shipperx | Sucker Punch: Who's the sucker?

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/03/28/sucker-punch-whos-the-sucker/

Excerpt:

Sometime over the weekend, as it became clear to number crunchers that puny Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules was going to win the opening-weekend bout against Sucker Punch, online movie conversation settled into some predictable grooves. First, blog posts on aggregator sites rounded up some of the choicer negative reviews from the large collection available. Then, contrarian individualist critics came to the movie’s/Zack Snyder’s defense. {...} .” (Oh, Inside Movies friends, don’t think I haven’t checked up on you and felt the outrage of those who conclude I don’t like Sucker Punch because I’m a girl. An old girl. Deep in your hearts you know that I didn’t like Sucker Punch because it’s a dumb mess.){...} And then came the logic — the fatal logic — meant to end the conversation: “Well, you know, this movie is meant for fanboys.” Meaning … what? I think the implication is that there’s a certain aural and visual frequency for aficionados (aficionados, that is, of videogames, of comic books, and of comic-book-shaped babes wielding firearms) that’s inaudible to the ears and invisible to the eyes of civilians.

But now, after the box-office reaction to Sucker Punch (never mind the critical drubbing), I think a couple of Hollywood secrets have been exposed: Number one, the term “fanboys” is actually studio code for those kids who’ll spend money on anything if it looks like it can be played with thumbs. And number two, the studio guys who give the go-ahead to seizure-school stylists like Snyder don’t even really like or understand the footage they see, but hope that whatever it is is what the kids these days want. I think those guys are scared of fanboys. Eager for their money — and scared.

Don’t be scared! That’s my message to studio guys and audiences alike on the day after the number crunchers have been bruised by Sucker Punch. Don’t be afraid of asking reasonable questions of seizure-school stylists along the lines of, “What the !*&@$!” and, “Do girls in videogame-y movies always have to suffer sexual degradation before they’re allowed to kick butt?”

Meanwhile, here's a review castigating fellow reviewers and the audience for not grasping the subversive nature of the text: http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2011/03/review-sucker-punch-2011.html

Excerpt:

Zach Snyder's Sucker Punch is an experiment and a question: Is is possible to make a female-driven action fantasy without falling prey to certain misogynistic messaging? Just as its difficult to make an anti-war film because war plays out as exciting onscreen, there is a level of titillation that comes from the very idea of watching attractive women taking up arms against various foes. {...} The film, without preaching, seems to be about the matter-of-fact lechery from men towards women that is an accepted norm in our society, both then and now. That we as a society not only casually accept the arbitrary sexual exploitation of young women and can only accept female-driven action heroism when its sexualized for our pleasure and with a tinge of comforting fantasy... well, there's a lot more going on in this picture than a bunch of snappily-dressed young women fighting undead soldiers and robots. The tragic underpinning is how not empowering the film really is, as it presents a rather pessimistic view of young girls trying to overcome or take advantage of the 'male gaze' in order to win their freedom.

Personally, I haven't seen it and know little about it... other than the reviews read a lot like Whedonverse Buffy Comics debates...