There's a reason why in new Superman press releases Warner plays down Snyder.
In recent weeks, they primarily mention Christopher Nolan as producer.
As if the film will direct itself somehow through osmosis.
And that reason is called, Sucker Punch.

Watched this train wreck in brain numbing HD last night.
The first 12 minutes is spread out over two music videos.
They're used to play out the tragic plight of our protag.
Almost nil dialogue over trite covers of 80s girl pow pow power songs.  
Zero chance to tune into the protag and spend some time with her.

It plays out like the X Games raped Inception and made a music video about it.
It's a dream within a dream within a geekgasm of tabletop gaming spooge.
Due to this structure, that narrative repeats itself, a lot.
What happens in the dream, happens within GeekgasmLand, but with guns and stuff.
So we get to see the same superfluous villain smack chicks around twice, etc.

Not to mention the subjective perspective shifts within Baby Doll's dream.
Which begs the tiny question, who's bloody dream are we watching?!?!?!

The movie's message, when life gets annoying, just go to your happy place.
Pay no attention to the sharp object about to lobotomize you. The End.

i was sorely disappointed with this one. i hate to call myself a snyder fan boy, but he does make some pretty kick ass movies (sometimes theyre shallow fun like 300, other times they're really deep like watchmen). it amazed me how such an awesome trailer could be made out of such a shitty movie (just like ghost rider). after thinking about it, i had this revelation: snyder adapts movies really well but cant do shit with original material. in other words, watchmen, 300, and dawn of the dead were all awesome because they werent his stories. but with suckerpunch, he failed miserably because he cant write a story for a hill of beans.

and that guardians of guahoole (sp?) fiasco? never saw it and i assumed it never happened...

Worst theatre experience I've ever had.  Relentless in all the wrong choices, mind-numbingly loud, plotless, and borderline concept-less.  There's a part near the end that seemed like it might have been the end to a better movie, suggesting that perhaps at one point there was one good idea in the script.  The attempt to switch protagonists at the end of the movie is painful.  Snyder shouldn't be making special effects films because he has no imagination.  Come to think of it, he shouldn't be directing movies because he has no imagination.

The song covers range from annoying to offensive in the extremes of their bastardization of great songs.

Snyder should stay the f*** away from Superman.  Then again, I think Christopher Nolan should too, so I'm clearly not easy to please.

Quoted from Heretic The attempt to switch protagonists at the end of the movie is painful.

This was the ultimate WTF in the film.
Random protag switch for the epilogue.
A full on fitting cheat of a conclusion to a cheat of a film.

I didn't want to dislike this movie.
It's another nail in the coffin of tentpole financing for original stories.

E.D.

Just goes to show you there is no accounting for taste OR opinions.

Me? Didn't think much of Watchmen or 300.

Sucker Punch? Loved it so much any complaints I did have are a complete non issue.

Quoted from Electric Dreamer Not to mention the subjective perspective shifts within Baby Doll's dream. Which begs the tiny question, who's bloody dream are we watching?!?!?!

I think you might have overlooked the title of the movie, because it tells me that it was pretty much Sweet Pea's story and therefore the "sucker punch", multi-faceted as it is, is that we thought the whole time is was the story of Baby Face. It is another reason why the intro that some people seemed to hate and misunderstand. It wasn't a direct telling, it was from Sweet Pea.

There were a lot of levels and symbolic imagery in this one. Just do some internet searches on it.

I only had one viewing when it came out so I am sure I missed some stuff. I plan on a second viewing this weekend.

Quoted from JCShadow I think you might have overlooked the title of the movie, because it tells me that it was pretty much Sweet Pea's story and therefore the "sucker punch", multi-faceted as it is, is that we thought the whole time is was the story of Baby Face. It is another reason why the intro that some people seemed to hate and misunderstand. It wasn't a direct telling, it was from Sweet Pea.

JC,

It's cool and all that you liked the movie, to each his own.
However, there's one action dream sequence that makes zero sense.
It's BabyDoll's dream but the dream continues after she's ejected.
Rocket and Sweet Pea carry on a conversation in Baby Doll's dream.
And when we return to the brothel dream, they have that knowledge.

I don't understand how the opener is from Sweet Pea's POV.
We don't meet SP until after those two laborious music videos.
And at no time in the film, does Baby Doll relate that info to Sweet Pea.
So, if it's non-linear storytelling, how did Sweet Pea know all that info?

I can't stand a movie with no rules, you can't build consequences that way.
Hence, the empty headed visual fiesta that is Sucker Punch.

E.D.

I can't answer all that. Like I said, I saw it months ago and I am about to review it again. But I will say this, not everything has to be Citizen Kane to be something more than fodder for the brain dead. I will post a more in depth review after I see it again.

My point was that some people will let a few flaws and mindless action sequences detract to the overall thinking that is evoked in those who still can when they go to the theatre. If you ask me it serves well for both types of viewers, those who want to see hot babes and guns, and those who don't mind seeing that but are able to glean the real world commentary as well as subtle symbolism.

And one of the theories is that Sweat Pea created Baby Doll to facilitate her escape. This is why she seems so completely "unreal". The movie also displays the corruptibility of the world the we create around us (ie. almost all the figures in authority, law, or control are depicted as evil) and the lies or fantasies that we then create to deal with them. And don't even get me started on the subjectivity and inequality of women in the 50's because that is all there too.

I wish Friday would hurry up and get here so I could talk more knowledgeably after a fresh view.

I haven't seen one, but I would be very curious what this screenplay looks like with it being so visual.

Just saw this last night...well...actually, I fell asleep 20 minutes in, so I had to rewatch it this morning.

Not really sure what to say about it.  I didn't hate it.  I didn't like it either.  I'd never watch it again, but IMO, it's not a terrible film like so many are saying.

It obviously was a huge disappointment, even though it did cover its $82 Million budget on a WWBO basis.  Critics hated it and fans mostly hated it, but there's a cult following that loves it.  I can see where it's a love or hate kind of thing.

There are tons and tons of theories running rampant over the internet about what actually happens in the film and what doesn't. What various things represent and mean.  Who's story it really was.  What's fantasy and what's reality.  You could spend days reading all the back and forth, and if you watched it 5 or 6 times, I bet it would be alot clearer.  I won't be watching it again, and in reality, I don't really care what it was supposed to mean.

When it comes right down to it, it was either way too shallow or way too deep to connect with a mainstream audience.  I think Zach Snyder has to be blamed for this.  There was just too much going on, on too many levels.  There are obviously very beautiful and stunning sets, FX, and epic action.  But it's kind of like having an all you can eat King Crab Buffet, because, you are going to eat all you literally can and in the end you're not going to feel very good, which means all you just ate isn't going to go down as a very favorable experience.

As I said, the obvious fantasy pieces were cool and well done for the most part on a visual level.  But about midway through the second one, things started feeling like you're working on your 6th giant crab leg, and eating more probably isn't a very good idea.  Then, we get to the castle siege with the orks and dragons, and it's kind of like, WTF?  Yeah, it looks cool, but why is it in this movie?  And then, we're offered crab leg # 8 in the form of androids on a train, and I'm like, "I just can't have anymore crab and butter...my gut's killing me...check please!"

Finally, things come to a head and we're given what appears to be a final twist, but IMO, is more likely just another level of fantasy, which really comes across as why did I just sit here for 2 hours, when in reality almost nothing happened?

So, for me, the bottom line is that I sat there for 2 hours watching this because it offered amazing visuals and over the top action, as well as scantily clad babes using big weaponry on an assortment of cool baddies.  Does it matter what it was really all about?  Does it matter if it made complete sense, or had a deep message to tell?  Not really...not for me, at least.  It basically confirmed what I already knew...that eating 2 pounds of crab legs drenched in butter is going to be pretty incredible for a short while, but will ultimately leave me with a bad taste in my mouth and that classic feeling of "I should have known better...never again."

But that only lasts until the opportunity arises again, and I do it all over again.

Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.  Take away all the sound and fury, and that's exactly what this movie is.  If you've never seen the short, it's from the 60's and based on an Ambrose Bierce story that was known for its clever bending of time and reality.

I haven't read any of the theories about what scenes actually symbolize what, nor do I plan to.  That's like trying to find depth in a sugar cookie.  It had some cool images, the cover songs were revolting(why would you do that to Iggy Pop?) and the structure was numbingly predictable and redundant.  It was almost like the same mini-movie kept playing over and over again...with Scott Glenn saying "Oh yeah, one more thing..."  At least Emily Browning looked good.  But between this movie and "The Uninvited", she always seems to be in mental hospitals.