PDA

View Full Version : Sucker Punch



Maxx
09-02-2010, 09:00 PM
Great title.

What's the buzz?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucker_Punch_(film)

Toothpaste
09-02-2010, 09:17 PM
I for one thinks this looks like a heck of a lot of fun. Ridiculous, but fun: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/suckerpunch/

Maxx
09-02-2010, 09:35 PM
I for one thinks this looks like a heck of a lot of fun. Ridiculous, but fun: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/suckerpunch/

Well, I want to expect the best, but since Inglorious Bastards, I've
been expecting that even a good idea can go bad very fast.

For example, the film is "set" in the 50s (whatever that means, maybe its just a way of making a lobotomy sufficiently horrifying) but there's not much sign that our heroine has been reading whatever girls read in the 1950s. Well, maybe that's why she's up for a lobotomy.

So I'm trying to be hopeful.

Kitty Pryde
03-21-2011, 06:24 AM
Oh hai old thread, I revives you in anticipation of the movie coming out! Anyone seen it? Is it awesome? I want it to be awesome. I'm intrigued by the notion of a female-centered action flick (and it doesn't look like complete wank material either!). And I love the notion of fantasy adventure as an escape from an inescapable bad life. AND I love weirdly stylized movies. Anyways, fingers crossed!

Zoombie
03-21-2011, 06:26 AM
Whats this?

Inglorious Bastards was AWESOME.

DavidBrett
03-21-2011, 05:43 PM
Whats this?

Inglorious Bastards was AWESOME.

Here here!

And to anyone still wondering, my Film Studies Level deductions of the trailer mean that the main character - indeed, all the female characters - are nuttier than a squirrel's fart, hence consigning them to the Loony Bin.

Naturally, they want to escape but, being physically frail young 50s gals they have no hope of overpowering the many armed guards this asylum apparently has (I counted two).

Along comes their fairy godmoth-I mean, dance instructor type woman who tells them that their mind is the ultimate weapon, and within their own dreamscapes THEY are the masters of everything. They enter the Matri-their dreams, get suited and booted and proceed to lay waste to everything in sight ('everything' seemingly meaning nazi zombies and twenty-foot tall samurai mechs toting chainguns the size of a steam train with nothing more than wire-fu and a really shiny katana. Which makes perfect sense. Shut up) in their mission to collect five powerful objects (The rings of Earth, Wind, Water, Fire, and Heart!) with which to finally break free of their prison and, I dunno, go be bats**t crazy somewhere else.

Whether my analysis proves to be right or wrong who cares there's girls swordfighting giant warrior mechs!!!

*Ahem*

That is all.

Dave

Celia Cyanide
03-21-2011, 06:01 PM
I'll be the party pooper. I think this movie looks all kinds of stupid.

I saw the trailer when I went to see Black Swan, and it looked so ridiculous that I thought it was based on a video game.

I have no idea what Zach Snyder even thinks it has to do with Alice in Wonderland.

Sheryl Nantus
03-21-2011, 06:09 PM
I'll be the party pooper. I think this movie looks all kinds of stupid.

I saw the trailer when I went to see Black Swan, and it looked so ridiculous that I thought it was based on a video game.

I have no idea what Zach Snyder even thinks it has to do with Alice in Wonderland.

I'm sure the video game will be out in time for the movie.

Looks to me like a male wet dream. Girls in skimpy outfits hacking away with swords and stuff with no cohesive plot. At least that's what I got from the trailer.

Eep.

;)

maestrowork
03-21-2011, 09:41 PM
The trailer looks really stupid. Not my cup of tea at all.

amrose
03-22-2011, 01:01 AM
To me, it looks like a glossy exploitation flick. I dunno if I'll see it in the theater but I don't mind pretty ladies killing things.

All I could think of when I saw the trailer was that someone took Emilie Autumn's schtick and testosteroned it up, which is pretty boo.

DavidZahir
03-22-2011, 06:50 AM
Looks like a lot of fun. I'm looking forward to it.

Jcomp
03-22-2011, 07:32 AM
I'm pretty interested from a massive visual spectacle standpoint if nothing else. Plus a giant samurai busting out a Gatling gun is 100% whoa. It makes me wish it was a video game.

Zoombie
03-22-2011, 07:44 AM
So far, Zack's films have been based off previous IP, with their quality pretty directly related to them. 300 was stupid-but-fun, so 300 was stupid-but-fun. Watchmen was genius, so Watchmen was genius (but not quite as genius, because part of the comic's brilliance came from the use and manipulation of comic book tropes and the medium itself, while the film didn't 'play with' the medium. Plus, the ending removed a big hunk of ambiguity).

But this looks to be the first Zack film (at least the first I know of) that's based entirely off his own brains.

So, it can either be good or bad. The basic premise might work, and the visual style is butfuckeryinsane enough to be interesting, but trailers can make anything look good these days.

jamesn65
03-22-2011, 08:09 AM
I can't wait for this. I love this kind of highly stylized, comic-booky movie. Plus I've had a soft spot for the main girl ever since I saw the adaptation of Lemony Snicket's A Series Of Unfortunate Events (though I think I was one of the few who liked that movie)

COchick
03-22-2011, 08:56 AM
I think it looks like fun. And I really like that actress, too. She was in some horror movie, can't remember the name...

bettielee
03-22-2011, 09:11 AM
Just watching the trailer, I'm confused. Is there a story at all, or is it just all "in the mind". And if every man (or kungfufightinggirl) in their mind is free.... what is the problem? I'd go shopping in my mind....

I don't get it.

Kitty Pryde
03-22-2011, 09:17 AM
The story is IRL they're in an asylum, and in their imaginations they are magical badasses, and the presumable conclusion is that they liberate themselves for real and/or die at the end, using the self-confidence gained in their imaginary world.

JoNightshade
03-22-2011, 09:41 AM
I'm hoping this will be as good as it looks, visually, but the trailer makes me worry the plot is going to be a very thin, weak frame on which the director will hang any kind of spectacle nonsense he wants. I love the visuals, but it's not gonna do anything for me if there's no plot. Meh.

Celia Cyanide
03-22-2011, 09:58 AM
I think it looks like fun. And I really like that actress, too. She was in some horror movie, can't remember the name...

The remake of A Tale of Two Sisters. It was called The Uninvited, I think.

Jcomp
03-22-2011, 06:32 PM
Seeing more commercials, this sort of reminds me of the Japanese flick Casshern, at least visually. I doubt it will be as ambitious plotwise, but possibly as endearingly weird.

L_N
03-23-2011, 12:38 AM
I'm curious to see what the audience will look like during opening weekend. As the movie is rated PG-13, I have a good feeling I'll feel quite old, sitting among a bunch of teens.

But at least a 33 yo is coming with us haha :D

Smileycat
03-23-2011, 03:24 AM
It looks like a silly, but fun movie, so I probably will see it. :popcorn:

amrose
03-28-2011, 05:55 PM
I saw this on Sunday. Did not like.

I don't know how with all the craziness in that movie but it was...boring.

Kinda like watching a 2 hour music video.

Victoria
03-29-2011, 02:36 AM
I have to admit to a certain prejudice against anything containing ass kicking ninja chicks in tight black leather. So tired of it.

jamesn65
03-30-2011, 09:24 AM
Yeah, gave in and saw this and I understand why it's getting the reviews it's getting. None of it coalesces. The parts are definitely greater than the whole, but even then the parts weren't all that great.

misha_mcg
03-30-2011, 06:07 PM
I'm so bummed that this was a dud. I was looking forward to it.

MttStrn
03-31-2011, 08:00 AM
I can say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I didn't go in expecting The Kings Speech however and it certainly wasn't. It did tend to take itself too seriously at points but the kick-ass action scenes made up for it.

Smileycat
03-31-2011, 12:00 PM
Saw it. The action was pretty good, but the story was a bit weak, as I expected. Parts of it was boring, with almost too many fighting scenes. 1-1/2 stars.

Parametric
04-03-2011, 01:37 AM
I can say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I didn't go in expecting The Kings Speech however and it certainly wasn't. It did tend to take itself too seriously at points but the kick-ass action scenes made up for it.

This. My brother and I both loved it. It's not going to win any Oscars, but it was visually stunning with a metric ton of action. I'd watch it again.

Toothpaste
04-05-2011, 04:06 AM
Was SO disappointed. I have a very personal connection to this movie . . . well, not really, it's just . . . the teaser trailer back in August was what initially inspired my idea for my YA which I sold last fall.

But the movie was just not good. If you are interested in a rather detailed review of why I felt that way, you can check it out here: http://hardcorenerdity.com/2011/03/28/hcn-reviews-sucker-punch/

K. Taylor
04-05-2011, 05:13 AM
Really liked it. We saw it Sunday.

nighttimer
04-06-2011, 09:08 AM
After the belly flop of Sucker Punch, it's starting to look like whatever brilliance Zack Snyder had visually with the one-two punch of his Dawn of the Dead remake and 300 were just dumb luck.

Think the suits over at Warner Brothers, DC Comics and the relaunched Superman executive producer Christopher Nolan are thinking, "Shit, we've got our hands full with this guy."

Snyder knows how to dazzle audiences with all kinds of stuff going on up on the screen. What he can't do as he proved with Watchmen is tell a damn story.

Nolan is properly having Snyder fit with a custom made collar and an invisible fence on The Man of Steel set so he can deliver 500 volts whenever Zack starts going off the rails with way too much of everything.

Max Vaehling
04-06-2011, 04:28 PM
Saw it yesterday. Good spectacle. Lousy movie.

kuwisdelu
04-09-2011, 06:16 AM
I saw this after a female (yes, female) friend convinced me too on a "so bad it's good" basis. I have to say, she was right.

The plot is utterly anti-cohesive, but it's pretty fun. I have to say the basis for the story is actually pretty solid, but it's not like the execution actually goes anywhere remotely relevant with it. I don't know if Snyder was taking it seriously or not, but it was pretty much like he decided to become a parody of himself in an All Star Batman and Robin kind of way, if you get my drift.

It's sort of like they took One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest at the bottom, decided to make star it with lolis in a whorehouse, threw in every bad samurai movie ever made, peppered it with The Matrix, added some Lord of the Rings icing, and topped it off with every bad anime cliche you can think of (I'm looking at your, sexy sailor schoolgirl uniform).

Objectively, it was pretty bad. I thoroughly enjoyed it.


I'm pretty interested from a massive visual spectacle standpoint if nothing else. Plus a giant samurai busting out a Gatling gun is 100% whoa. It makes me wish it was a video game.

I was thinking the same thing. The action scenes made think someone tossed Unreal Tournament, Bioshock, Halo, and Call of Duty: Zombies in a blender with imagery from The Wall and Lord of the Rings. And all the player character models are hot young girls in skimpy outfits.

I really, really want to play that game.

Strychnine
04-11-2011, 02:44 AM
What was with the music? Seriously? It was distracting and strange and using Army of Me (twice) was kind of the most obvious thing ever. I don't know, it was just so bad. It's a pity because it was quite a nice looking film. Oh, also, they should have cut down the two pages of dialogue some more :rolleyes

jmarkbyrnes
04-13-2011, 02:49 AM
I'll call it a guilty pleasure. I thoroughly enjoyed it even though the story telling was awful. I think it's one of those "so bad it's good" movies, at least for me.

-J. Mark Byrnes

amrose
04-13-2011, 09:25 PM
What was with the music? Seriously? It was distracting

I liked all the music. Just independent of the movie.

movieman
04-13-2011, 10:09 PM
Snyder knows how to dazzle audiences with all kinds of stuff going on up on the screen. What he can't do as he proved with Watchmen is tell a damn story.

To be fair, Watchmen wasn't really his fault: the story didn't seem to have changed much from the comic to the screen, the problem was that the comic story just isn't very good to begin with. Watchmen only got the acclaim it did because few other comics of that era tried to have any kind of intelligent story at all, not because it was some kind of literary masterpiece.

In this case, though, he has no-one to blame but himself.

Celia Cyanide
04-13-2011, 10:16 PM
To be fair, Watchmen wasn't really his fault: the story didn't seem to have changed much from the comic to the screen, the problem was that the comic story just isn't very good to begin with. Watchmen only got the acclaim it did because few other comics of that era tried to have any kind of intelligent story at all, not because it was some kind of literary masterpiece.

That isn't really true, but even if it were, how is that NOT his fault? If the story a director is adapting is not very strong, how is it NOT his responsibility to make it stronger? And the story is quite different from the graphic novel.

movieman
04-13-2011, 10:23 PM
That isn't really true, but even if it were, how is that NOT his fault?

Making it a good movie would have meant a massive rewrite of the story at least to the level of 'V for Vendetta' and probably much worse.

While I guess he could have done that, he'd have faced the wrath of the Watchmen fanboys wherever he went for the rest of his life... and, frankly, there would be little point in doing so when it woud alienate the only people who'd be drawn in to the cinema by the Watchmen name. The studio would have had another Starship Troopers on their hands.


And the story is quite different from the graphic novel.

The only thing I noticed was some minor rewriting of the ending, though I haven't read the comic in years so I can't be sure. What did he change of any real significance?

Celia Cyanide
04-14-2011, 01:20 AM
Making it a good movie would have meant a massive rewrite of the story at least to the level of 'V for Vendetta' and probably much worse.

As the director, he is still responsible for everything that happens in the movie. If the story was so weak, he could have rewritten it, or not made it at all.


While I guess he could have done that, he'd have faced the wrath of the Watchmen fanboys wherever he went for the rest of his life... and, frankly, there would be little point in doing so when it woud alienate the only people who'd be drawn in to the cinema by the Watchmen name.

People "drawn into the cinema by the Watchmen name" would still be drawn in, regardless of how much or how little he rewrote the story.

kuwisdelu
04-14-2011, 01:32 AM
I thought Watchmen was very well done. Both the comic and the movie. So.... *shrug*

And the only major difference to the two was the ending, and I thought the change was the right decision.

Strychnine
04-14-2011, 01:39 AM
I liked all the music. Just independent of the movie.

I don't mean it was bad, I just mean it was so...loud and obnoxious, you know? In the context of the movie at least. Also, I have a problem with period films that don't use period music, even if there is no attempt to be realistic, it usually just bugs me.

crunchyblanket
04-14-2011, 07:26 PM
It's all very shiny and glossy and yes, the effects are great but it's a big incoherent mess. I left the cinema wishing for a film in which a kick-ass woman can be kick-ass without being dressed like an Ann Summer's display dummy. Sarah Connor, where art thou?

I also really liked Watchmen, both the film and graphic novel.

amrose
04-14-2011, 09:24 PM
I don't mean it was bad, I just mean it was so...loud and obnoxious, you know? In the context of the movie at least. Also, I have a problem with period films that don't use period music, even if there is no attempt to be realistic, it usually just bugs me.

I see what you mean, but I didn't think of this as a period movie...it was never made clear what time period they were in even in the non dream level sequences.

I was bothered more in 300 when the Spartans had a slow mo march set to a bitchin' guitar solo (still liked that movie).

movieman
04-15-2011, 03:07 AM
People "drawn into the cinema by the Watchmen name" would still be drawn in, regardless of how much or how little he rewrote the story.

Only until the first of them started posting 'What the hell was that? It sure wasn't Watchmen' reviews all over the web.

Celia Cyanide
04-15-2011, 03:36 AM
Only until the first of them started posting 'What the hell was that? It sure wasn't Watchmen' reviews all over the web.

They did that.

Zoombie
04-15-2011, 03:49 AM
To be fair, Watchmen wasn't really his fault: the story didn't seem to have changed much from the comic to the screen, the problem was that the comic story just isn't very good to begin with.

Thems fighting words!

jmarkbyrnes
04-15-2011, 05:59 AM
I thought Watchmen was very well done. Both the comic and the movie. So.... *shrug*

And the only major difference to the two was the ending, and I thought the change was the right decision.

I agree. I enjoyed the movie very much.

-J. Mark Byrnes

Zoombie
04-15-2011, 06:43 AM
My only real problem with the watchmen film was that the impact of rubble is less than the impact of dead bodies. I liked the starkness of the panels showing that pretty much every ancillary character we'd ever met was dead and laying in a pool of their own brainfluid. It was a LOT more gutpunchy.

kuwisdelu
04-15-2011, 08:20 AM
I left the cinema wishing for a film in which a kick-ass woman can be kick-ass without being dressed like an Ann Summer's display dummy.

I thoroughly enjoyed that part. Could have shed even more clothes, IMO, and I loved the anime-esque schoolgirl outfit (though it was a bit too tight for my tastes). It's not like the men in 300 were any better covered, so it all evens out in the end. They're both such fan-servicey movies to begin with.

nighttimer
04-15-2011, 11:12 AM
To be fair, Watchmen wasn't really his fault: the story didn't seem to have changed much from the comic to the screen, the problem was that the comic story just isn't very good to begin with. Watchmen only got the acclaim it did because few other comics of that era tried to have any kind of intelligent story at all, not because it was some kind of literary masterpiece.

You do know you're stark raving mad, right? :e2hammer:

There are comics before and after Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and there are comics before and after Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons dropped Watchmen on the genre and said, "Okay, this is how we're doing comics for the next 50 years."

I don't think there's any other seminal event that remotely qualifies.

crunchyblanket
04-15-2011, 01:47 PM
I thoroughly enjoyed that part. Could have shed even more clothes, IMO, and I loved the anime-esque schoolgirl outfit (though it was a bit too tight for my tastes). It's not like the men in 300 were any better covered, so it all evens out in the end. They're both such fan-servicey movies to begin with.

YMMV, as always. I hated 300 and found the oily physiques of the men vaguely nauseating. It's not a matter of prudishness - fanservice has it's place (and certainly, I wasn't complaining at Cillian Murphy's relative lack of clothing in 28 Days Later - it's all good) It's more a general complaint. It seems that 'lack of clothing' has become a prerequisite for ass-kicking females, so I guess I'd like to see a subversion of that, once in a while.

Darren Frey
04-15-2011, 04:23 PM
I must admit, first I was intrigued and then it went downhill when I discovered Vanessa Hudgens was in it. Not saying a bad actress can ruin a movie (I mean look at The Cell. It was a visual masterpeice) but I just think the whole idea of it was ridiculous after giving it some thought. If I want to see a good female sword fight I can jst watch Kill Bill ffor the umpteenth time. Not to burst any bubbles but I like more thought out movies. Besides, I saw Avatar in Imax 3D so Im sure as far as visuals go it doesnt even come close.

Celia Cyanide
04-15-2011, 10:54 PM
YMMV, as always. I hated 300 and found the oily physiques of the men vaguely nauseating. It's not a matter of prudishness - fanservice has it's place (and certainly, I wasn't complaining at Cillian Murphy's relative lack of clothing in 28 Days Later - it's all good) It's more a general complaint. It seems that 'lack of clothing' has become a prerequisite for ass-kicking females, so I guess I'd like to see a subversion of that, once in a while.

I just think the costumes look stupid because WTF? this is supposed to take place in the fifties or something? LAME!

kuwisdelu
04-16-2011, 12:26 AM
YMMV, as always. I hated 300 and found the oily physiques of the men vaguely nauseating. It's not a matter of prudishness - fanservice has it's place (and certainly, I wasn't complaining at Cillian Murphy's relative lack of clothing in 28 Days Later - it's all good) It's more a general complaint. It seems that 'lack of clothing' has become a prerequisite for ass-kicking females, so I guess I'd like to see a subversion of that, once in a while.

I get that. I don't think it's limited to females though. After all how many times do the ass-kicking males end up shirtless?

kuwisdelu
04-16-2011, 12:27 AM
I just think the costumes look stupid because WTF? this is supposed to take place in the fifties or something? LAME!

I readily admit I'm a sucker for a sailor school uniform. :D

crunchyblanket
04-16-2011, 12:33 AM
I get that. I don't think it's limited to females though. After all how many times do the ass-kicking males end up shirtless?

Oh, absolutely, I agree. There are, however, more ass-kicking males than females, so I suppose I notice it more.

kuwisdelu
04-16-2011, 12:47 AM
Now I'm really, really tempted to make some jokes that might be in bad taste.

crunchyblanket
04-16-2011, 12:54 AM
And now I'm intrigued.

kelloish
04-16-2011, 01:02 AM
As long as you take this movie for what it is, an ass-kickey action romp, then it's good! All in good fun =)

Sea Lion Books
04-16-2011, 01:40 AM
The graphics look really cool! I think I might check it out.

kuwisdelu
04-16-2011, 01:42 AM
And now I'm intrigued.

There's only so much ass-kicking you can do in the kitchen. :tongue

*flees*

Celia Cyanide
04-16-2011, 01:45 AM
Now I'm really, really tempted to make some jokes that might be in bad taste.

So am I...

Darren Frey
04-16-2011, 01:56 AM
You can usually tell when a movie is going to bomb due to the lack of explaining what the movie is about in the previews. I mean it had a tagline and a few clips that made no sense to me. I might just not be seeing the big picture here but it just seems like a stinker. Besides Rotten Tomatoes gave it a low score and they are usually pretty acurate about movie ratings.

gothicangel
04-16-2011, 09:54 AM
You can usually tell when a movie is going to bomb due to the lack of explaining what the movie is about in the previews. I mean it had a tagline and a few clips that made no sense to me. I might just not be seeing the big picture here but it just seems like a stinker. Besides Rotten Tomatoes gave it a low score and they are usually pretty acurate about movie ratings.

I think the film has only made back $66 million of its 86 million budget. No way is this one going to be commercially successful.

I saw this add when at the cinema a month ago. I think the whole audience heard my groaning.

Although, I'll add that some of my favourite movies have low scoring on Rotten Tomatoes. My favourite has something like 30%. I like a good old-fashioned film that prioritises story over 'wow, check out that CGI.'

Darren Frey
04-16-2011, 04:33 PM
I think the film has only made back $66 million of its 86 million budget. No way is this one going to be commercially successful.

I saw this add when at the cinema a month ago. I think the whole audience heard my groaning.

Although, I'll add that some of my favourite movies have low scoring on Rotten Tomatoes. My favourite has something like 30%. I like a good old-fashioned film that prioritises story over 'wow, check out that CGI.'

I suppose you have a point. Im more into a good story than cgi any day. What kind of name for a movie is Sucker Punch anyway? I mean how is it to be taken serious with a name like that?

crunchyblanket
04-17-2011, 09:14 PM
There's only so much ass-kicking you can do in the kitchen. :tongue

*flees*

RIGHT, who's got my stomping boots? :box:

Ryan
04-17-2011, 11:36 PM
As long as you take this movie for what it is, an ass-kickey action romp, then it's good! All in good fun =)

See, that's what I thought this movie was going to be, and that's what others have said it is, but I disagree. I would have been happier if this movie focused on trying to be an action/adventure, but in my mind, the cgi action scenes were underused.

Which is a shame, because the cgi action scenes - while bringing nothing extraordinary to the table - were imaginative in design. They run the gambit of a number of different action genres, but a large chunk of the movie doesn't feature them.

In general, I thought most of the characters were relatively 2D and there were a lot of plot holes. That would have been fine if it really was just a mindless action film, but the movie seemed to want to be much more than that and ultimately, I think it did that to a fault.

The idea of a person feeling powerless having grand fantasies is a nice concept, but I'm not really sure that's what this movie is about and even if it is, it could be have been executed better. I don't want to really say more than that because it goes too deep into spoiler territory...


I suppose you have a point. Im more into a good story than cgi any day. What kind of name for a movie is Sucker Punch anyway? I mean how is it to be taken serious with a name like that?

Movies with dumber titles have found commercial success. I didn't watch Superbad, but it made $121,463,226 domestically ($169,871,719 worldwide) on a $20 million budget, and I rolled my eyes at that title when I saw the trailer.

As for Sucker punch making back $66 million of it's $82 million budget...I'm not sure that's true. It made $68,210,000 worldwide, but my loose understanding of the movie industry is that you don't usually make as much from foreign revenue than you do from the domestic earning.

That being said, if it has a cult following (which is something a movie like this is probably hopes for), then it might make it's money back in things like DVD sales.

Darren Frey
04-18-2011, 12:18 AM
See, that's what I thought this movie was going to be, and that's what others have said it is, but I disagree. I would have been happier if this movie focused on trying to be an action/adventure, but in my mind, the cgi action scenes were underused.

Which is a shame, because the cgi action scenes - while bringing nothing extraordinary to the table - were imaginative in design. They run the gambit of a number of different action genres, but a large chunk of the movie doesn't feature them.

In general, I thought most of the characters were relatively 2D and there were a lot of plot holes. That would have been fine if it really was just a mindless action film, but the movie seemed to want to be much more than that and ultimately, I think it did that to a fault.

The idea of a person feeling powerless having grand fantasies is a nice concept, but I'm not really sure that's what this movie is about and even if it is, it could be have been executed better. I don't want to really say more than that because it goes too deep into spoiler territory...



Movies with dumber titles have found commercial success. I didn't watch Superbad, but it made $121,463,226 domestically ($169,871,719 worldwide) on a $20 million budget, and I rolled my eyes at that title when I saw the trailer.

As for Sucker punch making back $66 million of it's $82 million budget...I'm not sure that's true. It made $68,210,000 worldwide, but my loose understanding of the movie industry is that you don't usually make as much from foreign revenue than you do from the domestic earning.

That being said, if it has a cult following (which is something a movie like this is probably hopes for), then it might make it's money back in things like DVD sales.

I was unfortianate enough to watch Superbad. For the type of movie it is way too long. It drug on and on and I seem to find it hard to take the guy who knocked up Juno serious even in comedies. He makes me think of some guy in his twenties who hasnt hit puberty yet.

gothicangel
04-18-2011, 02:25 AM
As for Sucker punch making back $66 million of it's $82 million budget...I'm not sure that's true. It made $68,210,000 worldwide, but my loose understanding of the movie industry is that you don't usually make as much from foreign revenue than you do from the domestic earning.

That being said, if it has a cult following (which is something a movie like this is probably hopes for), then it might make it's money back in things like DVD sales.

For a film to be classed as a box office hit [cinema sales only] a film must make double its budget. Sucker Punch has yet to break even.

Someone quoted to me the other day that Sucker Punch was pulling in an average of $97 a day per cinema. The average cinema is still showing 4 screenings a day so that is $25 per screening. Which equals an eye-watering 4 people per screening.

The reason US revenue is so much bigger is down to size. I just don't think the UK is much of cinema-going country anymore. It has to be something special to convince me to go to a cinema now. I'd rather wait for the DVD and enjoy in the privacy of my home.

Ryan
04-18-2011, 02:37 AM
For a film to be classed as a box office hit [cinema sales only] a film must make double its budget. Sucker Punch has yet to break even.

Someone quoted to me the other day that Sucker Punch was pulling in an average of $97 a day per cinema. The average cinema is still showing 4 screenings a day so that is $25 per screening. Which equals an eye-watering 4 people per screening.

The reason US revenue is so much bigger is down to size. I just don't think the UK is much of cinema-going country anymore. It has to be something special to convince me to go to a cinema now. I'd rather wait for the DVD and enjoy in the privacy of my home.

What I meant, and again take this with a grain of salt because my knowledge is limited and every film is different, but films generate more from a dollar of "domestic" earnings than they do from a dollar of "foreign" earnings. So a movie that makes $50 million domestic and $0 foreign actually generated more for the film studio than a movie that makes $25 million domestic and $25 million foreign. I think that's partially because they sell some of the foreign distribution rights ahead of time.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard
09-10-2011, 10:42 AM
Finally got around to seeing this misogynistic piece of excrement.

Why do straight men hate and fear women so much? And, more importantly, why do some of them insist on fetishizing that hate and fear? And, much more important, how do they get financing to make that hateful fetish into a movie? Oh, wait. Numbers 1 and 2 answer number 3.

Zoombie
09-10-2011, 12:01 PM
Whoa, dude, not ALL straight men hate and fear women.

Just some of them - which is too many by far.

Now, why they keep getting to make movies, I don't know...

gothicangel
09-10-2011, 12:08 PM
For entertainment level alone, I recommend Mark Kermode's review of Sucker Punch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzfwDkwUGnM

JohnnyGottaKeyboard
09-10-2011, 12:26 PM
Whoa, dude, not ALL straight men hate and fear women.You're probably right. I admit I was pretty disgusted the first hour or so after the final credits. It may have come through in my post.

ETA: Thanks, Gothic, now I'm watching all Kermode's reviews. I'd never heard of him. And, as he said, looks like I did do Sucker Punch a service it did not deserve in allowing myself to get upset over its sexual politics.

James D. Macdonald
09-10-2011, 03:12 PM
My own review of Sucker Punch: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/012953.html