridiculous bad?

Bad. It looks too crazy to be anything but stupid.

Winston*

07-27-2010, 03:54 AM

I burst out laughing when the dragon showed up, so I guess I'm in. If this film looked any less stupid than it does, I would not be in.

Watashi

07-27-2010, 06:09 AM

The trailer reminds me of the trailer for Casshern.

Hopefully Snyder's film is actually coherent.

Sxottlan

07-27-2010, 08:29 AM

The trailer is online. (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/suckerpunch/)

Oh my yes.

That takes care of my avatars for the next nine months.

Wryan

07-27-2010, 01:07 PM

/smacks forehead

DREAMS! Of course! Good call, Zach Snyder. Well spotted.

Dukefrukem

07-27-2010, 04:03 PM

Based on that trailer, is this movie going to be 4 hours long? What the fuck just happened?

Morris SchÃ¦ffer

07-27-2010, 04:06 PM

Looks like overkill, but maybe not. It certainly has much that is usually considered awesome. Exploding zeppelins for instance. And naturally dragons. And a minigun-wielding samurai. Think about that last one for a moment.

KK2.0

07-27-2010, 07:20 PM

looks like something completely forged with teenage boys in mind.

i'm so downloading this

eternity

07-27-2010, 07:26 PM

The only problem I'm having with this idea is...I think this is what Zack Snyder would imagine in a mental asylum, not a teenage girl in the 1950s.

number8

07-27-2010, 07:33 PM

This takes place in the 1950's? It's even dumber than I thought.

eternity

07-27-2010, 07:35 PM

This takes place in the 1950's? It's even dumber than I thought.
Considering how this is Snyder's first non-adapted film...this could be unfathomably terrible. Or kind of awesome. I really don't know which.

KK2.0

07-27-2010, 07:44 PM

a minigun-wielding samurai.

piÃ¨ce de rÃ©sistance

KK2.0

07-27-2010, 08:03 PM

http://i25.tinypic.com/30m945h.jpg

Morris SchÃ¦ffer

07-27-2010, 09:16 PM

A minigun-wielding samurai with a rabbit's face!

Fezzik

07-27-2010, 09:39 PM

A minigun-wielding samurai with a rabbit's face!

I have to see this movie.

Winston*

07-27-2010, 09:41 PM

A minigun-wielding samurai with a rabbit's face!

Hmm. I'm out now.

Ezee E

07-27-2010, 09:54 PM

Eh. Looks great visually. But still looks stupid.

Sycophant

07-27-2010, 09:55 PM

The bunny on that mech is pissing me the fuck off.

Spinal

07-27-2010, 10:32 PM

The bunny on that mech is pissing me the fuck off.

BAM! You just got sucker punched!

D_Davis

07-27-2010, 10:36 PM

BAM! You just got sucker punched!

In the crotch!

I actually think this looks pretty sweet, if totally juvenile. Reminds me of a big budget Meatball Machine, Tokyo Gore Police, or Vampire Girl vs. Frankenstein Girl. Or, even better, it's got the same kind of everything-and-the-kitchen-sink vibe to it as Project A-Ko and All Purpose Cross Cultural Cat Girl, Niku Niku.

It looks silly, stupid, and hopefully fun, and fun was the key ingredient missing from Watchmen and 300.

I probably won't ever see it, but still.

KK2.0

07-27-2010, 11:04 PM

The bunny on that mech is pissing me the fuck off.

you are unprepared

Morris SchÃ¦ffer

09-02-2010, 10:39 AM

http://www.cruelfilms.com/SPexclusive/SP-Dogfight.jpg

MacGuffin

09-04-2010, 05:51 PM

Um, yeah, I'm seeing this.

Irish

09-04-2010, 06:11 PM

Bunny mech warriors has me intrigued.

But I'm pretty sure that plot line is lifted from an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and about a dozen episodes of The Twilight Zone.

Snyder's stuff is about as subtle as a hammer to the forehead. The trailer makes this look like (surprise!) more tween-boy PG-13 porn wish fulfillment.

Zack might be interesting when his balls drop and his voice deepens, but until then he's another Hwood jackass who thinks "strong women" means bare midriffs, thigh highs, and a katana is both hands.

Pretty sure he's the sock puppet of either McG or Tarantino. Or both. Have we ever seen the three of them in the same room together?

Morris SchÃ¦ffer

11-04-2010, 11:36 AM

New trailer

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/47318

Winston*

11-04-2010, 11:52 AM

I'm always surprised by how poor Harry Knowles' writing is.

Dukefrukem

11-04-2010, 12:30 PM

God these chicks are smokin' hot

Kurosawa Fan

11-04-2010, 01:00 PM

I'm always surprised by how poor Harry Knowles' writing is.

No kidding. I don't know what to make of this sentence:

In some ways it was reminding me of MACHINE GIRL & CASSHERN - and while I liked those films... I just wasn't sure if seeing a bunch of scantily clad girls running around blowing up and killing badass awesome designed shit for a movie.

DavidSeven

11-05-2010, 12:17 AM

I can't think of a single appealing thing about that trailer. It's just ugly and stupid.

Chac Mool

11-05-2010, 01:17 AM

looks like something completely forged with teenage boys in mind.

I'm just happy Zach Snyder exists.

Watashi

11-05-2010, 01:53 AM

I can't think of a single appealing thing about that trailer. It's just ugly and stupid.
It has Jon Hamm in it.

It's a plus.

Derek

11-05-2010, 03:47 AM

No kidding. I don't know what to make of this sentence:

Complete sentences and developed thoughts are unnecessary. AICN readers will read:

scantily clad girls running blowing up killing badass awesome shit movie

and they will see it.

DavidSeven

11-05-2010, 04:19 AM

It has Jon Hamm in it.

I stand by my original statement. Hamm is boring. Don't understand the geek craze around that guy.

Winston*

11-05-2010, 05:11 AM

I stand by my original statement. Hamm is boring. Don't understand the geek craze around that guy.
You haven't seen Mad Men, thus you are unqualified to make that statement.

amberlita

11-05-2010, 06:02 AM

AICN readers will read:
scantily clad girls running blowing up killing badass awesome shit movie

And all I read is:

shit movie

But Hamm is a god. I will see this, assuming someone tells me there is more than just 5 minutes of him in it.

Sven

11-05-2010, 07:15 AM

Jon Hamm is becoming the definition of overrated. Hate to wish ill on his career, but he ought to slow down a bit. Or at least stop mugging so damn much.

Watashi

11-05-2010, 07:21 AM

Jon Hamm is becoming the definition of overrated. Hate to wish ill on his career, but he ought to slow down a bit. Or at least stop mugging so damn much.
He's in Mad Men and had a small role in The Town.

Don't see any reason to slow down or stop mugging.

[ETM]

11-05-2010, 08:01 AM

He's in Mad Men and had a small role in The Town.

Don't forget 30 Rock. But basically - yeah.

Sven

11-05-2010, 08:03 AM

Don't see any reason to slow down or stop mugging.

Because I'm afraid his pony has run out of tricks. And his mugging makes his comedy not very funny (I couldn't wait for him to go away on 30 Rock, although I will admit that the three dudes doing the Jamaican receptionists was a success).

Ezee E

11-05-2010, 11:21 PM

eternity

11-05-2010, 11:43 PM

I'll still say that majority of the world doesn't even know who he is.

He's going to end up like James Gandolfini though. It'll basically be impossible to cast him as someone else other then Don Draper unless it's for irony sake.The Don Draper character hasn't penetrated itself into pop culture among anyone who doesn't watch Mad Men, unlike Tony Soprano.

Ezee E

11-06-2010, 12:12 AM

The Don Draper character hasn't penetrated itself into pop culture among anyone who doesn't watch Mad Men, unlike Tony Soprano.
True. Maybe it's the people that are casting him immediately to that role then. Although in The Town, he basically was "Don Draper if you only watched one episode of Mad Men"

Grouchy

11-06-2010, 12:15 AM

Jon Hamm is unprepared.

Irish

11-06-2010, 11:14 AM

I'll still say that majority of the world doesn't even know who he is.
Your view may be a little narrow. The entire cast of this show gets featured in major magazines every other week. For a cable show with an admittedly limited appeal, it's gotten enormous coverage.

Acapelli

11-06-2010, 07:07 PM

Your view may be a little narrow. The entire cast of this show gets featured in major magazines every other week. For a cable show with an admittedly limited appeal, it's gotten enormous coverage.
who reads magazines?

and the fact that the premiere of walking dead blew away the ratings for the finale of this season of mad men shows how much you overestimate mad men's ubiquity

Irish

11-06-2010, 07:28 PM

who reads magazines?

and the fact that the premiere of walking dead blew away the ratings for the finale of this season of mad men shows how much you overestimate mad men's ubiquity
Surprise! Your worldview and media consumption is not shared by everyone else in the country.

This wasn't about ratings -- as I already said Madmen has a much narrower audience than most programs, especially genre programs -- but that doesn't have anything to do with knowing who Hamm is. At this point, I'd hazzard a guess that most people know him (or his face), even if they've never actually tuned into Mad Men.

(And as for the ratings: Gimme a break. Walking Dead has much broader demographic than a serial, adult drama. Not to mention that Mad Men has been on for four years and Dead is brand spanking new (and has the media attention that goes along with that). Sheesh.)

eternity

11-06-2010, 07:53 PM

Surprise! Your worldview and media consumption is not shared by everyone else in the country.

This wasn't about ratings -- as I already said Madmen has a much narrower audience than most programs, especially genre programs -- but that doesn't have anything to do with knowing who Hamm is. At this point, I'd hazzard a guess that most people know him (or his face), even if they've never actually tuned into Mad Men.

(And as for the ratings: Gimme a break. Walking Dead has much broader demographic than a serial, adult drama. Not to mention that Mad Men has been on for four years and Dead is brand spanking new (and has the media attention that goes along with that). Sheesh.)
There's a big difference between Jon Hamm being recognized as "that guy from the show with the cigarettes" and "Don Draper". The former can easily be successful in other roles.

jamaul

11-08-2010, 06:08 PM

How the hell did Snyder and WB get a Zeppelin song in the trailer? This has to be the first time a movie trailer was licensed to bastardize one of their songs.

This is not to imply that I'm a Zeppelin fan. :|

And I'm in the camp that says this movie looks like hell: a giant waste of money, and for what?--a premise about chicks using their imaginations to spice up the monotony of imprisonment? Didn't the children's show Barney use a similar premise?

number8

11-08-2010, 06:16 PM

Took them 3 months. They rolled out the teaser trailer at Comic-Con with "When the Levee Breaks," which someone asked about but Snyder said they hadn't cleared the rights yet and was still trying. When they released the teaser online the next week, they dropped the Zeppelin. I guess it's finally cleared now.

jamaul

11-08-2010, 06:22 PM

Acapelli

11-08-2010, 08:45 PM

There's a big difference between Jon Hamm being recognized as "that guy from the show with the cigarettes" and "Don Draper". The former can easily be successful in other roles.
i can't believe that i agree with eternity on something

Spun Lepton

11-08-2010, 09:01 PM

Very pretty, but it looks stupid as hell.

Grouchy

11-08-2010, 10:34 PM

I fear I am unprepared for this movie.

Spun Lepton

11-08-2010, 10:39 PM

I fear I am unprepared for this movie.

Drink some turpentine = prepared.

Derek

11-09-2010, 07:33 AM

I'll still say that majority of the world doesn't even know who he is.

He's going to end up like James Gandolfini though. It'll basically be impossible to cast him as someone else other then Don Draper unless it's for irony sake.

Was there anything ironic about Gandolfini in In the Loop, Pelham 123 and Where the Wild Things Are last year?

Dukefrukem

11-09-2010, 12:08 PM

Jon Hamm is on Conan this week.

MadMan

11-09-2010, 07:21 PM

Eh. Looks great visually. But still looks stupid.That's what I'm thinking. What the hell was that? I liked 300 (in an ironic sense, actually-I didn't take the damn movie all that seriously), and Watchmen, but I might actually pass on this one.

number8

11-09-2010, 07:22 PM

I'm planning on liking this movie ironically.

DavidSeven

11-09-2010, 11:39 PM

I still say it looks wretched visually.

Derek

11-10-2010, 12:45 AM

I still say it looks wretched visually.

But it does so sarcastically, which is how you should enjoy it.

Watashi

11-10-2010, 01:18 AM

Having seen the trailer at work, it looks ridiculously stupid and juvenile. I heard a lot of "what the hell was that" after it was over.

Though being the Zack Snyder completist that I am, I'll still see it.

eternity

11-10-2010, 08:05 PM

i can't believe that i agree with eternity on something
You do much more often than you don't, I would guess.

eternity

11-10-2010, 08:07 PM

Was there anything ironic about Gandolfini in In the Loop, Pelham 123 and Where the Wild Things Are last year?
...I did keep calling Carol "giant woodland Tony Soprano" in my head, actually.

MadMan

11-10-2010, 08:12 PM

I didn't recognize Gandolfini in Where the Wild Things Are because of his gigantic costume. And he displayed a flair for comedic timing in In the Loop. This is coming from someone who has seen him in The Sopranoes. Although my favorite role of his is still the hit man from True Romance. Which incidentally he did before he became a star on The Sorpanoes.

Dukefrukem

02-24-2011, 05:55 PM

cool posters (http://blastr.com/2011/02/5-retro-propaganda-poster.php#4)

Wryan

02-24-2011, 06:21 PM

I think this movie looks "really" "awesome."

megladon8

03-21-2011, 06:09 PM

Ahhhhh! So much slo-mo!

I swear Snyder just gets 30 minutes of footage then stretches it out to 2+ hours with slow motion and repetition.

B-side

03-22-2011, 05:02 AM

This looks like it's gonna be big, dumb, loud, obnoxious and ugly.

Boner M

03-22-2011, 05:12 AM

I have to watch this garish black hole to review it, but on the other hand, I get to interview Abbie Cornish, so yay.

B-side

03-22-2011, 05:17 AM

I have to watch this garish black hole to review it, but on the other hand, I get to interview Abbie Cornish, so yay.

I expect sexy stories upon your return.

EyesWideOpen

03-22-2011, 02:16 PM

Ahhhhh! So much slo-mo!

I swear Snyder just gets 30 minutes of footage then stretches it out to 2+ hours with slow motion and repetition.

Yep that's exactly what he does.

D_Davis

03-22-2011, 03:21 PM

I still think this looks totally rad.

Morris SchÃ¦ffer

03-22-2011, 05:08 PM

I'll probably forget it right after walking out of the theater, but the visuals look like they might be worth seeing in theaters. No, not the style, but goddamn it guys. Crashing zeppelins, huge minigun-brandishing samurai warriors, dragons. It's like it has all the stuff we've ever dreamed of seeing in one movie. The only thing missing are monkeys and zombies.

Wryan

03-22-2011, 06:02 PM

I'll still be watching this, of course.

megladon8

03-22-2011, 09:53 PM

Yep that's exactly what he does.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. With Watchmen he actually filmed 45 minutes, which accounts for the film being much longer.

eternity

03-23-2011, 12:51 AM

Morris SchÃ¦ffer

03-23-2011, 06:45 AM

There are zombies.

Well, bloody hell, why am I not surprised? :D

Dead & Messed Up

03-23-2011, 06:53 AM

I'm looking forward to this movie.

number8

03-23-2011, 02:00 PM

Like with 300, I probably won't watch this movie until a year after it comes out on DVD, at the urging of a male friend whose home I am in for the day with nothing to do.

Sxottlan

03-24-2011, 01:39 AM

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but a lack of a single review two days out seems disconcerting to me.

Henry Gale

03-24-2011, 02:11 AM

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but a lack of a single review two days out seems disconcerting to me.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume at this point that the reports of WB having issues with it may not be entirely false, including Snyder and the cast already promising cool things (even multiple musical numbers) that were cut, but are set to appear in an eventual Director's Cut.

But I have been able to find a couple (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2011/mar/23/bc-suckerpunch-movie-review-adv25fr-_-entertainmen/?entertainment&national-entertainment) of reviews (http://entertainment.malaysia.msn.com/movies/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4733049), not necessarily from the biggest and best sources, but legitimate enough to show that they have screened it for critics, but implying to me that the studio just has a harsh embargo on it, similar to how they do with a lot of their stuff, but most notably Watchmen. There's another one I can't find again, but reviews seem pretty positive, though definitely leaning heavily on saying that a lot of cool things happen without much motive or explanation, though they argued well for it being good otherwise.

D_Davis

03-24-2011, 02:59 AM

How many time will we read something like this

"Sucker Punch" is best appreciated as a visual roller coaster. Don't think. Just hold on and enjoy the wild ride.

about this movie?

I hate both notions that this advice suggests: 1) the movie can only be enjoyed by not thinking about it, and 2) that a purely visual film cannot be enjoyed on a cerebral level.

Sxottlan

03-24-2011, 03:51 AM

A line from the first review:

"Then the story rears its ugly head. Snyder never makes it clear how much of the story is taking place in what's supposed to be the real world and how much is the mental manifestations of a young woman."

This to me would actually make it more interesting than being a problem.

eternity

03-24-2011, 05:40 AM

lovejuice

03-24-2011, 07:28 AM

baby doll

03-24-2011, 09:52 AM

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but a lack of a single review two days out seems disconcerting to me.It wasn't reviewed in the Village Voice or in the New York Press, which update their sites every Tuesday. Most daily newspapers don't publish their reviews until the day of the film's release, or the day before at the earliest, but it's entirely likely this one isn't being screened for reviewers. I suppose after months of bought publicity (such as Boner's interview with Abbie Cornish--sorry, dude, but stop being a shill) and fanboy-gushing at the trailers, the last thing anybody wants is to have a bunch of grownups spoil everybody's fun by engaging in critical thinking Ã* la Kick-Ass and the ensuing tiff between Ebert and Harry Knowles. (Like the fella says, just turn off your brain and give up your money.) Isn't that why certain movies are screened at ComiCon before they're screened for reviewers: Because the studios know that teenage geeks will uncritically lap up just about any shiny object that's put in front of them?

Boner M

03-24-2011, 10:10 AM

I suppose after months of bought publicity (such as Boner's interview with Abbie Cornish--sorry, dude, but stop being a shill):| Seriously?

baby doll

03-24-2011, 10:38 AM

:| Seriously?Somewhat. If you interview Abbie Cornish that's publicity for the film.

Fezzik

03-24-2011, 12:10 PM

Somewhat. If you interview Abbie Cornish that's publicity for the film.

And that's his job. God forbid he does his job when the time calls for it.

It may be publicity for the film, but so what?

That's like telling a game magazine they shouldn't have an interview with the guys at [insert game company here] when a game comes out because thats 'publicity' for the game.

Of course it is. That's what they do.

Boner M

03-24-2011, 01:02 PM

...and it'd just be someone else doing it if I wasn't. That's an awfully weird thing to complain about, baby doll.

Ezee E

03-24-2011, 01:05 PM

But that's how babydoll do guys.

baby doll

03-24-2011, 01:22 PM

And that's his job. God forbid he does his job when the time calls for it.

It may be publicity for the film, but so what?

That's like telling a game magazine they shouldn't have an interview with the guys at [insert game company here] when a game comes out because thats 'publicity' for the game.

Of course it is. That's what they do.Is Boner a journalist or a publicist? To be sure, he's far from the only person trying to wear both hats, cozying up to celebrities on the one hand, and then trying to be impartial about their films on the other. But the fact that, more and more, there seems to be no clear line between criticism and shilling for product is perhaps the single biggest threat to film culture at the moment.

Raiders

03-24-2011, 02:35 PM

number8

03-24-2011, 02:44 PM

Godard did interviews with filmmakers for magazines. He was most definitely a shill.

baby doll

03-24-2011, 03:22 PM

Godard did interviews with filmmakers for magazines. He was most definitely a shill.More than that, he had a job working in the publicity department for 20th Century Fox.

baby doll

03-24-2011, 03:48 PM

Is he being a shill because he did an interview, or because he did an interview with someone from a Zack Snyder film? I mean, online publications did interviews with Godard... were they shills as well?I'm guessing that Boner's editor wants him to interview Cornish, not because she had a great deal of creative input on the film, but because "average readers" are more likely to be interested in a sexy twenty-something star who's been linked in the tabloids to other sexy twenty-something stars, and is in a new blockbuster movie with an expensive ad campaign, than they are a disheveled eighty year old whose films they may not have even heard of. That said, if Godard offered to do an interview with me, and I thought it would help to publicize Film socialisme a little bit, I wouldn't hesitate to shill, because I think it's a terrific movie, and it needs all the help it can get.

number8

03-24-2011, 04:49 PM

D_Davis

03-24-2011, 05:27 PM

I've always viewed interviews as being mutually beneficial. The few we did for genrebusters always scored the most hits and traffic. We probably benefited more than the interviewee seeing as how small we were.

megladon8

03-24-2011, 05:29 PM

D_Davis

03-24-2011, 05:30 PM

Then maybe you should change the site to ShillBusters.

That's probably a good idea.

Boner M

03-24-2011, 08:33 PM

Thanks for sparing me the effort, 8.

eternity

03-25-2011, 12:21 AM

Hate to say it, but you know, Speed Racer vibes.

Watashi

03-25-2011, 12:22 AM

Hate to say it, but you know, Speed Racer vibes.
This looks nothing like Speed Racer.

Watashi

03-25-2011, 12:24 AM

Ed Gonzales's review is pretty awesome.

Sucker Punch promises cake and when you show up, it's fruitcake, and you're like, "What the fuck is this shit?" Because nobody likes fruitcake!

eternity

03-25-2011, 12:28 AM

This looks nothing like Speed Racer.
Negative reviews: "What the fuck is this stupid, substance-less bullshit?"
Positive reviews: "Oh my god this is fucking brilliant."

More or less.

Watashi

03-25-2011, 12:29 AM

Positive reviews: "Oh my god this is fucking brilliant."

More or less.

And one of them comes from Devin Faraci.

Next.

eternity

03-25-2011, 12:31 AM

And one of them comes from Devin Faraci.

Next.
I don't acknowledge his existence and neither should you.

Ezee E

03-25-2011, 12:33 AM

What do you do for money anyways babydoll?

Boner M

03-25-2011, 12:39 AM

Ed Gonzales's review is pretty awesome.
Actually that review was written by our very own Jaime N. Christley (http://match-cut.org/member.php?u=4234), despite being linked on RT to Gonzalez.

baby doll

03-25-2011, 12:58 AM

No, that's not how it works at all. Publications have standing relationships with publicity departments or third party firms that release a certain studio's movies in a region, and close to a movie's release, the publicists reach out to the publications on their pick of talents based on availability or exposure in the publication's region. These are typically linked to review screenings, as well. Anytime a professional outlet does a piece on any current movie, it is inherently and automatically part of the movie's marketing and publicity. They give you the access and you write about it, be it positive or negative. If you accept the access and then you don't even bother to trash it because you don't want to mention the existence of the movie at all, you're risking jeopardizing your relationship with the studios/firms and will have a hard time getting access to talent (which includes old directors and writers in addition to sexy twenty-something tabloidees) down the line when there is a movie that you do want to write about. You don't get to just write about movies you're interested in. Give and take. Running a publication has to remain a business, after all, and film journalism is still a "job" job too.Clearly this is a topic you're much more familiar with than I am, being merely a cranky observer. However, you seem to be saying that there's no difference between writing a review of a film, and a puff piece interview that precedes the film's release. Obviously writing a review of any film, positive or negative, is in some sense publicity for it, particularly when a reviewer gets quoted in the film's publicity material, but I think the role of a reviewer is slightly different from that of an interviewer, particularly an entertainment reporter. With reviewers, the PR people know that sometimes you're going to trash the film they're marketing, but when you're interviewing a celebrity, it's expected that you'll go easy on them. It's not like Boner is going to walk into the interview and say, "Nice to meet you, I hated your movie."

Rowland

03-25-2011, 12:59 AM

Yeah I bet people often mistake reviews by other writers at Slant for Gonzalez, because RT only links to their reviews if they're submitted under his name.

baby doll

03-25-2011, 12:59 AM

What do you do for money anyways babydoll?At the moment, I'm an EFL teacher in China.

DavidSeven

03-25-2011, 01:26 AM

Are there people here who sincerely think Zack Snyder makes interesting movies? From what I can tell, the only interesting component of his films is what their popularity reveals about society's acceptance of stuff that panders to the basest of teen-boy desires. His movies are straight up ugly, both in terms of pure aesthetics and in their portrayals of sex and violence. This assessment is based on entirely on 300 and Watchmen, both of which held my attention through pure storytelling, but neither of which offered anything redeemable beyond that. Sucker Punch looks like more of the same.

I guess I might see it for the potential train-wreckage factor.

Ezee E

03-25-2011, 01:44 AM

I dig Dawn of the Dead for its visceral action sequences and being very well-shot. I'd probably stick with it as being my favorite new generation zombie movie.

Qrazy

03-25-2011, 01:46 AM

Yeah, Dawn of the Dead is a solid entry in the genre and his best film.

elixir

03-25-2011, 01:47 AM

I've only seen 300, but I'd be hard pressed to find a movie I hate more. Maybe I'll check out Dawn of the Dead though.

Ezee E

03-25-2011, 01:50 AM

300 I remember nothing about... But I do know that I didn't like it. Won't give it a second try.

Watchmen, is alright. Just far too long for its own good. Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan do sufficient jobs in it I think.

D_Davis

03-25-2011, 02:54 AM

It's not like Boner is going to walk into the interview and say, "Nice to meet you, I hated your movie."

That depends. In my recent interview with JM McDermott, I tell him straight up how disappointed I was to see him working on a trilogy because of how strongly I praised his first book for being a single, stand-alone fantasy, something you don't see much of these days. I ask him if it was his decision alone, or if he felt heat from publishers.

Yes, there are straight up fluff pieces. But I don's think artists like those too much. Publicists love them. But I think the artists want to have a real conversation about the merits of their work.

D_Davis

03-25-2011, 02:55 AM

Dawn '04 is fantastic.

Rowland

03-25-2011, 02:57 AM

Yes, there are straight up fluff pieces. But I don's think artists like those too much. Publicists love them. But I think the artists want to have a real conversation about the merits of their work.
This reminds me of a FFC interview with Chris Tucker about Rush Hour 3 of all things, it's an interesting piece (http://filmfreakcentral.net/notes/ctuckerinterview.htm).

baby doll

03-25-2011, 03:19 AM

This reminds me of a FFC interview with Chris Tucker about Rush Hour 3 of all things, it's an interesting piece (http://filmfreakcentral.net/notes/ctuckerinterview.htm).It's too bad that as soon as the interview starts to get really interesting, it's abruptly cut short so that Tucker can talk to a different reporter.

Winston*

03-25-2011, 03:57 AM

...and it'd just be someone else doing it if I wasn't.
SS logic.

Pop Trash

03-25-2011, 04:09 AM

Is Boner a journalist or a publicist? To be sure, he's far from the only person trying to wear both hats, cozying up to celebrities on the one hand, and then trying to be impartial about their films on the other. But the fact that, more and more, there seems to be no clear line between criticism and shilling for product is perhaps the single biggest threat to film culture at the moment.

But really, you're getting on Boner about that? Wouldn't your time be better spent sending off an email to ET, TMZ, Access Hollywood, etc.?!

Boner M

03-25-2011, 04:58 AM

SS logic.
:lol:

FWIW, I don't have to concurrently review every film I do a puff piece for, and since I'm writing for the equivalent of an alt-weekly, I'm fortunate to have the freedom to review any film realeased in Australia on DVD or playing theatrically in Sydney. This means that if Film Socialisme gets a screening in Sydney (however unlikely), I could have a review of that published, although as 8 mentioned, it's a give/take system, so doing the junkets is part of the deal. Sound aight, baby doll?

Even then, I'm writing largely for hipsters and/or artfags who have little interest in Zach Snyder, and we're generally assigned publicity stuff that complies with ours tastes; I've interviewed William Shimmell and Clotilde Hesme already, and Aleksei Popogrebsky next week... I already admire Abbie Cornish as a thespian so it's not like I'll feel like I'm selling a part of my soul writing a glowing piece on her.

But anyway, probably best to continue this discussion in next week's podcast.

eternity

03-25-2011, 05:08 AM

Boner M

03-25-2011, 05:21 AM

You write what the readers want. The reason the stars of the movies coming out at any given time make up the bulk of the coinciding interviews is because they're topical; they're what people are seeing then and want to know more about. You can't separate journalism and publicity without deliberately trying to separate the two, which I feel is worse than the alternative.
Right, but there are occasions where one's own interests and reader interests sync up; I've explained that I'm in a position where I'm lucky to have that happen to me more often than the usual.

baby doll

03-25-2011, 06:09 AM

But really, you're getting on Boner about that? Wouldn't your time be better spent sending off an email to ET, TMZ, Access Hollywood, etc.?!Nobody who works for those outlets posts on here.

baby doll

03-25-2011, 06:46 AM

You write what the readers want. The reason the stars of the movies coming out at any given time make up the bulk of the coinciding interviews is because they're topical; they're what people are seeing then and want to know more about. You can't separate journalism and publicity without deliberately trying to separate the two, which I feel is worse than the alternative.Is this what the readers want? To me, it feels closer to Stalinist propaganda. Presumably it's the studio putting Cornish up in different hotels and flying her from city to city so that she can talk to the press. Which would be fine by me, except that the media treats these sort of junkets as if they were news events, rather than bought publicity.

transmogrifier

03-25-2011, 07:32 AM

Dawn of the Dead is a very good movie.

Boner M

03-25-2011, 07:36 AM

Dawn of the Dead is a very good movie.
This is true.

transmogrifier

03-25-2011, 07:40 AM

This is true.

And if he can make one very good movie, he can make another. Hasn't happened yet though.

Not sure how Snyder gets to be the whipping boy in the era of Ed Zwick, but there you go.

Watashi

03-25-2011, 08:38 AM

Watchmen > Dawn of the Dead

The ending to DotD and zombie baby still get on my nerves.

At least Sucker Punch should have good opening credits.

Rowland

03-25-2011, 08:54 AM

Snyder's Dawn of the Dead is better than Savini's Night of the Living Dead remake and Miner's hilariously inept Day of the Dead remake. It does not surpass Romero's original, nor is it better than many other modern horror movies. On the Romero remake scale, The Crazies > Dawn of the Dead.

transmogrifier

03-25-2011, 09:26 AM

On the Romero remake scale, The Crazies > Dawn of the Dead.

Nope.

Qrazy

03-25-2011, 09:38 AM

And if he can make one very good movie, he can make another. Hasn't happened yet though.

Not sure how Snyder gets to be the whipping boy in the era of Ed Zwick, but there you go.

Ed Zwick is so god damn awful. It pains me.

Boner M

03-25-2011, 10:24 AM

Love & Other Drugs is the only Zwick film I can remember clearly but that alone puts him in one of Hollywood's lower echelons of hack directors.

Morris SchÃ¦ffer

03-25-2011, 11:38 AM

Zwicky made Glory = Lifelong pass

Qrazy

03-25-2011, 12:06 PM

Zwicky made Glory = Lifelong pass

Glory is bad.

Eleven

03-25-2011, 12:26 PM

Yeah, Dawn is quite good, but I'm gonna put at least some of that praise at the feet of writer James Gunn, whose Slither has a lot of the same fun group dynamics. Since then, that "visionary director" bullshit elevated a decent regular hack into a full-blown eye-gougingly ugly auteur.

lovejuice

03-25-2011, 02:34 PM

Zwicky made Glory = Lifelong pass

For me, The Siege.

But really, no one watched Sucker Punch yet?

Eleven

03-25-2011, 02:55 PM

Also, is this most ironically-titled movie (to theatergoers who actually end up paying to see it) since What's the Worst That Could Happen?

lovejuice

03-25-2011, 03:09 PM

I hope it's half as fun as

http://www.wendyswizardofoz.com/returntoozcastcolor4.jpg

TGM

03-25-2011, 05:30 PM

Holy shit. This movie is absolutely phenomenal! Zack Snyder has completely outdone himself this time. Awesome, awesome movie!

megladon8

03-25-2011, 06:54 PM

According to a quote on the full-page ad in the paper, this is...

"EXTRAORDINARY filmmaking! Kill Bill meets Inception!"

(I forget the critic you said it)

Spun Lepton

03-25-2011, 06:55 PM

According to a quote on the full-page ad in the paper, this is...

"EXTRAORDINARY filmmaking! Kill Bill meets Inception!"

(I forget the critic you said it)

Color me skeptical.

megladon8

03-25-2011, 06:56 PM

I love how any film with a female action hero is now said to be "...like Kill Bill!" by some critics.

There was a similar "...like Kill Bill!" quote when Salt came out last year.

D_Davis

03-25-2011, 07:02 PM

"IT'S LIKE DAVID LYNCH ON ACID!"

eternity

03-25-2011, 07:33 PM

Whatever. I am excited.

Spun Lepton

03-25-2011, 07:34 PM

Guarantee this will be #1 this weekend.

Dead & Messed Up

03-25-2011, 08:52 PM

On the Romero remake scale, The Crazies > Dawn of the Dead.

A revision:

Joe Anderson in The Crazies > Steven Weber in Dawn of the Dead > Dawn of the Dead > The Crazies

Spun Lepton

03-25-2011, 09:05 PM

I just noticed the Diary of a Wimpy Kid sequel opened today, too, so I withdraw my "guarantee" that Sucker Punch will be #1. However, I still suspect it'll be #1.

Spinal

03-25-2011, 09:43 PM

Raiders

03-25-2011, 09:52 PM

A revision:

Joe Anderson in The Crazies > Steven Weber in Dawn of the Dead > Dawn of the Dead > The Crazies

I agree with you that had Steven Weber actually been in Dawn of the Dead, he would have been the best part.

Dead & Messed Up

03-25-2011, 10:19 PM

I agree with you that had Steven Weber actually been in Dawn of the Dead, he would have been the best part.

Dehrp! Swap in Jake. I thought his reserved performance was the highlight of an otherwise loud movie.

TGM

03-26-2011, 12:44 AM

Guarantee this will be #1 this weekend.

Yeah, dunno about that. My theater was pretty much empty. Meanwhile, the Wimpy Kid movie playing in the next theater over was so packed we could hear them in our theater.

eternity

03-26-2011, 01:21 AM

No one is allowed to be disappointed by this. Zack Snyder has given you plenty of information about himself at this point. If you buy a ticket, you know what you're getting and you deserve what you get.
I strongly disagree. While there's certain elements that exist in all of his films, I still find myself surprised that the director of Dawn of the Dead also made 300 also made Watchmen also made Guardians of Ga'hoole. All four are miles apart in quality and general "feeling".

He's remarkably inconsistent despite his films being so uniform.

Sxottlan

03-26-2011, 01:36 AM

Huh. This was a weird movie.

I'm still trying to figure out if I even liked it, but I liked its intriguing beginning, which basically set up two premises at once. I got excited because it seemed vaguely Lynchian (with Sweetpea dressing up like Babydoll as a kind of bridge between the parallel plots). I was trying to figure out if Babydoll's "dancing" at the bordello stood in for something more salacious in the asylum. There is a bit of an annoying prudishness to the film despite the promise of the ads. I hope there's an unrated edition some day.

I did like trying to figure out what the events in the bordello represented in the "real" world, but the movie itself did not seem interested in this as it treated the bordello as the basic reality.

Although when the film shifts to Sweatpea, I wondered then if the entire asylum reality was the fantasy.

But I was beyond pissed when the screen went nearly completely dark during the WWI sequence. I ran out to complain to the girl at the concession stand, who said they had problems with the film all day. Why they then wouldn't warn moviegoers I'm not sure. Afterwards, I complain to the manager, who claimed both the 35mm print and the digital version of the film had the same darkening to near complete black during the same scene every time. He claimed "it must be intentional by the director," which I thought was total bull.

Unless anyone else experienced this? Either way, I got a free pass out of it.

TGM

03-26-2011, 02:22 AM

But I was beyond pissed when the screen went nearly completely dark during the WWI sequence. I ran out to complain to the girl at the concession stand, who said they had problems with the film all day. Why they then wouldn't warn moviegoers I'm not sure. Afterwards, I complain to the manager, who claimed both the 35mm print and the digital version of the film had the same darkening to near complete black during the same scene every time. He claimed "it must be intentional by the director," which I thought was total bull.

Unless anyone else experienced this? Either way, I got a free pass out of it.

It didn't do that for my showing. Definitely not intentional by the director.

Sxottlan

03-26-2011, 02:42 AM

It didn't do that for my showing. Definitely not intentional by the director.

Yeah I figured the manager was completely lying about the digital projection (I saw the 35mm print) and I get so angry that they wouldn't give you some kind of warning.

Not to mention those shots during the "black out" were normally lit when they appeared in the trailers.

Watashi

03-26-2011, 05:22 AM

Wimpy Kid is going to demolish Sucker Punch.

eternity

03-26-2011, 05:50 AM

This movie captures the essence of filmmaking for me. It explicitly lays out the entirety of the plot in the first few minutes and doesn't shy away from it; it throws no curveballs into the actual narrative, only the way it is being told. Snyder must have known that this was probably the only time he was going to be able to do whatever he wanted in a movie, and while in the end that was not entirely true, the movie is basically an exercise in telling a story in whatever way you want because as a writer/director, you have every right to as a storyteller. And that aspect I absolutely loved. Is the fact that the movie is framed until the flimsy suggestion that it's in Baby Doll's imagination complete bullshit? Yes, and I liked that for the most part it wasn't even being suggested as that; there was absolutely no connection to the different tellings of the same story until much later on.

That said, it's a stylistically ugly movie; a complete 180 from the seamless, beautiful, pitch-perfect toying of the senses in Watchmen. The whole thing felt like a test screening in how choppy and unrefined the whole thing was. It was also gut-bustingly hilarious about half the time. I didn't much mind, even though good god, every single "huge CGI action scene" is basically just Snyder adapting a specific video game. One sequence is 100% Killzone; another is 100% Final Fantasy 13. It's like he didn't even try to hide it.

As far as Snyder's filmography goes, I think it's a film that in the long run will be necessary viewing and it is impossible for me to dismiss it in any way, and I don't think anyone else should either. That said, he better not fucking make anything like this again.

Winston*

03-26-2011, 05:51 AM

the seamless, beautiful, pitch-perfect toying of the senses in Watchmen.

Wait, what?

eternity

03-26-2011, 05:52 AM

Wait, what?Just about every frame and noise of that movie is pristine and effective. Sucker Punch, on the other hand, is the opposite.

Winston*

03-26-2011, 05:53 AM

Just about every frame and noise of that movie is pristine and effective.
Wait, what?

ciaoelor

03-26-2011, 06:17 AM

I work at a movie theater. Once we had a print of Slumdog Millionaire that was silent for the first 5 or 10 minutes. The manager didn't think to put up a sign explaining this to the customers. Why I don't know. But whenever I had the box-office shift I would explain this to the customers and sell them the cheapest ticket (a child's or senior's) if they were still interested in seeing the movie.

But I was beyond pissed when the screen went nearly completely dark during the WWI sequence. I ran out to complain to the girl at the concession stand, who said they had problems with the film all day. Why they then wouldn't warn moviegoers I'm not sure. Afterwards, I complain to the manager, who claimed both the 35mm print and the digital version of the film had the same darkening to near complete black during the same scene every time. He claimed "it must be intentional by the director," which I thought was total bull. Unless anyone else experienced this? Either way, I got a free pass out of it.

Ivan Drago

03-26-2011, 07:29 AM

But I was beyond pissed when the screen went nearly completely dark during the WWI sequence. I ran out to complain to the girl at the concession stand, who said they had problems with the film all day. Why they then wouldn't warn moviegoers I'm not sure. Afterwards, I complain to the manager, who claimed both the 35mm print and the digital version of the film had the same darkening to near complete black during the same scene every time. He claimed "it must be intentional by the director," which I thought was total bull.

Unless anyone else experienced this? Either way, I got a free pass out of it.

This happened to me when I saw Collateral AND Pride and Prejudice in theaters. No one complained though. Really didn't affect my experience viewing them though, as they were both great movies.

Bosco B Thug

03-26-2011, 08:53 AM

Interesting. Snyder trades in objectifying men and battle for objectifying women and victimization, and suddenly I'm sympathetic to Snyder's moronic cinema. I'm inclined to agree with eternity: he's not a brilliant artist, but he's a sincere, ambitious one, and I'm almost prepared to say he's a-okay with me as a person now (vis-a-vis as a filmmaker), this first originally-written work of his not being a complete black hole of morals.

I have to admire Sucker Punch for one thing: it baits moviegoers pretending to be an action-fantasy movie, and it turns out to be a grim women's picture, with a surprising deal of compassion for the weakest of the female suffering and a surprise theme that promotes the deeper and internally existent girl over the merely female or kickass.

I can't recommend the film, though, and I mean in the most non-pretentious, "Is it a good time out to the movies?" way. It's a real chore to sit through. The script itself is a complete misstep: the film's series of protracted, systematic fantasy action sequences are the definition of redundant and pointless to endure. You need to seriously beware if even the trailers got you rolling your eyes.

eternity

03-26-2011, 05:16 PM

The next morning, yeah, this is mostly putrid. The script is awful, but that was almost a certainty when this project was announced. That wouldn't be much of a problem if it wasn't a stylistic mess. 300 and Watchmen, despite their flaws (300 moreso), are both well-made movies. Sucker Punch is definitely not.

But it's still nice for a filmmaker to tell a story in whatever odd way he wants to because the cinematic medium allows him the freedom to. Isn't art wonderful?

Eleven

03-26-2011, 07:08 PM

Also, is this most ironically-titled movie (to theatergoers who actually end up paying to see it) since What's the Worst That Could Happen?

Upon further review, that John Woo-Ben Affleck movie Paycheck was slightly more recent.

eternity

03-27-2011, 01:44 AM

This movie has three levels:
1. Real World
2. Babydoll's dream
3. Zack Snyder's dream

Sadly, Snyder's dream is so huge and comprehensive that it's mindblowing how uninspired and insipid it is.

Also, why the fuck is Babydoll the fifth item for the escape, other than...well, the movie having nowhere else to go and needing an ending?

Ezee E

03-27-2011, 11:07 PM

This is the first time that I think this word applies to a movie:

LOLwut?

Although, I will say that it is rare that we get a movie like this. Zack Snyder gets to do whatever he wants here, and he has the ambition to do something that Richard Kelly or David Lynch does. Problem is, Snyder shows the intelligence of a fourth-grader that just learned to like girls.

The third world scenes just never make sense from the getgo, and are predictable the whole way through. But they sure do look nice. Everything looks nice. There's just nothing interesting behind it.

Except Jon Hamm of course.

EyesWideOpen

03-27-2011, 11:20 PM

Ezee E

03-27-2011, 11:22 PM

I really dug Sucker Punch. I don't care for action movies at all but something about Zach Snyder's stylized action I love. Also great use of music, Bjork playing over the fight with the giant samurai's, The Beatles on the train/bomb mission.
The music made me laugh the most. I really have no idea when this movie was suppose to take place. They have old record players and radios that make it seem like 30s-50s, and then they turn on the music, and it's a flawless version of a Queen mashup.

EyesWideOpen

03-27-2011, 11:31 PM

The music made me laugh the most. I really have no idea when this movie was suppose to take place. They have old record players and radios that make it seem like 30s-50s, and then they turn on the music, and it's a flawless version of a Queen mashup.

I don't understand that complaint. Sucker Punch isn't Schindler's List. It's not about realism. She's fighting 30 foot samurai for christ's sake.

Watashi

03-27-2011, 11:34 PM

This is like Moulin Rouge for the anti-musical crowd.

This isn't the two-dimensiomal girls-kicking-ass film the trailers have showed. There is depth to this film about women's suffering and the right to fight back, but it's never interesting and Snyder never fully separates the fantasy from the reality, because neither has any stakes or rules to follow. The music is way out of place and laughable. I would perferred just a regular score instead of being a 2 hour long music video.

I can't think of any redeeming factors about this. How could something with hot scantily-clad women fighting nazi-clockwork-zombies be so utterly boring.

Ezee E

03-27-2011, 11:35 PM

I don't understand that complaint. Sucker Punch isn't Schindler's List. It's not about realism. She's fighting 30 foot samurai for christ's sake.
And that fight represents her sexy dance somehow. (which would be more interesting, right?) Thematically, it fits more with the movie as well. But instead, it resolves to action sequences instead of even attempting to see that such a sexy dance can be performed.

The action sequences are all the same. Simple setup, with a "trick" at the end. Why is that old man there anyways? If you thought the fights in Scott Pilgrim were tiresome, just wait for the third twenty-minute action sequence... By the time we stay in the "second world" we're actually cheering that they show the action that goes on there, which actually causes tension and interest.

Watashi

03-27-2011, 11:36 PM

The only character I had an emotional connection to was a baby dragon who's in the film for 10 seconds.

EyesWideOpen

03-27-2011, 11:38 PM

And that fight represents her sexy dance somehow. (which would be more interesting, right?) Thematically, it fits more with the movie as well. But instead, it resolves to action sequences instead of even attempting to see that such a sexy dance can be performed.

Yeah, but like how those action scenes aren't really happening the music playing over them isn't coming out of the radio. It's part of the action scene.

Ezee E

03-27-2011, 11:40 PM

Yeah, but like how those action scenes aren't really happening the music playing over them isn't coming out of the radio. It's part of the action scene.
That music idea is never conveyed in the movie though. In fact, you have Carla Gugino banging her stick to the beat of Bjork.

Ezee E

03-27-2011, 11:54 PM

I'll still defend the movie for at least having a look that works all the way through, and Jena Malone/Abbie Cornish are better actresses then the movie probably intended them to be. Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Chung are simply outmatched.

I really wish Oscar Isaac went to Nicolas Cage levels of craziness. His role was perfect for it. Especially in the scene where he turns the chalkboard to foil their awesome plan.

Bosco B Thug

03-28-2011, 01:36 AM

I would perferred just a regular score instead of being a 2 hour long music video. This. Snyder spends two hours in self-parody and hardly notices.

And that fight represents her sexy dance somehow. (which would be more interesting, right?) Thematically, it fits more with the movie as well. But instead, it resolves to action sequences instead of even attempting to see that such a sexy dance can be performed. I see why the decision to make it "unrepresentable" was made, since it's a poetic device more than anything (what with the dance's super-power-like effect), and the choice to obscure it gels with the morals of the film (if the story's about her escaping from her sexually selling herself, doesn't it make sense the audience should not be allowed to see and "enjoy" her sexual dance?) - but I can't deny the film's repeated fade-outs from showing it are guffaw-worthy.

I really wish Oscar Isaac went to Nicolas Cage levels of craziness. His role was perfect for it. Especially in the scene where he turns the chalkboard to foil their awesome plan. Haha, yeah. I personally enjoyed them panicking in the kitchen because Sweetpea hasn't showed up, as if they really needed another person to clear the tabletop for Babydoll to dance on.

I still have some good will towards the movie, though. It's poetic-minded, with its Lynch-like abstraction of characters and womanhood across scenarios, time periods, etc. And then the ending,

with Cornish closing it like a Sylvia Plath survivor.

Too bad it is so boring and unfolds like a video game.

D_Davis

03-28-2011, 01:40 AM

number8

03-28-2011, 02:31 AM

What the fuck.

EMILY: I had a very tame and mild love scene with John Hamm... I think it's great for this young girl to actually take control of her own sexuality. Well, the MPAA doesn't like that. They don't think a girl should ever be in control of her own sexuality because they're from the Stone Age... So essentially, they got Zack to edit the scene and make it look less like she's into it. And Zack said he edited it down to the point where it looked like he was taking advantage of her. That's the only way he could get a PG-13 [rating] and he said, "I don't want to send that message." So they cut the scene!

http://www.nylonmag.com/?section=article&parid=5928

megladon8

03-28-2011, 03:12 AM

A girl who wants to have sex is less questionable than a girl being taken advantage of?

Wow.

Ezee E

03-28-2011, 04:52 AM

Yeah, there's at least three scenes that you can tell are cut down so that it can be PG-13.

-Vanessa Hudgens' muted f-bomb.
-Jamie Chung most likely giving somebody a handjob?
-The lack of violence in the dressing room. Cross also has a lot of his dialog cut out here when he goes up to Browning.

Ezee E

03-28-2011, 04:54 AM

I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be anachronistic.
Sure, but it's never shown to be that way. Like I said, when you have Carla beating her stick along with it, as well as Browning starting her dance to the beat of it, it still gets silly.

megladon8

03-28-2011, 05:09 AM

I never really caught the "Asian bug" (so many of my friends have this absolute, well, fetish for Asian girls) but Jamie Chung is undeniably cute.

Winston*

03-28-2011, 05:22 AM

Cross also has a lot of his dialog cut out here when he goes up to Browning.

David Cross is in this movie?

Bosco B Thug

03-28-2011, 06:59 AM

A girl who wants to have sex is less questionable than a girl being taken advantage of?

Wow. Rape culture alert. Someone blow the rape culture whistle.

But, then again, I also wonder how and where exactly such a scene fits in. Isn't one of the more odd and blatantly feminist elements in the film the way

Babydoll's oncoming and clearly undesired deflowering by the High Roller (played by Hamm) is appropriated as the film's ticking clock?

baby doll

03-28-2011, 11:27 AM

I never really caught the "Asian bug" (so many of my friends have this absolute, well, fetish for Asian girls)Speaking of the Asian bug, I've only been in Hong Kong a few hours, but I already hate it with a passion. The layout of the subway stations is needlessly confusing, and the city planning is a disaster--which is to say that there doesn't seem to have been any planning whatsoever. I'm so glad the PRC didn't reject my visa application, because I'd blow my brains out if I had to stay here an extra day.

[/slightly off-topic rant]

Henry Gale

03-28-2011, 07:45 PM

Yeah, the movie's not too good, disappointing for sure, and maybe Snyder's weakest film yet, BUT I really am still holding out hope for his director's cut, because I feel like there are existing pieces in the movie that could lend to a much more cohesive story where each aspect of the film finds ways to function towards a more meaningful framework overall. Not to say I'm positive adding 20 minutes will do this, but I could easily see it becoming the better version. There's still problems at the core of it that couldn't be fixed with editing, like majority of the dialogue and structure of the script, especially the decision to have things play out through three realities instead of just two, some of the musical are either hilariously on-the-nose or just awkward against the scenes they're used, and when it comes to some of the casting... could they have picked a less menacing guy than Oscar Isaac?

I actually believe Snyder when he says that a big part of this movie is trying to deliver a criticism on fanboy culture's objectification and sexism towards women through things like video games and movies, because I think a lot of people have overlooked the humour in the device of transforming Baby Doll's dancing (which the male characters in the film see as sexual gyrating, possible stripping) into sequences the audiences sees as specific genre ass-kicking with the girls scantily clad as they invade these giant worlds, plowing through endless zombies, robots, trolls and dragons, which is what is pre-established as the real-world ticket buyer's expected PG-13 entertainment and titillation.

But most of all, it's really sad to hear how Snyder originally wanted to end the movie and tie all the threads together, because aside from giving Jon Hamm a bigger role, it would have easily been a more satisfying conclusion to the movie:

The very first ending I wrote the order was: Babydoll was being lobotomized, she got chained in the basement, Sweet Pea escapes – well, let me back up. There’s a scene you’ll see on the Director’s Cut with Jon Hamm. When Jon Hamm arrives as the High Roller – and we took this scene out because of the MPAA – when that guy punches Babydoll in the face, she wakes up in the High Roller’s suite. He basically makes a deal with her that if she gives herself to him, and willingly and not against her will, then he’ll give her freedom and get [her] out of that place. He’ll make it so that Blue will never touch her and she’ll be free. She’s seduced by that concept, and right when they go to kiss each other, that’s her being lobotomized. When they kiss, it’s her being lobotomized.

The very end of the movie was: you see Sweet Pea steal a dress from a clothesline, then after she’s lobotomized and Blue says, “Do you remember me? Take her downstairs,” and then you see Sweet Pea getting on the bus, then after her getting on the bus, it cuts back to Babydoll in the basement and that whole scene happens of the cops taking him away. When he shines the flashlight on her, she gets up, and the camera dollies in on her and then goes around her head – and you see that she’s on a stage in the theater and she signs “O-o-h Child” at the very end. After that, all the dead girls come out and they sing together, then the curtain closes. That’s the end.

Why was that cut?

We tested it, and people just did not know how to… I don’t know. I thought it was awesome, personally. Maybe there’s a cult version of it that’ll exist that I can put together sometime [Laughs], but for a mass audience, it just played as this super culty, bizarro ending. I love it, personally. I could tell that people just didn’t know how to take it, though.

Was it difficult conducting test-screenings, not only in the sense that Sucker Punch has a lot of effects, but because of how much of a love it or hate it type of film it is?

What I learned on this was that, you can’t test a movie like Sucker Punch. It really defies the whole concept of being tested. In a lot of ways, I think the movie would have been a million times better off if we just made the hardest, craziest version of the movie we could and not trying to please every audience. I do think that the movie is crazy, in a great way, but it’s just funny that I think it’s 30% as crazy as it could have been. I think that’s the world it lives in. It lives in a crazy world. Interview link. (http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/interview-zack-snyder-on-the-sexuality-and-world-of-sucker-punch.php)

I don't care how the studio looked at it, that should have been the ending no matter what. But that seems to sum up the whole end result of this movie in a way: muddled, neutered and stripped of its focus by forces beyond what anyone involved may have been able to control or see as it was happening.

**, maybe **1/2