I said it earlier this summer when I had the chance to see "Terminator 2" at the Paramount, frankly "Terminator" from 1984 was always my favorite of the films in the series. T2 has some great special effects and an exciting story, but the origin of The Terminator and the creativity required by a limited budget, make this version that I prefer. This was a terrific piece of entertainment from that great year 1984, and it fits in perfectly with its use of rear screen projection, stop motion, and puppetry. In addition there is some fantastic makeup work that goes along with the other effects to create a truly terrifying concept.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was just beginning to become the movie star that would ultimately dominate for the next 20 years. This was his second major role in a clearly commercial enterprise. After "Conan the Barbarian" two years earlier, it would have been easy to find himself stuck in fantasy films with muscular guys wearing furs, because that was all the rage in this period. Remember, he also made the sequel to Conan which came out earlier in this year, and the very next year he did "Red Sonja", so between those three films typecasting was about to become a problem for him. "The Terminator" showed that he was capable of more, even if it was as a robotic killer from the future.
Sometimes there's just a confluence of events that allows great things to grow from them. The connection between James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger is one of those great connections. That connection started with this film. I'm still hoping for "True Lies 2". However, watching the movie I was reminded about how many great moments there are which do not feature Arnold. There are secondary characters that people sometimes forget. Paul Winfield and Lance Henriksen are terrific as a pair of put upon cops, following up on a spree killing where the victims share a name. Henriksen's character just can't stop talking and making comments that feels slightly inappropriate at the end of a conversation. Winfield's captain looks at him askew, and seems to suggest "shut up!" with just a glance. Winfield is particularly sympathetic as he comforts Sarah Connor when she first arrives at the police station. We can almost believe that everything's going to be okay. Of course we know at this point that the police are in way over their heads. Sarah has to rediscover that, and the shootout at the police station is a forerunner of so many contemporary shootout sequences that we see in today's films. John Wick and Jason Statham clearly have been influenced by these scenes.
Michael Biehn is maybe the great underrated aspect of this movie. Clearly Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton are pivotal characters as the film series develops. It is the role of Kyle Reese, the soldier from the future, who arrives to protect Sarah Connor, that sets the standard for badass heroes and plot twists. Reese is just a man, fighting an unstoppable machine, but constantly finding ways to slow it down, and get the best of it. He and Sarah could have easily disappeared, but it is a human error on the part of the pursued victim, that allows the pursuer to track them down. Reese never loses his cool, and even as he's dying, he plays the badass. You can also clearly believe that he fell in love with the reputation and the Polaroid picture of Sarah Connor from the past. The fact that he becomes the father of the man who was his Commander is just one of those nice twists that come with time traveling stories and a creative like James Cameron.
There were a load of people at the screening at Alamo when we went. Many of them look like they had been in a theater 40 years ago when the movie first opened. Like me, they were experiencing a bit of nostalgia, but also the excitement that comes from seeing something that is really well made, and sells itself based on the innovative ideas and the creative shortcuts that the filmmakers took advantage of. As most of us know, these films will never stop playing, even if franchise follow-ups stop being produced. The best way to say it, is to simply the paraphrase, "this will be back".
I remember the first time I saw "Conan the Barbarian" in a theater. It was opening weekend in May, 1982, and it was at the Edwards tri-plex in Monterey Park. While we were there to see "Conan", one of the reasons I remember the event so well is that there were promotion postcard posters for "Star Trek II the Wrath of Khan" available at the theater, and I was quite excited about that movie. 40 years later, I can say I went to anniversary screenings of both films at a real theater.
We can start with the obvious, Arnold Schwarzenegger is perfectly cast in the film. I read a story many years ago about Arnold meeting with Dino DeLaurentis, the film's producer, as he was being considered for the part. According to what I read, Arnold was his usual arrogant and playful self, and inulted Dino in his office by asking him "Why does such a little man ( De Laurentiis was 5'4") need such a big desk?' In spite of that awkward opening, Arnold got the part, because who else were you going to cast? It was his big break into action films and as a lead performer. His Austrian accent might have worked for him a bit as a character, and he trained like the dickens to get the swordplay, stunts and action just right. It also helps that in a two hour or so movie, his character does not speak for the opening twenty five minutes, or in the last twenty five minutes.
Director John Milius is a favorite of mine, I am a big fan of his "Dillinger" and a huge fan of "The Wind and the Lion". This film seems to fit his sensibilities immediately. The Nietzschean attitude and the strong sense of masculinity, are very much part of his wheelhouse. When I posted that I was at a screening, the first response I got was a prompt for the famous line about what is best in life. Although Oliver Stone originated the script, Milius transformed it with several important changes and when he directed it, those changes become obvious. The opening credit sequence features the powerful Basil Poledouris theme playing over a sequence of the forging of a sword. You can see only brief ghost images of the characters in this sequence, everything is focused on the "steel" and fire of the moment.
Anyone expecting this to be a cartoonish kids adventure will be soon disillusioned. Young Conan's village is burned to the ground, his father is slain in valiant battle, and his mother is unceremoniously decapitated while she is holding his hand. This is going to be a brutal, violent story with grim surroundings and an air of doom hovering over our lead character. William Smith, who was so often the bad guy in seventies and eighties films, got a nice brief turn here as Conan's father. Smith, who passed away just a year ago, was always a favorite of mine to spot in a movie or television show.
There is a clever montage sequence where young Conan transforms into the Arnold visage, as he build his muscles and endurance as a slave at a mill site. Slowly he becomes the only surviving slave pushing the wheel, and we see shots of the child shifting to shots of the adult and finally he lifts his head and reveals the face that we all know today. A similar montage shows him developing fighting skills as a pit gladiator and training with a sword master. The muscles that Schwarzenegger is famous for come into full play as the camera captures them in sweaty, bloody combat and sleek sword play sequences in the sun.
Once Conan is freed from his captivity, he acquires companions and they embark on a series of action scenes that tell us more about the character. They are bold thieves with little regard for their own lives, much less the lives of others. Subotai, the thief he rescues from the captivity of a witch, is played by surfing champion Gerry Lopez. Lopez is fine, although his voice ends up being dubbed. Sandahl Bergman on the other hand is excellent. A professional dancer with a few acting credits prior to this film, she puts on a very good performance as Conan's love interest and thieving companion. She looks great in the action sequences and she did her prep to get the combat moments right, but her dramatic chops were solid in a couple of important moments. As she embraces Conan at one point, she talks about the loneliness of the life she has lead.
"I would look into the huts and the tents of others in the coldest dark and I would see figures holding each other in the night. And I always passed by. You and I, we have warmth. That's so hard to find in this world. Please. Let someone else pass by in the night. "
This was a terrific character moment. She gets another great scene later when she and Subotai are protecting Conan's wounded body from the spirits that are trying to take him to the next world. She is more defiant there and this is another great character piece.
The second lead of the film is the villain Thulsa Doom, He murdered Conan's parents, and heads the snake cult that is engulfing the surrounding kingdoms. James Earl Jones has that magnificent voice to convey ominous power, but his face is also very animated. He has a couple of moments where he uses his eyes to control the women he is adding to his cult. We see that first when he freezes Conan's mother at the beginning of the film. He attempts to do the same with Conan at the end, as he twists the story of his relationship to the Barbarian, in a manner that will benefit him. With the hair extensions and contact lenses, it might seem like a comic book performance, but it is really a skillful use of expression and voice that makes Thulsa Doom a character that is memorable.
King Osric, the man who sends the thieves after Thulsa Doom to return his daughter to him, is played by the late Max Von Sydow. This is an actor who had a career that spanned from the late forties to just a couple of years ago before his passing. He has been in a dozen of my favorite films over the years and I can't think of a role where he disappoints. He has only one scene in this film and he practically steals the movie. In the brief trailer above, you will get the immediate sense of fun he seemed to be having as part of this cast.
Although I have seen this movie a dozen time, I was foggy on one moment in particular. I had not remembered the animated effects in the scene on the beach when the spirits are coming for Conan. The subtle images that never look like cartoons but are clearly animated creatures, were very satisfying. I thought it worked much better on the big screen than I remembered from home viewings. Just another example of why seeing a movie in a theater is so much better. This was the thirty third film I saw this year that was a screening of an older film(Five of those films were from 1982). More than a dozen of those have been Fathom Events. Let me offer my heartfelt thanks for Fathom and the studios they work with. I know that sometimes the showings are not much more than commercials for upgraded video releases, but that's OK with me. I'll buy the 4K or Blu-Ray, but first let me re-experience it where it belongs.
I suppose it is faint praise to say "I didn't hate it", but that was my first impression of the new version of "The Terminator". I was highly dubious when confronted by the most recent trailer (not the one above) which gives away more plot elements than most of today's narrative revealing advertisements do. This is an attempt to make "Terminator" a continuing project without the messiness of having to deal with the narratives from previous versions of the story told in other sequels. The creators here have the right fulcrum for moving us to that point, but they use it so often, it is nearly impossible to keep track of all the variations.
On a technical level, the movie looks good. The special effects are up to snuff and there are several spots where practical effects seem to be used instead of the now dominant paintbrush of CGI. Believe me, there is plenty of CGI also, but the frequent car chases, crashes, and combat scenes are much more realistic than you would find in most computer generated effects. The opening sequences which are set in the future and feature Reese and John Connor are actually a well told story of that relationship and the events leading up to the original insertion of a Terminator into 1984. The mix of elements from the original into this current version was effective, and although Bill Paxton's punk character is recast, you would almost believe that the sequence was lifted whole cloth from the first movie. Almost immediately though the plot twists start and it is apparent that a complete revision is being undertaken.
Time travel stories are always interesting, at least they are to me, but they can be confounding. It would be helpful to have Doc Brown in the basement with a chalkboard, diagramming all the possible contingencies so that we can keep track of what is going on. Everyone who loves cinema wants a movie that is thought provoking as well as entertaining. The problem with this movie is that the thoughts provoked have nothing to do with morality, politics, society or history. Your brain will start thinking about the mechanisms of the story rather than the implications of the characters choices. Instead of pondering what choice would be the most ethical to make, or whether we as a society are surrendering too much power to the technology we use, you are left wondering "how did this timeline get started, or what happens to the future if John Conner kills his own parents, or how do we get John Conner when his parents don't seem to be getting together?" You end up thinking about the machine that is driving the plot rather than the social implications. That turns the discussion into a nerd fest rather than a philosophical imponderable. Kyle Reese says it himself in more than one scene, this story is hard to keep track of. "Pops" may come along and say it is rather simple, but that does not make it so.
Instead of lingering on plot loopholes or time travel conundrums, I want to discuss for a moment the philosophical question, is Skynet already happening? In 1984, before we had the sort of internet and dependance on technology that exist now, it was scary enough to contemplate. Today, Google and Apple know almost everything that everyone does. The NSA is mining that data, most of us operate electronically in banking, services, communication and almost every other part of our lives. The "Genisys" app in this movie is not far removed from the kind of technological innovation that is going on right now. Earlier this year, there was the spy film "Kingsmen: The Secret Service" which postulated a nefarious takeover of technology that was more cartoon like but which could be plausible because just as in this movie, it recognizes that we are all wired in to each other in some way. A couple of weeks ago, I saw a story about an A.I. experiment where the computer got a bit nasty with the the programmers. That's just the kind of thing that might make us believe that the combination of Artificial Intelligence and widespread dependence on computer technology might not be a match made in heaven. "Terminator Genisys" touches oh so briefly on this concept, but it is mostly focused on building an action plot to attach visual spectacle to.
I don't watch "Game of Thrones" so I am largely unfamiliar with the work of Emilia Clark. She is made up to resemble Linda Hamilton enough to sell the idea that she is the same character. Jai Courtney is an actor I can't quite seem to warm up to. I'm not sure he is being cast correctly but someone has decided he is the next big thing, I'm not sure he's not the next Sam Worthington. Jason Clarke is an actor that I have admired in a number of films but he seems to be directed here to play the character of John Conner a bit over the top in the opening and then a little too subdued in later sections. Arnold continues to be Arnold. I am so much happier with him as the Terminator than as Governor that a couple of awkward moments don't even register. There are some pieces of humor plugged into his part and the usual stoic mannerisms seem to be working. The explanation of his aging is acceptable and I thought the three different time periods he appeared in seemed matched appropriately.
The movie is ambitious and attempts to put all of the elements of the story we have come to know into play. Judgement Day has been shifted somehow and that is one of the unclear lines of thinking created by the multiple time line angle. We don't yet know how Terminator 2.0 gets sent to protect Sarah at age nine, it looks like this is being set up as a series of films and that will be a plot point for another entry. The movie is under-performing in the U.S. market (largely I suspect because of the lingering demand for Dinosaur mayhem). Internationally it may do well enough to justify continuing the series. I don't think anyone will become emotionally invested in the story enough to be disappointed if this is the last in the series, but I won't roll my eyes in disbelief if a new entry is eventually announced either.
If you would like a ranking as a way of assessing this opinion, I'd put the first two films on a level all their own. I prefer the original to Terminator 2 but that is mostly because I love that last sequence with the stop motion and puppetry. "Terminator Genisys" and "Terminator: Rise of the Machines" are also pretty equivalent, to each other. They are action generating plots and each has some spectacular stunt work but neither has the depth or imagination of the first two films. "Terminator Salvation" is a vague memory. I enjoyed it well enough at the time but it is six years later and I have never rewatched it since then so it must not have impressed me that much. I'd be willing to see this film again but I will never be willing to try and figure out all the time line confusion that this entry in the series introduces.
Two reactions are typical when talking about an "Expendables" movie; "Damn is that awesome" or "Damn is that Pathetic". I happen to fall into the former category, so if you fit into the later, you can pretty much skip this, it is not going to fit your world view. Aging action stars plus plenty of shootouts plus bad jokes equals two hours of fun in August as far as I've gone with these flicks. There is not any real artistry, the plots are boiler plate and the outcome is inevitable. These are comfort food for people who miss Bob's Big Boy and Hair Metal. Sometimes there is a nice new element to make the movie interesting and to keep us coming back. This movie has three or four of those elements.
I rarely spend more than a sentence or two describing plot in any of my reviews, I don't like spoilers. With a movie like this, it is even simpler because the plot is so direct. The team must take down a rogue former member who has turned evil arms dealer. That's it. Sure more happens and there are some justifications for jumping into a new set of recruits and bringing the old crew back, but it is straight get the bad guy stuff. What does help is that the bad guy this time is Mel Gibson. With all the baggage he has accumulated in the last few years, he has not been a regular screen presence. That's too bad because he is quite good and charismatic on screen, whether playing a hero or the baddie. The three Expendable movies have been slowly creeping up in the quality of the antagonist. Eric Roberts in the first film was fine but did not get much development. Jean- Claude Van Damme was more successful because his showdown with Stallone is the epic climax of the movie. Gibson gives the movie a sense of credibility it would not otherwise deserve and his dialogues with the team contain the right kind of ominous threat to keep our expectations high.
Also joining the cast and classing up the franchise is Harrison Ford. In the 80s, Stallone and Schwarzenegger were the brawn of action movies. They were the guys who kicked butt. Gibson and Ford were the brains of action movies. Their films had plot twists and sophistication and did not rely on brute strength to get the mission accomplished. Ford shows up as the replacement for Bruce Willis's character in the movie. He treats the script with more seriousness than anyone would think is possible and raises the bar on the believability scale. In the long run it may be a futile effort, but it doesn't end up like it is just stunt casting, even though there is an amusing line about what became of Agent Church.
The unique part of this film is the recruitment of a younger generation of Expendables whose loss Barney will not feel as much. The selection process involves another old friend, Kelsey Grammer. Channeling a rougher version of Frasier Crane, Grammer gets in some funny lines and a little bit of pop psychology to go with all the nonsense. Stealing the show by playing the dangerous buffoon is Antonio Banderas. Having watched "Desperado" just a day ago, I can say his action bonafides are in order. His comedy chops from "Puss in Boots" appear to be in good working shape as well. Four other young actors are tossed in, it would seem with the intention of carrying on the series when it will look too odd to have grandad diving through a window with a Howitzer under his arm. Wesley Snipes is introduced as another former colleague who has been away from the action scene for a while. The main justification for his presence is the joke about what he was doing prison time for in the third world country the team breaks him out of.
I understand that someone might say they were tired of the same old, same old. If you seek creativity and innovation in your action film, move along, there is nothing for you here. Those of us who do not mind a lot of the familiar and enjoy a big chunk of cheese with our weekend fix of adrenaline, will appreciate the continuing adventures of the old timers. Yeah they look a little long in the tooth, but they also look like they could take most of us out in twenty seconds or less. Until they reach my level of physical prowess, I'm still willing to go along for the ride.
