Welcome To Terminator’s Uncertain Future

Alternate Timelines and Zany Franchise Twists Re-Direct Audiences To Foggy New Directions For Terminator 

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Time travel is a tricky thing, Ponty–and science fiction is inundated with with time travels stories. One could argue that the Terminator series is built on the concept and it would be a heart discussion. So it comes as no surprise that the core story arc of Terminator: Genysis (T:G) is about the alternative timeline that emerges form all the Terminator time traveling that occurs in the previous films and TV series (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles was pretty darn good after all). I always have mixed emotions on the time travels in movies. I mean what parameters are there if they can just be erased because time travel occurred and changed the time stream, right? T:G puts some interesting twists into motion would you agree, Pontificator? 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): The continuity of this film is a complete mess Vader. I won’t even attempt to explain it as it has splintered into so many different timelines with two films and the television series being completely ignored by this film, this movie creates far more questions than it answers. 

CASTING, DIRECTING & ACTING

AV: Can you give a good Terminator flick without Arnold “I’ll Be Back” Schwarzenggar? Honestly we don’t know and this isn’t the film where we find out. Arnie is an integral part of the action and even offers some decent satire to the story. Jai “Insurgent” Courtney’s take eon Kyle Reese feels flat and disinteresting. Emilia “Daenerys Targaryen” Clarke also has a rather dry delivery as Sarah Connor. Director Alan “Thor: The Dark World” Taylor has a grounded vision that honestly an interesting take on the John Connor spectacle. With fairly decent cast, I felt the film didn’t take itself too seriously which might have been a saving grace. 

TP: What is a Terminator film without Arnold? Schwarzenegger returns for another round of bullets and one liners and despite his advanced age, remains classic. Emilia Clarke has swapped out her dragon for a gun and gives a fair rendition of Sarah Connor. I was never really sold on Jai Courtney as Reese like I was with the original, he just didn’t convey the same intensity. Jason Clarke is yet another take on John Connor…and I am no more enamored with the legend now than I was before. I was really hoping Matt Smith had a larger role, but I guess he would have really messed things up (or perhaps fixed the continuity) had he been tripping through the film in a TARDIS. 

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: Visual effects shots helped make this a palatable ride, Ponty. The opening combat sequence is strong, if not a bit over-the-top and borderline frivolous. The revival of the 1980’s–style Terminator world was by far the visual effects accomplishment of this movie. With key liquid metal and robo-terminators to vibe on, T:G offers some exciting visuals for audiences looking to get their next fix on the Terminator franchise. To note, the ‘liquid Arnold’ sequence is particularly enjoyable and my favorite CGI moment by far was watching ‘young’ Arnold Terminator and ‘veteran’ Arnold go toe-to-toe. Complete with grenades, rockets and exposed Terminator exoskeletons, the scene is smile-inducing, wouldn’t you say Ponty? 

TP: The special effects were very good and exactly what I expected…except for the lack of really capitalizing on IMAX 3D Vader. I expected all the explosions, liquid metal, etc… but I also expected them to come off the screen if I’m plunking down my hard earned cheddar for IMAX 3D. I have often complained about films showing in this medium and not using it to the fullest…. and it saddened me that an opportunity was missed here as it seems they did not use it at all! 

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: As Hollywood screenwriters scramble to shoe-horn new Terminator stories into a somewhat shaky franchise to begin with (c’mon, think about it), this is an arguably sound movie. It meanders, confuses and takes way too long to tell a story that could have been told better and more succinctly. It all fairness, the story holds and makes for a mostly enjoyable film. The thought that scent–now in the form of the new Genysis operating system–clearly a light-hearted jab at my beloved Apple OS–and imparts the cautionary tale of a new form of a singularity event, hellbent on mankind’s termination. As much as I tend to repel time travel stories, the Terminator franchise offers something others can’t; continuous story arc reboots within the continuum. 

TP: Watching this film,I had to just take it for what it was and enjoy whatever I could out of it. Trying to figure out the continuity was pointless (as any Google search will tell you) and even though there are tons of nuggets in the film and nods to some of the others, it just seems this issue with Skynet trying to take over the world and exterminate all humans will never ever end (and why should it when Hollywood is cashing in large?) The film was two hours of more of what we have already seen in the previous films and brought nothing new to the series… just some adequate summer fun layered in explosions and one-liners.

ON SEQUELS

AV: Hard to envision a Hollywood in the near-future (see what I did there?!) without some kind of Terminator film in play. We are most assuredly going to get more tales of futuristic robots traveling back to our time period to kill, maim and re-write history. The films do well, they entertain and give new insight to a franchise that continuously refreshes itself with the same threat wrapped in a new package. To be honest, if I could have more Terminator films without a robe-John Connor, I’d be fine. 

TP: Word is that this was the first of yet another trilogy (rolling my eyes) and we can look forward to more human exterminating machines in the near future. I can only hope the series gets better and they find a way to thread it all together for one cohesive story. 

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Terminator Genysis: Not the summer’s biggest blockbuster, but this film does scratch your Terminator itch, if there is such a thing. While the robot-John Connor was quite nearly a deal-breaker for me, I, like most who love these films, was able to get past it and (mostly) enjoy this film. Worthy of a Saturday night rental, Terminator: Genysis offers a subdued, alternate vision of the Terminator universe that earns a skynet-defying six (6) Busted Blocks. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Terminator: Genisys: This was a fun film and was just about what I expected it to be.…meaning there were plenty of missed opportunities to make this into something much better. With the technology and competitive film industry, I was very surprised that this film was “just” good… only sending back six (6) busted blocks back through time.

Terminator: Genysis: 6 / 10 Busted Blocks

A Totally Missed Opportunity

A decent cast and outstanding visual effects can't save this remake of a Sci-Fi classic from itself. 

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): This movie was fun to watch, Pontificator. I say it that way because after I say that, this movie deviates so dramatically from the original short story it is based on I have to cry foul. It barely references the VERY good (and memorable) 1990 film starring action titan, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Sad.

Originally published as a short story in 1966 in a science fiction magazine by author Philip K. Dick , under the original title; "We can remember it for you Wholesale", so even the title is a detraction. Since the original story (1966) was about a construction worker on Earth who wants to have a (false) memory of a trip to Mars implanted into his psyche. When we fast forward to 2012, this movie looses all sense of the story's original plot. It also looses it's way by losing the off-world direction by keeping the story on Earth. In fact, 'losing it's way' is a good way to summarize this latest movie.

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): You are treasure trove of information Vader! I had no knowledge of the original short story, so the only continuity discussion for me has to involve the first film of the same name. The only question that needs to be asked is if it retains the same story and/or elements of it’s predecessor. The short answer is yes, it contains many elements of the first film, but the story has been slightly altered. Well... by slightly I mean they’ve swapped out Mars in favor of staying on Earth and traveling through the core. On second thought... that’s a significant story change since that made the goal of the antagonist completely different in each film. Sigh... this review is going to get complicated.

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: The cast of Total Recall was impressive, Ponty. In as much, I gotta' give a nod of recognition to Sci-Fi movie maven, Kate Beckinsale. This of course makes this movie infinitely more watchable for me! Unfortunately, that is where the attraction stopped for me. Even the addition of villain extraordinaire, Bryan Cranston of Breaking Bad fame, the always intelligent and lovely Jessica Beile and even hunky leading boy Colin Farrell couldn't really make this movie matter. Flat characterizations, shoddy dialogue and poor story progression made this movie one heck of a shoulder shrug.

TP: I think Colin Farrell has hit or miss performances depending on the subject and script, and this film was s definite miss... although I don’t think his performance was all that bad. Kate Beckinsale is always a pleasure to see and I found her performance to convey an aura of lethality and menace as she was relentless in her pursuit of Quaid. Jessica Biel wasn’t a stand out, but I think much of that has to do with the script. Bokeem Woodbine is always fun to watch for me, and although his role was cursory, he had the one scene that seems to stand out in the minds of fans (from reading many of the movie fan sites). The directing was at blistering speed, and I think this hurt the movie more than help it... and although the cast wasn’t bad, if you’re going to remake a Schwarzenegger classic, you’ve got to do better than this.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: I couldn't recommend a better-looking Sci-Fi movie–from a visual effects standpoint–than this film. The stunning near-future cityscape is some of the best I think I have seen onscreen. The best robot-android effects seen since "I Robot" (2008) and some compelling near-future technology. Even the grossly unrealistic "Fall" ship was expertly rendered onscreen. I really felt I was viewing a futuristic London with hover ships and magnetic freeways. I wish the same could be said for the actual story and characters…although it did have Kate Beckinsale!

TP: This is the one area that the movie totally excelled in. The special effects were great. There was so much here from the look of the world to the phone embedded in the hand, that I scarcely know where to begin. The CGI was excellent also, and this film was a perfect example of taking all that has been done before, and doing it flawlessly. There need not be any new ground broken with effects if all the lessons have been learned, and the final product looks like a fantasy come-to-life. Almost every shot was laden with effects of one type or another... and try as I might, I can’t lodge a single complaint in this department.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: This movie was ultimately doomed to failure, Pontificator. The original published short story unveiled a troubled and bored mind that wanted a memory of a Martian adventure. This movie completely ignored that original concept and instead shared some half-cocked story about a random, converted terrorist guy who gets his memories re-activated. Lame. Also, can we discuss this whole "Fall" business? I mean, really? A commuter rail that connects the English Isles to Australia…uh, I mean "The Colony"? So in 90 years after a CHEMICAL war devastates the Earth (because we apparently forgot about all the nukes) humans can only live in two places that are magically untouched by this 'chemical' devastation. And those two place are accessible to each other via a giant subterranean tube. Oh and don't worry, weather doesn't effect the contamination from these deadly toxic poisons. If the chemicals traveled with the wind, why… that would just be RUDE! Good thing we didn't go with the whole Martian storyline guys, I mean, it's not like NASA has sent working motorized robot probes and satellites there or anything. Good call, there!

TP: There seems to be a trend forming of remakes to Schwarzenegger films... with dismal results. Conan was a flop, and this film follows suit, despite the effects, for the same reason Conan failed. You just can’t do Arnold better than Arnold.

Gone are the one liners, gone are the colorful and bigger than life characters (anyone remember Benny...he had five kids to feed?), gone is the careful care taken to make a decent script, and therefore a good movie. The original has plenty of action and comedy to keep the audience dazzled and laughing. This film had special effects at every turn, and not much else. A devastated Earth where the upper class take advantage of the less fortunate...hmmm, I’ve seen this one before, recently (Hunger Games). At least the first film had the intrigue of going to another planet, and the curiosity of the alien machinations to build technology that would make Mars livable. If I were discussing this film in the context of just it’s presentation, I could be kinder, but my hand has been forced since they chose to follow in the footsteps of one of the sci-fi greats... and their feet just don’t measure up.

I’m still on the fence about if the original is a dream or real... and that was great writing. In this film I’m convinced it was real since Farrell had been dreaming of Biel in a specific way, long before he ever set foot in ReKall... whereas Arnold picked his fantasy on the spot at Recall, and then events unfolded per those specifications. The argument made through the film was much more convincing in 1990 than in 2012.

ON SEQUELS

AV: This movie isn't bad but ultimately it's quite forgettable, even though it stars Kate Beckinsale. What would be cool is for someone to use a ReKall machine and extract the memory of having ever watched this train wreck. Then when someone wants to make a serious re-make of this story, I will be able to say "Oh, nice idea, maybe it could even rival the Arnold version from 1990. Sweet idea!

TP: No need to make one...and very little desire to see one from the general public I’d suspect. In truth, this film should have went in another direction with the elements they had in place than a remake of the original. To mess with a classic was their first mistake, and I see no reason to compound that with another go at it. Here is a hint to all that would seek to remake anything Arnold Schwarzenegger has done: Don’t.

RATE IT!

Arth Vader rates Total Recall (2012): This movie is nowhere near as bad as my critique indicates. It is certainly worth a viewing, but you certainly don't need to see it on the big screen and by no means do you need to bring an analytical–or functioning–brain. The movie looks good and is certainly jam-packed with terrific action scenes. Just don't search for cohesive thoughts that make sense or a sense of meaning to a meaningless story. Total recall is a total disappointment that is not a total loss (Kate Beckinsale). After all is said and done, I still feel compelled to offer this film five busted blocks, though for the life of me, I can't seem to recall why.

THE PONTIFICATOR Rates Total Recall (2012): Apart from the special effects, there is very little about this movie I’d like to recall... and think it totally missed the mark for a great movie or even a good remake. Special effects does not a movie make, and this one only busted five blocks... totally.

Total Recall (2012): 5/10 Busted Blocks

Simply Barbaric to Watch

Cutting through a sea of uninteresting adversaries, the bloody reboot of Conan The Barbarian dares viewers to try to follow a wandering tirade of unfocused vengeance and lackluster storytelling.

Continuity

Arth Vader (AV): Conan is truly one of the few characters that can withstand a near endless horde of re-boot attempts and still remain intact. The telling (or re-imagining) of the tale of a young Barbarian boy in his journey to become the fabled warrior-king of Cimmeria almost begs us to engage in his trials and adversities from boy to he-man. Conan The Barbarian ignores earlier renditions (along with other key details like how to tell a story and how to keep the audience interested) and asks the viewer to enjoy a fruitless ride. What do you think, P-Man?

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Continuity is really something that can’t be destroyed with material like this. There has been so much written about the character, that muscles, a sword, and much blood will satisfy the criteria. Compared to the first film with Schwarzenegger, it takes a different direction and follows a path that could be viewed as not Conan-like when making the comparison.

Schwarzenegger

Casting, Directing and Acting

TP: The casting was ridiculous. After I spotted Bob Sapp, I knew it was going to be a long movie. Stephen Lang and Ron Perlman were the only established actors in the movie and they weren’t given much else to do but scream while swinging a sword. In fact, that’s all anyone did in this movie...a testament to the absurd directing and thoughtless acting. The script seemed like it was written by a barbarian, as if that would give it some kind of authenticity. Everything else after that was downhill. What do you think Vader?

AV: This is where this movie comes apart for me, too, Pontificator. This movie's casting seems to just randomly throw actors at me who simply don't seem to work at all in their roles. Lead man, Game of Thrones hunk, Jason Momoa is an Olive-skinned Adonis who is easy on the eyes and seems to be a decent choice – until he opens his mouth! Once he speaks, he sounds less like a warrior and more like an east coast nightclub Guido on the prowl for "hotties". Mentored by supposed "Warlord/Dad" Ron "Hell Boy" Perlman, (who I think held better onscreen presence than Mamoa) the movie moves haphazardly from one random set of events to the next.

Special Effects

TP: High marks for the gore factor. Unfortunately, the movie was so bad, I didn’t care. Besides a couple of scenes in particular, there wasn’t much need for any effects apart from spurting streams of blood and enveloping splatter. There was no new ground broken and some very old terrain was trod upon again. I failed to see the need for 3D as, again, it was underutilized in a film that could have done so much more with it.

AV: Agreed. The SFX highlight of this movie comes as the surprisingly well-executed battle with the sorcery-empowered sand men. For me, this surpasses every other sequence of the movie. Conan seems like a golden opportunity to tell a story that would scream for monsters, over-the-top panoramic scenes and demonic creatures. That opportunity, like so many others in this movie, is squandered.

Taking A Deeper Look

TP: The deeper I looked, the less I saw. I was not impressed with Momoa’s physique, and I should have been if I’m to believe he’s Conan. I was impressed with how articulate barbarians are...better than some scholars, but they shouldn’t be. The plot was laughable and the story took the character in so many directions, it became a chore to watch as I lost interest in his motivation. I was expecting to be entertained by the swordplay...after all, it’s Conan. Instead I was treated to tight camera angles that badly hid the fact nobody wanted to put any serious effort into the fight scenes. I was never convinced that Conan was the barbarian that shouldn’t be angered. He was more impressive as a child than anything I saw him do as an adult...and here I was thinking he’d be better later on having traveled the world and gained so much experience.

AV: Well stated, Ponty! This movie makes little sense. We are forced to accept Conan's pointless casting decisions and not question things like lineage or ethnicity. Bronze-skinned Momoa would not have been sired by two parents of clearly northern European lineage, raised in a snowy tundra. While I cannot even begin to determine if Conan takes place in our world or a fictional 'Middle-Earth' setting, everyone seems to be white. Even for what is clearly a tropical/sub-Saharan environment.

TP: The motivation of the villain fell in line with all the greats (ruling the world) but fell short of convincing since the meeting between he and Conan was anticlimactic and the great weapon to conquer the World was just as unimpressive as everything else in the movie. All that time and effort to get a mask, to resurrect your wife...so she can make you into a god? Yawn! Vader, you were saying something about ethnicity?

AV: This is hardly the place to discuss racial imperatives in modern media but, this movie does a horrible job in casting believable actors – even down to ethnic origin. If the movie takes place in a tropical climate, where people's skin color tends to be darker, it should be ok to show that. It's ok Hollywood, really. It's 2011, we have an African American President. Times have changed, try to keep up?

The Governator

Looking Ahead: Sequels

AV: I for one could either take or leave any follow-up Conan attempt. This movie tried so hard and ended up leaving me so indifferent, if the word Conan was never mentioned again, I for one would be ok. Pretty sad, too, since the intellectual property of Conan has endless possibilities. That could be the biggest let down of them all for this movie. Pontificator?

TP: Please don’t let them make a sequel! I’m not even interested in a reboot. I’m very much content with watching the Governator do his thing all those years ago...and hopefully I can forget this recent mistake. The truth is, with a character like Conan, there could always be a sequel looming as he wanders the earth looking for something to do. If we’re lucky, he’ll keep wandering and never find a thing to get into.

ARTH VADER Rates Conan The Barbarian: A host of brand name, A-list talent – including a monologue and prologue voiceover by Morgan Freeman – couldn't save this movie from imploding. To be fair, the movie has its moments and would not be a bad rental, but watching Conan unravel before your eyes is a disappointing, laborious chore at best. Cheesy acting, poor casting and a less-than interesting script deflates what could otherwise have been a fun and exciting fantasy/adventure film. I begrudgingly give Conan The Barbarian a mostly undeserved four-and-a-half busted blocks.

THE PONTIFICATOR Rates Conan The Barbarian: I’d have to be a barbarian to like this film any higher than three and a half busted blocks...and I’m being generous.

Conan The Barbarian: 4/10 Busted Blocks