396 replies to this topic

[Call Billy Bob]

the film is over when it needs to be over.  No protracted sequences bloating the film, no series of endings.

Except for the two times they thought they destroyed the T-800 at the end (when the truck blew up and when they put the pipe bomb in its skeleton)

 

I kid, I kid!

[SecretAgentFan]

 

And now...

 

"TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY"

 

One of those rare sequels that does not just repeat everything bigger (well, it does that, too) but expands on the original´s story in many interesting ways.  However, it certainly is afflicted with the change of Schwarzenegger´s persona during that time, becoming a huge box office draw as the punchline-spouting hero, forcing the character to switch sides here  - something which could have sunk the film.  Instead, Cameron works with it, telling a story of how "human" a machine can become.  (The only scene which still irks me is when the terminator at the end says "I need a vacation" - too much of a gag that is not in character.)  I do wonder if the film had benefited from Schwarzenegger still be the bad terminator (with all the qualities of the new guy).  But that´s just a thought.

 

The film still feels not outdated at all and is absolutely effective - again because the innovative effects and the elaborate stunt mayhem is balanced with strong characters, taking its time between the action sequences to let everyone breath and become identifiable.

 

Also, it´s over when it should be over.  No big coda, just that great line.  A film that deserves to be a classic.  Although I personally prefer the first film because the central idea is still fresh and the darker mood is not sweetened by humour yet, resulting in more of a horror film than the action thriller the sequel has morphed into.

 

 

I´m not a fan of the third one - I do like the dark ending and some of the action scenes but the story itself is too much of a rehash - and I do not like the fourth one at all - the idea to set it in the future is good but no character interests me and the action scenes are lackluster.

 

When TERMINATOR GENISYS was announced I was not looking forward to that either.  The first trailer didn´t do too much for me.  But the second one - yep, that really spiked up my interest.  Even if I usually don´t agree with trailers spoiling too much, the twist in that trailer actually managed to intrigue me.  And reading now about the film taking place during many alternative time lines makes me really want to see this.  I hope Cameron´s stamp of approval is not just a favor to his friend Arnie.

[S K Y F A L L]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I saw the trailer. The only thing with me is that I would be hoping Owen Wilson's character would get killed.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Lol I think that is why most people see his movies.

[Matt_13]

Jurassic World

Exactly what I thought it'd be. Nothing more, nothing less. And Chris Pratt definitely has screen presence.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I saw the trailer. The only thing with me is that I would be hoping Owen Wilson's character would get killed.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Lol I think that is why most people see his movies.

 

 

I love Owen Wilson.

[SecretAgentFan]

BACK TO THE FUTURE 1 & 2

 

A trip down memory lane.

 

The first film is flawless.  It hits all the right emotional buttons, tells its story efficiently and with a touching central dilemma: how can you make your parents fall in love when something happened that would have prevented that?

 

It´s just one of those perfect films for me.  Granted, nostalgia may play a part in this.  Watching the film again after many, many years I became aware of how much information the plot has to deliver.  If the actors weren´t so good and likeable, that could have resulted in a very dry and mechanical film.

 

 

The second film... well, that one has two things working against it from the start.  No. 1: Crispin Glover does not play Marty McFly´s father anymore - one of the major ingredients of the first film.  Therefore this sequel avoids his character.  It hides that sad fact pretty well (with scenes from the first film and body doubles).  Still, it´s a shame.  The have Marty and his father interact in the future would have been wonderful.  No.2: The actress that played Marty´s girlfriend is exchanged with Elizabeth Shue.  And then, even her character gets sidelined very quickly and is not really used in the film at all, dropping out after the first half completely.

 

Both problems seem to hint at a very confused development of the sequel.  At the end of the first film, Marty and his girlfriend are taken to the future because of problems concerning their children.  That I would have loved to see.  Unfortunately, we´re dropped right into a situation where Marty himself has turned into a loser and his kid is even worse.  The other children (played by Fox, too) are quickly forgotten.  And the story turns into "Biff strikes back" -which is okay.  But it loses all the charm of the first film, degenerating into a nightmare vision of the future with a kind of violence that feels awkward and out of place.  The film regains some momentum when the characters have to return to the 50´s and the climactic night of the first film, showing everything from a different perspective.  That part actually is fun again - but it also sorely lacks the interaction of Marty´s parents who are only seen in the distance.

 

So, while moving forward at a quick pace, the second film is never boring but very different in tone.  I was disappointed by that when I saw it for the first time, and I still cannot shake that feeling.  Zemeckis & Co did their best, probably, under most difficult circumstances.  But the result is one of those sequels which make you hope for a remake that honors the first film much better.

 

I want to watch part 3 now, of course, which I remember as much sunnier and more entertaining - but still miles apart from the greatness of the first film.

[Call Billy Bob]

Granted, nostalgia may play a part in this.

This is not directed at you, SAF. Just an observation. But it seems to me that there has been an internet backlash towards nostalgia in the past few years. Many reviews of classic movies contain the phrase "remove the rose colored glasses of nostalgia and see the film for what it really is" or something similar. What's wrong with nostalgia?!? Sometimes, it's the only thing that gets me through a rough day - watching a childhood favorite or reading a well-loved book. And if you're not a professional film critic, why not view your most remembered film experiences as cherished and special? Again, not directed at SAF in any way. Just something that's been in the back of my mind for quite some time.

I want to watch part 3 now, of course, which I remember as much sunnier and more entertaining - but still miles apart from the greatness of the first film.

BTTF Part III is my favorite of the bunch. Yes, I love it more than the original (blasphemy!) It has a kind of charm and look that the other two don't have. Plus, it shifts the focus more squarely on Doc - which I enjoy tremendously!

[S K Y F A L L]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I saw the trailer. The only thing with me is that I would be hoping Owen Wilson's character would get killed.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Lol I think that is why most people see his movies.

 

 

I love Owen Wilson.

 

I liked Wedding Crashers and I actually really enjoyed BEHIND ENEMY LINES. His brother Luke is more my taste though.

[Professor Pi]

JP / JP: TLW / JP III

 

Still haven't seen Jurassic World yet, but revisited these three.  Saw the 3D reissue of Jurassic Park two years ago and while this is often regarded as the best, it has slow spots and some clunky dialog.  Still the visuals are impressive, work pretty well in 3D before there was such a thing, which is a testament to Spielberg's vision in setting up shots, and deserves credit for showing us realistic dinosaurs we hadn't seen onscreen before.  Its effects hold up well.

 

I found The Lost World the most enjoyable of the three.  Its dialog is sharper and wittier, mostly thanks to Jeff Goldblum's Malcom character.  Annoying kids are kept to a minimum.  Also, Pete Postelwaite as the game hunter practically chews more scenery than the dinosaurs.  The set pieces like the trailer scene, raptors picking off humans in the meadow, and the finale in San Diego continue to show Spielberg's flare.

 

Jurassic Park III suffers from several losses--no Spielberg, no Michael Chrichton source material, no Jeff Goldblum, no John Williams.  While Sam Neil returns as Dr. Grant, his motivations for doing so are weak (dude, make sure the check clears before hopping on a plane to a dinosaur island!)  It feels and looks like a sequel made on the cheap.  Also, JP III doesn't really show us anything new, except for some pteradactyls.  Nor does this installment offer any subtext about animal husbandry, genetic engineering, corporate profiteering, or humanity's hubris.  Every trilogy has a weak entry, and this one is it.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

Granted, nostalgia may play a part in this.

This is not directed at you, SAF. Just an observation. But it seems to me that there has been an internet backlash towards nostalgia in the past few years. Many reviews of classic movies contain the phrase "remove the rose colored glasses of nostalgia and see the film for what it really is" or something similar. What's wrong with nostalgia?!? Sometimes, it's the only thing that gets me through a rough day - watching a childhood favorite or reading a well-loved book. And if you're not a professional film critic, why not view your most remembered film experiences as cherished and special? Again, not directed at SAF in any way. Just something that's been in the back of my mind for quite some time.

I want to watch part 3 now, of course, which I remember as much sunnier and more entertaining - but still miles apart from the greatness of the first film.

BTTF Part III is my favorite of the bunch. Yes, I love it more than the original (blasphemy!) It has a kind of charm and look that the other two don't have. Plus, it shifts the focus more squarely on Doc - which I enjoy tremendously!

 

 

BACK TO THE FUTURE III

 

Instead of the hectic darkness of part 2 this concluding part offers more laid-back amusement in its Wild West setting, focusing more on Doc than on Marty - which is fine.  

 

Still, the potential to tell the whole trilogy as a story about Marty - his past, his present, his future - and his family would have been more to my liking.

 

Part III has a great finale, yet the film feels to me like "been there done that", going through the motions, more an obligation to finish things up.  In that way, the whole trilogy is similar to "THE MATRIX"-trilogy.  Although I do prefer this light-hearted entertainment, and the "Future"-sequels are much more fun.

[Professor Pi]

Gone Girl 2014

 

I had avoided this movie when it came out in the middle of the NFL and Bill Cosby news last fall.  But I had heard a lot about it and friends were talking about it, so I watched it on HBO last night.

 

Jesus.

 

If Fatal Attraction was to scare you off cheating, or Basic Instinct to scare you off dating, Gone Girl isn't exactly a testimony for marriage.  Though it does reinforce the idea of "til death do us part."  It's kind of a War of the Roses on steroids.

 

"I've killed for you, how many people can say that?" is not exactly something one wants to hear from a wife, even Rosamund Pike.  She does a fabulous job with the role playing both sides, whether it be loyal wife, seductive temptress or vengeful ex.  The second half of the film belongs to her while the first half drags predictably until the twist in the middle.  Her motives shift at least twice and while it's easy to say the first is out of vengeful insanity, the second is almost equally done out of necessity. 

 

The film peripherally dances around most issues in a marriage--infidellity, financial debt, materialism, what a couple does to each other when things don't work out.  It's also about the media in our society taking things out of context for the sake of sensationalism.  But mostly it's an extreme metaphor for the claustrophobia of a dysfunctional marriage.  Its resolution certainly isn't a happy ending, but neither is it exactly a cautionary morality tale.  Rather, it reinforces the inescapability of the choices we make and the limited options we perceive out of them.

[DaveBond21]

The Wicker Man (1973)

 

Christopher Lee's favourite movie that he starred in - "everyone has a bit of pagan in them", he said - is a cult British horror classic about a puritanical policeman chasing his tail on a pagan island. Lee himself is excellent and the film is also notable for containing Britt Ekland as the pub landlord's daughter.

 

We also have Edward Woodward's towering performance, Anthony Shaffer's brilliantly nasty script, Paul Giovanni's haunting music and the weird atmosphere through the whole thing.

 

One piece of advice - avoid edited versions of this movie - seek out the longest print you can.

 

Not really a horror film - there is nothing quite like The Wicker Man. 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

[x007AceOfSpades]

James Horner, composer of Titanic, Avatar, Wrath Of Khan, Braveheart (and many many more) dies in plane crash.

Very, very saddening news.

[SecretAgentFan]

I am publicly eating my hat.  In my review for the first two Terminator-movies I said that I did not like the third one or the fourth one, based on my memories of those.

 

Since re-watching the first two has put me in the mood for "Terminator Genisys" I decided to take a second look at No.3 and 4.

 

And really, Jonathan Mostow´s follow-up to the two Cameron films was... astonishingly good.  Why did I remember this film as being so subpar?

 

 

TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES

 

Of course, the novelty factor is not there anymore.  Two terminator models are sent back to battle each other over John Connor.  Lots of mayhem and stunts.  In the end, judgement day again is stopped.

 

Wrong.

 

Well, at least the last part.  (I hope that´s not a spoiler - but for a film that is over 10 years old, c´mon...)

 

This third installment, much maligned and not as successful anymore, actually is very courageous in steering towards a very bleak ending, reversing the idea of the second film that the future can still be changed.

 

Apart from that, it offers a superb chase sequence in its first half that definitely impressed me big time.  And all the other action is handled very well, I´d even say on the same level as Cameron´s work.

 

Making the new model a woman is an interesting idea but could have been played with more (as it is, the female aspect is just there for the visuals - I would have loved a terminatrix to use her head instead of sheer invincibility to get to John Connor).

 

What´s different from the first two films?  More humour!  And while this sometimes is achieved through a bit too many "Schwarzenegger-expected one-liners", it makes for some fun viewing, especially in the first half.

 

All in all, this is a sequel that should be re-appreciated, at least given a second chance.  And it opened up the chance to move forward into the post-apocalyptic future, instead of dwelling on changing the past again and again.

 

So, while munching away on my hat - I had a very good time watching this film.

 

 

And...

 

TERMINATOR SALVATION

 

Second hat to eat.

 

A terrifically entertaining move forward, incorporating the basic elements of the "Terminator"-saga, reinventing parts of it while making everything fit.  The action is ramped up, the whole film is more in tune with contemporary action blockbusters than Cameron´s cooler, more focused approach.  

 

Still, it´s a bloody good film, and together with part 3 definitely nothing that this franchise has to apologize for or forget.

 

Now, let´s see how "Terminator Genisys" will carry the torch.

[tdalton]

I've got to admit, I find it rather humorous that Schwarzenegger and company have talked at length about how bad Terminator Salvation is, yet they've actually gone ahead and incorporated elements of the discarded twist ending that McG had planned for Terminator Salvation 

Spoiler

and made John Connor into a Terminator.

[Professor Pi]

James Horner, composer of Titanic, Avatar, Wrath Of Khan, Braveheart (and many many more) dies in plane crash.

Very, very saddening news.

 

Can this be re-posted as its own thread?

 

When we lose a film composer (John Barry, Jerry Goldsmith), I feel a sadness the way the general public does when a pop icon or rock legend passes.  Arguably, their music is heard by more people through not only film and CD soundtracks, but commercials, movie trailers, and advertisements.  Horner's 'countdown' music from Aliens is a prime example. 

 

While he is known for the Titanic soundtrack score--and I did not know it set a record for most sold instrumental score album (wow, even over Star Wars?)--it was his work for Star Trek II , Field of Dreams, and Legends of the Fall that resonated the most with me.  One of the few composers whose soundtracks I would buy without seeing the movie (alas, Casper), he also scored Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger, and was a composer whose take on Bond I would have liked to hear.  He'd occasionally borrow from himself, but it was always welcome to hear those chords again.  His ethereal piano, percussive creations, and swirling clouds of sound underscored a movie's sentiments, whether quietly emotive or with pulse pounding action. 

 

Setting the Artist Mode to "James Horner" on the mega changer today.

[x007AceOfSpades]

The Terminator - 1984 - 5/5 - Directed by James Cameron - starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michael Biehn.

At nearly thirty-one years old, James Cameron's The Terminator still packs a punch like no ever. One of the finest pieces of science fiction to ever grace the screen, with a unique story, brilliant direction, a relentless presence from leading man, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

A Resistance soldier from a post-apocalyptic Los Angeles, Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn) is sent back in time to the year 1984 to protect a woman named Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton). Meanwhile, a cyborg killing machine, a T-800 Model 101 Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is sent back in time as well to kill Sarah. The catch: Sarah Conner is the yet-to-be mother of one John Conner. The Man who would grow up to become the leader of The Resistance in the future and would go on to nearly defeat Skynet, a defense network that would cause a nuclear holocaust and rage war with the remnants of humanity with cyborgs. With a highly intelligent and killer cyborg after them, Kyle & Sarah must stay a step ahead and defeat the terminator, all while Sarah must accept her destiny and the future.

The Terminator could have easily turned out to be an 80's science fiction B-Movie, but instead becomes a great piece of storytelling. It's a simple, yet deeply layered story that is about survival and the preservation of mankind in the future. The idea of a killer cyborg sent back in time to kill someone may sound like an iffy idea, but James Cameron executes it so perfectly. He, along with co-writer, Gale Anne Hurd, craft a tense, atmospheric sci-film that at times feels like a horror film and is indeed quite scary.

 

Prior to The Terminator James Cameron was a special effects technician (he even worked on Escape From New York) and his only directing credit was Piranha II: The Spawning. It took a fever and a bad dream about a metallic torso crawling from an explosion to spawn the idea that would be this film. Low-budget/indie studios saw the film as a risk, but nonetheless, Cameron turned it into a hit on a $6.4Million budget. Cameron conceived the film from his dream and stated that it was John Carpenter whom he was influenced by and idolized in wanting to create a stylish horror film. The Terminator is a relentless science fiction action film, with the nerve-racking tension of a horror film. It's one hell of an edge-of-your-seat thriller.

 

That brings me to Arnold Schwarzenegger, who brings Cameron's killer cyborg to life, almost too perfectly. His hulking physique, robotic body movements, and emotionless face add to the scary nature of the terminator. A walking nightmare that will not stop until it has completed it's mission. It's exactly what Kyle Reese says in the film: "It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead". That quote tells you everything you need to know about the T-800.

 

To rival Schwarzenegger's Terminator, you have Michael Biehn's Kyle Reese, who absolutely doesn't look like he can do much against a terminator. It's almost David and Goliath when you compare the two, but the hardened soldier that is Reese, holds his own very well against the Terminator. I've always enjoyed Biehn in this role, as I think there's absolutely no one else who could pull it off better than him. His portrayal is just as brilliant as Schwarzenegger as the soldier who has seen the struggle of humanity and the horrors of war, who is tasked with a mission that goes beyond importance. Biehn has such impeccable chemistry with co-star, Linda Hamilton whose character, Sarah Connor is a treat to watch evolve over the film (and the sequel). She's a young woman who must quickly accept what future she and her son now have and accept her destiny. No matter how hard it is to believe, she doesn't want to, until the end of the film, when realized fighting is survival.

 

The cinematography captures the mood of the film so perfectly, and Brad Fiedel's industrial score only heightens everything. The action sequences, particularly the police department shootout and the factory finale are all very well shot. They give off a terrifying, almost claustrophobic vibe all while a killer cyborg is on the loose. These are all aided by the slick editing which brings the sequences perfectly together instead of appearing dull. With such an intricate story, The Terminator is very paced at 107 minutes, never feeling as if the film is becoming boring, instead keeping you waiting for more as the impending dread further looms.

 

The Terminator has no doubt created itself such a wonderful legacy, not to mention further pushing the bar with the special effects, despite it's minuscule budget. Sure it looks dated in some areas, but they honestly still look impressive for me. Stan Winston is one hell of an effects guru, and his work will continue to live on. A classic in it's own right, James Cameron's film is just absolutely flawless in every aspect. It's even better than some of the genre and action films that Hollywood continues to pump out. It's highly influential and completely enthralling. It's timeless. It's relentless. It's a goddamn masterpiece of filmmaking.

[Professor Pi]

JURASSIC WORLD

 

The most enjoyable way to watch this movie is to look for easter eggs to the others (Malcolm's book, God Created Dinosaurs, making two appearances), and interpret the story as a sort of meta story on the making of Jurassic World itself.  Focus groups, CGI, marketing, corporate profits, and product placements are all acknolwedged, even made fun of, to the point of self-mockery.  (Jimmy Buffet has a cameo in his own Margaritaville.)

 

Let's make a dinosaur theme park with real dinosaurs.   Uh ... bad idea!  Let's make a sequel to a dead franchise without author Michael Crichton, Steven Spielberg, Stan Winston, or John Williams.  Uh ... very profitable idea?  "This is happening with or without you."  In that way, Colin Trevorrow has cleverly subverted yet shallowly celebrated all that we like about the franchise.  As a whole, the movie is all over the place, with characters suddenly changing motives inconsistent with their arcs (the park ownwer, Mr. Mazrani being the prime example.)  The most interesting is Dr. Wong, whose reappearance and obsession with his career legacy adds a somewhat shady backdrop to his character.  Bryce Dallas Howard is likable and resourceful.  Chris Pratt plays a rather bland everyman character very straightforward, and that's not necessarily a bad thing here.  He doesn't have any memorable or insightful lines, even funny ones, which is a waste of Pratt's talents.  Instead, the film prefers to quote visually.

 

Because it's the dinosaurs who are the stars.  The old and the familiar versus the new.  It's interesting how the 'bad' animals in one movie become the heroes in the next.  All in all, this is a movie whose sum is greater than its parts.  There are lots of ideas teased--a velociraptor whisperer, technology vs. nature, animal rights, a nod to Jaws that should have been a commentary on Sea World, evolution versus design, humanity's hubris and self obsession in the midst of natural wonders.  But none of them are developed or followed through, except for the weaponizing of the animals which nearly turned this into an Alien/Prometheus movie.  Yet the purpose of the movie isn't to say something, which one can say about the first two, but to make it accessible to everyone.  Just like an actual theme park.

 

Like Star Wars and Jaws, the financial success of this monster will make it harder to make independent, original art forms in film.  If there wasn't going to be a Sharknado 4 before, there will now.  Actually, Jurassic World might be it.

[Professor Pi]

Terminator Genisys

 

It's really hard to make three good films for a trilogy, even after two tries.  Like Alien and Superman franchises, this fifth installment of Terminator wisely decided to ignore the last two entries, and pay homage to the first two films that fans love and hold dear.  But also in the process they have completely negated them via an alternate timeline ala 2009's Star Trek.  Still, the result is ... not that bad.

 

Terminimator Genisys opens in the future, as all Terminator movies seem to now, but this time from the perspective of Kyle Reese, played blandly by Jai Courtney. (What, they couldn't get Liam Hemsworth?  I wondered if this is now a running gag in the Terminator franchise--casting serviceably bad actors to play Kyle Reese.)  It's all predictably stuff we know until we get back to 1984, ala Back to the Future II.  We've seen these scenes before, but now from a new perspective.  Whereas BTTF2 wanted to ensure the timeline was preserved, Gensisys immediately drops noticeable butterfly effects informing the audience neither past nor future is set in stone.  A new T-1000 is there in 1984, two Arnold T-800s, and best of all, a badass Sarah Connor admirably casted with and played by Emilia Clarke.  She and the iconic Scharzenegger are the two best things about this movie, and they make one willing to suspend the disbelief over the massive plot holes (A T-1000 in 1984?  How?  A T-800 sent to protect Sarah in 1973?  By whom?  Will Hot Tub Time Machine 3 explain this please?)  Supposedly, these are questions the next two installments are meant to answer (stay for a mid credits scene establishing that.)  Otherwise, Genisys could have concluded the trilogy competently enough (skipping the dark T3 and the dreadful T-Salvation), but that's not why it exists. 

 

It exists to make money, hence the PG-13 rating.  Didn't Robocop teach Hollywood anything about making an R-rated franchise PG-13?  The action is abundant and empty.  You know terminators survive everything--bullets, explosions, freezing, fire--so it gets kind of boring.  The Golden Gate Bridge action scene appears again as it did in Superman, X-Men, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, San Andreas and even a stunt from The Lost World that surprisingly wasn't in the Jurassic Park requel.  Also, in an attempt to appeal to the masses, Terminator Genisys has more humor than the others.  You won't be repeating the lines later, but you will laugh in the moment.  However, the best gags are Arnie's forced smile and the mug shots. 

 

LIke Jurassic World, TG has callbacks to earlier films in the series, but alas reminding us that we're not watching something as great either.  JK Rowlings is there not taking it too seriously, by ironically taking it too seriously (glad this man got an Academy Award already.  Might even buy insurance from him now!)  Jason Clarke plays John Connor as if a stuntman doubling for Christian Bale.  (Why couldn't they cast him?--Oh, right!)  The chemistry between Emilia Clarke and Jai Courtney is zilch, but one scene in the hospital comes close to having a spark.  However, she and Schwarzenneger play magnificently off each other in a father figure daughter relationship.

 

Whether or not its sequels are greenlighted will probably be answered by Monday morning's grosses.  Not sure where'd they'd go after this.  How about Sarah taking the boys on a time travel to Westeros?  "I've got these dragons ... "

Edited by Professor Pi, 01 July 2015 - 06:01 PM.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Mad Max: Fury Road' (2015)
‘Fury Road’ continues the established character of Mad Max made famous by Mel Gibson over a trilogy of films, the final being 30 years ago. Director George Miller maintains knowledge of his audience, his cinematic messages and his passion for film-making to deliver a visual feast for the eyes with a strong, simple story, visually stunning cinematography and some classic B-movie characters and action that continue to fit into the world established back in 1979 with no room for nostalgia or relying on what has gone before to be both faithful sequel and a strong stand-alone film, whichever you wish to see it as. For me, it’s a continuation of the Road Warrior’s journey.

This is one of those films I’ll need to watch again to take it all in, because I spent half the time looking at what was CGI and what wasn’t, because it teeters on the edge of insanity before bringing practicality straight back into play in a series of eye-popping car chases, fights and stuntwork that looks and feels dangerous. It reminded me of ‘Sin City’ at times, transferred to a desert – laws of physics are ignored at times for bone crunching car crashes and bodies and thrown up, down, left and right and battered around, in, under and over moving cars, trucks and bikes. It’s chaos – much like the world we are seeing play out before us – desperate times lead to desperate measures for all involved.

Tom Hardy successfully continues Mel Gibson’s silent hero established in 1979 here in 2015 with very little change – he doesn’t speak much and is world weary. He knows how to fight and how to survive, and he we don’t really know what is driving him, but we are eager to stay with him to find out. Conveying so much with physical features rather than overly-expositional dialogue, Max is a wonderfully refreshing hero to get behind in the era of superheroes and indestructible good guys. Hardy is rough around the edges, carries an predatory animalistic quality to him and relies on personal knowledge and skill rather than gadgetry and an OTT arsenal to get the job done. He doesn’t say much, but we are hooked on everything he DOES say because it is important to hear when he does.

Along with strong fellow cast members like Charlize Theron, firmly waving the flag for strong female leads in action films again (with a surprisingly refreshing strong female cast supporting her), and Nicholas Hoult in a super transformation into War Boy Nux, Miller has continued to give us characters who are eccentric, full of inner demons and never 100% fit and able. They have flaws, imperfections and disabilities that spur them on to achieve bigger and better things.

They don’t have superpowers and hi-tech gadgets and that is so appealing to invest in, which allows practical film-making to shine with the use of superbly designed vehicles that traverse the desert and almost come across as supporting characters themselves. Blending real and CGI action together does nothing to damped the thrills and spectacle here, because from the off we can see this is a mad world, with mad characters and mad rules and if we can’t allow ourselves to accept that, we won’t enjoy the ride.

In a story that is rooted in survival and focuses on finding a place to call home rather than saving the world or saving an entire race of people, ‘Fury Road’ is the underdog of 2015 cinema that took a huge gamble backed by immense faith and passion in its creation to deliver an exciting thrill ride that touches on the Grindhouse movies that leaves us begging for more from the Road Warrior as the final frame fades to black. I can’t wait to see where this road leads to next.


'Minions'(2015)
I have seen parts of first two introductions to the Minions – ‘Despicable Me’ 1 and 2. Both, from what I saw, were a little amusing, but never really grabbed me and I have to say I’ve never clicked with the Minion humour. Yes, it’s based on the fact they talk in a mix of languages no-one can ever place and are crazy, loveable oafs at heart who come across as cute in many places, but I never saw the wide appeal. Then again, that’s why I wasn’t on the commissioning board at Universal Pictures to green-light this prequel.

Sitting through this for my 4 year old son who loves the Minions and their crazy, comical attributes (characters that can appeal to any culture, age or race it seems by you not being able to loop them into a specific culture themselves), the novelty of the characters themselves wore off after the first 15 minutes or so. They talk funny and are like lemmings at times, devoted and courageous, but that’s it. Picking out French and Spanish in their language and also Judaism, the Minions really ARE multi-cultural.

The story spans the globe in a number of comical mishaps involving the general public, law enforcement, super-villains and even the Queen of England, and plenty of people fall over, get hit, get attacked and generally go through the usual comedic slapstick violence that little children will lap up with a series of funny facial gestures and noises to go with it. Remove the voice talent of film favourites Michael Keaton, Sandra Bullock and even Geoffrey Rush as they don’t REALLY add anything to this – sure they have a few good lines here and there but they are dwarfed by the Minions, irritatingly voiced by director Pierre Coffin who has a created a love them/hate them collection of characters that do wonders for marketing thanks to all the toys, books, clothes and sweets I’ve seen with their goggle-eyed faces adorning.

As all British characters are depicted to be tea drinkers, from police to TV journalists, it’s a very drawn out joke about how the Minions can’t be understood and how their naivety leads them into trouble across time and I didn’t find it funny at all. To me this is pre-school entertainment compared to the layered offerings of Pixar’s animation that really does click all generations together. Parents must get more amusement watching their children imitate and act the fool as the Minions do on-screen; I know I did.

The animation is good, nice and bright as you'd expect and when the slapstick isn't in your face, a few little jokes and set pieces do make you chuckle, but it's nothing we haven't seen before in these "fish out of water" animated films.

I can’t see the point of this film except for A) Cashing in on the Minions themselves, and Making a big leap to the first film towards the end. If you ask me, this could have been a far more welcome 20 min short as a Blu-ray bonus rather than a 90min feature film.

[The Dove]

In honor of today being its 30th anniversary, I'll be putting on Back To The Future. Happy 30th anniversary, McFly!!

[SecretAgentFan]

Indeed.  30 years...  that´s tough to swallow for me.  I remember watching the first one in the cinema thinking - boy, he goes back to the 50´s, 30 years back... that´s so far away.

 

Now, I feel like 30 years have passed so quickly...

[Professor Pi]

Indeed.  30 years...  that´s tough to swallow for me.  I remember watching the first one in the cinema thinking - boy, he goes back to the 50´s, 30 years back... that´s so far away.

 

Now, I feel like 30 years have passed so quickly...

 

"Where are the flying cars?  I was promised flying cars!" 

(quote from Avery Brooks in a 2000 era commercial.)

[x007AceOfSpades]

Terminator 2: Judgement Day - 1991 - 5/5 - Directed by James Cameron - starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Robert Patrick

When it comes to sequels (and ones to genre films), there's nothing quite like Terminator 2: Judgement Day. There's a handful of sequels nowadays that actually improve (if there were any flaws) and just top everything the first film (The Dark Knight springs to mind). By itself, The Terminator is a flawless masterpiece that works, but a sequel? T2 works. Really fricking well. It adds more to it's own universe and mythology, keeping true to it's sci-fi roots, while proving to still be one of the greatest action films in the last twenty-five years and one of the greatest sequels. Not just because of it's thrilling action sequences, but because of the acting, direction, and writing above all else.

 

1995, Ten year old, John Connor (Edward Furlong) is rebellious young boy living with his foster parents whose mother, Sarah, is locked up in a mental hospital because of the future war between man and machine. A Terminator model T-800 Model 101 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) has been sent back in time not to kill, but to protect John Connor. Why? Because Skynet has sent back a new Terminator, the T-1000 (Robert Patrick) to kill John Connor, leaving the future and the Resistance no leader. John now learns that his mother's talk isn't crazy, but truth and must learn to accept what lies in his future, just like his mother did. Together, they learn that a man, Miles Dyson (Joe Morton), an engineer for Cyberdyne systems is working on a CPU that will culminate in the birth of Skynet. They then set out to prevent Judgement Day by destroying the CPU and Cyberdyne.

 

Terminator 2: Judgement Day is definitely much more action packed than it's predecessor, but still plays to it's series strengths that were established in the original, while still being a fresh, innovative sequel. In the original it was Kyle Reese who had to instill in Sarah that this is now her life, her future whether she likes it or not -- she must accept her destiny, and ultimately she becomes a strong human being like him and does. In T2 it's John with his mother and the T-800 filling the role of Reese.

 

While it seems like a dramatic retread, it manages to be just as dramatic and emotional as the first film. While John grew up thinking his mother was just crazy, he does catch on quick (especially after finding out it was his future self sent the T-800 back in time), but builds a very strong bond with his Terminator. We shouldn't feel emotions that are transpiring between a human and cyborg, but we do, and boy is it just perfect. Over the course of a 157 minutes (The Special Edition release) we become very attached to John and Sarah, but it's the T-800 we feel connected to. It's not just because the Terminator is a badass who rides a motorcycle and uses a Model 1887 Winchester, but the bond we see grow over the course of the film between him and John. And even the strong partnership he builds with Sarah. I'd be lying if I said that the final scene of the character before he self-terminates still nearly brings me to tears. It's an action film that has such a strong emotional quality to it that it works masterfully.

 

If there's one thing I've noticed in modern blockbusters now, is that it seems like each successive action scene must be bigger than the previous one. Here, it fluctuates. You have the shootout in the galleria that gets the story in motion and ultimately sets up one the film's grandest action sequences and one of the best chase scenes in action film cinema. T2 doesn't try to everything and kitchen sink all out once, it gives you little tastes here and there, but still fulfilling your action film needs. That is until the third act which is practically one long, never ending action sequence that just keeps coming and coming and continues to leave wondering what's going to happen. From the epic shootout in the Cyberdyne, to the helicopter vs. SWAT van chase to the intense steel mill finale, it's absolutely brutal.

 

Arnold steps into the role of the T-800 once again and is just as, if not better than before. Here, he's not the cyborg assassin sent to eliminate his target. He's a cyborg sent to protect. Schwarzenegger does more with this character, which is hard considering he can't show emotions, but goddammit he does. It's like Sarah Connor said: "If a machine can learn the value of human life, maybe we can too". Rivaling him is the T-1000, played all to perfectly by the ever-so-great, Robert Patrick. Patrick is everything the villainous T-800 in the original was, and then some. The T-1000 proves to be quite a foe to the T-800, but also incredibly intelligent and certainly menacing. A unique machine that is made up of mimetic poly-alloy that can take shape of whatever it touches makes for an interesting villain, one that is worth watching.

 

Linda Hamilton returns and is absolutely bada**. She pulls off that tough, strong woman attitude, but there's times in the film where she lowers that guard and we see her vulnerable. Her evolution over the two films is incredible to watch, and Hamilton just takes the character by storm and does such a phenomenal job. There's no one else that I could think of that could what she did in those two films. Beside her is Edward Furlong, whom at the time was surely the least experience, but still holds his own, strongly, amongst Hamilton, Schwarzenegger, and Patrick. He is at his absolute best in the film when it's just him and Schwarzenegger, and his final scene with him is quite moving.

 

Twenty-four years later, and the effects here work seamlessly, better than blockbusters today. Combining practical, make-up/Prosthetic, and at the time state of the art CGI, the result is incredible. I'll never forget the first time I saw this (as a kid), I was blown away, and honestly, I still am. They've held up quite well. From the holy S*** moments of the T-1000 to the incredibly realistic damaged face of the T-800 with the metal exoskeleton showing to the explosions, everything is just top-notch. While a liquid-metal killer cyborg seems baffling, it's the effects that bring it to life with Robert Patrick's killer performance that make it believable.

 

The cinematography and editing are all good, but they are of course, at they're best during the action sequences. The musical score by Brad Fiedel introduces new cues and a new style, pertaining the industrial feel, but feeling a little more dramatic. The result though is great. It isn't repeating what was recorded in 1984, it's just building upon it and giving us one hell of a score.

 

Expertly written & directed by James Cameron, he creates a film that has since become a blueprint for crafting a brilliant action film or sequel. While some films (few, might I add) have succeeded in doing so, others, particularly from now, have failed. T2 is just a one-of-a-kind film. A special film. It truly is unrivaled.

 

Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines - 2003 - 1.5/5 - Directed by Jonathan Mostow - starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nick Stahl

The story of Terminator ended with T2, but for Hollywood, a cash-cow was born. After the critical and commercial success that was the second film back in 1991, you just know they were aching for a third film. Except Cameron didn't want it. He told his story. Instead of having the brilliant conclusion to T2 staying final, we now have a sequel that comes up with more ways to tell an already finished story. The result is a very disappointing film -- one that wasn't needed.

 

John Connor (Nick Stahl) is a drifter, living off the grid ever since his mother, Sarah died. Judgement Day never happened, but John still believes it will. On July 24th, 2004 (two days before my birthday, how awesome [sarcasm]), Skynet sends a new terminator, the T-X (Kristanna Loken) to track and kill future soldiers and high ranking officials of the Resistance. The T-850 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) has been sent back to protect John and his future wife and second in command, Kate Brewster (Claire Danes). Meanwhile, a global computer virus has taken control of computers, and the Air Force activates the Skynet program, which is secretly the cause of the computer virus and Judgement Day.

 

What was so great in Cameron's previous film was that even though they (John, Sarah, and the T-800) stopped Cyberdyne and the eventful rise of Skynet, Judgement Day was prevented, but the future is uncertain. They were safe, but the future changes constantly. The way it ended was the most perfect way for a two-film story arc. It felt as if everything James Cameron wanted to tell was told. Now, we have a film that is finding more ways to tell more to the story, but it isn't needed. Yet, it shows T3 with Judgement Day happening and it's inevitability, but it's the way it's handled that is just so poor. It's the unnecessary sequel that goes by the rule of upping everything up, believing it will be satisfying.

 

The writing is the biggest issue here, along with Jonathan Mostow's uninspired direction. It's clear from the beginning that Mostow & Co. obviously aren't going for a Cameron-esque film, but instead for a mindless blockbuster. The story when compared to the first films is appalling to bring up. The narrative and plotting is weak, the film plays to the strengths of T2 instead of trying to do something new. If you're not going to copy what Cameron did style wise (which is reasonable), then think outside the box and give it your own spin, instead of relying on previously used feats from the franchise. T3 is content with choosing dull action and out of place humor, instead of going for something new.

 

Characters don't feel fleshed out all. Mainly with John, who just isn't the same in this film as he was in the last. Nick Stahl does a serviceable job playing the part, for which I have no negatives, other than the material he's forced to work with. It's hard to believe that this is the same character from the second film; aside from the name, they're almost nothing alike. Even Arnold's T-850 feels... off. Surely, he's great in the action scenes, but the added humor to his character just throw you way off as the film tries to get in a few laughs. The T-X isn't memorable either. It's a sort of hybrid terminator, that feels all too strangely like Robert Patrick's T-1000. Kristanna Loken's performance doesn't do much to the new cyborg either.

 

To me, It's like T3 is a parody of the very franchise it's apart of. Sure it shares the same franchise name and characters and mythology, but to watch this after the first two is like a polar opposite. It doesn't feel like a Terminator film, nor does it want to, no matter how desperate it tries. It's traded the provoking storytelling and well paced action in to become just a mindless action film. There's actually a formula for T3
Expository Dialogue -> Action scene -> Humor -> Expository Dialogue -> Longer Action Scene -> Rinse/Repeat

 

While Stahl, Danes, and Schwarzenegger give it their best, they're not enough to save the film. With CGI that looks very video game-y in comparison to T2 and a lack of substance that made the first two so great, Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines is an installment that never should have happened. It exists for a reason though. And that reason is money. Plain and simple. Anyone filmmaker who is smart enough would respect what James Cameron did and to just leave it at that.

 

Terminator Salvation - 2009 - 3.5/5 - Directed by McG - starring Christian Bale and Sam Worthington

Terminator Salvation gets a bad rap for continuing the trend that Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines started: Turning the franchise into just another blockbuster franchise. Salvation certainly exists because of the action that transpired in T3, but it's a much better film honestly. It ties everything together, and though I look at the franchise as the way James Cameron intended it to be; two films, I'm okay with looking at Terminator Salvation as the series third film.

 

After the events of Judgement Day, the war between humanity's last hope, The Resistance and Skynet has begun. The year is 2018, and John Connor (Christian Bale) leads an attack on a Skynet base where they learn that they are keeping human prisoners. Later, Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) wakes up with the only memory being that he was on death row in 2003 and shortly before donating his body to Cyberdyne Systems. John learns that Skynet has put out a kill list, himself being second on that list, with Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) being first. Kyle is eventually taken prisoner by Skynet and held at their San Francisco base. Marcus turns out to be a Terminator made up of machine and human organs. John and Marcus work together to stop Skynet and save Kyle and other prisoners.

 

It should be worth noting that John Connor has always been built as a sort of Christ-like figure in the franchise. A prophecy, a last hope for humanity, the one to lead us in war end to win it. Connor knows this, but he isn't that leader, thanks to some of the events in the previous film. Still even though he knows this and how the war will turn out (and how that T-850 will kill him on July 4th, 2032[17 years from today, actually!]), there's still a bit of conflict inside of him. He still takes orders, sometimes orders that don't necessarily make sense, but it's the step in the evolution of the character.

 

Still some things don't add up. While in the first film, Connor learns that though they're nearing the end of the war, Skynet has sent back a Terminator to kill his mother, ensuring they're survival in the future. In the third film, Connor is killed by the Terminator (as stated by the T-850) and a Terminator is sent back by his wife to ensure they're survival for the future. This film takes place in 2018 (Hey! three years from now!) and yet Skynet knows what is in store in the future, though they haven't even begun to experiment with time travel yet. So how? I don't know. You'd think Skynet would hope for a different endgame in this film, but apparently not.

 

The human/machine Hybrid terminator is interesting, but it's only there as a plot device for Skynet to kill John. It's again, interesting, but I feel it would've had a much better impact if it was just focusing on John Connor and HIM finding Kyle Reese. Still, for the issues that lie, Terminator Salvation isn't bad. It's definitely action packed, and though the plotting is a little iffy at times, it's certainly a big improvement over T3. It goes for something different, actually showing the war (probably because that's all there's left to do), and I have to say that I still enjoy this film.

 

The film has a very bleak, desaturated look of the film, in contract to the previous films. The apocalyptic wasteland of the world we once knew is captured, and very well. The night scenes, particularly at the Skynet prisoner holding facility are done very well, thanks to the lighting in the film which quite good. It's a fast paced and relentless in the action, which prove to be very engaging sequences. They don't match Cameron's action sequences, but they're an improvement over the video game that was T3.

 

Terminator Salvation is effects heavy, between practical and CGI, yet look much more impressive than it's predecessor. The design on the T-600's mirror Kyle Reese's comment about them in the future. Best part is that they were largely done by being stuntmen in suits. Still, it's not as groundbreaking as T2, but they're not bad nor are they over done.

 

Still with it's issues in the script, I still like Terminator Salvation. It does have it's callbacks to the first two films (the awesome placement of Guns 'N Roses "You Could Be Mine".), but it's still good enough. I would've liked a little more John Connor as it feels like he's more of a side character who doesn't become the main until the third act, but I was impressed with Bale in this film. I think some of the more glaring issues in the script would have been improved by the follow-up film, where they were going to discuss the evolutions of the Terminators and how time travel came to be.

 

Unfortunately, the production company filed for Bankruptcy, and the franchise sat in limbo until 2014/15 when Terminator Genisys came to be.

Still, I would've loved to see what would have been stored for a planned trilogy of films. I think it would have definitely improved on the issues here. But for what's it's worth, I do really enjoy Terminator Salvation.

[west]

Just saw Terminator Genisys.

I’m not sure how long into the film it was before I knew it wasn’t good, but the longer it went, the more I wish this film didn’t exist and I can’t remember ever leaving a cinema feeling so deflated, disappointed and gutted.

I’m a huge Terminator fan. I think 1 is incredible, 2 great, 3 good (and underrated) and Salvation ok and entertaining at the least. I always thought that any Terminator on the big screen would be welcome and at least enjoyable. Genisys has changed that. If this is the way the series is to progress, I hope any sequels are not green lit.

I am honestly struggling to think of anything about this film that was anything above ok, and even the ok moments were very, very rare.

Firstly the casting. Emilia Clarke did a decent job as Sarah Connor. Not amazing, but was the best of the lot. Arnold was let down by a script that made almost everything he did or say be played for laughs. His Terminator came off as a goofy sidekick, so any potential thrill of seeing him back in the role was completely wasted. Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese was absolutely appalling. Micheal Biehn played the character in an almost scavenger, rodent like manner, you could believe was born in an apocalyptic wasteland. And Anton Yelchin did a decent job of conveying a younger version of that. Most importantly they made the character likeable. Jai Courtney delivered one of the most atrocious, bland, dull and irritating performances I can recall. His Reese came across as a meathead jock that showed none of the ‘out of time soldier’ aspects of the character that you could sympathies with. He detracted from each scene he was in. Disastrous casting that seriously hurt the film for me.

(Spoilers ahead)

Without giving too much away, the story didn’t particularly resonate with me.  Genisys/Skynet being effectively a glorified app/cloud didn’t seem particularly convincing. I liked the idea that they hinted at that our reliance and obsession with smart devices would be our downfall, but this could, and should have been explored in a much more interesting way.

Lee Byung-Hun portrayed the T-1000 well, but by the time we were 30 minutes into the film we had see the original T-800 be defeated, then the T-1000 be defeated. It was awkward establishing a villain when two were introduced and then removed so quickly. As a note the CGI T-800 was incredible. The old vs young T-800 fight was a rare highlight, as was the destruction of the T-1000.

It was very disappointing that such a huge moment in the Terminator mythos as the turning and corruption of John Connor was given such little gravitas. The implications and significance of the John Connor falling was barley touched upon before he became just another bland villain. There have been 4 films creating the myth and legend of John Connor and his importance to the human race, yet the revelation of his fall was given about a minute and his parents, who did so much to protect him, barely registered the moment or the implications. They barley cared. (And the great warrior and leader came back to work undercover in an IT department…)

The action was bland and dull. The chases were bland and dull. And there was a ‘Bay Boys’ mug shot montage that played on the T-800 smiling gag for the umpteenth time.

The Terminator series for me will exist as an excellent T-800/Judgment Day trilogy, an entertaining stand alone in Salvation, and Genisys as a big mistake. It really leaves me gutted and disappointed to say this, but I’m not eager to see any more films in this ‘Genisys phase’.

Edited by west, 05 July 2015 - 02:16 AM.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Terminator Genisys - 2015 - 2.5/5 - Directed by Alan Taylor - starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Emilia Clarke

This review reportedly contains spoilers.

 

Is Terminator Genisys the official third film of the franchise, like series creator, James Cameron says? Is it the train wreck we were all expecting it to be? No and No. It's just sort of middle of the road. It wasn't as awful as expecting, but no matter how much it wants to echo Cameron's original films, Terminator Genisys doesn't quite succeed. It tries to be smarter than it thinks, yet still leaves several questions unanswered (probably in hopes that Paramount does go forward with a sequel).

 

In the year 2029, the leader of the Resistance, John Connor (Jason Clarke) launch a final offense on Skynet and it's new time travel weapon in Los Angeles. Shortly before losing, Skynet sends a Terminator T-800 Model 101 to the year 1984 to kill John's mother, Sarah (Emilia Clarke). Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) volunteers to go back in time to save here. When he arrives, he finds that the past is not like John told him. Sarah is aware of her future and has been raised by a terminator called the Guardian (Arnold Schwarzenegger) to protect her.

 

In attempt to stop Judgement Day once and for all, Sarah & Kyle travel to the year 2017 where Skynet plans on launching nuclear warheads under the disguise of an app called "Genisys" that will link devices and infrastructures across the globe. When they arrive, they are greeted by John, except John is a nano-machine hybrid Terminator, the T-3000 who was turned by the T-5000 (Matt Smith) shortly before Kyle was sent to 1984. In a new timeline with new fates, the three of them work to defeat the T-3000 and establish a new future.

 

Is it confusing? Only if you just there staring at your damn phone for two hours -- it's straight forward. It just wants to be smart and thought-provoking by going the route of the 2009 Star Trek reboot. It's not as clever as it wants to be despite it's new Terminators, plot twist and revelations. It is an interesting and good way to tell a story instead of going full T3 again. I like the idea of an alternate timeline. But, they throw too much at you to the point where again, it isn't confusing, but it's just unnecessary. At times, it even borrows too much from the T3 formula, you remember that, right guys?

 

Expository Dialogue -> Action scene -> Humor -> Expository Dialogue -> Longer Action Scene -> Rinse/Repeat.

 

While the humor here isn't has flat and jarring as T3, it breaks the tone and mood being set. I get it, studios and people want humor, because Marvel films have convinced us so much that if there isn't humor, then your film is too dark, edgy, not having fun, etc. In Terminator Genisys it's just not needed.

 

What saves Terminator Genisys is Arnold Schwarzenegger. If it wasn't for him, this probably would've been awful. It's not bad, but it's isn't great either. It's presence is immediately felt and he snaps into the character of the Terminator like never before (even if they made him too humorous). His best scenes actually happen to be with Emilia Clarke, as the two of them have such good chemistry as the cyborg father figure-daughter duo. Emilia is definitely a bada** in this, as she has a few moments to shine, but her character has a whole just isn't written properly. Despite being conflicted and making you want to feel for her, Sarah Connor just isn't the strong written character that Linda Hamilton played. Same goes with Jai Courtney, who surprisingly wasn't terrible in this! He's no Michael Biehn, but he does his best, the problem again is the writing and the handling of the character. Gone is the hardened Resistance soldier of the apocalyptic future, now we have a character who just isn't simply smart enough as we remember.

 

It seems as if all of the writing went into the John Connor/T-3000 character who is much more fleshed out in the film. Jason Clarke is serviceable, but no Edward Furlong, or even a Nick Stahl or Christian Bale. Despite that, Clarke is at his best when he's the villainous T-3000. Now, I'll be honest, I didn't like the plot twist of turning him into the villain. Although it could work (I'll add on that could shortly). It's better than bringing around yet another Terminator sent back (or forward?) to kill it's target and thwart their mission. Though that's essentially what the T-3000 is, it's just done better because of the fact that it is John Connor. Just slightly though. John Connor is almost a Christ-like figure of the franchise, a prophecy, and I just feel that while it's an interesting idea, turning him into the villain just didn't go well. Especially when you have this.

 

Skynet. Yes, Skynet, in physical form. The T-5000 played by Matt Smith for less than five minutes. Skynet found a way to transfer it's operating from a self-aware super computer to a new Terminator that can infect humans with nanotechnology and turn them into other Terminators of a similar nature. If the T-5000 was bumped up to central villain, that would've been a improvement, because it's now Skynet in a physical form of a deadly Terminator, instead of a supr OS controlling cyborgs in the future. It doesn't just become another Terminator villain, it's Skynet. Of course the ending implies that Skynet has survived, and this avenue will possibly be explored.

 

The action is somewhat entertaining for the most part, even if it's almost borderline video game. The first act wasn't bad, the action was solid, the plotting was good as was the pacing, but the more the film went on and the more that action got bigger, the more the plot began to disappear, little by little. The most ridiculous action sequence has to be the helicopter chase in the film, and the dive Arnold does out of it. The Golden Gate bridge sequence was almost to the point of becoming too over the top, but also felt constrained.

 

Fans of the franchise should still check it out, as it's worth watching at least, but it doesn't come near the greatness of the original two Cameron films. No matter how hard Terminator Genisys tries to capture the same magic, it doesn't, and frankly nothing probably ever will. As for James Cameron shilling this film hard. Either he really means it or he's just saying it because Arnold is in it (the two are very close friends). Cameron did it when T3 came out, said he enjoyed it and liked Arnold, only to retract it years later. So If he really means it when he says he looks at Genisys as the official third film, it's a little bizarre, considering this film is almost an amalgamation of his films, and not a good one at that.

 

Who knows.

[SecretAgentFan]

JURASSIC WORLD

 

Loved it.  Definitely the best of the sequels, and my enjoyment level was close to that of the original.  It´s extremely well directed, edited, scored and acted.  The CGI is brilliant (I don´t get the naysayers - or is it due to the 3D which makes everything look shabbier?  I caught a 2D screening, and everything looked beautiful!).  And the dino sequences are absolutely successful.

 

I am not surprised that this film is loved by audiences - it offers adventure and sells what it advertises.

 

A perfect summer film.

[tdalton]

Been on something of a Stephen King kick the past few days, taking in a few of his films off of the various streaming services with still a few more I want to get to:

 

THE SHINING

A solid horror film, but not the classic it's often made out to be.  There's some genuinely unsettling things (the moment with the man in the bear suit comes to mind) to be found in the film, and altogether it's a well made film, but there's just something missing to keep it from being a masterpiece.  Part of it is the way the Jack Torrance character is written.  The descent into madness comes off as much too rapid.  Then there's Shelley Duvall, who's hysterics in the role at times border on being comical rather than immersing the audience in the horror of the situation.

 

How this one hasn't come up for a remake (not counting the awful ABC version back in the 90s) is beyond me.  They've remade Carrie twice, 'Salem's Lot, Maximum Overdrive, Children of the Corn, and remakes of The Stand and It are currently in the works (albiet the both seem to be having difficulties).  Seems to me, as much as I dislike remakes, that they could get some serious mileage out of a more faithful adaptation of King's novel with the right filmmakers on board.  It could also lead them into a film adaptation of Doctor Sleep.

 

THE DEAD ZONE

This one's a pretty good film, although I'd say that I don't think it's narrative is all that focused.  It's pretty much just the tale of Johnny Smith (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) dealing with his new psychic abilities.  There are a couple of episodes in the film where Johnny deals with different problems that his new abilities are able to assist with, but there isn't a big overall story arc other than Smith trying to deal with the new abilities.  Both of the major episodes of the film, which find Smith working with the police to catch an elusive serial killer and then his dealings with a politician (played by Martin Sheen), could both have been translated into excellent feature films on their own, yet they're both given somewhat of the short end of the stick here.  I've never read King's original novel, so that's perhaps part of the original storyline, in which case this would have been one of those opportunities where deviating from the original plot a bit would have been warranted and beneficial to the film.

 

THE LANGOLIERS

Somehow they made a three hour TV film about people on an airplane into something that isn't entirely unwatchable, which is amazing in itself.  The overall plot is compelling, finding several passengers and a pilot (who is on the plane as a passenger) waking up during their flight to find that everyone else has vanished.  Most of the film finds the passengers aboard the plane trying to figure out what happened and where everyone has gone.  The most compelling moments of the film happen when they land at an abandoned airport in Maine and discover that things are worse than they appeared from the air.  

 

I think that more time spent on the ground exploring the new situation (maybe adding another hour) and better special effects (the CGI at the time this was made was in no way advanced enough for what they needed it to do) would have gone a long way towards making The Langoliers a better film.  Still, as it stands, it's not bad at all and has its moments.

 

PET SEMATARY

I really liked this one.  This is another of those King novels that I haven't read, so I came to the film with little knowledge of the story, and was thoroughly entertained by it, and especially by Fred Gwynne as Jud.  I could have perhaps used a bit more meat given to the finale of the film, as that's when things really start to get creepy, but that aside this one was really good.

 

THE MIST

Frank Darabont's fourth Stephen King adaptation, The Mist is fantastic.  Thomas Jane is excellent in the lead role and the ensemble cast (Marcia Gay Harden, Andre Braugher, and Toby Jones, among others) is excellent as well.  You really get a good sense of the terror, religious fervor, and claustrophobia of the story, thanks to Darabont's direction, and then that some really great moments of outright dread that aren't prevalent enough in horror films these days.

[Matt_13]

I remember stumbling across The Langoliers a couple years ago on a Saturday. Sat there perfectly entertained and more intrigued than I care to admit the whole time. Very interesting bit of TV.

[tdalton]

I remember stumbling across The Langoliers a couple years ago on a Saturday. Sat there perfectly entertained and more intrigued than I care to admit the whole time. Very interesting bit of TV.

 

Agreed.  

 

It's a rather odd movie, when you think about it.  Nothing much really happens, yet it still manages to be pretty compelling.  It's another of the King adaptations that I wouldn't mind seeing someone take another crack at.