Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorFrank
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2011
     (8644.61)
    Can someone point out where exactly is "someone's favorite mastubatory fantasy" in the trailer?

    just curious..
    •  
      CommentAuthorFredG
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2011
     (8644.62)
    The io9 review sounds like someone throwing all their art school angst into the critique, little too much drama over an escapist movie. I think this is going to be the movie it's hip to hate, but then I liked his version of the Watchmen.
    • CommentAuthorgzapata
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2011
     (8644.63)
    The funny thing about io9 is they'll rave about anything and hype it up only to rip it down the moment it comes out
  1.  (8644.64)
    You're all missing the point. As I stated earlier, I dug it, therefore it was good. Case closed. QED
  2.  (8644.65)
    Thread closing in 3.2.1....
    •  
      CommentAuthorDon Garvey
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2011
     (8644.66)
    I enjoyed it. It aspired to more than it could deliver but I think I'd rather see a filmmaker do that and fail than not bother at all.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCK Burch
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2011
     (8644.67)
    Welp, I loved the film. In fact, I practically wrote a dissertation on it.

    Here.

    It's a damn shame that Hollywood critics just aren't going to do anything other than nitpick the film to death. A damn shame.
  3.  (8644.68)
    @CK Great review. You nailed many of things I saw when I watched it and read while perusing other's reviews.

    There does seem to be a knee-jerk negative response to anything visually loud that revels in its own volume regardless of how well executed it is. I think it's a little too similar to the dismissal of any form of metal music as being low-brow and low quality from so many quarters.
  4.  (8644.69)
    The problem for me is that there is nothing about the promotion for this movie that says anything more to me than "visually loud". I have nothing against that, but it's not a selling point either.
    • CommentAuthorSteadyUP
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2011
     (8644.70)
    @Vox - very good way of putting it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJay Kay
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2011
     (8644.71)
    Just saw it, and I would definitely agree with CK's dissertation. In a lot of ways, it is a far more stylized Inception with hot girls in schoolgirl costumes, katannas and dragons. Is the plot/world-building as solid as Inception? Heaven's no. Is the plot perfect? What plot isn't? Even if it is a failure, I'd label it an interesting failure, and when it comes to what I want to see, I prefer interesting failures to boring successes.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroddbill
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2011 edited
     (8644.72)
    The thing is, if I were to describe a film as a surreal exploration of the imagery of power and powerlessness, in the form of a sequence of ambiguously layered fantasies, related to a girl falsely committed to a mental institution by her evil stepfather, and say this was a Jodorowsky film, lots of the same people who knee-jerk hate this would be intrigued.

    They'd say it was because Jodo is a visionary mad genius, and Snyder is a pandering hack.

    I think it would be mainly because Jodo would make his incomprehensible masturbatory fantasy on a shoestring with an almost random collection of unknown actors chosen deliberately for their disturbing appearance, and it would be clumsily paced and poorly filmed. These cues read as conferring legitimacy. Snyder's film, on the other hand, is very expensively and slickly produced, filmed incredibly well, watchably paced and populated by famous attractive people. These cues read as pandering.

    I really enjoyed watching this movie, and found aspects of it quite disturbing.

    I don't think it makes any sense to try to parse it too closely as a linear story. I don't think it rewards scrutiny as to what in it was real, or what was really happening at any given time. It really felt more to me like ten years of anime, women in prison grindhouse, burlesque and steampunk were remixed around the theme of free will and justice. I don't think in the end it had all that much of any real profundity to say about any of that, but likewise I've never felt that Jodorowsky had any real profound insights in any of his symbolist confusions either.

    I enjoyed watching Snyder do this thing much more than I've ever enjoyed anything by Jodorowsky.

    The comparison I'm making between these two filmmakers may seem arbitrary, but I really do think that Snyder in Suckerpunch has done something very similar to the kinds of things surreal arthouse icons like Jodorowsky usually do, and the sin he seems to have commited is to have done it with lots of money, attractive people and action sequences.
    •  
      CommentAuthortedcroland
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2011
     (8644.73)
    And in a manner that is profoundly shallow.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroddbill
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2011
     (8644.74)
    I guess my question to that is why should money, attractive people and action sequences be considered shallow? Because they are enjoyable to watch? Because lots of people like them? Only cheaply made, ugly, unpleasant experiences have artistic legitimacy?
  5.  (8644.75)
    oddbill - I haven't seen then movie but from the watching the trailers I would say you're very, very wrong in your comparison. Suck Punch has the visuals of a car commercial. Is there really
    that much artistry in taking genres and mashing them together with half-naked women? I can't speak to the actual directing or story but visually it's rings soulless and hollow.


    •  
      CommentAuthorInternaut
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2011
     (8644.76)
    My buddies and I all went to see it and have discussed at length. We came to this conclusion:
    As the movie opens with narration about guardian angels, and them taking many various forms, and as Baby Doll is the only one to see the old man up until the end when he is driving the bus, we thought that Baby Doll was actually the instrument of Sweet Pea's guardian angel. That's why when the movie takes a turn and straight up tells you it was never about Baby Doll in the first place, it actually kind of makes sense. And explains why the old man shows up at the end, as he is Sweet Pea's guardian angel.
    •  
      CommentAuthortedcroland
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2011
     (8644.77)
    I guess my question to that is why should money, attractive people and action sequences be considered shallow?


    What?

    It's shallow because it pretends to have meaning when it doesn't. At least, the meaning that's there gets you nowhere. "Everyone has a guardian angel" is about as deep as "Happy thoughts make you rich." It's trite and intellectually lame. This wouldn't be a problem if it didn't take itself so seriously: the characterization is wooden (only exacerbated by the terrible, terrible acting) & the "levels of reality" thing is at best a impotent gimmick that reveals nothing about the nature of reality or how we interpret it. It is responding to other fictions, appropriating them, and losing all the good ideas in the process. This is a movie made about "WOULDN'T IT BE COOL."

    Honestly, and I really do hate to sound this reductive, this film was made so that genre-enamored nerds would pour over it and call it deep and tell Snyder how unappreciated he is by the general public (or, try out genre on the general public to see what happens [failure]). If it made any attempt at all to examine the genres it was trying out, it would be one thing, but it doesn't even bother. It takes them completely for granted, decides what's cool and throws it on the screen. Again, this would be fine if the movie were fun, but it's simply not. Hooray more slow-motion focus pulling. Hooray sexy chicks killing dudes. I would rather watch a single genre film that was actually decently made and maybe had some passable acting and story construction than this schlocky bullshit.

    Only cheaply made, ugly, unpleasant experiences have artistic legitimacy?


    I'm not really seeing why you're held up on Jodorowsky. Artistic value doesn't come in any way from production value. How about Lars von Trier? He's made both hideous and gorgeous films, and they're all so deeply layered in his language and form that you can spend pages and pages on his theses in any of them. Things don't have to be ugly they just have to have substance.
  6.  (8644.78)
    @tedcroland

    Are you an avid Jodo fan? Or a Snyder hater? Or both, cause I think your main point is that you hate Zach Snyder, which is fine, but it is a biased opinion.

    Oddbill makes a valid point. Jodo and Snyder are very similar directors. I've seen Jodo's El Topo and The Holy Mountain, and these movies when I saw them were hard to find, I went out of my way to see them because of the visuals, I watched both movies and I found them almost unwatchable.

    Slow paced, convaluted, stories with very little narrative structure, hardly any attempt at characterization, random shots of nudity.

    It's like he just come up with all of these acid trip visuals in his head and then half heartedly attempts to tell a story to justify the visuals in his head. Does this remind you of anybody?
    In essence, Both jodo and Snyder are talented visual directors with a huge weakness in telling a whole story.

    There are only two discernible differences between these direcors.

    Snyder is obsessed with anything and everything to do with fandom. In many ways, he's like the millions of nerds that profess to know so much about movie making, yet he's one of the few that actually tried and succeded in being succesful in movie making.

    Jodo on the other hand is obsessed with taboo subjects of religion, sex, sacrilage, death, and the existensial crisis that is life.

    and its there particular tastes as directors that explains there second difference.

    Zach Snyder wants every one to enjoy his movies, there is a desperation in his images that shows this and the main reason why his movies would be considered shallow, and simple and un artistic. Which is an unfair criticism, i think.

    Jodo on the other hand, because of the subject matter he obsesses, does the opposite, he would care less about whether the audience gets it or not. His stories are convaluted and deep but thats because of the subject matter he chooses to do.

    Seriously, is that how it works. If you don't care at all about enteratining an audience your an autuer, but if you truly care about entertaining the widest possible, then your a hack. This isn't an absolute truth, its an opinion.
  7.  (8644.79)
    Suck Punch has the visuals of a car commercial

    There is artistry, even in car commercials

    •  
      CommentAuthortedcroland
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2011
     (8644.80)
    Let's parse this out:

    Are you an avid Jodo fan? Or a Snyder hater? Or both, cause I think your main point is that you hate Zach Snyder, which is fine, but it is a biased opinion.


    Neither. I know Jodorowsky but I've not seen enough of his work to make an opinion. As far as Snyder goes, Dawn Of The Dead is okay, 300 is really good for homosexual softcore pornography, and Watchmen is a well shot terribly interpreted adaptation of one of the greatest accomplishments in graphic novel history. I divorce myself from hate: I don't actually hate this movie, I just think it sucks and it's absurd to call it anything but what it is. Similar to how some of you guys think it's great and want that to be recognized. I'm making arguments and so are you.

    Oddbill makes a valid point. Jodo and Snyder are very similar directors. I've seen Jodo's El Topo and The Holy Mountain, and these movies when I saw them were hard to find, I went out of my way to see them because of the visuals, I watched both movies and I found them almost unwatchable.

    Slow paced, convaluted, stories with very little narrative structure, hardly any attempt at characterization, random shots of nudity.


    Jodorowsky makes visual arguments, Snyder makes eye candy. It is different. I'll elaborate in a moment...

    It's like he just come up with all of these acid trip visuals in his head and then half heartedly attempts to tell a story to justify the visuals in his head. Does this remind you of anybody?
    In essence, Both jodo and Snyder are talented visual directors with a huge weakness in telling a whole story.


    Genre lives and dies by narrative. Jodorowsky doesn't really make genre pictures, Snyder does. Again more elaboration...

    There are only two discernible differences between these direcors.

    Snyder is obsessed with anything and everything to do with fandom. In many ways, he's like the millions of nerds that profess to know so much about movie making, yet he's one of the few that actually tried and succeded in being succesful in movie making.


    Okay, so you're trying to make a case that he is not a shallow hack, you're also saying that he is a nerd who got good at shooting stuff. I'm not really seeing why anyone should take his bullshit as granted considering this fact. I never said he couldn't shoot stuff, I said that what he shoots is trite crap. My first post in this thread pointed out how much talent was wasted producing this film.

    Jodo on the other hand is obsessed with taboo subjects of religion, sex, sacrilage, death, and the existensial crisis that is life.


    Okay, here's where I think you've got me wrong. See, the subjects that Jodorowsky chooses to film are meant to be controversial to draw attention to his subject, but then make an argument about that subject, or what the object represents. Crucified slaughtered sheep? Yeah, that's him saying something about Christianity. Snyder's T&A and guns don't make comments, his visuals serve no other purpose than to exist. That is shallowness incarnate.

    and its there particular tastes as directors that explains there second difference.

    Zach Snyder wants every one to enjoy his movies, there is a desperation in his images that shows this and the main reason why his movies would be considered shallow, and simple and un artistic. Which is an unfair criticism, i think.


    You don't think it's shallow to desperately want people to like your work and sacrifice all meaning to get that approval? I think that's the definition of shallow.

    Jodo on the other hand, because of the subject matter he obsesses, does the opposite, he would care less about whether the audience gets it or not. His stories are convaluted and deep but thats because of the subject matter he chooses to do.


    Yes, an auteur filmmaker is not interested in removing meaning for admiration, necessarily, and this is sometimes reflected by films that some people don't like, or even hate, because they're challenging to watch. Sometimes these directors even fail in their theses and make bad movies! That doesn't mean Snyder deserves consideration for making watchable movies that are the intellectual equivalent to a badly plotted video game.

    Seriously, is that how it works. If you don't care at all about enteratining an audience your an autuer, but if you truly care about entertaining the widest possible, then your a hack.


    If you care about form, language, and expression of filmmaking as an art form then you are an auteur. If you are only there to make up some bullshit to sell to fanboys, then you are not.

    This isn't an absolute truth, its an opinion.


    Ha ha ha.