Sideways Along The Terminator Timeline: Why Terminator Genisys Is Taking Unwarranted Flack!

The Good: Decent plot, Good character development, Decent special effects
The Bad: Some repetitive action elements, Odd casting choices, Neglects prior two films
The Basics: Including a number of ideas that are widely regarded - and lauded - in other science fiction works, Terminator Genisys entirely reimagines the Terminator franchise!


Sequels are inherently fraught with problems, not the least of which is the attempt of the sequel to live up to the reputation of the original. As sequels turn into a franchise, viewers tend to become ever more picky and the writers and directors work hard to find the balance between reinventing the franchise and making sure the new work is familiar-enough to not alienate the fans. With Terminator Genisys, the Terminator franchise takes a page from the Star Trek franchise. Like the 2009 film Star Trek (reviewed here!), Terminator Genisys reboots the timeline for the Terminator franchise with a (near) complete recasting and a (near) complete reimaging of the timeline and concepts of the Terminator franchise.

While Terminator Genisys is currently taking a great deal of flack - some people apparently found it confusing - fans of the Terminator franchise seem very willing to forget just how cheesy certain elements of The Terminator (reviewed here!) were. Rewatching The Terminator right before Terminator Genisys, it surprised me how many gaffes made it into the film - when Kyle Reese first appears in 1984, he and the police officer he squares off with are screaming at one another but not making anything remotely close to eye contact, for example. Going back through the cinematic Terminator franchise before taking in the new film, what surprised me most about Terminator Genisys was how the latest installment managed to use the most tired elements of the franchise while doing a surprisingly good job of infusing new elements and concepts to the franchise. For sure, those who are savvy in science fiction will find elements of Terminator Genisys entirely derivative, but the writers of the latest Terminator film use the familiar elements well in the rebooted setting.

Terminator Genisys is more effectively a sequel to Terminator 2: Judgment Day (reviewed here!) than it is to Terminator Salvation (reviewed here!). While that is not inherently problematic, it is incredibly awkward that Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines (reviewed here!) is not referenced. The basic timeline for the Terminator storyline had nuclear armageddon - Judgment Day - occurring on August 29, 1997 . . . until the events of Terminator 2 caused it to be postponed. The temporal incursion into 2004 resulted in Judgment Day happening then, along with important relationships being revealed and developed. Terminator Genisys entirely reboots the timeline, but the failure to reference 2004 or Kate Brewster is more problematic to the die-hard fans than John Connor being recast from Nick Stahl to Christian Bale to Jason Clarke (though, to be fair, Clarke is closer to Stahl than Bale, making for a more natural transition from 3 to Genisys). Of course, the apologist critics would write off such inconsistencies as "function of the reboot," but even with temporal rearrangings, there are constants and known factors . . . which is where some of Terminator Genisys goes wrong.

That said, Terminator Genisys gets far more right than wrong.

Opening in 2029, John Connor leads Kyle Reese and other human survivors on the two final attacks of the war against the machines who have enslaved and killed most of humanity. While one team destroys Skynet, Connor and Reese attack a secondary facility where John Connor knows Skynet has its fallback weapon stored. The humans take control of the facility too late, though; Skynet has sent back the Terminator that made the trip to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor to prevent John Connor from being born. Kyle Reese volunteers to go back in time to save Sarah, but as the time displacement device is activated, Reese witnesses John Connor being attacked by one of the members of the resistance. In the act of moving back in time, Reese experiences memories of events he did not experience, most notably his younger self noting that Genisys is Skynet and that Genisys has to be destroyed before it goes online.

Arriving in 1984, Reese encounters the homeless man he was supposed to, but the police officer who pursues him is a T-1000 style shapeshifting Terminator. Elsewhere in Los Angeles, the Terminator sent back to kill Sarah Connor is dispatched by another Terminator, who is working with Sarah Connor. Reese is rescued by Sarah Connor and the other Terminator, whom he is mistrustful of. As the T-1000 pursues Reese and Connor, Reese learns that Sarah Connor is not at all helpless; she leads the T-1000 into a trap where she is able to destroy it. Following that incident, Connor shows Reese the plan she and Pops - the Terminator working with her - have developed: Pops has built a time displacement device and, using the processor from the dead Terminator, they can activate it. Connor wants to use the device to go to 1997 to stop Judgment Day, while Reese believes that the key is a trip to 2017 to stop Genisys from going online. Tapping into his altered memories, Reese convinces Sarah Connor to go to 2017 to stop the Genisys version of Skynet from becoming active. But in 2017, Reese and Sarah Connor are almost immediately captured by the police, which fuels Reese's distrust of Pops (who was supposed to be waiting for them when they arrived). When Reese and Sarah are rescued by John Connor, the pair finds themselves struggling to avert the disaster that once again seems unavoidable!

As I waited for Terminator Genisys to start, I found my mind wandering and I thought, "Why the hell doesn't Skynet just go into the future a few days after the humans take it down and re-establish control over the machines?" What instantly pleased me about Terminator Genisys was that, for the first time in the Terminator franchise, characters move from an established time (in this case, the alternate 1984) to the future (2017). Even with the altered 1984, the decision Sarah Connor and Reese make is somewhat ridiculous. Connor argues that they should go to 1997, while Reese believes the temporal lynchpin is 2017. There is no clear reason why Judgment Day would not have occured in 1997 (the first time through the timeline, Skynet went online in 1997 . . . while events of The Terminator allowed Skynet to develop its technology based upon the T-800, it still developed independent of that technology the first time, so in the reset version of the timeline, Miles Dyson should still have been able to develop the technology by 1997). In other words, the logical approach to destroying Skynet would have been to leap forward to 1997 to stop Skynet and, if Judgment Day was averted there, continue to foil Genisys as it develops between 1997 and 2017. The somewhat ridiculous premise the characters in Terminator Genisys belabor under is that it makes any sense to try to avert Judgment Day by waiting to the last minute (or the last 44 hours) to do so.

But even that set-up issue is overshadowed by the execution of the plan in Terminator Genisys. Rather than getting mired in the temporal mechanics - most of which make fine sense when one accepts that the future shown at the beginning is fluid and must be followed by incidents wherein both the humans and Skynet send back various elements - the plot that Terminator Genisys possesses is surprisingly engaging. The Terminator franchise essentially introduces The Borg to their cannon as Skynet develops the ability to "assimilate" organic life and that plays well amid the various attacks and chases.

In fact, more than the questions raised by the plot elements of Terminator Genisys, arguably the biggest issue with the new installment of the Terminator franchise is how it is forced to conform to the formulas of the action-adventure movie. The Terminator movies have done chase sequences, they have done gunfights, they have done hand to hand combat scenes that push the envelope. Terminator Genisys does not have new territory to mine in those departments, so director Alan Taylor does his best to make them flow and fit this film, which he does. In fact, there are several sequences in Terminator Genisys that are downright cool and feel fresh, not the least of which is the trap Sarah Connor lays for the T-1000.

What Terminator Genisys has that some of the other installments are a little light on is genuine character development. Kyle Reese is presented as a surprisingly complex and conflicted character in Terminator Genisys. His loyalty to John Connor leads him to a series of revelations that shake his worldview and lead him to completely trust his sworn enemy. While Sarah Connor is given an engaging twist in Terminator Genisys, her character arc is better as a function of the larger franchise as opposed to within this film. That said, Sarah Connor is presented as one of the strongest, coolest, heroines to ever grace science fiction and this incarnation of the character plays to that tradition beautifully.

That brings us to the acting. Terminator Genisys has woefully bad casting . . . but that is based on the fact that so many of the characters have already appeared in the franchise in forms that should have been indicative of their ages in this film. Jai Courtney looks nothing like Michael Biehn and Emilia Clarke plays Sarah Connor with youth and vitality more reminiscent of Hayden Panettiere than Linda Hamilton. Even the punk in 1984 looks nothing like Brian Thompson.

But the acting in Terminator Genisys is generally good. Emilia Clarke plays Sarah Connor without any hint of her portrayal of Daenerys. Clarke is strong and the scenes that require her to be emotive she plays well. Similarly, Jai Courtney might not be stepping into Michael Biehn's shoes, as in trying to play Reese the way Biehn did, but he makes the character compelling to watch. There a moments his character's conflict is evident in his eyes and on his face, even when he does not have lines. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger is decent as Pops; he plays the straightman powerhouse well. Just like Sylvester Stallone playing to his strengths as the boxer Rocky Balboa with minimal lines, Arnold Schwarzenegger plays the killer cyborg just fine. In fact, Schwarzenegger even manages to get through his line about being laid off (a condition not uncommon in Schwarzenegger's California!) with the appropriate detachment of his character.

It is J.K. Simmons who steals the show in Terminator Genisys. Simmons is given the supporting role of Officer O'Brien, a police officer who survives the 1984 incursion by the T-1000 and becomes obsessed with Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese. O'Brien is a cool role in that it forces the characters (and the writers) to accept that the manipulations to the timeline have consequences and collateral damage. More than simply being available for momentary comic relief and plot convenience, O'Brien is a very human connection for the audience amid the larger-than-life heroes and villains of Terminator Genisys. Simmons finds the balance for the character perfectly.

Ultimately, Terminator Genisys is a film that can be nitpicked to death. But the truth of the matter is, the broad strokes of Terminator Genisys are done incredibly well, both in the franchise and on its own as a film. Terminator Genisys has the expected chases, fights, time travel and robots, but it blends it a story that feels a lot more like 12 Monkeys (reviewed here!) than a cheap retread of the earlier Terminator movies. And reinventing a franchise from the beginning is no easy task; Alan Taylor and the writers of Terminator Genisys manage to make an engaging new tangent universe for those who love the universe of the Terminator.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Dragon Blade
Fantastic 4
Jenny's Wedding
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation
Ant-Man
Lila & Eve
Minions
No Way Jose
Inside Out
Jurassic World
She's Funny That Way
The Avengers: Age Of Ultron

7/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Best Of What We've Missed So Far: Maggie

The Good: Wonderful acting, Interesting characters, Beautiful direction
The Bad: Utterly preposterous plot
The Basics: The moment one accepts the boneheaded set-up for Maggie and moves on, they are treated to a surprisingly deep, emotional work well worth watching!


This year, I have been sitting out much of the early part of Summer Blockbuster Season. After being generally disappointed with the much-hyped The Avengers: Age Of Ultron (reviewed here!), I decided to focus on other writing and less on movies at the outset of one of the most lucrative times of the reviewing year. But, after seeing a preview of the new Terminator film and allowing myself to get excited about that, I stumbled upon Maggie and I could not resist watching it. Before Arnold Schwarzenegger reclaims his famous role in the next installment of The Terminator this summer, he plays opposite Abigail Breslin in Maggie in a quiet, unsettling film that does exactly what it sets out to do.

Maggie is not a zombie film, though it has been billed as one. It is, however, set in a world where there has been an outbreak of much slower-than-usual zombie virus. Zombie films have been generally overplayed at this point, but Maggie manages to do exactly what one hopes for from a film featuring a viral apocalypse: it shows us something new and reinvents the genre in an interesting way. Maggie is a much more human-focused twist on films set in the wake of a viral apocalypse: there aren't people running, no one is cannibalizing anyone else and society still exists. For those obsessed with the genre, Maggie is the closest fans of the third season of The Walking Dead (reviewed here!) will ever get to a movie about how The Governor watched his daughter turn into a Walker. Fortunately, the protagonist in Maggie is much more likable and her father, Wade, doesn't go batshit crazy and evil like The Governor.

To get it out of the way, there is a near-fatal flaw with the conception of Maggie and it makes the first few minutes of the film virtually unwatchable. Maggie is set in a world afflicted by The Turn, a virus that spread from plants to humans (there's some funky science going on with that one!) and has wiped out most of the world's major cities. Set in the Midwestern United States, Maggie uses the setting as a chance to explore something other than the horrors of outbreak or the difficulties of survival. Unfortunately, the plot conceit it uses to do that is possibly the worst cinematic rendition of a quarantine situation of all time. Because The Turn has a slow incubation period and the government has mandated doctor check-ups for those afflicted with the disease, victims like the titular character of the film are released on their own recognizance until the virus enters one of its later stages. Once one buys the premise that the quarantine for a massive population of people who will knowingly turn into flesh-eating zombies to spread the virus is "go home and rest until it becomes an absolutely unavoidable problem," Maggie is not only fine, but it is wonderful. It's a lot to have to swallow, though (note to writer John Scott 3: a far better conceit would have been for Wade to have rescued his daughter from quarantine and relocated her to the country with his family, as opposed to simply being able to sign her out of the hospital!).

Wade lives with his family out in the Midwest, somewhat haunted by a phone call where his daughter, Maggie, has fled the relative safety of their rural farm for the city. Wade drives to the city and recovers Maggie from the city hospital, where he learns she has become infected with the Turn. Wade checks Maggie out and returns her to their house in the country, where Wade and his wife, Caroline, live with their kids. Caroline is terrified by what Maggie represents, but having Maggie at home is important to Wade and Maggie, so she opts to send the other children away until Maggie is done transforming or is cured.

Maggie spends her days avoiding calling the support hotline for people who are infected or taking calls from her friends, wandering the property. Her future is foreshadowed when she encounters a pair of zombified neighbors on the outskirts of the property and Wade has to put them down. They learn that the neighbor's wife had kept her husband and daughter locked in a room once they were infected and when the police take her away, Wade's desire to keep Maggie safe and away from the quarantine zones where people who Turn go to die comes into conflict with the local police. Maggie's condition worsens quicker than normal; she cuts off one of her fingers when it becomes necrotic and her doctor worries about her condition. Nurtured by Wade, Maggie struggles to socialize with her old friends again, including one who is infected and nearing his full Turn. Without any real hope of a cure or treatment, Wade and Maggie weigh the quality of Maggie's life against Wade losing his first daughter and all ties to his past.

Despite the set-up, Maggie is exceptionally good. On the performance front, Maggie has a lot going for it from the performance of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Outside being troublingly in the pocket of Big Tobacco (apparently the Hollywood ideal is still stuck on Midwesterners smoking - most of our public places are smoke free and the vaping movement is huge here! - and they assume Midwesterners are too stupid to quit smoking even when their very lives would be threatened by conditions in which diminished lung capacity would be a factor. Seriously, we're supposed to believe that Wade absolutely loves Maggie, Caroline and his whole new family, but he'd rather have a cigarette than the ability to carry any of them away away and run away from zombies should the cause arise), Schwarzenegger completely plays to his strengths as Wade. Wade is brooding, but caring; he does not speak a lot, but he emotes quite a bit with his eyes and his face. Schwarzenegger credibly makes it through the few fights his character has wonderfully, but the power of his performance in Maggie is credibly portraying a father who suspends all reason for his love of his daughter.

On the character front, that connection comes to make perfect sense. Wade and Maggie lost Wade's first wife (Maggie's mother) years ago and when she rebelliously goes off to the city, Wade feels like he is losing the last vestiges of that part of his life. Maggie's rebellious nature is quickly muted by the progression of her disease and that is treated with great realism.

Abigail Breslin plays Maggie wonderfully. Maggie is entirely different from Breslin's character in Zombieland (reviewed here!) and she plays the role with a great physical presence. Breslin credibly plays her character as upset, blind, frustrated, and animalistic. In every stage, Breslin is dead-on with her performance.

Director Henry Hobson has a powerful feature film debut with Maggie. Few films that are even zombie genre-adjacent are beautiful movies. Maggie, often, is. Despite the brutal nightmare scenes wherein Maggie recalls how she became infected, Maggie is shot beautifully and looks amazing. Henry Hobson takes a film that could be slow and plodding from the moody, cerebral take it has on making an infection film and makes it beautiful and eminently watchable. That makes it a surprising must-see film this summer!

For other works with Joely Richardson, please check out my reviews of:
Endless Love
Vampire Academy
Red Lights
Nip/Tuck - Season 1
The Affair Of The Necklace
The Storyteller

7.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Every Able-Bodied Conservative Working In Hollywood Shows Up To Kick Ass In The Expendables 3

The Good: Decent special effects/stunts
The Bad: Light on genuine character development, Obvious plot, Dull performances
The Basics: The Expendables 3 is exactly what one expects from a lowbrow action adventure movie released during Summer Blockbuster Season.


There are few cinematic franchises I have less interest in than The Expendables. Outside The Fast And The Furious, the “Dragon Tattoo” films, and the forthcoming films based on Fifty Shades Of Grey, The Expendables might be the film franchise that is the most obvious, lowbrow and unimpressive still being produced. While I did see The Expendables (reviewed here!), I had no interest in the sequel. So why did I bother with The Expendables 3?

Kelsey Grammer and Harrison Ford. A few years back, Ford declared that he was only going to appear in one film per year, which should have made him very choosy. I suppose some part of me still lives with that mentality (he has long-since gone back to being a more active actor appearing in multiple films per year), that if Harrison Ford is going to risk his reputation, there has to be some redeeming aspect to the film. As for Kelsey Grammer, after years of being trapped in the role of Frasier Crane (albeit a role of a lifetime!), it is understandable that he is appearing in multiple blockbusters this Summer Blockbuster Season just to make bank for a change. When both Grammer and Ford were announced as being in The Expendables 3, it raised the profile of the film so that it had the appearance of respectability. How and why The Expendables 3 was made (other than raw profit motive based on the success of its predecessors) is something of a mystery. Outside giving the film two characters with enough articulation and erudition to make some lines actually comprehensible, how the franchise got Ford and Grammer is still a mystery to me. That said, more than being truly awful, The Expendables 3 is just what viewers would expect of the lowbrow action-adventure franchise.

Opening with a pulse-pounding soundtrack on an armored prison train, The Expendables 3 finds Doc (Doctor Death) being returned to Denzali Prison. Through the clever use of a military helicopter and steel cable, Barney Ross (Zero), Lee Christmas, Jenson and Toll Road are able to rescue him, though is thirst for vengeance leads him to blow up the prison. Rather than taking him right home, Zero arms Doc and the team heads to Somalia where they drop off bombs with Hale Caesar and Victor Minz. Minz turns out to be an enemy Ross once encountered named Stonebanks, which the team discovers when Stonebanks arrives and fouls the deal, mortally wounding Caesar in the process.

The presence of Stonebanks inspires Trench to lend a hand and puts Ross in front of Operations Officer Drummer. Drummer is determined to find Stonebanks one more time, but he does not trust Ross to finish the job. Ross employs Bonaparte to assemble a new team to take out Stonebanks (and fast). Bonaparte shops the soldiers and psychos Thorn, Smilee, Luna, and Mars to Ross to form the new team. Drummer tasks Ross with bringing Stonebanks in alive, with only a thirty-six hour window to find and apprehend Stonebanks before he goes off the grid again. Revealing to Mars that Stonebanks was once an Expendable, the team arrives in Bucharest where they convince Ross to break into the museum where the latest sale is going down. Apprehending Stonebanks, Ross’s new team is en route to delivering him to the Hague when Stonebanks is rescued by his own mercenaries. The rescue operation leaves Ross’s new team captured by Stonebanks and forces Ross to reunite the old team and rescue them and thwart his old friend.

What is not a mystery is how and why the cast of The Expendables 3 added Mel Gibson and Wesley Snipes to the franchise’s roster. In addition of continuing the trend of casting men who are able to growl all of their lines, the film seems determined to cast every possible aging action star or outsider in Hollywood. With Robert Davi cast as one of the film’s behind-the-scenes villains, one has to wonder if the casting session was simply a meeting of the Hollywood chapter of the RNC! Gibson seems willing to take whatever work he is offered and the role of the film’s primary villain allows him to play dark and angry in a way that at the very least taps into the public’s perception of him easily-enough. As for Snipes, his role of Doc is sufficient to remind viewers that he was once a-list on the action movie circuit and restore him to prominence there. As well, Snipes gets to deliver a cute tax evasion joke early in the film that sets the tone of the tongue-in-cheek nature of the humor for The Expendables 3.

Unfortunately, The Expendables 3 is painfully obvious. Viewers who keep checking the clock (as they are want to do during the mediocre establishing events) will easily realize that there is no possible way that Ross’s team will succeed with his apprehension of Stonebanks. The only question becomes whether or not Ross will be captured with them. In fact, the only genuine surprise in The Expendables 3 is that Stonebanks does not shoot the tech whose bomb fails to go off immediately (director Patrick Hughes telegraphs the potential that that will occur, but does not see it through, which was momentarily interesting). Sadly, everything in The Expendables 3 is only momentarily interesting.

Most of The Expendables 3 aims to appeal to the most simplistic of sensibilities. Even if one has not seen any of the prior films in the franchise, they can come into The Expendables 3 and pick up all they need to know. The Expendables is a largely male cast being ridiculous and saying remarkably little (save Antonio Banderas’s late return to the film), it is hard to imagine that the script had more than twenty pages of actual dialogue to it. We get it, these are manly men. The guy doesn’t need to use a scimitar to shave his face before we understand he’s hard core (as Doc does to go from being the disheveled to recognizable Snipes).

While The Expendables 3 has a massive cast, full of recognizable actors, none of the performers are known for being particularly great actors (save Harrison Ford and Kelsey Grammer). As it is, even the two most-recognized actors do not deliver much to be proud of. Ford smirks his way into the movie, as if he knows that he is augmenting a cast of people whose prior credits were made up of fight movies and actual fights (Ronda Rousey and Randy Couture were very well known for fighting and wrestling entertainment before these films). Grammer’s lines are almost all clichés, so his grizzled character is not one of Grammer’s more memorable ones.

All of that said, outside being painfully boring for its predictability, The Expendables 3 is not bad, just thoroughly underwhelming. The character relationships are obvious, the fight sequences are predictable and the acting is entirely familiar for most of the performers involved. Outside teenagers who suddenly realize they no longer have to sneak into an Expendables movie and people searching for two hours of air conditioned theater, it is hard to imagine what the appeal is for making The Expendables 3 a part of this summer’s blockbuster push.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Horns
The Best Of Me
The Zero Theorem
The Equalizer
The Maze Runner
This Is Where I Leave You
The Giver
Guardians Of The Galaxy
Life Of Crime
Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes
Behaving Badly
Transformers: Age Of Extinction
Happy Christmas
Snowpiercer

3/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Two Directors Create A Series That Becomes The Best Cinematic Example Of The Law Of Diminishing Returns: The Batman Anthology

The Good: The first two films are good, Val Kilmer is decent, Great DVD/Blu-Ray bonus features!
The Bad: Joel Schumacher’s works, Repetitive plots, Series inconsistencies, Even the good films have not agd particularly well
The Basics: With no consisted story or direction, the Batman movies of Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher make for an unfortunately inconsistent series that gets worse with each installment after a point.


With the recent end of the Dark Knight Trilogy (reviewed here!), the cinematic Batman franchise is once again in limbo. That is a state not entirely unfamiliar to Warner Bros., who owns the rights to the franchise and is the studio that produces all of the films based on DC Comics properties. With the abrupt end of the Batman movies of the 1990s, the franchise had to regroup and reboot. Before the powerful, thematically complex and decidedly adult The Dark Knight Trilogy, there were the Batman films of 1989 – 1997, now encapsulated in a boxed set known as Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997.

Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997 is an incredible example of what happens when a surprise hit becomes a lucrative cash cow for a studio and that cow is milked too frequently and too hard. It is also a prime example of what happens to a franchise when the creative teams behind the camera and the talent in front of the camera are not kept consistent (in The Dark Knight Trilogy only one performer was recast!) and the vision by the later forces working on the series is clearly an attempt to capitalize on the formula as opposed to build upon the story and prior successes. The result is that Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997 is a film series that starts intriguing, rises well, and then steadily declines until its abrupt and painful crash.

Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997 consists of the films:
Batman
Batman Returns
Batman Forever
and Batman & Robin. The first two are directed by Tim Burton, the latter two by Joel Schumacher and three different actors play Bruce Wayne/Batman over the course of the four films!

In Batman, a young Bruce Wayne witnesses his father and mother being killed by a mysterious assassin. As an adult, Bruce Wayne manages the giant company left to him by his father by day and at night, he takes up armor and a cape to dispense vigilante justice on the streets of Gotham City. As the press pushes the police to admit that the Batman exists, a local gangster is smoked during a robbery of a chemical factory that goes horribly wrong. However, when Batman accidentally lets the gangster fall into a vat of chemicals, the man is not killed, but rather transformed into a psychopathic killer. Waging a battle with chemical weapons, the Joker menaces Gotham City and threatens to undo all the good Batman is working for.

Batman Returns happens around Christmastime a short time later. Gotham City is hit with a crime wave from a gang of thugs who use old circus equipment. While Batman keeps them in check, he is not prepared for the city to have to deal with more threats. Those threats come in the form of a mysterious man, Oswald Cobblepot, who literally rises out of the sewers to save an abducted baby and a catburgler who seems bent on wreaking vengeance at night to make up for her unsatisfying daytime life (and the fact that her boss tried to kill her). While Bruce Wayne fends off a corporate attack from his rival, Max Shreck, he finds romance with Selena Kyle and it slowly begins to dawn on him that she is the same person as the mysterious Catwoman he fights at night. When Shreck uses Cobblepot as a pawn to take the mayor’s office, the fallout creates a villain who wants to kill all the firstborn of Gotham City.

Joel Schumacher took over behind the camera and Val Kilmer took on the role of Bruce Wayne in Batman Forever. In that, a demented former-District Attorney, Harvey Dent, begins a reign of terror and violence (focused on bank robberies) as the villainous Two-Face. Bruce Wayne’s problems are multiplied, though, when one of his employees creates a device that can drain the brains of the citizens of Gotham City and unlock all the secrets the people there have. As Batman squares off against Two-Face and the Riddler, he is aided by a forensic psychologist and a young acrobat who lost his parents and wants to fight crime as well . . . Robin.

George Clooney’s only outing in the cape and cowl comes in Batman & Robin where Batman and Robin are assisted by Alfred’s neice, who takes up the alter ego of Batgirl. The pair could use her help as they are bickering over how to take down the formidable Mr. Freeze and they fall under the love spell-style charms of Poison Ivy and her thug, Bane.

To his credit, Tim Burton’s two outings – in addition to being appropriately weird (as one expects from Tim Burton’s works) – have larger themes. Batman explores crime and the nature of justice vs. the pitfalls of revenge and Batman Returns has a great deal about empowering women and the snares of political corruption. Unfortunately, by the time Batman Forever comes up, the writers and director are working for big action, flamboyant villains, and star power, as opposed to trying to create films of substance. This is not to say that Tim Burton got everything right in his two films. While the miniatures look great, even by today’s standards, Batman is surprisingly slow and the focus on the Joker is far less compelling in-context of Batman’s story than it is as a stand-alone film.

That said, it is almost inarguable that Tim Burton helped effectively usher in the youth culture mindset of the 1990s with Batman and then the even more violent Batman Returns. The two films created a nihilistic sense of the world; crime ran rampant and the victories were more ambiguous than celebratory and the hero uses many of the same methods as the villains, just with nobler purpose.

Val Kilmer was not a bad choice to replace Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne and Batman and he had the physical presence to pull off the dual roles more plausibly than Keaton, who played the part of Bruce Wayne as more goofy than gallant. Kilmer, however, was saddled with a particularly weak script with Batman Forever and a film that was intended to be a Jim Carrey vehicle and ended up disappointing on so many fronts. Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever also prioritized casting (the entire series has pretty impressive guest cast members from the major – Jack Nicholson, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey, Uma Thurman and Arnold Schwarzenegger – to the supporting players who flesh out surprisingly minor roles – Kim Bassinger, Robert Wuhl, Christopher Walken, Drew Barrymore, John Glover, Vivica A. Fox) over fidelity to the series thus far. To wit, in Batman, Harvey Dent was played by Billy Dee Williams and in Batman Forever he is recast with Tommy Lee Jones. It takes a lot more than an acid bath from a mobster to make Billy Dee Williams into Tommy Lee Jones!

The epitome of Schumacher’s obsession with star power and spectacle over substance is in Batman & Robin. There, Arnold Schwarzenegger appears as Mr. Freeze, a character written with a thin backstory surrounding his attempts to cure his wife (who is in suspended animation), but is executed as a character constructed almost entirely of catchphrases. To wit, his big monologue from the film’s trailer, where he introduces himself as a threat to Gotham City appears in the film’s middle, after he is incarcerated, when he introduces himself to two people (his jailers) who know exactly who he is! It is this type of stupidity that shook the series and almost gutted this franchise.

Performances in the Batman movies in this set are generally good. Michael Keaton is an intriguing Bruce Wayne and he pulled off the action sequences for Batman better than most might have suspected. Jack Nicholson performed opposite him in Batman with a flamboyancy and menace that worked beautifully to define the character of the Joker. Danny DeVito gives one of his most underrated performances as Oswald Cobblepot (the Penguin) and Michelle Pfeiffer and Keaton had great on-screen chemistry in Batman Returns. While Val Kilmer and Chris O’Donnell did fine as Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson, George Clooney seemed unusually stiff when he took up the mantle in Batman & Robbin. The less said about Jim Carrey, Uma Thurman, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the better.

On DVD and Blu-Ray, the Batman Anthology is chock full of goodies. There are extensive featurettes on the production of the films, from concept designs through casting and the bonus features provide a wealth of insight into how moviemaking was done, especially at the birth of CG effects. Fans of Batman may want to champion the whole series, but given how most people will only watch bonus featurettes once, the full Batman Anthology is hardly worth investing in. Tim Burton’s works might be worth picking up, but Joel Schumacher’s outings oscillate between the disappointing and the outright insulting.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Watchmen
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman & Robin
Supergirl
Superman
Wonder Woman

3.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

What Exactly Is Wrong With Batman & Robin?

The Good: Alicia Silverstone is fine, Clooney does okay, Moments of Michael Gough’s performance and Alfred’s character.
The Bad: Most of the acting, Terrible special effects, Atrocious writing, Crappy characters, Predictable plot
The Basics: Batman & Robin is easily one of the worst films of all time.


Every now and then, I try to experience something I previously experienced and did not enjoy. I like to see if the thing was as bad as I recall it being or if it was just a reaction at the time. So, for example, watching Zoolander (reviewed here!) with my wife, years after panning it, I probably did not hate it as much as I originally did. One of the first films I reviewed, back when I was writing for my college newspaper as a reviewer, was Batman & Robin. I remember it being unspeakably bad and my review rated it as such.

So, I took the flick in again, fifteen years later, to see if it was just horrible on the big screen or if, now that I have a more refined palate and standards, it was still just rotten. It was.

In fact, Batman & Robin is so bad that I can’t muster up the enthusiasm to go through one of my usual reviews of the film. The only things that really grabbed me about the movie were Alicia Silverstone (and if you just want Silverstone, there are plenty of pictures online or other, vastly better, films she is in to enjoy her actual acting ability) and a few moments of Michael Gough’s performance as Alfred. Unfortunately, though, it is also Gough who sets the pace for the movie. One of the first lines in the film is Alfred saying that he’ll have to cancel the pizza order and Gough rolls his eyes while delivering the line. It is very much as if Gough knew it was a shit line and he would be going through the motions of saying any of them throughout the film.

So, rather than go through the usual plot, character, acting, and special effects analysis of the film, I decided that I would just list the twenty-five most preposterous things in Batman & Robin. Enjoy!

25. Every line of Mr. Freeze’s sounds like a lame attempt to make an “Hasta la vista . . . baby”-style catch phrase,

24. During the proposal scene, George Clooney looks like he is reading his lines off a note on his lap,

23. Bane has no character or character development,

22. Poor John Glover! One of the most talented villain character actors appears as a ridiculous mad scientist and doesn’t pull it off convincingly,

21. Of all the characters to recur, the fact that the social newsmagazine hostess comes back is ridiculous,

20. Commissioner Gordon’s outfit makes him look more like a third world dictator than a police commissioner,

19. After the claim is made that Bruce has been dating his current woman “forever,” when she proposes, she says they have been together a year. Even for tabloids, a year is hardly “forever,”

18. Alfred ill and dying has more color in his cheeks and skin than Alfred healthy. What the hell?! Is he a reverse vampire?!,

17. Coolio has an even worse role than he does in Daredevil,

16. The computer voice changes from a stiff, mechanical computer voice into a pornstar voice when Barbara gets access to the file Alfred made,

15. Bruce Wayne witnesses Pamela Isley at a party in her mundane form when she could easily be apprehended, but does nothing,

14. Gotham’s newsmedia must be absolutely terrible. After multiple attacks and his apprehension, when Mr. Freeze attacks the observatory, one scientist has no idea who he is and the other’s solution to seeing a guy with a big freeze gun come in is to scream in comic horror. Yeah, most of the supplemental characters in this film are idiots,

13. Mr. Freeze refers to himself consistently as a villain, yet is supposed to be motivated by love,

12. Poison Ivy’s grand plan to save the plant world is to kill all of it, except her ridiculous mutants. This is not just a crazy or stupid idea, it completely nullifies what little characterization there is for the character,

11. Mr. Freeze’s henchmen are about a thousand times more ridiculous than the Penguin’s penguins,

10. After trying to get by most of the movie by performing Bruce Wayne with only his amazing smile, George Clooney gets into one of the stiffest cinematic arguments with Chris O’Donnell ever when he insists he will go after the villains alone,

9. When Barbara is hanging off the bridge, it is one of the absolute worst bluescreen shots of all time,

8. Batgirl is used to take out Poison Ivy so none of the guys punch a woman in the face,

7. The car race scene over the giant statues look like a bunch of Matchbox cars driving on a miniature,

6. The mutant plants of Poison Ivy’s are exactly what they look like: cheap puppets,

5. The introduction of Poison Ivy at the charity event is supposed to be erotic, but is executed as preposterous and anything but titillating (which is hard to do when the director is pretty much assraping Uma Thurmond with the camera,

4. Robin waits for Poison Ivy to blow her dust in his nose/mouth not once, but twice!,

3. The freeze ray special effect is so bad it looks just like what one assumes would be used in the porn parody of the film,

2. The giant statues in Gotham City have no real-world application, except to be driven over for action sequences,

1. All of the writing seems like it was done on cocktail napkins and given to the actors moments before they had to deliver each line.

There are more, but I cannot muster up the enthusiasm to waste my time writing them down.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
The Dark Knight Trilogy
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Watchmen
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman
Supergirl
Wonder Woman

0.5/10

For other film reviews, check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Impressive Enough Science Fiction, Total Recall Is A Fun Action-Adventure Film!

The Good: Politics, Decent performance from Arnold Schwarzenegger, Decent direction
The Bad: Some really bad secondary performances, Action adventure conceits that hold up poorly, Score is dated and intrusive.
The Basics: Total Recall may be hailed as a science fiction classic, but it is objectively more dates than timeless.


From almost the moment I posted my review of the new film Total Recall (that is here!), I have gotten comments and an inordinate amount of feedback asking me why I provided no comparison to the original (1990) version of the film. The simple answer is that, until this evening, I had not seen the 1990 Paul Verhoeven/Arnold Schwarzenegger film (the slightly more complicated is that I like to review films and television episodes for what they are, not simply as a comparison to others). Total Recall was released when I was young and not allowed to watch rated R movies. My step brother saw it at the time when he was visiting his biological father and came home raving about the three-breasted woman in it (I used my biological mother at the same point in life to buy me books that my parents did not want me to have!). So, Total Recall slipped through the cracks in my attention until tonight.

I went into Total Recall with no expectations and I tried to even forget what I saw in the remake a few months ago. I was surprised that, for a film that is 22 years old, how little I had heard about or seen about it. In fact, it wasn’t until the glass cracked on Douglas’s faceplate on Mars that I recalled that I had read a whole article on the special effects surrounding the eye-popping scene. So, for the most part, this is a very true review of the original 1990 film Total Recall. (I have still not read the novella upon which this film was based.)

Opening on Mars, Douglas Quaid is walking with Melina when he falls and he is exposed to vacuum. He awakens in bed with Lori, his wife, who resents his dreams of Mars. Despite a news broadcast indicating that violence has broken out on Mars as a result of an independence movement there, Douglas wants to move with Lori to Mars. When she insists they do not, he decides to explore the virtual reality option of a vacation to Mars via a company called Rekall. Despite the doctor being reluctant to give him a Mars experience, Douglas Quaid insists, though he opts for the Ego Trip, which allows him to go to Mars as a secret agent.

When the Rekall agents try to give him the memories, they discover that his memory has already been altered. Douglas knows information about Mars and is attacked by his best friend from work who warned him against going to Rekall. Returning home, Lori turns on him and attempts to kill him. She reveals that his memories are, in fact, false and that he is merely an assignment to her. Lori’s allies, led by Richter, begin hunting Douglas using an implant they have in the unsuspecting man. Told he was an agent by a former co-worker who leaves him a briefcase, Douglas begins piecing together his past and his identity while pursued from Earth to Mars!

Total Recall is a science fiction vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger that provides him with an opportunity to explore a fairly decent amount of range. While newer movies tend to use Schwarzenegger as a catch phrase-spouting action hero with little real depth, Total Recall has him appearing as a surprisingly well-rounded individual. As Douglas Quaid goes into the Rekall procedure, Schwarzenegger plays him as realistically curious and ambivalent. When his memory block is broken, the aggression he portrays is similarly realistic and expressive. This might actually be one of Schwarzenegger’s best performances. In fact, when Schwarzenegger plays Hauser, his bearing and demeanor – his body language and presentation of his lines – are different enough to make the character feel like a viable alternate identity.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about everyone in Total Recall. When Douglas goes to Rekall, he is surrounded by doctors who are portrayed by people who are fair, at best, actors in the scene. Their performances are melodramatic and disturbing for how hammy they are. While many of the action sequences are well choreographed, they tend to feel that way and Paul Verhoeven, the director, cheats a number of shots, most notably Lori kicking Douglas in the crotch repeatedly. It was a thrill for me, as a fan of Marc Alaimo (he was amazing in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) to see him in the film. His brief role as Everett is memorable.

Lacking truly iconic scenes and catchphrases, Total Recall stands on its own as an impressive enough concept for a film. The question of which memories are real and which are manufactured is almost instantly negated by the sheer volume of shots involving characters other than Douglas engaged in the hunt for him help to reassure the viewer that the whole film is not simply a figment of one man’s imagination. Eliminating the more banal question of reality makes Total Recall more than just a glorified Twilight Zone type film.

What pulls Total Recall up from feeling overly dated is the political machinations explored in the movie. Cohaagen, the prefect of Mars, is an interesting adversary who has a realistic amount of motivation and ability to pull off all he does in relation to Douglas and the rebels. Richter is a pretty generic lackey and Melina quickly becomes a pretty generic sidekick. The supplemental characters of Total Recall are enough to create a viable “universe” where the struggles are developed enough to be intriguing at the least. There are psychic mutants, holograms, the cab driver with five children and, yes, the three-breasted woman.

But unlike some of the science fiction that explores political struggles like colonies fighting for their freedom or the nature of a man whose struggle is internal and the desire to understand his own identity and motivations, Total Recall seems happy to simply play in its own universe. It’s science fiction that does not take the step beyond entertainment and the surface exploration of the motivations of the individuals within the universe. In other words, Total Recall is an entertaining work, but it fails to delve further into the human condition in a way that makes a bold new statement that illustrates real human understanding.

The clues to the mystery of what is actually going on in Total Recall are sprinkled well throughout the film, but unlike some of the other classics of science fiction that overcome the limitations of their filming dates, this one does not. It is good, but not great and well worth a single viewing, but not the whole fan cult that has grown up around it.

For other classics of science fiction, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Alien Quadrillogy
The Terminator
The Star Wars Saga
The Matrix

5.5/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Is The Expendables The Ultimate “Guy Movie?” Depends On Who The “Guys” Are . . .

The Good: It’s always nice to see Charisma Carpenter getting work . . ., Well-assembled violence
The Bad: Pointless, Light on character, Lots of mumbled lines, Overbearing rock soundtrack (when it is present).
The Basics: Opening myself up to a testosterone-filled action flick, I still find myself pretty unimpressed with The Expendables.


I try to keep my horizons open. I’m not so keen on only watching and reviewing movies that are well within my comfort zone. So, figuring I might get the opportunity to check out an advanced screening of The Expendables 2, I figured I should check out The Expendables. I had actually seen no previews for The Expendables, but its beefy, mostly male cast was not one that especially appealed to me.

The biggest, most pleasant surprise for me, came in the first few minutes of the film. During the opening credits, the name Charisma Carpenter came up and that made me happy. Carpenter was one of the bright spots of the television series Angel (reviewed here!) and as far as I am concerned it’s always nice to see her getting work. Given she was only in about four minutes of The Expendables, it was not enough to save the film.

Following a mission to rescue hostages from a group of Somali pirates, Lee Christmas returns to his woman to discover she is with another guy. Barney Ross, the leader of the suicide squad known as the Expendables, gets a series of jobs and he opts for the most difficult one, which is mission to the Gulf island of Vilena. Assigned (and threatened) by “Mr. Church,” Ross and Christmas scout the island to see if it is worth committing his team to the mission. There they witness the local gangster with his own private army roughing up the locals.

After a narrow escape, Ross decides to take the mission, which seems to be to stop the American coke grower, James Munroe and his private army. But Ross and his team are going up against one of their own; Gunnar, who wigged out during the Somalia mission gives Munroe intel on the members of Ross’s team. The plot is a thin excuse to blow things up, shoot people apart and whack a lot of people in hand to hand combat.

The Expendables is not exactly full of great dialogue. Much of the most intelligible dialogue are good ole’ boy verbal jabs between members of the team. Most of the dialogue is growled out or mumbled through. Some of the most clear lines have little or nothing to do with the rest of the film, like Yin Yang complaining he needs more money for a family no one in the group knew he had or another member complaining about his ears.

There is very little character in The Expendables, but it’s not That Type Of Film. While Ross spends the first portion of the film counseling Christmas on how to move past Lacy and the leader of the the villains – Munroe – gets schooled by his puppet general in the importance of allowing him to keep his dignity (at least in front of the men), much of the philosophy is rapidly sublimated to long action sequences with gun battles, growling and hand-to-hand combat.

The character front is actually filled out better on the villain front. Munroe is smart and vicious and he’s basically thrilled to be a warlord of his own little island. He seems to understand how to command using brutality and that makes sense given that he is supposed to be former CIA. Roberts, as always, is articulate and efficient, his character seems reasonably in control for most of the film.

On the plus side, for a film so full of testosterone, it is surprisingly not misogynistic. Christmas beats the hell out of Lacy’s boyfriend when he gives her a shiner. And despite gawking at their contact on the island, Ross and Christmas don’t just dive for her for cheap and obvious sex. While the torture of General Garza’s daughter Sandra might seem misogynistic, there is ample evidence that the meatheads abusing her have absolutely no regard for life, male or female, and their willingness to torment her has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman.

Ultimately, The Expendables is what one might expect, a Mission: Impossible where subtlety and technology is replaced with brute force and big honkin’ weaponry. The movie might appeal to big, manly men who might wish to have the unfettered ability to kick some ass, but for those looking for a sensible, well-assembled film, The Expendables will only leave them wanting.

For other works with Eric Roberts, check out my reviews of:
Heroes
The Dark Knight

2.5/10

For other film reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

One Last Trip Back In The Time Line: Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines

The Good: Interesting character work, Ending, Special effects
The Bad: Tone and plot
The Basics: When a new set of Terminators are sent back to kill John Connor and his lieutenants, the audience wonders why they bothered, until the end.


The end of Terminator 2: Judgment Day (reviewed here!) would have seemed to be a decent ending to the series, but Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines happened anyway. Even so, the third sequel manages to do quite a bit right, making it a pleasant - and hopefully, final - addition to the series. If this was the conclusion to the franchise, the series should be proud of what it accomplishes.

While John Connor does his best to stay off the radar of official organizations and governments, he encounters a young woman from his past. No sooner does he reconnect with Kate Brewster, than a Terminator arrives from the future. The new terminator is a combination of the first and second terminators; a polymorphic robot over an impressive endoskeleton. As John Connor flees, he is aided by a Terminator that was sent back to save him. In the fights and chases that ensue, the Terminator reveals that Judgment Day was merely postponed and the new terminator is virtually indestructible. John and Kate realize that Kate's father is the key to saving the world and head to his Air Force base in an attempt to stop him from putting SkyNet in operation and causing the nuclear holocaust.

Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines has only one serious flaw and that is that we've seen it before. The movie begins exactly as the previous two did and the whole sense at the opening of this installment is "been there, done that." It is hard to care right away about why things are happening, unless one is already a a fan of the franchise. Then it is all right, but hardly as engaging or suspenseful as the previous two.

Fortunately, it does not begin by trying to take itself as seriously as the other two. Instead, director Jonathan Mostow allows some humor as the Terminator acquires his clothes and a fairly casual look at the T-X, the new Terminator. The use of humor is all that makes the beginning bearable. Once John and Kate meet up and begin to run, there is little information given that is important or new.

The problem is that Terminator 3 spends too much time on fight sequences and a ridiculously long chase sequence. It's difficult to watch because it seems like every chase and fight sequence is trying to be bigger than the previous chase or fight sequence I saw before. So, as I watched the crane chase in this movie, I thought back to the last chase I saw (in Matrix Reloaded) and I thought, "Yeah, this was bigger than the last one I saw." The problem was, I didn't care. Yeah, it was bigger and faster, but I've seen a chase scene before. We all have. And in Terminator 3, the chase scene is nothing new, it's just bigger than before. It does not resonate with more emotion, it is not more thrilling, it's just more and faster. Anyone can do that. In fact, that's all directors are doing. They look at the last chase they saw and make one even longer, with more peripheral damage.

Similarly, the fight sequences are outright ruined by the previews to the movie. The best fight moves between the T-X and the Terminator are shown in the theatrical trailer, making it somewhat unimpressive and anticlimactic to see it in context.

What the movie does well is work with a new cast. Claire Danes is wonderful as Kate Brewster. She immediately enters the franchise as a young woman with a great deal of charisma and skill. Danes makes Brewster more than a victim of circumstance and that is refreshing to see. Instead, the Danes lends dignity and realism to a character who is being pushed around quite a bit.

Kristianna Loken, the T-X, makes an auspicious entrance as well. The initial problem I had with Loken is that she lacks screen presence. When I think "Terminator," I think brutal killing machine. Rightly or not, when the new Terminator was announced and viewers were told it would be a woman, I anticipated someone with some gravitas, like Lucy Lawless or even a female wrestler. I was thinking of someone who looked vicious, someone who looked menacing. Loken, however, takes the T-X in a different direction, making her seem like she could be any woman and thus non-threatening and dangerous in a more cunning than blatant way.

Nick Stahl does a good job inheriting a role that has already been established and making it feel like he has been in it all along. Stahl makes John Connor seem reasonably conflicted and a strange combination of reluctant and destined. He plays Connor more casually than intense and it makes the movie worth seeing.

In the end, the best part of the movie is the last half hour. Not because we are happy to see the movie end, but because the climactic scenes are just that, climactic. The end is an intriguing twist that brings a great deal of closure to the franchise and makes the battle we have been watching for hours seem worthwhile. And it's not the typical action-adventure ending, which I liked a great deal.

Is Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines the best of the trilogy? No. But it becomes essential to the story and it is certainly the best way to put the series to rest. It's too bad they had to add so many chases and fights to get us there. This one gets high scores when it sticks to the storytelling, but somewhat lower when it tries to be an action-adventure movie. In the end, it is probably best appreciated by fans of the series.

For other science fiction films, please check out my reviews of:
The Terminator
The Alien Quadrilogy
Star Trek

6.5/10

For other movie reviews, please click here for the appropriate index page!

© 2011, 2007, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |

After The Definitive Collection: Terminator 2: Judgment Day Still Rocks!

The Good: Effects, Plot, Acting, Character
The Bad: Nitpicky stuff on all levels.
The Basics: A compelling film filled with amazing effects, strong characters and definitive direction. See The Terminator first, then this!



Terminator 2: Judgment Day is one of the rare sequels that is both better than the original and takes the film franchise in a very different direction. James Cameron exploded the summer blockbuster with a big-budget sequel to the more obscure science fiction horror film The Terminator (reviewed here!). When I first saw Terminator 2 on DVD, I was blown away by the medium and how effectively it translated the movie that I had only seen on a grainy VHS to the screen. Terminator 2: Judgment Day remains one of the litmus test films when testing out new equipment.

If you've never seen Terminator 2: Judgment Day or the original The Terminator you're missing out; the sequel was easily as groundbreaking in special effects at the time as The Phantom Menace was and Terminator 2: Judgment Day was twice as good! More than that, Terminator 2: Judgment Day has a lot that has made its way into the American collective psyche since its release.

The Special (or "Ultimate") edition of Terminator 2: Judgment Day is a treat, because like most special editions, the film is re-edited to include extra scenes or scene fragments that were left out of the original theatrical release to keep it more "up tempo" for the summer movie audience (who, apparently, Hollywood directors are under the misconception, don't want to think). The Ultimate Edition does that, adding scenes that reveal Sarah (Linda Hamilton)'s human side (and her legs!) as well as key scenes of the Terminator (the T-100, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, that is) that add to its character.

On a plot level, it's easily one of the most engrossing science fiction chase films of all time. Doing away with the suspense of the original in favor of more action, Terminator 2: Judgment Day occurs ten years after the original and, unfortunately, is ruined by every review ever written by it. That is, given the opportunity for a "pure viewing" (that is knowing nothing about the film before seeing it) after seeing the first makes the film much more interesting. That is to say, on a tone level, much is lost by knowing the nature of Schwarzenegger's Terminator role before seeing the film; it's wonderful to watch it with someone who has seen the first but is ignorant of the second as, up until the moment the T-100 draws its gun and saves John Connor, his allegiance is unknown and assumed to be hostile and that's wonderfully played out.

The plot is less simple than most such chase movies: having, as improbable as it may seem, failed to kill Sarah Connor, the computer villains of the future (2029) have sent back another Terminator to kill John Connor while he is young and weak. The heroes of the future, led by an older John Connor, send back a protector. The catch is the new Terminator (the T-1000) is made of liquid metal and can morph (change shape) into anything it has touched that is of equal mass. IT makes for load of awesome special effects. So, the protector, a T-100 Terminator, finds John and together they rescue Sarah Connor from a mental health facility that is easily one of the worst health care facilities ever envisioned for the present day. Together the trio flee the T-1000, arm up and, under Sarah's direction, hunt down the architect of the dismal future, a brilliant, good-natured, and socially conscious computer scientist named Daystrom (yes, it's a pretty blatant Star Trek allusion!) and, . . . compel him to not continue his work. In the process, the T-1000 continues to hunt them into a very cool, violent showdown.

If you haven't seen this film, it's easily worth your time. Why? It's interesting and surprisingly socially conscious. That's ironic considering the level of violence in the film was denounced at the beginning by various concerned parties. The truth is, there's an overwhelming amount of social commentary, from the lecherous mental health workers who abuse Sarah Connor in various ways to the way machines are programmed and used to the way Daystrom recognizes the importance of the Bigger Picture and his role in Judgment Day.

The acting is, surprisingly, good or, at the very least, competent. Linda Hamilton is amazing as Sarah Connor. The true scene stealer, though, is Robert Patrick, who plays the T-1000. He carries with him a presence that is wonderful and translates very impressively to the character he plays. And he has a face and demeanor that he plays as downright cold very well.

But, of course, the real importance is in the characters and, in this case, the most important ones are the humans: John and Sarah Connor. Sarah's obvious shell-shock and change in demeanor from the original is well played and realistic. In fact, it's almost impossible to watch The Terminator after seeing Terminator 2: Judgment Day because of how weak and whiny she appears in that film. Only slightly less compelling is John Connor, who mixes his sense of destiny well with his feelings of distrust for his mother and longing for the stability of parents.

All in all, far more than a summer blockbuster, this film stands up after years as an interesting and often fun character romp through a world of consequences and potentials.

For other films by James Cameron, please check out my reviews of:
Avatar
Titanic
Aliens

9/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.





| | |

Classics That Aren't All They're Cracked Up To Be: Before Today, I Actually Hadn't Seen The Terminator!

The Good: Good concept, Moments of character and acting, DVD Bonus features
The Bad: Some truly hammy acting, Genre conceits, Soundtrack
The Basics: Fairly well done in many ways, The Terminator is still not the best science fiction film ever produced, though it does have a clever concept behind it!


Believe it or not, before today, I had never actually seen The Terminator. I have watched the sequel films and enjoyed them, but somehow I never got around to watching the original. With an increasing number of people advising me to watch The Sarah Connor Chronicles, I figured it was time to go back and watch how it all began. Truth be told, it took watching The Terminator for me to realize why almost everyone considers Terminator 2: Judgment Day better. It's a shame, but it's true; The Terminator is hampered by enough problems that the sequel is a bit better than the original.

The thing that caught me most, though, was actually how unnecessary a lot of the problems with The Terminator were. Director James Cameron had other science fiction and science fiction horror films to reference that he could have used to avoid problems, most notably, Alien (reviewed here!). Ridley Scott's Alien did a decent number of things that it seems Cameron tries to do . . . poorly, in The Terminator, most notably presenting a strong female character who is thrust into a situation well beyond her experiences. There are moments in The Terminator where Cameron and those he is directing just fail to hit their marks and the result is a film that seems remarkably dated. And to eliminate the easy argument, there are plenty of early '80's science fiction films that present an alternate version of the '80's (big hair and all) that are perfect films, most notably V (reviewed here!). The Terminator simply does not carry a larger sense of greater themes that other, similar, works do.

A man appears naked in Los Angeles amid an electrical storm, sent back from a bleak future where machines have overrun the world and are hunting humans for no other reason than they can. Another man appears elsewhere in Los Angeles, also naked and both men quickly procure clothes, avoid police and attempt to find Sarah Connor. One of them, who has armed himself with quite an arsenal of firearms, manages to find two Sarah Connors in the Los Angeles area and kill them. Surprised by a news report of her death, waitress Sarah Connor's bad day becomes worse when she comes to believe that there is a man following her. Unfortunately for her, she is right.

One man is there to protect her, armed only with a sawed-off shotgun and his wits. He is Kyle Reese and he tells Sarah a story about how he was sent from the future to protect her. The other man is not a man at all, but rather a cyborg: a robot covered in human skin. His mission is to kill Sarah Connor, thus preventing her from having a son, a son whose existence leads to a human victory over the machines. Unfortunately, as the police become involved in the killings surrounding both men, Reese and Sarah become more and more boxed in, which allows the terminator to move in for the kill!

First, what The Terminator does right; the plot is remarkably solid and more than a little clever. Rather than killing the great general of the war, the machines move to prevent his entire existence. It might be a bit more creative than an A.I. is usually assumed to be, but with that conceit, everything else is wrapped pretty tight. The idea that "if this one fails, why can't they send back more" is addressed, which makes perfect sense and works. Similarly, the story as told in this movie is remarkably well structured, sometimes in contradiction to maintaining a sense of pacing that is engaging.

So, for example, the story unfolds for quite a bit of time without revealing who Reese or the other man is. We see the Terminator killing, but for much of the movie, he is simply a cold-blooded killer. The clever aspect about the plot structure of The Terminator is that it is only when Reese reveals everything to the police and is written off as a crazy person that Cameron reveals just how right the actually is. It's incredibly clever that we are not shown any evidence of the Terminator's nature until late in the film.

Unfortunately, Cameron and co-writer Gale Anne Hurd surrender to the usual horror conceits. After extensive chases and near misses, the end is a series of rather predictable continuations of a fight that is hardly as tense as one might like it to be. I blame the lack of tension on the soundtrack. Cameron uses a soundtrack much like the techno-leaning one Ridley Scott used on Legend and here it telegraphs the emotions, most notably the "feel tense!" vibe. There are moments when the synthesizers and percussion are just plain distracting in this movie.

Returning to what works, the limited amount of character work there is is well-executed. Sarah Connor is believable as a woman pulled out of obscurity for the task of saving the world and what makes her character work is her utter disbelief of Reese. Indeed, the police lieutenant and detective who deal with Connor are remarkably worldly and when Sarah Connor turns to them to talk her out of believing Reese's story, it rings very true. Having that element of disbelief allows us as the viewer to buy the premise completely.

Also, Reese is far more convincing than he is crazy. Reese is pretty wonderful in that he is shell-shocked and wiley and in flashbacks to the future, we see some of what he has been through. If anything, it is unfortunate that there were not scenes included where he was simply taking a moment to enjoy being in the sunlight again!

But what makes Reese work so well is largely the acting talents of Michael Biehn. Biehn never gets enough credit for his work in The Terminator and that is unfortunate. Indeed, there is an entire scene that becomes unnecessary solely because of the strength of Biehn's acting. Reese finds himself staring at a construction site at one moment and without any words, Biehn expresses the abject fear and distrust Reese has in that moment, long before director James Cameron flashes forward to illustrate the comparison Reese is making between the equipment he sees and the killer droids he has fought. We, the viewers, get it.

The Terminator is lauded as one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's great performances, but it's not much of a stretch. He walks in, shoots lots of guns and is not charged with any real extensive acting. Still, it was remarkably fun the moment he first says "I'll Be Back."

But much of the film rests on the acting talent of Linda Hamilton. Hamilton is given the difficult task of both playing a woman who is just a normal woman having a truly rotten day and one who has a potential to train the general who will save the world. It's a tough balance to play but Hamilton makes it work. While her character transforms from a mild-mannered waitress to a woman on the run for her life, Hamilton evolves her body language from slouching to a more solid stance. In combination with other changes - like eye contact, Hamilton shows well what the story tells! This is a remarkably good performance on her part.

On DVD, there are documentary featurettes, deleted scenes and a featurette on The Terminator in relation to the budding franchise, but there are noticeable lacks as well. There is no commentary track running through the feature (at least not on the "Special Edition" I watched) and the trailers are fun, but not terribly insightful.

And in the end, The Terminator is a fairly simple concept stretched out with car chases, gun fights and a lot of killing (the last part is fine by me in this context). But it's not the flawless gem so many want to make it out to be. Even with its rough edges, it's still a worthwhile film, but those who want something more than a basic science fiction chase story will not find it here.

For other science fiction classics, please check out my reviews of:
Star Wars
The Back To The Future Trilogy
The Indiana Jones Trilogy

7/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |