Sucker Punch Photos are Weapons of Mass Erections

Ahh that photo above is my current wallpaper. I'm a big fan of Jamie Chung (and sort of a big fan of hot girls named "Jaime" in general). But that photo is clearly the PG for this PG-13 flick. There are a few more below that will get those guns cocked. (you see what I did there? I'm going to do that a lot)

Sure on some level, I enjoyed Zach Snyder's other flicks (300 and Watchmen) and I predict that Sucker Punch will lead to one big Hollywood steampunk revival. But I digress. A flick like this is clearly hitting on Snyder's base of amped up alpha horndogs who want to see hot girls blowing shit up. This is all about CGI bullets killing CGI targets and cutting to hot American actresses in retro Sailor Moon outfits in super duper slo mo.

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that.

How can you go wrong with a cast of attractive women including Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Jamie Chung, Vanessa Hudgens and Carla Gugino? Add in some sword play, some giant machines and blimps and you're sure to see the theaters packed with tweens and teens.

But let's check out the photos. They seem to be subliminally telling us something more than what's on the surface.

Go team go! Chicks with guns is your generic photo of awesomeness. It says we may be 5"2 and the guns weigh more than all of us combined but we can so kick your ass.

Did you see the size of that gun she fired at us? It was bigger than her.

Must. Maintain. Eye. Contact...

Sure it looks like the dressing room of a strip club but the fishnet stockings say otherwise.

[Wipes drool]....Does that say Gold Diggers in the background? Clearly it's a hidden message about.....oh whatever [drools...]

Bow-chicka-bow-wow....did you hurt your knee? I'll kiss it and make it all better Vanessa Hudgens. I know you're a sweet innocent girl who would never have nude photos of herself all over the Internet right?Ahem...RIGHT???

The audience will clearly not know WTF is going on so let's write down our goals on this here blackboard. We need a map, fire, knife and key. Can somebody post this on Facebook so we can remember?

So your like the creepy old guy that gives me the Sword of Omens...right? OMG! LOL! FTW!

Meow! Meow! I smell a cat fight coming. I think it's about who's going to go on stage next.

Clearly they just shot CGI bullets into a CGI target causing a CGI explosion leading to a sychronized landing and gratuitous slo mo pause. Clearly right?

*************************************************

Well there ya have it. Some tidbits on what you may have missed when checking out the Sucker Punch photos. You know you're going to thrust yourself into theaters this Friday to check out this steampunk homage (steampunkers around the world are weeping BTW). Never has movie made nerds and geeks turn into beta blocking alpha males like Sucker Punch.

I call it steampunk action porn....set to Led Zeppelin. And you know what?

There's nothing wrong with that.

Here be the trailer.

Gratuitous Explosions vs Gratuitous Nudity: Are they the same?

With The Expendables coming out this week (see my Machete vs The Expendables comparison here), we are going to get a solid case of action porn with Stallone's alpha male awesomeness. This got me thinking that as a red blooded American male who grew up watching Van Damme spinkicks, Arnold slaughtering the entire Val Verde army, Bruce smokin Hans and his crew and Stallone saving most of southeast Asia, the action movie is pure male bravado porn.

Explosions, gun battles and mano y mano fistfights are what we crave. But do we get the same feeling seeing this mass slaughter as we do seeing boobs? Of course it's a little different seeing flesh than flesh ripped to shreds. But what would you rather see?

Would you rather seeing a cool single bullet gas tank explosion or a quick glimpse of a model turned actress in the buff?

When we see an explosion, it lasts about 3-5 seconds, pretty much the equivalent of seeing a pair of boobs flash onscreen. So I ask, are explosions as gratuitous as nudity?

Of course we realize seeing nudity on screen is highly gratuitous, but is seeing an exploding car really needed as well? What does it really add to a movie? A big flaming fiery red ball of smoke has been seen countless times yet we're still pounded with Michael Bay explosions time after time. Is this not the same as seeing a pair of boobs from waitresses turned actresses?

Hell if I can tell you which I prefer more. I'm as jaded as they come and both make no difference to me when I watch a film. I usually say the same thing when I see either an explosion or boobs:

"Whoa, that was cool"

So now I ask your 2 cents. Are you desensitized when you see a building explode as you are seeing some C cups?

Because when you see The Expendables on Friday, your gonna see some serious shit exploding. And no doubt it's going to be fuckin awesome. But if you replaced that RPG hitting a tank with a set of mega breasts, would there be a difference?