Terminator Salvation movie review
Score: 6/10
Before jumping into the the movie review, a couple of related points.
My wife is my movie conscience, my Jiminey Cricket. Sometimes I'll come out of the movie all jazzed about action sequences and cinematography, and she'll re-ground me that this should be about character and story, not just special effects and camera work.
Second, I have watched every episode from the superb Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles on TV. Excellent show I highly recommend.
Third, I read the book Terminator Salvation: From the Ashes by Timothy Zahn. It was a prequel to the movie, and was not a very good book. Which made it a very fitting prequel.
So, on to the latest installment in the Terminator universe. It just wasn't very good. On my scale, a 6 means that something made it watchable and somewhat likeable, but overall it was a bit of a mess. I am not likely to ever watch it again, nor would I ever purchase it.
What worked: Short list here. The cinetography was very good at parts. There are two scenes (that I remember) that were one continuous shot (including one near the beginning where Christian Bale, playing John Connor, gets on a helicopter). They did some amazing things, and the effects were all very good, until the final 30 minutes. Not a good time for a very computer-looking homage to the original Terminator. Some of the acting was very good, including Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright. He stole the show from Bale and Bryce Dallas Howard (who plays Connor's wife, Sarah, and not very well).
What didn't work: Where to start. They story wasn't very good. I've heard that they wanted Bale for the part of Marcus, but he wanted to play John Connor. So the role was expanded. Whatever the backstory, the result is a disjointed plot. Bale and Howard turned in sub-par performances. Someone forgot to tell Bale he wasn't playing Batman. Connor should be an inspirational character, someone the human resistance fighting against the evil machines wants to follow. Instead he came off as a dark, brooding, humorless hero I wasn't even rooting for. I hardly felt anything for any of the characters, and in a movie that's asking you to care, I didn't.
Who would want to see this: People who enjoy good action sequences and cinematography. If you're into a good story, forget it. And if you were a fan of the Terminator TV show and were looking for similarly compelling drama, forget it.
Closing credits: I really wanted to like this. It had many elements that make a good movie for me: a compelling universe to play in; good actors; a big budget; a potential for heart-wrenching drama. But the connective tissue of a good story and good direction (sorry McG, you were the wrong guy for this) was missing. Am I OK that I spend money to see it in the theater? Yeah, it was entertaining enough. But if you have a good home entertainment system, I'd wait for DVD or Blu-Ray.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Really Good Movie
Star Trek movie review
Score: 9/10
I was asked the other day whether I am a Trekkie. It's not an easy answer. I don't go to conventions. I don't speak Klingon. My children are not named after characters or actors. And no phasers were involved in my wedding.
But I have watched most episodes of the original Stark Trek and all the subsequent movies. I was a big fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation (to my wife's chagrin I sometimes still stop on an old episode), and also watched Deep Space Nine. After that they lost me.
But after I saw the previews for this movie, I was really excited. And I wasn't disappointed. I hate to compare it directly with Wolverine, but it was a much better film. The effects were better, the story was better, and the acting was better. Hence the superior score to my Wolverine review.
What worked: Nearly everything. The casting was awesome. Each of the new characters captured the spirit of the old characters, without being a slave to a late 1960s TV show (and 80s movies). The story was very good, and the villain Nero (played superbly by Eric Bana) made for compelling entertainment. Most of all, it was just pure fun. I haven't enjoyed a movie this much since Iron Man.
What didn't work: I'm splitting hairs here, but introducing all the old characters did get a little clumsy toward the end. Glad they did it, but it was a difficult task, and the last 30 minutes were a little clunky because of it.
Who would want to see it: Star Trek fans, action movie fans, and anyone who likes a good 120 minute story. Who wouldn't: Maybe diehard Trekkies (they do take some interesting liberties, which I thought were really good), and also anyone who's annoyed by cheese. There is plenty of cheese in this film, but it was just my flavor. (Yes, I can also lay on the cheese.)
Closing credits: I can't wait to see this movie again. Awesome. This exceeded all my expectations, and Terminator and Transformers are unlikely to knock it off it's 2009 Summer throne.
Score: 9/10
I was asked the other day whether I am a Trekkie. It's not an easy answer. I don't go to conventions. I don't speak Klingon. My children are not named after characters or actors. And no phasers were involved in my wedding.
But I have watched most episodes of the original Stark Trek and all the subsequent movies. I was a big fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation (to my wife's chagrin I sometimes still stop on an old episode), and also watched Deep Space Nine. After that they lost me.
But after I saw the previews for this movie, I was really excited. And I wasn't disappointed. I hate to compare it directly with Wolverine, but it was a much better film. The effects were better, the story was better, and the acting was better. Hence the superior score to my Wolverine review.
What worked: Nearly everything. The casting was awesome. Each of the new characters captured the spirit of the old characters, without being a slave to a late 1960s TV show (and 80s movies). The story was very good, and the villain Nero (played superbly by Eric Bana) made for compelling entertainment. Most of all, it was just pure fun. I haven't enjoyed a movie this much since Iron Man.
What didn't work: I'm splitting hairs here, but introducing all the old characters did get a little clumsy toward the end. Glad they did it, but it was a difficult task, and the last 30 minutes were a little clunky because of it.
Who would want to see it: Star Trek fans, action movie fans, and anyone who likes a good 120 minute story. Who wouldn't: Maybe diehard Trekkies (they do take some interesting liberties, which I thought were really good), and also anyone who's annoyed by cheese. There is plenty of cheese in this film, but it was just my flavor. (Yes, I can also lay on the cheese.)
Closing credits: I can't wait to see this movie again. Awesome. This exceeded all my expectations, and Terminator and Transformers are unlikely to knock it off it's 2009 Summer throne.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Chicks dig claws
X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie review
Score: 7/10
First off, I've been waiting for a Wolverine movie for 20+ years. I remember reading rumors about Sylvester Stallone playing Wolverine, and cringing at the thought. Then this unknown Aussie gets in role in X-Men, a guy who was much too tall and not stocky enough to play Wolverine. But he was awesome at the role, and all was finally right in my geeky little universe.
So after a fairly mediocre X-Men: The Last Stand, I was hopeful that the X-Men universe would get a reboot in a positive way. I can say it did, but with some caveats.
What worked: Hugh. He's very good at playing Logan, with all the complexity of that character. He can be both human and animal in the same scene. Some of the other acting was very good (including Liev Schrieber as Sabertooth and Danny Huston as William Stryker). The story was also tight and understandable. And a few of the action sequences were amazing, especially the motorcycle fight sequence.
What didn't work: Most of the special effects. There were a few very fake looking sequences, which is unforgivable with a budget this large. Especially the last fight scene, which was too poorly done to be the climactic moment it should have been. There were also too many characters, though they did a decent job of balancing them; it was as if Fox/Marvel wanted to introduce as many characters as possible, and give Ryan Reynolds a very small part as Deadpool, but set him up for a potential sequel.
Who would want to see it: Comic book geeks like me, anyone who liked the other X-Men films, and action-film junkies. You might not want to see it if you are a Marvel fan who was offended by the liberties they took in the first three X-Films. They go even farther afield on this one. And if you don't like PG-13 violence, stay away.
Closing credits: Overall, I really enjoyed it. It was good escapist entertainment with a character I really like. But it could have been better. So did they regain momentum after X-Men: The Last Stand? Yes, but there's still a ways too go before this franchise eclipses the recent accomplishments of Batman and Iron Man.
Score: 7/10
First off, I've been waiting for a Wolverine movie for 20+ years. I remember reading rumors about Sylvester Stallone playing Wolverine, and cringing at the thought. Then this unknown Aussie gets in role in X-Men, a guy who was much too tall and not stocky enough to play Wolverine. But he was awesome at the role, and all was finally right in my geeky little universe.
So after a fairly mediocre X-Men: The Last Stand, I was hopeful that the X-Men universe would get a reboot in a positive way. I can say it did, but with some caveats.
What worked: Hugh. He's very good at playing Logan, with all the complexity of that character. He can be both human and animal in the same scene. Some of the other acting was very good (including Liev Schrieber as Sabertooth and Danny Huston as William Stryker). The story was also tight and understandable. And a few of the action sequences were amazing, especially the motorcycle fight sequence.
What didn't work: Most of the special effects. There were a few very fake looking sequences, which is unforgivable with a budget this large. Especially the last fight scene, which was too poorly done to be the climactic moment it should have been. There were also too many characters, though they did a decent job of balancing them; it was as if Fox/Marvel wanted to introduce as many characters as possible, and give Ryan Reynolds a very small part as Deadpool, but set him up for a potential sequel.
Who would want to see it: Comic book geeks like me, anyone who liked the other X-Men films, and action-film junkies. You might not want to see it if you are a Marvel fan who was offended by the liberties they took in the first three X-Films. They go even farther afield on this one. And if you don't like PG-13 violence, stay away.
Closing credits: Overall, I really enjoyed it. It was good escapist entertainment with a character I really like. But it could have been better. So did they regain momentum after X-Men: The Last Stand? Yes, but there's still a ways too go before this franchise eclipses the recent accomplishments of Batman and Iron Man.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Earth calling Manny
Not sure what to make of the Manny suspension. Peter Gammons is reporting that it's not steroids. Manny says he took something his doctor prescribed and it turned out to be against MLB's drug policy.
Do I believe that's possible? Yes. In my years of watching Manny, one word comes to mind: space cadet. (OK, that's two words.) From stories of him leaving unpaid cashed checks in his locker for weeks at a time, to his going into the Green Monster to pee during a pitching change. This is the slightly zany, talented person at your office that is well-liked, but sometimes gets on people's nerves (and hates management).
But we've heard this story before. The supplement was tainted. My doctor gave it to me. It was actually my wife's urine. Whatever. It's getting hard to believe anything athletes who fail drug tests have to say.
PEDs is the story that won't go away for MLB. Not really that surprised it was Manny; not saying he's been a PED user (I have no idea), just saying he's a space cadet. And letting him go and getting Jason Bay is looking better for the Red Sox by the second.
Do I believe that's possible? Yes. In my years of watching Manny, one word comes to mind: space cadet. (OK, that's two words.) From stories of him leaving unpaid cashed checks in his locker for weeks at a time, to his going into the Green Monster to pee during a pitching change. This is the slightly zany, talented person at your office that is well-liked, but sometimes gets on people's nerves (and hates management).
But we've heard this story before. The supplement was tainted. My doctor gave it to me. It was actually my wife's urine. Whatever. It's getting hard to believe anything athletes who fail drug tests have to say.
PEDs is the story that won't go away for MLB. Not really that surprised it was Manny; not saying he's been a PED user (I have no idea), just saying he's a space cadet. And letting him go and getting Jason Bay is looking better for the Red Sox by the second.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)