Terminator Genisys

Terminator Genisys ~ There's a joke we have frequently when I run superhero role-playing games, because it's a storytelling device I use so often, and that's "Time travel makes my head hurt." The line is even spoken in this film. That's pretty much the phrase that best describes Terminator Genisys, because its continuity exists in a reality where things have been so messed up by repeated time travel that no one can keep the 'real' reality straight any longer.

We've got at least four movies and a short-lived TV series full of continuity that has been changed and reset more times than a videogame. Play. Reset. Play. Over and over again so that much of what you know is different every time you hit the reset button. Add to that the concept of alternate timelines, alternate pasts, and alternate futures, it just gets worse. For all those "Doctor Who" fans out there quoting David Tennant's 'timey-wimey' monologue, you get the picture.

Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor are still trying to destroy Skynet to prevent the machines from killing the human race, and a variety of Terminators are out to get them. That's all still true, it's the rules and variables that are different, and of course it's been updated. There are surprises, young Arnold, old Arnold, Lee Byung-hun as a T-1000, and... well, that would be telling. But then again, that's one of the big problems with this flick, all the big surprises were given away in the trailers.

Like earlier Terminator films, it's action propelled, thrills as heroes race against time, and stunts and special effects galore. Arnold Schwarzenegger is perfect, former Doctor Who Matt Smith (billed as Matthew Smith) rocked, and JK Simmons is fun in his much-too-small role. All are good except for the real lynchpin of the flick - Emilia Clarke, the Kalissi from "Game of Thrones," as Sarah Connor, is worse than bad, she's completely unbelievable. HBO has her right, the less dialogue, the better the performance.

I really could have done without the 'lesson' that technology is bad for us, and that being plugged in and online is a bad thing. Perhaps that is another reason this flick did not do as well as it could have - the anti-internet message of the Genisys application. Bad idea, folks, don't alienate the young demographic, don't bite the hand that feeds...

Here's the bottom line. I saw this flick for free on the TV loop in my stateroom of a recent cruise. It was enjoyable for free to watch as I pleased or not. If I'd had to pay for it, I think I might have been mad. See at your own risk.

The Die Hard Prequel

The Detective ~ We know all about Bruce Willis in Die Hard, and its four or five (who's counting?) sequels. But did you know there was a prequel to Die Hard? And did you know it starred Frank Sinatra? All true, keep reading and I'll tell you all about The Detective from 1968.

The Die Hard we all know and love, starring Bruce Willis, and made in 1988, was based on a book by crime novelist Roderick Thorp. The book's original title was Nothing Lasts Forever and it was published in 1979. Thorp had been wanting to write a sequel to his earlier novel, The Detective, and felt inspired after watching the film The Towering Inferno.

Nothing Lasts Forever was destined for the screen almost immediately, but Frank Sinatra, who portrayed Joe Leland in the film based on the first book wasn't interested. The idea floated around Hollywood for a while, was even suggested as the basis for a sequel to Arnold Schwarzenegger's Commando movie at one time.

Eventually it ended up with producers Joel Silver and Lawrence Gordon, and director John McTiernan. The script was revamped and updated, some names and details were changed, and Bruce Willis came on board to play the younger John McClane as opposed to much older Joe Leland. The film went on to become a blockbuster with multiple sequels.

But as I mentioned, Roderick Thorp wrote a Joe Leland novel before Nothing Lasts Forever. The Detective was published in 1966, was a bestseller, and fast tracked to the screen starring Frank Sinatra two years later. The book featured a police case with as many possibilities as characters, almost reminiscent of a Raymond Chandler novel.

The film, while dated, lacks the humor of Willis' John McClane or even Sinatra's other crimestopper of the day, Tony Rome, so it has a very different vibe. Joe Leland is very serious about his police work. Those around him may joke, but Joe holds it together. Advertising of the time called it an adult look at police work.

The film features one of Sinatra's strongest performances of the late 1960s, a performance only elevated by the cast that surrounds him. Look for character actors Robert Duvall, Jack Klugman, Tony Musante, and William Windom, as well as beauties like Lee Remick and Jacqueline Bisset. There's also a great Jerry Goldsmith score that we just don't hear enough of.

While there are a few light moments, the film lacks the humor, and for that matter, the action, of Bruce Willis' Die Hard. Sinatra may well be a god in the film and music industry, but he's no Bruce Willis, and this was no Die Hard. It is however, quite a good film, and definitely worth a viewing. Recommended.

Total Recall

Total Recall ~ I thought it might be worth taking another look at this 2012 remake of the 1990 scifi classic, especially in the light of seeing Iron Man Three and Star Trek Into Darkness, as well as anticipating Man of Steel later this month. All of these films have one thing in common. Everything you think you know is wrong, here's the new spin, enjoy the irony and the fun references to what you thought was going on.

Anyone walking into Total Recall, or any of those other flicks, is going to get what they thought they would, and that's part if the ride. And rollercoaster ride is principally what Total Recall is. It barely ever stops from start to finish, the action is full on forward, barely giving the viewer time to catch their breath.

Those expecting star Colin Farrell to play Arnold Schwarzeneggar are to be disappointed. This flick is both a remake of the 1990 film and loosely (as loosely as the original) based on the Philip K. Dick story, "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale." Keep in mind, the original protagonist was based on Richard Dreyfus so Farrell is not right either. As far as cast goes however, only he and antagonist, Bryan Cranston of "Breaking Bad," really shine.

The setting is different, rather than Mars, this is set fully on Earth, even as Earth as a tunnel through the world from London to Australia features solidly. It's still a dystopian future, and our hero still has memory issues and may not be who he thinks he is. Same s#!t, different day, if you'll pardon the expletive.

The references are plentiful and amusing, as long as you're not a purist to the first movie, or the story. Just sit back, turn off your brain and enjoy the ride. I loved the flying car chase, amped up unbelievably over the one in The Fifth Element, and the more original vertical/horizontal elevator chase. Bring seat belts!

And if you're a fan of Philip K. Dick, don't forget about the Radio Free Albemuth Kickstarter, as mentioned on this week's GAR! Podcast.

Arnold Doppelganger

There’s a new Conan film in the works, and it’s possible the studio has found its new Conan - the closest possible thing to Arnold Schwarzenegger without being Arnold Schwarzenegger.

His name is Roland Kickinger and he’s got a rather interesting resume. He plays a Terminator in the latest film in the series Terminator: Salvation, he is an Austrian native and bodybuilder, and he actually played Arnold in See Arnold Run. It goes without say he looks like Arnold too. Talking about on the nose casting.

There’s no word as to whether the new and as-yet-untitled Conan film is a reboot, a sequel to the two from the 1980s or even a film version of one of Robert E. Howard’s novels – only that it’s in pre-production with a hopeful release in 2010.


.

Terminator 3

WAS THIS FLICK REALLY NECESSARY?

A Film Review of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

Copyright 2003 Glenn Walker

Why? Other than money, I mean. Why was this film made? A quick look at Terminator 2: Judgement Day will show you a sequel is both unnecessary and impossible. The future that created the Terminators was prevented and will never come to be. That dark future was averted thus no more Terminators and especially no more sequels.

Money ($170 million to be precise) was obviously the motivation, but not enough of it apparently. Rumors say Arnold Schwarzenegger offered up a portion of his salary to guarantee the notorious and notably boring fifteen minute crane chase scene was filmed. Money was not enough to secure original director James Cameron even though he stands to make quite a chunk of cash anyway due to his ownership of the Terminator characters.



Instead the project was given to novice director Jonathan Mostow who really has only Breakdown and U-571 under his belt, hardly a resume worthy of directing the third Terminator film. His constantly bouncing and moving camera obscures most of the fun special effects and great action scenes. Mostow made me almost fall asleep during the big chase scene. Where he attempts to pay homage to scenes from the first two films it comes across hokey rather than foreshadowing. Mostow's direction is pitiful.

Casting was another problem. While Schwarzenegger returns as does Earl Boen as Dr. Peter Silberman (the only two to appear in all three films), the rest of the cast does not. Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor is described as having died to explain her absence. The unconvincing Nick Stahl replaces Edward Furlong (missing because of drug problems) as John Connor. Claire Danes efficiently proves she is not an action heroine and newcomer Kristanna Loken effectively plays the new female Terminator but neither were the original choices for those roles.

The plot (if you can call it that) has holes big enough to drive a rampaging crane through. There is no backstory throughout the beginning of the film. It is all just hang on for the ride, gee, we hope you saw the first two movies. Later on when the characters are on a timetable to save mankind there is endless explanation and stopping for exposition. There are many flaws, too many to list here.

This is the worst film I've seen this year. Do not waste your time or money.