Review: Sucker Punch
You know that kid? The aspiring artist. We all know one. The one with the sketchbook. The sketchbook's pages are filled with unbelievably kickass scenes of the ultimate in madcap mayhem. Each huge page bears as much detail as a fifteen-foot mural. The sketchbook knows no genre, has never heard of self-consistency, and laughs in the face of narrative. You always wonder to yourself if the sketchbook kid is on drugs, or maybe just energy drinks.
It has never had a movie adaptation. Until now. You might be thinking of other movies that deserve that description, like Transformers 2. If you watch Sucker Punch you will move those goalposts.
There is no language to describe it except to paraphrase Brutomax commercials:
Watch Sucker Punch and become stupidly energetic!
In the universe of bladder-shattering intensity depicted in Sucker Punch, the periodic table must consist of shoxygen! fightrogen! and carbomb!
But wait! I have more facts to yell at you!
Sucker Punch is lighter than air! OK, it's heavier than air, but that just means it's better than air, and you should be breathing it instead of air!
After watching it, everything you say will sound like a curse word. Observe: DEFENESTRATE!
Sucker Punch will make you win at things that aren't even competitive! Things like drugs! Wednesdays! The number twelve! And Peter Sellers!
Sucker Punch is a feature-length demo reel for visual-effects artists. They must have said, "Let's make the ideal career-making portfolio piece for every film artist ever. Somebody please write a story that justifies a rusty battle mecha and a gritty zeppelin alongside gleaming chrome robots. Also samurai giants. And a dragon." Well, they got all those things. I think there may also have been some actors in this movie too. I can't remember. But one thing's for sure: the tail is wagging the dog. It's the film equivalent of an art book-- an annual coffee-table book perused by art directors, in which dozens or hundreds of illustrators advertise with their finest samples.
This is not necessarily a bad thing if, like me, you love looking through art books, and you like the highest possible production values in a movie. Just be prepared for the thinnest wisp of a plot it could possibly get away with and still pretend not to be the kid's sketchbook. The film is about events in the protagonist's imagination, and therefore the writer doesn't need to care about contradictions, loose ends, or reasons for anything.
On another level, the film is not about the protagonist's imagination, but rather what she is concealing from herself, and by extension, from the moviegoing audience. During the protagonist's escapist fantasies of power, you might pay sufficient attention past all that eye candy to analyze what is going on outside of the protagonist's head. You'll figure out what is not explicitly depicted or mentioned. I already told you about the lazy storytelling, but have you guessed yet? Rape rape rape violence against women rape imprisonment rape slavery rape murder rape torture rape rape rape. Even if you don't figure it out, you are left with no question that every woman character in the film lives in stark terror of all but one male character in the film. So, be advised.
Does that have anything to do with the title? I have no idea. They probably picked the title by throwing a dart at a dartboard.
Comments
beamjockey on Mar. 29, 2011 12:47 PM
But one thing's for sure: the tail is wagging the dog. It's the film equivalent of an art book-- an annual coffee-table book perused by art directors, in which dozens or hundreds of illustrators advertise with their finest samples.
I do love looking through art books, and I do like the highest possible production values in a movie. But I feel that I have seen too many films in the past fifteen years that fit the description above. Lots of intelligence evident on the visual side of the house, and a slapped-together screenplay that oozes contempt for the audience's own intelligence. I'm kinda tired of it.
Perhaps, if Sucker-Punch takes its artwork to the kind of extremes you describe, it might go so far as to be interesting.
matt-arnold on Mar. 29, 2011 4:06 PM
There have indeed been movies driven entirely by "lots of intelligence evident on the visual side of the house, and a slapped-together screenplay that oozes contempt for the audience's own intelligence". Yes! But that would be like an art book in which all the illustrators agreed to draw the same characters and setting. At least most of those movies did not switch to making a new movie until the credits rolled on the old one. With the "it's all in the character's head" premise, this film self-consciously takes the portfolio piece idea to a whole new level.
sorcycat on Mar. 29, 2011 1:33 PM
Regarding the name:
http://blastr.com/2011/03/why-was-sucker-punch-call.php
flinx on Mar. 29, 2011 3:12 PM — Re: the name
Given what I've read of the denouement of the movie, I imagine that "Sucker Punch" was Snyder's joke about the whole production.
"We're giving you all of this stuff! that's cool and pretty and grabs your attention, and then we hit you with that thing that you didn't see coming based on the stuff! and we flatten you. Isn't that awesome?"
Leave a Comment