Sucker Punch (4/5 Stars)

Zach Snyder, director of “300” and “Watchmen,” tries out his writing chops for the first time with “Sucker Punch,” a story about a wrongly committed girl who attempts an insane asylum escape. Well actually there is five of them and they’re prostitutes in a bordello and um…The whole escape thing involves fighting World War I, giant mechanical samurais, a dragon…and it all takes place at or in uh…imagination land…you know what? I’ll get back to that. “Sucker Punch” lives up to its title. It is a totally unpredictable unapologetic excess of heightened emotion, ultra violence, and stylistic overindulgence. You can arguably say that “Sucker Punch” is a bad movie but that's sort of like remarking that Opera isn’t realistic enough. I will say this though about Snyder. I’ve always had the feeling while watching his movies that I was witnessing something unmistakably new. If “Sucker Punch” is folly, it is at least my favorite kind. An ambitious one.

The movie starts with your average worst-case scenario. A woman dies. She leaves her entire estate to her two daughters. The evil stepfather gets enraged and with largely incestuous overtones attacks his kids. The older daughter, a girl named Baby Doll, played by Emily Browning, runs to get a gun but returns to late. Her sister has been murdered. The evil stepfather frames Baby Doll and gets her committed to an insane asylum. He then bribes the sadistic operator, played by Oscar Isaac, to have Baby Doll lobotomized within the week.

At this point, the movie becomes a completely different parallel movie, whereupon it seems that Baby Doll imagines herself to be a prostitute in a bordello, who is to be sold to a character called the High Roller within the week. She enlists the help of four other fellow prostitutes, Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Amber (Jamie Chung), and Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) to plan an escape. They will need a map, a cigarette lighter, a knife, and a key. The plan is for Baby Doll to put on a highly entertaining burlesque act that will distract all the men in order for the others to steal the items.

I left something out. In the asylum story, there is a psychiatrist (Carla Gugino) who has the inmates perform their sad stories on a theater stage as a sort of therapy. In the bordello, she is a madame who runs the burlesque show. When Baby Doll starts dancing (or supposedly acting out therapy in the first storyline) the movie switches over into battle scenes, which include the five girls donning salacious battle-rattle and fighting various armies for the items. They have to kill Zombie Germans stationed in World War I trenches for the map, a fire-breathing dragon for the fire, and so on. Throughout most of this you can sort of tell what is actually happening in the other story-lines although you may have some very good questions. Like for instance, why is this woman imagining herself in a so very male fantasy world. Or who is the Scott Glenn character, a wise entity that shows up only in the battle fantasies to intone enjoyably ridiculous advice, supposed to be in reality, whatever that is.

The best answer I think is that the several story-worlds have less to do with plot or logic and much more to do with giving Snyder an excuse to zealously indulge into what could perhaps be called an “artistic vision.” I’m guessing he worked backward with a thought process like this: How can I get a team of scantily clad women to battle World War I zombies, medieval dragons, and science fiction robots, all in the same movie? Well, it can totally be in the imagination of a stripper on a mission. That would provide the excuse for putting them in full makeup and revealing outfits the entire time. But wait, what type of stripper would be crazy enough to imagine all that? Well, perhaps if the stripper was but the schizophrenic alter ego of a truly insane woman. But wait, what would make someone be that bat shit crazy? Aha! I’ll have her father kill her sister and frame her for it! Break out the champagne! I’m going to start up the drawings for the gigantic samurai robots!

Really, your enjoyment of this movie is not going to come from the plot or character development. It will come from your willingness to enjoy stand-alone set pieces of ridiculously outfitted women battling equally ridiculous things. In that aspect, the movie truly delivers. The action scenes are outrageous and innovative. Helpfully, Snyder also has the habit of using slow motion. This allows the viewer to admire the artistic still frame, which in turn stops the action from becoming a Bayesian mish mash of mindless confusion. Outside the battle scenes, there is also plenty to admire in style if not in substance. I especially like the camera angles and the exaggerated details in objects and characters. (The Mayor and Cook were my favorite grotesquely comical caricatures). Plenty of attention is placed on composition, color palette, and atmosphere. Snyder’s use of green screen in every shot allows him the requisite control to stylize every single shot. The voiceovers and serious talk could have been more poetic and Snyder's choice of music isn't very good, but still there is a truly great movie waiting somewhere in Snyder’s style. I hope to someday see it. 

The character development in this movie leaves something to be desired. I don’t think it was a very good idea to name the characters Sweet Pea, Amber, or Baby Doll. Blondie is okay I guess. But really, given what the women are made to do, the only name that makes any sense is Rocket. She’s played by Jena Malone and is appropriately the only actor here that gives off any lasting impression. (Emily Browning on the other hand seems to have been cast solely on her ability to look sad). Jena you may remember from “Donnie Darko” and “Into the Wild” and probably don’t remember from one of my favorite hidden movies, “Cheaters.” She deserves to be on the short list of underrated and perpetually underused actresses. Her presence here lends the team its admittedly limited amount of credibility. 

Two more things. The makers will have you believe that this contains themes of female empowerment. Plenty of critics, including two I highly respect A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips, say it is decisively misogynistic. I disagree with both. It’s neither. It’s a comic book movie and as such it contains a certain style that equally applies to both men and women. The good guys are exaggerated into the maker’s idea of ideal beauty and the bad guys are exaggerated into the maker’s idea of ideal ugliness. I don’t recall anybody saying that the one-dimensional Spartans in “300” with their ridiculously perfect perpetually uncovered abdominals were somehow demeaning to men. They simply commented on how nice the abs looked. That attitude should be applied to the heroines of this movie. It's true, Snyder deals in the objectification of people. But then again so do all comic books, and for that matter anything dealing with fashion, or why not the entire branch of art called Humanism going all the way back to when Michelangelo added all those muscles in the Sistine Chapel for no other reason than he thought the human body was an admirable thing and that there was no harm in making it look its best. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder and people may logically be turned off by the presentation of these women (or like me have a preference for one amongst the others), but I don’t think anyone can argue that Snyder, or for that matter his wife/executive producer Deborah Snyder, wasn’t trying to make the team look as gorgeous as he thought possible. There's nothing wrong with that. 

As far as the plenty of "women in danger" material in this movie, I can’t see how you can have an action movie without it. If there isn’t any danger, there isn’t any conflict. The movie might as well have taken place at a shooting range with the bad guys being cardboard cutouts. The test I would think is whether the makers intend the audience to empathize primarily with the women: Do they mean for us to feel scared when they are in danger and to be relieved when they are triumphant? I think the answer to that is obvious in this movie. If the test worked any other way than every movie with a female action star would be automatically exploitative. That would include Ripley, Clarice Starling, and Lisbeth Salandar. Truly we would be missing out by keeping all those fictional women in the movie universe up on their pedestals totally safe all the time.

Having said that, the PG-13 rating is completely absurd, a perfect example of how hypocritical the MPAA can be. Future moviemakers take note. You can kill all you want just as long as there isn’t any blood. You can present sexual violence just as long as there isn’t any nudity. And you can have characters yell "motherfucker" just as long as you cut out the audio for the second half of the word. Of course, the most ridiculous thing is what the MPAA apparently thought was too objectionable to keep in. The credits and trailer show what sort of look to be like the actual burlesque shows that we never get to see in the movie. So apparently murder and near-rape is fine, but a song and dance number that the women seem to be actually enjoying isn’t. Hmm…now is that misogynistic? 

Stop-Loss 03/29/08

Stop-Loss is about the controversial military loophole that keeps soldiers in the army after their tour of duty has been fulfilled. A soldier played by Ryan Phillipe has just gotten back from Iraq to his small All-American Texas town. He is given a bronze star and a purple heart. People call him a hero. Then he refuses to comply with the unfair ruling of his superior officers. Haunted by his tour in Iraq he refuses to bend to the loophole. He is threatened with felony convictions and becomes a fugitive. Certainly this is not the way to treat war heroes. This movie will rattle your soul and convince you of the subjects injustice. To that particular purpose it succeeds. But otherwise for as many good performances and scenes in this movie, there are a couple that fall flat, and it contains a melodramatic ending that almost kills it.

Kimberly Pierce, the director of Boys Don't Cry, another movie set in poor and lonely Texas, has not made a film in years. And it shows just a little bit. Her sincerity is unquestionable but there are some choices she made that are simply wrong. I usually don't bash actors, but I wonder how Ryan Phillippe is becoming the go-to-guy for a war veteran (His last movie was Flags of Our Fathers). He does a good job most of the time, but there's just a couple scenes too many where his voice quivers and his lips tremble and he seems like he's about to cry. It makes more sense for him to be mad. The scene where he contradicts his superior officer and says "Fuck the President," is great. There needed to be more scenes like that. 
Pierce is also hit and miss with the post combat syndrome of these soldiers. It makes sense when one soldier gets completely wasted, thinks he's in Iraq, and starts digging a trench to sleep in. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance is certainly powerful and compelling. (Gordon-Levitt is quietly putting together a string of small good movies like last year's "The Lookout" and this one. I'm quietly starting to pay attention.) Other scenes though, like when Phillipe goes psycho on a bunch of street thugs ring false. The delusion goes on for too long, besides Ryan is supposed to be the sensible one. None of this compares though to the biggest miscalculation of the movie. And that is the WWF style fight scene that takes place in a graveyard at the movie's end. A soldier's funeral is supposed to be serious stuff right. And these characters obviously take it seriously. Why on Earth did Director Pierce choose to stage a completely unrealistic and exploitative fight? And then after that, have the characters start crying again. 
These are my reservations about the film. But I still recommend it because for every bad scene there are three good ones. The part in Iraq, the military hospital, the medals ceremony, the Texan society, and especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt's doomed veteran are all worthy of praise. I wonder if it will take Kimberly Pierce another ten years to make her next movie. I hope its sooner.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age 12/18/07

Cate Blanchett is, of course, so totally awesome. She is one of the best actresses of our time not to mention one of my favorites. (Right now it's a tie between her and Renee Zellweger) The First Royal Elizabeth was the role she was born to play. She knocked it out of the park in the first movie, earning an oscar nomination and breaking out into the front ranks of cinematic actresses.
She returns to form in this sequel as an older Elizabeth. She very much looks the part, the costumes and makeup are stunning, the set decorecations command authenticity, and she speaks in a very regal tone of voice. If only she had something to say. This is without a doubt one of the biggest letdowns of the year.
It may even be one of the biggest letdowns ever. I had some seriously high expectations for this movie. On paper it looked fantastic. It had the same director of the first movie, the same stunning actress, and the addition of Clive Owen. And its not like this project would run afoul in the usual problems with sequels. Since this is a historical biopic, the plot is already taken care of. And what a plot: The Spanish Armada. There's enough here for an epic tale. How could anyone possibly screw this up. 
For one thing, the idiotic writers brought into central focus the one aspect of Elizabeth that was the least interesting, her love life. Imagine my surprise and chagrin when I realized I was witnessing a love triangle between Elizabeth, her lady in waiting, and Clive Owen. This is a travesty. What were they thinking? Elizabeth is a righteous babe, and Cate Blanchett is a terrific actress. There is one scene in this movie where she shouts fury at a Spanish ambassador. The line is, "I too can command the wind sir! I have a hurricane inside me that will strip Spain bare if you dare to try me!!!" This is incredibly cool, but then the next scene she is fretting over Mr. Owen and the Armada is completely forgotten. It isn't even really explained actually and the final battle isn't
really climatic because I didn't understand who was where and what the stakes actually were. Blanchett makes a speech to an infantry army, but those soldiers didn't actually fight in the battle for you see it was a naval battle. What is going on here? They really screwed the pooch. It's a super shame since this story deserves to be retold and this movie needs to be remade, except next time they probably won't be fortunate enough to get Cate Blanchett to play Elizabeth.

A Good Year 01/16/07

resh: Ridley Scott's new movie is about a successful London stock exchange man, Russel Crowe, who inherits his uncle's French vineyard. He at first wants to sell it but after a good deal of nostalgia he decides to not only keep it but to move there leaving behind his old life.
This might seem like a cliche movie and it is, but the way that Ridley Scott tells it makes it feel like new. There's so many techniques he uses in the beginning part of the story that speeds up the story. Why? Because Max is a stock trader and is life is supercharged all the time. But as he spends more time at the estate the movie itself slows down. Most movies start slow and end fast. This one starts fast and ends slow. It's a very smart way to tell the story and it makes this movie worth seeing. It isn't a must see of any kind. But its a short, clean, and complete movie. Very good.
Of course another good reason to see this movie is the kid Freddie Highmore. He plays the young max and shares many a good scene with the really old Albert Finney. It was kinda cool to see the kid had grown since the last time I saw him in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." I hope someday someone puts that kid in a movie with Dakota Fanning. I think that would be positively righteous.