Sucker Punch has arrived in theaters, and though there have been few pre-release reviews, there is no doubt many Spoilerites made their way to the theater to see it for themselves.

We want to know what you thought of the Zack Snyder film. Was it awesome? Was it lame? Did it pack the punch you hoped, or do you feel like a sucker for spending your money? And more importantly, does this movie give you any concerns about Snyder’s next film – Superman?

Aaaaannnnnnnnnnddddd… GO!

The Author

Robot Overlord

Robot Overlord

Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly, and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to the Robot Overlord. Robot Overlord may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds. The Robot Overlord contains a liquid core, which if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. If Robot Overlord begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head. Do not taunt the Robot Overlord.

Previous post


Next post

Major Spoilers Podcast #290: Never Grow Up


  1. Blackthunder01
    March 25, 2011 at 1:57 pm — Reply

    I was supposed to see it tonight but the person I’m seeing it with is feeling too sick to go out now. So I’m postponing it til Sunday. I will definately weigh in after I’ve seen it. Early impression is that it’s not going to be the worlds most solid story but it’ll have enough for me to not have a problem. I think the action and effects are definately going to blow me away and there’s likely to be at least 2 moments that I’ll thinks were “TOTALLY AWESOME”.

  2. March 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm — Reply

    Sucker Punch is loud, it’s pretty, and it has Zack Snyder written all over it. It’s Inception meets Showgirls. If Nolan and company can give Snyder a story to tell and keep him in check, Superman should do just fine.

  3. litanyofthieves
    March 25, 2011 at 4:05 pm — Reply

    I’m not going to see it, because it looks like all flash and no substance, plus the fact that they keep pushing this “Women’s Empowerment” angle, and honestly, it’s not. It’s pure titillating fantasy, and there’s little to nothing empowering about it. Maybe it will be empowering to these girls’ careers as actors, and more power to them for doing that. But I don’t see how it’s empowering to women in general, when it’s about women daydreaming they are sex objects in a male fantasy in order to escape the fact that they are treated as sex objects in their “reality”.

    Plus, they are totally not dressed for trench combat in those outfits. They’ll catch a cold!

    • thedexter102
      March 26, 2011 at 12:17 pm — Reply

      Lol, trench warfare is cold.

    • David
      March 26, 2011 at 8:03 pm — Reply

      I’m not going to see it, but I will however immediately form an opinion about its content. How droll.

      • litanyofthieves
        March 27, 2011 at 11:08 am — Reply

        That IS why trailers were created, after all. So I assume you go see every movie there is before deciding whether it’s worth your money or not?

        Tell me, if the genders of the characters were reversed (Which would basically make it 300), would anyone be rushing to its defense because I said it didn’t look like something I would like? Probably not. I didn’t care to see 300 either, but nobody’s jumping down my throat about that one.

        • David
          March 28, 2011 at 7:52 pm — Reply

          First off, I value your opinion. I merely find it amusing with you formulate said opinion based on trailers and not the actual movie. C’est la vie. Cheers.

          • David
            March 28, 2011 at 7:53 pm — Reply

            Oops, strike that errant “with” from the above comment.

  4. March 25, 2011 at 4:09 pm — Reply

    I really enjoyed it. I went in not sure what to expect, so I really didn’t have any expectations. There’s a lot of flash, but I was pleasantly surprised at the substance that is the undercurrent of everything going on.

  5. March 25, 2011 at 4:22 pm — Reply

    Loved it! Exactly what I was expecting. A fantastic popcorn film that bodes well to the extreme for a Superman film with actual action. Visually stunning stuff.

  6. March 25, 2011 at 5:00 pm — Reply

    I loved the visual parts, the story has a few plotholes. So watch it for the visuals, forget about the story

  7. Antonio Sanciolo
    March 25, 2011 at 5:54 pm — Reply

    A bit peeved that in this digital age, we in the rest of the world have to wait at least two weeks to see it.

  8. Scaabs
    March 25, 2011 at 6:26 pm — Reply

    Unfortunately reviews have not been kind. It seems that Chris Nolan might have to keep a watchful eye on Snyder

  9. March 25, 2011 at 7:06 pm — Reply

    It all just amounts to a big, loud, obnoxious, “so what?”

    It’s just content be an empty action movie without any semblance of consequence. Not one time did I ever care about any of these characters or their problems (the terrible dialogue and the bad script definitely didn’t help).

  10. Slappy
    March 25, 2011 at 7:09 pm — Reply

    Geek Shot Daily said to avoid it like the plague.

    • March 26, 2011 at 9:31 am — Reply

      Geek Shot Daily said to avoid it like the plague.

      And, what, you believe ’em? Let me tell you something that you must obey: Don’t take advice from some guy on the internet.

      Except for this one.

      Which is awesome…

  11. SpiderLover
    March 25, 2011 at 11:50 pm — Reply

    So I went to see this in IMax which is a 14 dollar ticket… Anyway, the story was there in bits and while they were escaping I never felt like the characters had a bit of danger. Like something bad could happen to them. (It does, but even when it does I was kinda like meh except for one) There is no character development other than perhaps Sweet Pea and Rocket. The other women seem to be there and Baby doll seems to need a slow mo close up every couple of scenes to remind you that she’s a badass. 2 hours… this movie is about a 5 to 7 dollar movie, not 14.

  12. March 26, 2011 at 5:42 am — Reply

    “steampunk sailor moon rape fantasy cloaked in the guise of female empowerment.”

    The body count seemed unneeded and the end far to bleak for the rest of the film’s tone. I really wanted this movie to be as awesome as the trailers lead me to believe it could be, so perhaps my disappointment is more about my expectations than the storytelling. The elements of the film I liked before I saw it still capture my imagination and if the DVD extras are significantly relevant to those interests, I might pick it up. However, I have to think that repeated viewings would stop before the final act. 2.5 out if 5 based on the Action/fantasy sequences, soundtrack, cinematography, and production design.

  13. thedexter102
    March 26, 2011 at 12:20 pm — Reply

    Mixed reviews, I’ll only go and see it if someone pays me too.

    • SpiderLover
      March 26, 2011 at 12:36 pm — Reply

      I’d only do that if I disliked you… Really its not that bad, I just don’t feel like there was any character Development. Who is Amber? Who is Blondie? No one knows. Yet Im supposed to feel something if they get in trouble? meh.

      • March 26, 2011 at 7:33 pm — Reply


        I don’t think the point was to ever to get to know the other girls. It was a salvation story. Baby Doll gave her life to save the other girls. “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” And Baby Doll didn’t die for her friends. She “died” for complete strangers. The one she truly saved didn’t even like her.

  14. JDog1999
    March 26, 2011 at 4:54 pm — Reply

    I enjoyed the movie, visually it was stunning but the story was only above average. I would give it four slices of meatloaf. And I liked it.

  15. Splicer261
    March 26, 2011 at 8:56 pm — Reply

    The moment i saw the trailers, i knew what i was getting into..this ain’t gonna give me an intellectual orgasm, it’s a visual thrill ride.

    Sometimes, you just need a visual explosion and then there are times when you need to be mentally drained. Sucker Punch to me falls into the visual category..c’mon! it’s got a girl in a school girl outfit, taking down a bullet blasting chinese ninja drone!

    reviews aren’t putting me off, i’ll be watching this. i’m going in for a visual feast, not concerned about a deep moving story or emotional wear down. I see Sucker Punch as i saw 300 or expendables, cast your brain outside and enjoy it.

    Visually, i’ve always been a fan of zack snyder, he has a great eye and when directing, he knows how to deliver.

    Superman isn’t being written by him. Have faith, Zack will deliver a stunning looking superman film. Nolan is watching over and Goyer is the one writing the movie.

  16. Venomous_Duck
    March 27, 2011 at 1:12 am — Reply

    Went and saw it tonight. It really was like a visual punch in the solar plexus. It’s one of those movies you have to wrap your head around to get it…sort of like The Watchmen. If you don’t try to get it you won’t. I would recommend it to anyone who would go in with an open mind.

  17. Balian_Ironguard
    March 27, 2011 at 1:37 pm — Reply

    I’d like to quote Roger Ebert on this one:

    “…a master of production design, of imagining other worlds of the future… and the past. He seems more concerned with creating his film worlds than populating them with plausible characters, and that’s the trouble this time… is a stunningly interesting visual achievement, but a failure as a story.”

    Oh wait, that was part of his review for Bladerunner. Both are awesome visual movies, both are seen as artsy-fartsy movies. I think with the test of time, Suckerpunch will be an equivalent for the younger generation. As for all “Is being Teh sechs!!1!” comments…. I don’t get it.

  18. Frantz Niemand
    March 27, 2011 at 6:27 pm — Reply

    Visually stunning, amazing.
    Such a Bad story. No characterization, totally forgettable acting, so cliché (“Remember: If you don’t stand for something, anything will take you down”… taken from a fortune cookie) real bad writing.
    If Zack Snyder limits his involvement to EVERTHING except the writing, it could be a good movie. He is definitely a master of the visual medium

  19. Venomous_Duck
    March 27, 2011 at 8:37 pm — Reply

    It’s actually “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything” widely attributed to Alexander Hamilton but phrased a bit differently. If you didn’t notice, the old man ended most of his “game plan” speeches with an intentional cliche “don’t let your mouth write a check your ass can’t cash”?

  20. Blackthunder01
    March 28, 2011 at 7:41 am — Reply

    I really enjoyed the movie. First and foremost, I think it’s obvious from the trailers that this was supposed to be much more visual than mental. In that reguard, it delivered and it delivered hard. As for the mental aspect of the movie, no scene stands out more so than that opening sequence. They really hit you with a powerful moment right off the bat. My biggest complaint about the movie is how they never explained what the symbolism of the second reality translated into for the true reality. The third reality was easy enough to comprehend but that second one needed a little more elaboration in terms of it’s impact. We know not everything in the second reality really happened in the first. Gorski was aware of “Mr Blue’s” influence in the second but not in the first for example. But yet “Blue” still got stabbed in the first reality. It makes me wonder if Amber and Blondie were really killed or not? No one knows because no one mentions it. I would assume Rocket died by the hands of the cook because otherwise Sweet Pea would have no motivation for leaving. … but one thing I can’t recall right now that I think about it. Did Rocket really exist? I can’t remember if she was at the table when Baby Doll first walked into the institution. 3 girls were at the table. Not 4. And didn’t the girl on stage look like Baby Doll as she was staring at her or am I confusing that with the opening scene? I wonder if Sweat Pea was in the institution because she had a wild imaginary sister that she is compelled to follow. I would have liked more information on Blondie and Amber. Namely why they were in there and why Blondie was called Blondie in the first place.

    Other than that, I thought the movie was incredibly fun. The visuals were everything I hoped they would be and more. The story was interesting and definately caused an impact at several different points. This is not a movie about a bunch of girls escaping a mental institution. This is a movie about perception and how much power it has for people. Perception to create your own reality, perception of being able to find happiness despite your situation and perception of whose story your seeing. This is not Baby Doll’s story. Well, it is an it isn’t. Baby Doll was part of someone else’s story. And that someone else is who the movie was essentially made about; they just took a round about way of doing it.

    I’ve read some of the comments in this topic before I went to see the movie. One stood out to me as something I instantly disagreed with. The subject of “This is not a female empowerment film”. While I definately didn’t agree with this statement, I figure, being a male, it’s a little difficult for me to argue my points with credibility. So, thankfully, I went to see this movie with a female and I asked her after the film if she thought that this was a movie about Female Empowerment. Her response:

    “Oh, definately. I didn’t like that they were made out to be prostitutes but I guess that’s realistic. When you’re a pretty young girl held against her will, that’s what happens to you. It’s sad but it’s realistic. As for everything else, I don’t see how it isn’t empowering. Is it because they wear the revealing outfits? Because I walk around wearing costumes very similar to those all the time and it doesn’t make me feel like any less of a person. I loved the movie.”

    • litanyofthieves
      March 28, 2011 at 11:32 am — Reply

      “Argument from Authority”

      My girlfriend felt the opposite way your friend did. She’s a girl too, so I guess her opinion is just as valid as your friend’s. She saw it as another movie full of explosions and boobies to draw in a male audience while yelling nonsensical buzz words and trying to hide its lack of coherency behind supposed “symbolism”. She didn’t feel empowered by seeing that the only female character her age was the tormentor of these young beautiful women. Furthermore, she asked a very simple question, “How would all these men react if in 300, the Spartans were all a mental projection by teenage boys who were being abused and sexually harrassed? How would they feel if the Spartans got raped or forced to strip while being jeered at? Probably not very ’empowered’.”

      Additionaly, if it’s ‘realistic’ that these women are made out to be prostitutes, why didn’t the rest of the film have to be ‘realistic’? In a movie where strong women fight samurai warriors and sci fi robots and World War 1 with automatic weapons in their heads, we still have to have them be mentally damaged prostitutes because it’s ‘realistic’? Despite the fact that the rest of the movie is so removed from realism, we still can’t believe that strong women are anything but 18-25 year old girls who dress like they jumped out of the pages of a hentai comic?

      Furthermore, it’s not about what they wear, it’s about the context. Look at the Broadway Musical/Movie “Chicago”. Plenty of half naked women dancing around provocatively, in a story in which they are imprisoned and sentenced to death. Yet my girlfriend (and many other women) love that movie, and view it as female empowerment. Why? Because the women are flawed, interesting characters whose motivations are spelled out. The focus of the movie isn’t how good they look in their outfits, or how many soliders die, or how cool the action scenes are. It’s about the characters and the commentary on the society they’re caught up in.

      • Blackthunder01
        March 28, 2011 at 2:32 pm — Reply

        I get that for some reason this movie makes you angry. I’m not trying to fan the flames of your fire but I do feel like you attacking me here. I doubt your girl friend used those exact words in describing the film since they appear to be made in reference to my post. I’m sorry she didn’t like the movie either. I don’t know what you mean by a female tormentor in the film because I don’t remember any female villains in the film at all. In reguards to your 300 comment, I don’t think the two parallels line up because prostitution and rape have always been a #1 issue for females where it ranks much lower for a male. It’s just not a world that men traditionally deal with so I have no way to answer your question. If the parallel was made for something that men (as a whole) fear, then I have a basis to talk more so on that subject. Prostitution is relevant because prostitution is powerful to that gender. The only thing I can think of that seems to be an across the boards fear that men have is when their family/loved ones get hurt or killed. And as you know, we have a crap ton of movies about that … and yes, I feel empowered by revenge/vengence movies. (Namely “Taken”.)

        They didn’t HAVE to have them be prostitutes but it does make sense that they would be. These aren’t my words I’m arguing for right now but I do believe them to be true. Again, it goes back to a fear that that gender has as a group. They could have chosen other avenues but this is the one they did pick … and it worked just fine. In regaurds to their dress, what did you expect the movie to be? It was a very stylized movie with sexy women and big explosions. My friend seems to enjoy it. Sounds like your doesn’t. Since this subject seems to anger both you and your girl friend, I have to asked why you paid money to see something that you have such a firey passion against? There are a ton of movies I’m adamantly against but I don’t go giving them my money …

        I had to laugh when you brought up Chicago only because my friend (I think it’s safe to say exwife) really hated that movie. Seems like the lines are drawn here. But in regaurds to the context, again, why did you go to see the movie when it was very clear in it’s marketing as to what the film was about? Also in regaurds to context, the outfits are appropriate here and in Chicago because of context. This is an action movie where Chicago is a drama. The only reason the outfits work for Chicago is because of the setting of the picture. I wonder why you don’t ask yourself if Chicago could have still have been made without that setting and have still been as empowering.

        Looks like with most things, everyone has their own oppinions. I can see that this is a very sore subject for you and all I can ask is that you allow me and my ex to enjoy the movie and we’ll allow you to enjoy yours.

        • Blackthunder01
          March 28, 2011 at 3:31 pm — Reply

          Wait. Going back to your original post … you didn’t even see it? How are you able to talk about something you didn’t even experience? Please disregaurd my previous post. This isn’t a debate I feel will go anywhere.

          • litanyofthieves
            March 28, 2011 at 6:23 pm — Reply

            Angry? No. That’s an assumption on your part. Also, I’m not attacking you, unless you think disagreeing with you is attacking you. You specifically said “I disagree with the posters who don’t think this is female empowerment”. I was one of those posters, and I felt a rebuttal was appropriate, given your argument was based on a logical fallacy.

            I didn’t use my girlfriend’s exact words, no, but that hardly makes the argument within them less valid.

            “I don’t know what you mean by a female tormentor in the film because I don’t remember any female villains in the film at all.”

            That would be Madame Gorski, Carla Gugino’s character.

            Once again, you want to have your cake and eat it too. On one hand, you demand realism in that these girls have to be prostitutes and rape victims, then you turn around and say “It doesn’t have to be realistic because it’s a stylized movie.” Furthermore, you say I shouldn’t give the film my money or time if I don’t want to, because you do the same, then you tell me my opinion doesn’t count because I haven’t seen the movie. And again on this vein, you say the movie is empowering to females, then when I tell you the reasons it’s not, you say “Well that was all made clear in the marketing.” You are defending your point no matter what contradictory arguments you have to take.

            Also, saying that rape and prostitution are not important because men experience them less isn’t really an argument, because men are especially bad for not reporting rape or sexual assault. We don’t really have accurate numbers, because all we can count is what’s reported. It’s also completely belittling and insensitive to men who have been raped or forced into sex work. They exist, and just because they are less prevalent than women in the same position doesn’t mean their experiences are irrelevant.

            As to your friend hating Chicago, she can hate it all she wants. But I’d like to know WHY she hated it. Did she find it demeaning towards women? Did she disagree with my assesment? Please explain why. Otherwise saying “She hated it” doesn’t really add anything to the argument. If i had hated Suckerpunch because the CGI looked bad or I thought the action sequences were awful, that would have nothing to do with us arguing about whether the movie is empowering to women. Next off, there are a dozen other movies to compare suckerpunch to: Kill Bill (Which had attractive women in sexual and fetishistic outfits, outlandish action scenes, and a female protagonist who was tortured and attacked, but actually made them interesting.

            Finally, you attempt to discredit me by saying “Oh, well, you haven’t seen it, so therefore everything you say is invalid.” I’ve seen plenty of people form opinions about things before they see them, (X-Men First Class anyone?) and decide in advance. I’ve seen the trailer, I’ve seen the plot synopses, read a lot of reviews on both sides of the fence (Many which contained spoilers and the intimate details), as well as seen clips and pieces of the screenplay.
            Also, you set up a Catch-22 about whether I see it or not, which I already explained.

            I’m not disagreeing that you and your ex wife enjoyed the movie. I’m not disagreeing with the fact that she found empowerment individually from it. I’m saying that your argument that this movie is empowering to women has a lot of holes in it and doesn’t stand up to close examination.

  21. hermit
    March 28, 2011 at 8:16 am — Reply

    like he said of

    everything the internet likes: the movie.

    it sucked. period.

  22. Capt_Magellan
    March 29, 2011 at 5:46 pm — Reply

    Condemning a piece of work based on secondary sources (i.e., other people’s opinions on that work) is as lazy and flawed as an academic ignoring the primary sources of their subjects… they both can very easily ignore nuances that only are apparent when the primary sources are examined for themselves.

    Is it really accurate to characterize Madame Gorski as a ‘tormentor’? Her character arc argues something a bit less simplistic.

    Here’s a review by Katherine Monk which shows a bit more thoughtful analysis…

  23. Damascus
    March 30, 2011 at 8:55 pm — Reply

    I went to see Sucker Punch expecting the visuals to be amazing and wasn’t really expecting much from the overall story. I got exactly what I was expecting. The visual elements were fantastic, so much so that during those 2nd layer of delusion moments where Baby Doll is in her own head, I kept thinking how amazing each one of these “levels” would be as individual self-contained video games. The dragon level, the Steam-powered Nazi/whatever level, they were all very unique (from one another) and could easily support a fully functional video game about some badass chicks with different skill sets (like Fortress or a multitude of other games) that have to fight their way through the levels.

    The story was quite lacking for me. I do feel like a lot of people who aren’t really into thinking about multiple layers of reality or aren’t particularly genre savvy might have difficulty in understanding what is going on. I don’t even know what all was going on, I feel like somehow 15-20 minutes of exposition and explanation was hacked out of the film due to time constraints.

    Just from my point of view, I think the movie would have been much more effective for me if they had cut out the 1st layer of delusion from the film. The whole female review/bordello aspect just made it that much more difficult in trying to figure out what in the real life the activities were supposed to actually stand for. I was just hoping that maybe the girls would be locked away in this Asylum where they’re being mistreated and abused by a corrupt man with a little power and through, and the girls design a plan to break out. Now as they enact each stage of their plan to get out, their group delusion allows them to see their particular task as being a much more high fantasy version of the actual events taking place, i.e. needing to get a lighter and they decide to steal the lighter with the dragon on it from the guy who let them into the theater room and then they go into that whole visual extravaganza that was the Assault on Dragon Castle.

    The first layer of delusion was just too confusing. When I left the theater with my buddy Sam, he assumed that the “dance” that she was doing so well was actually code for sex, and that when each of the girls fell along the way to the end of their goal that since nobody mentioned that they actually died, that they all in turn had been lobotomized. Jon Hamm’s character had mentioned how many of those lobotomies that he’d been doing there lately, and when Carla Gugino mentioned all the trouble that Baby had caused, they never mention any of the girls being dead. That and the fact that the main Orderly was only arrested after being caught with Baby in the chair, instead of after people realized that he’d SHOT two girls IN THE HEAD!!

    They needed a better wrap-up of “here’s what she saw, now here’s what really happened”. Or at least a brief mention of the real world implications. All in all, I liked the movie alright, but I’m not gonna scream it’s wonders to the world. It could have been better, but it was pretty (and they were very pretty too). I might buy the movie on Blu-Ray and hope that there’s some extra footage added in, and if there isn’t, it’ll still look mighty cool in High Def.

    Also, please go see the movie before passing judgement. Or at least preface your comments with “I haven’t seen the movie, but based on the trailer I get X impression….. but we’ll see what I think after I’ve seen it.” Something like that. There’s a big difference between reading what someone says about a movie or reading details of the plot and actually being there and being caught up in the music and the visuals and all that that can change the way you might feel about the movie. Just reading a synopsis and even all the reviews you could throw at me, Pulp Fiction or Schindler’s List (I know weird two to pair) could sound alright, wonderful or terrible, but it isn’t the same as actually experiencing the movie. These are lessons I’ve learned first hand after summarily disliking a movie based solely on reviews or trailers and LOVING the movie when actually watching it. Fight Club was one such movie, there were a surprising number of reviews bashing that movie when it first came out. Anyway, I wandered.

    It’s interesting seeing everyone’s takes on this movie. My taste won’t be yours and yours won’t be mine, but it’s always fun to discuss.

    • Damascus
      March 30, 2011 at 9:04 pm — Reply

      Wow, I’m not THAT interesting. Sorry for anyone who waded through all of that. Sheesh I can ramble.

  24. Capt_Magellan
    March 31, 2011 at 11:13 am — Reply

    @ Damascus – Actually, I thought you made some very interesting and valid points :-)

  25. Camoren Jennings
    April 11, 2011 at 2:42 pm — Reply

    Over here in the UK it’s rated 12A. I’m more inclined to push it to a 15 as the themes of abuse were actually quite palpable and a little disturbing. Those younger than 12 can see it if accompanied by an adult and I would be disinclined to expose a child of that age to that sort of thing, a 15 rating would ensure most parents would not take younger kids to see it. (I remember sitting behind a row of 4-6 year olds at the first Lord of the rings and when the orc gets his head cut off near the end, many of them screamed and started crying, as an example of that sort of thing)

    All that aisde

    There is scope here for making it into several volumes of graphic novel. You’d get plenty of time and room for character development and plenty of opportunity for exposition.

    I’d like a couple of questions answered.

    1). were the girls that died real? or just part of the 2nd and 3rd layer of reality?

    2). Why did the girls fight the knights in the dragon castle scene?

    But did you like it? I hear you enquire

    Yes, yes I did.

You know you have something to say, say it in the comment section