Escape to the Movies: Oblivion

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Littaly:

I'm not overly disappointed because I couldn't watch more than 25% of the review, I know I'm more picky than the average person when it comes to spoilers, and I don't expect the world to adjust itself to my preferences. I'm just saying it's fully possible to do an interesting review without giving away all the twists in a movie, and it's something I personally think Escape to the Movies could improve on.

possibly, but it makes a more entertaining review for the people who don't care about the movie.

I am not going to say it was a great film but it was still better than G.I. Joe 2. And on the plus side, I find Andrea Riseborough a fresh face and a solid actress, who hopefully will have more roles in bigger films the coming years.

Friendstastegood:

karamazovnew:
[quote="knight steel" post="6.406151.16894234"]
Just in case some people didn't watch Bob's COMPELTE spoiler, well, Bob is dead wrong about the story not making sense. It makes perfect sense, but if you go watch this movie with the "I hate Tom Cruise with his smug old face" attitude, no wonder you're gonna fail to like it. I welcome any discussion on this subject and the simplicity with which I can defuse any opposing argument is downright insulting to the complexity of the story and the detail with witch it's told.

I did watch Bob's entire review, I've never really cared about spoilers, if a movie is good enough, even if it has important plot-twists, it will still hold up after you've been spoiled. But now I have to ask: Unless bob completely misrepresented the story, as in he made up most of what he said about the movie, how can any of that possibly ever make any sort of sense?

Also, this is one of my all-time pet-peeves, when people who can't write intelligently try to write intelligence and fail miserably.

Thanks for the insult, I'll have to write that down, it's a keeper.
Yes, Bob did misrepresent the story. Both you and I can take any movie with a good story, tell it exactly as it is, but make it sound bad. In fact, for the first time in his series, he takes time to tell you the entire story. It takes him just 1 minute of fast talk and smug tone to do it. He then finishes by pointing two major holes in the story which actually do make perfect sense. What pisses me off is that already a few people have watched the spoiler and decided to not see this movie. Bad call...

So this is for you, took me some time to write it. I do hope that you will eventually see this movie. I started explaining where Bob was wrong, but ended up telling most of the story, properly (I hope).

MovieBob:
Oblivion

MovieBob takes us to the future in this spoiler laden review of the post-apocalyptic Oblivion.

Watch Video

Damn it Bob, thats two of your videos this week i couldnt watch due to spoilers, c'mon!!!!

triggrhappy94:
If anyone wants to a version of this movie that's actually good, go watch Moon.

On a side note, if they're clones, why would they need to be tricked or have memories of pre-war stuff?
That's not how cloning works. Even if the aliens some how managed to make it work like that, they could still use propaganda to convince them they're doing the right thing. It's not that hard to turn humans against each other.

The only thing this movie's accomplished is remind me that Republic Commandos 2 isn't a thing.

Glad I wasn't the only one who thought that it kinda resembles Moon
And that was one really good movie
Sad that Oblivion wasn't good, I hoped it will be
Really hoped :(

Dear Lord, I didn't expect people to write essays defending this movie.

Anyway, Les Goldman remains as Tom Cruise's best performance.

love the Prometheus dig at the end haha

Sounds like a better movie to watch instead of Oblivion would not be Prometheus, but Moon. It has a similar twist, but that's the second act climax. It's revealed early on and more importantly Sam Rockwell has to carry the largely action-free sci-fi drama by, get this, acting. In fact, it sounds like someone decided to remake Moon as an action movie filled with obsolete Hollywood cliches and they came up with Oblivion.

Just got back from seeing Oblivion. Kind of meh in my opinion, not terrible but not anything brilliant. It seemed to be a mash up of ideas from better movies slammed together into one bland package. Plus the predictable plot line kind of killed my interest in the first few minutes

it bothered me that I saw this movie's trailer right before (or after idr) seeing the After Earth trailer (the one with Will Smith?) during the same film screening's previews lol...

seriously do studios just happen to come out with Armageddon and Deep Impact films at the same time or what? :P

duchaked:
it bothered me that I saw this movie's trailer right before (or after idr) seeing the After Earth trailer (the one with Will Smith?) during the same film screening's previews lol...

seriously do studios just happen to come out with Armageddon and Deep Impact films at the same time or what? :P

Yes. Its been a long time tradition in Hollywood for the big studios to investigate what the competition is making and then just copy that. That's why we have whole decades that were filled with mostly bible epics, crime noir dramas, musicals, westerns, war films, disaster movies, space operas, slasher flicks, coming of age comedies, biographies, and comic book super hero adaptations.

So, if I'm hearing this right:

It's "Moon" meets "Planet of the Apes", boring sci-fi cliche' style?

I just saw this movie without seeing the trailer or reading anything about it, and the twists were really obvious. I went and watched the trailer anyway afterwards and I have to say... Could they spoil any more stuff on the trailer? Every single twist, as obvious as they were, was spoiled in the trailer anyway.

So it's "The Moon" done badly but with more guns?

Skorpyo:
So, if I'm hearing this right:

It's "Moon" meets "Planet of the Apes", boring sci-fi cliche' style?

With a healthy dose of the Matrix and Battlefield Earth thrown in just to add to the mess.

I swear I saw the trailer for this one and just sat there thinking I had seen this exact movie quite a few times before. Then the trailer for AfterEarth came up and I realized it was a twofer sense of dejavu, and I would be skipping both.

faefrost:

Skorpyo:
So, if I'm hearing this right:

It's "Moon" meets "Planet of the Apes", boring sci-fi cliche' style?

With a healthy dose of the Matrix and Battlefield Earth thrown in just to add to the mess.

I swear I saw the trailer for this one and just sat there thinking I had seen this exact movie quite a few times before. Then the trailer for AfterEarth came up and I realized it was a twofer sense of dejavu, and I would be skipping both.

I'd throw Elysium into that, all three look the same to me.
Anyway.
I'm glad people are aware of this,

Moon is my favorite movie of all time so I'm not very pleased that they almost straight ripped it off.
Deep breaths, torno...
Still, Oblivion wasn't that bad it's just that I've seen this movie before. All that I really liked about it was the drones and the visuals. If Moon didn't exist, this movie would've been REALLY good. But Moon does exist and I'd rather watch that again.
Oh, and in Oblivion, they blow up the moon. Gee, I wonder what you're trying to say there.

Massive cop out at the end. Oh yeah just 52. Lets forget about all those other ones. To sum up the major flaw in this film is that it's very small. The overarching story involves the entire planet, but the movie itself follows a very very small set of characters in a small area despite alluding to there being many many other players. Imagine if avatar spent the entire movie saying theres a war between the two races and then never show more than two people. Its a really big scale movie that feels cheap in the the important places. Then they just pretend like the conundrum at the end doesn't exist. I can't expand on that without ruining the twist I guess.

Huge disappointment but otherwise pretty decent flick. The special effects and action basically make up for the poor script. To be frank though "Portal 2" was the same movie and better.

the antithesis:
Sounds like a better movie to watch instead of Oblivion would not be Prometheus, but Moon. It has a similar twist, but that's the second act climax. It's revealed early on and more importantly Sam Rockwell has to carry the largely action-free sci-fi drama by, get this, acting. In fact, it sounds like someone decided to remake Moon as an action movie filled with obsolete Hollywood cliches and they came up with Oblivion.

Yes despite a practically nonexistent budget Moon destroys this film in every possible. The Scifi films that are remembered forever are the ones that force you to really contemplate mans existence and what makes us human. Oblivion introduces those themes and then just shakes them off at the end going "meh"

torno:
I'd throw Elysium into that, all three look the same to me.

Elysium is by the director of District 9. It would be a mistake to write it off prematurely.

Pontifex:

torno:
I'd throw Elysium into that, all three look the same to me.

Elysium is by the director of District 9. It would be a mistake to write it off prematurely.

Neil Blomkamp is making Elysium?!
Oh, goodness, I didn't know that.
Thanks for pointing that out.

REALLY ANGRY POST INCOMING:
Just a few minutes ago I ended watching the worst episode of one of the worst shows, a few episodes of which are good. What was it about, three men competing to get a girl's attention. Who was it directed at? men.
In the next room my sister was watching a soapapra, which I have to listen to because I can't exactly block out the noise, what was one of the main plots, men competing over women. Who was this directed at? women.
On the same channel that I watched the show I mentioned, there were constant adds showing for another show, what was one of the main plots, men competing over a woman.
Whats the favorite movie series of two of my sisters, Twilight. Whats the main plot? Tow guys competing over a girl.

AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?

So far I have seen almost no movies where what Bob complains about happens.
If there any, please, please tell me about them.
A movie or show should at least be allowed to have this if its primary audience is men.
If a movie that panders to women has this its fine and if one that panders to men does it its not?
Women have their soaps, their drams movies, their romantic comedies. Why can't men have action and sci-fi for themselves?
Call me a misogynist all you want I am definitely going to see this movie. In fact,I so sick and tired of this bullshit that I declare that I am a misogynist(except against my relatives).

I don't want anything women and I don't even talk to women(other than my relatives or for work) at least let me have my entertainment the way I want it.

karamazovnew:

Thanks for the insult, I'll have to write that down, it's a keeper.

OK, huge misunderstanding here: that wasn't directed at you, I was saying that one of my favourite pet-peeves in movies is when movie-writers try to write intelligent beings and or humans but aren't intelligent enough to make it believable. It was directed at the movie, and movies in general. It's why I can't stand Watchmen, because the supposedly more intelligent than any human being Dr. Manhattan is just so stupid it hurts my brain.

As for the bit about the actual movie:

i really didn't hate this movie that much but then all i could think about when i was watching it was that it was a bad ripoff of moon (and this was before the clones twist happened)

Where is all this hate coming from?

Did Bob like Moon or did he hate it as well?

I mean, why is Sam maintaining the harvesters on Moon more believable than Jack maintaining the harvesters on Earth? As far as I'm concerned, those movies have the same premise.

"...having a few repair-drones maintain the fighting-drones."

I've heard this one before. But who would maintain the repair drones?

We do see Jack fixing the drone with a piece of gum. So is it really that unbelievable that they need the humans as the final link of ingenuity in that chain, instead of having an endless chain of drones fixing drones fixing drones fixing drones etc.

Or maybe they need humans to fight the remaining scavs or use them as an early warning system if the scavs would mount an attack against the machines. For example the Matrix uses Cypher (human) to get to Morpheus (also human).

What if Tet is programmed to take advantage of the indigenous species and incorporate them in the harvesting cycle?

What if fixing drones on Earth is cheaper and quicker than sending them back to Tet to be fixed?

More to the point, who the hell would want to watch a movie about drones fixing drones?

To me all these are plausible explanations, but Bob simply ignores them all together and stamps the movie as being "bad" just because he cannot make any sense of the premise. Then what about Matrix using humans as batteries? What an awful shit that was - in Bob's world.

Folks, this is a definition of bad movie reviewing. A reviewer who considers movie to be bad, simply because he doesn't agree with it's premise. Sure Oblivion has it's faults - pacing would be one of them, especially towards the end. But Bob just pisses on the efforts put into this movie by Cruise, Kurylenko, and a fantastic newcomer Riseborough, plus the breathtaking visuals of post-apocalyptic Earth by Claudio Miranda (Oscar for Life of Pi) and ethreal music by M83.

If you didn't watch Bob's review to the end, go see the movie and make up your own mind. If you did, then thank Bob for ruining one of the memorable (for me at least) sci-fi movies of the past decade.

It's not such a bad movie, I thought it was quite entertaining. Most modern sci-fi require a little bit of oversight for the plot-holes/inconsistencies anyway so I personally don't have any gripes with the few things I found in this movie.

I was worried when Bob said that this movie was "made up entirely out of twists" but then I though "Meh. If he puts it alongside Ghost Protocol and Jack Reacher it's gotta be another dumb, slightly-entertaining action movie."
So I watched.
Wat.
Twist #1 "Hey, that's not my wife, my real wife is here" is given away in the trailer.
In fact, these have got to be the most generic, lazy twists I've seen.
Maybe it's because I'm sci-fi-spoiled, or maybe it's because every single one of those twists is either predictable or there's a superior sci-fi movie out there who did it better before.
The only thing I couldn't have predicted is the clone army.
But, if you've seen Moon (2009) you basically know what I mean.
So, why only two clone-templates?
This movie expects me to believe that, in the entire time, they couldn't have obducted other humans, thrown them into the cloner, conditioned them, built an army, fed them some more clever backround story and ..... no? Not possible?
Why are those 2 first astronauts so special?
Bob's objection is very valid: You can automatize everything, except maintenance? Well, OK then, just make the retrival of the drones automatic, dismantle them, smelt the parts down and make new drones?
In fact, flood the surface with your robots.
You don't need two humans to do anything! You're an AI! From outer fucking space!

Well. It's a pretty looking film with an utterly unsatisfying plot. Kinda reminds me of...Tron Legacy, also directed by the same bloke. Guess I know whose career NOT to follow.

It's a solid movie.

I get the feeling that Bob wouldn't be so nit picky and hard on it if someone else then Cruise, had played Jack Harper.

Or maybe I'm just a sucker for sci-fi

shephardjhon:
snip

Yeah, if you physically can't talk to women and think they have no place in "your" special man genres it's probably a safe bet that you're a misogynist.

However, you're also a misogynist whose completely missed the point.

Bob's point, which was spelled out quite specifically, is that the "two female characters competing for the affections of the male protagonist" thing is overused. It's been overused for a long time. We've seen it in hundreds if not thousands of pieces of media, and it's very rarely handled in an interesting or original way. It's always simply retreading the same tired steps over and over and over again.

In short, it's a minimum-effort way to write in some crude dramatic tension without having to put in any thought or any originality, because it's been done so many times at this point that a monkey with a supply of DVDs could figure out how to do it.

Grow up. Step outside your front door. Get over whatever weird issues you have with women and you'll start to realize that noone is complaining about these kinds of things because "the womenz" have taken over, they're complaining because they're sick of being fed wallpaper paste while being told it's caviar.

I'm having to work really REALLY fucking hard right now to not burst into an all-caps rage and get myself perma-banned as a result of my page of insults.

Alright, from the top.

1) A human repairman makes sense. Humans are extremely adaptable, extremely versatile creatures. Cruz is better at navigating the terrain then any robot and get around stuff that would beat robots.

2) Total mind wiping wouldn't have worked. They needed the ruse in order for Cruz to keep all the things I mentioned above. Mind wiped Cruze's were fine for an invasion where they just need to kill people, but not much else. Besides, it was simple enough to set up and run.

3) So what if the twists were for their own sake? They were incredibly well done and every single one made sense. The twists served the plot, not the other way around.

I'm far too mad to watch your review again to look for more things you got wrong, but I'm sure someone will give me more nonsense to rebuke.

This movie was brilliantly acted, extremely well written and is one of the most beautifully shot and designed films in recent memory. My favorite Sci-Fi movie in a long LONG time.

I was really hoping you of all people, the guy that gave 2012 a pass, could appreciate this.

Littaly:
Spoiler warning is appreciated, but it would be even more appreciated if the reviews relied a little less on spoilers overall. I'm the kind of guy who doesn't enjoy being spoiled, even on movies I have no immediate interest of seeing. So it's a little disappointing with that in mind to only be able to hear the bottom line of whether the movie was good or bad.

I'm not overly disappointed because I couldn't watch more than 25% of the review, I know I'm more picky than the average person when it comes to spoilers, and I don't expect the world to adjust itself to my preferences. I'm just saying it's fully possible to do an interesting review without giving away all the twists in a movie, and it's something I personally think Escape to the Movies could improve on.

Without you having seen the movie itself, all I can say is that you're basically wrong. This is the kind of movie where the spoiled bits themselves are what's wrong with the movie. Sure, it has other issues, but the story aspect is where it really falls down, and you can't say why without being so vague as to be useless.

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:
I'm having to work really REALLY fucking hard right now to not burst into an all-caps rage and get myself perma-banned as a result of my page of insults.

Alright, from the top.

1) A human repairman makes sense. Humans are extremely adaptable, extremely versatile creatures. Cruz is better at navigating the terrain then any robot and get around stuff that would beat robots.

2) Total mind wiping wouldn't have worked. They needed the ruse in order for Cruz to keep all the things I mentioned above. Mind wiped Cruze's were fine for an invasion where they just need to kill people, but not much else. Besides, it was simple enough to set up and run.

3) So what if the twists were for their own sake? They were incredibly well done and every single one made sense. The twists served the plot, not the other way around.

I'm far too mad to watch your review again to look for more things you got wrong, but I'm sure someone will give me more nonsense to rebuke.

This movie was brilliantly acted, extremely well written and is one of the most beautifully shot and designed films in recent memory. My favorite Sci-Fi movie in a long LONG time.

I was really hoping you of all people, the guy that gave 2012 a pass, could appreciate this.

Just to note, on your 3 there? If the twists served the plot, then they were by definition not there for their own sake. So, were they or weren't they there for their own sake? I think they were.

And you'll never convince me that a machine that advanced could not design a repairbot with comparable-to-human versatility.

Meatspinner:
It's a solid movie.

I get the feeling that Bob wouldn't be so nit picky and hard on it if someone else then Cruise, had played Jack Harper.

Or maybe I'm just a sucker for sci-fi

I blame my youth and way to much 80ties cartoons.
I accept mutant turtles and transforming robots more easily than regular folk.
So semi evil AI's from space using clones which revolt are right up my alley.
Plus eyecandy and a nice Tron Legacy esque score...
I like Oblivion, it's a guilty pleasure, like Prometheus.

Heh, I actually loved the movie. Though I'll grant you that the amount of plot twists made certain parts of the movie feel needlessly hollow. But it managed to entertain me, and now I'm working on my brand new dream: own a house with that kick ass pool from the movie :D

Nonsense coming right up! ;)

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:
1) A human repairman makes sense. Humans are extremely adaptable, extremely versatile creatures. Cruz is better at navigating the terrain then any robot and get around stuff that would beat robots.

A human repairman makes sense if their loyalty does not have to be maintained by an easily broken deception and if the circumstances of their being there are not so incredibly suspicious as to make the fact that a deception exists incredibly obvious (to everyone, of course, except the highly intelligent astronauts).

You know the funny thing is, we have a really good example of an alien race carrying out this exact same scheme (conquering earth and draining its resources with human helpers) intelligently. It's called Half Life 2. You don't need easily confused clones to make people turn on each other, you just need to offer them a way to survive or to better their situation.

Better still, that's also more relevant to the viewer because similar things have actually happened throughout human history. The use of deception here is really just a silly attempt to keep the protagonist's situation morally simple, because God forbid a science fiction film deal with themes and ethical problems beyond "aleens ar bad". No science fiction film has ever done that..

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:
Mind wiped Cruze's were fine for an invasion where they just need to kill people, but not much else. Besides, it was simple enough to set up and run.

..right up until the point when your clone inevitably realizes the pitiful deception and goes and blows you the hell up.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:
I'm having to work really REALLY fucking hard right now to not burst into an all-caps rage and get myself perma-banned as a result of my page of insults.

Alright, from the top.

1) A human repairman makes sense. Humans are extremely adaptable, extremely versatile creatures. Cruz is better at navigating the terrain then any robot and get around stuff that would beat robots.

2) Total mind wiping wouldn't have worked. They needed the ruse in order for Cruz to keep all the things I mentioned above. Mind wiped Cruze's were fine for an invasion where they just need to kill people, but not much else. Besides, it was simple enough to set up and run.

3) So what if the twists were for their own sake? They were incredibly well done and every single one made sense. The twists served the plot, not the other way around.

I'm far too mad to watch your review again to look for more things you got wrong, but I'm sure someone will give me more nonsense to rebuke.

This movie was brilliantly acted, extremely well written and is one of the most beautifully shot and designed films in recent memory. My favorite Sci-Fi movie in a long LONG time.

I was really hoping you of all people, the guy that gave 2012 a pass, could appreciate this.

Just to note, on your 3 there? If the twists served the plot, then they were by definition not there for their own sake. So, were they or weren't they there for their own sake? I think they were.

And you'll never convince me that a machine that advanced could not design a repairbot with comparable-to-human versatility.

On the twists...... I really can't respond. It's a matter of taste. If a twist is done well, takes me for a ride and doesn't break the plot, I'm on board. If you and Bob don't like twists like that, not much I can do about it.

I WOULD argue about how life will always be more versatile and efficient than a simple robot like the drones and how in reality, Bob missed a major theme of even the AI needing life, thus illustrating how even the most advanced machine can't compare to humans, but that would be silly since I will apparently never convince you.

evilthecat:
Nonsense coming right up! ;)

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:
1) A human repairman makes sense. Humans are extremely adaptable, extremely versatile creatures. Cruz is better at navigating the terrain then any robot and get around stuff that would beat robots.

A human repairman makes sense if their loyalty does not have to be maintained by an easily broken deception and if the circumstances of their being there are not so incredibly suspicious as to make the fact that a deception exists incredibly obvious (to everyone, of course, except the highly intelligent astronauts).

You know the funny thing is, we have a really good example of an alien race carrying out this exact same scheme (conquering earth and draining its resources with human helpers) intelligently. It's called Half Life 2. You don't need easily confused clones to make people turn on each other, you just need to offer them a way to survive or to better their situation.

Better still, that's also more relevant to the viewer because similar things have actually happened throughout human history. The use of deception here is really just a silly attempt to keep the protagonist's situation morally simple, because God forbid a science fiction film deal with themes and ethical problems beyond "aleens ar bad". No science fiction film has ever done that..

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:
Mind wiped Cruze's were fine for an invasion where they just need to kill people, but not much else. Besides, it was simple enough to set up and run.

..right up until the point when your clone inevitably realizes the pitiful deception and goes and blows you the hell up.

In terms of half-life, I don't see how that kind of convincing could have worked. When Breen joined the Combine, there's still a lot of humanity left, the Earth is in relatively good shape and there an opportunity for a good future. This was not the case with Oblivion. I don't see ANYONE willingly going along in the situation presented if they knew they were working for the attackers.

As for exploring themes, yeah, Oblivion didn't, but I don't see that as a needed addition. A science fiction story doesn't need to have an exploration of the meaning of life, the universe and everything if it presents a very alien situation and cool technology to play in that world.

And again, the loyalty clearly wasn't that much of an issue until the one breach. Only one Tom Cruz made the discovery, it was many many years into the process AND it required Morgan Freeman to bring down a spaceship with his wife in it.

When a system takes that much to break it and doesn't require anything more than food more 2 people per zone, I'd say it's pretty damn effective.

It wasn't inevitable at all.

Actually, instead of MY arguemnts, just read this:

Dr Killpatient:
Where is all this hate coming from?

Did Bob like Moon or did he hate it as well?

I mean, why is Sam maintaining the harvesters on Moon more believable than Jack maintaining the harvesters on Earth? As far as I'm concerned, those movies have the same premise.

"...having a few repair-drones maintain the fighting-drones."

I've heard this one before. But who would maintain the repair drones?

We do see Jack fixing the drone with a piece of gum. So is it really that unbelievable that they need the humans as the final link of ingenuity in that chain, instead of having an endless chain of drones fixing drones fixing drones fixing drones etc.

Or maybe they need humans to fight the remaining scavs or use them as an early warning system if the scavs would mount an attack against the machines. For example the Matrix uses Cypher (human) to get to Morpheus (also human).

What if Tet is programmed to take advantage of the indigenous species and incorporate them in the harvesting cycle?

What if fixing drones on Earth is cheaper and quicker than sending them back to Tet to be fixed?

More to the point, who the hell would want to watch a movie about drones fixing drones?

To me all these are plausible explanations, but Bob simply ignores them all together and stamps the movie as being "bad" just because he cannot make any sense of the premise. Then what about Matrix using humans as batteries? What an awful shit that was - in Bob's world.

Folks, this is a definition of bad movie reviewing. A reviewer who considers movie to be bad, simply because he doesn't agree with it's premise. Sure Oblivion has it's faults - pacing would be one of them, especially towards the end. But Bob just pisses on the efforts put into this movie by Cruise, Kurylenko, and a fantastic newcomer Riseborough, plus the breathtaking visuals of post-apocalyptic Earth by Claudio Miranda (Oscar for Life of Pi) and ethreal music by M83.

If you didn't watch Bob's review to the end, go see the movie and make up your own mind. If you did, then thank Bob for ruining one of the memorable (for me at least) sci-fi movies of the past decade.

Sums everything up much better.

If there is a possible solution, it isn't a plot hole.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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