FACE OFF: Unicorn City

Directed by: Bryan Lefler
Starring: Full cast list at IMDB.
Official movie website | Trailer 
(Trailer embedded at end of blog post as well)

Critic: Jason

As a former LARPer (Live Action Role Player),  I have been a Feralkin Paladin, a Centurion Guard, Pixie Sage and an insane chef who almost killed the whole town. I have even been on staff at a game before. So "Unicorn City" was a bit strange for me because I spotted things that would never happen at a LARP. There were real weapons, unpadded weapons, using a car as a prop. Plus, just a lot of modern things in a fantasy setting like the badminton game.

I couldn't really suggest this movie unless you role play in some manor. If you don't, then all this movie will have for you is laughing at socially awkward nerds. You're better off watching another movie. Even for me, being part of the 'off culture,' it was a rough movie to watch. I just didn't like it too much. I couldn't find a reason to like the characters. Heck, I didn't realize until the credits that half of the characters had names.

The Game Itself

Yes, I know the game was made over night but wow there was a lack of effort. LARPs can take a year of writing and testing before they can even make it to a beta test. The movie just shows a lack of research. It would be like having a World War II movie and swapping Hitler with Charlie Chaplin. They look the same but to think of them as such really shows a lack of knowledge on the subject.

Voss Himself

What is my reason for being behind this guy? Why should I want him to succeed? He is a jerk to his friends, he can't see that Marsha has a thing for him, and just a one note stereotype. The movie tries to make his brother look like the mean one, but if your no-prospect brother was sleeping in a closet in your place without paying rent all the time, wouldn't you be angry? There is no character development.  He might as well be scenery.

Just avoid this movie. Watch "Krod Mandoon," "The Guild," or hell, go out to an actual LARP. (Do this at your own risk though. Those people can be a little wacko, right Tara?)  I don't care if you get Netflix for free, don't bother with this one; it isn't worth your time.

Defender: Tara

All I knew about this movie before I started watching it was that it involved LARPing. While I wouldn't say the movie depicted LARPing as I'm at all used to it, I did enjoy it as a charming, lighthearted love story. I think Jason took the movie a bit too seriously (which is weird...because he's Jason). I didn't take this movie as making fun of LARPers at all.

Gamer Jokes

Knowing the potential this movie had for possibly ridiculing LARPers, I was suspicious of it. These kinds of movies really have to display some geek knowledge for me to become fully invested. This movie succeeded - especially considering they played "Dawn of Days" (instead of "Dungeons & Dragons") and Voss wants to work at Warlocks of the Beach (instead of Wizards of the Coast). The quirks were genuine and that helped me ease into the movie.

FACE OFF: Thor

FACE OFF: Thor (2011)

Directed by: Kenneth Branagh
Distributed by: Marvel Entertainment
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Tom Hiddleston
Official movie website | Trailer 

Critic: Jason

Full disclosure, I do actually like this movie. Just not nearly as much as Tara. It is hard for her to go a single day without mentioning the Thor. It is kinda like a little kid with Pokemon, its all Squitle this and Pikachu that. If Tara was ever weaponized as a drinking game we would all be dead from alcohol poisoning. I do have some problems with the movie though.

Let me paint a picture, a blonde man wearing tight jeans gets out of an expensive car and pushes around a nerd. Did you hope that everything turns out well for Mr. Blonde? If so you just got behind every 80s movie villain that wanted to close your rec center.

That's right, Thor is an 80s cheese ball movie villain. He starts out the movie as an arrogant man-child who throws temper tantrums when he can't get his way. After three of the Jotunheites break into the armory, Thor wants to destroy their world. Punish a whole world for the actions of three Jotdidians. Never mind Mr. Blonde, he is looking pretty nice. I mean what is one rec center vs. a whole freaking world of Sons of Jotenheim. Yeah Loki makes a better try, he is a better character after all, but he is the freaking villain. He is supposed to do this stuff.

How about the Warriors Three? How the hell is Errol Flynn and a Ninja Scandinavian? Seriously, and how about the armor. It looks like it was designed by Tony Stark as failed Iron Man prototypes. Could they have gone more space aged with the design? Why not have them be in space suits investigating Uranus, because it felt like they were investigating Myanus. Also Thor's accent, could it be more wrong? Seriously how is that Scandinavian at all. It sounds more like the people the Scandinavians raided and pillaged instead. Plus the beard is a disgrace.

Loki is actually better.

Loki character has way more depth. Poor Loki finds out he adopted and thinks that is why Odin picks his man-child brother to be king of space town over him and his superior handsomeness. (Loki fans, AMIRITE?!) So what does Loki do? Outsmarts them all and gets very close to being the space king. That why Thor went on to be a Huntsman having to kiss Stewart and Loki went on to be in "War Horse."

You wanted Science?

Jane should have died or at least been horribly maimed twice in the Destroyer fight. First when the Destroyer destroyed the gas station. It blows up a 7-11 gas station and there is barely a shock wave. A Gas station explosion releases a lot of energy. Simply fire at one and they evacuate a whole block. An explosion would be more damage faster. She was barely a half a block away when it happened. Then she is on top of Thor when the hammer comes back....bringing lighting. A ground shock can have a decent kill radius. Seriously she was better off with V shaving her for the bad English accent.

It isn't the worst Marvel movie; that goes to "Electra."  It's just not a very good one. Thor is just a man-child and Loki doesn't get enough screen time.

Random notes and thoughts:

• When the town tried to lift Thor's hammer: “Whosoever lifts this hammer from the stone is king of Mine Craft.”
• When Thor was trying to lift the hammer after the mud fight: “Wow this would make a good beer commercial.”
• After he fails to lift the hammer: “How did he get so clean when Coulson was talking to him. Did they let him shower and give him a shirt?”
• When Thor gives Jane the notebook back: “How does Thor know about the Hubble but none of our other technology.”   

Defender: Tara

FIRST POINT: LOOK AT THOR. IF you still need further convincing that this is a worthwhile movie, feel free to read on.

Okay, this is my favorite movie ever. I had to take a day or two to like, not unleash some rage on Jason for hating on my favorite movie and favorite actor. Clearly when he was watching this movie, he wasn't actually looking at how amazing looking Thor actually looks. As Jane says in the movie: "It's a good look."

Thor is a hero - but he doesn't start out that way. That's what makes him appealing. He's not a cheesy 80s villain; he learns to be humble (and human, while he's mortal) and that's the whole point of the movie - that's what makes him worthy. The most romantic part of it is that he clearly recognizes it couldn't have happened without Jane Foster - who, by the way, is a rather kick ass character in her own way.

Face Off: Lord of the Rings Trilogy

FACE OFF: Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Directed by: Peter Jackson
Distributed by: New Line Cinema
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tyler, Elijah Wood. Full cast list at IMDB.
Official movie website | Trailer 

Critic: Jason

Nine hours I will never get back: Lord of the Rings.

I will start out by saying by stating two things. I liked "Fellowship of the Ring," and I have not read the books.

There is a reason people say “Ohhh you watched that movie? The book was SO MUCH BETTER!” A writer isn't charged every time they use the word “The”, But every minute on the silver screen cost money. This means that the nine hours we got was majorly cut down.

Well that caused a lot of problems for us illiterates out there, I watched Gandalf die just to come back as Gandalf the White with NO EXPLANATION. Worst part was no one was weirded out. “Oh HAI, WERENTZ YOU DEAD LIKE A MOVE AGO?” “Why yes I was indeed dead, that is why I am now Gandalf the White."  “OTAY THATZ LIKE COOL!” “One more death and I'll be Gandalf the “Egg Shell Cream on a cloudy day."

Then we have Gollum. I thought Frodo was losing his mind because for the most part in the movie Frodo is only one who interacts with Gollum and never asks for help. “Umm hey, there is this creepy guy following us. He with you?” No nothing of the sort. I actually just learned in a trailer for “The Hobbit” that Gollumn wasn't a hallucination over a decade later.

Money Problems.There was only so much budget for the movie. "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" split the party up, and they would cut back and forth at bad times. We would get twenty five minutes of Hobbits riding a tree and then they finally get to a battle they would cut to the other party. Then when Aragorn's party would come up on something interesting, they would cut back to Frodo and Sam after the battle. I actually had a hard time staying awake.

Then there is "Return of the King."  “We need like a thousand more warriors to have a chance.” Just so happens that these dead people owe the king a favor? Really. Dead people owe the king a favor and now they just happen to have enough soldiers to defeat the evil force. You know where we have seen that plot arc before? Beach movies with Frankie Avalon. “Oh no, we need $503.27 to pay the taxes on the beach house and there is a surf contest is $503.27!” "Return of the King" doesn't have the camp value to make that work.

Then we have all twenty endings. I kept on getting up thinking, “Oh good the movie is over....nope still more.” After the third or fourth ending I told my ex-gf that I am leaving after the next ending.

Now let's talk about the last ending. Frodo sails off to heaven. Lets think about this for one second, Gods usually hang out in heaven and can over power the strongest mortal. So it stands to reason that if Frodo made a bee line for the afterlife and took the ring then Sauron couldn't get to it. No he has to take it to the ONE volcano in the entire world. Not to Mount “No one lives here” or “Mt. Kitten Whiskers."  No. Mt. Freaking Doom.

So to sum it up, they were horrid movies and people like them because they cost a lot to make. They didn't even have the most important character in the books in them. A Narrator to describe every blade of grass on the screen for us. That would have made the movie better. I know more about Duran Duran's“Rio” because of Pop Up Videos. Maybe Jackson can try that with the hobbit trilogy.   

Defender: Tara 

The entire "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is amazing. We'll just put aside the fact that I'm kind of obsessed with Elves and that Aragorn and Arwen are a serious OTP for me. (That kind of happens every time there is a spark between a mortal and an immortal, kind of like Buffy/Angel and Jane/Thor. But I digress.) I'm going to take this point by point, addressing each bolded section in Jason's case against the trilogy.

I actually saw the movies before I read the books, except for "Return of the King," and I was/am still a huge fan of the movies.

Being an English major, I understood Gandalf's transformation rather easily. Gandalf clearly serves as the guide archetype in LOTR. From the very beginning, he knows that the journey will change Frodo. He sees Frodo (as he had seen Bilbo) as a young and enthusiastic Hobbit. Gandalf will do whatever it takes to ensure the success of the mission, and in fighting the Balrog, he sacrificed as any mentor would do. Following his sacrifice, Gandalf is reborn to the next level; if you notice, there are changes when he returns as Gandalf the White. He truly wears the ultimate responsibilities of an Istar, now.

Gollum's interactions are confusing at first - that's true. But watch the way he skulks about after Frodo. Why is it that Frodo really fears him? Because Gollum is less important as a present character and more important as Frodo's living fear. Frodo isn't as afraid of the creature attacking him as he is of what Gollum represents. Hold on to this ring too long, and this is what will happen to me. Be without it; this is what I may become. And we do see in the end of the movies that Frodo has changed - he has lost so much of his innocence that he has trouble acclimating to life in the Shire once more.

I thought the second movie was a bit slow, and I feel this way about the second movie in many trilogies. The original "Star Wars" trilogy is a fine example, and it's one reason I'm nervous about all of the Marvel Phase 2 movies that are coming out soon. Changing POV (point of view) between different groups helped break the movie up. And while I'm not the biggest fan of the Ents (tree people), they serve a very important element in the story and I'm glad they're in it. The Ents represent:

Topic Face Off: The Bechdel Test

FACE OFF: The Bechdel Test (topic)

Originated by: Alison Bechdel

Introduction: What is the Bechdel Test?

The Bechdel Test is a competency applied to movies, books, graphic novels, and other media. For the purposes of this blog entry, we'll discuss how it applies to movies (since that's what we review).   To pass the test, a movie must a) feature two named female characters who b) have a conversation with each other about c) something other than a man. You can learn more about the Bechdel Test at BechdelTest.com.

Critic: Jason

Tis a silly test.

Tara how is your husband?  (Whew had to fail the test first.) I find it funny that this post is tagged with the word "equality." The Bechdel Test does nothing to promote equality or even find it in media. It even slurs the idea of what a well-rounded character is. When I get together with friends, I don't always talk about women BUT the topic comes up. That is because I am, like the majority, not asexual.

I don't curb these discussions because I am proud of who and what I am. Now I understand that it is bad character development if a character (no matter what the gender) is one-track minded. It is the reason Sam Malone in "Cheers" progressively becomes a pathetic character with each season. We get the joke, he sluts around town and the guys applaud him for it. Also Vince Vaughn; I don't need to say any more.

Princess vs Princess.  

Tara pointed out to me that "Star Wars" movies don't pass even though Leia is a strong, well-rounded character  (The point of the test mind you.)  Leia saves Hon Solo by going under cover at Jabba's. Also, don't forget she took over her own rescue when Luke and Han were saving her and ended up saving them.  That's right the save-ee becomes the saver. Take that, hunter/hunted!

Now lets look at Cher from "Clueless."  Cher is a valley girl in high school and a horrible stereotype. Heck, I am just a cross dresser and I am offended by Cher. She can't earn good grades and must negotiate and barter for them; she can't drive,  she's more worried about her clothes than her own safety when she is being mugged.

Oh, and lets not forget the fact that she judges a book by its cover when she tells her friend not to date a skater. In fact, her one redeeming quality is the fact she doesn't disown Christian when she finds out he is gay. So clearly this movie can't pass the Bechdel Test.  Oh wait, it did. The first female-to-female conversation is about Dionne's wardrobe and funny hat. Not being sure if it actually did pass the test, I checked it out of BechdelTest.com and sure enough, it does count.

So if I had to pick a role model for my fictitious daughter Ada,  I would rather want her to be Leia.

This is because it is a meaningless test; it doesn't gauge if a character has meaning, just if her first conversation wasn't about a boy and IF it was the first female-to-female conversation.  Also, as long as we worry about things like this then we really won't have equality.

Defender: Tara 


Tis a noble test!

When movies more often than not fail to actually depict two named female characters talking to each other about anything other than a guy, it's a problem. End of story. That's not how real life works, and if my fictitious daughter (we'll call her 'Anne Shirley') was watching movies, I'd want her to see something other than portrayals of women talking about guys and nothing else.

Additionally, the Bechdel Test is a valuable tool for producers and film companies. Let's say a company like Marvel Entertainment wants to diversify their audience. How do they do it? They make a movie - like "Thor" (2011). "Thor" is a movie focused on a guy with an ego problem, but it still manages to pass the Bechdel Test within the first ten minutes. By the time the character of Thor came back in "The Avengers," the ensemble Marvel movie made it onto the top five grossing movies of all time - boasting a 40% female demographic for viewership. (I'm okay with that. Here, Marvel, take all my money. Just have it.)