Zack Snyder to direct a “300” style Biblical epic, “Samson.”

Zack Snyder (director of 300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch, and the upcoming Man of Steel) has begun talking about his next project. Searching for another success like the historical epic 300, he’s landed on an unusual choice: the Bible story of Samson. Zack Snyder is certainly a talented director, (see our Sucker Punch review here) but he seems to get caught up in style over substance. I know that Samson certainly has potential as a great action film, but how will Snyder handle the spiritual aspect of the story? – Zack’s not the most articulate director around but he gives us a pretty good idea of what this’ll look like. – So, fingers crossed, and hope for the best!

Interview copy and pasted below:

I: Why Samson?

Snyder: Well, I’ve been wanting to do another historical film, like I did with 300. But not something that’d been done before.

I: Not done before?

Snyder: Oh, you know, like Alexander the Great, King Arthur, gladiators… Everybody has done that stuff. With 300 and Watchmen, I was taking something familiar but had never been made into a film. So towards the end of Man of Steel, I was asking around about something that hadn’t been, well, something that was well known but at the same time hadn’t really been done before.

I: You wanted something fresh.

Snyder: Exactly. Like, 300 was a story that was powerful, historically, but wasn’t something like Robin Hood that’d been done so many times in so many sh*tty ways that there aren’t any surprises left. Not to be mean to Russell Crowe, or anything. I mean, they tried.

I: What excites you about the project?

Snyder: There was work to do on Samson, but I was struck by the story. It was surprisingly dark and dynamic. I mean, here’s a guy that little kids learn about in like, Church and stuff, right? And he’s totally not a hero! Samson’s life is all about violence, sex, betrayal… I mean, there’s a reason Disney hasn’t done it. (laughs)

I: What did you like about it?

Snyder: I saw a lot of tension in the character. He spends his whole life struggling with his destiny. There’s this struggle between who people expect Samson to be and what he actually does. I mean, Samson is supposed to be Israel’s hero, someone to really look up to, y’know? But Samson refuses to fight on anyone else’s terms. Then after the Philistines kill his wife, the dude just snaps and kills a bunch of people.

I: How will you handle Delilah?

Snyder: Delilah is a great character. She’s cunning and intelligent, and he keeps falling for her tricks. I mean, Delilah loves Samson, she sees him as invincible, but she’s totally taking advantage of him at the same time. The irony around them is great.

I: Do you have casting ideas?

Snyder: Y’know, casting has been tough on this one. A lot of people have come up and said “this would be perfect for Gerard Butler.” And, Gerry is a great actor, but he’s too refined for the role. I needed someone rougher, and physically massive. I mean, this guy has to kill a thousand philistines in one afternoon. (laughs)

I: Have you officially cast anyone?

Snyder: Officially, no. But we’re in final talks with Dwayne Johnson about the role.

I: You mean, “The Rock?”

I’ve gotta admit, he would be a convincing Samson.

Snyder: (laughs) Y’know, Dwayne has done a lot of sh*tty movies in the past. But he’s really matured as an actor and I think he’s ready for more serious stuff. I needed someone who could really be believable as this conflicted, tortured antihero whose supernatural strength has made him an outcast. I mean, the guy rips a lion in half. You’ve gotta cast someone believable in that role or the audience will just die laughing. So, yeah, I think Dwayne will be great.

I: What about Delilah?

Snyder: I loved working with Abbie Cornish on Sucker Punch. She works very hard, very dedicated…  and will wear any costume you ask her to. (laughs) No, seriously, I see Delilah being this sweet and sensual character, but having a darker side to her too. I know Abbie can handle the role.

I: So, you’re doing this big, rated-R epic of a Bible story.

Snyder: (laughs) Yeah.

I: I’m thinking… well, why Samson now? Does it have any relevance for modern audiences?

Snyder: Oh, I think its totally relevant. Everyone’s… well, Christian or not, everyone is always talking about “what God wants them to do.” Politicians are talking about it, the Middle East is talking about it, and I just keep asking myself… “how do they know?”  Y’know, seriously? How can God be telling one guy this thing, and another guy this totally different thing? And why does it usually involve killing the other person? How does anyone know what God wants them to do? And, y’know… I think that’s really similar to Samson’s story. Here’s this guy who is on a mission from God, right? To fight the bad guys, the… the Philistines. And he’s even given this super-strength to do it. But Samson doesn’t want to fight the Philistines, he wants peace. I mean, he marries a Philistine girl, right? And then its not until they trick him and kill his wife that Samson starts beating up on the Philistines. And even then, Samson’s not killing Philistines because God told him to, he is killing Philistines out of revenge. So, he’s a very interesting character.

I: So how do you see that playing out in the film?

Snyder: Well, I see a lot of conflict in Samson. He has a lot of human emotion. In the end, he’s fighting the Philistines like just God told him to, but its not… well, its not necessarily because God told him to, its because of this very real and deep need for vengeance. For revenge. That’s very human. In a sense he’s sort of obeying and defying his God at the same time. And that’s very interesting to me… That kind of conflict between a divine order and a human emotion.

I: Last question. What’re you most looking forward to?

Snyder: Ah, easy. Samson killing a thousand dudes with the jawbone of an ass.

Zack Snyder on the set of “300.”

What do you think? Can Zack Snyder bring an interesting (and faithful) adaptation of Samson to the big screen? Let us know in the comments!

Sucker Punch (2011)

“Everyone has an angel. A guardian who watches over us. You can’t know what form they’ll take. One day old man. Next day, little girl. But don’t let appearances fool you, they can be as fierce as any dragon. Yet they’re not here to fight our battles, but to whisper from our heart; reminding that its us. Its every one of us who holds the power over the worlds we create.”

Synopsis: A young girl nicknamed Babydoll is unjustly locked away in an insane asylum where she will undergo a lobotomy in five days’ time. Facing gruesome odds but determined to escape, Babydoll imagines a fantastical dreamworld where she and her companions are warriors on a mission. The lines between reality and fantasy blur as Babydoll and her friends fight to retrieve five items they will need to break free from their captors before its too late.

Director Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) is a master of aesthetic. From sets and dreamworlds to stylized costumes and makeup (highly sexualized, one should note) Sucker Punch is a visually stunning film. The five-minute opening sequence alone is a study in use of slow-motion camerawork and visual storytelling. Snyder’s directorial talent is unquestionably good in the aesthetic arena, but Sucker Punch falls flat on its face in plot exposition.

Let’s talk about the multiple layers of reality.
There’s a theatrical rule-of-thumb that essentially states “if you’re going to do something weird, you have to do it in the first 15 minutes.”  You have 15 minutes to establish your premise, no matter how outlandish it is, and your audience will buy it. That’s why musicals always open with a song, they’re letting the audience know right-off-the-bat ‘Hey, this is a musical! People sing here and its totally normal!’ But if the play opened realistically and then 45 minutes later the cast burst into song and dance, the audience would feel that their willing suspension of disbelief had been betrayed. Simply, storytellers have to quickly establish the rules of their fictional world (this is referred to in Science Fiction writing as the “Novum”.) The more outlandish the premise, the more focused one’s opening 15 minutes must be (think about the introduction of movies like Star Wars, The Matrix, Underworld, Avatar, Inception, etc.)

So how does Sucker Punch hold up to this rule?

At 12 minutes in, the real world of the insane asylum is replaced by a brothel. Here each character is reintroduced in this fictional reality as gangsters, dancers, lost orphans, etc. This reality shift happens abruptly, without any explanation or motive, and left me thoroughly confused. After a few minutes of head scratching I concluded that this brothel was merely a sub-reality and the characters were actually still in the asylum, but the fact that the entire reality of existence switched so curtly and completely without exposition baffled me. Also, occurring a full 12 minutes in is really pushing their time limit.

As for the fantastical, action-packed, dream-world, this doesn’t appear until 21 minutes into the film. I initially let this slide because everyone saw the Sucker Punch trailer and knew an action-packed fantasy world was a major part of the movie. (But it disturbs me that a film relies on its theatrical trailer to accomplish good storytelling.) One of Sucker Punch’s major problems is failing to reconcile its dramatic brothel plot with its gratuitously violent dreamworlds.

There’s storytelling rules for a reason. They’re not meant to restrict would-be storytellers, but guide them. And for heaven’s sake – the more outlandish your premise, the more you must stick to the rules! This is clearly demonstrated by how confused audiences were and still are by Sucker Punch (“which world is real, are Babydoll and Sweetpea the same person, is Blue taking girls from the asylum to work in his brothel next-door”, etc.) If Zack Snyder wanted people to “get” his crazy, outlandish “genre-piece”, he should’ve stuck to the basic rules of storytelling! (For a positive example, think about the exposition used in Inception. Pretty much the first 2/3rds of the film is explaining how dreams work so that the last act can unfold in all its glory without leaving the audience behind.)

What is Sucker Punch  even about, anyway?

I rarely need to watch a movie a second time in order to understand the plot. But it wasn’t until my 3rd time through Sucker Punch that I really got all the visual cues and understood what Zack Snyder was trying to do. (At least I think I do.) *spoilers* Babydoll is the ‘main character’ but its not her story, its Sweet Pea’s. The opening and closing narrations belong to Sweet Pea, and Babydoll admits to her at the end “this was never my story, its yours.” Babydoll was Sweet Pea’s guardian angel; the ‘little girl who fought as fierce as dragons’ and gave Sweet Pea the courage to escape. The action-packed fantasies belong to Babydoll, but the brothel reality belongs to Sweet Pea. – This switch-up is a cool idea and I see the puzzle pieces there for it, it just doesn’t come together to make one cohesive picture.

This isn’t too big of a surprise, considering Sucker Punch was an experiment in putting two entirely different genre’s into the same film. Zack Snyder even admitted to it: “How can I make a film that can have action sequences in it that aren’t limited by the physical realities that normal people are limited by, but still have the story make sense so it’s not, and I don’t mean to be mean, like a bulls–t thing like Ultraviolet or something like that.” Snyder basically wanted to recreate fights from The Matrix but skip the important bit about writing a physics defying universe that allows his plot to even take place. (Plot? *yawn* I mean, that’s so tedious!)

Themes:Escapism, Empowerment,Objectification.

‘What lengths are we willing to go to in our mind to deal with a situation?’ In a place where women are powerless and abused, they’re encouraged to create a reality where they are in control. I like the message of empowerment and conquering your fears, but needing to reinvent reality to the point where you define the rules has some disturbing connotations.
The film is filled with skimpy costumes, ridiculous makeup, and an overall objectifying visual tone. This swords-and-corsets look is cool in a geeky, stylized, comicbook way, but its so sexual in nature. According to writer/director Zack Snyder, Sucker Punch is a critique on geek culture’s sexism and objectification of women (his interview here). While he certainly refrained from lingering or ogling shots, I don’t see any element of ‘critique’ here. If anything, it carries the disturbing implication that this shameless objectification of women somehow makes them stronger.

Conclusion:

Sucker Punch tries to have a good message behind it all. Listen to the closing narration: “Who chains us, and who holds the key that can set us free? – Its you. You have all the weapons you need. Now fight.” This is a great message of empowerment and overcoming the obstacles we create for ourselves. Its asking us to examine the lies we tell ourselves that hold us back from reaching our full potential. But lets look at the story we just saw, shall we? Five women band together, and using their combined resources and creativity… three are dead, one is lobotomized, and only one escapes? That’s it? ‘You hold the key to your destiny, you are the only thing holding you back’ … but evil wins four out of five times? His ending totally undermines the point he’s trying to make!
Zack Snyder thinks he’s making a film about female empowerment in the face of helplessness, about creating realities where you are the hero and you have the weapons to accomplish anything. But everything about the movie from hackneyed plot to sexualized costumes unravels this until you’re standing there with two shreds in each hand wondering “…what is this movie even about?”

Rating:

2.5 out of 5 Zipped Lips

Writer/Director Zack Snyder was trying something new with Sucker Punch; an experiment in putting two totally different genre’s into one storyline. While I applaud his attempt and awesome aesthetics, the film lacks a foundation in the basic rules of storytelling and ultimately undermines everything he’s trying to do.

Tales of the Black Freighter: DVD vs. Graphic Novel

“Hope can be a horrible thing.”

I know the big question in everyone’s mind: is Tales of the Black Freighter as an animated feature as good as the comic found in The Watchmen graphic novel?

My answer is: Yes, but not really.
(There’s going to be spoilers here. But the chances are that you either A: Have already read/seen Watchmen, or B: you don’t care. So here I go)

Why it’s good: Tales of the Black Freighter is a 28 minute straight-to-DVD animated feature. That sounds really short, but it covers the Black Freighter storyline very well. It captures the horrific tale of a shipwrecked captain desperately trying to reach home in time to save his family. Gerard Butler is absolutely perfect in his role as the Captain. His performance is the highlight of the film and makes Tales worth recommending to even the most diehard of Watchmen fanboys. Because Tales unfolds all at once, it gives a very clear and hellish pacing to the story, (as opposed to revealing it bit by bit in the graphic novel). The decent into madness is very tangible, though that probably makes the ending more predictable.

Where it’s not so good: In Watchmen, the Tales comic book is revealed piece by piece in conjunction with the “real world” events. The bits and pieces change up the pacing of Watchmen and leave you both anticipating and dreading when you’ll get the next piece of this haunting story. That separation of time allowed my imagination to fill in the gaps, causing Tales to be even more horrifying. What was going on with Rorschach was disturbing, but the story of a shipwrecked Captain harnessing the dead, bloating bodies of his crew into a raft was beyond grotesque. This Rated R feature is certainly disgusting, and it has a short enough running time to keep you horrified without desensitization kicking in, but the ending doesn’t pack the same punch. The ending is powerful, but it didn’t deliver that kick-in-the-stomach feeling of despair that I experienced when reading The Watchmen.
I’m both disappointed and glad that Tales of the Black Freighter is not featured in The Watchmen: Director’s Cut, (which I own).  However, I read that it is included in the epic 215 minute Watchmen: The Ultimate Cut, (which I have not yet seen).  I definitely felt that The Watchmen theatrical cut suffered from not having the subtext of Tales, but with such a unique style, I’m not sure if Tales would fit as seamlessly into the film as I originally hoped. Rather than assisting the Watchmen story, it might make the pacing even more convoluted.  I will have to see the Ultimate Cut and decide for myself.

In Conclusion: The Watchmen is a terrific graphic novel and no movie adaptation can ever change that. Big screen versions can elevate certain elements to a higher level of experience than the graphic novel, (such as Gerard Butler’s voiceovers in Tales), but ultimately cannot capture the true depth and broad scope of Watchmen. Tales of the Black Freighter is a very good film adaptation of a haunting subtext. Maybe it’s presence here is not quite as powerful compared to when read, but there is also something gained by featuring the hellish story from beginning to end without interruption. The DVD also has Under the Hood, which is a pretty interesting “tv show” interview with Hollis Mason and other Watchmen characters about the famous autobiography. Both of these are worth watching and make a very geeky addition to your DVD collection, (just think how great it’ll look between your copy of V for Vendetta and X-Men2.) Next time I view The Watchmen, I’ll definitely pop in this DVD either just before or immediately after.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Zipped Lips.
Enjoyable and worth multiple viewings in connection with (or without) The Watchmen movie.

Nate’s Top 25 Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)

These are my 25 favorite movies of the decade.  They may not be the ‘best’ films of the decade, as there are many artistically and/or technically exceptional movies that I just didn’t enjoy watching, (like Requiem for a Dream, or City of God) which, while they may indeed be some of the ‘best’ of the decade, they are not among my favorites.  That said, these are all excellent films in their own right.  Obviously, while these movies all come highly recommended, a word of warning, a few of them are very decidedly R-rated.

25. Sweet Home Alabama (2002):

Yes, it’s a chick flick.  But it’s a good chick flick.  It’s pretty original…for a chick flick.  For one thing, it’s not set in New York.  Also, “The Guy” isn’t some sexual Ghengis Khan who magically realizes the error of his philandering ways because he decides he wants the one girl he hasn’t managed to conquer.  Nor is “The Girl” some neurotic, uptight overachiever who meets a fun-loving but slovenly guy who she initially hates, but then they learn from each other and discover that opposites attract.  Is it predictable?  Yeah.  Is it fluff? Yes, but it’s extremely likable fluff that is lots of fun.  Lets face it, if you’re going to watch a chick flick, you might as well watch the best.