After seemingly failing twice to be brought into the 21st century successfully, with films where the only noteworthy aspects were trailers that gave everything away months in advance and a leaked tape of a lead actor ranting at a crew member on set, the Terminator series continues with Terminator: Dark Fate, directed by Tim Miller of Deadpool fame. He has brought back Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton and maybe to try to ensure a third failure is not on the cards, James Cameron is back as executive producer.
The plot sees two terminators sent from a machine-ruled future, one to kill someone who will play a key role in their downfall, the other to try to stop it. The machines send a terminator (Gabriel Luna) who can morph into two terminators at once, and the resistance send a soldier who is half human, half machine, with enhanced capabilities (Mackenzie Davis). But in a surprising turn of events, the target isn't Sarah or John Connor but a young factory girl named Dani (Natalia Reyes). And eventually she runs into the older version of Sarah (Linda Hamilton) that we saw in Terminator 2. And of course the T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) joins in and they find themselves going all over America in hiding and figuring out a way to kill the evil terminator and save the future.
There's nothing special in the performances. Out of all the new cast Davis seems to be the one with the most charisma and can carry scenes with some level of believability. Reyes plays her character in a too-similar way to how Hamilton played Sarah in the first film, but where Hamilton knew where to stop screaming and calm down, Reyes just keeps on freaking out until it reaches the point of being annoying. As for Luca, he would be a worthy addition to the Terminator villains list if he wasn't so hard to take seriously. It's clear that he's meant to be influenced by the T-1000, but he just looks too ordinary and just doesn't fit the part at all, no matter what he does in an attempt to be frightening. As for Hamilton and Schwarzenegger, she plays the older Sarah Connor much like she did last time, except this time she has to come across as experienced and hardened by what she has done. Her efforts are noticed, if a bit underused. Arnold just does what he's done before, says serious things when the plot demands it and occasionally says things that due to his accent you find funny. Overdone is definitely the word, but is works and gets results.
The script, by David S Goyer, Billy Ray and Justin Rhodes feels like it's doing what The Force Awakens did for Star Wars. New plot, new and old characters and hitting some beats from a previous film while adding some minor touches of their own. This script is a new story but can't help but feel very similar to the first film in a lot of ways: woman on the run from a machine, with help from a resistance fighter. But things like throwing in another machine as a protector and a terminator who has a lot of blade weaponry and turns into liquid a lot, echoes the second film. While all that's going on, you have to develop your new plot and characters and perhaps expand the film's universe... well, some of that did pay off as the T-800 and Sarah feel developed and fleshed out as characters. For additions, we have a slightly better look at the AI-controlled future (the AI is now called Legion, not Skynet any more). But where the script definitely fails is in being way overlong, with dialogue-heavy scenes dragging on instead of letting action scenes speak for itself; that would give us more to be entertained by. Also, the lack of original ideas causes it to lack the engagement of the first two films, especially the second one, considering it was longer but never felt like it. We do spend some time in Mexico for a change, but it's really only there so that the terminators will have two places to rampage through. However, to end on a positive note, I will mention the action scenes. They're easy to appreciate when onscreen and carry the franchise's brutal, hard-hitting action style.
I don't feel as if there's much to say about Ken Seng's cinematography, expect for one mildly impressive shot that occurs during a chase scene. Besides that, no shots really stand out. But on the other hand, the film is surprisingly well lit.
Tom Holkenborg's score did not do anything for me. It just felt like really intense music to go with the fighting and chase scenes, and its more or less the same for the even darker future scenes. For Terminator, the key moment of the music will always be the familiar main theme. It can be heard a few times during the film and I feel it should be admired as, instead of building up to something or slowing down, it just plays the same tune over again - until the last few seconds, where a minor amount of intensity is added, but the difference is not too much or too little but just the right amount to end a main theme and begin the film.
To my mind, Terminator: Dark Fate may have the potential to pave a future for the franchise, with one good performance from a new cast member, and the old cast giving their best efforts with the material they have been given. The script, while filled with ideas and ways to develop characters, seems promising but also has an unhealthy attachment to the franchise's past that is seen repeatedly throughout the film. It's far from perfect, but as a move into the new century and only a few years away from when Judgement Day is supposed to happen, it's not a bad start.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Monday 28 October 2019
Wednesday 23 October 2019
Gemini Man Review
This appears to be turning into something of a habit for Ang Lee - he will take a project that's been around for a long time that no one wants and direct it himself. It worked it well enough for him with Life of Pi in 2012, and now similar circumstances have led to him directing Gemini Man.
Here Will Smith stars as an ageing assassin who feels it is time to retire from his violent yet illustrious career. But these plans are ultimately put on hold when it becomes clear that his former employers want him dead, and are sending to do it, the one target he could successfully kill. Who just so happens to an exact copy of himself.
Will Smith plays both versions of himself with his signature likeability, but at the same time, and this is especially noticeable with the older one, he gives the impression that he's bored and would rather be somewhere else. But there are a few moments scattered throughout where it seems he might be showing signs of improvement. As for the younger one, he's very much in the same situation and even though he looks like a young Will Smith he's missing the essential charisma that made Smith's previous work so enjoyable and successful.
Clive Owen plays the villain and tries to add some intensity to his role, but despite his best efforts it just comes off as another clichéd villain part for him. As for Benedict Wong and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, they are completely wasted in their roles; and really just there to be two people to accompany Smith through the film's main events who are not his younger self or the villain, and who also won't become irrelevant or (more than likely) be killed off after one scene.
The script went through multiple writers, including the very talented Brain Heglaund. But the final product has three people given credit, one of whom originally pitched the film. The script is formulaic in every sense of the word, after a while you can see everything that's going to or could possibly happen a mile away. And when it comes time for the big reveal that the film has been waiting to show us, it doesn't feel particularly worth it, for many reasons. The first of which is some of the worst pacing I have experienced in a film all year, it takes what feels like an hour before it gets to addressing it. And when it starts to, it tries to generate a sense of mystery - is it a clone or a son? More than likely, the audience have already guessed who he is and as it was highlighted in all the trailers and posters, the double comes as no big surprise. I know that sounds more like a fault of the advertising department, but when you have a sub-standard action film like this, and its only good idea (which has been done before anyway) is being used as the main selling point, then I would have to call out both the writers and whoever was in charge of advertising this film as the ones who were at fault.
One thing that's been discussed about this film from the start is the process of 'de-ageing' Smith. Some have praised it as a great technical achievement, while others have felt unconvinced. My view is that through the use of this relatively new technology, Smith has been successfully de-aged to his early twenties. I have been hard on this film but I have seen examples of good and bad digital de-ageing, and if I'm honest this has got to be one of the better ones. I am also aware that frame rates got a lot of talk leading up to the film's release. I don't know much on that subject, so all I will say is, I viewed it like I have viewed any other film, and it was perfectly fine.
Hans Zimmer collaborator Lorne Balfe composed the score, and within a few seconds of listening to the main theme it becomes more than clear he's taking a lot of influence from Zimmer, mainly the use of music that has an almost meditative feel to it. And considering what the film eventually turns into, no matter how high quality you're trying to make it by copying a very well respected composer, it can't help but feel out of place, and might be better suite to a different film.
So with Gemini Man we have a mostly wasted cast of talented individuals with only two actors showing any form of interest; a script that spent years being shopped around Hollywood, and when finally made it proved to be full of clichés; a potential saving grace in a reveal that was unfortunately used to be the film's main advertising point; one of 2019's better examples of the de-ageing process on Will Smith; and someone clearly looking to take the Hans Zimmer mantle with his score.
This was a movie with so much potential, and yet it had to go and be as bad as this. I have no idea what happened to make it turn out like this, I don't know if it's the film or its star, but one thing is clear, 2019 has definitely not been kind to Will Smith.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Here Will Smith stars as an ageing assassin who feels it is time to retire from his violent yet illustrious career. But these plans are ultimately put on hold when it becomes clear that his former employers want him dead, and are sending to do it, the one target he could successfully kill. Who just so happens to an exact copy of himself.
Will Smith plays both versions of himself with his signature likeability, but at the same time, and this is especially noticeable with the older one, he gives the impression that he's bored and would rather be somewhere else. But there are a few moments scattered throughout where it seems he might be showing signs of improvement. As for the younger one, he's very much in the same situation and even though he looks like a young Will Smith he's missing the essential charisma that made Smith's previous work so enjoyable and successful.
Clive Owen plays the villain and tries to add some intensity to his role, but despite his best efforts it just comes off as another clichéd villain part for him. As for Benedict Wong and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, they are completely wasted in their roles; and really just there to be two people to accompany Smith through the film's main events who are not his younger self or the villain, and who also won't become irrelevant or (more than likely) be killed off after one scene.
The script went through multiple writers, including the very talented Brain Heglaund. But the final product has three people given credit, one of whom originally pitched the film. The script is formulaic in every sense of the word, after a while you can see everything that's going to or could possibly happen a mile away. And when it comes time for the big reveal that the film has been waiting to show us, it doesn't feel particularly worth it, for many reasons. The first of which is some of the worst pacing I have experienced in a film all year, it takes what feels like an hour before it gets to addressing it. And when it starts to, it tries to generate a sense of mystery - is it a clone or a son? More than likely, the audience have already guessed who he is and as it was highlighted in all the trailers and posters, the double comes as no big surprise. I know that sounds more like a fault of the advertising department, but when you have a sub-standard action film like this, and its only good idea (which has been done before anyway) is being used as the main selling point, then I would have to call out both the writers and whoever was in charge of advertising this film as the ones who were at fault.
One thing that's been discussed about this film from the start is the process of 'de-ageing' Smith. Some have praised it as a great technical achievement, while others have felt unconvinced. My view is that through the use of this relatively new technology, Smith has been successfully de-aged to his early twenties. I have been hard on this film but I have seen examples of good and bad digital de-ageing, and if I'm honest this has got to be one of the better ones. I am also aware that frame rates got a lot of talk leading up to the film's release. I don't know much on that subject, so all I will say is, I viewed it like I have viewed any other film, and it was perfectly fine.
Hans Zimmer collaborator Lorne Balfe composed the score, and within a few seconds of listening to the main theme it becomes more than clear he's taking a lot of influence from Zimmer, mainly the use of music that has an almost meditative feel to it. And considering what the film eventually turns into, no matter how high quality you're trying to make it by copying a very well respected composer, it can't help but feel out of place, and might be better suite to a different film.
So with Gemini Man we have a mostly wasted cast of talented individuals with only two actors showing any form of interest; a script that spent years being shopped around Hollywood, and when finally made it proved to be full of clichés; a potential saving grace in a reveal that was unfortunately used to be the film's main advertising point; one of 2019's better examples of the de-ageing process on Will Smith; and someone clearly looking to take the Hans Zimmer mantle with his score.
This was a movie with so much potential, and yet it had to go and be as bad as this. I have no idea what happened to make it turn out like this, I don't know if it's the film or its star, but one thing is clear, 2019 has definitely not been kind to Will Smith.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Thursday 10 October 2019
Joker Review
Ten years ago Todd Phillips directed the first of his Hangover trilogy, now he's directed Joker. Which has resulted in divisive reviews, walkouts, and even cinemas refusing to show it. Since I have seen it and have just about the right amount of information on it, let me lay it all out for you.
Firstly, it's set in 1981, in Gotham city obviously, but has no ties to any particular Batman story. Instead it goes for more of a not-so-subtle Scorsese influence.
The main character named Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a clown for hire by day, and aspiring comedian by night. He has a condition that causes him to burst into fits of laugher at any time, and a series of setbacks in his professional life, and some shocks in his personal life, send him down a path that sees him turn into one of the most iconic villains of all time.
This film sets out to be different from all the other ones based on DC properties, and it succeeds, there's very little action, at least until the final few minutes; the fun sense of humour is gone; and it's replaced by a very dark and morbid one. The whole film's aesthetic is also very gritty, bleak and depressive, from the barely-lit interiors to the city of little to no sunshine. And of course there's the violence - which was minimal. And what does occur does feel like it's only there for shock value. But there are movies that have more violence in them, but just don't take it as seriously as this film does. If you want an idea of how graphically violent this movie, I can sum it up like this. It's less graphic than the film that influenced it most (Taxi Driver). All this is somewhat impressive, but due to DC studios' bad track record with their films, from which they have only recently started to recover, they have been up against the ever-growing popularity of MARVEL. It also can't help but feel pretentious and desperate. They have made it clear they want to do something very different with their films, but given the response to this one, maybe they should re-evaluate their strategy and take less drastic and smaller steps.
Phoenix isn't the only big name here, there's also Zazie Beetz as a single mother who may or may not be Arthur's girlfriend. She only appears in a handful of scenes, but plays her role well enough. There's also Brett Cullen who gives us a unique portrayal of Thomas Wayne. He comes across as quite capable in the role, but looking closer there's no escaping the fact this part was meant for Alec Baldwin. Bringing in Cullen as a last minute replacement, he feels like he's imitating Baldwin. Bryan Tyree Henry also has a role as an asylum clerk that feels thankless, it could have been played by anyone so it comes as no surprise that he seems uninterested and plays the part in a quite passive way.
Now on to the man himself, Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck AKA Joker. Phoenix immerses himself completely in the role with admirable dedication, but just seems very unlikeable and hard to sympathise with in any way. It also doesn't help that he goes off the rails so many times and so quickly that investment in his performance is nearly impossible.
Moving on to the script written by the director and Scott Silver, it's clear the script understands that this is about one main character and his standalone story in a very well-known world. Apart from some character names, other pieces of that world are used in surprising moderation. But then the problems show. This film's Scorsese influence eventually turns it into a rip-off a Taxi Driver, mainly due to the fact that both films deal with men slowly drifting into insanity. But the key difference with the two is, the protagonist of Taxi Driver actually seemed like he had at least a shred of decency in him, Arthur Fleck has none.
And just to bring the Scorsese connection full circle, Robert De Niro co-stars as a chat show host, who might just be the film's only likeable character and he's basically playing a homage to a character he played in another Scorsese film (The King of Comedy). He even admitted to that in interview.
On to the score composed by Hildur Guðnadóttir, and she has tried to use her skill as a cellist to create a score that's unsettling, and keeps the audience on its toes. But after a while you adjust and it loses the unsettling feeling that it had in the beginning.
This film claims to have a message about what role society might have in creating a psychopath like Joker, but if that is the message, it's not as clear as it thinks it is.
The way I view Joker is this, its got ambitions that maybe cross the line into being pretentious, dedicated but too off the rails and an unlikeable performance from the lead actor. And while promising its own story, it has maybe taken a bit much from the films that influenced it. As I said before, is this the way DC studios want to move forward? Maybe they should re-evaluate their position first.
In future if anyone ever asks me what I thought of this film, the only answer I can hope to give is that it gave me only negative thoughts.
C-
Firstly, it's set in 1981, in Gotham city obviously, but has no ties to any particular Batman story. Instead it goes for more of a not-so-subtle Scorsese influence.
The main character named Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a clown for hire by day, and aspiring comedian by night. He has a condition that causes him to burst into fits of laugher at any time, and a series of setbacks in his professional life, and some shocks in his personal life, send him down a path that sees him turn into one of the most iconic villains of all time.
This film sets out to be different from all the other ones based on DC properties, and it succeeds, there's very little action, at least until the final few minutes; the fun sense of humour is gone; and it's replaced by a very dark and morbid one. The whole film's aesthetic is also very gritty, bleak and depressive, from the barely-lit interiors to the city of little to no sunshine. And of course there's the violence - which was minimal. And what does occur does feel like it's only there for shock value. But there are movies that have more violence in them, but just don't take it as seriously as this film does. If you want an idea of how graphically violent this movie, I can sum it up like this. It's less graphic than the film that influenced it most (Taxi Driver). All this is somewhat impressive, but due to DC studios' bad track record with their films, from which they have only recently started to recover, they have been up against the ever-growing popularity of MARVEL. It also can't help but feel pretentious and desperate. They have made it clear they want to do something very different with their films, but given the response to this one, maybe they should re-evaluate their strategy and take less drastic and smaller steps.
Phoenix isn't the only big name here, there's also Zazie Beetz as a single mother who may or may not be Arthur's girlfriend. She only appears in a handful of scenes, but plays her role well enough. There's also Brett Cullen who gives us a unique portrayal of Thomas Wayne. He comes across as quite capable in the role, but looking closer there's no escaping the fact this part was meant for Alec Baldwin. Bringing in Cullen as a last minute replacement, he feels like he's imitating Baldwin. Bryan Tyree Henry also has a role as an asylum clerk that feels thankless, it could have been played by anyone so it comes as no surprise that he seems uninterested and plays the part in a quite passive way.
Now on to the man himself, Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck AKA Joker. Phoenix immerses himself completely in the role with admirable dedication, but just seems very unlikeable and hard to sympathise with in any way. It also doesn't help that he goes off the rails so many times and so quickly that investment in his performance is nearly impossible.
Moving on to the script written by the director and Scott Silver, it's clear the script understands that this is about one main character and his standalone story in a very well-known world. Apart from some character names, other pieces of that world are used in surprising moderation. But then the problems show. This film's Scorsese influence eventually turns it into a rip-off a Taxi Driver, mainly due to the fact that both films deal with men slowly drifting into insanity. But the key difference with the two is, the protagonist of Taxi Driver actually seemed like he had at least a shred of decency in him, Arthur Fleck has none.
And just to bring the Scorsese connection full circle, Robert De Niro co-stars as a chat show host, who might just be the film's only likeable character and he's basically playing a homage to a character he played in another Scorsese film (The King of Comedy). He even admitted to that in interview.
On to the score composed by Hildur Guðnadóttir, and she has tried to use her skill as a cellist to create a score that's unsettling, and keeps the audience on its toes. But after a while you adjust and it loses the unsettling feeling that it had in the beginning.
This film claims to have a message about what role society might have in creating a psychopath like Joker, but if that is the message, it's not as clear as it thinks it is.
The way I view Joker is this, its got ambitions that maybe cross the line into being pretentious, dedicated but too off the rails and an unlikeable performance from the lead actor. And while promising its own story, it has maybe taken a bit much from the films that influenced it. As I said before, is this the way DC studios want to move forward? Maybe they should re-evaluate their position first.
In future if anyone ever asks me what I thought of this film, the only answer I can hope to give is that it gave me only negative thoughts.
C-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)