Sucker Punch: Did the critics see the same movie I did?

Interesting.

I was going to skip Sucker Punch, but now I may need to check it out. Had the same trailers come with, say, Robert Rodriguez' name on them, I'd have been all over it. But I don't trust Snyder. He has managed to make an adaptation of 300 even more fascist than the source material while calling it a story about freedom, and the boneheaded adaptation of Watchmen that I would have made had someone been stupid enough to put me in the director's chair when I was fifteen. I respect his talented eye, but feel embarrassed for the entire geek cinema tribe at his willful stupidity about story; every indication has been that Punch is more of the same, only more so.

But perhaps I'm wrong?

Honestly, all i expect is that it be fun. If he wants to have big red flashing arrows pointing to every clue, fine.

I will say this by way of warning: if all you want is to enjoy the heck out of the mini-movies, the all-girl commando squad sequences? The 1957-reality and outer-fantasy layers may bore and/or depress you, and may even make you sick.

Y'know, this is the film's sucker punch. It lures you in with the lurid commando-girl-squad action sequences and then WHAM. Reality smacks you hard in the face.

My thought is only that some people have trouble with the idea of escapest fantacy. I will say from the reveiws it sounds like the same confusion I had over the movie Slaughter House Five the first time I saw it. I was 7 at the time but you know, some adults are as advanced as I was at 7.

I saw 300 and the only problem I had was that well... the graphic novel twists history too much. If you take the story on its own and not try to connect the dots to reality it is great.

I am planning to see Sucker Punch. When I first heard the name I did not even pay attention because it sounds like a buddy movie. But when I found out who was doing it and what the plot was OMG... yeah going.

Yeah, about the only point I was ever confused on was (a) was her sister dead or only injured (I assumed dead) and (b) did she shoot her sister or had her stepfather already killed her? And those two are clearly explained by the doctor at the end. I guess one could argue that her stepfather killed her sister and then framed her for it (it's not clear to me how the bullet that shot out a ceiling light fixture ended up killing her sister on the floor). But there's no strong case for that.

The inner fantasy sequences were indeed full of awesome. Best excuse for skinny scantily clad young women to be kicking ass EVER.

Loved Scott Glenn. "Oh, and one last thing ... " Hee!

I am not sure how one could find the plot line confusing, unless the whole concept of "fantasy sequences" was somehow alien. It'd be like being confused by Walter Mitty.

A little more ammunition for your "only male critics hate it" -- Betsy Sharkey's review, not unqualified but definitely positive.

I want to write about the gender themes in this movie, because there's kind of a surreality to it -- it's a movie that sexually exploits women with a theme that sexually exploiting women is horrible and dehumanizing. Yes, the framing stories are definitely buzzkill. This is not a criticism! It makes it more interesting than I expected, though.

I saw this last night with the anime club from the local community college. They all left complaining that it didn't make sense, had no plot to it, and that the fantasy action sequences were too unbelievable. I had a hard time biting my tongue at all of that.

There was a very definite plot. Not as deep as some movies, sure, but it was there. The only time in the entire movie I was confused was the first transition from reality to the brothel storyline. I quickly got what was going on, though, and it was plainly explained at the end.

As for the fantasy battles, I don't get how these anime fans can complain about unrealistic fantasy worlds. Number one, the scenes in this were no more unrealistic than any anime I have seen (and were better than most in my opinion). Second, the action sequences were all clearly advertised. It boggles my mind that the exact thing that was advertised to get you into the movie was also one of your biggest complaints.

All I know for certain is I am likely to see this again, and will definitely be adding it to my list of movies to buy when it comes out on dvd (something I do not do often anymore).

I did have one question though, what was your reason for leaving unhappy? You never really go into that and I am curious.

If that confused them, get them to watch anything by Satoshi Kon. Wear a poncho for when their heads explode.

Having just watched it, yeah, if the critics are confused about the order and structure of the movie, then they weren't paying any sort of attention to it.

As for the work itself, I'm guessing most people will like it or not like it based on how much they keep the frame story in mind while exploring the other fantasy layers.

Thank you for writing this post, Brad.

I had been looking forward to seeing this film since I saw the trailer last November. However when the reviews came out I almost decided not to go. After reading you review I decided to go, and saw it in the bigger of the two IMAX theaters in NYC.

I absolutely loved it. I loved all three layers, and I think it has potential to develop a following after it comes out on home video and people can watch it over and over and debate where the layers are, etc.

I enjoyed reading all the replies (I held off from reading them until after I saw it). The only thing I can add is, "If people thought the brief outer layer sunk the whole film I hate to hear what you think of Wizard of Oz."

Yeah, I know I'm slow, but what makes people think that all those fantasy layers are Baby Doll's? As for me they are the way Sweet Pea remembers what happened while in the back of a bus, that's why there is Wise Man identical to the bus driver, she inserts him into narrative after he helped her.