MovieChat Forums > Sucker Punch (2011) Discussion > This movie is a combination of an IQ tes...

This movie is a combination of an IQ test and EQ test

posted 9 years ago by oberonc
16 replies | jump to latest

Sigh (I wish I could *sigh* harder)

As I said - this movie is a combination of an IQ test and EQ test, but foremost IQ test. Since in order to understand the moral dilemma you need to be intelligent enough.

What do I mean "intelligent enough" ?

This movie has 3 layers.

1. Reality - we only see glimpses of it (the opening, when she sees the "theater" for the thirst time, when the doctor lobotomize her, etc)
2. First layer of fantasy - this layer matches the reality and is there to "explain" it .. or to make easier to digest for HER (not for the viewers). Most of the movie is there.
3. Complete escape to the metaphorical land - these are the 3 missions and the first time she "dances".

Only by understanding the layers and why she has them and how/when she moves between them you can begin to understand the moral dilemma and the kind of *beep* this character had suffered and why the way the movie ended for her is a good ending for her. (why the doctor said she looked as if she wanted to be lobotomized)

I have to admit I love this movie and it is one of the movies I use to evaluate the worthiness of people I know :-)

Yes, this movie has some eye candy that was used to attract more audience, but people who gets stuck on that miss everything else.
Probably because they are too stuck up or not intelligent enough to look past it.

[–] M_Salama 9 years ago

And because not everybody knows about DID disorder (Alter personalities to cope with trauma).
The movie is kinda gnostic too, with "reality is an illusion" concept..
[Snyder the writer was raised as a Christian Scientist. They subscribe to that concept too and believe that everything is in the mind, AFAIK]

[–] NeedysBoy 9 years ago

"The movie is kinda gnostic too, with "reality is an illusion" concept.. "

But isn't that Upanishadic?

 Celebrating 100 Years of DADA * Feb. 5, 1916 * Zurich

[–] M_Salama 9 years ago

All esoteric religions drink from the same well.
It's easy for a gnostic Christian to agree with a Hindu or Buddhist who believes in Maya (matter as an illusion), and with a pantheistic Sufi.

I abhor all of them equally and believe they are an abomination. A monster with a thousand heads

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

No, they don’t.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] doitlikenikita 9 years ago

I love this movie too and I was always shocked at the horrible reviews. I noticed the layers right away and I remember the moment she reached the dojo, in the first dance, I went online and bought the Blu-Ray. I knew it would be a personal classic for me and I've seen it over 10 times since it came out.
Yo Way Yo...Home Va-Ray

[–] sina_sedghi 9 years ago

I agree will most of ur point and i like to add one more myself... the music is so in tune with the movie in all 3 layer of it that its just breath taking. i love this movie and i watched it more than once not cuz of the hot chicks but becuse of the feeling u get after u finish watching it and hopefully understanding it. its not about a hot girl its about a hopeless girl that even when she found out its not her story she refuse to give up for sake of others. for those who saw the movie and didnt even understand the story... i feel sorry

[–] NeedysBoy 9 years ago

"...its about a hopeless girl that even when she found out its not her story she refuse to give up for sake of others."

This is a salient point, one that I think many people over look. Baby Doll becomes a Saviour, not just for Sweet Pea but for all the girls in the asylum that Blue exploited. When Blue is arrested, his abuse of the girls ends; and hopefully, Gorsky can now help them.

 Celebrating 100 Years of DADA * Feb. 5, 1916 * Zurich

[–] britney-shagwell 8 years ago

I agree with you in principle, sort of...

SP is my all-time favorite movie. I've lost count of how many times I have watched it. But it is far from perfect. I love the message and the visuals. not to mention the music, but the execution was a little less than stellar. Still it is/was a remarkably ambitious project, certainly ahead of it's time, and criminally underrated.

Also, just because you didn't like SP, or didn't think it was wonderful does NOT mean you're not intelligent. Movies, like music and other forms of art are largely a matter of personal taste.

I've discussed/debated irl with a variety of people. Almost nobody likes it even remotely as much as I do, and many of them are very intelligent people. The film just wasn't to their taste. They "got it", they just didn't care for it very much.

That doesn't lessen my opinion of them, it just saddens me that they don't share my feelings for the film. But they have many films that they love that don't strike a chord with me.

On the other hand, the people that don't "get it", or those posting "worst movie EVER" crap... Those, I feel free to think a LOT less of :)

Personally, I rate it a solid "10", for my enjoyment of the film, for the re-watchability, etc... But I have zero problems with somebody giving it an honest lower rating. Although, I kind of believe if you rate it a "5" or lower... Yeah, you didn't really "get it" at all.

Just my two cents.

If I'm (no longer) responding, it means you're on /ignore. I'm sure this is no surprise :)

[–] EloraWood (158) 8 years ago

Pretty much what I was going to write :)

[–] lazarillo 8 years ago

I understood the movie just fine. But it's not like it's the only movie to have more than one "layer". It's just that the first layer is completely underdeveloped while the third one is totally overblown--the term "gratuitous CGI" comes to mind.

What is ironic is they spent millions on all this CGI bullsh*t and you know what made the most impression on ME? Emily Browning's beautiful face and all five girls' beauteous ASSES--the way their lower glutes protruded from their fantasy outfits. (It's hard for me to even picture Vanessa Hudgen's face, but her ass is burned into my mind's eye from this movie, "Spring Breakers", and even from a single shot in "The Lost Island").

I'm not trying to be anti-intellectual or a "sexist perv", but sometimes SIMPLE things are the most memorable. There was too little focus on some of the simple, beautiful cinematic aspects (most of those are in the first layer) and way too much on "loud" CGI nonsense of the third layer.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. Pretty girls and CGI are similar in that they're both "eye candy", but if you look at it another way, pretty girls can also be POETRY while CGI is often nothing more than very expensive, brightly-colored explosive diarrhea.

I could also legitimately argue that an "intelligent" person would probably prefer Emily Browning in "Sleeping Beauty", Abby Cornish in "Somersault", or even Vanessa Hudgens in "Spring Breakers". This is for "intelligent" people, but I'd say more for hyperactive, immature teenage boys--albeit your more intelligent ones.

"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"

[–] [email protected] (1367) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Moonglum9 (11340) 4 years ago

The entire movie's point was about those layers. What did you want them to do, have a caption at the bottom of the screen saying which layer it currently was?

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 4 years ago

I thought the layers were pretty obvious myself, but I suppose they might be missed. You'd have to be pretty literal-minded, though.

I do take exception to the O.P.'s assertion that if you don't like the movie or thought it was lacking in any way, it was because the viewer is unintelligent or emotionally-stunted in some way. I thought it was an interesting attempt at something, but the script needed some work, and it's far from a perfect film.

Elsewhere, recently, I described myself as enjoying the film as much for what it could have or should have been as much as for what it actually was. I'll stand by that. There's potential here for something greater than what Snyder managed to create, intriguing though his creation is.

[–] [email protected] (1367) 4 years ago

The film sucked

[–] naDaht (1087) 4 years ago

I understood the layers. It's not a deep and intellectual movie. Perhaps for someone who's used to.. I don't know.. Sex and The City.