erik lundegaard

Movie Review: “Sucker Punch” (2011)


“Sucker Punch” combines the worst aspects of American culture in one movie. There’s violence without consequence, titillation without release, a gritty, comic-book surrealism masking as realism. The women are dolled up for sex, prone to violence, and treated as extras in their own story. The only thing more shabbily treated is the whole of human history, which is seen as a backdrop for cool stuff to happen.

We get a scene, for example, where the five female leads, with names like Baby Doll and Sweet Pea, wearing fetishistic gear such as bustiers and fishnet stockings, walk in slow motion through the Allied trenches of WW I. In the air, bi-planes swoop and dirigibles soar. "Sucker Punch" theatrical posterOne of the girls has a bare midriff, another sucks on a lollipop. Around them, the doughboys stare with dead expressions. They’re not fighters, these soldiers, but the girls are, and they’re about to take on the Germans, who are zombies now, in order to retrieve a map, which is merely the first step in their journey. The fact that within the movie none of this is really happening—it’s all in the head of Baby Doll as she dances her erotic dance for customers, which, by the way, isn’t really happening, either—doesn’t excuse it. The insult to history is so overwhelming I wish someone had copywritten WWI and could sue.

As awful as all this is, though, the most awful aspect of “Sucker Punch” may be its form rather than its content.

Since storytelling began, around whatever campfire or inside of whatever cave, our stories have tended to the horizontal: this happened then this happened then this happened. Recently, for a generation now, our most popular stories, video games, have tended to the vertical: you go to this place, then advance through four levels to get to the next place, where there are more levels. “Sucker Punch” is like a video game except we have no control over it. Alas.

Here’s the horizontal story: A girl is committed to a mental institution, where, after five days, she is lobotomized. The End.

Here’s the vertical story: Baby Doll (Emily Browning), petite and blonde, with big eyes and full lips, deals with her incarceration in a mental institution by escaping into a fantasy world, in which her doctor, Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino), is a Russian dance instructor, and an orderly, Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac, in full throat), is a gangster who runs an erotic nightclub where all the girls are forced to dance. Why is this her fantasy—this odd mix of “Showgirls” and “White Nights”—rather than, I don’t know, the fantasy of writer-director Zack Snyder (“300”; “Watchmen”) and most of the fanboys in the audience? Sorry. Stupid question. I’m assuming Baby Doll is a three-dimensional character when she’s just a two-dimensional avatar for Snyder to move about to places where cool shit happens.

The cool shit, and most of the movie, doesn’t happen in the erotic nightclub, by the way. It happens in the fantasy world Baby Doll escapes into so she can perform her mesmerizing dances in the erotic nightclub. It’s the fantasy of her fantasy. And in this fantasy, she’s student to a wise man, known only as Wise Man, who is vaguely Oriental—she first meets him sitting in a temple in the lotus position and surrounded by Chinese characters and Japanese swords—but he’s played by Scott Glenn of Pittsburgh, Pa. Speaking in vaguely wise bromides with a tendency toward the American vulgar (e.g., “Don’t write a check with your mouth that you can’t cash with your ass”), he sends her on a quest to find five items: a map, fire, a knife, and a key. And the fifth thing? “The fifth thing is a mystery,” he tells her. “It is the reason. It is the goal. It will be a deep sacrifice and a perfect victory.” Then he sends her off to fight three giant samurai warriors in slow-motion

The actions in this double fantasy world correspond, in some fashion, to the actions in the fantasy world. So while, in Fantasy II, the girls steal the map from the zombie German commandant, in Fantasy I, Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish) steals a map out of the office of Blue Jones. One assumes this map-stealing corresponds to actions in the real world, the world of the mental asylum, but we barely see that world. We’re mostly just trying to get to the next level: first, World War I (map), then medieval castle and dragon (fire), then high-speed train (carrying a bomb: codenamed, clumsily, “kitchen knife”). Mom! Don’t bug me about the real world! I’m trying to get to the next le-vel!

It’s on the highspeed train that the fantasies fall apart. Rocket (Jena Malone), scrappy kid sister to Sweet Pea, dies on the train, and so dies in the kitchen of the erotic nightclub, and so, one assumes, dies in the mental asylum. And that’s our last double fantasy. The nightclub owner—read: nasty orderly—is onto the girls’ escape plan, and kills two of them. But then Baby Doll sticks a kitchen knife in his neck, sets a fire as a diversion, and uses his master key to unlock the doors to freedom. Except—still in the nightclub fantasy—there are too many 1940s gangstery dudes hanging out front. Which is when Baby Doll realizes what the fifth thing is. It’s herself. So she uses herself as a diversion to allow Sweet Pea to escape. And the moment the biggest gangster dude is about to shoot her in the head is the moment the doctor (Jon Hamm, of all actors) gives her a lobotomy.

That’s pretty much it. There’s some comeuppance for the nasty orderly, and, through the blissful face of a lobotomized Baby Doll, we see, in an apparent mix of Fantasy I and Fantasy II, Sweet Pea trying to board a bus to freedom, being stopped by cops, but being saved by the bus driver, the Wise Man, who uses subterfuge (an old Jedi mind trick) to send them away.

Meanwhile, the narrator (still Scott Glenn, I believe), asks the audience a series of questions about who holds what key to where, then gives us the answer that Baby Doll figured out for herself. “It’s you,” he says. “You have all the weapons you need. Now fight!” Cue: blast of hard rock/rap and the words “Directed by Zack Snyder.”

You know the guy at school who thinks he’s cool but is just ridiculous? Like Mike Damone, the ticket scalper, in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High”? That’s “Sucker Punch.” “Sucker Punch” is the Mike Damone of movies.

What’s with this final message anyway? Yes, kids. Be like this movie. Go home, turn on your video game console, and fight.

Me, I went home, took a shower, and tried to wash this shit off me.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted at 06:32 AM on Mon. Apr 04, 2011 in category Movie Reviews - 2011  


Reed wrote:

Despite their thorough slamming, the reviews I had previously read of this film only served to pique my interest. I had to ask myself it if was because I had some masochistic desire to sit through something universally deemed a horrendous waste of time.

Bu Erik, you have set me straight with this one. Perhaps because you took the time to hang the film by its own rope rather than just stating “it's awful” my interest is sufficiently de-piqued. I will wait for the graphic novel...

Comment posted on Mon. Apr 04, 2011 at 08:55 AM

Kersy wrote:

I really think this movie has gotten a raw deal. I wouldn't disagree with Zach Snyder being that guy who thinks he's cool when he's really not, but I do disagree with the film being that.

It's not a perfect movie--far from it. But I think it's much more interesting and (gasp) intelligent than it's been given credit for. Maybe I read too much into it, but I found it a pretty compelling comment on sexualization and fetishization of women in film. It uses the same cliches it's criticizing, but it uses them subversively. The action scenes are “cool” (if a bit ridiculous), I guess, but you're never quite comfortable watching them and you're not supposed to be. These are basically Baby Doll's “happy place” fantasies, something so she feels like she has some control. By the way, I think the fact that none of the girls have real names is important--they aren't people. They are patients/prostitutes. They are objects.

It's also made clear in the end that what happens in the fantasies do in fact relate--somehow--to the “real” real world. Dr. Gorski points out that Baby Doll did in fact stab the orderly, start the fire, and help another patient escape. Like I said, the movie's far from perfect. It would have had much more power if we had spent more time in the “real” real world, and Zach Snyder has an undying love for annoying camera filters. His musical choices are also always way too obvious and often just plain bad.

The movie, as I saw it, was far from adolescent video-game fantasy. It was surprisingly challenging and--in its odd, loud way--thoughtful film.

Comment posted on Mon. Apr 04, 2011 at 02:43 PM

Erik wrote:

Kersy: I went in hoping to find some such. I'd read Andrew O'Hehir's mixed review, his “Is Zack Snyder a genius or an idiot or both?” review on Salon, and hoped for something good. I was cognizant, too, of the way “Starship Troopers” had been reviewed (as fascistic crap) and how it was later seen (as brilliant satire).

There's a moment, too, early on, right before Baby Doll is about to be lobotomized, when we're back in “the theater” and Sweet Pea steps off stage and says: “Don't you get the point of this? It's to turn people on. I get the sexy little schoolgirl. I even get the helpless mental patient; that can be hot. But what is this? Lobotomized vegetable? How about something a little more commercial, for God's sake?”

“Oh,” I thought. “Where's he going with this?”

Answer: Nowhere, really. Back into the goop.

Oscar Moralde's review is here:

He's more up your alley. He sees Zack Snyder as a genius, a master satirist, for “300,” “Watchmen,” and now “Sucker Punch.”

i'd be more wiling to listen to, or read, Moralde if he wrote in English rather than the film student's version of legalese.

Overall, though, the line between our grosser wish-fulfillment fantasies and satire of our grosser wish-fulfillment fantasies is thin. One might say indistinguishable.

Put another way: If Snyder knowingly put the worst elements of American culture into one movie, well, congratulations. He still made a movie combining the worst elements of American culture. The knowingness is just the cherry on top.

Comment posted on Tue. Apr 05, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Kersey wrote:

I do largely agree with the Moralde review as far as “Sucker Punch” is concerned, though I think he gives Snyder's other films, especially “300”, and Snyder himself too much credit (As a lifelong Superman fan, I really hate that he's making the new one, though I think “Superman Returns” is one of the most underrated superhero movies this side of “Unbreakable”. Though I do agree with your “film student's version of legalese” comment, which I should cop to writing with myself.

This might sound random, but I'd be interested to know your thoughts on Michael Haneke's “Funny Games” (his U.S. remake). I wonder because, more than any movie I can think of, I found myself in the exact opposite position than I have with “Sucker Punch.” Critics largely adored that while I think, to paraphrase you, the line between cruel, pointless violence and satire of cruel, pointless violence is thin.

Comment posted on Wed. Apr 06, 2011 at 04:53 PM

Erik wrote:

Kersey: I didn't see “Funny Games” — either version. Not a big fan of Haneke anyway (see:, but more, those kinds of movies really creep me out. I've seen far too many “couples being terrified by ____” to bother to see another.

I think those kinds of movies have stunted me, made me fearful in a way that I wouldn't be otherwise.

Comment posted on Wed. Apr 06, 2011 at 05:30 PM

Erik wrote:

The question for Moralde is this: If a Snyder movie becomes popular, a la “300,” does that mean he didn't make it uncomfortable enough for the viewers whose tastes he was satirizing? Is “Sucker Punch” the true success and “300” the true failure?

Comment posted on Wed. Apr 06, 2011 at 05:34 PM

Kersy wrote:

I can't say that I think you're missing anything by skipping “Funny Games”, and I have problems with Michael Haneke as well (I watched “Cache” three times to try to see what I was missing before deciding it was just overrated). Anyway, thanks for indulging me. I love the site--even (especially?) when I disagree with you, you're always an interesting read.

Comment posted on Thu. Apr 07, 2011 at 10:07 AM
« Pitchers on Batters: Cliff Lee on Ichiro   |   Home   |   Batters on Pitchers: Schmidt on Ryan »
 RSS    Facebook

Twitter: @ErikLundegaard