Book Review: 'Sucker Punch: The Art of the Film' Fails To Excite

by Drew Taylor
March 14, 2011 6:15 AM
7 Comments
  • |


For months now we've been bombarded with trailers for Zack Snyder's "Sucker Punch." These trailers have been elliptical, at least from a story point of view. Visually, they've been somewhat staggering – quick fire clips of attractive young girls in costumes that border on high-end fetish gear, battling all sorts of mythological or supernatural elements. They dive in between robots, zip underneath monstrous samurais, and face off against towering, fire-breathing dragons.

But, like, what is it about, exactly?

The new book, "'Sucker Punch: The Art of the Film" (written by Snyder) certainly won't illuminate anything. It does, however, collect a whole bunch of ho-hum pre-production art, as well as a gallery of images from the finished film. The main impression you get, after reading the minimal text and glancing at the volume of sketches and photos, is that Snyder was very interested in making a really cool-looking movie. And that's about it.


In the introduction, Snyder says that he's been living with the idea for "Sucker Punch" for "almost a decade." The idea of a group of troubled young girls who slip into a vivid fantasy world to escape the pain of their real life is something that intrigues him. "What begins as a fearful retreat becomes an empowering coping mechanism," he writes. (The word "empowering" is the closest thing the book comes to broaching the topic of feminism. Apparently, feminism isn't as zingy or cool enough for Snyder. And subtext isn't an issue.)

Most of the drawings that accompany the early section of the book, for all his talk of "empowering" and "strong" girls, look like an artist's rendering of the Suicide Girls website – lots of garter belts and heaving cleavage. The sketches themselves lack substance, seeming more like a rip-off of genius comic book creator Paul Pope, combined with something you'd see on an Ed Hardy T-shirt – lots of inky, tattooish splashes.

As the book moves along and we move out of the purely conceptual (there's a whole page of proposed logos), you begrudgingly acknowledge that the world that Snyder has crafted is indeed impressive. But that could just be that the combination of actresses he cast (most notably Emily Browning in the role of Babydoll) seem predestined to exist in the kind of heightened, everything-including-the-kitchen-sink world that Snyder has imagined. (Note to Zack: if you really wanted this world to be "empowering," you wouldn't have saddled all of the girls with stripper names – in addition to Babydoll, there's Sweet Pea, Blondie, and Amber. Where's Crystal or Amethyst when you need her?)

We then get glimpses of the big set pieces, which are all accounted for in the trailers. When we got the book, we worried that reading it might give away the plot specifics but apparently there are no plot specifics and virtually everything has been given away in the myriad of trailers and television spots for the movie. The tagline they've been trotting out: "You Will Be Unprepared." More like "You Will Have Seen Everything By the Time You Get In the Theater."

Snyder seems to be running through a "cool shit" fantasy film checklist – there are robots, dragons, Nazi-ish creatures, even Orcs (yes, Orcs, like from "Lord of the Rings"). And while the work he has put into these creations is pretty unbelievable (there's an entire page breakdown of what the symbols mean on one of the girl's samurai swords), it also seems almost entirely empty. There's very little discussion about what any of these outlandish things means, exactly, besides what would look the coolest at the time. Maybe an "Art Of" book isn't the forum for talking about Jungian nightmares or the nature of dreams as it relates to the burgeoning sexuality of teenage girls, but at least some vague hint of subtext would be nice. Instead, we get a nice page of designs for the Orcs and really unimpressive pictures of the real things on set.

Which isn't to say that "Sucker Punch" won't be a wild ride, because we haven't seen it yet. It's that the "Art Of" book, for its marginal visual splendor (and, really, we should be more impressed by the sky's-the-limit pre-production artwork), doesn't convey anything besides an adolescent obsession with cute girls in thigh-high socks killing monsters with machine guns. And while that's all well and good, rarely do the images pop to the point of wide-eyed wonderment, without accompanying text to suggest it will be something deeper or more fulfilling. We fear the movie will be as flat as the illustrations in the book. [C]

You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

7 Comments

  • Son | April 14, 2011 12:44 PMReply

    Is this reviewer an idiot? I hope not, he's reading so much into this. This is an art book for people who likes yo see all the cool creative stuff in the movie not a deep novel. People who buys this book will be movie geeks and artists like myself and not deep readers. Sounds like he hates Snyder before he opened up this book. Oh and that racist post is so off, I don't think that person saw the movie.

  • Anonymous | March 29, 2011 7:45 AMReply

    The reason for the stripper names is that in the mind of the Emily Browning character, her and the other female characters have been forced to become strippers in a bordello. And isn't even exactly what is going on. The film shifts between several different "fantasy" worlds.

  • Kimme | March 20, 2011 7:51 AMReply

    1. It's an art book. Did this guy really expect to get a great read out of it?
    2. He shouldn't really be talking about the Suicide Girls until he gets his facts straight.
    3. This movie wasn't supposed to have some amazing depth. It was supposed to just have a bunch of awesome stuff put into one movie.

    I personally think both the book and he movie looks awesome and plan on buying it, this guy's review seems way to close-minded.

  • it makes me excited | March 18, 2011 5:31 AMReply

    @it makes me ill

    Learn what racism is idiot.

  • it makes me confused | March 17, 2011 4:53 AMReply

    so they didn't like it because it didn't spoil the movie? Do they not know what an art book is?

  • it makes me laugh | March 15, 2011 8:33 AMReply

    @Itmakesmeill...... you need to look up "racism". Come back when you're done.

  • it makes me ill | March 15, 2011 4:25 AMReply

    The racism of this pic makes me sick. Granted that all the white chicks are in fetish wear, but only the Asian girl is in assless pants, sucking a lollipop, in straight up porn imagery. The white girls are at least given the dignity of looking directly at us, while holding weapons. The asian girl is depected in all the worst stereotypes of "Me love you long time!"

Email Updates