|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
06-20-2011, 04:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You're right about why the lobotomy was taking place, i had forgotten about that. Look im not arguing why she created the stupid worlds. That's not my point, my point is that its just ridiculous and boring that after all that, it was just a fantasy world that she created in her head. I pretty much suspected that the video game levels/over done special effects scenes/whatever were in her head which was just dumb because why would she need to go into some kind of weird world in her head while she danced and distracted the people so her friends could steal random items so they could escape? It made sense when you found out that she was just trying to cope with everything but re-read that paragraph i just wrote and then try and tell me that isnt crazy. The movie was boring, even during the action scenes and i just couldnt get past how unbelievably stupid it was that this girl was dancing to distract people so her friends could steal random items to escape and while dancing her mind took her to a fantasy world where she fought robots and nazis. There, i just rewrote it in a slightly different way and it still sounds like the stupidest plot idea ever made. Maybe this idea would work if it had a comedic element to it but the movie was trying to be dark and serious. I never said i was confused about which world was which, it was very obvious which world was which but try explaining the entire scenario to someone and tell me that isnt just a little bit confusing. You asked how having an imaginary world inside an imaginary world is any different from Inception. Its because in Inception the dream sequences werent imaginary, the characters were actually inside the dreams. The scenes inside the dreams actually happened, you didnt find out in the end that it was all made up by some crazy chick. Of course the dreams in Inception looked like the real world. Thats how dreams look. Have you honestly ever had a dream that looked like what happened in Sucker Punch? I bet you havent, but i bet you have had some kind of daydream where you thought about something along those lines. That's the difference, one is a fantasy, the other is a dream. Completely different things. Here's another difference between the movies. In Inception, them going into the dreams was part of the plot. They needed to go into the dreams and into more dreams and everything and it was explained why. That was the whole point of the movie. In Sucker Punch the only reason we're given as to why she goes into the fantasy worlds is because she needs to cope with what happened to her and you only get that explanation at the end of the movie. Also even that explanation is pretty thin. I get that she created a fake world to deal with her problems but why did she need to create another fake world (to further deal apparently) whenever she danced in the first fake world? Was the dancing just that traumatizing? It makes no sense, even for a disturbed person to have that kind of thought process and my head now hurts from writing all this. Here's another difference. Both movies had cool visuals but Inception's actually went with the story and made sense but there was no reason for Sucker Punch's cool visuals except to wow the audience and try to get people to go see the movie. It had nothing to do with the plot. You said Sucker Punch was more in your face, well Inception wasnt trying to be in your face. It was trying to be an entertaining movie with a clever story while Sucker Punch just tried to wow the audience and have cool visuals without a good story. There's nothing creative or interesting about a movie that just tries to make money by having lots of explosions and fight scenes that have nothing to do with the plot. But at least we agree about the bus driver. 
|
|
06-20-2011, 07:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Not to mention: The Whore House/Cabaret World was downright retarded.
Honestly, THIS would have been a better movie - Take out the superfluous middle layer - There's enough disgusting abuse within the context of an insane asylum that makes the middle layer really unnecessary... I think that it would have been a much, much better movie if they made it significantly darker - Put the environment/action purely in the insane asylum, but pull it to the extreme a bit, and then she uses her fantasies to escape abuse... That way the fantasies can still be a metaphor for her struggles, you can still make more elaborate horrors out of the "reality" and you don't need to have the retarded unnecessary middle layer. I thought the Cabaret was so unnecessary. Brazil, anyone? Two layers are quite enough to make a great escapist/fantasy movie. Why have a third?
|
|
06-20-2011, 07:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
But enough of that..
 "Devil times five" 6-7/10 Evil children from the 70s. Sure, they kill people, but they're too cute to really dislike.  "Tangled" 7/10 The humor and the story luckily made up for the horrible, horrible musical songs. Thank god there wasn't more of 'em.
__________________
I'm right. It's the rest of the world that's wrong.
|
|
06-20-2011, 09:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The Innocents (1961)  Showed this to a friend that had never seen it. Holy smokes, still one of the best ghost stories ever put on film.
__________________
Last edited by fortunato; 06-20-2011 at 09:47 PM.
|
|
06-20-2011, 10:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Most likely THE horror movie that has been remade the most. The woman standing on the other side of the lake watching is one of my favorite horror moments ever. It's bright daylight and still it's creepy as hell. :)
__________________
I'm right. It's the rest of the world that's wrong.
|
|
06-21-2011, 10:16 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
God Told Me To (1976)
 >>: B- Close Your Eyes/ Doctor Sleep/Hypnotica (2002)  >>: B-
__________________
@Letterboxd
|
|
06-21-2011, 01:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
100 Rifles" (1969)
-Jim Brown, Raquel Welch, Burt Reynolds Plot: Rotten Tomatoes Lyedecker (Jim Brown) is the Arizona lawman who travels to Mexico in search of Yaqui Joe (Burt Reynolds). Joe has made an illegal withdrawal of $6,000 from the band in Phoenix to help finance his tribes's uprising against the Mexican government. Sarita (Raquel Welch) is the local woman who is friendly towards the Indian leaders. Both men are tracked by General Verdugo (Fernando Lamas), the career-minded military man who realizes a victory could boost his station in high-society and politics. Phantom's Review: DEAR GOD! Raquel Welch is so HOT!.......Oh, and Jim Brown and Burt Reynolds are in the movie too. Plenty of action and a good story make this a very entertaining film (did I mention Raquel Welch..and extreme hotness?)
|
|
06-21-2011, 07:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Super 8 - Not bad. Quite atmospheric. Plot kind of fell flat towards the end but it was entertaining enough and had some interesting effects. I was thinking if I were about the same age group as the kids in this film I would have been all over it, like "Flight of the navigator" and "Goonies"...but, I'm not...however it was a decent film with some very cool scenes and an appropriate level of tension throughout.
X-Men - First Class. Probably the best X-men film. Comics fans will have to look past continuity issues with the books, as will fans of the previous films looking for some kind of link-up. It varies here and there from both, and very much establishes it's own continuity. The guy playing Xavier did ok, the guy Playing Erik/Magneto was awesome. It's not the origin story I was used to, but a good origin story all the same. Very well done.
__________________
The door opened...you got in..:rolleyes:
|
|
06-21-2011, 07:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Insidious:
I'm not really sure how to take this one. Is it kinda campy and ridiculously unsubtle because Wan wanted it that way to bring something different to the haunting/possession genre or is it campy and ridiculously unsubtle because Wan is used to making Saw movies? That's not to say it's particularly bad, but throughout the movie I kept wondering just how I was supposed to be viewing the movie. Is it serious? Is it tongue in cheek? Is it a well done homage to say something like Twilight Zone? Or is it just a bad movie because the director doesn't know how to be subtle? I liked it, but I just found too many things to be too farcical to take it very seriously all the while it really felt like it was trying to be serious.
|
|
06-21-2011, 08:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
