Terminator Salvation (2009)
Directed by McG
Length: 130 minutes
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language
When I was younger, I wanted to be a terminator when I grew up. I tried my best to dress, talk, and act like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Needless to say, my childhood ambitions never really panned out. But perhaps you'll understand how excited I was upon hearing about the production of a new terminator flick; then imagine my horror upon hearing the infamous McG was behind the helm. The guy famous for Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle would be directing my beloved franchise into the ground...or would he? After anxiously awaiting the release of the latest chapter in the Terminator franchise, I can honestly say that, while not great, McG has delivered an enjoyable movie that will satisfy fans and non-fans alike.
Unlike the previous three films, Terminator Salvation takes place after Judgment Day, the day Skynet (a highly sophisticated AI) became aware and unleashed a war upon the human race filled with death and destruction. Amongst the bleak and ashy remains of the world, we find the prophesied savior of humanity John Conner, played by Christian Bale (Public Enemies, The Dark Knight), struggling to lead the remainder of humanity in opposition of the machines bent on our destruction. The mission to stop the machines becomes murky upon discovering Marcus Wright, played by newcomer Sam Worthington (Avatar, Rogue), a seemingly normal human, with one exception...Marcus is actually a new prototype machine equipped with organs and memories of the donor's previous life.
Let's start with the bad and build from there. Traditionally, I feel that a good cast can do wonders for bad directing, plot, writing, etc. True, an actor is only as good as the material, but good/great performances can go a long way towards redeeming a film. Unfortunately, the acting in Terminator Salvation lacks substance and emotion. Even with a good cast toting the likes of Bale, Bryce Dallas Howard (The Look of Real, Spider-man 3) as Kate Conner, and Anton Yelchin (Memoirs of a Teenage Amnesiac, Star Trek) as Kyle Reese, the dialogue feels stilted and devoid of any emotion. I understand the movie takes place during an apocalyptic future where we are constantly at war; if the scenes only centered around fighting, then I would accept this as a reason. But the scenes involving human interaction left a lot to be desired. The few scenes between Bryce Dallas Howard and Bale felt rough and a bit put on. Yelchin, a young actor with a bright future, even fails to really deliver a good performance. Of all of the actors and actresses, Sam Worthington provides the best example of stoic heroism in the face of danger with a dash of emotion at the right times. But even his performance is flawed as his Aussie accent pops up on a few occasions.
Now for the good. The special effects and scenery are amazing. The machines look their best as they hunt for humans to eradicate. Another interesting but welcome change is the introduction of different models of the terminators. Not only do we have the traditional humanoid models, but we have water-based ones, motorcycle scouts, herders, etc. A lot of praise should go to the set designers who developed an impressive landscape. You truly get a sense of the mass destruction that blankets the earth in a pile of rubbish and ash. In an ironic sense, this is the most beautiful film in the series yet.
A lot of reviews and opinions have blasted the script, an element I was initially cautious of. However, I found the plot to be original, creative, and believable. I don't think the script will be winning an Oscar for best original screenplay, but it certainly provides for an easy to follow yet enjoyable action movie scenario. It also was enjoyable to see not just one or two terminators duking it out over John Conner, but an entire legion of deadly machinery.
So, all said, is it better than Terminator or T2: Judgment Day? No, but that doesn't mean the movie is a failure. McG has thankfully placed the series on the right track as the focus has shifted from preventing Judgment Day to stoping the machines in the future. Having already signed the cast on for two more sequels, I eagerly await the explosions, scenery, and development of the future films. Let's just hope that Bale and the rest of the cast remember why they are considered "good" actors in time for the sequels.
Final Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Favorite Quote:
Kate Conner: "What should I tell your men when they find out you're gone?"
John Conner: "I'll be back."
The Reader (2008)Directed by Stephen Daldry
Length: 124 minutes
Rated R for some scenes of sexuality and nudity
My continuing quest to watch all of the big Oscar movies continued with the latest WWII/Nazi/Holocaust drama, The Reader. The surprise dark horse at this past year's award ceremony, this film generated a lot of buzz when not only Kate Winslet's performance was recognized, but also the movie received multiple nominations including Best Picture. But in a year with reverse aging and a rag to riches story, was The Reader worthy of such high praise?
The film can largely be divided into two different halves. The first half centers on the relationship between Hanna Schmitz, played by Oscar winner Kate Winslet (Revolutionary Road), and a young boy named Michael Berg. As the mysterious cougar pounces on the boy, opening his eyes to a world of love and sex, we soon discover that Hanna is illiterate as she requires Michael to read to her prior to love making. Like most relationships, she soons leaves the boy. The second half of the movie shows young Michael during his time in law school and as an adult. During this stretch of time, we find out Hanna was a former Nazi concentration camp guard that was responsible for the deaths of hundreds.
After numerous nominations, Kate Winslet finally won for her role in The Reader. But of all of her performances, was this the best? Having seen most of the other nominated performances, Winslet's performance, while good, cannot compare to Meryl Streep in Doubt. Winslet may be one of our generation's greatest actresses, as evidence by her numerous nominations in such a short career, prior performances have warranted a golden statute more so than this particular role.
As I stated, the movie can really be divided into two halves. The first half is mainly concerned with the sexual relationship between Hanna and Michael; while everyone enjoys seeing a celebritiy naked, it ultimately feels empty and a little drawn out. With the second half spanning Hanna's trial, Michael's troubles dealing with Hanna's past, and the present day interaction between the two, The Reader really picks up and turns out to be a decent movie. If the movie could have maintained the pace and content of the second half, it could have been a great movie. But in the end, it just falls short of greatness and settles for mediocrity. Though this film was largely recognized, I once again lament what could have been for the great films of '08 like The Dark Knight and Wall-E.
Final Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Favorite Quote:
Not really a quotable movie...but Winselt is naked...again...
Oscar Winners:
Best Actress in a Leading Role-Kate Winslet
Oscar Nominaitons:
Best Achievement in Cinematography
Best Achievement in Directing-Stephen Daldry
Best Motion Picture
Best Adapted Screenplay
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Directed by Woody Allen
Length: 96 minutes
Rated PG-13 for mature thematic content involving sexuality, and smoking
You can usually tell when you are watching a Woody Allen movie, and Vicky Cristina Barcelona is no exception. His latest work continues his recent departure from the dirty, urban films set in New York of his earlier career to the new European centered films centering on beautiful people and their insanities. While most people have an opinion on Allen, love him or hate him, lots of attention was generated last year, specifically concerning a scene involving Scarlet Johansson, Penelope Cruz, and a dark room. But let me warn you, though this movie oozes with sexuality, it is the typical Allen film: lots of dialogue involving neurotic and damaged people that ultimately ends unexpectedly.
The movie concerns two girls, Vicky and Cristina, who travel to Barcelona for the summer. Along the way, they meet and ultimately both fall for a dashing Spaniard named Juan Antonio who gives the girls a summer of passion, art, and romance. Woody Allen is known for drawing inspiration from his muses, his latest victim being the lovely and buxom Scarlet Johansson (Iron Man 2, He's Just Not That Into You). Johansson plays Cristina, the artsy, insatiable beauty that doesn't know what she wants but knows what she doesn't. Vicky, played by Rebecca Hall (Please Give, Frost/Nixon), is the art major who is sure in her ways and her destiny to marry the corporate worker who will give her a life of luxury, but alas, with no passion. The girls' time in Spain is changed when they meet the suave "Don Juan" character of Juan Antonio, played by last year's Oscar winning Javier Bardem (Biutiful, No Country for Old Men), an artist who promises the girls a weekend of wine, art, and beautiful love making. Long story short, person A sleeps with person B, person C sleeps with person D & E (separate and together), and so forth and so on.
You would think that a movie centered around such passion and sensuality would eventually lead to some climax and ultimate resolution; but alas, that is the problem with Vicky Cristina Barcelona. All the progress that the protagonist undergoes, all the growth and plot development, ends in naught. The ending, sadly, leaves you wondering, "Okay? So what did they learn?" It's hard to watch a movie that truly is slow throughout, but it is even more maddening to watch a film that feels as if the characters never learn or grow from their experiences. I can accept mistakes, affairs, and fights if it leads to organic growth. In the end, it feels as if Allen was simply trying to be more artistic by simply ending the movie right where we started at.
In addition, I typically enjoy watching Oscar winning performances; after all, there is a reason these talented actors and actresses are often nominated and win. Therefore, after waiting half of the film to see Penelope Cruz (Nine, Elegy), as the psychotic and unstable Maria Elena, I really wondered what was so special as to garner the golden statute. Yes, you feel the volatile passion coursing through Cruz's character, but was it really award worthy? Unfortunately, I have to conclude the performance, while good, is not what I would expect from an Oscar winner.
What really makes this film enjoyable is the luscious landscapes and beautiful scenery. I have a friend who just spent the last semester in Barcelona; and after watching this film, I truly am jealous at the magnificent beauty found in the Old World. While Vicky Cristina Barcelona may fail to deliver on its promise of great performances and a great film, it certainly isn't a wash. It's a decent movie filled with beautiful people in a beautiful location. While you certainly won't think this is the greatest film ever, it can be a decent way to spend the night wishing you were away in Spain being swept off your feet by a suave Spaniard (apply the sex desirable to you).
Final Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Favorite Quote:
Juan Antonio: "Speak English!"
Oscar Winners:
Best Supporting Actress-Penelope Cruz
Star Trek (2009)Directed by J.J. AbramsLength: 127 minutes
Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content
Space, the final frontier...admit it: most of you are probably laughing at the sheer nerdom being exhibited by all of the fanboys starting from the time this new Star Trek film was announced. Damn Trekkies, right (or to be politically correct to the diehards Trekkers)? While I grew up watching Star Trek: The Next Generation with my parents, I have never labeled myself as a true Trekkie; however, I was eager to see this new adaption since it was being helmed by one of sci-fi's current gurus J.J. Abrams (Lost, Fringe). After witnessing what is easily the best Star Trek film ever, you can easily see this isn't your parent's Star Trek.
Credit Abrams for realizing how difficult it would be to try and follow the tremendous amount of mythology concerning this classic series. After numerous television programs and several movies, it would next to impossible for Abrams to cover every last detail. However, that being said, the plot here stays true to the fanboys while welcoming a new generation of fans. Set around the time of the initial voyage of the USS Enterprise, Star Trek allows all viewers, new and old, to become acclimated to the characters and understand their origins. You see how James T. Kirk came to be the womanizing, kick-ass captain aboard the Starfleet vessel, how the half-human/Vulcan Spock came to be the famous character that he is today, and so forth. Though fans from the old days may have some complaints about new relationships or character differences, Abrams largely does a great job staying true to the script and selecting a great cast to fill the legendary roles.
The basic premise of Star Trek centers around an angry Romulan named Nero, played by Eric Bana (Funny People, The Time Traveler's Wife) who travels back in time on a mission to destroy the Federation affiliated planets that allowed Romulus to be destroyed. Ultimately, it is up to the crew of the Enterprise to stop Nero. I know, I know...time travel? Relax, it is explained and is way more believable than I would be able to explain in this blog. If I was to try, I would simply ruin the movie. So just accept the basic plot synopsis and you'll enjoy. I'll admit that I was initially a little skeptical when I heard Eric Bana was playing the evil villain. While I do not think Bana is a terrible actor, I simply worried that he may have been to much of a "softie" to play a bad guy. But I am happy to report that Bana does an excellent job in providing the evil antagonist for the real stars of the show...that's right, Kirk and Spock.
The selection of Zachary Quinto (Heroes) as Spock and Chris Pine (Quantum Quest, Smokin' Aces) as Kirk are perfect! Quinto is able to pull off that logical scowl made famous by Leonard Nemoy (who makes a cameo if you didn't hear), while also introducing a more human/emotional side to the famous Vulcan. This is a much younger and unpredictable Spock; you really get to see a side of the character never before truly portrayed in the past. With Pine, he nails Kirk. Full of bravado and swagger, Pine will seek a fight one second and whistle at the nearest alien babe the next. Though Kirk was always a bit of a joke (i.e. find alien, have sex, kick ass, leave, repeat), this new young and inexperienced Kirk reeks of confidence; you never once doubt that Kirk has a plan that is going to save everyone from the face of danger.
Now what good is a summer blockbuster without the special effects; never fear, the graphics here are set to stun and will leave your jaw dropped. The opening scene alone far surpasses anything previously seen in any other Star Trek film. I have to say, the coolest scene has to be the periolous sky dive down to the drill threatening to destroy the planet Vulcan. You will be breathless at the sheer awesomeness on screen.
Some fans may scream foul at the privileges taken by Abrams, but let's be honest: there is/was no way he could have covered every little detail within the Star Trek realm. Any changes seen within the film are explained as changes brought about by Nero traveling back in time. This alteration to the space time contiuum may leave you searching for Stephen Hawking on your speed dial, but it allows Abrams the freedom to develop a new and incredible series. While Star Trek is not a flawless movie, it is a great start to a new series and a highly entertaing film that should be enjoyed by all, not just Trekkies/Trekkers.
Final Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Favorite Quote:
Instead of a quote, I thought I would include this classic video!
Oscar Winners:
Best Achievement in Makeup
Oscar Nominations:
Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Best Achievement in Visual Effects
Frost/Nixon (2008)Directed by Ron Howard
Length: 122 minutes
Rated R for some language
Over the years, Ron Howard has directed Oscar worthy movies that are considered modern classics, such as Cinderella Man and A Beautiful Mind. His most recent film was well received and nominated for many Oscars, but is this most recent best picture nominee as deserving as his past? The answer, sadly, is a resounding no. Like most politicians, Frost/Nixon is 75% dry postulating followed by 25% productivity that actually makes a meaningful impact.
Frost/Nixon is a based on the series of interviews that took place in the later 1970s between David Frost, a British television personality, and Richard Nixon, who had recently resigned from the presidency. While it is known that the movie is a more dramatized version of what truly transpired, the interview between Frost and Nixon was a significant event since it served as the one true public confession of guilt by Nixon. Based on the play of the same name, Frost/Nixon tries to showcase a more human side of Nixon while still serving as a searing analysis of the only United States President to ever resign from office.
The movie obviously hinges on the portrayal of Richard Nixon, in this case played by the Oscar nominated Frank Langella (The Tale of Despereaux, The Box). Langella previously played Nixon in the Broadway performance of Frost/Nixon and won a Tony award for his performance. True to his winning performance, Langella's success as the 37th president continues here. Beyond all the mannerisms, gestures, voice, and posture, the humanistic approach to the character is a refreshing approach. Considered to be one of the most infamous persons in American history, Langella almost forces you to sympathize with the man we so often hate. It is apparent how much work this actor has put into understanding not only the image of the man but the man himself. Of all the actors to play Nixon in some capacity, no one can compare to the performance rendered by Langella.
While the rest of the actors in this film are well known and experienced in their own right, I felt that the movie did a poor job of allowing you to develop a relationship or an opinion like you do with Nixon's character. Presented in a documentary style, the movie feels rushed and a bit boring. Most of the characters introduced are never really allowed to develop or miraculously evolve overnight. Case in point, Michael Sheen (New Moon, Blood Diamond) as David Frost changes from a cheesy variety show host into a piercing journalist in search of the truth. While there's nothing to say this change didn't happen in actuality, I find it hard to believe that one drunk phone call from the former President changed Frost's approach to the interviews and ultimately lead to one of the most successful interviews in television history.
As I stated earlier, the first 3/4 of the movie feels like a wash. Most of it is back story; while needed, it all seems like filler until the moment of truth: the moment Frost became a journalist and actually searched for the truth. The last thirty minutes of the film are great, and make the movie worthy of a view; however, I hate the fact that a great performance by Frank Langella is reduced the last few scenes, most of which you have seen from the trailer and talk show clips. I would recommend this film, mainly for the performance by Langella; a role that turns a man so often despised into a more accessible and understandable man. While certainly not a terrible movie, I struggle to understand how this film deserved a nomination for Best Picture over The Dark Knight or even Wall-E.
Final Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Favorite Quote:
David Frost: "I have an idea for an interview: Richard Nixon."
John Birt: "You're a talk show host. I spent yesterday watching you interview the Bee Gees."
David Frost: "Weren't they terrific?"
Oscar Nominations:
Best Achievement in Directing-Ron Howard
Best Achievement in Editing
Best Motion Picture
Best Actor in a Leading Role-Frank Langella
Best Adapted Screenplay
