Mr. Booth Goes to Washington: A review of The Conspirator

Zoe: She saw this movie without me....

Scotty: I didn’t want to, but it was either The Conspirator or Battle of Los Angeles.

You made me sad. So very sad.
 
Eh, I saw it again with you, and was bored out of my mind.

Yeah, it was kind of boring, like a two hour episode of Law and Order.

Hey, Law and Order is exciting. The entire time I watching the movie I kept on thinking, “this would be so much better if Jack McCoy was in this.”

Law and Order is the same thing every single episode.

That is totally not true.

Watch a Law and Order marathon and then I dare you to tell me the distinguishing features of each episode.

I do that all the time. Until last night I had four episodes DVR’d. There was one about whether or not the DA should seek the death penalty for an 18 year old who killed a Chinese food delivery man...
 
I was kidding.
So, The Conspirator was about the trial of Mary Surratt (Robin Wright). For those of you who slept through U.S. History (I know at least one person who is reading this did), Mary Surratt owned the boarding house where John Wilkes Booth and company met to plan the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The movie is from the point of view of Fredrick Aiken (James McAvoy) who is assigned to represent Surratt, a task that no one else wants to do. The kicker is, which the movie spends a great amount of time reminding us of, that Surratt is a civilian being tried in a military tribunal that is headed by generals who are obviously biased. Drama ensues, blah, blah blah, CIVIL LIBERTIES!!!!!!

Ok, my main beef with The Conspirator is that it is, essentially, a courtroom drama, which I find to be terribly boring.

Watch out...

That said, it’s rant time! ::game show music:: When I heard about The Conspirator, I got excited, like really excited. I minored in Civil War Era Studies in college in a department heavily populated by Lincoln scholars and those who emphasize the War in our minor instead of the Era. I try to not get really excited about movies (just in case they suck) but I really wanted this movie to be good. Sure there’s the war element but it is focusing on a much more popular aspect of it. For goodness sakes there’s women in it whose role isn’t just to be the wife/daughter/girlfriend. Also, The Conspirator was made by The American Film Company, a production group which according to their website was “Founded on the belief that real life is often more compelling than fiction, The American Film Company produces feature films about incredible, true stories from America's past.” Now, I hold no allusions that they were going to make a completely historically accurate movie. History can be really exciting but it can also be very boring. I was ready for a little spicing up of the plot. So obviously this movie was going to be all kinds of awesome and reasonably accurate.

Except it wasn’t. It was boring, preachy and easily the most simple movie they could have made out of this story and now I’m disappointed.

The first time I saw it, it wasn’t that boring. The second time, I wanted to go to sleep. In all honestly, when there were fleshed-out characters, they were highly compelling. Mary Surratt was one of those characters. My heart gave a twang every time she cried. Aiken’s character was overly cliché in some ways (but James McAvoy looks so pretty) and starts out judgmental and then self reforms, to every one's chagrin. The prosecutor and the war department were overly villainized.

Oh, and another warning. Zoe is about to rant some more about her disappointment. But, I didn’t think this movie was that bad. Not entirely rewatchable, but still a decent film.

I think that’s really the part that gets to me, The Conspirator is not a bad movie, sure it’s boring in places but the actors are able to elevate this script to a place that, on its own, is actually quite good and props to director Robert Redford for creating a moment of genuine tension in a story with a well known ending. The hanging sequence at the end was also amazing, relying almost entirely on some very subtle acting and little dialogue.

The only thing that irked me about the acting in this film is the accents. This may be because I’m a Marylander who studied in Southern Maryland. For some reason some of the characters who are supposed to be from Maryland sound like they’re from Atlanta or Baton Rouge. Seriously, there is more than one type of southern accent; get them right.

See, the accent thing doesn’t bother me as much because I’m just used to it by now. It’s like people in entertainment believe that the only way an audience will recognize that the character is from south of the Mason-Dixon Line is if they speak in an overly stereotypical southern dialect. They all need to sound like they are Foghorn Leghorn or everyone will think they’re from California. People make the same criticism of True Blood so I almost laughed out loud when Stephen Root used the same voice in The Conspirator that he did in True Blood.

Also, Fredrick is supposed to be from New England. There is no way he should sound as generic as he does in this movie.

Accents or no, I was just excited that one of the like three famous Marylanders of the Civil War Era was up on the screen, and it was the one with the best name, Reverdy Johnson. Seriously, I want to name my next cat Captain Reverdy.

So, now we need to talk about an important aspect of the film

SYMBOLISM!

Yes, that this movie is essentially an allegory for the present day Guantanamo Tribunals. It hammers home how important civil liberties are and how important it is that we don’t forsake them in times of crisis. It’s not so subtle.

Seriously, in the courtroom scenes, they make the shots all hazy to show how blurred the justice of this trial is going to be.

I didn’t get that actually, I just thought it was bad cinematography.

I didn’t say it was good symbolism.

Really, the heavy handedness of the movie’s message seems to come at the expense of some of the movie’s characters and the plot. Anyone who doesn’t believe in the importance of social justice is painted as a black and white villain who is totally evil, while the protagonist gets elevated up like an untouchable hero. Edwin Stanton always appears like he’s one second away from a good ol’ Disney baddy cackle. Also, the movie is pretty much convinced from the get-go that Mary Surratt is innocent and thus, anyone that doesn’t is either portrayed as evil or ignorant.

Actually, I thought Surratt’s innocence had a level of ambiguity, which is probably why she’s my favorite character.

They say she knew about the conspirator’s plot to kidnap Lincoln which I think is the level of ambiguity you’re talking about but it’s nowhere near the level of ambiguity that existed in the real trial. Increasing the ambiguity and fleshing out the characters of the movie’s antagonists, I think, would have made a much richer, more entertaining movie. The reason Mary Surratt interests people is the question of “was she guilty or innocent” and the fact that we will really never know. The movie pretty much blows off this question and I would have liked to see the more compelling evidence proposed by each side without as much of a bias. I mean, they don’t even show the prosecution’s closing arguments because it doesn’t matter. The movie has had its mind made since the beginning, just like Mary Surratt’s judges.

That’s an interesting analogy. I wonder if they did that on purpose...probably not. So, Zoe, do you have any more rants in store for us?

None about the movie.

Good, because I have one.

What is it?

Beiber Hair

…...........

John Surratt had Beiber hair and a soul patch. Its the most ridiculous thing ever. Who thought that was a good idea? I mean, Beiber Hair!

The soul patch was kind of ridiculous.

Beiber Hair!

Ok....anyway...

Beiber Hair!

The American Film Company currently has two other movies based on historical events in development.

Beiber Hair!

The Arsenal, about John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry and Midnight Riders, about Paul Revere and co. (but not including Sybil Ludington of course).

Seriously! Beiber Hair!

Oh my God STOP IT.

This movie is set in the 1860’s. What the hell does John Surratt have Beiber hair!

Moving on, I glanced at the plot for The Arsenal and saw this sentence: “On a rainy October night in 1859, violent abolitionist John Brown and a rag-tag band of young men descends on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia.” It just made me sigh since it appears instead of making movies showing off the complexity of historical events and their players, The American Film Company seems to just want to make simple stories with black and white heroes and villains. Sigh.

And Beiber Hair.

Do You Like Scary Movies?

I have never been a fan of horror movies as a genre. I spent most of my life telling people that horror movies were cheap and lacked substance, most of them just serving as an excuse to gross people out with excessive amounts of gore and to this day I still maintain that that is mostly true. However, the main reason I don’t like horror movies is that they are scary and frankly I don’t like to be scared. This changed last week when the cover of Entertainment Weekly featured a story on Scream 4 and after reading their article I decided to go back and give the original Scream a try. I did this mostly because I realized after reading the article that the Scream movies were not just horror films, but were also murder mysteries, a genre that I love. I was pleasantly surprised when after completing the first Scream movie I immediately barreled through the entire trilogy in two days. I felt that these movies spoke to the film fan in me and featured a cast of characters that were savvy to pop culture, they acted the way I would if caught in a scary movie situation . . . albeit with a little less crying in the fetal position. After having my scary movie marathon, I realized a couple of things:

The first is that the murder mystery genre is sadly lacking in both movies and television. I love a good mystery, the act of following the plot and trying to figure out whodunit before the dramatic reveal is something I find very rewarding both when I figure it out and when I am completely surprised. Now I know what you are going to say, “But Ryan crime procedurals are the single largest grouping of shows currently airing and aren’t they basically just mysteries?” Well my answer to this is yes and no. Yes, the slew of crime dramas on TV are basically hour long mysteries and that is just the flaw. One hour is not enough time to build all the components of a good mystery. Sometimes TV pulls this one off, but most of the time there is not suspense and development to lure the audience down the twists and red herrings to make the reveal at the end truly dramatic. That is something that can only be accomplished with the long form of a feature film or a series. The last good murder mystery that I saw prior to Scream was a one season show called Harper’s Island. The premise of the show was very slasher-film like in that every episode at least one character would be killed by the murderer until the final episode when the big reveal occurred. This was an amazing series that allowed the necessary time to invest in the characters and explore those characters enough that everyone became a suspect and the ending was a truly epic reveal. This was how I felt about Scream as well. I thought the film did a great job making every character that we met seem like they could be the murderer, even if just for a second. In novels and plays, mysteries make up one of the largest share of all genres, but in TV and movies mysteries seem to be downplayed and I cannot even tell you the last major blockbuster that was billed as a “mystery” film as opposed to a horror or thriller. So get in the game Hollywood and bring mysteries back as a genre. I know it might actually require some good writing for a change but seriously it’s about time that came back too.

The second thing that came out of my foray into the Scream trilogy was some contemplation on horror as a genre. I understand that many people enjoy being scared and even if I do not count myself among them I can appreciate the fact that many people pay to experience haunted houses at amusement parks and to see scary movies. I have never really liked to be scared and anytime I watch a horror movie I view the fear as a cost of doing business. I really liked the murder mystery aspect and feeling the sinking feeling in my stomach when Ghostface pops out from a closet was just a way to keep the tension up and prevent things from getting boring as I tried to figure out who was the killer behind the mask. However, a couple of days later I was still on edge from watching the movie. Every time my house would creak or my dog would open the door to my room I would have a little moment of surprise before I realized that it was a normal occurrence that would not have caused me to even react the previous week. I get the same way when I play FPS games for too long and feel the need to react quickly to things that occur in my peripheral vision. So in the days after my horror movie marathon when I was still very jumpy I began to realize just how cool a situation that it was. How many times does a movie have an effect on you after you leave the theatre? I think most movies are like water in a pool, when you are in the pool and actively experiencing it you are aware of it, but the moment you step out all the water runs off you and very little about a film tends to stick for long. A comedy might make you laugh and a heartfelt movie might even move you tears while you are watching it, but for the most part as soon as you leave the theatre the movies ability to effect you vanishes, except in the case of horror movies. Even a mediocre horror film will leave you with a pit in your stomach and your nerves on edge for some time after the film is over. I believe the job of a good film is to create a reaction in its audience. This could be to cause the audience to think, to laugh, or cry, or even scream and even though I may not like horror movies as a whole I cannot deny that they create a powerful reaction within their audience.

I am looking forward to the latest installment in the Scream franchise and hope that it will bring back what I loved about the original film and that this in turn might lead to a better class of scary movie and chase away the torture porn that made me turn away from horror as a genre during my formative film watching years.

I want to hear what you think so hit me up in the comments. What do you think, is horror a genre worth having or just a quick way for studios to make a buck? What do you think of Scream 4 and of course what’s your favorite scary movie?

The Life and Times of Mozart's Sister

Zoe: We kind of took a break last week in that we didn’t post anything. We still saw a movie, two actually, but I had the grand idea to film us reviewing the movies. It was bad, and by bad I mean forty minutes long and highly un-editable. I was going to transcribe it and put that up but I’m lazy and have soul-sucking projects due at work so just ended up watching a marathon of Ghost Hunters instead. I will try to do it this weekend but I make no promises.

Scotty: One day, if this blog takes off, we might put up that video for all to see, and we’ll have a good laugh. But, for now, it is going into the vault.

Will we release it every seven years?

No, we’re not mouse sized cicadas.

We decided to get all highbrow this week and went to a French film festival movie.

I was secretly hoping that going to see a movie in a film festival would be glamorous or at least filled with hipsters. The reality was that we were the youngest people there. I guess that’s what happens when you go to a 6:30 showing on a Tuesday.

Somebody won a bottle of wine. That’s sort of glamorous.

And people in the back kept on complaining that they couldn’t hear the announcer because the microphone wasn’t loud enough (it totally was). Plus, I didn’t win the tote bag in the raffle. I really wanted that tote bag.

I think that it says a lot about us that we went to go see a period movie although we both don’t remember why we picked Mozart's Sister over Young Goethe in Love.

I wanted to see Young Goethe in Love, but you vetoed it because you wanted to see Mozart’s Sister more.

No, I wanted to see both of them. You picked Mozart’s Sister!

No, I remember specifically saying that I wanted to see Young Goethe, and you convincing me other wise. I mean, German Shakespeare in Love, if someone didn’t die I would be thoroughly disappointed in the Germanic peoples.

And you know if it’s a German movie, there’s going to be at least one naked guy running around.

So, why wouldn’t I want to see it?

8:45 on a Wednesday. We can still go see it.

OK, then we shall.

We have now written over a page without actually talking about the movie we saw, so in case you couldn’t tell, Mozart’s Sister wasn’t really that memorable. It’s about, surprise surprise, Mozart’s older sister Nannerl who performs with her talented brother around Europe. But as she’s getting up there in years (fourteen, gasp), she needs to start behaving like a woman. Women don’t play the violin or compose and are subservient so she totally should too. The movie spends the whole time in France so along the way she befriends one of the king’s daughters and the angstiest dauphin who I swear took staring lessons from Jonathan Rhys Meyers’s Henry VIII. And it’s really hard to remember all of the movie’s plot points because the whole movie was pretty flat.

I thought the movie was very good. It just wasn’t that cinematic. It’s the type that would work just as well, if not better, on the small screen than the silver screen. This movie had a very intimate feel, and it was almost as if you were in the room with the characters, listening to their conversations. There are no grand establishing shots, very little noticeable score except for what is played by people in scene. And it worked; the director’s intent totally pulled though. It’s just that this film strayed away from so many movie conventions that it didn’t feel like a movie.

It’s like the movie was trying its best to not look like a movie. The movie also lacked some emotional peaks and valleys as well as an antagonist, although you could probably argue that she is her own antagonist. The editing was very fluid and panned from character to character more often than it cut.

However, the lack of the emotional rollercoaster that we’re used to in western storytelling lends itself to the realistic feel of Mozart’s Sister. If real life were all like movies, we would all be bipolar.

Also, there’s a scene when you see the titular character pee on the side of the road. I always wondered how women did that back then.

Really? I could have told you that.

I was not a very good girl scout.

Anyways, the one downside to this whole style is that every once in a while, the director would go and break it with a freaking zoom. I don’t like zooms in general, but in this case it was such a deviation from the style of the rest of the movie for seemingly no reason. Totally took me out of the movie every time he did it.

She ranted about it after the film. I totally didn’t notice it.

I hate zooms. It’s like the star wipe of cinema.

Enough about cinematography, on to the acting!

::Star Wipe::

The acting in this film also added to its realistic feel. It was very subdued and not too dramatic. The best part of this acting style is that it helped avoid one of the major pitfalls of making a film where the main character is an adolescent: crappy acting. The person who played Nannerl, Marie Ferét, did an outstanding job, as far as I could tell. I am not that familiar with the French language.

I know. You can’t hear it, but she keeps putting a t on the end of dauphin and her name is pronounced NA-nair (with a soft r) not na-na-rel.

It’s not my fault that the French phonetic system is so messed up. This is why I studied Spanish. En español, las letras dice un sonido todos las veces.

Il ya un poisson dans ta poche. The one French sentence I can really remember.

*sigh*

Speaking of French. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of readable subtitles in a movie. If you must have white subtitles, outline them or something. White subtitles on white snow makes Zoe very annoyed. Also, they randomly didn’t subtitle a scene. Nannerl gets very sick and we think her father is talking to a group of men about arrangements in case she dies. BUT THEY DON’T TRANSLATE IT! Way to defuse the tension movie.

Yay! Indie films!

Anyways, one thing we need to talk about before we go, just because we are both graduates of liberal colleges...FEMINISM! Did this pass the Bechdel test? Yes. Also, I found this to be a great feminist film because it ignored the conventions of a typical “feminist film” where the plucky female character fights against the establishment to achieve her dreams. This film was different in that it portrayed the uncomfortable truth that it was sucky to be a woman who had even the slightest ambition and most of the time, they couldn’t do anything about it.

Pretty clothes do not make up for lack of political rights.

Finally, we’re going to rate this movie with stars because the movie organizers gave us a piece of paper and told us we had to. We agreed too, both gave it four out of five stars.

So, we're gonna end this review here because this article is already way too long and we don't want to take up any of your/our valuable Facebook time.

A Few Gaps in the Evidence: A First Look at "Body of Proof"

ABC's new crime drama “Body of Proof” presents the flip side of most typical medical or crime dramas. The show asks, “What can you learn about a person's life and the way they died from their corpse?” Dr. Megan Hunt, played by Dana Delany, is the sassy, borderline bitter, former neurosurgeon who left her promising career to become a medical examiner following a serious car accident. The accident resulted in a condition where her hands sporadically go numb, for which there is no physical cause. She is joined in her investigations by Peter Dunlop (Nicholas Bishop) who is a “medical legal investigator.” Together, they collect evidence from the body of the murdered individual and look for clues to catch the killer. What is unusual about Megan's approach to her role as an ME is that she is very involved in the overall process, going as far as to accompany the detectives to interviews with suspects, witnesses and family members and even conducting interviews of her own.

While the show focuses on a different crime each episode, the overall story is connected through the conflicts of Megan's life. Her uniquely involved approach to her role as an ME puts her at odds with the detectives of the Philadelphia police department, particularly the two unlucky detectives who end up more or less assigned to her. Detectives Samantha Baker (Sonja Sohn) and Bud Morris (John Carroll Lynch) are initially depicted as somewhat bumbling and ignorant until they start to believe what Megan is trying to tell them about the body and the suspect. However, after a rocky first encounter or two, they develop into a formidable team of crime solvers, employing traditional police work and Megan's unconventional medical examination techniques to bring the guilty to justice.

The course of the story is also punctuated by issues caused by Megan's detachment from the world around her. Her failed marriage and strained relationship with her daughter Lacie (Mary Matilyn Mouser) are a constant source of disappointment, vexation, and eventually growth for Megan as she tries to figure out how to make amends with Lacie for her previous absence while pursuing her neurosurgery career. As Megan reaches out and connects with her daughter, the audience can connect with Megan and try to better understand her.

Megan also seems to have issues connecting to her coworkers in the morgue. Thus far, she seems to have almost constant friction with her superior, Dr. Kate Murphy (Jeri Ryan). Megan is not at all intimidated by Dr. Murphy, who seems to have very little control over her. Dr. Ethan Gross (Geoffrey Arend) and Dr. Curtis Brumfield (Windell Middlebrooks) provide the comic relief element as the quirky sidekicks to the strong and serious female protagonist, Megan.

“Body of Proof” recently aired its fourth episode and I have waited so long to post this critique in the hopes of giving the writers time to fill in some of the gaps in the story. One of the important background pieces of information the show has yet to explain is how a Medical Examiner is allowed to tag along on interviews with families and potential suspects. While her smart comments and ability to see to the point of the matter have, thus far, proved useful to solving the crimes, it seems a little unusual for a simple ME to be allowed that kind of privilege. You don't see “Castle's” Lanie or “NCIS's” Ducky tagging along outside of the lab following the initial recovery of the body. While I appreciate the attempt at a different look at crime solving, I need an explanation of her unprecedented privilege if the story is going to be believable.

The second gap I have been hoping to see repaired is the presence of Peter Dunlap. While he calls himself a “medical legal investigator” in the second episode, we have yet to see any explanation for his presence on the show. There are other detective characters to do the police work, yet Peter has a fancy badge to flash around at people and spends time looking for clues involving the case. Peter's main role seems to be as Megan's guide to the world. We are told that Megan was very busy as a neurosurgeon and, consequently, lost her connections to her now-ex husband and daughter, as well as to anyone resembling a friend. Peter's job seems to be to help Megan connect with other people. You can tell Peter is doing well in this function when the ABC-created mini-description for the fourth episode is “Megan starts taking an interest in what is going on around her.”

Regarding character development, the show has significantly improved since the pilot episode. Megan is much more likeable now that we've gotten to see more of what makes her tick. Her philosophy for her role as a medical examiner is honorable and personable in a way we would not expect from the distant Megan Hunt. The secondary characters have become more involved in the story and have developed into real characters who take an active role in the plot's progression.

“Body of Proof” offers a different perspective on crime solving that is worth checking out. While it starts slow, it does improve once it moves past the pilot and starts working to the heart of what the characters and the show are really about. If you were considering giving up on “Body of Proof” or were thinking of picking it up, I offer this piece of advice: it does get better, so hang in there. I decided to stick around and have started to see it as a show with a lot of potential.

A First Look at Camelot

For those of you that don’t know me, I spent some time moonlighting as a high school English teacher. So when I heard that Starz was doing a new series about the King Arthur legend, I was rather excited. However, when you are covering a story that has been told so many times, you have to do something new with it to set it apart. I started to think about all the ways I would set a new King Arthur show apart. You could change the time period or setting, tell a more realistic/historically accurate version of the tale, or edit a part of the story to see how the whole would be changed. The new Starz series does none of these things.

Camelot is an almost textbook retelling of the King Arthur legend right from the first episode. After the murder of King Uther Pendragon, his evil witch daughter, Morgan, believes that she will rule England. However, the mysterious Merlin goes in search of Arthur, the secret heir to Uther’s throne. Merlin this time around is played by Joseph Fiennes (FlashForward) and is a carbon copy of any stereotypical wizard you may be familiar with pre-Harry Potter. Although Fiennes’ Merlin doesn’t bring anything new to the table, he is definitely the best in a sea of mediocre actors. Arthur is played by Jamie Campbell Bower, who, interestingly enough, has a small role in the final Harry Potter movie as the wizard Grindalwald. This and a role in Tim Burton’s version of Sweeny Todd are his only acting credits but in the pilot he seems to do a decent job portraying the boy who just had the weight of the world dropped onto his shoulders. The pilot spends most of its time setting up the story, which is unsurprising because even though it’s a well-known story, there is a large cast of characters. Merlin tells Arthur of his birthright and takes him to a ruined city known as Camelot which Merlin hopes to transform into the seat of Arthur’s power. Merlin also reveals that not only is Arthur the son of the king, but his very birth was all a plot orchestrated by Merlin to create a good king. Merlin used magic to allow Arthur’s father to rape the wife of a rival lord, which as strange as it may sound is actually Arthurian canon. Merlin demands the child that was the product of the rape as payment and whisks him away to be raised by good common-folk so he can learn humility and kindness. This entire back story comes off as rather tedious, and unless these past events become more important to the plot I question how necessary all the exposition was. However, the die-hard Arthur fan-boys will be happy to note that the circumstances of Arthur’s birth are textbook, literally from the old French and English stories.

As a pilot, the episode did a good job of setting up the beginning of the story and introducing us to the cast of characters; note that I said introducing and not developing. If Camelot hopes to succeed it has to do more to develop the rest of the characters because at the end of the pilot they still all seem very flat. This is to be expected though with the large amount of plot that had to be set up in the series and I almost admire how they were able to condense the first act of the Arthur story into a single episode. I had high hopes for the rest of the series and was going to readily suggest it until I got to the last couple minutes of the episode. Not to spoil anything, but Starz seems to be taking a note from HBO’s series True Blood. Anyone familiar with True Blood knows that no episode of the show can just end; it needs to have a twist or a death that sets up the next episode. The writers of the show probably call it a cliffhanger ending. I however call it a poor excuse for writing. An episode of television should be self contained and have a beginning, middle, and end. The writers of Camelot, in the pilot at least feel that their first episode was not good enough to keep people coming back so they took the first couple minutes of the second episode, and tacked it onto the first in an effort to keep people coming back next week to see the resolution. As much as I do not like this style of ending, the rest of the forty some odd minutes of the show were good and I will be giving it a tentative spot on my DVR for the first season.


Update:
You should never judge a series by its pilot, which is funny because the point of the pilot is to give the viewer an idea of what the series will be like. As I stated above, the pilot for Camelot was not bad but it certainly was nothing that had me excited. My two biggest complaints were the ending and that nothing had been done to alter or deviate from the classic King Arthur myth. I wanted to see the show put its own touch on the story. It is a good thing I did not post this until the second episode aired because the second episode was amazing and did the job the pilot should have done by getting me really excited for the show. This episode focused mainly on the “sword in the stone” part of the Arthur myth. If you stop a random person on the street and ask them why Arthur was the king of Britain . . . well they will probably just look at you funny because public education does not stress European myths nearly as much as it should in the curriculum. However, if you stop a random person on the street and they happen to be a student of comparative English literature they will tell you that Arthur is king because he pulled the sword from the stone, a legendary feat that could only be done by the rightful king of England. In Camelot’s second episode, Merlin tells Arthur that to win over the people and gain enough support to stand as king he must do something legendary, such as removing the sword of the gods from a stone. Legend says that the sword was placed there by the god Mars and no one has ever been able to remove it. So far, sounds word for word like every other Arthur story, but this time around the stone with a sword in it is not placed in a nice peaceful field where just anyone can tug at it. The sword of Mars is placed in the middle of a river at the peak of a waterfall. This means that just getting to the sword to try to pull it out means climbing up a freaking waterfall. This is what I wanted when I first heard about the series. The classic tale of King Arthur with a twist and if the rest of the series follows then I will happily tune in.

What do you think of the newest take on King Arthur so far? What other shows are you most enjoying? Leave a comment and let us know what you want to hear more about.

Bioware's Dragon Age 2, a.k.a. Dragon Age: Kirkwall Edition

When I say I recently finished Bioware’s “Dragon Age II” (henceforth “DA2”), I don’t mean that I’ve thoroughly explored all of the game’s content. Harking back to the company’s origins as Black Isle Studios, their games have always been so massive that it would take an addict of even greater caliber than I to do every sidequest, create every playable character, and experiment with every combination of allies. But I did complete a game, for better or worse, and reached this installment’s narrative conclusion; again, for better or worse. And while I am not done with DA2 (and given their recent DLC fetish, I doubt Bioware is either), what I have to offer is a resounding “meh.” Is the dialogue system improved? Yes. Is the interfaced streamlined? More or less. Did combat get less clunky? Hell yes. Does it have dragons? Of course, and they’re aged appropriately. Is it a better game than its predecessor, “Dragon Age: Origins” (henceforth “DA:O”) or its expansion, “Awakening”? Meh.

Without framing this entire review as a comparison to DA:O, it’s worth saying that DA2 is a different game in the same series, but might not deserve the title of successor. As I read in another review (I wish I could remember which), the game would have been better framed as a full-sized expansion pack entitled “Dragon Age: Kirkwall” rather than “Dragon Age II.” It feels more like something that goes on in parallel to the first game rather than decisively afterwards. Granted, much more story time passes in DA2; somewhere in the neighborhood of six years compared to DA:O’s handful of months, but the Blight (primary plot device of the first game) has such little effect on Kirkwall (primary location of the second game) that there is very little sense of continuity. It’s not a problem, but anyone expecting a consecutive story akin to Bioware’s “Mass Effect” series will be disappointed. DA2 delivers its own narrative, and well, but it doesn’t maintain strong ties to its predecessor.

Setting DA:O aside (a difficult proposition for some of us), DA:2 stands nicely on its own. Combat is streamlined and fairly idiot-proof at the lowest difficulty setting, although to get the most out of your party you still need to micromanage a fair amount. The tactics configuration has been improved with more useful conditions, especially as it pertains to “cross-class combos,” a new game mechanic that allows a certain class (say, a mage) to induce a certain effect (say, freezing, or ‘brittle’), which can then be exploited by one of the other classes (say, a warrior) to obscene effect (say, damage bonuses north of 600%). However, the tactics sheets still do not have enough ‘slots’ to allow for every circumstance, nor for the obsessive “if-then” needs of anyone who has ever taken a programming class. That said, the constant pausing necessary for safely negotiating most encounters gives you plenty of time to admire your party in action, and the game impresses visually (provided you have the hardware, of which it demands something in the neighborhood of current market average). Encounters can get repetitive, but there’s enough variety in enemy types that you probably won’t notice you’re fighting the same class combinations over and over.

Bioware’s strength across its games has always been the construction of rich worlds, the diverse characters who populate them, and the use of that setting to tell an engaging story. DA2 does not disappoint, delving even more deeply into the universe’s allegory-fraught lore of religion, deviance, and government. The conflict between magic users and the templar knights who would police them for consort with demons is central to the setting and, eventually, the plot, although what was probably meant to be ominous foreshadowing just came across as “gosh, those darned blood mages are at it again.” The game provides diverse and interesting characters with a nice plethora of tactical capabilities, personalities, religious views, and criminal histories. Unlike many of Bioware’s games, however, the companion characters do not necessarily become utterly devoted minions of the player’s character, Hawke. Because of the game’s stationary geography, these characters are instead able to live their lives and pursue their own goals in Kirkwall, which can lead to their temporary or permanent absence from your team, depending on how events play out. My only disappointment here was the reduction in racial diversity among companions. Aside from two elves (a Dalish mage and Tevinter warrior) and a dwarf (the wise-cracking, crossbow-naming Varric), the rest of your friends are regular old humans. I know I said I wouldn’t compare anymore, but it’s worth remembering that though DA:O only had one elf and one dwarf, you could also recruit a qunari, golem, and mabari war dog. Despite a well-written and engrossing sidequest involving an escaped qunari mage, DA2 does not permit the recruitment of the newly-behorned, Qun-quoting warrior-philosophers, though a summonable mabari minion does become available in optional DLC.

Similarly, the fully-voiced Hawke can only be human. Though you can choose to play a male or female of any class, DA2 offers only one real “origin” story, as its predecessor phrased it. Hawke’s family is on the run from their home in Lothering as it is overrun by Darkspawn. You can’t be an elf, because then your family would have to all be elves. Also, think of all those extra voicelines they would have to record, even if they used the same actors for the alternate races, which would be a little absurd. To complement the player character’s voice, “Dragon Age II” exchanges the old-fashioned ‘list o’ sentences’ for the radial conversation wheel from the “Mass Effect” series, adding symbols to help indicate the tone of a particular response (usually choosing between Nice, Funny, and Mean). Traditionalists will feel restricted, but at the end of the day it’s an important improvement for the series.

Briefly, because it’s already been plastered all over Bioware’s boards, and beaten to death from all perceivable sides (you can read more about it on the Dragon Age boards, Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Kotaku, among other sites): it’s worth noting that among the game’s companions, four (excluding the downloadable Sebastian) are susceptible to romantic advances from Hawke. Of these four, all four are available to a Hawke of either gender. I have always supported Bioware’s decision to embrace diverse sexuality among its characters, but this feels like they’ve dug a trench right along the lines of compromise from which they may never emerge. As I mentioned, this is a highly charged issue and not something I’d like to address in depth, but it’s worth knowing about the game and video game culture at large.

The game compartmentalizes its story nicely into acts of a sort, separated by hearty dividers of one to three years. Once you begin the quest that takes you out of a particular act, any unaddressed quest or business in that act becomes unavailable to you (even, as I learned the hard way, if that quest leads to a recruitable companion. Ah, Fenris, I never knew ye). The game is usually pretty good about warning you when this is going to happen, but frequent saving is recommended, as always, in case you accidentally fall down a slippery slope. There’s no appreciable adjustment in difficulty between acts, each of which has its own mini-climax, but the actions of Hawke and his/her companions gradually rise in political profile until you’re splattering blood all over the viscount’s shiny throne room. And then it gets worse. Disappointingly, it would appear that regardless of the “side” you chose in the game’s final conflict, there’s no significant difference in the trials you will face. There are two bosses, and you will face both of them, regardless of whose side you’re on. It’s one of the rare but noticeable parts of the game that smells ever-so-slightly of deleted content, cut in order to finish the game by a deadline.

In all, “Dragon Age II” is definitely worth playing, especially if you’re into the RPG genre but would rather maintain the illusion that you don’t, and never have, played Dungeons & Dragons or any variant thereof. When most games that sell for $60 offer six to twelve hours of single player content, DA2 will keep you antisocial for upwards of forty hours. And that’s if you only play a single character through the game once, which is virtually impossible. We won’t talk about the number of characters I’ve already created, nor how many I have yet to imagine.

Screenfix Summer Movie Preview: Part 1

The summer movie season is upon us and it is important to budget your time and money so that you can get the most out of your summer movie experience. Screenfix is here to give our advice on what movies are going to be worth the grossly inflated ticket price and which you should avoid. We aregoing to take this one week at a time so you can decide which new release to see each weekend.


Starting with April 8th we have Your Highness, Arthur, and Hanna

Ryan: I think for our first week I am most looking forward to Your Highness, the stoner fantasy comedy featuring James Franco and Natalie Portman. I am almost willing to pay the ticket price based solely on those two actors.

Zoe: And Natalie Portman shows her ass. So, yay.....Something about this movie makes me want to see it but since I can’t actually articulate what that thing is, I’m just going to wait for DVD because I’m poor and Scotty’s making me see Arthur.

Ryan: Apparently I need to watch this trailer again. I think this movie has the chance to appeal to the stoner-fantasy nerd crowd, although I am not sure whether it will be mainstream enough to apply to either the non-stoners or non-nerds. This is one of those movies that I did not feel the trailer gave me a good sense of the film so I am going to tentatively give this one a “see in theaters”, but it might turn out to be terrible.

James: Your Highness, in my opinion, looks like it will be everything that the short lived television show Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire could have been (and wished that it was) but unfortunately was not. It looks like a light hearted take on the classic hero’s tale. Also it stars James Franco, whom although I can’t remember seeing him in any movie, I have the opinion that he is a good actor.

Ryan: Arthur on the other hand looks terrible. Though I have not seen Russel Brand in many movies since Forgetting Sarah Marshall, even in that great film I did not think he was very good. I do not really enjoy his rock star brand of humour and this movie is clearly just a vehicle for him to act like a strange man-child. I am going to give this film a thumbs down and will be ignoring it in favor of movies with more explosions and decent acting.

James: Arthur, I assume, is a live action movie about a British anthropomorphic aardvark. Based off of the PBS cartoon. I could be wrong. Although I hope not.

Zoe: They have Arthur on Netflix, I discovered this recently.

Ryan: Moving on . . . to Hanna. I think this has the potential to be an original story. The trailer has not given away much about the plot but it seems to be in the Kick-Ass vein of thought of letting a young girl brutally kill a lot of bad guys.

James: The thing I have to say about Hanna is that I wish that trailer gave more of an indication of what it was actually about. We’re out of teaser trailer time and into the time period where I’m trying to make a decision about going to see it. I think it looks good, but I just have no idea of what it’ll be about.

Zoe: I want to see Hanna but mostly for the same reasons that I don’t want to see Your Highness. So, I apparently am drawn more to murderous little girls than stoners.

Ryan: So on April 8th, what movie are you standing in line for . . .

James: Hanna.

Zoe: Hanna


Ryan: On April 15th, we have Scream 4, Rio, and The Conspirator.

James: Here is my problem with Scream 4. My first reaction when I saw the Scream 4 trailer was that I assumed it was the trailer for the next Scary Movie. It just looked a little too silly for a serious horror film.

Ryan: I think I am going to have to pass on both Scream 4 and the angry birds movie.

Zoe: I think the fact that I walked into Jane Eyre while the trailer for The Conspirator was playing and gasped audibly says it all.


Ryan: April 22nd we have Water for Elephants and Tyler Perry's Madea's Big Happy Family. That basically makes this catch up week. I have no desire to see Robert Pattinson’s latest attempt to act nor will I pay to see a Tyler Perry movie.

James: The answer to the question “What will I be seeing this week” is Rio.


Ryan: Which moves us to April 29th bringing us Fast Five and Prom.

James: I have never seen any of the Fast and Furious movies series. The most interaction that I’ve had with the series was when ads for “Tokyo Drift” were placed into Planet Side, an MMO that I was playing my senior year of high school. Although it does star Vin Diesel, who is hands down the best bald action star ever. Suck it Bruce Willis.

Ryan: I have also not seen any of the Furious movies but I think if you have liked any of them it will be more of the same and the trailer does look really good. Likewise, Prom looks like it will be great for the kids otherwise it might require great amounts of medication to get through.

Zoe: I believe this is the week I will be going to see Arthur.


Ryan: May 6th brings us Thor the first of Marvels summer offerings. I have high hopes for this movie. I think Marvel has invested a great deal into its movie franchises leading up to Avengers. Also, it has Natalie Portman again which basically makes it a must see.

Zoe: Our second Natalie Portman movie of the summer. Honestly, Thor could dance around in a tutu and still be better than the random chick flick being released May 6. And Anthony Hopkins is Odin which is casting gold personified.

James: I’ll disagree and say that I don’t think that the Thor movie looks very good. The trailer made it look kind of cheesy and I’m not really sure how much space the plot has to go with a character who is little more than a god with a big hammer. I’m going to guess that this will end up just being Punisher with a bigger budget.


Ryan: May 13th has Bridesmades and Priest opening. I basically see Bridesmades being The Hangover with chicks. I think girls are going to be turned off by the crude humor and guys won’t like that it because it seems like a chick flick from the title. I would not bank on this movie doing well.

Zoe: Because you all are sexist pigs.

Ryan: James what are your thoughts on Priest?

James: Priest, to me, looks like one of those movies that cannot possibly be as good as the plot sounds. The best example of this that I can give was Matrix-killer Equilibrium. It sounded like a great mix between Fahrenheit 451 and the Matrix. But practically it just can’t work. A futuristic society of religious priests that fight vampires sounds awesome, but in a movie that isn’t an anime, comes off as silly.

Ryan: I am expecting this film to be some crazy cool fights scenes wrapped in a horrible story with terrible acting. If the fight scenes are good enough this could become another Wanted and I won’t care, but most likely I am going to leave the theater disappointed. However, if I can find $9.50 in my couch cushions I’ll probably go see this opening night.

Zoe: I forgot Priest existed until I saw the trailer in front of Sucker Punch, so I will probably be checking this out on DVD unless it totally sucks.


Ryan: May 20th finally brings us the 4th installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean series: the search for more mascara.

James: This will be the best Pirates movie since the original. Basically the concept seemed to be take out all of the bad actors and leave only the good ones. Hopefully Writing will follow in the Casting Department’s footsteps. I’ll see it.

Zoe: There is no way that I’m not going to see this movie. Never mind the fact that it’s the only movie coming out this weekend so I basically have no choice but I really just want to find out what happened to Jack the monkey.

Ryan: Between the 3-D and the Pirates brand name this movie is going to make major bank. I also agree with James that this will see the series stripped down to its roots where watching a drunken pirate prance on screen was still hilarious. I am curious as to whether Penelope Cruz will be helpful or harmful to this movie. I have trouble seeing Jack with a serious love interest, but I am intrigued and will gladly fork over the price of admission.


Ryan: May 27th offers the first real conundrum of the summer movie season as we have The Hangover: Part 2 and Kung Fu Panda 2.

James: I don’t know about you, but I have no conundrum here at all. I’m going to see Kung Fu Panda. I can’t get enough racist asian-animal stereotypes.

Ryan: I did see Hangover and didn’t think it was bad, but I definitely did not like it as much as most people so I am going to be seeing Jack Black’s latest meal ticket with James.

Zoe: I saw Kung Fu Panda and thought it said all it needed to and I didn’t see the Hangover so I will either be forking over the money to see Dreamworks’ latest eyebrow raising adventure or watch a netflix movie on my couch.


That’s our preview for the first half of the summer movie season. We will have our second half up featuring the rest of the films premiering this summer shortly. What films are you most excited for? Let us know in the comments.

Summer Movie Fantasy League

This post will be the first in a series. We're entering Summer Movie season. Look forward to a bunch of posts designed to help you get ready for all the hordes of movies that will be released this summer. Some will be bad, some will be good. We'll help you find out which aren't worth your time and which are worth a first born child.

Ryan and I are both huge fans of Leo Laporte’s brain child “This Week In Tech.” For those of you who don’t know anything about it, I’ll give you a quick run down. Leo Laporte is a tech guy who used to work for TechTV back in the 90s. After TechTV crashed, Leo bopped around for a while and eventually started “This Week In Tech” a radio podcast for him and his friends, all players in the tech industry, to chat about technology each week. It eventually expanded to other shows and quickly became a small network of its own. Now he also records video and live streams many tech events. One of the shows on the TWiT Network is “NSFW”. NSFW features Brian Brushwood, comedian/tech guy/stage magician, and guests shooting the breeze. Something that they did last year and enjoyed enough to bring back this year was the Summer Movie Fantasy League.

Yes, that is exactly what you think it is. Brian and his more regular guests bid on the movies that are coming out this summer and assign a point/dollar value to each movie. Then everyone has a pool of 100 dollars to assemble a “team” of movies. When the box office results are released for each movie it is added to a total. At the end of the summer who ever picked a “team” that grossed the most amount of money wins the league.

Being film buffs Ryan and I sat down and picked our brains and came out with a list. Ultimately his preferred list differed with mine slightly, but it was close enough that I submitted a list to be included in the official NSFW league.

You can find the full list and everyone’s teams here.

If I submitted my form in time, which hopefully I did, it’ll appear on the Chatrealm list way at the bottom under ScreenFix.

Here is my “team”



Source Code (valued at 9 points)
Although I personally am not excited for Source Code it is a solid early summer movie that has a wider appeal than some of the movies on the list. Overall it was a relatively inexpensive way to get a good solid start.


Thor (valued at 23 points)
Its a Marvel super hero movie. It wont be fantastic, but that wont stop people from going to see it in hordes. It was a good chunk of points but I think that the potential payoff is worth it.


Priest (valued at 10 points)
This is in the same category, for me, as Source Code. It is going to be a sleeper. It might not do fantastic, but since its a 3D movie it’ll make bank.


Super 8 (valued at 38 points)
Super 8 cost a lot of points but I think it will more than pay itself back. From what I’ve seen and heard about this film it is going to be phenomenal. It’s the only movie I’m really looking forward to this summer. It looks like J. J. Abrams at the peak of his career and Steven Spielberg getting back to the roots of what used to make his movies great. I think this movie will be the biggest hit of the summer. Hands down.


Zookeeper (valued at 10 points)
A good solid middle of the summer comedy. It was inexpensive and has a lot of potential to pull in some good money.


Smurfs (valued at 8 points)
This is the same as Priest. It’s a classic kids comedy. More importantly its 3D. Twice the ticket cost means that it only has to bring in half of the audience to make the same amount of money. At 8 points it was a responsible buy.


That puts me at a total of 99 points out of 100. I’ll keep everyone updated on how we do.

There’s no wrong way . . . to watch TV

We here at Screenfix watch a lot of TV. I mean a lot. I mean like watching a season of 24 in a single day lot. It used to be there was really only one way to watch your favorite show. You had to tune in at the correct time and sit in front of your television to watch along with the rest of the world. Then came the DVR, and there was much rejoicing as TV fans could record and watch at leisure. Around the same time it became common for many shows to be released as whole seasons on DVD and eventually those DVDs came to be streamed on Netflix and other on demand sources. This created a new wave of viewing as people not only could watch when they wanted, but did not have to wait a week in between episodes as binge viewing rose. We are now seeing a new wave of viewing emerge that I call social viewing. Facebook has identified a desire in entertainment fans to watch something with their friends. To meet this need, they have begun using the Facebook platform to begin renting films for streaming. People often see watching entertainment as a social activity (I think this is insane, but I recognize I am the minority in this situation) and Facebook, Twitter, and other social online services seek to connect people as they watch the same entertainment. In a similar vein, Howard Stern made minor Twitter history when he found that his film Private Parts was being shown on cable and did a live tweeting session along with the film. Many followers tuned in to get a form of live commentary via Twitter. This social viewing has breathed life back into the old model of watching something at a time set by an external force rather than at one’s leisure.

So we have three forms of viewing when it comes to TV: Watching live TV, watching DVR’d programming, and binging on multiple episodes in one sitting. I think everyone in reality watches in some combination of these three, but as I was binging on Bones I realized I became very excited for the third season to unfold because of a season long plot. I felt that if I was watching it week to week there would have been too much time from the beginning to the end of the season for me to stay so invested, but with the power of Netflix I watched through the whole season in just about two days all because I wanted to get from the beginning of the story set up in the first episode to the end that was not resolved until the finale. This got me thinking about the pros and cons of the different ways of watching TV.

Live TV, in my mind, was a horrible thing that deserved to die and I can remember being in my young teens and thinking how dumb it was that I had to sit down at a certain time just to watch the show I wanted to watch. I couldn’t see why shows could not be released on the day they would air and we could watch when we wanted. Essentially, I wanted the internet to bring me my content back when the internet was too young to do so. With that being said, for a long time after the internet could bring me my shows, I never looked back. However, with the rise of the social sphere of the internet watching live TV now puts you in the middle of an audience. Watch Twitter or Facebook during an episode of a popular show like Glee or American Idol and you can find millions of people talking about the show as it is happening. This can be powerful and interesting and very very annoying at times. However, one cannot argue that the only way to benefit from this global conversation is to tune in live. People that need to DVR shows and watch later live in fear of spoilers in their Facebook feeds. In conclusion, I feel that live television is making a comeback and as people develop new ways to connect with one another online, we are going to see more and more people tuning in at primetime to watch with the rest of the world. More importantly these people are going to help the cable industries keep alive the primetime model that has been hurting more and more in the last few years.

The DVR may be the most important invention since the cotton gin. Okay I’m kidding . . . no one cares about the cotton gin. Being able to watch a show when you have free time is great and allows people who are not bound to the slavery of a nine to five work schedule to enjoy primetime programming. Although it lacks the social elements of watching TV live, it still allows a person to tune in week to week and be a part of the global conversation about their favorite show. I like watching a show on a weekly schedule. I feel like most shows are meant to be watched like this and there are several shows that I enjoy, but only in a one episode a week frequency. Specifically procedurals work well in the once a week format. I enjoy a Law & Order: SVU marathon as much as anyone, but sometimes watching a show that follows such a rigid formula can get boring when you watch it back to back and realize the episodes were so similar you can’t tell them apart. Disappointing shows like The Cape were made better by the fact that every week I tuned in hoping that it would be better than last week and if I had just watched the first season straight through I probably would have quit three episodes in. Likewise really great shows make you excited to come back every week and some great tension can be built wondering what is going to happen this week. When the entire season is sitting in front of you it is hard to build the same kind of tension.

However, binging through shows several episodes at a time, after the season has aired can have its own benefits. Once again you are on your schedule and can use the couple days you have the flu or that three day weekend to catch up on the TV you were too busy for during your normal day to day routine. Certain shows that tell a long story can seem a lot tighter and better polished when watched back to back. Lost is a great example of this because every episode sought to be a chapter in a larger story. When a season has a clear beginning, middle, and end it can be helpful, when watching the end, to have the beginning fresh from yesterday as opposed to garbled from six months ago. The famous “last time on . . .” beginning has helped with this slightly but still there are times when watching a whole season as if it was a really long movie can enhance the story. However, because shows are generally made to be watched on a week by week basis more often than not binging does not enhance the show and merely makes for a fun afternoon of catching up. The real advantage of binging comes in one of two situations: The first is when you find out about a show late and want to catch up so you grab the previous season and prep for the next season’s premiere. The second is if you are one of those mythical people with those things referred to as “jobs” or “lives” that do not involve watching several hours of television a day. In the case of these supernatural creatures using holidays and vacations to catch up on old seasons may be the only way they are in a position to speak with people like us.

These are just a few of my opinions and musing on the different ways I think about watching TV. What do you think? Are my three types accurate? Which method do you favor and why? I would love to continue this dialogue because the way we consume our entertainment is something that is very interesting and important to me. So let me know what you think in the comments and as always if you would like to become involved with Screenfix send an email to info.screenfix@gmail.com.

Sucker Punch: Jon Hamm can Lobotomize Me Any Day

Scotty: Sucker Punch is deeply serious and contemplative film about how fantasy affects people's hopes. It can be best described as a true piece of art and will definitely be one of the top contenders for the 2011 Academy Award for Best Picture.

Zoe: Or at least the Oscar for making Bjork sound kinda badass. There will be only one nomination, and she will win.

I’m astounded you didn’t detect my sarcasm there. This says a lot about you, or me.

It starts off with the death of the protagonist's, aptly named Baby Doll (Emily Browning), mother. Her stepfather, enraged at the fact that the mother’s fortune has been bequeathed solely to her two daughter, kills Baby-Doll’s sister and then frames her for the murder. Baby-Doll is sent to an insane asylum and scheduled to receive the ol’ pick in the eye socket in five days. Suddenly, we switch to her fantasy world where the asylum is turned into a cabaret/brothel, the orderly a pimp, the psychiatrist a choreographer and the lobotomy doctor a high priced john. What follows is an overly simplified scheme to escape the brothel with her fellow inmates/patients. The plan mostly consists of Baby-Doll dancing for people, mesmerizing them so that needed items can be stolen. These dances are never seen, but are turned into giant action sequences. Boom! Bang! Skimpy Clothes!

This movie was everything I wanted it to be. Hot girls running around in a post-apocalyptic steampunk world shooting/slicing and dicing WWI Germans (I will refer to them as Nazis because as anyone who has ever read a comic book knows, there are always Nazis) with some plot thrown in to pad. It was a giant video game cut scene and it was fantastic.

Actually, this movie was the closest thing to a live action anime I have ever seen. It had all the key ingredients, school girl outfits, robots, power wind and unnatural hair colors. Also, I thought there was too much plot involved, whenever there was plot it was kinda slow and rather corny. I feel like the movie would of been much better if all the scenes that didn’t have Samurai swords were removed. Because honestly, the plot was kinda dumb.

Also, they were wearing WWI helmets, flying WWI planes, talking about No Man’s Land and referring to the Kaiser, so not Nazis.

It was kind of like One Flew Over the Cookoo’s Nest, Moulin Rouge and Final Fantasy walked into a bar, found Zack Snyder and they all went back to his place for a slow motion four-way. The transition from Moulin Rouge to Nazi Final Fantasy was clear and well enough done, fantasy by way of a sexy dance. But Cookoo to Rouge was not at all, in fact it was pretty much confusing. “Why is everyone suddenly all dolled up, why are they dancing in a mental.....oh....this is.....a dream? Oh well, there will be robots soon.” I’m still not sure what it was supposed to be. The fantasy is supposed to be where they go to escape the real world but it’s more like they escape the mental institution by escaping to the bordello and then escape the bordello through shooting Nazis and Orcs.

WWI soldiers, not Nazis.

Can the orcs be orc-Nazis?

This isn’t LOTR.

They were totally orcs.

But LOTR has the WWII analogy, and in that scene the girls were killing both orcs and humans.

I’m not sure those were humans but I will concede Nazi Germans if you give me WW2 allegory orcs.

Never, there were no Nazis.

One of my biggest problems is that these fellow women she is escaping with are actually patients in this asylum. You don’t really learn much about them outside of the brothel fantasy, so for all we know Baby-Doll could be help a sociopath schizophrenic escape. And don’t say I’m looking way to much into the plot for this type of film. There are some parts where the film focuses way to much on plot and it gets a bit too dark. Otherwise this would of been a really fun, absurd (In a good way) movie, especially under the influence of alcohol. But the ending just ruined it for me. I can’t really explain it without spoilers, however, I'll just say this, the ending ruins the party mood. It would of ended better with a large explosion.

You see then in the real world for like ten minutes at the beginning and ten at the end so you never really invest in the characters. I mean they’re there and they do cool stuff but the world isn’t real so should we really care if anything happens to them? I find it hard to believe that she managed to team up with the four other girls in Asylum also imprisoned against their will. Honestly, I cared more for the baby dragon than for the chick from High School Musical.

Really, if you wanted to see a movie like this but with a serious tone to it, watch The Fall. The female lead is also way cuter.

She’s like seven but that is a super awesome movie.

And she’s adorable. One thing we need to mention is that the music was awesome, even if it was highly ironic the way covers of hippy music was playing during major fight scenes. It was awesome.

The beginning was a little bit like a music video but, like I said, Zack Snyder played Bjork during a fight with giant demonic samurai. He could do no wrong at that point.

So in summary, would you recommend this movie?

If you can go into the movie with pretty much low expectations in the plot department, I would totally recommend it. The fight scenes are so much fun both to look at and to watch and even the bordello has some pretty nice visuals. The acting is pretty good and there are even a few slight surprises. Also, Jon Hamm’s in the movie so there’s your price of admission right there.

I agree, especially on the Hamm part. He is one sexy beast. Other than him, this movie can be fully enjoyable if you take everything with a grain of salt.

They were totally Nazis.