skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Review: ‘Sucker Punch’

Please Don’t Be a Sucker and Pay for This Movie!

Above: Striking an action pose: Jena Malone, Emily Browning and Abbie Cornish in "Sucker Punch."

Zack Snyder needs to be sucker punched for making "Sucker Punch" (opening March 25 throughout San Diego) and stealing two hours of my life that I will never get back.

"Sucker Punch" is so bad that my friend Miguel Rodriguez of Horrible Imaginings wanted to start a Facebook game of "I would rather…" and he kicked it off with "I would rather eat ostrich vomit than see this movie again." In my post screening delirium and rage I even suggested I would rather have Sarah Palin as president than see "Sucker Punch" again. Yes it was that bad.

I did not have high hopes for "Sucker Punch" but I did think it might be a female version of "300" with scantily clad women kicking ass instead of Speedo-clad Spartans. I thought it might look cool and have decent action. Plus I love the idea of a film with a group of women kicking ass. It's too rare in cinema so any film that promises such a novelty is worth seeing, right? Wrong! Zack Synder's "Sucker Punch" was so bad that it's likely to make it even more difficult to make female action films in the future.

Emily Browning as Baby Doll in "Sucker Punch."

Warner Brothers

Above: Emily Browning as Baby Doll in "Sucker Punch."

So where to begin? Well, "Sucker Punch" doesn't waste any time flaunting its awfulness. The opening plays out like a series of bad and pretentious music videos featuring wussy covers of familiar songs. These almost wordless sequences (I guess I should be grateful for the lack of dialogue) establish the tragic back-story for Baby Doll (Emily Browning), a young woman whose mother dies and whose stepfather tries to molest her sister so Baby Doll attacks him and accidentally kills her sis and then lands in a mental institution. So Baby Doll is in the loony bin but imagines that she's in some kind of house of prostitution where, when she dances, she's transported to yet another fantasy land where she and the other girls are kickass fighters going out on missions that will ultimately lead to their escape and freedom.

If that sounds like a plot, don't be fooled. The film is as flimsy as the Japanese schoolgirl dress Baby Doll wears. "Sucker Punch" has so many problems that I don't know where to begin slamming it. The whole conceit of Baby Doll escaping into a fantasy world (a la Jonathan Pryce's character in "Brazil") is ridiculous because it's so obvious. At least in "Brazil" there was some mystery as to where the dividing line between the real and the fantasy world lay. In "Sucker Punch" it's just a lame ass excuse for the girls to change their costumes but each world is very separate and distinct with no clever interplay between the two. At the end of the film, when Snyder wants to show us that it was all just a fantasy, he takes us on a tour through the insane asylum to show us that, for example, the cook in the fantasy world was… wait for it… the cook in the real world! Holy crap! That was unexpected.

Barbie doll action in "Sucker Punch."

Warner Brothers

Above: Barbie doll action in "Sucker Punch."

Now I could have forgiven a lot if the action rocked. But there's more crying than action here, and what little action there is is dull and unimpressive. There's no real action or fights here, just cute girls striking an action pose. The actresses simply don't display any flair for the physicality needed to sell the action. I'm surprised these girlie girls didn't have side view mirrors attached to their bustiers so they could check their make up during battle. This must be the first action soap opera as Snyder emphasizes the soapy melodrama of the girls striving to attain their freedom and each sacrificing for the others. If this had been made in the 30s it would have had Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Olivia DeHavilland, Norma Shearer, and maybe Paulette Goddard -- and it would have been better. If Snyder had any sense of film history he could have blended 30s Warner Brother melodramas with sordid 50s insane asylum films with 80s Hong Kong action and come up with a collision of styles and cultures that could have dazzled. But that's asking too much of the "visionary" Snyder.

The guilty party: Zack Snyder. He needs to have his DGA card revoked.

Warner Brothers

Above: The guilty party: Zack Snyder. He needs to have his DGA card revoked.

Snyder got slapped with that "visionary" label solely because he used Frank Miller's bold comic book "300" as a storyboard and gave us a film that looked strikingly fresh because of that. Plus it was unbelievably amped on steroids and testosterone. But Snyder's no visionary. He's a hollow shell of a director who's completely shot his wad and has nothing left to give because he never had any vision of creativity of his own to begin with. His "Dawn of the Dead" merely remade George Romero's zombie classic with a bigger budget and slicker effects; "300" succeeded because of Frank Miller's vision; and what little was good in "Watchman" came from the graphic novel. But "Sucker Punch" is all Snyder. There's no one else's vision to steal from and the result is a story and film so thin and hollow that it shatters and crumbles to dust almost as soon as the first image hits the screen.

There is absolutely nothing that engages you about the film. You don't care about the characters. The dialogue is trite and laughable. The action isn't even up to the caliber of a video game. And Snyder doesn't even know how to make his attractive cast look sexy. Sure they are scantily clad but it's like some twelve-year-old's fantasy of a hot chick. Snyder doesn't seem to understand that it's not just the costume that makes them hot. Diana Rigg (Emma Peel in TV's "The Avengers"), Pam Grier ("Coffy," "Foxy Brown"), Tura Satana ("Faster Pussycat Kill, Kill"), and Lucy Lawless ("Xena") were hot action babes because they were badasses that could genuinely kick some major butt. They were also women with some dimensionality and I'm not just talking about their physical attributes. But the whiny, wimpy women of "Sucker Punch" are just calendar girls who play at being action heroes and end up more like Barbie action figures.

Abbie Cornish (center) and the girls in "Sucker Punch."

Warner Brothers

Above: Abbie Cornish (center) and the girls in "Sucker Punch."

Snyder's casting is also part of the problem. He has cast actresses (Emily Browning, Jena Malone, Abbie Cornish) that are more girl-next-door cute than women who look like they can either survive as prostitutes or as fighters. I mean how can you have Vanessa Hudgens, a Disney star and the lead of the "High School Musical" films, as one of your action stars? Plus she has sooooo much hair that it was distracting. These girls look like they'd cry if they broke a nail or got a run in their stockings. I think they spent more on the false eyelash budget here then on bullets and that's not good. Then as the male mentor we get Scott Glen, who is essentially the video game character the girls' bump into to get their assignments and the occasional word of wisdom. Too bad David Carradine passed away or else he would have been perfect for Glen's role. Know what I mean, Grasshopper?

As for the look of the film, Snyder just color codes the various worlds so the mental institution is blue, the prostitution house a honey amber, and the video game action world is a faded gray. But there's no real sense of style. Snyder culls elements from video games, 40s war pics, "Lord of the Rings," and more but never invests the film with any style of its own so it's not even fun to look at. Part of the problem too is that the film is PG-13 so Snyder can't push the envelope in terms of the action as he did in "Dawn of the Dead" and "300." Snyder could have also done a lot to improve the film if he had just displayed a less pretentious attitude and at least a modicum of fun. There is no sense of fun anywhere in this film and that kills it.

"Sucker Punch" (rated PG-13 for thematic material involving sexuality, violence and combat sequences, and for language) is so bad that it makes "Battle: LA" look like "Citizen Kane." I beg you not to pay to see this movie but if you feel some uncontrollable urge to see it, please buy a ticket to "Paul" and then sneak in to see "Sucker Punch." It's so bad that the Director's Guild should revoke Snyder's membership and he should never be allowed to direct again… But wait… Snyder is scheduled to direct the newest, Christopher Nolan-produced "Superman." Yikes! My interest in that project just plummeted to zero. Hopefully Nolan will see "Sucker Punch" and immediately fire Snyder... Well I can hope can't I?

Companion viewing: "Brazil," "Heroic Trio," "300," "Kill Bill," "Volcano High"

To view PDF documents, Download Acrobat Reader.


Avatar for user 'IanForbes'

IanForbes | March 25, 2011 at 12:09 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

We can all hope Nolan comes to his senses on his pick for director on the Superman reboot. I suppose praying would help too. I'll get right on that. And you're dead on about "Sucker Punch", all hype and bluster with nothing underneath to show for it. A true waste of money, time, and our lives.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Beth Accomando'

Beth Accomando, KPBS Staff | March 25, 2011 at 12:17 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

I think it's my civic duty to try and prevent people from seeing this.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'lolo'

lolo | March 25, 2011 at 12:21 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Yes. This movie is awful. Terrible. Painful. Vile.

I was really looking forward to a dumb, fun movie filled with hot girls in almost no clothes kicking ass.

That is not this movie. I realized I couldn't even explain what the movie was supposed to be to people when I was talking about it. One of my friends said, "did you even watch it?" when I was describing the, for sake of argument, let's call it a "plot".

Thank you for helping to protect the world from the crime that is this movie.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'olsentm'

olsentm | March 25, 2011 at 8:58 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

I didn't have any interest in making a night out of seeing Sucker Punch anyway, but now I know I don't even need to bother burying it in my Netflix queue.

PS - I felt this way about Black Swan.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Beth Accomando'

Beth Accomando, KPBS Staff | March 25, 2011 at 10:28 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

So my review made the list for most scathing reviews of SUCKER PUNCH. I have done my job.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | March 25, 2011 at 10:34 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Zack Snyder needs to be sucker punched for making "Sucker Punch" LOL Beth!!! Just looking at the trailer it seemed like it was some teen boy's wet dream! LOL Where was Emily Browning when I was 13? LOL They probably wanted Christina Aguilera, but she was busy shooting BURLESQUE! And yeah, right on about Carradine! Either Scott Glenn owes a lot of alimony or he's going for the "Samuel L. Jackson I Have No Shame" Award! LOL And I'm tired of this marketing c__p like "from the visionary director of . . . " He's a technohack with luck--not a visionary. He couldn't shine Tarkovsky's shoes if his life depended on it! Look at that pix! Real smug. Am I envious? Yeah. I'd like to be surrounded by a bunch of young honeys, but at least Busby Berkeley WORKED at it! Now let's see if the mainstream critics will let Snyder have it for objectifying women!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Beth Accomando'

Beth Accomando, KPBS Staff | March 25, 2011 at 10:38 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Well put! Glad you are not one to get suckered. :)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'csteward'

csteward | March 25, 2011 at 12:51 p.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Beth, thanks for saving me some money! Otherwise my hubby would have been begging me to see this, and I would have been pissed off yet again about another of his poor choices in chick action flicks... like I was with the last Resident Evil.... UGH!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Beth Accomando'

Beth Accomando, KPBS Staff | March 25, 2011 at 2:28 p.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Resident Evil looks amazing by comparison!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'thatlldo'

thatlldo | March 25, 2011 at 2:46 p.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Hey Beth, why so personal? "never be allowed to direct again"...? Really? So, in all your incite and brilliance you think this guy should get his DGA card revoked? So of 4 movies he directed, 300, Dawn of the Dead, The Watchmen, and this Sucker Punch, you've finally had enough? It's okay, you didn't like that he objectified the women, or you simply just hated this film, but why so vitriolic? I haven't seen this film, but even if it does suck, that makes him 3 out 4 in my book. That's still a pretty good resume'. "He's a hollow shell of a director who's completely shot his wad and has nothing left to give because he never had any vision of creativity of his own to begin with." Wow, it's like he owes you money or you didn't get a writing credit. You know what sucks the most...? Wannabe hack critics that make it personal, and go on the attack. Why? I never read any reviews by Ebert or Roeper that attack in the way you have. It's like you have a personal issue with him. "His "Dawn of the Dead" merely remade(sic) George Romero's zombie classic with a bigger budget and slicker effects;". Do you even know what you're talking about? The Snyder DoD opening 10 minutes alone blew Romero's version out of the water. "There's no one else's vision to steal from", are you f-ing kidding me??? Hey Beth get a clue, Hollywood is all about "stealing", any critic worth their salt knows this, unless of course if you have an axe bury. At least it wasn't some 70's sitcom brought to life or S.W.A.T.. This movie may suck, but kudos to Snyder for trying to bring one of his visions and own works to life. You can't have it both ways, vilify him for stealing other peoples ideas, then crucify him when he has his own, even if it sucks. In the end he'll be directing Superman and you'll be shucking corn in the minor leagues with all the wannabe famous critics. Jockeying for who can write the most vitriolic tag line in their critique in hopes to draw readership. Congrats, you got my attention, now why don't you go re-review that suckfest called Red Riding Hood, which you gave a passing grade....or are you all out of crucifix nails?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Miguel Rodriguez'

Miguel Rodriguez | March 25, 2011 at 2:50 p.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Dawn of the Dead was passable. 300 was garbage as source material and as a film. Watchmen was completely and offensively misunderstood by Snyder. Sucker Punch was absolutely unforgivable and a last straw.

Resident Evil was unwatchable, but it didn't make me grind my teeth in rage like this movie did.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'thatlldo'

thatlldo | March 25, 2011 at 2:51 p.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

"So my review made the list for most scathing reviews of SUCKER PUNCH. I have done my job." Ah, no, this makes you unprofessional. The fact you take pride in your scathiness just proves the point.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Miguel Rodriguez'

Miguel Rodriguez | March 25, 2011 at 2:55 p.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

"The Snyder DoD opening 10 minutes alone blew Romero's version out of the water."

Oof. I can't believe this was said.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'thatlldo'

thatlldo | March 25, 2011 at 3:04 p.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

"unforgivable and a last straw" I can't believe this was said.

Dear Zack, You've lost Miguel, this was the last straw! And completely unforgivable! After he wasted his money on 300, which, was bad source material, (then why did he see it)?? Then he went out and spent it on the Watchmen! Damnit all to hell, where's Charlton Heston to pound the ground for him!?? I wonder if he is going to stop seeing films by you, or continue to grace your films and grind his teeth in rage and share...?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'pllorenzo'

pllorenzo | March 26, 2011 at 12:47 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

I want to clarify a few things for thatlldo:

"Hollywood is all about "stealing", any critic worth their salt knows this"
-just because this may be a paradigm in the perversely flawed studio system does not give your defense of it any merit. The fact that you are defending a filmmaker who has depended on leaning on source material that is not his is at best, laughable.

-For many zombie fans and purists - George Romero represents the standard for zombie filmmaking, just because Snyder sped up action, threw in some Disturbed and cast some decent actors does not excuse the hollow shell of a remake of a film that defined it's era. In other words: Dawn of The Dead MAKES NO SENSE. When Dawn of The Dead was released, malls were new which allowed for the consistent social commentary that defined Romero's zombie films. So in short: Snyder did not consider the sociological strength of the original and made a bland, uninteresting exploitative remake.

-300 - If Frank Miller did not illustrate the comic, Snyder's "storyboarding" of the film would not have existed, and the amazing images would not have been there to save an utterly boring, man-glazed WWE fan's wet dream of a film. The only good thing to come of that film was the introduction of Michael Fassbender. Please keep in mind that Frank Miller still suffers at time from simplistic storytelling (please refer to Robocop 2 for example).

-Watchmen - THIS FILM SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN A MOVIE. Snyder's selfish attempt to again "cut and paste" a comic book into a storyboard resulted in an uninspired and shallow interpretation of what was a genre defining graphic novel. Now, all my kids will know Watchmen for is "that weird movie with that weird blue guy with his thing hanging out." But don't worry, they will never see the film and only be allowed to read the novel.

And now Sucker Punch. Which is not an original film. The topic of false commitment of women to mental institutions has been used in plays and film, and is indicative of the notion that was present in the Victorian era that concluded that women did not have the mental capacity that men do, and thus were more susceptible to mental illness. This notion is continued in Sucker Punch, but even as the women are shooting and slashing and destroying things, they are still:

-listening to a man
-wearing next to nothing
-sacrificing to men
-depending on men ultimately to succeed (especially in the ending(

there is nothing original about the not-so-well disguised misogynistic film that does nothing for generating any interest in the topic of mental illness, and further continues to subjugate women in predefined roles - THAT IS UNORIGINAL.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'pllorenzo'

pllorenzo | March 26, 2011 at 12:47 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Also, he uses no original musical score to speak of, (only in flashes) so this "original" idea is marked with concepts that he developed while replicating Miller's and Gibbons' comic, and what is more insulting is that his use of music is boring, uninspired covers and remixes used in long extended, boring sequences. The first 10 minutes of the film is the most unoriginal and uninspired pretentious work I have seen in quite a while.

So, when I see new bold and truly visionary work by the likes of:
-Edgar Wright
-Oliver Assayas
-Alejandro Inarritu
-Cary Fukunaga

I understand that Zach Snyder is not a visionary at all, he is not someone who's work I will never respect and you blasting film critics (or anyone else) goes against every tenant of the modern film movement. The greatest film movements in modern history were founded by critics (Italian Neo-Realism and French New Wave) and without their influence film would not have the effect that it does today. I do not you thatlldo, but I do know that defending a director so much is not beneficial, film goers have a "unwritten" duty to question and criticize their work as that is an essential part of critical analysis. In addition, if it gets personal is because WE film fans hate it when an individual chooses to insult our intelligence and still manage to experience a victory of any sort (in this unfortunate case, financially). Think about this - why is the rest of the world (specifically developed nations) able to fund films that are relevant, creative, uncensored, and often times thought provoking and brilliant, while all we have to offer is Sucker Punch and Jackass.

Finally - if you don't like critics - DON'T READ THEIR REVIEWS, you clearly have a mind of your own, and make your own decisions, so, clearly you do not need me or anyone to tell you what is cinema. Which, I will gladly never want to explain to you in this manner again. Good luck watching Hollywood drivel, but be warned, it is not really that good for you.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Beth Accomando'

Beth Accomando, KPBS Staff | March 26, 2011 at 1:25 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

@ thatlldo- If you read my review you would have understood that the reason I think Snyder's DGA card needs to be revoked is because he has been on a steady decline going from a decent remake (DoD) and kickass adaptation (300) to a botched adaptation (WATCHMAN) and a completely lame one (LEGENDS OF THE GUARDIANS). SUCKER PUNCH is the final straw because it's the first film where Snyder is all on his own. He has no previous film to use as a blueprint or comic books to use as elaborate storyboards and he reveals that he is completely devoid of talent. He commits the worst offense in cinema: being dull. His career has been based more on luck than talent and the truly appalling nature of this last film is what has prompted me to dismiss him. So he's not 3 out of 4 for me. And a lot of people are feeling the same way I do. People walked out in droves on his panel at Comic-Con and a lot of people are concerned that he's directing SUPERMAN.

You can call me a wannabe critic but the fact is I am a professional critic and I'm quite content out here in the minor leagues where I get paid to watch movies and where I can write about anything I want. I have no desire to work in Hollywood and I write about film because I love cinema. I'm pissed at Snyder because he made such a bad film. I would place more validity on your comments if you had at least seen the film.

I do know about zombie films and while Snyder turned DoD into an action film it completely misses the social commentary that makes Romero's zombie films so great. Snyder made a zombie film with no brains. So it's far from impressive. Yes Hollywood is all about stealing but some people can steal and make it their own like Tarantino and Rodriguez. Snyder's script is only "original" in the sense that he did not base it overtly on previously produced material but he obviously stole all the ideas from other sources and failed to make any of them his own. So whether a film is stolen or original it still has to deliver and SUCKER PUNCH simply doesn't.

And finally, if you think Ebert is such a gentleman critic read his BATTLE: LA review. And I did not give a passing grade to RED RIDING HOOD. That film was almost as bad as SUCKER PUNCH.

Thanks to everyone for their comments and for contributing to a lively online debate. Much appreciated!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'buckley'

buckley | March 26, 2011 at 12:54 p.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Great review, Beth! I was contemplating seeing this film until I read it. I didn't have very high expectations of a plot but from the trailers it looked like it might have action and stylistic qualities that would make it enjoyable. You have successfully disabused me of any such notions! I already saw Paul (pleasantly surprised by that one!) but I love your suggestion about sneaking into Sucker Punch while seeing it!

@thatlldo -- there is a free market for film critics--the things you dislike about Beth's style are the things that I like about her. If someone is passionate about film, it's perfectly acceptable to write about it with passion. You stick to Ebert and I'll stick to Accomando.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Beth Accomando'

Beth Accomando, KPBS Staff | March 27, 2011 at 10:05 p.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Aw, thanks Buckley! Glad you enjoyed PAUL and avoided getting sucker punched.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | March 28, 2011 at 10:17 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Beth, I think thelido deserves a response. i don't agree, but I think he deserves a response. However, I think delorenzo post kind of made up for that. But BETH I can't believe you liked PAUL!!! Yeah, I think what's his name--the British actor, Simon Pegg, from SEAN OF THE DEAD --is the perfect "everyman" and in fact, I did enjoy the first half hour or 45 minutes. There was a good set-up and Rundgren's "Hello, It's Me" is one the great songs of all time, but then it was ET meets Kevin Smith--and I'm not a fan of either! The script by Pegg and Frost misses one of the basic tenets of comedy--at least American comedy buddy movies: the straight man and the funny man. Here, netheir is wholy one nor the other. Paul becomes obnoxious as the film goes, the bathroom humor is juvenile and even though I don't like rightwing fundamentalists--even I was offended by the mocking tone! SEAN OF THE DEAD was funny, but in this case, lightning doesn't strike twice!!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Beth Accomando'

Beth Accomando, KPBS Staff | March 28, 2011 at 11:14 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Well I agree that this wasn't SHAUN OF THE DEAD and I made that quite clear but it had a geek appeal I liked. And it's not like American comedy, which is part of what I enjoyed. But definitely not the best work from Pegg and Frost. I don't think it's even as good as an episode of SPACED but I found it far more enjoyable than most of what's in the theaters now.

Thanks as always for your comments. And thanks for commenting on the teen critic review as well.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'bc379'

bc379 | March 28, 2011 at 11:53 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

This review is pretty harsh considering that it's his first movie... and I know he filmed other things but those were remakes and/or adaptations. I had to watch Sucker Punch even though I read your review, Beth, and I got to say it wasn't that bad. Of course it's a loud movie with girls fighting for their lives but, let's be honest, what cliché action movie hasn't done this before? It's a genre that everybody loves because it's BAD!

We love bad movies because we can laugh at them as many times as we want. As soon as we remember a scene we start giggling like a Japanese school girl (it's meant to be a pun on Sucker Punch... you know... Baby Doll's outfit).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but it's still a little rude that you think he's bad as a director. The plot had minor holes but if you're smart enough and know what happened in the time the story takes place you can figure out what happened. Which, I feel the need to say this, but the cabaret world is the world of the older blonde girl.

People, just go and see the movie. It's bad but it's funny to look at.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Beth Accomando'

Beth Accomando, KPBS Staff | March 28, 2011 at 3 p.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

I have to disagree with you when you say that action films are "a genre everybody loves because it's bad." There are plenty of action films that are great and that you don't have to make any excuses for, films that take genre conventions and explode them or simply dazzle us with stylistic flair. John Woo's The Killer or Hard-Boiled, Jackie Chan's Police Story or Project A, The Matrix, the recent Kick-Ass and Machete -- all great action films with smart filmmakers at the helm. There are also big dumb action films like the Die Hard ones that recognize their cartoonish nature and go with it.

Snyder did make a good action film previously and that was 300. So to pretend this is his first movie is ridiculous. This is his fifth feature film and he has to take full responsibility for the result. Plus he had a large budget to pay for whatever effects or talent he wanted. The film doesn't have plot holes it has no plot. It's not about filling in gaps but about a film that lacks true style and originality. Everything in the film is ripped off from somewhere else and Snyder doesn't know how to steal these elements and then make them his own (something Tarantino and Rodriguez are great at doing).

It's not rude for me to call him a bad director. I'm a critic and it's my job to have opinions and write about them, and then you are free to disagree. Plus Snyder's a big boy who should be able to take the criticism. You can't be thin skinned in Hollywood.

As I mentioned I liked his first two films so it's not like I went in hoping to have an opportunity to slam him. But this film was bad and pretentious to boot, and that's why it was not fun to watch. There's bad that can be fun but there's also bad that's nothing more than bad. For me Sucker Punch was just bad and its biggest flaw was that it was dull and bland.

Thanks for the comments. I'm glad there's someone out there to like the film so that $80 million plus wasn't completely wasted. You can check out my Teen Critic review too. She felt similar to you.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'bc379'

bc379 | March 28, 2011 at 11:10 p.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

I thought Machete was a satire. Anyway, you have to give the guy some credit for trying to give life to a "new" idea rather than doing another remake or an adaptation of a book or a forgotten TV show. You can't blame him for allegedly stealing ideas from other movies because nothing is original in the film industry. I agree that The Matrix was a mind-blowing trilogy but you can't hide the fact that more than 70% of the plots were taken from different classics in the literary world that takes the central character through a world that only exists in the reader's imagination.

As I said before, "everyone is entitled to their own opinion". Some think that 300 was a masterpiece, some think that it was bad like Avatar. Let's hope Superman is what everyone expects.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Beth Accomando'

Beth Accomando, KPBS Staff | March 29, 2011 at 8:15 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

I blame Snyder for stealing ideas and not making them his own. Tarantino steals like crazy but with a revitalizing passion. So does Robert Rodriguez and the genius of Machete was that it was both an action film and a satire.

I am perfectly fine with artists stealing. Shakespeare never had an original plot. But what separates the hacks from the true artists is that hacks merely lift and imitate without bringing anything new or fresh. So that's what I blame Snyder for, for stealing and failing to breath any life into the cliches. He gets no credit from me for doing something that's not a remake or an adaptation if what he comes up with is worse than that.

And although you say everyone's entitled to their own opinion your comments imply that I'm not entitled to mine especially if I want to call Snyder a bad director.

And I hope Superman is not what everyone expects but rather is something exceptional.

Thanks again for the comments.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | April 5, 2011 at 8:41 a.m. ― 5 years, 11 months ago

Sorry, this isn't about SUCKER PUNCH, but since I noticed Mr. Rodriguez brought it up, how is RESIDENT EVIL "unwatchable"? And which Resident Evil? I can't single them out each, but I think the original was probably the best. I mean, recylcled Social Commentary al la Romero, (how many variations of the 'Dead' can a human make?) or a fun action sci-fi film that doesn't take itself so seriously? Sure, Mila needs to move on, but she is charismatic (and afterall, wasn't Beth cheering the 'strong woman' a few reviews ago?) and the action rarely lets up. The villaims have usually been appropriately sinister. I am reminded of movies like THE FORTRESS when I've seen the better RESIDENT EVIL installments

( | suggest removal )