Blu-ray Review Sucker Punch Extended Cut Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[Ron-P]

What I meant Robert, this is not a date night movie, it's not a film older couples will go out and see, and it sure is not a film for the whole family. It is a film for a very limited audience.
I just finished up the DC and I will say it adds a bunch to the film, but I didn't see anything I thought that would make it rated "R" over it's PG-13 theatrical rating. There's no nudity, no more gore to the violence and no added bad language. I'm guessing it had to be what Snyder said in an interview, it was the heaviness of some scenes. I've never heard of a film having to remove heavy drama scenes to get a PG-13 rating. This was a first.
As for the A/V, it's 5 by 5, absolutely perfect. Stunning picture with excellent, enveloping surrounds with deep, tight bass. It makes for the perfect popcorn film.

 

[cafink]

Would you recommend a first-time viewer watch the theatrical version or the extended cut?

 

[Ron-P]

Watch the DC, it's the way Snyder wanted the film to be seen. Problem was, to keep it's PG-13 rating the MPAA made him pull out the material in the DC for the theatrical. Don't bother watching the theatrical cut.

 

[cineMANIAC]

Renting isn't an option for me since I can only rent DVDs on Netflix. I think Sucker Punch is the kind of film best viewed in hi-def so I'm going to have to take the plunge and make a blind purchase. It'll be the Extended version for me - I'm not going to waste time watching a truncated edition.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I'm kind of leaning that way too, but I'll wait until I see it for under $10. (I'll probably end up with a Blockbuster previe. I hope those don't cut the extras.)

 

[Jefferson Morris]

I just finished up the DC and I will say it adds a bunch to the film, but I didn't see anything I thought that would make it rated "R" over it's PG-13 theatrical rating.

Me neither. The MPAA ratings board seems to get more conservative every year, oddly. If memory serves, Snyder said their objections had to do with the sheer number of enemies dispatched in the longer cut, even though the only things spilling out of their bodies are light, steam or dirt.
Watched the disc last night and then re-watched about half of it with the (rather cool) visual commentary on. I still find this film both difficult to embrace and difficult to dismiss. I can't in good faith argue that all of its ideas (or even most of them) hang together with any dramatic or thematic coherence. But there's a lot more going on in the film than is admitted by those who dismiss it outright, I feel.
I have a couple of plot-related questions that some might be able to shed light on (spoilers, of course):
1. Did Baby Doll, in fact, kill her sister? The prologue is quite (and I must assume, deliberately) ambiguous on this point. The authorities think she did, hence her commitment to the asylum, but is this really the case?
2. Why is the stepfather willing to pay an exorbitant sum to have Baby Doll lobotomized? This seems to really only make sense if he killed the sister, and not Baby Doll. Otherwise, what is he worried about the authorities discovering? (Perhaps sexual abuse, vaguely implied by the opening?)
3. Madame Gorsky is only retroactively horrified by Baby Doll's lobotomy when she finds out her signature approving the procedure was forged. But she knew the procedure was happening, even if she says she doesn't "agree" with it. Who did she think approved it?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I'm gonna spoilerize some of my thoughts as I don't
want to ruin things for people that have yet to see the film.

I can't write as eloquently as Anthony Neilson, but here is
my take on the film...



I was totally hooked for the first 10 minutes of the film.
It opens up with a shockingly, stylistic opening that just
grabs you and refused to let go.

But then....

Suddenly the film goes from Baby Doll being brought
to an asylum by her evil father to that of a club where
her father is suddenly a priest.




That's where I went, "WTF?!"



From there, it seemed to me, that Baby Doll's mind
escaped to these imaginary, ultra-violent places when
she found herself in traumatic situations.




I don't know if I figured out the film correctly or not, but
what really turned me off was the abundance of unrealistic
CGI that was used. The first fight between Baby Doll and
the creature looked like a video game. In fact, every "escape"
sequence looked like it was something out of a personal
game player.

Listen, I'm just not the target audience for this kind of
film. I hated Star Wars I-III just because of the amount of
CGI used in the film and the fact that it had no script support
whatsoever.

...and Scott Glenn showing up in every action sequence
became a bit tiring after a while -- especially for the fact that
the performance seemed (purposely or not) "wooden."

 

[Jefferson Morris]

There are two levels of fantasy--the cabaret/brothel, which is just a somewhat glamorized version of reality in which the girls are still being subjugated, and the outrageous fantasy world of the action scenes, in which the girls are essentially invincible warriors.
This structure intrigues and confounds me a bit. ?From a screenwriting standpoint, if this is just a simple story about a girl escaping her brutal circumstances by retreating into flights of fantasy, why have two levels of fantasy, with the first one (the brothel/cabaret) being not much better than reality? What's the point?
And whose fantasy is it? I'm beginning to suspect that perhaps Sweet Pea's fantasy is the brothel--again, in which the girls are glamorized but not really empowered. It takes Baby Doll's more militant, outrageous power fantasies (which, as Anthony points out above, seem more characteristic of an adolescent boy than a girl) to break them out of their imprisonment.

 

[Ron-P]

But there's a lot more going on in the film than is admitted by those who dismiss it outright, I feel.

You are very right Jefferson. There is a lot more to this film than meets the eye, so to speak. Sadly too many just dismissed it and wrote off the film as a flop before really digging in.
If you guys head on over to the movie section where the discussion of the film has already taken place you'll see my thoughts on the film, whose fantasy I thought it really is and some other members thoughts on the film.

 

[TravisR]

I know I said it back when the movie came out but just because they leave a few elements open to interpretation that doesn't mean that the movie is deep. I'm sure it's fun for fans to debate those aspects of the movie though.

 

[cineMANIAC]

Well, the economy must really be improving if people are buying movies like Sucker Punch in droves, to the point where the extended edition, at $23 a pop, has sold out at every Best Buy store I've been to. It's amazing - not a single copy anywhere to be found at BB, even on street date! So either people now have enough pocket money to spend on movies or BB is pulling bait-and-switch scams by only stocking a handful of copies. Ugh...enough of this. I'll just get a used copy on Amazon in a couple of weeks.

 

[TravisR]

I think you can blame the movie's box office performance for Best Buy not stocking more copies of it. Plus, it's the type of movie where the people who liked it rushed out to buy it. Once BB restocks it, those copies will sit on the shelf for a long time.

 

[cineMANIAC]

I think you can blame the movie's box office performance for Best Buy not stocking more copies of it. Plus, it's the type of movie where the people who liked it rushed out to buy it. Once BB restocks it, those copies will sit on the shelf for a long time.

I never thought of that, Travis. By the time they restock the price will shoot up to $30. They had tons of copies of Season of the Witch, an even bigger BO flop.

 

[TravisR]

I worked at a Best Buy probably more than a decade ago but back then, they'd get restock pretty fast. If you can hit a BB on Friday afternoon or evening, they might have restocked it and you'd still get it on sale.

 

[Mike Frezon]

If you've got a store which stocks "Used" DVDs near you, Luis...I see the Sucker Punch EE as one of those titles sure to show up soon in those bins (likely in the droves) after a single spin.

That's not a judgment on my part...just an educated guess based on the reaction of so many people who expect one thing from the film and get another.

The FYE stores near me (TransWoprld Entertainment) are kind enough to take-in unwanted discs and put them out for re-sale. I often get some really good deals that way.

 

[Ron-P]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

That's not a judgment on my part...just an educated guess based on the reaction of so many people who expect one thing from the film and get another.

Very true Mike. This was a totally different film than what the trailers percieved it to be. But then, it tanked so hard at the BO I cannot see a ton of people blind buying this up just to give it a watch. After all, the majority of people base their movie viewing experience on people like Ebert and his reviews.

 

[cineMANIAC]

If you've got a store which stocks "Used" DVDs near you, Luis...I see the Sucker Punch EE as one of those titles sure to show up soon in those bins (likely in the droves) after a single spin.

That's not a judgment on my part...just an educated guess based on the reaction of so many people who expect one thing from the film and get another.

The FYE stores near me (TransWoprld Entertainment) are kind enough to take-in unwanted discs and put them out for re-sale. I often get some really good deals that way.

There are already used copies floating around on Amazon for sixteen bucks. If I wait a while longer it'll be even cheaper .

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Originally Posted by Ron-P
After all, the majority of people base their movie viewing experience on people like Ebert and his reviews.

No doubt this explains the $400 million box office of "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" which Ebert endorsed as follows: "...a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments. One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys".

 

[cafink]

I don't think I've ever mentioned Ebert (of whom I am a great fan) in conversation and had anyone respond with anything other than, "who cares what critics think," or words to that effect.

 

[Ron-P]

In general guys, some films obviously no matter how bad will to well. But I see this place (and others) littered with comments about how people will base their decision on seeing / not seeing a film depending on published reviews.