Film Review: Sucker Punch

After attacking her evil stepfather in order to protect her sister, and accidentally killing her in the process, Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is incarcerated into a mental institution for young women. There she meets four inmates; Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jenna Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) and Amber (Jamie Chung), where, through the power of Baby Doll's imagination, they hatch an escape plan which involves battling German zombies, dragons and ginormous samurai.

In a sort of cheap take on Inception's multi-layered consciousnesses, there are three realities at work in Sucker Punch. The first is the heightened reality of the mental institution run by sardonic orderly, Blue (Oscar Isaac), who has somehow managed to carve for himself some power over the patients. This transcends into the second illusory tapestry of a brothel placed over the asylum where Blue is the owner in which he forces the girls to 'dance'. The final reality is the insane steam-punk sci-fi realm of the audacious; worlds which Baby Doll visits when requisitioned to 'dance'. The purpose of these is to create a symbolic narrative for the tasks of obtaining a list of items needed to escape the asylum.

There is no getting around the fact that visually Sucker Punch is stunning. But it is equally pretentious in its allegory, trying to intellectualise something it need not bother with. It attempts to be profound with allusions to female empowerment and sexual oppression, yet ironically ends up being ridiculously misogynistic. It's especially patronising when the film attempts to bestow its 'wisdom' on the audience through a narrator at the beginning and end of the film with some pseudo-philosophical utterance. And it is this which detracts so much from the spectacle which should be the focal point of the film. Yet, even during the eye candy where our young heroines are hithering and thithering through orcs and extra nasty versions of the androids from iRobot, the film fails to create any sense of tension in that you never get the feeling the girls are in any danger. The end result is a soulless, suspenseless and overall pretty insipid excuse for a film. No matter how good this movie looks, all it will elicit from its audience is a "so what?". That is, if they haven't walked out already.

What made Sucker Punch doubly galling was the wooden performances all round. So incessant is the cheesy dialogue and constant whinging that it almost impossible not to shout out "oh, just shut the fuck up, will you?!". It is actually painful to watch in places insofar that the film's main sales gimmick, its sex appeal, instantly washes off as the chicks lose all their swagger on account that they lack any sass. In something I do not think I've never felt about a hero/heroine in a movie, I actually began to hope that someone would just put them out their misery. So cringe worthy is it to watch that even their hotness is no saving grace for this sucker.

One might have come to expect better of director Zack Snyder, who has directed some very visually distinctive films which weren't half bad plot wise either. From his debut Dawn of the Dead, to 300 and the fantastic Watchmen, he has certainly carved himself a stylistic niche in the movie industry. And while Sucker Punch bares all the visceral hallmarks of Snyder, it also marks his first foray into writing, and indeed the first representation of his own imagination. The result is a teenage nerd's deepest fantasies portrayed in a series of fantastical music-videos to blow away your senses. Indeed, the best thing about this film really is the soundtrack, all dark and gothic covers of songs such as 'White Rabbit' and 'Where Is My Mind'. Yet even these are suspect to cliched uses throughout, played in the most obvious of obvious places. This would be fine for a music video or a video game, but not for a movie which needs to be anchored by a storyline and bound in emotive twine. Both of which are lacking and only display Sucker Punch as a typical teenage boy's creative writing assignment, written in the small hours of the morning the day before it was due. Fuelled by innumerable cans of Mountain Dew.

I knew from critics not to expect a great film, but I did expect to be entertained. That was all it had to do. The components are there; hot girls wielding guns in over-the-top action sequences, but it comes out like a small child trying to put the triangular object through the square hole. And then trying to force it to fit by jamming it repeatedly in the wrong slot. It is nothing short of a colossal mess. For suckers only.

P.S. Don't worry, Vanessa Hudgens, I know it's not your fault. I still love you. If you're reading this, call me, K?

Film Review: Robin Hood

I've lost count of the number of Robin Hood takes there are out there. But one thing is for sure, the Disney version remains the best. Such are the number of tales surrounding the green caped crusader who stole from the rich and gave to the poor that I am now unsure which is the most accurate. While the character of Robin Hood does indeed maintain a historical basis, he is for all intents and purposes a myth along the lines of King Arthur. And such is this that his story is malleable to many different interpretations. Thus, I looked expectantly toward Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe's continuing love affair and their latest portrayal of the man in tights.

As far as in comparison to Kevin Costner's version and those shitty BBC renditions, Scott's take is by far the most believable. At the turn of the thirteenth century Richard Lionheart returns from the Crusades, rampaging through France to get back to England. After he is slain in battle, by a French cook no less, his right-hand Knight, Sir Robert Loxley, is tasked with returning the news, and the crown, back to London. When Loxley is ambushed by the nefarious double-agent working for France, Godfrey (Mark Strong), it falls upon yeoman Robin Longstride (Crowe) to return both the crown to morally bankrupt Prince John (Isaac) and Loxley's sword to his father in Nottingham. There, coaxed into pretending to be Sir Walter Loxley's son returned from the Crusades, Robin finds himself embroiled in a struggle for power over England as he comes to tackle the evil French plot abetted by Godfrey.

Crowe offers a highly refreshing spin on the tale of Robin Hood, much like that of Robert Downey Jnr's take on Sherlock Holmes last year. This, like Holmes, is both entertaining and fun without being patronising. Crowe's Hood is a sombre character, humble to the core and devastatingly honest, indeed embodying many of the traits we've come to visualise in the man in tights. As King Richard (Huston) aptly puts it; "Honest, brave and naive. There's an Englishman". Rather than being an overly complex character, Crowe's Robin displays a very distinct view of right and wrong. That is however not to say he is a simplistic man, but that his simple ideals amount to an admirable personal moral code.

Perhaps peculiarly there is less emphasis on the traditional bad guys that the 'mainstream' versions of Robin Hood tell. While Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham (Macfayden) are present, they do not command the same villainous presence of Strong's Godfrey. Isaac funnily enough looks much like the Disney version of Prince John, but rather than necessarily being an evil tyrant by design he is, rather, an ignorant, decadent and incapable figure who is thrust into a leadership role without commanding the necessary skill set. Clinging to the old ways of believing his position to be granted through divine right, we are lead to believe that the events that take place in the film are the prelude to the signing of the Magna Carta. Likewise, the Sheriff of Nottingham is effectively sidelined, and when he is present is portrayed merely as an opportunistic, if not incompetent pawn rather than anything particularly sinister. Indeed, the villainy is left to the character of Godfrey and naturally, those bloody French. Mark Strong seems to be making quite a name for himself in Hollywood as the go-to-guy if you want a villain. First, Lord Blackwood in Sherlock Holmes, then Frank D'Amico in Kick-Ass and now this. He has also just finished filming playing Sinestro, an enemy of the Green Lantern. Strong does not disappoint, acting as a convincingly enjoyable baddy whom you are just willing to get his comeuppance.

That is not to say that Robin Hood is flawless. The plot becomes somewhat bogged down in places and even the climactic battle on the beach spares us any images of blood in order to fit within its 12A rating. This is also an origins story, so by the time Robin and his merry men settle down in Sherwood Forest to carry out their vigilante duties the film ends. What also seemed a little bit silly to me was the idea as to where Robin gathered his merry men from. Throughout the film we are treated to the idea of basically the twelfth century equivalent of chavs, running amok in the woods wearing masks and 'jacking' Nottingham by night. We later find out they are some sort of synonym to Peter Pan's 'lost boys', whereby Robin takes them under his wing.

Other than that this is a very enjoyable movie, if not slightly long at a run time of two-hours twenty-minutes. It definitely leaves the door open for a sequel given that it is an origins story, but it feels very much like a Braveheart for the English. If only Mel Gibson had played Godfrey his eventual comeuppance would have been that much more satisfying.