The Big Picture: You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part One

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

I have one MAJOR issue with Movie Bob's piece.

He talks about the brothel as a metaphor/fantasy for what's happening in the real world, and then another metaphor/fantasy for the "striptease".

But these fantasies are obviously escapes that Babydoll has chosen ON HER OWN. She decided to make her imprisonment a Bordello, and her sexual abuse actually a heroic battle.

In this respect, it seems utterly incongruous to believe that the action scenes are merely a negative metaphor for what those men are doing; that somehow, we the (obviously male(!?)) audience are being criticized for being entertained by her fantasy. She elected to change her own perception of reality to make HER the action hero, who succeeds, and the lives of her friends have meaning even in their deaths.

This is highlighted by the fact that the real sexual abuse into fantasy heroic battle is an enormously different environment. And guess what? Your dismissal that the metaphor here is just muddled covers for the fact that there ISN'T ONE. It's just her escapist fantasy!

To me, this makes the entire film about how escaping your own reality with fantasy (yes, even the geeky kind with sexy "fetishy" outfits) is redemptive, and how turning what is horrible and ugly in the real world into something beautiful and sexy is actually a ~woman's fantasy~.

The men in the film didn't fantasize about the girls being sexy heroines, they fantasized about them being .. well something far more icky. To me, it appears the director is showing that the action scenes are a "girl's power fantasies", and really an acceptable response to a life where her sexuality is a danger and exploitable resource.

That a select group of males have made these female power fantasies into their own fantasy is, I believe, entirely beside the point. If you *honestly* disagree, please go to any Cosplay event, ever. You'll see girls dressed in school uniforms wielding samurai swords. They will not be doing it for men.

Gotta say most of the films double metaphor flew over my head in regards to the misogynist part
I knew it was about warping reality, in order to cover up abuse, into one where the women were empowered but I just thought the fetish outfits were merely there to tie into the anime crowd rather than being a direct criticism of them.

Can't say that the action sequences dressed as they are were not a big part of why I saw that film. I don't really seem to mind now that it's been pointed out to me though and I knew it would be darker than it appeared but up until now I just assumed it was le fem inception. Also I can never take messages along the lines of men watching strippers are truly worse than Hitler.

see whats wierd about that is that i thought it was a good movie without getting that final layer bob was tlaking about. completely missed the fact that this movie seems to have bombed tho, box-office wise which is kinda sad - lookin forward to the second half.

Oh, so the movie is "You're an arsehole" for it's run time?

Glad I dodged that bullet then. Hell, I don't like the asshole mirror application in games/movies where you are not capable for your being an arsehole (for example; MGS 2, really, letting Solidus get what he needed would have saved everyone a LOT of grief) so being paid to be told I'm an ass is not what I conciser a good time.

Hm I don't know why Movie Bob is such a big fan of this movie...
YES it has a good idea and the core message is ok, but seriously, I don't see where there is anything not to "get"? The thing I did NOT like about it is that the movie hammers its message into your face the whole time, there's no subtlety at all. Actually, that's what makes it kind of cheap and silly.
Second problem i had: none of the main characters are likeable (at least not for me). I cannot feel immersion or drama in a movie if it is about some unsympathetic girl that has the personality of a piece of wood...

Anyhow, Movie Bob is still one of the most awesome people out there who almost every time hits the right notes and knows what he's talking about in both his movie critics and his big pictures! I'm a big fan :-)

IamLEAM1983:
Lots of surprisingly relevant things you should probably read.

I loved it,I got it on the first viewing, and I went to see it because I'd heard here and there that the film had a bit more to it than first met the eye.

It's cluttered, it's overly flashy, it has fairly poor characterisation for the most part and it mocks the audience to its face.

Yeah. You should see it.

i really like this movie. it was special and in my opinion, clever made. i got the dvd when it came out. extended cut version...?? dint see it besides on blueray.
anyway, i watched it with my wife in the cinema and i think she dint really get it. but i rather think she wasnt particularly fond of it because these girls can kick ass wile my wife doesnt even know how to kill a fly.

if people seriously saw it as a misogynist movie, then they really dint get it. i find it good that females can do the same things as men. especially pretty once :)

Nah, we got it. Essentially, we understood the meaning and what the movie was trying to do in it's portray of the characters and stuff. It's just that it was booring, and use one of my most hated modern tropes, the lobotomised girl. It's the very reason I also disliked Dollhouse.

It's meant to show how evil men are in that they will even sexualize a woman who has no memory or ability to defend herself... But even in this the male staff are the ones who speak out first in the movie, so this idea then gets focused onto the one bad guy and subverts the whole men as assholes meaning.

Dollhouse... does a waaaay better job at doing what this movie was trying to do and even then it's pretty lackluster. The thing that makes it better is Adelle who is a badass and powerful woman who takes very little crap.

Anyway getting off topic. If it were trying to essentially send that sort of a feminist message it totally wimps out at the ending where the focus shifts to that one character. Sure you could say that he was a personification of nerd culture, but it's pretty clear that there are other men who behave in the opposite way.

JesuOtaku, Nostalgia Critic, Film Brain and Bennett the Sage from That Guy With the Glasses respectfully disagree with you, Bob:

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/fbv/bmbe/34445-bad-movie-beatdown-sucker-punch

I didn't hate Sucker Punch for its feminist/misogyny angle, whether or not that existed; I hated it for its absolute narrative incoherence, poor acting, lack of character development and how it failed to strike the right tone.

Even ignoring the blatantly mysogynistic stuff, the movie is boring. There's no tension because it's all imaginary. From the very first fight the action scenes become dull, drably tinted filler because nobody involved is in any danger. No matter how impressive the visuals were (meh) the movie failed on it's core premise because the exciting parts lacked any excitement. The movie about people's imaginations couldn't hold suspension of disbelief beyond the first fight scene and that's terrible.

Bob, keep on digging that hole. Yes, we all get it (although I'm not the audience for watching this for masturbatory material but more for the genre-pandering worlds they were trying to create with no reason like a music video). You can't just be the bigger man and see why most people can excuse your opinion for this one movie and still watch your reviews because opinions and all that, but you have to actively troll them and make this your mission. You comparing this to Starship Trooper is hyperbole, no one will think of this movie's badly executed genre subversion because many exploitation movies have done this route and still they're just bad films. Sucker Punch from top to bottom, is a bad film with a badly executed message THAT WE ALL GET.

gardian06:

obedai:
My main problem with this movie is that the action scenes aren't integrated well into the movie. The movie makes its artistic statement reasonably well, but the action scenes feel completely pointless and tacked on because there is no reason for them to be there in the plot of the movie. The action scenes cut away from the characters and plot to essentially go 'whee explosions' for a few minutes so that it can make its artistic statement.

Really. go look up Schizophrenia (not on Wikipedia, but in DSM).

so by them inter-splicing the action scenes as tacked-on they are simply depicting a schizophrenic episode, and it actually serves the point of seeing the events through the eyes of a schizophrenic, and with that being the plot those inter-splices are the point. then that is used to prove the sucker punch aspect. So yah that actually makes it work on a higher level.

You're thinking of PTSD, not schizophrenia. There's nothing about schizophrenia in this. There are no delusions or hallucinations any character gets. Not at any point of the movie does Babydoll confuse which reality she's in. You can't have a hallucination when you've closed your eyes, which she does for every dance. She doesn't have delusions that there's some mad conspiracy against her or other irrational beliefs.

If you want a movie about schizophrenia, go watch Take Shelter (the best movie of last year).

image

OK this has bothered me for the longest time. I have a few points about why even if it IS a good film, it's not.

Marketing. When I saw the marketing for this film I thought it was going to be like Dead Or Alive or any of those boob fighting films. It didn't help that Zack Snyder himself was saying that he wanted to make a fun Anime style film and the cast were all talking about the costumes and the fighting. The press photos were all sexy ladies and fighting. I thought "ah ok not for me but yeah 95% of comic books fans would like this" The marketing was incredibly focused on these aspects. Just so we are clear. The Director often has a pretty big input into the marketing and in Zack Snyders case I would bet a years pay to a dozen doughnuts he was.

Snyders previous dealings with sex.
In 300 the comic the scene with the oracle was surprisingly tame (for a Frank Miller comic anyway) In the movie it was a dreamy 30 second peep show. For some reason the oracle also featured in some marketing. In the comic Silk Spectre hated her outfit (which was tamer, Some of the marketing for the film focused on how sexy her outfit was) and walked around like a bitter veteren showgirl. The sex scene on the blimp was romantic and quite tame (have you ever read Alan Moore!?) In the movie it was softcore porn. Compare that to a similar scene in the movie Super which does a much better job at highlighting the sexual fetish involved in wearing costumes. (Also who thought a sex scene with Ellen Page could be the least sexiest thing ever?) This guy is all about making teenagers happy.

How the movie is shot.
This for me is the clincher on moviebobs argument. All the girls look hot all the time. If in the supposed reality of the movie they had body hair, were not as toned skinny/fat like a girl in reality would be at the movies time frame. I might have bought it when they go into fantasy land and turned into comic book playboy models. They are unashamedly sexualised throughout, through a modern lens. Lit and graded to meet textbook beauty standard I found it totally distasteful and disliked the girls the second I saw them cos they looked like they were on a fashion shoot for a perfume ad and did not look real. Compare that to a show like Deadwood where the prostitutes look like death and you actually understand the misery their life is.

The guy argument.
Yeah I don't buy this either. The guys are sleazy horrible guys, but shy nerdy guys see themselves as nice guys who just never seem to get the girl and want to save nice girls from horrible guys. I saw the audience projecting themselves into it thinking "It's ok Baby-Doll I'm not like him, I have feelings!" And the other half of the guys wanting to be the empowered sleazeballs being taken advantage of because there is sure as shit a market for that too.

I see what you are trying to say moviebob, but for me it's like taking a MacDonald's hamburger and showing how it actually IS better than a Mom and Pop diner burger. At the end of the day that burger is marketed and produced in the most cynical way possible. I think it's cool you have such an interesting perspective on this film. I just don't buy it. Maybe I am too cynical but I just don't buy the film was being that subtle.

edit- I have pages and pages more but I think my TLDR is The film didn't give enough reason to totally buy Bob's defence

the ironic thing is they get "suckerpunched" them selves because most people who saw the film more then likely pirate copied it so thats just lovely xD

Storm Dragon:
I liked this movie overall, but my biggest problem with it was the ending.

I quite liked that ending.
I loved the film, then I watched the directors cut and fuck, I hated it so much. It ruined EVERYTHING for me. Everything. Seriously:


It made sense without that crap and it wasn't creepy and forcibly sexualising.
It also puts a random song a dance moment in the middle that got on my nerves for other reasons.

I went to see Sucker Punch in the cinemas expecting to get awesome scenes and as the movie ended I noticed several things:

1) I got my wish of awesome action scenes, but I realized that for them to be good it needs to have some sort of context. You can't just pile on STEAMPUNK ZOMBIES DRAGON HELICOPTERS SHOOTING GETTING SOME EGG without any sort of context and expect them to be good. So I guess the movie taught me that (Although the feeling I got was that the movie was expecting me to love them, which I didn't. Also, the action scenes having no real effect on anything ruined it too).

2)The director wasn't good enough to create good satire. While I could see throughout the movie he was aiming to tell the audience something, it come across like a blind guy trying to draw a police sketch. It sure looks like something, but I have no idea what. Saying in an interview afterwards NO YOU SEE THIS WAS MY BIG MESSAGE NERDS ARE SEXIST AND MISOGYNY is stupid and makes him look even more incompetent because I didn't see it.

3) The ending made me angry, but I don't remember why...

So yeah, I was pretty pissed off by the movie. It did give me a Sucker Punch, but it was more "Zack Snyder is a bad director and should stick to comic book movies" instead of "Fuck nerds".

Well, you can have the best damned message on the planet, but in the end if the delivery of the message is utter tripe, it's still utter tripe. The movie dragged out and it's message probably wasn't "un-got" as much as you think, Bob. It was actually blatant, and blatantly repeated, with every single seen. I never felt uncomfortable, I didn't say, "Oh, they sure got me!", I was just bored to tears. I got all the symbolism and the "various and systematic" abuses and all that. It was just it was done so obviously and badly.

I'm not saying that I endorse the exploitation of women in any way shape or form, I actually like to subvert the fetishistic "empowering" of women. I don't like the word empowered because it means that women aren't powerful to begin with (which isn't true).

My problem with Sucker Punch is not that it was boring (to tear inducing levels) it's because I'm sure its message didn't make any of the people it was criticizing think about who was sitting there, or that they just didn't care if they did get it. It was ineffectual.

I watched it on HBO. And you know what Bob, it's a boring fuckin' movie. Cute chicks though.

Should I feel relieved because after watching the trailers my only thought was "Pass!"?

I didn't even know there were more to it than the fantasy action part before just know.

GloatingSwine:
So, if Sucker Punch was unsuccessful in conveying its satire of pandering male nerd fantasy cynically pretending to be somehow feminist by making its fetish dolls into action heroes, what does distinguish it from pandering male nerd fantasy cynically pretending to be somehow feminist by making its fetish dolls into action heroes?

Not much. Really.

That's the thing with satirical condemnation, if you aren't very clever, like Zack Snyder, you end up straight up making the thing you were condemning.

This plus the fact that most people didn't even like the movie kind of throws its own ideas of us being slobs in its face. I've always thought girls wearing almost nothing while fighting horrible monsters is pretty dumb and this movie was no different for me. I did not watch it in theaters because I had no interest but I watched it at a friend's house.

So not only does it sink to the level of what it hates, it actually fails to be a god enough movie to prove that it's message is true in this case.

Honestly I'm kind of insulted that the movie is apparently aimed at me. Oh well, just another reason not to like the movie.

i enjoyed the action scenes more for the art style of the creatures and background, the sexualised outfits seems so out of place which made me click to the meaning behind it.

i get what bob is saying about how the audience is portrayed in it it also left me thinking this is a girl who life has been nothing but abuse who despite the situtaions shes in hospital, brothel action sequences she still beats them despite whats put on her, she uses those tool to cram them down the throats of her abusers and the expectations of the audience as well

i know alot of people didnt like it, but i did cant wait for part 2 bob.

I saw Sucker Punch, and I think that Bob is looking too much behind it. We should all remember that we only see what we want to see. When you look at it as a metaphore for all kinds of stuff, you easily lose track of the fact that this is still a movie, completely devoid of life. The story goes everywhere, it's never explained how she ends up in those dreams and even more noticable, the characters are completely flat. That was the main thing that botherd me about his Escape to the Movies review of this and he still hasn't mentioned it, where as normally, any movie which makes either of those mistakes gets drilled into the ground by him.

I enjoyed the movie the same way i enjoyed the Transformers movies. Just watched it for the CGI.

Hmm. I actually enjoyed the movie while disagreeing with the statement it was trying to make. And I call myself a feminist. Sheesh, maybe I'm the one who's schizophrenic?

Anyway yeah, I kinda got it but not entirely. I enjoyed the action scenes with girls in skimpy outfits and I enjoyed the way it was trying to make its point.

Wakikifudge:

This plus the fact that most people didn't even like the movie kind of throws its own ideas of us being slobs in its face. I've always thought girls wearing almost nothing while fighting horrible monsters is pretty dumb and this movie was no different for me. I did not watch it in theaters because I had no interest but I watched it at a friend's house.

So not only does it sink to the level of what it hates, it actually fails to be a god enough movie to prove that it's message is true in this case.

Honestly I'm kind of insulted that the movie is apparently aimed at me.

But... it's not. You said you don't enjoy these sort of movies anyway, while the movie is aimed at people who do.

Amazing how many people in this thread still don't get it even after watching this video.

Tono Makt:

Markunator:
I'm sorry, Bob, but I still won't watch this film. These guys' views on movies tend to mean more to me than yours (no offense):

This... has to be the most annoying movie review I've listened to. And from the little that I could stand (I couldn't stand his "Zack Snyder" voice after the third minute) it sounded like he is exactly the kind of person that CinemaRobert is talking about in his video. Not only that, the review was as much about the reviewer bashing Zack Snyder for Watchman and 300 with laughable opinions as it was to bash Sucker Punch. Even allowing for the British media's habit of communicating via insults ("This is rubbish!" being the English equivalent for "I quite enjoy this breakfast, thank you very much." as an example), this was so over the top that it's just plain not worth taking anything he has to say seriously.

Markunator:
other three

I might go through these videos later, but if they're anything like the first one then probably not before CinemaRobert's next Sucker Punch video comes out.

First of all, what's so "laughable" about his opinions of Zack Snyder? That he is an awful storyteller? That he can't see past the costumes? That's just what Mr. Kermode thinks, relax.

Second of all, what do you mean that "This is rubbish!" is the English equivalent of "I quite enjoy this breakfast, thank you very much"? That doesn't even make any sense.

Third of all, no, the second review is not like the first one at all, actually. It's much longer, and the two guys reviewing it go into great depth about what doesn't work about the film.

Alexnader:

Markunator:
I'm sorry, Bob, but I still won't watch this film. These guys' views on movies tend to mean more to me than yours (no offense):
snip

That first reviewer was incredibly annoying. Is it part of his schtick to act like a hyperactive kid? I can't comment on how much I agree with him because I haven't seen the movie but his claim that there's nothing below the surface and that you can't even give the film the benefit of the doubt makes an interesting contrast to Moviebob's analysis.

It's part of his schtick to go on high-powered rants whenever he reviews a film he really hates. The reason he's acting like a hyperactive kid throughout much of this review is because he's doing an impression of what he thinks Zack Snyder might be like based on his body of work.

zombflux:
Amazing how many people in this thread still don't get it even after watching this video.

We get it alright. It is just that is full of horseshit. To calling this movie "empowering to women" is so full of itself. What does we see throught out this whole damn movie? Girls in skimpy clothes, lots of pantyshots. Our heroes are a bunch of airheads that have no personalty at all.

The movie is bad on so many levels of film making that it's really hard to get immersed in the movie. Instead of being able to enjoy the movie it feels like you endure the movie in the vain hope there will be some pay off for all the bad parts and the disconnect.

I think the message is just way too heavy handed. Instead of making us question the movie wants to just hammer you that if you find women sexy then you must be some horrible, horrible, evil, scum of the Earth person. That you should be dragged out into the street and shot for saying hey she's really attractive with that outfit and that sword. Without sexual attraction our species would have died out long ago.

It's a bit like a conversation I've had a few times at sci fi conventions. Sometimes people just want to feel sexy. They don't want to have sex with you, but a part of us feels better knowing that other people might find us desirable. Nerd culture is actually pretty good when it comes to telling guys who don't get it to back off she's not interested. I've had plenty of conversations with women in sexy outfits that had noting to do with sex.

zombflux:
Amazing how many people in this thread still don't get it even after watching this video.

I think it's funny, too.

Yes, the "real" meaning of the film is subversive, isn't clearly spelled out for you, and can be easily missed if you aren't looking for it. But that's the point. You don't make a point about your audience by telling them the point you're trying to make. If the film reveals its own punch line, then it doesn't have as much impact. It just comes across as preachy, and the grain of truth within is lost on the audience because they're too irate about having been sat down and blatantly scolded by a movie. The real impact comes from the people who do get it taking that mindset with them the next time they see this sort of gratuitous stuff happening in media.

I don't feel like Sucker Punch was trying to "change the world." I feel like it was simply pointing out the way things are, and when an oogling geek watches the movie and don't get the joke, they come to serve as a living example of the film's lesson. Sure they may not realize they're being mocked, but that is the most successful kind of trolling--when the person is being utterly and completely trolled, but doesn't realize it.

Yes it can be considered poor filmmaking if the audience doesn't "get" the point the film is trying to make, but in this case whether or not the audience "gets" it and specifically who does and doesn't get it is a huge part of the point. It's a fourth-wall sort of thing.

In the 1980s, the US Federal Government commissioned to have a sculpture built in the Federal Plaza in New York City. They requested a man named Richard Serra, and what he gave them was the Tilted Arc. Basically, a long black steel wall that cut across the plaza in a very inconvenient way for pedestrians. It was right in the way of where people wanted to go, and they had to navigate around it. It wasn't even aesthetically pleasing--it went against the natural curvature of the plaza, and it was just an enormous black wall.

People hated it, said it got in their way. But that was the point Serra was trying to make. It makes the viewer aware of their relationship with the sculpture, and aware of their movement in the plaza. It's not a sculpture that can just be ignored, the viewer develops a relationship with it that is reaffirmed on a daily basis. Also, the viewer's changed path gets them to see it at different angles, to observe the change in its form as their perspective changes.

Was it in the way? Yes. Was it remarkable as far as construction or execution? Not really. Was it some kind of triumph of architecture? No. But it did get people to think, and that piece of art brought a lot of emotions out of people. While not all of them "got" that their being irate and having to take longer to walk around it, their relationship with the piece was there and their change in movement was also there, whether or not they realized it. And the people who did "get" it were also forced to have some relationship with it. Most of the time when a commemorative sculpture gets put up somewhere, people look at it for a while then just start ignoring it. But Serra made a sculpture that couldn't be ignored, and people would have to change something about what they were doing in order to deal with it. Whether or not they realized it didn't matter, as long as some relationship and communication occurred.

IMO the "sucker punch" of the film comes when the credits roll and you realized you paid money to see it.

Ohh I got all the not so subtle and not so hidden metaphor, that by enjoying the sexualization of the women we were no better that the men in the film but a film this does not make. Plus weren't the oversexualized parts supposed to be the girls idealized view of them selves while they were carrying out their plan? Why would they view their empowered selves as exactly the thing they did not want to be and escape from? Because skin sells tickets, no matter how many layers of metaphor you dig into that's all this film was really about. You pay to see a sexy girl action movie...suckerpunch...its not. You pay to see a good movie with a thought provoking story...suckerpunch...its not. You pay to see a CG b-movie with oversexualized action girls that uses the mental institute angle story with a metaphor about sexism to try and cover up its own overt sexism than you probably got your moneys worth.

IMO anyway

Moeez:
...snip...

gardian06:

obedai:
My main problem with this movie is that the action scenes aren't integrated well into the movie. The movie makes its artistic statement reasonably well, but the action scenes feel completely pointless and tacked on because there is no reason for them to be there in the plot of the movie. The action scenes cut away from the characters and plot to essentially go 'whee explosions' for a few minutes so that it can make its artistic statement.

Really. go look up Schizophrenia (not on Wikipedia, but in DSM).

so by them inter-splicing the action scenes as tacked-on they are simply depicting a schizophrenic episode, and it actually serves the point of seeing the events through the eyes of a schizophrenic, and with that being the plot those inter-splices are the point. then that is used to prove the sucker punch aspect. So yah that actually makes it work on a higher level.

You're thinking of PTSD, not schizophrenia. There's nothing about schizophrenia in this. There are no delusions or hallucinations any character gets. Not at any point of the movie does Babydoll confuse which reality she's in. You can't have a hallucination when you've closed your eyes, which she does for every dance. She doesn't have delusions that there's some mad conspiracy against her or other irrational beliefs.

If you want a movie about schizophrenia, go watch Take Shelter (the best movie of last year).

really that's your argument for it not being one disorder or another. PTSD has little to nothing to directly do with schizophrenia other then a cause, and effect system. PTSD: extreme anxiety of specific types of situations, and typically culminates with the person obtaining another disorder based on the events that caused the PTSD (eg. military tank operator might obtain claustrophobia, or a rape victim might obtain agoraphobia, or aversion to the opposite gender), and in some situations even things like schizophrenia (which is usually dubbed a copping mechanism when in relation to a traumatic event. and your last point is straight up paranoia not schizophrenia (they can exist in the same person, but then it is also possible for schizophrenia to exist independently in a person though schizophrenia is usually talked about as the effect in a cause effect chain where some other disorder is the cause)

and thank you for bringing up such an example. these two movies do share parallels, and direct example. the movie Take Shelter is a person who recognizes that they are having the delusional episodes (at least in the beginning). while Sucker Punch is a person who simply uses reality replacement, and does not realize it. both are schizophrenic just different flavors. the whole thing that she closes her eyes to shift reality two things here first its simply her "trigger" for the reality transition (some people it happens when they blink, or when there mind goes blank, or bored), and two it's a visual cue to the audience that a transition is happening so it's not so jarring to watch especially considering the high amounts of difference in the realities.

Metacommentary might've been Suckerpunch's intent, but it's terrible characterization prevented it from realizing that goal or adequately critiquing the genres. The lack of agency didn't help.

But I don't know what I'm supposed to be right about......

I just didn't enjoy the story. Stories that handle this sort of heavy stuff(rape and other things) need to handle it well for me to enjoy the movie. This one didn't. It just made me feel disgusted watching it. That may have been the point, but that doesn't make it a good movie.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here