Back In The USSA
Off to a screening, just minutes after arriving home.
However… I was shocked… actually shocked, by the uniformity of reviews of Sucker Punch. You will be unprepared.
And Nikki, however potentially off by 30% or more based-on-east-coast-matinees early studio numbers may be, is out with an $8m Friday leap… which would make this Zack Snyder’s worst live action opening day so far. That includes Dawn Of The Dead, which started with $10.9m in March 2004.
Can Warner Bros actually hand a guy who is losing value with every movie he makes their crown jewel? And if they continue down this road, can Jeff Robinov survive it if the film turns into another Superman Returns?
Of course, now I have to see the film. And like Watchmen, I will see it on my own dime.
I hope that it’s better than I am reading… but I am not holding my breath. It may well be another Hostel 2/Mother of Tears situation for me, this time with John Carpenter’s The Ward as the “better, if still goofy, but extreme, not misogynistic, and equally insane” version of this. (And of course, a lot cheaper and a lot less widely released. Ironically, WB has the UK on that film.) In other words, a lot of fun in the spirit of the genre, not testosterone.
Is it all the female empowerment that a masturbating teen could hope for? Will any girls/women show up to watch the 20-ish-Pussycat-Dolls-Lobotomized-And-Blowing-Shit-Up-Like-The-Boys? Or should we all believe the studio when they tell us that the movie barely cost more than Battle: LA, so everything is okay… $60m domestic and $90m international and they can break even in post-theatrical (no that math doesn’t really add up… even at $80m… true).
I know that one of our regular commenters here is responsible for one of the rare “fresh” reviews of Sucker Punch, so I will look forward to his input. But mostly, I am curious to see it for myself.
I was dressing for the closing night party in Bermuda last night, when on the TV was Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle. It was even worse than I remembered. I mean, blisteringly bad. And in retrospect, career crushing. McG is another one that WB has tried to rehab. Maybe Eli Roth will be next.
And now, I’m off…
Nothing wrong with Charlies Angels 2 – that bit where the girls get thrown through the roof then catch a splintered slab of wood and use it to expertly surf down a wire is amazing. I’m assuming the entire thing was knowlingly tongue-in-cheek-over-the-top-we’re-not-taking-ourselves-seriously camp brilliance. If they thought they were making Citizen Kane 2 then it’s obviously shit, but I’m pretty sure they knew it was just completely absurd and I liked the absurdity of it.
Sucker Punch is not a film for everyone but where’s the fun in that really? Now, Snyder may or may not be fading, all depends on the grosses of course, but Sucker Punch just shows he’s the wrong man for Superman. The way he sees the world, the way he tells stories, just does not work for Superman. The fact that he picked Cavill because of how he LOOKED IN THE SUIT, pretty much emphatically state as much.
That aside, Sucker Punch is a film that tells a story that has a cost to it’s characters, and that may stick with people.
“one of our regular commenters here is responsible for one of the rare “fresh” reviews of Sucker Punch”
Not sure if you mean me or Mendelson, but we’re more or less on the same page, as are Devin Faraci, Mr. Beaks, and Todd Gilchrist, and even Harry Knowles, i.e. The movie doesn’t fully succeed in all its ambitions, but it’s a worthwhile enough attempt. It’s no Charlie’s Angels 2.
I will be interested to see a director’s cut. Not because I want any hypothetically “unrated” stuff, but because I wish WB had had the balls to actually put it out as a full-blown musical.
charlie’s angels 2 was a cinematic abortion
seeing sucker punch tomorrow, looks wild
For what it’s worth on Friday night, Deadline says Sucker Punch and Wimpy Kid 2 are in a tight race with both heading towards $20 million for the weekend. That’s pretty good for the latter since it cost $20 million to make. Not so much for SP.
Ya know what LYT…and I really, really like you..and Mendelson. SUCKER PUNCH is a fucking stupid, badly made, circle jerk piece of shit. I admire Snyder and dig what he’s *trying* to do but like PAUL the week before…you guys are KILLING me. It’s absolutely, positively a bad, bad movie. As a FILM…it’s terrible. It follows no logic has zero to say and exists as Zack Snyders blue balls fetish fantasy shit ride.
Why does a geek friendly movie with NOTHING GOING ON have to be handled with kid gloves? Christ almighty. It’s the geek bully system that works in real life being transferred to film reviews. What “geek bully system” you ask? Tell a fellow geek you dislike BACK TO THE FUTURE or even OLD BOY. You get beaten down like you’re a moron. Geeks have evolved (devolved?) into their own jock clique where everyone is afraid to say any kind of truth whatsoever. Everyone who likes “The Con” gets so lockstep with this stuff it renders truth and reality moot.
SUCKER PUNCH sucks. It’s not a good film. Much like PAUL again, I read review after review where a good rating is given but the review itself is full of excuses for piss poor filmmaking but it’s filmmaking made to appeal to a niche so in that case it’s o.k.
As I accused IO of a week ago: does every geek property get a pass even though it’s severely, severely flawed? Seriously. I ask that honestly. The most honest opinions I’ve ever EVER seen about a geek property was for SCOTT PILGRIM which was a genuinely intelligent, well made niche oriented film. Yes not for everyone (what film is?) but at least people were having issues and a conversation. SUCKER PUNCH is like some asshole jocks little brother arrived on campus so he’s automatically cool and we better leave him alone.
SUCKER PUNCH is a bad movie. Why? There are no stakes. There is no character development. It’s brilliant visually yes…in an A.D.D. kind of way. But so what. People show up and go and leave and die and it’s unrelenting. In the end, it’s the equivalent of watching your buddy play video games all night. That lead dude (who was actually really, really good) alludes to it when he says “Baby Doll” is like a toy in his sandbox that everyone gets to play with but him. THAT’S SUCKER PUNCH! Snyder plays we don’t engage.
The best parts of the movie are when that bus driver sinsei guy speaks for the audience and says:
“If you believe in nothing you’ll fall for anything.”
and
“Don’t let your mouth write a check your ass can’t cash.”
THAT is exactly what Snyder has done with SUCKER PUNCH. He’s made a dumb geek movie that says nothing, means nothing and at best represents the filmmakers inability to recognize his fetishes (sexual and comic book visual) and lack of anything to say.
What will it take for someone to stand up and say: ENOUGH. Enough of corporatizing these comic book geek properties and mashing them all together into a post-modern paste that looks and tastes like shit but hey at least the world is seeing shit I like.
hmmm
maybe the apocalypse will come with the geeks inheriting the earth. their movies will have to make more money tho first.
(what shall webnet do when in keeping with the blog tradition of geekspeak acronym-ed movie titles, which dictates that in discussion forthwith BOTH ‘scott pilgim’ and ‘sucker punch’ would be “SP”, there may be a rift in the space/time continuum)
don lewis at least you can take comfort in the fact that this this time out, in your distaste for SP (the one you hate) you’re in the vast critical majority. it’s easier to dislike a movie when most of your ilk do to (humour being so subjective and easily given to appreciation of the absurd, perhaps ‘paul”s a differnt kettle of fish)
Having just seen it, I can say I enjoyed it. And I can’t wait for Snyder’s take on Superman. The visuals should be amazing. Guess I must be an A.D.D. teenage fetishist. Too bad I’m 46.
If I ever read what crazy leah said I would likely agree/disagree.
Pete-
I will say I’m strangely excited for Snyders take on Superman. The dude likes the bombastic (der) and if there was ever a comic property in need of a fire under it’s ass, it’s Supes.
I dunno whether I’m the ‘regular commenter’ referred to above, but regardless…
I liked what (I felt) Snyder was trying to do, making a genuinely bleak and depressing film about sexualization of women in pop culture as well as real life, while using some of those cliches to tell that story. In his defense, there is next to no actual sexual material, and really Babydoll is the only female character who is overly fetishized (the rest of the girls are basically attractive young women dressed in battle gear). The critics who complaint about empowerment missed the point – it’s not supposed to be empowering. You’re SUPPOSED to notice the creepy undertones, the fact that these action scenes are basically a mental distraction for Baby Doll as she is sexually exploited. My first thought coming out of the movie was (pardon the crudeness): “Zach Snyder just made ‘While he raped me, I closed my eyes and imagined myself somewhere else: The Movie’.”
Is it a great movie? Absolutely not. I cannot say how much of its flaws are due to MPAA and studio interference, but it is a severely compromised and messy picture. But it earns points for being about something genuinely interesting. Snyder could have just taken the same characters and action beats and made a guilt-free, live action version of The Powerpuff Girls, but he actually tried to make a real film. But even if you don’t care about the film’s messages (or don’t think the film successfully imparts said messages), it’s an incredible feat of action filmmaking. The second major set-piece is an all-time classic action scene, and just the kind of HUGE superhero action that we all claim we want in superhero films. I guarantee that scene (and the fourth major action scene) is why he got Superman.
All due respect to respected colleagues who just didn’t care for the movie, the majority of the pans are the sort of ‘can’t see past the glitzy special effects and sensationalist elements’ and then accusing the film of having no story/substance (see – Speed Racer, Beowulf, etc). As far as giving geek films a pass, I understand the idea. I have a friend over at IGN who got death threats for merely calling The Goonies ‘okay’. But personally, I’m the guy who didn’t like Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World. I had such a violently negative reaction to Tron: Legacy that I actually had to stop and reevaluate my feelings toward genre films and geek fandom in general.*
Sucker Punch is not a great film, but it’s a dynamite piece of action filmmaking that has quite a bit of thoughtful subtext that (in my mind) partially makes up for the sloppy structure and relatively un-engaging characters. But I cannot fault anyone who saw what Snyder was trying to do and simply believe that he failed. It’s the critics who didn’t even try to look under the surface that are annoying me this weekend.
* for those who care – http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2010/12/for-one-last-second-i-was-12-years-old.html
Oh, and my actual Sucker Punch review – http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2011/03/review-sucker-punch-2011.html
Here’s the thing. I find myself straddling the line between Io and Don, liked Paul and hated Sucker Punch. I really wanted to like it. Liked 300, I liked Watchmen more than most, but I kept looking for a coin to insert for SP. Talk about not getting the audience emotionally involved. The movie is probably one of the most empty things I have ever laid eyes on, and reminds me of that song called ‘Friday’, that has now gone viral because it’s so fucking bad. This movie is so fucking bad. It’s not even a movie, it looks like it was just made by a bunch of guys sitting around and saying “hey, this would look so fucking cool.” Sorry IO, Snyder failed on this one.
What exactly about SP makes him a good visual fit for Supes? Did I miss that comic or animated interpretation?
Nolan is a modern magician for sure, but why hire Snyder if you’re going to tame his ludicrous tendencies…
since you never read what i write does that mean i can call you don ‘buttleakage’ lewis from now on? cool
That’s MISTER don ‘buttleakage’ lewis to you!
ha, why stop there? SIR buttleakage lewis (formerly Esq.)
after a few months it’ll dwindle down to just “leak” for short anyway.
“What “geek bully system” you ask? Tell a fellow geek you dislike BACK TO THE FUTURE or even OLD BOY. You get beaten down like you’re a moron.”
Don – that bully system exists for EVERYTHING. Tell a non-geek cinephile that you don’t particularly dig a whole lot of Hitchcock’s films, or that Schindler’s List is pretentious crap, or that Woody Allen’s comedic persona isn’t very sympathetic…What do you think happens?
I’ll tell you, because I’ve said those things. People dredge them up constantly as “proof” that you’re not worthy of holding a job, and then one day you find yourself subject to an editor who agrees.
There are scared cows EVERYWHERE. For EVERYONE. They just vary.
For what it’s worth, I would absolutely understand someone disliking OLDBOY. If they said it was bad filmmaking, however, I would disagree. As I do with Sucker Punch – Snyder was trying to make his own version of The Singing Detective. He falls way short. But I like that he tried.
PAUL is comedy, and comedy is highly subjective. I rarely try to argue with people on comedies, because you can’t tell them that they didn’t laugh if they did.
A Kevin Smith fan wrote; “SUCKER PUNCH is a bad movie. Why? There are no stakes. There is no character development. It’s brilliant visually yes…in an A.D.D. kind of way. But so what. People show up and go and leave and die and it’s unrelenting. In the end, it’s the equivalent of watching your buddy play video games all night. That lead dude (who was actually really, really good) alludes to it when he says “Baby Doll” is like a toy in his sandbox that everyone gets to play with but him. THAT’S SUCKER PUNCH! Snyder plays we don’t engage.”
You wrote something about another movie, where you go on about there being no stakes and much like in that case, the film disagrees with that sentiment. Every bit of the dream world of Baby Doll, consist of these characters outfitted in such a way that states so much about them, that you would have to have been distracted by the pretty lights to not see it (there’s a reason Sweet Pea has the most armor on).
The characters are archetypes, we have seen them before, and we have had stories with similar resolutions before. It’s just, you can’t state there is nothing at stake, when the whole movie has a deadline. You can’t state there is no character development, when these are tried and true characters we don’t really need a ton of exposition to know. Every criticism you have is valid towards you but in the reality of the film, it just doesn’t work.
Now, I have no idea why you are raging against geek films and why you hate BTTF. Seriously, that’s weird, but you are a Kevin Smith mark. Loving Kevin Smith to a fault is okay to you but god forbid someone enjoys a property you don’t, and you throw a fucking hissy fit.
I admit that I get pissed about shit but Sucker Punch and Paul, two films you are seemingly too annoyed with to pay attention to, are getting you out of whack and for what? What pisses you off about them so damn much?
At the end of the day, I don’t spend my time and money to watch film teams try their little hearts out. I want to be entertained, and if you don’t do that then why should I bother supporting your artistic endeavours?
One of my favourite flicks of all time is Highlander. But I freely admit it’s a teeeerrible movie with its barely-explained script, eyebrow raising casting, and dangling subplots. I love it because it’s fun, not because of the ambitious transition sequences or all the stops the producers pulled out to get Sean Connery and Queen.
Even with all the projects these days with people phoning it in, I’m not prepared to give a film a pass because “Well, at least THEY were trying”.
Foamy, I’m a huge Highlander fan myself, but I think the “barely-expalined script” is why its fun. They dont try to explain cause there really is no explanation. You just go with the flow. It’s also one of the reasons why Highlander 2 sucked so bad. Hey, they’re aliens from 500 years ago (or some such nonsense).
don lewis said “it’s not for everyone (what film is?)”
A: Ernest Goes to Camp.
And anyone who tries to defend Charlie’s Angels 2: Full Throttle worries me. To even waste a sentence on that piece of wretched vile…
and i agree that geek films get a pass far too often. I think it’s because in them olden days geek properties were few and far between. You could overlook the flaws on geek niche films because there werent a lot of them.
Now that we get one every 3-4 weeks (or more), we’re still applying the “it’s not great but it appeals to my sensibilities” logic to these movies.
Zach Snyder is a fucking blight. Treat him as such. 300 is laughable garbage. I don’t care how much money it made. Watchmen was a cinematic worst case scenario, a prime example of how to smother a story in style and an obsessive devotion to the source material.
Superman may only be saved by Nolan. If he oversees the project and reigns in Snyder it might end up alright.
But at this point, shouldn’t everyone involved at WB be worried about Superman?
Yeah Snyder is not a blight and you and Don both read like a bunch of bitter hens. Also, BTTF gets a pass because it’s BACK TO THE FUCKING FUTURE!
Io, stop trolling. “Bitter hens“? Do you crib insults from a farmers almanac?
The reviews were enough for me to avoid Sucker Punch last night so we went to see Paul instead. My summary of it is there’s a lot to like in it and a lot not, like a bowl of Lucky Charms and cat food. I guess I was expecting more from Pegg & Frost. The caricatures were just a little too caricatured, the pop culture references increased in the second half to the point of distraction, and seriously, how many times can they show someone faint by freezing and falling straight back? Did the stepping-on-a-rake gag not make the final cut? But I liked Pegg, Frost, Wiig, Bateman, and sometimes Rogen. I applaud that they had the restraint to not exploit the fact Pegg is Scotty in the new Star Trek movies.
The references in paul are what killed it for me. Likable characters and actors, funny at times but they bludgeoned the audience with references. The film turned into a groan fest quickly
IO-
My anger at PAUL and SUCKER PUNCH actually ties into your love of them; I want these properties (cuz they sure as shit ain’t films) to BE BETTER. These are niches drenched in love of cinema but there’s basically no intelligence behind them. Yet reviewers are muddying the waters by doing exactly what anghus said above.
These films could be good or great and instead they’re deeply, deeply flawed. Yet everyone cheers them on out of fear they’ll go away or something. What’s going to make these movies go away is the fact they’re shitty and have no legs at the box office because they’re shitty.
So to answer your comment, that’s what pisses me off and it’s exactly what you love. You watch these movies with blinders on and that take any kind of debate out of it.
Scott- good review but again: do you really think bombast makes up for a lack of substance?
There’s a line from Adam McKay that sums up geek culture for me:
What’s cooler? A great white shark fighting an orca whale or a vampire having sex?
This is geek culture logic. What is “cool” has more value than character, story, or cinematic execution.
Sure, the story and characters in sucker punch are thin and poorly thought out but SAMURAI MECH BOMBER JET DRAGON HOT GIRL.
If this is how you judge a movie, then you are part of the problem.
And ill just go ahead and preemptively tell io to fuck off based on whatever old man canned response he wheels out
Oh what the hell ever Don, you don’t know how I watch these movies and don’t take your bitter bullshit out on me. If they don’t work for you and work for me, that does not make me any freaking less than you are. You are even a Kevin Smith mark, to a fault, and you expect people to let that slide. Really? I enjoy Paul and Sucker Punch but you like Cop Out, and that makes you better than me as a film fan? Really? Get the fuck out of here.
Anghus, you both read like bitter old hens. You will be referred to as a bitter old hen. Trolling? Yeah… no.
ETA: Oh yeah, Anghus, Adam McKay gets it as much as you and Don do. Seriously, you are 40 something guys bitching about an aesthetic in a way, that does not even grasp what the aesthetic is about.
If you really think that anyone enjoyed Sucker Punch because of a mechsuit piloted by Jamie Chung and that alone, you are so up your ass with this bullshit. It’s not even funny.
Sucker Punch is yet another visual tour de force for Zack Snyder, who has now cemented himself as a true cinematic artist/auteur. It’s not what I’d call “great” cinema, and I do think he went a bit CGI-crazy, but in the realm of pure fantasy (especially one where the main character is “escaping” their reality, like in The Fall), I feel like all of his aesthetic decisions worked. The action sequences were, for the most part, astonishing, especially the WW1 bit and the single-take-madness with the robots on the train. I know I LOVED watching it in IMAX format, and that I was BLOWN away from a sensory perspective. I just feel like Warners fucked with the final edit and that a better film will be arriving in “director’s cut” format on Blu Ray. Mendelson said so many great things above that it’s pointless to go further.
The film either works for you…or it doesn’t…the earth more than likely won’t stop spinning.
Action, apparently you and I liking Sucker Punch makes us a bunch of unwashed heathens, that are ruining GEEK CINEMA FOR DON! Seriously, liking a movie is ruining cinema for one person. I wish that I could feel that entitled. It must be a rather blissful feeling Don feels, when he ponders that the entire cinematic universe should only satisfy his wants and desires.
Unwashed heathens versus bitter old hens. Should be epic.
Whatever, sextastic punk heroines matrixing their way through digital landscapes whose corny excess recalls disreputable genre fare…I’m not buying it. Don’t get it. Don’t have time for it. Might enjoy 30 minutes at home if it shows up on starz, muted so I can talk to my kid.
In the late 80’s this kind of art-school reimagining of popular comic worlds was fresh, with movies like Batman and Dick Tracy. But the monster success of these early conceits has become monotonous with the strip-mining of the target-demographic’s cultural memory.
Torpid, that’s not even close to what the movie is about, and basically the landscapes are a fortress and a city. Oh dear lord, the HUMANITY!
I actually tried to finally watch COP OUT last weekend and had to turn it off about 30 minutes in. I was stunned (STUNNED!) at how poorly that film was directed. I plan on showing that film to directing classes so they can see what bad directing looks like.
Io argues like a blonde on fox news. You talk so much kid but you never say anything. We get it. Your lips are firmly wrapped around the cock of whatever geek film has hit the cineplex. And you will rage angrily against anyone who complains about the aftertaste of a shit sandwich like sucker punch.
If you liked it, great. But when you so vigorously defend stuff like sucker punch and paul, movies that most critics write off as garbage… movies that the studios are wary of showing prior to release… movies that are at best well intentioned misfires….
You kind of erode your ability to be taken seriously. And your angry vitriolic responses to legitimate criticism just shows you to be a geek fundamenalist.
I say legitimate because as dave pointed out, most critics have uniformly agreed on the flaws of sucker punch. Is the 80% of critics that panned sucker punch wrong?
i dvr’d cop out off of hbo hd last wkd
turned it off and erased it within the first 10 mins
painful
“Is the 80% of critics that panned sucker punch wrong?”
No just bitter old hens.
LET’S TAKE COCK SHOTS AND SHOW THEM TO OUR CO-WORKERS AND EVENTUALLY HAVE DEADSPIN RUIN OUR LIVES WITH A BREAKDOWN!
“Io argues like a blonde on fox news. You talk so much kid but you never say anything.”
Yeah this is such bullshit because much like your fellow bitter hen, YOU ARE GIVING ME SHIT FOR LIKING SOMETHING YOU DON’T! You fuckers are constantly giving me shit for films that I like, while continually fucking ignoring all the same films that you like and by proxy we have in common (Apparently loving Michael Clayton just isn’t enough for you people. Curse my love of the Criterion Collection as well!). I am seriously sorry that you are so disillusioned with all the films you used to dream about while you chated on AICN’S GEEK CHAT 10 years ago.
Oh yeah, without me, this place would be dead. I have to beat it with a stick to get you fuckers to post because I still stir the fucking drink. Also, you don’t contribute shit outside of being a bitter person with GEEK FILMS.
Seriously, you and Don are pissed off at 35 films compared to the 400 SOMETHING PLUS that get released this year. Why don’t you stop chirping in like a bitter fucking and maybe contribute something else? If anyone represents FOX News, it’s you, and for such obvious personal reasons.
“We get it. Your lips are firmly wrapped around the cock of whatever geek film has hit the cineplex. And you will rage angrily against anyone who complains about the aftertaste of a shit sandwich like sucker punch.”
Rage angrily? This is why I can’t take you motherfuckers seriously anymore because not only have I not raged angrily, but your bitch ass is doing it right now. Not only are you being a homophobe, because we all know you want to be WHITE AND ANGRY AND INSULT PEOPLE WHILE BEING WHITE AND ANGRY, but you once again are making a straw man argument that makes this argument the third time you’ve stuck your head up your own ass today.
“If you liked it, great. But when you so vigorously defend stuff like sucker punch and paul, movies that most critics write off as garbage… movies that the studios are wary of showing prior to release… movies that are at best well intentioned misfires.”
So I cannot defend films that I like because other people do not like them? Get the fuck out of here Anghus.
“You kind of erode your ability to be taken seriously. And your angry vitriolic responses to legitimate criticism just shows you to be a geek fundamenalist.”
Again, not only have I not written anything even close to being angry on this blog in weeks. YOU ARE POSTING IN A VITRIOLIC WAY TOWARDS SOMEONE DISAGREEING WITH YOU ABOUT A MOVIE YOU HAVE NOT SEEN! Go see the movie and come back and yell at some people that like it, and who are apparently pieces of shit for liking a movie YOU DON’T! What a fucking shitty attitude to have.
“I say legitimate because as dave pointed out, most critics have uniformly agreed on the flaws of sucker punch. Is the 80% of critics that panned sucker punch wrong?”
Who gives a shit what the critics think about anything? Critics are a maddening bunch of fools most of the time. If a film does not fit the tiny box in which they see humanity, it does not work for them, and that’s that. I could give a fuck what critics like and that that’s your argument “THE CRITICS DIDN’T LIKE IT”. Ignores that Lou and Scott did. Are they morons as well?
ETA: I’m really looking forward to Jane Eyre but apparently that’s not good enough for some bitter old dudes. Shameful.
i also eagerly await jane eyre, mainly for fassbending reasons but also because it looks weirdly creepy.
io, i’m feeling you here a bit. it’s a hard row to hoe liking a movie when everyone else dislikes it. at the end of the day, all that matters is that YOU like it. don’t blow a gasket trying to defend SP (which SP? you be the judge!), the law of the jungle states that if a movie is unpopular with the majority (online, amongst your mates, wherever), you’ll be ganged up on and get defensive and unkind words will be spoken and ultimately you will lose. law of the jungle. just accept with a sigh that you’re likely to be a lonely camper on this one, take your lumps, and then go see SP (which SP? you be the judge) again before it’s too late. i’ve been there, i get so much shit for being a fan of ‘3000 miles to graceland’, you have no idea. i just nod my head and take it, and then laugh my ass off at murphy’s hilarious psycho rampage on dvd.
(and ftr i haven’t seen SP – doesn’t look like my cup of tea – but i’ll defend zach’s kick-ass super-duper action-jackson ultra-gruesome awesome-sarah-polly-starring pop-art fuckarow ‘DOTD’ remake until the cows come home if you want to take up that cause, esp. the director’s version. i’m all over that)
While I don’t think it’s as good as Romero’s, Snyder’s DOTD is a pretty solid remake. It’s got a strong cast, it’s well-paced, the action is potent. It was a promising debut. Sadly it remains far and away his best movie. And the new Jane Eyre looks fantastic.
IO: You are irony. The person who spends one, maybe two days losing their shit over casting a Brit as Superman sight unseen (And don’t deny you were angry and that you were “generating dicsussion.” Bullshit) is now attacking people for their impressions of a movie after seeing the advertising and not the movie.
And I’m sure people would come down less on you about this if you spent a dozen posts on Jane Eyre and not on, say, when anyone disagrees about you about Sucker Punch or TRON: Legacy or Scott Pilgrim. And this is not from someone who simply disagrees with your opinion. Scott Pilgrim’s my favorite movie from last year and I liked TRON: Legacy well enough.
I can’t say anything about Sucker Punch because my car’s been in the shop on $1,250 worth of engine work and I can’t really go anywhere except work right now. I can say the advertising makes it look like the ultimate Trapper Keeper theme for a 12-year-old boy, but is neither here nor there on whether I’ll actually like it. I’m sure you’ll see that to mean I’m undermining it and pre-judging it. I would say that the original conceit as musical with giant samurai robots wielding gatling guns would’ve been something right up my alley, but like anything up my alley, nobody would’ve watched it. So, we’ll see.
Seriously, I’m not saying you can’t defend your movies, but you’re insulting people and saying people just don’t get it when they don’t like something and then playing victim when someone’s harsh on you for something you disagreed on. You always have to have to win, even when there’s nothing to win. That’s the problem.
EDIT: And Jane Eyre was one of those “Forced to read it in high school, so I didn’t like it much” kind of things, so I really ahve nothing to say about it. If that Great Gatsby movie gets off the ground (If it hasn’t already), then I’ll have some things to say about that.
Straat, I admit to super duper overreacting to the Superman casting. I also generate discussion with the most innocuous comments. Seriously, I stir the drink, and continue to do so. Now on to two of your points.
1) “And I’m sure people would come down less on you about this if you spent a dozen posts on Jane Eyre and not on, say, when anyone disagrees about you about Sucker Punch or TRON: Legacy or Scott Pilgrim. And this is not from someone who simply disagrees with your opinion. Scott Pilgrim’s my favorite movie from last year and I liked TRON: Legacy well enough.”
Why is anyone coming down hard on me? I AM ENTHUSIASTIC and ENJOY this stuff. It’s enjoyable to me and that’s worthy of scorn? Really?
You also have to realize that I am close to being the all-time poster on this blog. Think about that for a minute. If I only discussed certain kinds of films, all the time, then that would state that my tens of thousands of post consist of the same thing day and and day out. Seeing as I post about everything, all the time, I am getting shit by people who don’t like a movie that I like and decide to give me shit about it. That’s what’s happening and to state it’s justified in any fucking way, is fucking moronic. Period.
2) “Seriously, I’m not saying you can’t defend your movies, but you’re insulting people and saying people just don’t get it when they don’t like something and then playing victim when someone’s harsh on you for something you disagreed on. You always have to have to win, even when there’s nothing to win. That’s the problem.”
Now, Joe, go look through my tens of thousands of posts and find any post as mean and vicious as the shit Don Lewis has directed towards me two weekends in a roll. Go look because I have never been that mean towards anyone who likes something I don’t (I have been mean, that I won’t deny) and you excuse it because you think PASSION and DEFENDING something is the same as throwing homophobic shit my way and implying I have brain damage. Excuse me if I don’t think you are full of it for feeling this way.
Let me also add that I have seen thousands of films in my life and some of those I have watched repeatedly, and some of those films have had plot points that just went right by me. Now, if I can miss something in a film, is it not possible someone else can? You and people like you, who get all snippy when people tell you/state to you that you MIGHT HAVE MISSED SOMETHING, is your problem and it’s a vain one. I admit there’s shit I missed, so excuse me for thinking someone else could have missed something else in a film that they are slamming. Lord knows that it’s worked that way for me, so damn me for thinking it could work the way with other people.
Finally, it’s not about winning. It’s about defending. I also, being the straw that stirs this drink, have gotten it worse than anyone else ever has. Have you ever been attacked by someone posing as you? Have you ever had someone constantly state shit about you fucking your mom? Two different posters doing that mind you. I could go on but don’t buy into that PLAYING THE VICTIM shit, when I continue to be shit on for some of the most innocuous posts ever posted to this blog.
I also want you to know that you apparently don’t know vitriolic because Don and Anghus have been vitriolic, but you let it slide. Again, everyone gets a pass but me, but I keep this fucker going. So someone has to take it but don’t give me shit for being pissed about it.
ETA: Sorry about your car. That shit sucks ass and I missed most of the big films of 1999 because of car problems. It still pisses me off.
ETA II: Leah, thanks, and I would let it go if people on this blog were not being dicky about it. Don and Anghus are being dicky towards me (and lord knows Paul has in the past) for liking a movie that they don’t and that’s just fucking lame.
I like and love what I love, I will get uppity about some films for obvious reasons, but I am never going to give anyone shit for liking/loving a film that I do not like or love. There are men and women out there who love John Q, the Pink Panther remake, and will defend the Halloween remake til the better end.
Now, I pretty much loathe Horror, a misuse of Denzel, and bad Pink Panther films. This does not make me think these people are idiots. I just disagree with them and do not think any less of them, I might bust on the horror fan, but people like what they like except for me. If I like something, I am worthy of scorn and vitriol, and that’s just bullshit.
You give people shit for not liking/loving movies you love. You talked shit about anyone who didn’t care for Scott Pilgrim. You repeatedly engage in behavior you claim to abhor and be a victim of. And you are constantly playing the victim card. I never once acted like a dick towards you for liking a movie I didn’t. I never even saw the movie in question. You are so defensive about everything. Someone expressing an opinion different from yours is automatically an attack on your character. You think you’re being mistreated and unfairly shit on? That’s your prerogative. But you are not an innocent victim here IO. You give just as good as you get. You don’t buy into playing the victim? Please. That is exactly what you are doing.
I do not think badly of you personally for liking Sucker Punch or Scott Pilgrim or whatever. I have never bashed you simply for liking a movie. All I did was say that maybe you were predisposed to loving Scott Pilgrim. I never meant that as a vicious attack and never thought you would be so pissed about it. It was not my intention to insult you. I don’t think my taste is any better than yours. I don’t get why you are still so mad about it. You really hold a grudge and can’t let anything go.
“Now, Joe, go look through my tens of thousands of posts and find any post as mean and vicious as the shit Don Lewis has directed towards me two weekends in a roll. Go look because I have never been that mean towards anyone who likes something I don’t (I have been mean, that I won’t deny) and you excuse it because you think PASSION and DEFENDING something is the same as throwing homophobic shit my way and implying I have brain damage. Excuse me if I don’t think you are full of it for feeling this way.”
My response to that: So what? In high school, there was a girl who wanted to run me over with a freight train every time I spoke. And I got called the other f-word every other day. What does it matter? If it’s not worth one response, it’s not worth 10. And rule #1 of reasonable discussions is if the other party doesn’t want to act reasonable, it’s not a conversation worth having. Same for when Lex gets into one of his “performances” (Sometimes it is a performance, sometimes it’s actually him), and people just can’t accept that whatever they say is not going to get through to him and he’s going to play their game. You can defend yourself, and if someone is an asshat and imitates you (Don’t really have any experience in that. I tend to come off as bland, and who wants to imitate the bland guy?), you have every right to go to people in control and demand that bullshit get shut down. Some times, it just isn’t worth it, and 75% of tiem discussions break down in these threads is because it’s continuation on stuff that isn’t worth it, which sucks, buecause some threads go off on unexpectadly awesome directions, like all the people talking the Tarantino rip-offs from the 90s. I didn’t have much to add, but it was awesome, anyway.
“Let me also add that I have seen thousands of films in my life and some of those I have watched repeatedly, and some of those films have had plot points that just went right by me. Now, if I can miss something in a film, is it not possible someone else can? You and people like you, who get all snippy when people tell you/state to you that you MIGHT HAVE MISSED SOMETHING, is your problem and it’s a vain one. I admit there’s shit I missed, so excuse me for thinking someone else could have missed something else in a film that they are slamming. Lord knows that it’s worked that way for me, so damn me for thinking it could work the way with other people.”
Oh, I can admit I might have missed something. But the way you go about it sometimes assumes that people DID miss something and it’s all their problem. Sometimes, people didn’t miss something. Sometimes, people aren’t on an agenda and trying to force the matter won’t make “see” any better. I know a few people who went in wanting to love the crap out of Sucker Punch and hated the shit out of it, and I’m one of those people who has been known to call others to task for calling Speed Racer incomprehensible. If you couldn’t follow Speed Racer, you need to go back to film classes. It’s BASIC, and I’m sorry a movie about RACING can sometimes go by at a fast clip (I thought the opposite at times. The 40 minutes spent establishing how EVIL the obviously evil corporation is was overkill).
It FEELS like you think there’s something wrong with the people who dislike the big things you dislike. I love Scott Pilgrim and it’s one of the rare movies I came away from wanting nothing more, but I get why people can dislike the main characters and I don’t think they missed anything. And let’s face it, the endgame for the TRON: Legacy villain is laughable no matter if they missed vital plot points that were explicitly spelled out (And some folk did). It’s not the defense. It’s not the passion. It’s going 20-40 posts BEYOND anything that’s needed to defend the movie and grinding down the discussion to where NOBODY can have a discussion on anything. And it takes two, I know this, but you can only control what you do. If other people are being fuck-ups, why follow in their path?
Joe, anyone who goes into anything wanting to love it, needs to cut that shit out. That’s the reason why Paul’s comment about being PREDISPOSED TO LIKING SCOTT PILGRIM pissed me off because I am not predisposed to liking anything other than Gene Hackman thrillers! Everything else, I take it like a wave, and let it just wash over me.
Now, no offense Paul and Joe, but you two must post on the fucking hot blog of Earth 2 because the way you see things is not the way things are. Seriously.
I have no fucking clue how two people who post on this blog could come to the realization that you two have come to, especially given the fact that it’s simply not true. Not only do I not attack anyone over not liking a film that I like. I have never ever posted something as mean and vicious as Don and Anghus over a movie. It’s never happened. If it did happen back in the day, blame the lack of a freaking edit button because that’s not how I roll.
What I really find hilarious and oddly white dude from both of you, is the fact that you think I deserve to get treated like shit. Thanks. Thanks a lot.
So what? Really? What the fuck ever.
why does anyone even try to engage this person?…seriously, clearly unhinged…..
I didn’t see this tread before otherwise I would’ve posted another comment here. One of my main points would be that if Superman tanks, I wouldn’t say it’s all Snyder’s fault. I do wonder one thing, has anyone heard if it’s supposed to have that 300-Watchmen-Punch look to it? I liked 300 quite a bit more than I was expecting. The look helped make the film. I probably would give a “meh minus” to Watchmen. When the film wasn’t working for me, I found the look to be more of a distraction. Maybe not distraction but at least an amplifier to what I didn’t like. It wasn’t like adding whipped cream to improve an otherwise bland brownie. I also wonder, (OK, I said one thing but realize it’s two), if this look is too fadish for the gen pub? Like a lot of people can be transfixed by anime the first time or two they see it, then it can be “enough, already” and there are those who are enamored by the style. Or, like shaky cam films and shows during the 90s. Sure, there are still relatively recent examples like Cloverfield and to a lesser extent Friday Night Lights but except for maybe some battle scenes, the technique is sorta played out for people. Could Supes be sunk just by people getting the trick of the visuals?
Do we have any neutral 3rd party observers who read Kevin Smith’s draft of Superman? I suppose if I hunted for it I might find it online but it might be hard to properly rate it w/out looking at it through 2011 lenses. Was it any good or was the studio right for not making it? Or would it be too speculative to tell what Smith was wanting to go for? This was one of the last things was sort of a hot button geek topic before teh internets exploded, from what I remember. I can’t remember much of the talk specifically, just being too this or too that. The love or hate of Smith at this point in time makes me wonder, (OK, 3), if they missed tapping into the voice of that time or if signs of him being a more of a one trick pony were evident then.
Just one other side note while I’m here. I can’t really say I’m a comic book movie geek, although I have really LOVED films like Batman Begins, Spidey II and X2, and I have never been a real Superman guy. I can’t help to look at Singer’s next flick and the upcoming Superman installment as that sorta marginal-to-good friend that you have that winds up sleeping with your cousin. It’s not like you have any proprietary claim on anyone but it just really crossed a line. A bit of a feeling of betrayal that’s kinda washed out by nausea. Not really any sense of anger that you feel but damn sure wish they’d use plastic utensils the next time they’re over. That is, if you can stand to be around them and eat at the same time ever again.
Scooter, why would anyone engage a woman who goes around stating that people online are unhinged? If I am mental, what does that make you 50 something lady who has a journalist job in the entertainment industry? It’s shit like that from a person like you, that really makes me wonder about you people.
Outside of that fucking nonsense, Triple, Superman really needs to be the flagship DC superhero film. While I still love Snyder, even if the choosing Cavill is hokey nonsense to the Nth degree, he’s not the right choice for Supes. The way he sees things does not suit the character.
True, he’s not writing it, but he’s going to tweak it. Superman does not need to be tweaked by Snyder. What Superman needs to be… is a character in a movie that makes the impossible seem possible. Fighting Zod or some other human villain does nothing new for a character, who should be beating Mongul’s ass. Superman must be Super but Snyder seems against that idea, and that has a high possibility of not working.
I was not a fan of Kevin Smith’s Superman Lives script. Read it WAY back in the day. It’s pretty terrific for the first act, but once Superman ‘dies’, it basically turns into a buddy picture with Superman and Eradicator (I think that was the character name) doing a riff on Lethal Weapon-ish type action/humor. It was not the great missed opportunity that some have called it, and I can see why Burton passed on it back in 1998.
I just hope we get a Superman movie with Superman doing more Superman stuff then he did in Returns. I love Returns but that film is like 1h30m of wanting Lois and 30m of being Superman.
If they want a Superman movie to take off. They need to put him against someone that’s a challenge and Zod is rarely ever a challenge. Mongul, Brainiac, Metallo, Parasite, and even Kryptonite Suited Luthor are better than going down the Zod road again.
i actually liked smith’s ‘superman lives’ script back in the day…i’ve since reconsidered and admit i was just being over enthusiastic in the moment… my problem with the snyder/nolan reboot is that it’s yet another origin story and my feeling (fwiw) is that it’s time to move on from that… there is such a wealth of story ideas from the comics (over decades) that another origin story is just lazy…..
I read a draft of the Smith Superman script. Not great. Some of it is stuff I realize he was forced to add (effeminate robot sidekick named L. Ron), but other stuff, like a scene at Mount Rushmore with Supes and Lois that Smith said was the heart of the movie still played like crap.
I also read a Gregory Poirer draft. Made Smith’s version look like Shakespeare by comparison.
Gregory “Tomcats” Poirier? Oy vey.
“I have no fucking clue how two people who post on this blog could come to the realization that you two have come to, especially given the fact that it’s simply not true. Not only do I not attack anyone over not liking a film that I like. I have never ever posted something as mean and vicious as Don and Anghus over a movie. It’s never happened. If it did happen back in the day, blame the lack of a freaking edit button because that’s not how I roll.”
Someone said something mean to you over the Internet? CALL THE NATIONAL GUARD!!!!! And Earth 2 sucked ass. Why would I ever be there?
Joe, you don’t get it but you know, that’s how it goes.