"Terminator: Salvation" Review: My Name is John Connor, and I'm an Asshole

Terminator: Salvation is the "4th" film in the Terminator franchise that, believe it or not, began all the way back in 198-fucking-4. That's way before I was born. Like the humanoid machines featured in every movie, it seems to be a franchise that just won't fucking die, so as the years progress the studios will keep finding ways to suck its tits and in the interest of capital gain. In this film, because they really have nothing left to fall back on the from the "present day" Terminator movies, we get to see the legendary battle with Skynet as mentioned in all 3 previous films. John Connor is now in his 30s with a badass goatee and, strangley, feels the need to use the Bat-Rasp throughout the film's entirety.

McG, the director with the name of a rapper who really likes big macs, does a pretty good job with what he has to work with script-wise. From a narrative standpoint, T:S really doesn't do much, but I think that's the fault of the screenwriters. The story is there, somewhere, but it's not fleshed out whatsoever, and everything seems more like a vehicle for the explosively exhilarating action sequences. Those scenes are the meat and bones of T:S; McG handles these very well and every one (which take up about and hour and a half of the movie's two-hour running time) is well-constructed and keeps your eyes glued to the screen.

The story, the soul of any movie, is too cliched and riddled with contradictions and excess, unecessary sequences to really have any meaning. For example, in scene near the movie's beginning, Connor jumps into a helicopter to escape, only to have the helicopter lose control and twirl about for about 2 fucking minutes of your life before crashing right back down to the ground, in the same spot it took off from, thus negating any reason to have gotten in it in the first place. I can buy big, blood-thirsty robots in any movie, but for some reason I can't buy another sequence shortly after this one where Connor jumps into the ocean to enter the Resistance's HQ, and the next shot shows him soaking wet, glistening in a submarine. My BS-a-Meter went off so loud most people in the theater probably thought it was a cell-phone. All in all, T:S plays like a video game, with non-stop action that takes only brief pauses to progress the subpar story.

Christian Bale's John Connor sort of epitomizes T:S, whereas its head is so far up its ass with ego that you kind of want to see it die. Marcus Wright, the new character introduced in the film's opening, is a convicted murderer but he's still way cooler than John Connor, just because he's not a complete douche the whole movie. There's a "revelaton" about 2/3 of the way through the film about Marcus Wright, but considering the fact that they give it away in the damn trailer it carries no emotional gravity whatsoever. Also, Arnold's in it for a few seconds, and while neat, it really just hammers in the point that T:S is trying to so hard to be like its big brothers despite its conviction not to be that you realize halfway through it that your watching a (very expensive) fan film.

Terminator: Salvation uses its narrative as a crutch for action sequences, which, thankfully, it does quite well. McG can direct action, there's not doubt about it, it's just that the movie thinks it' soooo cool that it forgets to be cool. It runs for a clean 2 hours, but not a whole lot happens story-wise. Alas, it's fun; watching Marcus Wright, who seems like he gets more screentime than Connor despite Christian Bale's top billing, is a good character who the screenwriters really don't do justice with. There's a missed oppurtunity with him, to explore what makes people people and machines machines. But despite its predictability and hollow characterization, T:S succeeds at being that big summer action flick that we need this time of year.

Also:

-according to IMDB, this movie cost $200 million to make. Where?! Michael Bay's movie about big fucking robots cost $150 million and looks worlds better

-I feel like Gears of War was an influence, on, well, the whole movie

-I don't think Christian Bale actually ranted on the set, I think he was just rehearsing lines from the movie

Score: 7.5/10

"Star Trek" Review: This is what happens when nerds take steroids

So there's this thing I do whenever I want to see a movie but don't want to admit to anyone I want to see that particular movie: I take my younger siblings. See, as the oldest brother of a 10-year-old and a 7-year-old, I can basically always use the excuse, "They want to go see it, so I'm taking them." I used this most recently with Star TreK, J.J. Abrams' reboot of one of the most celebrated...and nerdiest...shows of all time. The series has become syonymous with geeks, 40-year-old virgins that live at home, guys with long beards and glasses who snort in laughter whenever someone refers to Captain Picard as Patrick Stewart and spend their days arguing over internet forums about which episode is the best and which alien is the hottest provided they have any interest in women.

J.J. Abrams, essentially, took all the geekiest elements of the Star Trek universe and injected them with Jason Giambi's special blend, because I'll tell you what, the most appropriate thing I could possibly say about this 2-hour thrill ride is this: it kicks Vulcan ass.

Star Trek is a movie that achieves a perfect balance between pleasing the old followers while updating it, bringing it into a more modern pethora of action film. See, as much as you watch it and see all the explosions, the effects, Eric Bana trying to act badass, you still are never lost from the feeling that this is Star Trek that you're watching. Abrams does a good job of never deveating so far from the source material that it becomes something else entirely (ala The Honeymooners) while at the same time bringing a fresh look.

I've never seen a single episode of Star Trek. Never. Not once. Maybe clips when I was a kid, but nothing I can actually remember. Yet, the miraculous thing, is that I recognize all the characters. It's so perfectly cast, so perfectly written, and so perfectly directed that even though the only familiarity with the original characters I have is what I know from pop culture references, I still know who everyone is. It never feels forced, though. Abrams doesn't point t the people and say, "Look! This is how he got started! See! I'm a genius!" Instead the characters and famous lines (set phasers to stun) just feel like part of the framework of the film and not needless, obvious homages.

If I do have a complaint, it's that much of the plot centers around time travel, and while I know that's a big part of the whole Trekkie thing, it gets really annoying at times, and (spoilers) feels more like an attempt to get Leonard Nimoy on screen rather than what the writers may have originally envisioned. Nonetheless, it's not enough to really scare you away from the expereince it has to offer from beginning to end.

Star Trek is a movie you need to chuck your ego aside for. You need to put away all your prejudices, especially you Star Wars fans, and go see it. It's got heart, it's got humor, it balances homages with originality, and there may never be a more perfectly casted remake, anywhere.

I know I usually try to be funny with my reviews, but it's hard to when a movie is so good. So I will say this, I went to a Saturday afternoon showing and there were at least 5 or 6 middle-aged guys in there by themselves, undoubtedly there so they can go home and argue about it with their friends online while sipping their mom's tea in her basement.

There you go. Now go see it. Because unlike all the Star Trek movies before it and all the nerdinss associated with it, Abrams version stands apart as something everyone can enjoy while never spitting in the faces of what came ahead of it. It boldly goes where no remake has gone before. (Except for maybe like, Batman Begins)

Score: 9/10

---------------------------------------------------

Another Take:

By Scott

[Scott is a regular guest blogger on Geoff Klock's popular blog Remarkable (geoffklock.blogspot.com), and for the sake of comparison I've posted his review, which can also be found o Geoff's blog.]

Star Trek was everything that X-men Origins: Wolverine was not; more than that, it has everything that an ‘origin’ movie should have that XMO: Wolverine did not: fun, emotionally engaging, beautifully paced. The characters have depth and beloved icons are brought to life in a way that is both faithful to the original interpretations and entertaining for new viewers.

I’m not a huge Star Trek geek, but I’m just familiar enough with the mythology to get most of the references. That being said, you don’t HAVE to get the references to enjoy the movie; they are done in such a way that they are just seen as another part of the story. Case in point, the film depicts a famous instance from Star Trek mythos, Kirk beating the supposedly unbeatable Kobyashi Maru simulation at Starfleet Academy. Fans of the series will immediately recognize the scenario and will love getting to see it played out on the big screen but, for those who aren’t fans of the series, it is an entertaining scene that further establishes and develops the character of James T. Kirk (none of the ‘and that’s the origin of that’ feeling of Wolverine).

In another case of Wolverine versus Star Trek, let’s take a look at how the two movies brought a fan-favorite character, known for having a particular accent, to life. Wolverine has Gambit. The actor playing Gambit cannot do a Cajun accent but he still tries. Also, he can’t act and he’s just sort of there so you can go “Oh, look! Gambit!” Star Trek has Simon Pegg as Scotty… ‘nuff said. (The guy playing Dr. McCoy was also great for that matter).

Most importantly, the use of time travel in the film is not merely a device for Leonard Nimoy to make an appearance; it actually serves an important purpose, not just in terms of plot, but for reinvigorating the franchise as a whole. In addition to explaining any continuity gaffs for the hardcore Trek geeks, it also allows the franchise to be rebooted while still acknowledging the original all within the same film. A pretty daring feat if you ask me. Also, it allows us to have a ‘new’ James T. Kirk; one who is, essentially, the same character we know and love but, due to events depicted in the film, experiences a different formative history which allows him to be a little darker, a little edgier, a little more modern.

All this and Scotty even gets to have a cute little alien buddy!

You might have heard that it's 'this summers Iron Man'... it's not... it's better!

New "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" Trailer

The second big subscripted movie of the year comes out in June, and Michael Bay is already working on ways to completely fuck it up. The first trailer came out a few months ago, and it was great. The film seemed to take itself more seriously, with a darker, more realistic and story-driven tone. When Bay realized, however, that this is how people were perceiving his new film, he took drastic action to solidify it as just another goofy, poorly written kids film with the violence of a grown up's film. So he released this new trailer, which starts out with Sam in college, Bumblebee upset about not being able to go, and (gasp!) egyptian symbols and, of course, a big old American flag.

For all those who were worried that Bay was actually going to make his new Transformers movie into the film the first one should have been, don't worry, you can rest easy tonight.

Trilogy Chop Shop: "Back to the Future"

[the following is a new feature I’ll be posting whenever I feel like it, like in between new movie reviews, where I’ll take a look at (significant) trilogies throughout the history of film. When I say significant, I don’t mean it has to be an Oscar winner, it just means that it isn’t one of those movies found in the $2 bargain bin at Wal-Mart (for example: Babe Island Adventures 1, 2, and 3 do not count (also they are not real movies))]

The film series that made Michael J. Fox into the Michael J. Fox and immortalized the Delorean has stood like a Spartan against the army of time. Visually striking in its set designs, tightly-written, and wonderfully casted, the Back to the Future series epitomizes the much-tried but often-failed science fiction comedy with one of the widest audiences of any film anywhere. Though it has its bumps in the road like any trilogy, it never quite wears out its welcome (ala Jurassic Park III, which I examined previously).

Back to the Future (1985)

The Good: Everything. Far ahead of its time, the first installment in the trilogy borders on perfection. Surely one of the best scripts ever written, the performances of every character involved, from Michael J. Fox to Crispin Glover to Christopher Lloyd, there may not be a more well-casted film with such great chemistry in the history of cinema. It’s smart, it’s funny, it’s charming, it’s one of the best movies ever made, period, that is destined to be an icon now and for decades, maybe centuries, to come.

The Bad: His mom was way hotter than his girlfriend. That’s not really bad, just an observation.

Score: 10/10
Avg. RT Score: 8.3/10

Back to the Future Part II (1989)

The Good: The writing is once again the key to the film’s charm. Biff is the primary antagonist, Doc is back and no one needs roads. The highly exaggerated future (which we now realize probably isn’t too farfetched whatsoever) is cartoony and fun to watch. The way the scenes and stories intertwine never get too complex while remaining smart and witty enough to not need a PhD in physics to understand it. Part II is often considered the “bad one,” but that’s really not fair. It’s the “least best” movie in the trilogy, and the least best always gets a bad rap (see: Return of the Jedi).

The Bad: While the effects are neat and not really meant to be taken seriously, they do go a little overboard. The darker tone of the film’s climax also makes it a little tougher to watch, not to mention there’s no Crispin Glover.

Score: 8/10
Avg. RT Score: 6/10

Back to the Future Part III (1990)

The Good: The series wraps soundly with what’s probably the most comedic installment in the series. The old west set designs are stereotypical yet wonderful, the inclusion of an old west Biff and an old west McFly family works better than it should. It’s lighter than the second, wittier, and far more charming. If you could only watch two films in the trilogy, make sure it’s the original and this one.

The Bad: The old west theme is gets a little bland at times, but it really doesn’t detract from what in the end is an excellent finale, maybe one of the best third movies ever made.

Score: 9/10
Avg. RT Score: 6.4/10

Trilogy Chop Shop: "Jurassic Park"

[the following is a new feature I’ll be posting whenever I feel like it, like in between new movie reviews, where I’ll take a look at (significant) trilogies throughout the history of film. When I say significant, I don’t mean it has to be an Oscar winner, it just means that it isn’t one of those movies found in the $2 bargain bin at Wal-Mart (for example: Babe Island Adventures 1, 2, and 3 do not count (also they are not real movies))]

In 1993, the world looked up in wonder as living dinosaurs rumbled across American theaters. Since then, the Jurassic Park franchise has been one of the most successful in the history of cinema…from a financial standpoint, anyway. I’ve used these films to examine first because they are, in my opinion, the perfect example of diminishment, whereas they get progressively worse as the series continues despite the epic, grandly nature of the original, which is to this day one of my favorite films of all time.

Jurassic Park (1993)

The Good: The effects, the effects, the effects. Despite a story that had little, if any, character development, Jurassic Park succeeded because, for the first time, the dinosaurs we saw on screen were so realistic they practically breathed. It’s rare that a movie is carried simply by its effects, but JP was so groundbreaking, that the eye candy it delivered was enough to captivate audiences even now. Add that in with the fact that from a story standpoint, it’s by far the best written, best acted, most complete film in the series, and you have a true modern masterpiece.

The Bad: The characters are just a vessel for the effects, but that really isn’t a bad thing.

Score: 9.5/10
Avg. RT Score: 7.2/10

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

The Good: See above. The Lost World ups the ante in the effects department, with more dinosaurs, more special effects shot, a gloomier, more prehistoric atmosphere and an awesome finale.

The Bad: It lacks in the story department. The science and wonder and drama from the original has all been lost. While the book was excellent, the film differentiates itself so much from it that the magic really goes away, and you’re left with a clichéd action adventure, but it has just enough brains to keep you interested, and truly feels like it belongs in the series.

Score: 7.5/10
Avg. RT Score: 5.7/10

Jurassic Park III (2001)

The Good: Sam Neil.

The Bad: For some odd reason, I’m guessing to make the movie more accessible and easy to make, the filmmakers decided to use a generic rescue mission story and figured that the effects, which at this point weren’t anything new, could carry it. Nope. JPIII is the outcast of the franchise. It doesn’t feel anything like a Jurassic Park movie and instead like a money magnet aimed at kids. If you have Jurassic Park III in your DVD collection, then you are not a fan of Jurassic Park, and as far as I’m concerned are spitting on Crichton’s grave.

Score: 1/10 (because I don’t like to give zeros)
Avg. RT Score: 5.2/10

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine": Just what you expected

There’s something that can be easily deduced about movies with subscript in its title. I’ll go ahead and name some and maybe you can figure it out: Punisher: War Zone, Dragonball: Evolution, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. I’m going to stop now, because if you haven’t discovered the pattern, then chances are you’re also illiterate and can’t read any of this, anyway. X-Men Origins: Wolverine, has a title that only the bottom rung of geeks (and by that I mean the top, elite geeks) will find acceptable, and is the first clue as to exactly what you’re getting when you sacrifice your hard-earned $10 and walk into the theater.

XMO:W, which I think could’ve benefited at shaking at least one stereotype of Marvel movies by just being called Wolverine (but of course that wouldn’t imply that Marvel is going to just keep making Origins movies and make tons of money…from geeks), is about the origin of everyone’s favorite, or at least most marketable, X-Man, Wolverine, played stoically by Hugh Jackman. He’s a nearly-immortal, self-healing muscle junky who, along with his brother, fights in both the Civil War and the Great War, all in the span of 10 minutes!

Okay, so here’s the meat of XMO:W’s problem: it seems to see itself not as a serious film or even respectable piece of cinema but simply a cash crop, and that’s a shame, because Jackman does a really decent job at portraying the clawed hero despite the script’s every attempt at putting him down. Every other character is a viable throwaway, some of them don’t even have dialogue. It’s a shame that the film advertising all of these X-Men and mutants only gives them a few frames of screen time before disposing of them, and it only hammers in the point that this movie isn’t really designed to please its audience, it's designed to get them to come spend money on it.

The story falls into more clichés than should be acceptable with superhero movies at this point. Yes, we all want emotion and drama with our heroes, these days, but XMO:W goes to extents that are so blatantly lame attempts at cheap-shotting us into feeling anything for the characters presented that it’s downright insulting sometimes. Consider that in with its short running time of just over an hour and a half, and I really don’t think you need any more proof that the movie’s only objective is to suck cash from your wallets at the whim of your children, who whine about wanting to go see it. Oh, did I mention that the effects aren’t much more impressive than a made-for-TV science fiction fare? Well they are, another cost-cutting move, no doubt.

By now you have the idea that XMO:W is a bad movie, but let me assure you that it’s not. But it’s not a good one, either. But nope, not quite decent. It’s right below decent, teetering in between that and “bad.” There really isn’t anything glaringly wrong with it, but it’s so rushed and convoluted in its story telling that it doesn’t take the time to get anything right. Logan's real name is James. His brother is Victor. They fight a lot. The end.

I can’t honestly call the film a failure. To me, a movie fails when it performs below expectations. XMO:W, though, is exactly what you expect it to be when you sit down to watch it. It’s full of action (though cheesy action), and I’ll be damned if Hugh Jackman doesn’t give it his all. So, despite its poor, poor direction, its few saving graces are enough for it to proudly be christened the King of the Movies with Subscripts. Congratulations.

Score: 5/10