New Release! Vice (2018)

Director: Adam McKay

A reasonably entertaining look at certain key aspects of Dick Cheney - arguably the most powerful and influential vice-president the United States has ever had in office. However, it is a look very often colored by writer and director Adam McKay's strong political biases.

Not unlike his smash hit 2016 film The Big Short, Vice adopts a coy, humorous style and tone to dig into some very real historical events. In this case, the nature of Dick Cheney, a man who seemed never to have been "the smartest guy in the room" or much of a politician, but was perhaps one of the most low-key and successful opportunists the White House will ever see. By tracing his roots from a hard-drinking, Yale dropout hanging power lines in Wyoming to and through his time as a congressional intern, Chief of Staff, and ultimately Vice President, we get a portrait of a man guided by little more than a rough set of conservative ideas, a hyper-keen nose for opportunity and power, and propelled by an ability to seem far less threatening than he actually was.

While Cheney is clearly a rather interesting modern historical figure, whose fingerprints are still all over the U.S. political landscape, the more obvious set of fingerprints on this movie are Adam McKay's. My wife even compared it to a Michael Moore film, in that Vice has a style that overwhelms and most likely obliterates much of its substance. The narrative is non-linear. There are several self-indulgent (though funny) flights of humorous fancy, and more than a few wink-wink, nudge-nudge moments directed right at those of us in the audience. Honestly, it felt far too flippant, given the gravity of much of the subject matter. This only grows more obvious as the story arrives at the wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq. When a filmmaker is essentially laying hundreds of thousands of civilians' dead bodies at a man's doorstep, it seems atonal to be taking little comic jabs at his speaking style and endless series of heart attacks.

The seemingly non-threatening Dick Cheney. Christian Bale
turns in another transformation and excellent performance,
even if cinematic forces beyond his control weaken the film.

Savvy viewers will probably be able to suss out the fact from the fiction, but it's not always easy. In addition, the implications that McKay makes about Cheney are, to be honest, unfair at times. Sometimes painfully unfair. Yes, Cheney had a big enough hand in pushing the Iraq War in 2003 that he deserves a big portion of the blame. One could even argue that he should probably have gone to jail for war crimes. But to suggest that every dead body from that war was solely Cheney's fault is a gross oversimplification. There were no end of hawks and enablers surrounding that debacle, from the president right on down to the tens of millions of Americans who fully supported to war, even as it became more and more obvious that it had been predicated on a massive lie. While I understand that such issues are too complex and uninteresting for an "entertainment" like McKay's movie, I can only think that he should honor the subject's complexity or leave it the hell alone.

Ultimately, I probably agree with McKay's general feelings about Cheney and many of his cohort through the 1980s and 2000s. But I also think that historical events, especially recent ones, need to be handled with respect. What Vice gave us elicits more than a few laughs, but they are laughs that fade once the credits roll and one realizes just what the consequences were of the subject's actions. It is all a subject which deserves a more thorough, sober look through the form of a quality documentary, rather than a streamlined, comic version that leaves out far too many of the other relevant facts and people involved. 

Retro Trio, Christopher Nolan Edition: The Prestige (2006); Inception (2010); Interstellar (2014)

This little themed set of reviews started with a late-night viewing of The Prestige, and ended up with my discovering that I had never reviewed Inception, which I did re-watch only about a month ago. From there, it was a small jump to add Interstellar, which I only saw once when it was released. 

The Prestige (2006)

It speaks well for a movie when you put it on late at night with the intention of watching maybe 30 minutes while you drift into sleep, and then you realize that it's past midnight and you have every intention of watching every last second of the remaining hour of the movie. This is even more impressive when it's a movie you've seen several times already, as I had with The Prestige before this most recent viewing.

Coming out a little over a year after his true breakout smash hit, Batman Begins, this movie solidified just what Christopher Nolan can do with a large budget. Though completely different in subject and presentation than his take on the famous DC superhero, The Prestige bore all of the hallmarks of Nolan's writing and directing: a non-linear narrative; a surprise ending; a dark general tone; extremely slick visuals; Michael Caine. Nolan's films virtually all blend these elements into solid films.

The Prestige tells the tale of two rival magicians (or "illusionists", as Gob Bluth would demand) in the early 20th century who become viciously obsessed with defeating each other, at first professionally but eventually in every way. Getting their start together as assistants to a more established stage magician in London, one of them accidentally has a hand in the death of the other's wife. This sets of a chain of events in which each one attempts to sabotage the other's act while establishing himself as the premier stage magician in London. The sabotage attempts grow ever-more-dangerous, even leading to maiming and an eventual arrest for murder.

Borden and Angier, two budding magicians before their lethal
rivalry develops. There is refreshing shift in just who is the
more sympathetic character as the plot progresses.

The story has plenty of intrigue built into it already, but Nolan enhances it with his narrative choices. Similar to his approach in Memento, he tells the story by alternating between past and present, giving us a chance to see the steps that led to the deadly opposition between two past colleagues. And not unlike that earlier movie, this is one that is likely to inspire you to want to see it again immediately after your first viewing, just so that you can follow the meaning of the earlier parts of the movie better, once you have the complete picture. I always appreciate how Nolan has fun with how he orders his narratives, and he has a strong enough grasp of the technique that it adds solid entertainment value.

This isn't to say that the movie is flawless. Similar to other Nolan movies, the romantic relationships are never really fleshed out. Despite having very good actors in the key roles - Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Scarlett Johannsen, and Rebecca Hall - the romance between the different pairs never feels completely natural. It's hardly the most essential part of this movie, but it is relevant enough so that the lack of completely authentic emotions results in a dulled impact at certain moments in the movie.

I suppose the one other minor criticism that I can level at the movie is that there is a truly supernatural element thrown into a movie which is otherwise all about the art of slight-of-hand. This element of the truly fantastic works quite well, given how it is introduced and used, but I would understand if some viewers find it more than a little out of place. Perhaps even as a slight bit of cheating, even.

Among Christopher Nolan's films, I would actually rate this among his very best, which for me are The Dark Knight and Inception. Anyone who happened to miss this one would do well to go back and watch it.

Inception (2010)

One could divide Nolan's movies into "original" and "adapted" groups. While the former group would include the Dark Knight trilogy and a remake like Insomnia, Inception would fall into the latter category. And like few directors, Nolan's originals are equal to or arguably better than his adapted films.

If you haven't seen it, Inception focuses on Cobb, an expert in the field of extraction - a method of entering another person's dreams and retrieving ideas. Cobb's services are highly prized by corporate raiders who seek to pull valuable corporate secrets out of the minds of their competitors. However, Cobb is on the run from U.S. law enforcement, as he is the prime suspect in his wife's murder. To clear his name in order to return home to his children, Cobb accepts a highly risky but possibly life-changing job of performing the questionable act of inception - the technique of implanting, rather than extracting, an idea into a person's mind. Cobb assembles a team to help him create a complex series of dream worlds through which they can enter their target's mind and incept the appropriate idea.

In keeping with the stories that Nolan usually tells, Inception unfolds on several levels. Early in the movie, we are introduced to the concept of extraction and even the notion of a dream within a dream. In the third act, though, we eventually are watching a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream (that's five levels, if you didn't count). It can be a bit disorienting or even frustrating, if you're not paying close attention. If you are, however, it can be a really fun and creative ride. Each dream takes place in a distinct environment with its own look and feel, with each one offering some new insight as to how the concepts of inception and extraction work. It helps that there is a tension and urgency built into each dream level, allowing the suspense to pull us along. Nolan has always had fun with how he plays with narratives, and it seems like he was having a blast with this one.

The dream-world hotel hallway fight scene is one of the most
cinematically dazzling sequences in recent times.

The visuals are possibly the best in any Nolan film, which is saying something. He has done some spectacular things on film, but Inception probably features several of his most iconic images. From the folding cities to the slow motion world explosions to the fight in the rotating hotel room, this movie offered a ton of scenes and sequences that are unlikely to be forgotten once seen. Add these to the sleek look and feel of every shot and frame typical to Nolan's pictures, and you have a movie that is visually wondrous to behold.

Upon this most recent viewing, something else finally dawned on me - the terror in the concept of being infected with an idea that you cannot banish. And if that idea is urging you to kill yourself and your loved ones? That is truly the stuff of nightmares and insanity. Inception teases this idea out and drives it home in dramatic fashion, and it was only recently that I recognized just how disturbing it is.

I remember really enjoying Inception  when it was first released, while still having a few gripes about it. There were a few questions I didn't feel were fully addressed, and some parts of the movie tried my patience a bit. Now that I have re-watched it a few times, though, I find it easier to accept the flaws as minor. The movie is actually a rarity for the last decade - a high-quality, big-budget movie that is completely original. Nearly every other mainstream, popular movie has been adapted from a book or series (Harry Potter, anything YA), has been a remake of an earlier movie or franchise (Star Trek, Star Wars), or is a sequel to a previous blockbuster (The Fast and the Furious, among others). This fact makes me root for movies like Inception and appreciate them all the more.

Interstellar (2014)

Nolan shot for the literal and figurative stars with this one. My original review is here.

Upon a second viewing, this film holds up fairly well, and I felt a tad more forgiving about a few of the elements which puzzled or annoyed me back in 2014. Matthew McConaughey's voice is still a nuisance, but a few of the performances which I previously questioned no longer agitate me. And I actually found a little more enjoyment in a few sequences which I felt dragged during my first viewing.

I still consider Interstellar one of Nolan's weaker movies, but this is very relative. Even his worst films are considerably better than most large-scale, epic Hollywood films. Curiously, I think that it will ultimately be looked upon by future viewers much more kindly than the previous year's critical darling Gravity - a movie which amazed me once but which I have never felt the need to watch again, and whose weaknesses are jarring and more obvious with every passing year. I do not foresee such a fate for Interstellar. It's not 2001 or Tarkovsky's Solaris, but it is strong enough to earn a mention and some comparison with those titans of science fiction films about space exploration.

I generally haven't changed my original feelings about the movie, except for one main aspect. I've come to a slightly better acceptance of the forces which bring Cooper back in touch with his daughter. Slightly. I do still find it rather sentimental to use the premise that love spans any breadth of space or time, but I appreciated just how the story is organized and weaves the concept into the overall tale.

Cooper and his crew on a new planet. This was arguably the
most stunning sequences among several strong
contenders. Nolan never slacks on visuals.

One other merit which I failed to fully appreciate on my first viewing was the music. The score, composed, by longtime movie score maestreo Hans Zimmer, is wonderfully affecting. Maybe it's just my love of organ music, but I could find myself watching some of the visual sequences multiple times just to take in the pairing with the music.

Nolan's movies make up an unusually high percentage of the rather small number of movies that I own (out of the 30 blu rays that I have, 4 of them are Nolan films). I'm obviously someone who enjoys his films enough to splurge for them, knowing that I will watch them repeatedly. Yet I still feel no need to buy Interstellar. I think it is a good movie, but not one that I will need to watch again any time soon, if ever. 

Retro Trio: The Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012)

Director: Christopher Nolan

Once in while, I'm in a mood to watch a movie which will give me a balance of not challenging me with anything new but still being rich enough to avoid dullness. Often, a good action or adventure movie I've seen before does the trick for me in these situations, so when just such a mood recently struck me, I fired up director Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. Over a few nights, I re-watched Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises.

I think this trilogy is an impressive accomplishment. I own all three, and I enjoy returning to them every few years. This will not change, though there are certain gripes which I have developed regarding a few aspects of the series, as much out of over-familiarity as anything else. Let's get those out of the way:

One thing that irked me is that Bruce Wayne's scientific and detecting genius is almost completely absent. In fact, it is virtually spat upon. Since his very inception in Detective Comics in 1940, Bruce Wayne/Batman was noted for his intellect. He was virtually a Sherlock Holmes. Still, in Batman Begins, after Bruce Wayne is gassed with Scarecrow's hallucinogenic toxin, he awakes to have Lucius Fox rattle off the advanced chemical processes he needed to perform in order to produce an antidote. In response, Wayne simply states, "Is that supposed to mean anything to me?" Wayne's utter inability to comprehend Fox's chemistry jargon has always struck me as a severe oversight in terms of one of Batman's greatest strengths - that he is supposed to be phenomenally brilliant, especially with the forensic sciences, including biochemistry. Almost never in the entire trilogy is his scientific intelligence exhibited. The real shame is that it wouldn't have taken much effort to include it. My guess is that Christopher Nolan was so very focused on Bryce Wayne's tortured psyche that he ignored his considerable intellect, despite the fact that it could have been another avenue along which to explore his obsessive personality.

There's absolutely no way that the Joker (right) could have
been sure that his fellow crew member wasn't going to just
blow him away before his full plan unfolded. Just lucky,
I guess. This happens quite a bit. 

Another general area which exhibits cracks is in the little details and transitions from one plot point to the next. All of Christopher Nolan's movie's virtually crackle with great energy and pace, so that the eyes and mind are stimulated through the entire picture. However, when one watches his movies a second or third time, certain unanswerable questions arise. This was true with Memento, Interstellar, and every movie in between. In the Dark Knight trilogy, they are sprinkled around in plenty of places. In The Dark Knight, during the Joker's interrogation scene, how did the villain know that he would be able to break out at exactly the right time to call and set off his bombs while Wayne raced to save Rachel and Dent? In The Dark Knight Rises, how on Earth does even Batman recover from a broken back and return to peak fighting condition in a few short months? Though none of them ever torpedoes the overall stories, a few of these nagging little problems can be found in each film.

One of my lesser issues is that the dialogue can, depending on the mood I am in, feel overly polished. While there are plenty of thoughtful and brilliant lines (as I'll explore later), I sometimes cannot help but smirk at how nearly every character has a slick, clever line right on the tip of his or her tongue, at virtually every turn. Again, this is a minor issue, as many of the lines are great, but it does rob the characters of a certain level of authenticity.

And oh yes, Christian Bale's and Tom Hardy's respective Batman and Bane voices were strange and distracting choices. But they don't bother me nearly as much as they clearly bothered a lot of people. On to why I continue to return to these movies...

The Dark Knight trilogy did for superhero movies what Alan Moore and Frank Miller did for popular superhero comics two decades earlier: they brought a sense of maturity, depth, atmosphere, and intellect which simply had not been there before. Even some of the really enjoyable superhero movies from before Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, like Tim Burton's Batman and Bryan Singer's first two X-Men movies, still bore hallmarks of PG-rated "bubble gum" comic books. Sure, there was a touch of psychological depth in them, but they still remained primarily plot-driven stories which relied a bit more on colorful visuals than on probing character study. With his Batman trilogy, Nolan decided to take a very close look at Frank Miller's work with Batman in the 1980s, when the writer and artist dug into the damaged and arguably unhinged mind of "the world's greatest detective." Nolan combined this with the question, "What if a real billionaire truly went sort of nuts and decided to take justice into his own hands by pummeling criminals?" Nolan decided to set this story in a world which asked us to suspend our disbelief far less than any previous superhero movie, especially in terms of the powers and abilities of the primary characters. This was very different territory for the movies, and I've greatly appreciated it. Admittedly, things get a bit sillier in the final installment, but it doesn't spoil Nolan's overall realistic take on costumed vigilantes.

Though not a primary character, Lucius Fox was one of the
most consistently entertaining through the trilogy. Morgan
Freeman was the perfect choice to play the sly tech genius.

I also feel that any viewer, even those who have major issues with this series, must admit that there is some rather strong writing throughout the trilogy. Yes, I also get a tad annoyed that so many characters speak in slick, unrealistically clever and didactic epigrams. But there are some truly great lines, all the same. When Jim Gordon, at the end of Batman Begins, says, "I never thanked you", Batman's response "And you'll never have to" is solid gold. In The Dark Knight, virtually every exchange involving the Joker has hypnotic gravitas. I particularly enjoy The Joker's exposition to a burned Harvey Dent on the connection between chaos and the blindness of justice. There are plenty of others, and even minor characters like Lucius Fox and Alfred have some great one-liners, further enhanced by the impeccable deliveries of world-class actors Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine. Even after seeing these movies multiple times, I still derive no small pleasure from the dialogue.

On a purely aesthetic level, the movies look fantastic. Nolan always showed a keen eye for pleasing visuals, even back to his first color pictures Memento and The Prestige, there is often a brilliant color palate and expertly-arranged sets that are wonderfully pleasing to take in. The trilogy is no exception, exhibiting the "Blade Runner" feel that Nolan wanted for Gotham City just as well as the expansive long shots in the Himalayas or Hong Kong. And working within those scnes are some outstanding actors. Certainly some actors and performances are better than others, but I have a very hard time saying that anyone in the Dark Knight trilogy (or any Nolan movie) turned in a bad performance. Even Katie Holmes was tolerable, and that was about as bad as it got for the entire series.

While the trilogy has its detractors and those who might even argue against some of the above-mentioned aspects which I enjoy, I'm a fan. 

Terminator Series (Including Genisys)

Terminator Series: An Achronological Overview

I recently watched the latest Terminator movie, Terminator: Genisys. It was the first in the series that I had seen since Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), due to the generally poor reception of the third and fourth films in the franchise. After watching Genisys, however, I felt the urge to take in the whole series, albeit out of the order of their release.

I already know that Terminator is a masterpiece, and the sequel was a wildly entertaining, game-changing sci-fi action movie. I've seen those two movies more times than I can remember, and I know I'll love watching them again. With this in mind, I first went back to the third and fourth movies. Perhaps odd, but arguably appropriate for a series heavily involving time travel.

Let's begin at the end...

Terminator: Genisys (2015)

This was the fifth film in the series. 

Director: Alan Taylor

How does Hollywood keep getting this wrong?

I should state right away that I didn't find Terminator: Genisys to be an outright disaster. It had just enough going for it that I was curious about the resolution. Still, it's difficult to see how several filmmakers, armed with obscenely huge budgets, have now gone into James Cameron's oh-so-fertile science-fiction landscape and failed to create anything remotely as fun, entertaining, or engaging as the original two films.

Genisys actually begins with a decent setup. In the future, with commander John Connor on the cusp of leading humanity to an ultimate victory over Skynet, the machine system sends a Terminator back to 1984 to execute Connors's mother, Sarah. This is, of course, the backstory which leads into the well-known tale of the original Terminator. However, a twist comes when the T-101 (a CGI in-his-prime Arnold Schwarzenegger) is stopped while attempting to steal the clothes off of a trio of punks. Halting the T-101 is a noticeably aged version of himself (the real Arnie). It turns out that this T-101 had been sent back even earlier into the time of Sarah Connors's childhood, in order to protect her against attackers sent by Skynet. The human who was sent back to 1984, Kyle Reece, arrives shortly after the 1984 T-101, and is stunned to find a savvy, already-battle-trained adult Sarah Connor and her Terminator-protector on top of the situation.

This initial twist on the original tale is not a bad one, despite essentially overwriting the classic original story. The Genisys twist sets up an interesting mix of the first two films, whereby Sarah, Kyle, and the protective T-101, whom Sarah calls "Pops," must fend off attacks from the T-1000 and other threats. Unfortunately, things become convoluted at an insane pace. All too quickly, the story packs in multiple Terminators, another time jump to 1997, and even the appearance of the adult John Connor in 1997. Once you start trying to find the logic between all of the time jumps and the causalities behind the time ripples involved, the tale loses its narrative cohesion. Sure, there was a paradox or two in the original movies, but these were easy to overlook in the name of suspending disbelief. In Genisys, however, the writers seemed to be trying to bury us viewers with time-travel jargon and mumbo jumbo, in the hopes that we wouldn't notice the mounting logic problems.

The action itself is standard big-budget Hollywood fare. There are explosions aplenty, car chases, helicopter pursuits, and a mildly interesting underground fight. It borrows/steals from its predecessors much of the time, with a few dashes of originality in terms of visuals and stunts. This would have been more palatable had the characters and dialogue been more engaging, but these elements were flat. Emilia Clarke and Jai Courtney are only decent at best, and they simply don't compare to the performances of Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn. It didn't help that the script featured too many misplaced attempts at levity and awkward attempts at drama which failed to facilitate any chemistry between the leads.

With some better writing and editing, this movie could have been a nice addition to the Terminator canon. As it is, however, it is a mediocre science-fiction action flick on the level of the second and third Matrix movies.

From here, I decided to take two steps back, into the middle of the series...

Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines (2003)

Director: Jonathan Mostow

A mildly entertaining third entry in the series, with a surprisingly and somehow satisfyingly bleak ending.

Unlike Genisys, Rise of the Machines seeks to maintain the narrative integrity and continuity of the first two films. Moving ahead to 2003, roughly 10 years after the events in Judgment Day, we find John Conner (Nick Stahl) in his early twenties and drifting around the United States. His mother Sarah has died of natural causes, and while the events which took place a decade earlier should mean that humanity is safe from the possible threat of Skynet, John is unable to fully accept it. His nagging dread is realized when a new Terminator, model designation T-X, arrives in 2003, wearing female human skin. This "Terminatrix," as she is called, is actually on a mission to kill both John Connor and his future wife and former high school classmate, Kate Brewster (Claire Danes). Also arriving on the scene is the familiar T-101 (Arnold Schwarzenegger), who has once again been tasked with protecting Connor, as well as Brewster.

 Without the natural menacing look, actress Kristanna Loken
often seemed to spend too much time trying to appear fierce 
by looking out from under her eyebrows.

The rest of the plot has a few interesting turns to it, while others don't hold up under close scrutiny. The ever-present bugaboo of paradoxes is a bit more prevalent in this film that in its predecessors. The T-X Terminatrix features upgrades that at first add fascination - she can take over and control machines; her right arm can morph into various weapons; she has the "liquid metal" malleability of the T-1000 - but they soon bring up unanswerable questions about her tactics, or lack of, in pursuing her quarry. She never becomes nearly as frightening as the original T-101 or the T-1000. It also didn't help that the actress playing the T-X, Kristanna Loken, seemed to be trying a little too hard to look menacing. This may have been the fault of the director, but the fear factor was often ruined.

There are plenty of action scenes in the movie, though I found most of them merely typical for a large-scale Hollywood blockbuster. The acting was solid, though they had to do with a lukewarm script that, like Genisys, tried to shoehorn a few jokes into places where they didn't fit the tone of the scene.

The part which I found oddly redeeming was the ending. Spoiler alert (but hey, the movie came out 12 years ago): they don't save the world. Skynet takes over, and we end with Connor and Brewster locked in a secure underground bunker, waiting for the nukes to inevitably start falling. It's a pretty hardcore downer of an ending, but I actually appreciate the film going in this direction. It speaks to the inevitability of certain predestined horrors, which is very much in keeping with the orignal Terminator.

I then went a step forward, to one of the most critically panned Terminator movies...

Terminator: Salvation (2009)

This was the fourth film in the series.

Director: McG (yes, that's the guy's name)

Observation: films can actually be OK when your expectations have been set at rock-bottom.

Since its release six years ago, I had not heard a single positive recommendation from friends or through critiques of Salvation. This was the main reason that I only just got around to watching it. I must say, though, that I did not find it to be the non-stop onslaught of horrible cinema that I was expecting. It's certainly not a great movie, and I would rank it as the fourth-best in the Terminator series, but I found some redeeming qualities in it.

Salvation begins in 2003, in a prison where inmate Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) is about to be executed for homicide. A contrite and resigned Wright signs a release which will allow the young company, Cyberdyne, to use his body for scientific purposes. Wright is then put to death.

Fast forward to 2018. It is now roughly 15 years after Judgement Day has occurred, and humanity is being hunted to extinction by Skynet's killing machines. A hardened, adult John Connor (Christian Bale) is a charismatic leader in the human resistance movement against Skynet. During a raid on a Skynet base, Connor discovers a room filled with human bodies in various states. After Connor flees from a Skynet response group, A youthful-looking Marcus Wright emerges from the rubble. Wright initially heads towards where his home was in California, but soon learns what has happened to the world while he was supposedly dead. He also soon becomes enmeshed in the lives of Kyle Reese, John Connor, and the entire resistance movement.

Though the CGI is top-quality, the color palette and mood
never expand beyond the drab greys browns evident here.

The weaknesses of the film are obvious. It is overly dark, both aesthetically and tonally, with far too many grating, gravelly voices, dark or drab sets, and scenes taking place at night. The script only has a few moderately memorable lines. Most of the actors oversell the intensity. All of these things, taken together, make it clear why so many people lambasted this movie on its initial release. As a sequel to the first three films, Salvation is a bleak affair.

All the same, I found there to be merits amidst the drab shadows. The primary one is the character Marcus Wright. The mystery behind his resurrection and motivations are interesting plotlines through most of the film, and I found their resolution fairly satisfying. I also found the general story of Skynet's plot to infiltrate and eliminate the human resistance to have more smarts and integrity than either of the time-travel-mashups that we got in the third or fifth films. Maybe more people would have appreciated these elements a bit more had the movie not been shrouded in such an unattractive veneer.

This is a tough one to recommend to anyone except those like me: viewers who stayed away because of all of the negativity surrounding the movie. I think you may find some redeeming qualities that are worth your viewing time. The best idea is to have few to no expectations going into it.

And now for dessert, I go backwards three steps, to the masterpiece that started it all...


The Terminator (1984)

Director: James Cameron

This is the one that not only started it all but was also James Cameron's monster breakthrough. Say what you will about Cameron's overblown sense of self-importance, his first major work as a director and screenwriter is the stuff of aspiring filmmakers' dreams.

Nearly all science-fiction or movie fans know the story. A killer cyborg is sent back to 1984 from a possible future in which machines have been eradicating mankind from the planet after a ubiquitous defense program became self-aware. The cyborg, or Terminator, is on a mission to kill Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), who will give birth to John Connor, the man who will lead humanity to overthrow the army of killer machines in the future. Sent to protect Sarah is Kyle Reese, a soldier in the human resistance whom John Connor sent back to ensure that he would even be born.

The original Terminator holds up quite well. James Cameron, who wrote and directed the movie, had an excellent sense of how to create a film story which went well beyond the few interesting ideas that were its foundation. While it does have roots in science-fiction - robots and time travel - the story creates characters whom we actually care about. The movie very quickly lays out the time travel aspect, and there is intrigue present from the earliest moments. We see the arrival of the Terminator and Reese, but we must wait to get the full story on exactly who they are and why they have traveled back in time to find Sarah Connor. Several elements of horror and suspense are utilized as we see the Terminator coldly execute several people. Terminator may be a "science fiction" movie, but it incorporates and executes more than a few elements of solid film making, regardless of genre.

Schwarzenegger played the iconic title role, but Michael
Biehn's performance as Kyle Reese is one of the best you'll
ever see in any type of action movie. 

In watching the movie this time (my first in many, many years), a few things stood out. One was just how efficient the direction was. With this, his very first feature film, James Cameron showed that he had an amazing sense of exactly what to include and (more importantly) not to include. There is an excellent balance between slow and even humorous moments, which humanize Sarah and Reese to make them very sympathetic, and the tension-filled action sequences. The balance in tone is exceptional. Even more than this, though, I noticed just how skillfully Sarah's development is handled. In the 100-odd minutes of the movie, there is a very organic revelation of her grit and toughness. Thanks to the script and acting of Linda Hamilton, we see a young woman have her soft exterior stripped away to reveal an authentically tough person. This is something that could easily have been botched, but Cameron avoided the many possible pitfalls. I would also be remiss if I didn't mention the great performance of Michael Biehn, who went all-in as the desperate and tortured protector Kyle Reese. He sells the urgency of the story with impressive fire.

There are some moments that are a tad slow, and several scenes which solely rely on the then-cutting edge effects to dazzle the audience. As great as they were in 1984, most of these effects pale in comparison to what movie-goers have seen in the past 20 years. That said, the final action sequences do still have some power left in them, even these 30-plus years later.

The Terminator is still a landmark action movie. It has lost some luster in the 30 years since its release, but it still does things that other, lesser action movies could learn much from.

I'm not totally sure what the tagline
"It's Nothing Personal" actually means
on this movie poster.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)

Director: James Cameron

Some may label me a blasphemer for this, but this movie has lost a lot of its magic for me. Certainly not all, but a lot.

By now, the story is well-known. Roughly 10 years after the events of the first film, Sarah Connor's son, John (Edward Furlong), is an untethered rebel. His mother is in a mental institution and he spends his time hacking into ATMs and avoiding his foster parents. He is soon discovered by two Terminators - one, a model T-1000 (Robert Patrick), sent back in time to kill him and the other sent back to protect him, with this latter being the same model (Arnold Schwarzenegger) that tried to execute his mother a decade earlier. John and the Terminator help Sarah escape the mental ward and go on the run from the T-1000. A manic Sarah eventually breaks away to try and kill the man who will eventually design the Skynet program which leads to nuclear holocaust.

For pop science fiction, the plot still holds up fairly well. I actually appreciate some of the very dark themes and aspects raised in such a "Hollywood" movie. There is one particularly grim nuclear holocaust vision that is graphic enough to still give you nightmares. James Cameron also shows off his considerable skills as a technical director in this sequel, just as he has in every movie he's made. It was also fun to go back and once again see an Arnold Schwazenegger at his absolute peak. Though an iconic '80s action star, he really only made a handful of truly exceptional movies, with Judgement Day being one of them.

The then-revolutionary morphing technology still holds up,
but it has long since become a ho-hum standard in movies.

That said, Judgement Day has simply gone the way that most of James Cameron's movie have gone: from monstrous commercial success and pop culture phenomenon to a bit of a relic. Many of the elements that made the movie so fun to watch when I was younger simply do not have the same appeal any more. This movie introduced "morphing" effects, which changed the game of movie visuals forever. At the time, seeing the T-1000 shift from one form to another was well worth the price of admission. Now, though, such effects have long since been outdone (by Cameron himself, in fact), and now they cease to amaze.

Another of the movie's teeth that has dulled in my eyes is its reliance on extended action sequences. Especially during the finale, the action grows rather dull. For nearly 30 minutes, we get car chases and warehouse pursuits which hold very little actual suspense or engagement for me any more.

This all may sound harsh for a movie that set the bar for its blockbuster action kin for years after its release. Unfortunately, I could not help but be a tad bored for several, sometimes long, stretches of Terminator 2. It's a shame, as I was really hoping that this one would hold up as well as the original.

Final Takeaways

The Terminator series, for as massive as it has been for over three decades now, is actually rather mediocre as a whole. One could easily argue that it has done nothing but grow weaker since the original, not unlike many film series. The disappointing thing is that there seems to be plenty of untapped potential for cool movies here; yet it goes unexplored in the name of simply trying to outdo earlier film in the series by simply piling on more of the same elements: time travel, explosions, and the ever-aging Schwarzenegger as that last piece of nostalgia to hedge the filmmakers' bets. At least in these days of constant reboots, we can always hope for a successful revitalization.

New(ish) Releases!! Brooklyn, The Big Short, and Bridge of Spies

Brooklyn (2015)

Director: John Crowley

A great example of a simple tale told exceptionally well.

Brooklyn is the story of Eilis (pronounced "Ay-lish", and played by Saoirse Ronan), a young woman in Ireland who emigrates to Brooklyn, New York in the 1950s. Though very smart and attractive, Eilis goes through most of the typical stages of culture shock and homesickness. She eventually settles into her job and begins a romance with a charming young local man of Italian heritage. Just as she decides to fully commit to him, though, she is pulled back to Ireland by an unexpected tragedy. She is then torn between choosing between her old life in Ireland and her new one in New York.

There is nothing terribly complex about the plot in Brooklyn. Rather, its complexity lies in the emotions at play when someone must make a very difficult, life-altering decision. Eilis's is not a tale of epic, world-changing choices or even wide-sweeping tragedy. Instead, it is about more common life decisions which greatly affect the person who makes them and the people closest to them, when either option will cause severe pain to several people involved. In Brooklyn, the different options are set across the Atlantic from each other, but the vastness of the emotional differences is what gives the movie its dramatic power.

Brooklyn looks amazing. So amazing, in fact, that it is quite obvious that it is a work of fiction. The actors' good looks and the high sheen on every prop and set offers us viewers enough separation to realize that we are not watching a documentary or even a film memoir. This might be a weakness in other films, but in Brooklyn it works since the tale and the acting are organic and masterfully performed. In a way, it actually enhances the struggle and sadness Eilis deals with, given that it is happening in an otherwise supernaturally beautiful place.

I don't know that I will ever need to see Brooklyn again, unless I wish to drink in the aesthetic once more. It was, however, an excellent movie and well worth seeing.

The Big Short (2015)

Director: Adam McKay

Who knew that learning about big finance and a massive recession could be so entertaining?

With a dazzling combination of strong narrative, steady pacing, daring creativity, and phenomenal acting, director Adam McKay crafted Michael Lewis's source book into an educative and often surprisingly fun ride. The movie follows a few groups of individuals who were among the small handful to accurately predict the impending housing market crash in 2008. Leading us through the complicated tale is the fourth-wall battering ram narrator Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling), a smug financier who takes several breaks from his attempts to get filthy rich betting against the housing market in order to teach us viewers about exactly how things went so horribly wrong. It's a great device that spices up what could otherwise be some rather dull details about the minutiae of high finance. One could rightly argue that it is a narrative crutch, but it is an entertaining one.

The characters central to the story are portrayed as varied bands of oddballs, crusaders, noble aspirants to wealth, or some combinations of those three. The film versions of Michael Burry, the awkward mathematical genius and medical doctor-turned financier, and Mark Baum, a righteously furious financier with a serious grudge against corrupt bankers, are magnetic. The performances of Christian Bale and Steve Carell, respectively, bring them to life in hilarious and fascinating ways to the point that I found myself itching for the next scene with them. While those two stand out, the many players around them all nail their roles to a tee.

The unraveling of the causes behind the greatest economic crash in modern history makes for a fascinating and upsetting education. The Big Short, despite its steady humor, lets us all in on the rampant greed, irresponsibility, and grand-scale corruption that essentially allowed a relatively small group of wealthy bankers and financiers to bilk millions of people out of nearly a trillion dollars. It has a very similar feel to Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street, though focused on the entire odious panorama of banking thievery rather than a single avaricious crook and his Biblical hedonism.

I would gladly watch this movie again, if not to try and pick up some of the economic and financial explanations more clearly, then to simply re-watch the great performances and galloping narrative. I don't know that this movie will win the Best Picture Oscar for which it is nominated, but it is definitely in that top tier of candidates.

Bridge of Spies (2015)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Flawless technique. Crisp narration. Strong acting. Fairly predictable story arc. In other words, a Steven Spielberg film.

Bridge of Spies's greatest strengths lie in its source material and in its actors' and director's technical abilities in terms of storytelling in film. At this point in their careers, guys like Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg simply do not drop the ball. Ever. This is not to say that everything they do is fantastic. In fact, I find very little creativity in anything they do. However, they are also masters of professionalism and the technical aspects of film. Their movies always look great, feature clear narratives, and allow top-flight actors to play their roles extremely well. Bridge of Spies is no exception. Sets and costumes look great. The lighting, cinematography, and editing are above reproach. Lines are delivered in appropriate tones and with expert timing. None of this should surprise anyone who has seen more than a few Spielberg's many films. The only criticism that one can level at Spielberg is that he really never takes any artistic chances. By now, though, we know that, as great a director as he is, the man is simply not an auteur.

The story itself is certainly an interesting slice of real history. Hanks plays James Donovan, a brilliant insurance lawyer in the 1950s who is tapped by the U.S government to be legal counsel to Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance). Abel is accused of spying for the U.S.S.R., and the U.S. government wants to ensure that Abel is shown to be given competent legal advice, so as to avoid any public accusations of mistreatment or lack of due process. The case was one of many such ostentatious political maneuvers during the height of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Donovan does an exceptional job, even managing to help Abel avoid what would have almost certainly been the death penalty. Three years later, Donovan is again recruited to negotiate a prisoner exchange, whereby the U.S. will exchange Abel for a captured U.S. pilot and a captured college student. Donovan must achieve all of this under very shady and uncertain circumstances in a chaotic East Berlin, where the infamous Berlin Wall has just been completed.

The summary itself should spark a fair amount of interest, and the tale is unfolded as well as one would expect from this group of film-making talents. I must say though, as is typical for most of Spielberg's movies, the ultimate outcome was never really in question (and no, I hadn't read anything about this case before seeing the movie). Thankfully, some of the details and the paths which the story takes are a bit surprising, but the ultimate destination held nothing remarkably thoughtful. Of course, this can be due to the limitations of telling a historical tale. This doesn't make it any more exciting, though.

I personally put this movie in that second tier of this year's Best Picture nominees: "Very good, but not winning material". It's a very well-done movie which will probably have no lasting impact on the landscape of cinematic history.