Fall for anything
According to my calculations, this Friday was the first Friday of 2011 where I went straight home to Greenpoint after work. This was largely because Marisa and I saw Sucker Punch the night before at a press screening. (I reviewed it here and Marisa had her say here. We are on a boringly similar page about it.) Then we saw it again on Saturday morning at one of those cheap AMC shows. It's not one of those movies I wanted to see a second time to better wrap my head around, or even for the sheer enjoyment of it, although there are sections of Sucker Punch that I was eager to watch again, particularly a robot-fighting sequence done in a single fake-take. I was willing to see it again, as I was with Watchmen, more to sort out my feelings about it, especially after reading some pretty vitriolic reviews. I'm a little surprised that this movie, of all things, would provoke such an angry or dismissive reponse in some people, and that's given several major problems I have with it including but not limited to: Zack Snyder being kind of a terrible writer; Zack Snyder having questionable facility with actors; and, perhaps as a result of those two, none of these characters having much distinction or idiosyncrasy as people. I'm not even sure I buy the defense I've heard mounted, halfheartedly, that Snyder's movie is actually about male objectification and how your wildest fantasies will not save you (especially since he has a character explicitly, painfully narrate the contrary as the movie closes and I don't detect any irony in it; in fact, I very rarely trust readings of movies that require you to believe the filmmakers believed the exact opposite of everything they do or show in a movie with no direct signs).
But at its worst, Sucker Punch is kind of a muddle, a movie that should've used Snyder's strengths but happens to pick up several of his weaknesses, too. I'm a little disappointed, given how much I liked parts of it, that it wasn't a nutty masterpiece fusion of Moulin Rouge and Alice in Wonderland. You can read more about why it fails to meet those standards in my review. But I don't really buy it as the perviest, skeeviest, leeringest girl-objectification since a Michael Bay casting call, because I don't know, maybe I'm naive, but twentysomething actresses dressed in mildly provocative outfits and brandishing videogame guns in fantasy sequences doesn't strike me as all that scandalous. It's a little icky that Emily Browning, who is 22 in real life, looks a lot closer to 15 in the movie (and the movie goes out of its way to note that her character is 20, perhaps protesting too much), but given that her character is "fantasizing" about being in a brothel/burlesque club, (a.) there is very little actual sex or even direct suggestion of sex in the movie and (b.) she is actually fantasizing about escaping from said brothel, not about how much fun it is to be there.
I'm also surprised by the complaining about the CG-heavy action sequences, because as stylized animation with live-action elements, a la Avatar or the Star Wars prequels or Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or Speed Racer, it works; it looks striking and of a piece and that's about all you can ask from this kind of fantastical landscape. It's not epileptically cut or ineptly filmed; it's not even as experimental as Speed Racer (or as awesome, but still). Granted, there isn't much tension or emotional weight to these scenes, but if you do look at them as colorful performances akin to musical numbers, as Snyder seems to, well, I watched Singin' in the Rain again today and there's no tension in that 15-minute "Broadway" dream sequence musical number, but it's still pretty great to watch. There's more imagination and energy to these action sequences than in most of 300. I guess that's my puzzlement over the critical savaging of Sucker Punch: where were you guys when 300 came out? I mean, I don't hate 300 but I can find a lot more wrong with it than I can with Sucker Punch. Watchmen, OK, benefits from some great source material and probably the best performances in any Zack Snyder movie (again, owing in part to great source material), but you could not convince me that 300 deserves a pass and Sucker Punch deserves an ass-kicking (even if we're talking potential, then, well, reserve that ass-kicking for Watchmen).
I still have mixed feelings about Snyder tackling Superman, but he's not as far gone into his own style-saturated rabbit hole as Michael Bay; with a decent script and the resolve to not use slow motion in every scene, oh and maybe a break from the freshman-year nihilism that he seems to inject into some of his work, I can see him making a reasonable Superman movie (although whatever, I like Superman Returns a lot, and I'm sensing an Incredible Hulk situation where Snyder might actually get lauded for making a movie that is, at its best, not as interesting as Superman Returns, but one that will take a lot of people several years to admit isn't as good as its artier and much-derided predecessor. But I'm hoping for the best! Amy Adams as Lois Lane! That sounds awesome!).
So I'm not saying you should rush out and see Sucker Punch, because the trailer does give you a pretty adequate idea of whether or not you might enjoy it, but I would suggest maybe reviewing the filmmaking before insisting on "unpacking" it as a metaphor for everything wrong with the world.
In other film-crit news, I also saw Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules. I judge it superior to the original! Mildly, anyway. It goes on the list of sequels that are superior to the originals yet don't really deserve to make the master list of sequels that are superior to the originals.
I did not review The Lincoln Lawyer and in fact saw it primarily because Groupon sold six-dollar Fandango tickets. Did you guys see the first trailer for this movie and notice that it barely made any sense at all? It was one of the most ineptly assembled trailers I've seen in the past year. But the movie itself is an agreeable legal-thriller potboiler. They used to make these things a lot more in the nineties, before it became the template for like sixty percent of all television. So Lincoln Lawyer (not to be confused with The Conspirator, about a Lincoln assassination trial) is more than a little TV-ish in spots, especially when the director insists on using so many goddamned close-ups, but it's entertaining, too, and it has a solid movie-world supporting cast (which is to say a bunch of actors who are or probably will be headlining TV shows within the next two to five years). Matthew MoCon hasn't been this palatable in years. It turns out that he's actually not so insufferable if he's not in soft-focus romantic comedies where his sleazy smugness is supposed to be romantic or comedic. Go figure. With The Adjustment Bureau, Limitless, and The Lincoln Lawyer it has been a banner season for middlebrow thrillers.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to sleep in between work and watching more DVDs to review. Tamara Drewe, Stand by Me, The Cable Guy, How Do You Know down; Room in Rome, I Love You, Phillip Morris, and possibly Black Swan (if Fox sends it) to go. (Interesting discussion point nicked from one of the movie blogs I read: is Black Swan all that much less ridiculous than Sucker Punch? Better-made, to be sure, and better-acted and more involving, absolutely, but less ridiculous? Maybe not.)
But at its worst, Sucker Punch is kind of a muddle, a movie that should've used Snyder's strengths but happens to pick up several of his weaknesses, too. I'm a little disappointed, given how much I liked parts of it, that it wasn't a nutty masterpiece fusion of Moulin Rouge and Alice in Wonderland. You can read more about why it fails to meet those standards in my review. But I don't really buy it as the perviest, skeeviest, leeringest girl-objectification since a Michael Bay casting call, because I don't know, maybe I'm naive, but twentysomething actresses dressed in mildly provocative outfits and brandishing videogame guns in fantasy sequences doesn't strike me as all that scandalous. It's a little icky that Emily Browning, who is 22 in real life, looks a lot closer to 15 in the movie (and the movie goes out of its way to note that her character is 20, perhaps protesting too much), but given that her character is "fantasizing" about being in a brothel/burlesque club, (a.) there is very little actual sex or even direct suggestion of sex in the movie and (b.) she is actually fantasizing about escaping from said brothel, not about how much fun it is to be there.
I'm also surprised by the complaining about the CG-heavy action sequences, because as stylized animation with live-action elements, a la Avatar or the Star Wars prequels or Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or Speed Racer, it works; it looks striking and of a piece and that's about all you can ask from this kind of fantastical landscape. It's not epileptically cut or ineptly filmed; it's not even as experimental as Speed Racer (or as awesome, but still). Granted, there isn't much tension or emotional weight to these scenes, but if you do look at them as colorful performances akin to musical numbers, as Snyder seems to, well, I watched Singin' in the Rain again today and there's no tension in that 15-minute "Broadway" dream sequence musical number, but it's still pretty great to watch. There's more imagination and energy to these action sequences than in most of 300. I guess that's my puzzlement over the critical savaging of Sucker Punch: where were you guys when 300 came out? I mean, I don't hate 300 but I can find a lot more wrong with it than I can with Sucker Punch. Watchmen, OK, benefits from some great source material and probably the best performances in any Zack Snyder movie (again, owing in part to great source material), but you could not convince me that 300 deserves a pass and Sucker Punch deserves an ass-kicking (even if we're talking potential, then, well, reserve that ass-kicking for Watchmen).
I still have mixed feelings about Snyder tackling Superman, but he's not as far gone into his own style-saturated rabbit hole as Michael Bay; with a decent script and the resolve to not use slow motion in every scene, oh and maybe a break from the freshman-year nihilism that he seems to inject into some of his work, I can see him making a reasonable Superman movie (although whatever, I like Superman Returns a lot, and I'm sensing an Incredible Hulk situation where Snyder might actually get lauded for making a movie that is, at its best, not as interesting as Superman Returns, but one that will take a lot of people several years to admit isn't as good as its artier and much-derided predecessor. But I'm hoping for the best! Amy Adams as Lois Lane! That sounds awesome!).
So I'm not saying you should rush out and see Sucker Punch, because the trailer does give you a pretty adequate idea of whether or not you might enjoy it, but I would suggest maybe reviewing the filmmaking before insisting on "unpacking" it as a metaphor for everything wrong with the world.
In other film-crit news, I also saw Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules. I judge it superior to the original! Mildly, anyway. It goes on the list of sequels that are superior to the originals yet don't really deserve to make the master list of sequels that are superior to the originals.
I did not review The Lincoln Lawyer and in fact saw it primarily because Groupon sold six-dollar Fandango tickets. Did you guys see the first trailer for this movie and notice that it barely made any sense at all? It was one of the most ineptly assembled trailers I've seen in the past year. But the movie itself is an agreeable legal-thriller potboiler. They used to make these things a lot more in the nineties, before it became the template for like sixty percent of all television. So Lincoln Lawyer (not to be confused with The Conspirator, about a Lincoln assassination trial) is more than a little TV-ish in spots, especially when the director insists on using so many goddamned close-ups, but it's entertaining, too, and it has a solid movie-world supporting cast (which is to say a bunch of actors who are or probably will be headlining TV shows within the next two to five years). Matthew MoCon hasn't been this palatable in years. It turns out that he's actually not so insufferable if he's not in soft-focus romantic comedies where his sleazy smugness is supposed to be romantic or comedic. Go figure. With The Adjustment Bureau, Limitless, and The Lincoln Lawyer it has been a banner season for middlebrow thrillers.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to sleep in between work and watching more DVDs to review. Tamara Drewe, Stand by Me, The Cable Guy, How Do You Know down; Room in Rome, I Love You, Phillip Morris, and possibly Black Swan (if Fox sends it) to go. (Interesting discussion point nicked from one of the movie blogs I read: is Black Swan all that much less ridiculous than Sucker Punch? Better-made, to be sure, and better-acted and more involving, absolutely, but less ridiculous? Maybe not.)