Change Your Image
stoneage22
Reviews
Terminator Genisys (2015)
Nothing innovative
Three stars is all I can give this. Some may think it's not fair to compare a movie to others or generalize. However, I've seen plenty of action movies before and this one is not going to stick out. It was a very by the numbers action flick, with most scenes being little more than a setup for the next action sequence. There is nothing here I haven't seen before. Even in the time travel scenes where we've seen one set of events take place and someone comes back and disrupts or puts a different twist on the events, is nothing we haven't seen in 'Timecop' or 'Star Trek: Generations' or a dozen other films.
Also, the previous 'Terminator' films have always had something new or even stunning that made them stand out. The original had these two slender, average seeming people running from this machine that's almost like an unstoppable force. No matter how many times you shot him, outnumbered him with cops, or nailed him in an explosion, he just kept coming. It was ground breaking. The second one, 'Judgement Day', showed us a Sarah Connor that was no longer a victim, but a fighter. And it gave us special effects that at the time, were new and almost mind blowing. The last one, 'Rise of the Machines' had Kristanna Loken who was a knock-out. The addition of Catherine Bruester also added a new dimension to the story. And the ending of 'Rise of the Machines', after thinking that maybe the horror of Judgement Day had been avoided after the events of the second movie, seeing the ICBMs taking off and sailing into the sky was just stunning. 'Terminator Genisys' is just a run of the mill action film. I saw nothing here that I haven't seen elsewhere. The acting is adequate, nothing more. Also, lip service is paid in the script, about Sarah Connor not being able to run her own life. Her future and her "obligation" to give birth to John Connor and raise this great military leader are things mankind will require of her and she has no chance to live her own life. Emilia Clarke's acting does nothing to convey this misery that she feels. She is a good action star, but we see nothing else from her.
And finally, speaking of seeing nothing else from her, why is Emilia Clarke afraid to get undressed? Where did they dig up this prude anyway? She just doesn't seem to fit in with the edginess of a real Terminator movie. Linda Hamilton had no problem being nude for a love scene with Michael Biehn. Kristanna Loken certainly isn't ashamed to flaunt her good looks. This movie should have been rate R, like all the others. That's the genre it dwells in. Terminator movies are for people who can handle brutal, hard hitting action with violent machines and desperate survivors. A PG-13 rating doesn't belong in this "arena" any more than an NC-17 rating belongs on a Disney film.
Metropia (2009)
A disappointment
So. Metropia. Well, I really wanted to like this film. I love science fiction, especially intelligent science fiction, but Metropia does not cut it. I didn't like the flat, one dimensional way they did the CGI, but that's just me. They wanted to try something different and it didn't work for me. However, I didn't find the whole thing visually interesting. The grayish, sepia tones helped establish the mood of the film, but too much of anything can become monotonous. In the first 'Alien' there's an undercurrent of dread, even before anyone dies, but the lighting changes depending on what part of the ship they're in. Even '1984' changes lighting more often! The dialogue is good, but hardly remarkable. The main character didn't evoke much sympathy. He's a bit TOO much of a schlump. Too much of an everyman to be interesting. The voices in his head do a good job of confusing him and the audience. Are they actual voices, or is he slowly losing his mind? However, that too is a bit confusing. And not in a good way. It turns out the corporation, run by an old, crusty, almost decrepit old businessman is in fact monitoring us all. They are feeding us instructions when we stray from the path of conformity and obedience. However, we don't learn to what end. It wasn't clear what they wanted to accomplish. If that was mentioned anywhere in the film, it was not clear. And to me, that's poor storytelling.
I rented this on a Friday night, got about 45 minutes in and fell asleep. Never a good sign in a movie. A movie can be slow paced, but there still has to be dramatic tension. Or suspense. This movie did not have it. Of course, I should realize; any movie Vincent Gallo's involved in is going to plod along unbelievably slowly. The premise is good. The average person needing to wake up and not be controlled by corporations or advertising or whatever, is a good idea. I give the movie credit for what it attempts, even though it's been done many times before. However, the execution of this idea was pretty poor. Kind of like when the blonde tries to alert the protagonist to the danger and get him to help her. She tries to seduce him, unfortunately in her underwear instead of completely nude. (And since there was nudity earlier, the movie didn't hold back to be a nice PG film.)If she'd approached him stark naked, he might have found her impossible to resist. She too had a good idea, but it was very poorly executed.
Scorpio One (1998)
Thriller that doesn't thrill
Spoiler Alert!
I enjoyed this film. Not the way you would enjoy Fracture or Kramer vs. Kramer, but I certainly didn't think it was the "worst movie ever made"! Anyone who thinks that has never been to see Brown Bunny or the Alchemist. I have also heard from several sources that Master of Disguise is beyond awful. Scorpio One is a film that was a good idea, but suffered from a weak script and a low budget. The acting was adequate, just not great. Michael Monks was good as the traitorous co-pilot who still harbors guilt. George Murdock as well was very good. None of the cast were guilty of over-acting (a common enough phenomenon in B pictures like this.) And it's always great to see Robin Curtis. I thought her acting was good and honest. Unfortunately, as a hostage for part of the time, the script gave no opportunity for her to show off her quirky sense of humor, which is always her best quality. Not a film to actively seek out, but certainly not the worst thing to find late on a dull Saturday night.
Surrogates (2009)
Better than expected
Someone please tell me why the critics panned this movie! Is it the best sci-fi movie ever? No. Is it Bruce Willis' or Rhada Mitchell's best acting job ever? No. However, it definitely deserved more than the 1 star some newspapers gave it. I really feel that they were slightly offended. In this day and age, the message of the movie applies to a great many people.
In the movie, almost the entire population spends their entire day, flat on their backs, hooked into their machines controlling robot versions of themselves. The surrogates in the movie serve as a metaphor for several types of hi-tech vices. Far too many people in the real world, spend too many hours a day 'hooked into their machines'. A study has found that many children sleep with their cell phones, so they don't have to fumble around in the dark when they get calls or texts in the middle of the night. The average American spends 3 hours a day on the internet, not counting work. Judging by the number of overweight people we have, the number of hours has probably gone up since the last count was taken. How long before our people all work from home and no one gets up from in front of their computer? I also thought the movie captured very well, the attitudes such people will have. When the real Bruce Willis suggests to his wife that they take a vacation as their real selves, his wife is almost offended. She says; "Without our surrogates? Are you kidding!?" The same way someone today would say; "Go without my cell phone?? Are you nuts?" The movie is not subtle in it's message at all. Nothing subliminal here. In fact, the movie is positively preachy at times. The people who are the most critical of 'Surrogates' are probably the ones at whom the movie is most aimed. Given how many people spend huge chunks of their lives staring into their screens, I think the message cannot be too strongly emphasized. Almost everybody can learn something from this movie. All parents should make their teens see this movie. This is a warning, as many science fiction films are.
As to the action. Very good. Not as hard hitting as the first 'Lethal Weapon', but still very good. When Rhada Mitchell reports; Bruce has been in a car accident, seconds before his vehicle is actually smashed, it is both "WHOA!", and eerie. When the bad guys get control of our whole grid, beware! Over all, I liked it. So did a friend of mine who expected it to be awful because of the bad reviews in the papers. Definitely worth seeing.
Equilibrium (2002)
Good action, good premise
I don't know why so many critics did not like this movie. It's futuristic/oppressive society at its best. The Gramaton clerics technique of avoiding gunfire is pretty original, and well choreographed. I personally prefer laser guns in futuristic movies, but in this case, the weapons they had fit well. Also original was the partner, played by Sean Bean. In most sci-fi, it's the woman who instinctively feels the high tech, totalitarian society is wrong. It's the woman who initiates the fight against the villains, or inspires the hero to fight back. For instance Jessica-6 in Logan's Run, Princess Leia in Star Wars, the girl (whose name I forget)played by Julie Christie in Fahrenheit 451... However, here's it's a man, his partner. Seeing tough guy Sean Bean, quietly reading poetry in a burned out building is an image I remembered years after first seeing Equilibrium. The overall notion of controlling a population with drugs has been discussed before, but it's just as poignant now. This may be the first generation to give children drugs so freely. If the kid is too hyper give him ritalin. If the kid's to morose and sedate, give her prozac. It won't be too long before the world that Equilibrium foreshadows becomes reality. Ray Bradbury once said; the purpose of science fiction stories is not to predict the future. If anything, it's meant to prevent it! Seeing Equilibrium again recently, I enjoyed it all over again. Some might complain of the bland visual quality, but of course, this is all done on purpose. All the women having their hair close cropped or tied up tight, the gray and black uniforms all the citizens wear is designed to crush any sense of individuality they may have. The intensity of Christian Bale's expressions, and the great Emily Watson help make these characters seem like people, not like robots. All in all an excellent futuristic action picture. I recommend it to everyone.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)
I decided to let myself enjoy it... And I did.
Going in, I kept expecting it to be awful. The critics had hated it. No one was excited about it. Well, I did NOT hate it. It didn't have the feel of the Star Wars movies. Even 'Menace, the worst of the six, had the right feel, between John Williams' score and Liam Neeson's performance and being on Tatooine again. This one didn't "feel" like a Star Wars film. However, right off the bat, we're given a narrative, instead of the familiar crawl, filling us in. That served to remind me that this was a CARTOON. Light hearted. Silly. I found myself completely immersed in short order.
It's advantages; a healthy dose of action. No one is going to be bored with this one. Also, the light sabre battles, specifically, between Obi-wan and Ventress. Next, the sub-plot of Yoda assigning a padawan to Anakin. She is a young orange alien, (I believe they're called Togrutans) who is rather short for her species, named Asoka. As her new teacher, Anakin is forced to caution her against rash action, to save both herself and accomplish their various goals. Of course, he is learning the value of caution himself and of heeding his own mentor, Obi-wan. By making her so young and short, Anakin doesn't see her as a fellow Jedi yet, and therefore, in no way a rival as he might a taller, male Jedi. He immediately finds himself acting as an older brother to Asoka. Clever technique, in numerous ways, but then it was Yoda's idea. I also got a big kick out of Zero the Hutt's persona! Once I realized they were doing Truman Capote, I loved it! A stolen personality, rather than an original one, thought up for the story? Well, why not? Johnny Depp's been praised for several years for channeling Keith Richards in his portrayal of Jack Sparrow, so why can't Clone Wars do it? Items to the films detriment are; a pale imitation of John Williams' score. Second, a lack of clever witticisms from the main characters. (The Trade Federation's battle droids get the funniest lines.) Too much background noise and explosions a couple of times, drowning out the hum of the sables during battle. Sorry, I like the sound effect! Also, a lapse in continuity. It doesn't completely fit in between 'Clones and 'Sith. I don't recall Anakin ever named as a general. Also, what finally happens to Asoka?? I guess, the upcoming series will reveal that. Lastly, the lack of a sense of real danger. Except for clone troopers, no one I can recall, gets killed. I thought, once or twice, Asoka might get killed. They may have been foreshadowing that Anakin must learn to let go of things he holds precious, but she isn't one of them. I know it's only a cartoon, but I remember in Beauty and the Beast for example, the doctor from the mental institution was believably creepy when Gaston summons him to put away the father. Even his voice is convincing. "I normally never leave the asylum in the middle of the night
" Over all, I enjoyed it. Certainly not as much as Star Wars or Empire, but it definitely was fun. I will be recommending it. 7 out of 10!
Doomsday (2008)
Rhona Mitra's got me hooked
I admit, I was blindsided. The coming attractions to this movie tell you all you need to know about the plot. Once again, a highly athletic lead has to enter the city overrun by zombies/diseased psychotics/ cannibals and get the cure. The set-up is gradual enough to draw us in, yet keep our interest. The "safer" outside world includes Sidig el Fadil, who was quite good in 'Syriana' and veteran actor Bob Hoskins. I suspected it was going to take itself too seriously and be awful or just plain boring. Even if 'Doomsday' exceeded all expectations, it had little chance of topping 'I Am Legend'. It did neither. It just served up a fun, intense, action-filled blood fest, that even Robert Rodriquez would be proud of. Once I finally realized where the movie was going, I loved it! It's a plunge into wildness with babes who can take non-stop punishment and cars that should have run out of gas years ago.
Several of the schemes are quite clever and the villains are over the top but not to the point of idiocy. Sure, the stoic, unemotional lead is overdone, but this time I didn't mind. The film is not trying to get noticed for it's artistic achievement. I'd love to see great acting. However, if we stop allowing the actor to "keep it all on the inside", or "keep a stiff upper lip" to cover a lack of acting talent, we'd never have Guy Pierce or Keanu Reeves! I just assume Rhona Mitra's British. And while Rhona doesn't have anywhere close to Kate Winslet's acting ability, (or her curves) she has more meat on her than Beckinsale and Keira Knightley put together! So, if you want a fun ride with screaming maniacs, resourceful heroines and indestructible cars, SEE 'DOOMSDAY' NOW! Let the eyes pop out and the brain matter flow!!
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
The whole, honest truth
Reading other user comments, it looks like the fans hate the new films for not being as good as the originals. Well, they're not as good as STAR WARS or EMPIRE, but I'd certainly put them on par with Episode VI, Attack of the Ewoks. They're remembering the old films through the eyes of ten, eleven, twelve years olds. The great seems spectacular and larger than life.
The sad, honest truth is, 'Star Wars' films NEVER had great acting. (Guiness being the exception.) Watch 'Million Dollar Baby' or '21 Grams' or 'Schindlers List'. You'll see a huge difference in talent between these and the old 'Star Wars' movies. As to fun, action and adventure; 'Clones certainly holds up. The combat scenes are very well done. They also are a natural outcome of the plot. (Unlike in 'Sith'. The fight on the Wookie planet serves no storytelling function. It had just been a long time, since we last had any action.) What I find strange, reading these user comments is that almost no one mentions Anakin's encounter with the sand people. This is the pivotal moment of the film. He is faced with extreme anguish at the death of his mother and the fact that she was brutally tortured. Then his grief gives way to rage and his first and major step to the dark side begins. Lucas did the scene well. We know the sand people are being punished beyond the bounds of reason, but we are not shown the details. A long scene of endless butchery would not have fit a PG movie. More importantly though, it leaves to the imagination, just how terrifying Anakin's wrath is. His rage is so great, Yoda can sense it light years away on Coruscant. Rage so powerful, we hear Qui-Gon, wrested out of the Force afterlife, " awakened" to attempt to warn Anakin to stop. Do you remember in 'Empire' when Luke is leaving Dagobah, to rescue Han and Leia? Obi-wan cautions him not to give in to hate. Earlier, Yoda told him: "Once you start down the dark path, FOREVER will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will." Anakins' attack could have been the pivotal moment of the whole series! He might have fallen to the dark side, right there. It's a wonder he even held out until 'Revenge of the Sith'!... Over all, I enjoyed it. I wish every action movie nowadays had as much complexity and emotional dilemmas for the characters to grapple with. 'Clones gets 7 out of 10 stars from me.