Sooo...Sucker Punch

edited April 2011 in Story Games
Only if you've seen it, please.

a) did you love it, hate it, or have you forgotten it already? There is no middle ground!
and
b) because this is a RPG forum what would you run it with? I know, I know, Rifts. But Rifts doesn't really do honest yet hamm-fisted (ha ha I slay me) feminism. Or how about some arresting skinners and acting under fire, eh?

Anyway, this isn't really serious. I just want other people to run their mouths about it so I can watch.

Comments

  • a) Love it.
    b) No idea. I'd probably go with some Blackbird Pie, Solar System, an AW Hack or something original.

    I like the concept of the film a lot. And even while I did like the movie, I think it did not make justice to the potential it presented.

    The "fantasies within fantasies" as "playable metaphors" is really intriguing to me, and I believe the aesthetic choices made by the director are cool but misleading. It is not to say it is more than what it really is, but if you come to it expecting some particular things you will probably be disappointed and miss the point altogether.
  • Hated it. Total fucking self-indulgent crap that missed the entire point, as much as there can be said to be one, of Japanese animation, which the writer/director said he was trying to emulate.

    System: BESM 1st Ed.
  • A) Implied Rape: The Movie! I could go on about just how terrible the film was. I went in thinking pop-culture mash-up action popcorn fun! I liked 300, as did my radfem friends that I went with. It was fun. Sucker Punch, I don't know. Boring? Offensive? Trite?

    B)Archipelago with a bunch of ADHD 13 year old boys who some reason have read Andrea Dworkin.
  • Hated it

    Couldn't even muster up the courage to be cheesecake. Settled for bloodless violence and sexless titillation.

    The masturbation fantasy of a boring manchild.

  • It was like a 13 year olds fanfic magnum opus got turned into Machinima. I'd call it "Axe Cop, the movie" but that would imply that wasn't boring. It's probably best experienced as a series of screen caps of the best images by someone with the patience to sit through the whole thing again. My reaction is best described as one of vague annoyance. Good soundtrack through.

    The only game system that can truly recreate this experience is of course SPULTURATORAH!
  • Loved the shit out of it. There were a lot of things happening there on a lot of levels. And you had to pay attention.

    AW hack. Buffy or another Cinematic Unisystem. PTA.
  • I loved it but I can see why so many people hated it.

    I'd play it with Exalted. Hell, I have already, more or less.
  • Posted By: Tulpabloodless violence and sexless titillation.
    Holy shit, it's Twilight for men!
  • I wanted to like it, but most of it was pretty damn bad. I loved the action sequences and the music though.

    I'd play it with the only system that truly captures the invincible protagonists, terrible plot, and bad movie origins:

    The Ultraviolet RPG
  • I hated it. The end of movies. Wushu. I hate Wushu too. :P
  • Hey, so what's cool about this movie? (I haven't seen it.)
  • Posted By: Paul T.Hey, so what's cool about this movie? (I haven't seen it.)
    Interesting question. i didn't like the movie, but i *know* what's cool: the fight scenes are incredibly over-the-top (hong kong action meets final fantasy meets Dungeons: The Dragoning, and they all merge into a howling, composite super-robot), and cycle through all the settings and baddies you can actually dream of (steam-powered zombie nazis, zeppelins, dragons, giant robotic samurais, orks, cyborgs), and the home team is composed of absolutely gorgeous girls. Per se, the "action" part of the movie is some veeeery well-made eye candy, successfully combining most popular meme/tropes that gamers, comic fans and "internet people" in general love. pumped up with some interesting remakes of really cool songs (there's White Rabbit by Jefferson Airplane, there's Queen, and much more).

    Also, the "non-action" parts of the movie are set into a double scenery: it is both a mental asylum and a brothel, and characters shift accordingly, while retaining their core elements. when the settin shifts, the photography changes with it (lush warm colors in the brothel, green and greys in the asylum). this, in itself, is very cool, and could have become a very solid pillar for the screenplay: it may not have been used to its full potential, i think.

    There's an interesting plot twist in the end also, which in retrospect is very cool (some random guy spoilered it to me during the break, though).

    what i DIDN'T like? the game felt rigged: the interesting elements were all set to push the story to the action moments, and almost nothing more.
  • If you look at it not as "a wacked out action sequence" but as "a conflict that just happens to be represented to one person mentally as this action sequence" does it make more sense?

    I mean, a lot of Story Games folks don't have any problem at all with the idea that, for instance, "in game [X] in each scene you push toward a conflict, and the scene ends when the conflict is resolved".

    The action sequences are metaphorical.
  • I'm interested to hear that some people liked it, and why (other than "liking" it because they wanted to see a "so bad its good" movie) because nothing about this film looked appealing.

    I felt like it was trying to capitalize on all the tropes internet/gamer folks love for the sake of taking their money, not because anyone making the film/in the film actually digs those things.
    But I got all that from the preview, so I suppose I shouldn't hate without viewing (the exception to that rule: Twilight. Don't need to see it to hate it with a fiery, fiery passion).
  • Posted By: Chris GoodwinIf you look at it not as "a wacked out action sequence" but as "a conflict that just happens to be represented to one person mentally as this action sequence" does it make more sense?

    I mean, a lot of Story Games folks don't have any problem at all with the idea that, for instance, "in game [X] in each scene you push toward a conflict, and the scene ends when the conflict is resolved".

    The action sequences are metaphorical.
    i'm prety sure that's what it is intended to mean, and also, i loved some works that do similar things (Scott Pilgrim, for example). but for such a thing to work, the wacked ut sequence must serve the conflict, the goal, the theme. Here, i really felt everything was laid out to serve the wacked out sequence, just to give a reason for it to be there.the real interest still lied in defeating steam-powered nazi zombies with katanas and silver-plated desert eagles with hello kitty dangles, not in following the struggle of some girls towards freedom.
  • edited April 2011
    From the original choices, I'd say I've already forgotten it, especially if we're talking from a gaming perspective. Whenever I see a movie like this, I think, "What can learn from this and bring into my games?" and sadly, don't think Sucker Punch provided anything new, or even new combinations of old ideas.

    "But the action scenes!" shouts the fanboy. Yes, they were entertaining and well done, but were the novel? I already thought undead steam Nazis, mechs, train heists, and giant samurai were cool. (For that last one in particular: take a look at Brazil.) Mission-based play is a no-brainer for this crowd. And at this point, I think it's more original when the zeppelins don't blow up.

    "But all the levels of reality!" yells the other fanboy (dressed like a hipster). Again, interesting, but not new. There's no need to name a bunch of other films here that do this better; it suffices to say I wanted Sucker Punch to go deeper. The "playable metaphors" Tristan mentioned above were a valiant attempt to go in a new direction, but even that wasn't particularly innovative if we look a little further afield. I already understood the appeal of metaphoric battles from Scott Pilgrim (the comics, not so much the movie), and the connections between the levels in Sucker Punch were just too heavy-handed: "Oh, Babydoll is swaying again. I guess it's time for an action scene."

    I think there's a good movie somewhere in Sucker Punch, but drawing it out would have required some very different choices along the way. The biggest of these would have been to expect more of the audience; if the film had traded the slo-mo intro for occasional flashbacks, thrown us into the action, and woven the levels of reality together without making it so obvious how they related, it could have been a much more rewarding experience.

    Edit: Oh, and as for what system: Wushu for the action world, A Dirty World (ORE) for the brothel, and GURPS (or something equally depressing) for the asylum, combined via John Wick's The Flux.
  • edited April 2011
    Lemme get back to my own thread.

    A) Here's the thing: I think Sucker Punch is a pretty bad movie. But I don't think for any of the reasons listed in this thread. And I loved it.

    Not even in an ironic "so bad it's good" way, that's completely different. The reason why I love it is buried in this thread.

    Show me another movie that compells people to say it's a) trying to be masturbatory but failing, b) masturbatory material, c) influenced by anti-masturbatory theory? That's so many contradictions at once I don't even have enough fingers to count them on.

    I went to rottentomatoes and saw the word "erotic" pasted over a lot of the reviews and it made me laugh. I don't know how anyone could watch this movie the whole way through and call it "erotic". I also think the movie is a lot smarter that a lot of reviewers are willing to admit or managed to notice*. But it's also not nearly smart enough to redeem itself fully. (*I need to constantly remind myself I live in a world where people needed charts and diagrams to understand Inception.)

    Bottom line: The movie has two opposing agendas that constantly invalidate and undermine one another and yet manages to keep them in line until the very last frame of the movie. And that's why I love it.

    To put it differently: as Nathan said, it's kinda like watching a bunch of 13 year olds play a game after they've read Andrea Dworking. You cannot but feel a certain patronizing contempt for them. But they're 13 year olds who've read Andrea Dworkin. And you cannot but feel a certain pride at that. (Let's forget for a moment that Zack is not actually 13 years old). I sat through the whole movie with a smirk on my face that I myself was not sure was expressing amused mockery or reserved glee. It's an endlessly contradicting picture.

    It is tempting to say it's possibly the first completely postmodern movie I've seen. Not at all in its philistine plundering and collaging of music and imagery, but in its complete pluralism of meaning - not in the traditional sense that it leaves room for interpretation (lots of movies do) but in the way it interprets itself against itself.

    B) The game suggestions are interesting, because they show how differently we watched the movie. Frex, I would have never thought of BESM, because I never saw the anime connection (beyond a fleeting nod in the samurai sequence). I certainly didn't expect or find it to be relevant to the movie at all.
    I find Ultraviolet fails because the protagonists of Sucker Punch are definitely not invincible. In fact they all die.
    I also think GURPS is exactly wrong for the asylum. There's absolutely nothing there that would have been in any way supported or enhanced by GURPS' extensive skill lists or its "gritty realistic simulation" resolution. That whole bit of the movie was really a big conflict resolution exchange.



    Oh, and an absolutely pointless nitpick: those weren't nazis. It was WW1.
  • Posted By: Chris GoodwinIf you look at it not as "a wacked out action sequence" but as "a conflict that just happens to be represented to one person mentally as this action sequence" does it make more sense?

    I mean, a lot of Story Games folks don't have any problem at all with the idea that, for instance, "in game [X] in each scene you push toward a conflict, and the scene ends when the conflict is resolved".

    The action sequences are metaphorical.
    That's it. That is what is the coolest thing about the movie. And yes...
    Posted By: Albi_SGthe game felt rigged: the interesting elements were all set to push the story to the action moments, and almost nothing more.
    I have the feeling that it would have been better if it was a longer film. Some things felt rushed. The concepts are there, but they do not reach the peak potential they might have.

    (I blame the director's inexperience.)

    And that is why I said I believe the aesthetic choices made by the director are cool but misleading. As in "look! Pop culture references! Manga! Videogames! Oh, wait, this action movie sucks."

    Because the core, the really cool stuff, is buried under all that sugar coating.

    (And people complain about movies like this one being shallow...)
  • The movie was titled sucker punch.
  • Posted By: TeataineA) Here's the thing: I think Sucker Punch is a pretty bad movie. But I don't think for any of the reasons listed in this thread. And I loved it.

    Not even in an ironic "so bad it's good" way, that's completely different. The reason why I love it is buried in this thread.

    Show me another movie that compells people to say it's a) trying to be masturbatory but failing, b) masturbatory material, c) influenced by anti-masturbatory theory? That's so many contradictions at once I don't even have enough fingers to count them on.

    I went to rottentomatoes and saw the word "erotic" pasted over a lot of the reviews and it made me laugh. I don't know how anyone could watch this movie the whole way through and call it "erotic". I also think the movie is a lot smarter that a lot of reviewers are willing to admit or managed to notice*. But it's also not nearly smart enough to redeem itself fully. (*I need to constantly remind myself I live in a world where people needed charts and diagrams to understand Inception.)

    Bottom line: The movie has two opposing agendas that constantly invalidate and undermine one another and yet manages to keep them in line until the very last frame of the movie. And that's why I love it.
    (My emphasis.)

    I agree.

    You see, the thing is I feel that one of those opposing agendas is not as obvious as it appears. And I mean the "faux titillating" one.

    You watch all that over fetichized fan service, pop culture pastiches and pretty girls in sexist outfits, and most people simply roll their eyes and say: "Hey! They did it for the money.

    However, if you read all that as ironic humor instead of hypocrisy, the movie seems a lot different.

    Sure, they contradict each other. But you are supposed to take one seriously and the other one purely as color.

    Most people didn't get that. (At the very least, most critics and reviewers didn't.) "Smarter than most admit, yet not nearly smart enough to redeem itself" indeed.
  • What would you tell someone who hated -- and I mean hated -- the frenetic metaphorical videogame sequences in Scott Pilgrim? Is Sucker Punch the same only moreso? I haven't seen it, and frankly the trailer has that whole "if everything is awesome then nothing is awesome, forever" vibe I'm dreading, but I liked the director's other stuff. So I'm conflicted.
  • Posted By: TristanHowever, if you readall thatas ironic humor instead of hypocrisy, the movie seems a lot different.
    I wouldn't call it ironic. I know Zack loves Heavy Metal and I'm pretty sure this was also a honest, passionate homage to it. That's part of the contradiction.

    But it was definitely delivered with a wink and a smile. The context, the parenthesis between which the so called action scenes happen, is everything. The movie lampshaded the fact several times. You don't even have to dig for it, it's right there on the surface. It's not a deep movie, which isn't to say it's all eye candy either.

    It's neither a feminist statement (a female reviewer labeled the movie as straight up misandry) nor a nerd wank. It's both, which I find incredibly...interesting? The question whether or not it works as a movie is secondary to me. It is certainly not an achievement in filmmaking.
  • Posted By: TeataineI wouldn't call it ironic. I know Zack loves Heavy Metal and I'm pretty sure this was also a honest, passionate homage to it. That's part of the contradiction.
    I meant "ironic" exactly as "a wink and a smile". Not as a mockery, but as a slightly cartoonish tribute. And that rocks!
  • Posted By: Tristanresolution
    I can see where the wink is, but it can't save the movie by itself, i think.

    Anyway, i think that, as far as definitions for this movie go, we have a total winner:

    Posted By: Paul B"if everything is awesome then nothing is awesome, forever"
    Paul B, you got it 100%. which is funny, as you haven't seen it. i don't know what to answer you about scott pilgrim, though: were you talking about the comic or the movie?
  • Oh yeah... the only cool thing about the movie was that it was sort of like Heavy Metal, which was far better because, and only because, it was far more crass. Sucker Punch I think can be fairly described as puerile, and it would of worked better if the darker side of its 13-year old boy fetishism would have been allowed to hold its head up (namely, more blood and more boobs, more thrash), not because I like these things in and of themselves, but I thought the whole thing was so silly and yet trying so hard to take itself seriously.

    As far as anything we could learn from it for gaming. I actually liked the opening. It was succinct and effective while at the same time almost entirely visual. I wish the whole movie would have continued along those lines.
  • Now, I wonder who different the film would have been if the studio / Zach was okay with a R or 18+ rating of some kind. I know they cut scenes to get the rating they had. Maybe, the problem is the limits and not the content.
  • Posted By: TeataineI also think GURPS is exactly wrong for the asylum. There's absolutely nothing there that would have been in any way supported or enhanced by GURPS' extensive skill lists or its "gritty realistic simulation" resolution.
    You're right about this Gregor, though in my defense, that was supposed to be a little joke; it wasn't just GURPS, but "GURPS (or something equally depressing)..."
    Oh, and an absolutely pointless nitpick: those weren't nazis. It was WW1.
    All three clauses there are exactly correct, sir. My apologies.
    Posted By: Paul BWhat would you tell someone who hated -- and I meanhated-- the frenetic metaphorical videogame sequences in Scott Pilgrim? Is Sucker Punch the same only moreso? I haven't seen it, and frankly the trailer has that whole "if everything is awesome then nothing is awesome, forever" vibe I'm dreading, but I liked the director's other stuff. So I'm conflicted.
    I'm with Albi on this one, Paul: you've got Sucker Punch pegged. You might be giving the Scott Pilgrim movie too much credit if you thought the videogame sequences there were supposed to be metaphorical like in the comic, but that's probably beside the point. If you hated those, you'll loath the ones in Sucker Punch.
  • I'm not going to lie, the little boy inside me loved Sucker Punch. I didn't analyze, just stared giddily engrossed at the scene. I don't really care what that says about me other than I totally dig mecha and WW1 trenches and giant demon samurai. And I do!

    I'd play it with a Ghost/Echo type system for conflict (except even if you succeed fully, you still give up something), and some kind of chase mechanic to measure reaching a goal (escape, physically or mentally).
  • I was hoping that Suckerpunch by the Wildhearts would be on the soundtrack. It isn't. I'm not going to see the film.
  • Yeah, I was talking about the Scott Pilgrim movie.

    Looks like I'll be waiting for Sucker Punch to show up on Netflix streaming. Thanks guys!
  • Loved it. But when I go to movies for special effects and eye candy, that's what I appraise the movie on. I wasn't going for story, that was just a nice little added bonus to put the effects into context.

    I'l admit that there were a few things I'd like to have seen differently. My wife agreed that it might have been nice to see each of the objectives used to showcase a specific girl's fantasy/escapism, using each girl as the dominant heroine in a specific sequence...(that'd be more interesting as an RPG as well)
    Posted By: Erik_BattleI'd play it with a Ghost/Echo type system for conflict (except even if you succeed fully, you still give up something), and some kind of chase mechanic to measure reaching a goal (escape, physically or mentally).
    For this very reason, I'm going to be adapting my FUBAR game for a SuckerPunch session...since it was based generally on Ghost/Echo (with every action having a chance of success, a potential sacrifice and some kind of story twist), and has a built in goal chasing mechanism.
  • edited April 2011
    Overused slow-mo and handheld cam.

    The action scenes got weaker as they went on - the samurai one was great, the WW1 was good, the dragon one was OK and the train one was boring.

    I think thats because each one had more mooks and less significant NPCs. The train had 100% mooks.

    I thought it was an OK movie, I was moderately entertained.

    I did come away with some great insights for my game though, in terms of policies for combat scenes, so it was well worth the price of admission. very timely.

    Oh, and the way Ive heard Wushu described would be a good game to play this movie with.
  • I think it was good-looking and kind of pointless. The action scenes were mostly gorgeous, everything else was boring, the acting substandard and the main character not very cute at all.

    However, I think it does show potential as a game. I'd use Bliss Stage. High-powered combat scenes in a fantasy world, with more dull real world scenes in between? Hell yes!
  • Posted By: Albi_SG
    ...i loved some works that do similar things (Scott Pilgrim, for example). but for such a thing to work, the wacked ut sequence must serve the conflict, the goal, the theme. Here, i really felt everything was laid out to serve the wacked out sequence, just to give a reason for it to be there.the real interest still lied in defeating steam-powered nazi zombies with katanas and silver-plated desert eagles with hello kitty dangles, not in following the struggle of some girls towards freedom.
    My feelings exactly. I loved the first music video - er, fight scene, I was really wowed by it. But then as it become obvious that each subsequent fight scene was not in any way connected to the story, I started to find them boring. And when a film can make a fight between steam-powered WW1 german zombies and mechas boring, it's failed on a truly amazing level. If I hadn't been trapped in the cinema (miles from home, relying on someone else for a lift), I'd have walked out bored. As it is, I watched it hoping there'd be something to salvage from it, but increasingly, it becaome obvious that the film thought it was much clever than it actually was. The fight scenes were introduced with obvious video-game style objectives, so ridiculous that you'd laugh if you experienced them in an actual video game, and the voice-over narration revealing insight into humanity, bla bla, was incredibly cringeworthy, worthy only for writing on the most schmaltzy hallmark cards.

    Regarding the supposed female empowerment. This was a film in which a girl was imprisonon in an asylum, and to escape from it, imagined herself imprisoned in a whorehouse where she danced for men. Then, to escape the actual sex, she imagined herself fighting bizarre video game battles. Female empowerment? I don't think so.

    No, I was not a fan, and the things it tries to do have been done much better elsewhere - except for the action scenes. I'd love to see a film that took those action scenes, and made a film where they were actually grounded in the story and characters, so that I could care about them.

    Worst film I've seen since Mortal Kombat.
  • A> I liked this film. I liked how it combined wildly different genres in the visuals and was using this as backdrop to work out conflicts in 'reality'.

    Now, there have been some comments on the 'dream' sequences. My own take on this is that it is a bit of social comment on the 'game' industry that has been having women in bouncy leather and spandex from games like Street Fighter to Lara Croft to City of Heroes to whatever is latest to be released this week. Gravity and genre defying moves and events with women is a cultural way of life for some people. It makes game companies big money. It is all escapism and it shows 'Babydoll' fighting back in the only way she can in a society that controls what is 'beauty', what is 'allowed', and exploits her for their own desires (men are the villians from the Step Father to the Assistant). Babydoll has no 'voice' in the beginning of the movie and discovers her 'voice' during the movie through the Therapist who treats her and the other girls. The bus driver is the only male figure shown to treat a woman decently in the movie which shows there is a possibility for change.

    All and all, that is some pretty heavy social commentary on life and society wrapped up inside of what appears to be a fluff piece.

    B> Game wise, I'd go with something that has an end game mechanic. These are throw away characters. After you have completed the story of the asylum, you're not going to 'continue' the story. The end story of each of the characters is the 'important' part of the game.

    The game has a series of 'quests' for objects. The objects don't matter as they are really just 'colour' items and the group of players could choose any five things they wanted and those would be the 'significant' items in the story.

    The same goes for the various 'villains' of the story. You could choose any five figures as long as they represent 'sleazy' men for the villains of the story. They are really just symbols of the society that oppresses the women in the story and usually treat them as sexual items to own, rule, and possess.

    The focus of the story is on the characters relationship to each other. There is a great amount of battle between trust and distrust between the characters. This is the core battle of the game. Events in the battles are used to alter these relationships. If things go well then they are more likely to work together and trust more and if things go poorly then there is more likely going to be a lack of trust which will make it harder to succeed in later conflicts.

    The players also go through separation and isolation points where betrayals occur. A player that you might trust could actually be working for the Asylum.

    The 'dream' sequences are just a vehicle and allow the players to have a quick 'play' point to break up the 'trust-betrayal' the success on these moments also effects the 'end story' of the various characters.

    Based on the above information, I'd use something like 'The Mountain Witch' to represent the story. The 'abilities' are the various 'weapons' the player has for their dream sequence. The dream sequences are the various 'chapters' of story. Each player has a 'conflict' to get through the challenge and the players can choose to co-operate or go alone.
  • Hated it. My twitter review was something like "a trifecta of offensive trivilizations of mental illness, abuse of mental patients, and rape." I guess some blame can be laid at the door of the motion picture ratings board in the USA, an evil, stupid star chamber if ever there was one. (See This Film Has Not Been Rated if you'd like to see its raw idiocy exposed.)

    I suppose it could work as an RPG though; often terrible stories make perfectly fine RPGs. Not sure how you'd handle the basically zero-risk fight sequences though; they made me yawn. Breathless, 13-year-olds' freeform seems pretty apt to me.
  • edited April 2011
    So despite multiple repeated warning to not see this, I finally saw Sucker Punch. :-(

    I hated it but, weirdly, two days later I'm still gnawing on why I hated it. My initial take is that it is multiple layers of irony wrapped up in postmodernism, deep-fried in pandering and then splattered with jizz. But the further I got from it, the more I wondered, "Is this a commentary about pandering?" Sort of in the same vein as Inglorious Basterds' commentary about movie violence. Is Snynder the next Tarantino?

    As for the second question: I'd go with 3:16, with custom tables for rolling up gonzo combinations of shit that have absolutely no bearing on the events, setting details or emotional state of the main characters as they exist outside the combat sequences.
  • Posted By: Paul BMy initial take is that it is multiple layers of irony wrapped up in postmodernism, deep-fried in pandering and then splattered with jizz.
    This is a better description of Ichi the Killer.
    But the further I got from it, the more I wondered, "Is this a commentary about pandering?" Sort of in the same vein as Inglorious Basterds' commentary about movie violence. Is Snynder the next Tarantino?
    Definitely not. There's not a single moment that treats pandering as anything but an end in itself, and J B Bell is right on that it trivialized every bit of the subject matter. (and like I said earlier, it even fails to pander. At least Heavy Metal had sex and violence in it.)
  • The trailer looked so absolutely retarded to me that I haven't watched the movie. Seriously, I don't think there's any message in the movie: just from the trailer you see that is design-by-marketing-committee, so the suits have made some studies and asked: "What would make all the nerds in the world run to the theaters and throw money at a movie?" and they crossed off things of a checklist. The only message here could be "Give us your money so we can keep doing retarded films full of cliches and slow-mo fights, the promise of tits and ass and nothign more."

    And that is just from watching the trailer. You have to try really hard so your movie looks so soulless in a trailer.

    System: I would not play such a game, so I'll pass. Life is too short to play The Retardedest Mix of Geek Fantasies, ed X,Y.
  • In my own defense, my niece's boyfriend did the creature design, which is why I went, and he's very, very good. Someday they'll put him on a movie that isn't otherwise a giant ball of suck. He also did the critters for Clash of the Titans.
  • edited April 2011
    I loved the movie intensely. It was about three different genres and stories wrapped up in a whole that made it work. As I male I can actually say I did not find it "Sexy" at all. Yes, it had many beautiful women, often wearing very little. But, that, at least for me, does not make something sexy.

    As for a game, this would be awesome. I think something like OcTane would work well, or Wushu.
  • I think it's fun how the movie turns the audience, waiting for the next action scene, into just the same voyeurs as the men watching Babydoll dancing.
Sign In or Register to comment.