For those unaware, the first six minutes of Sucker Punch have been released for people to check out as part of an advertising campaign or something. Quick question: was Zack Snyder a music video director before he did movies? Just curious, because he should've been a music video director. Seriously, I have no clue, and I could Google it...but it's early and I'm lazy.
Look, I liked Dawn of the Dead, 300, and Watchmen unabashedly. I hate Snyder's overuse of slo-mo, but regardless, it's a stylistic choice. It is something that worries me when the word "Superman" becomes involved, but I can understand that he wants to capture every little moment and every little nuance of the facial expressions that are happening, every bit of the action, every "epic" moment that he puts on screen. At the same time, more competent directors have been able to pull that off without slo-mo.
This opening piece, despite the bleak tone and the attempted sexual assault, does exactly what it needs to in order to set up the movie. The dad/stepfather/old creepy guy is seemingly trying to get the money from the Last Will of the chick he was married to, and when he doesn't get it but it instead goes to his two daughters/stepdaughters, he gets pissed off and proves that he's a heinous muthafucker. Meanwhile, the blonde girl and the younger girl are victims at his hands because there is no one around to stop it, and the blonde girl decides that enough is enough and someone has to stand up. In turn, it leads to a fatal accident that lands her in a mental institution. End of setup. If anything, that trailer right there actually sold me on the movie MORE than anything else that had come out before it. Why? Because now I KNOW why the girl is going to the Lennox House.
Then again, I also happen to know that the movie takes place in a mental institution...and I also happen to know that the girls are venturing into these alternate realities that exist in their minds. How many audiences out there honestly know that? They probably don't. Hell, my brother and his girlfriend didn't. They say "ooh, eye candy" and that's it. Therefore, it feels like this setup ends up being wasted if people don't know what that is leading up to in some fashion.
Whether the movie is a mess or not is its own thing. In all honesty, I'm surprised that a scene like that was still able to pull off a PG-13 rating when other movies have done less and been forced into an R-rating (The King's Speech). It's also not clear whether this six minute clip is a fair indicator of the rest of the movie. I mean, I just saw six minutes of the film...which was probably only about a minute's worth of footage slowed down to the extreme. Six minutes of a 120 minute running time? That's 5% of the movie that I just watched, and it didn't feel like that. There are a lot of things you can take from this one clip aside from the attempted sexual assault and bleakness it tries to show that tell me this movie has problems.
Regardless, I think I'm far more interested in seeing this movie, as it seems like something that I seriously do need to see at least once. Hell, maybe I can appreciate it for what it is. I don't know. I'm curious as well of what people will think of it in about five or six years. Looking at how people feel about something like Dark City now compared to what they thought thirteen years ago is a pretty crazy thing, since a lot of people...A LOT OF PEOPLE...hated the fuck out of that flick back then. Now, it's seen as being a hidden gem by many. Will this be something that Alex or Rorie would end up watching again and say "man, that was actually a pretty rad flick"? I don't know. Maybe they don't either.
Then again, I'm the guy that liked Elizabethtown the first time I saw it...and still like it every time I watch it. Maybe I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Just a thought, ya know...
Look, I liked Dawn of the Dead, 300, and Watchmen unabashedly. I hate Snyder's overuse of slo-mo, but regardless, it's a stylistic choice. It is something that worries me when the word "Superman" becomes involved, but I can understand that he wants to capture every little moment and every little nuance of the facial expressions that are happening, every bit of the action, every "epic" moment that he puts on screen. At the same time, more competent directors have been able to pull that off without slo-mo.
This opening piece, despite the bleak tone and the attempted sexual assault, does exactly what it needs to in order to set up the movie. The dad/stepfather/old creepy guy is seemingly trying to get the money from the Last Will of the chick he was married to, and when he doesn't get it but it instead goes to his two daughters/stepdaughters, he gets pissed off and proves that he's a heinous muthafucker. Meanwhile, the blonde girl and the younger girl are victims at his hands because there is no one around to stop it, and the blonde girl decides that enough is enough and someone has to stand up. In turn, it leads to a fatal accident that lands her in a mental institution. End of setup. If anything, that trailer right there actually sold me on the movie MORE than anything else that had come out before it. Why? Because now I KNOW why the girl is going to the Lennox House.
Then again, I also happen to know that the movie takes place in a mental institution...and I also happen to know that the girls are venturing into these alternate realities that exist in their minds. How many audiences out there honestly know that? They probably don't. Hell, my brother and his girlfriend didn't. They say "ooh, eye candy" and that's it. Therefore, it feels like this setup ends up being wasted if people don't know what that is leading up to in some fashion.
Whether the movie is a mess or not is its own thing. In all honesty, I'm surprised that a scene like that was still able to pull off a PG-13 rating when other movies have done less and been forced into an R-rating (The King's Speech). It's also not clear whether this six minute clip is a fair indicator of the rest of the movie. I mean, I just saw six minutes of the film...which was probably only about a minute's worth of footage slowed down to the extreme. Six minutes of a 120 minute running time? That's 5% of the movie that I just watched, and it didn't feel like that. There are a lot of things you can take from this one clip aside from the attempted sexual assault and bleakness it tries to show that tell me this movie has problems.
Regardless, I think I'm far more interested in seeing this movie, as it seems like something that I seriously do need to see at least once. Hell, maybe I can appreciate it for what it is. I don't know. I'm curious as well of what people will think of it in about five or six years. Looking at how people feel about something like Dark City now compared to what they thought thirteen years ago is a pretty crazy thing, since a lot of people...A LOT OF PEOPLE...hated the fuck out of that flick back then. Now, it's seen as being a hidden gem by many. Will this be something that Alex or Rorie would end up watching again and say "man, that was actually a pretty rad flick"? I don't know. Maybe they don't either.
Then again, I'm the guy that liked Elizabethtown the first time I saw it...and still like it every time I watch it. Maybe I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Just a thought, ya know...
