Terminator Week gets terminated here. I'm embarking on a new mission next week: No action or sci-fi reviews. Like I mentioned a couple days ago, look for The Shape of Things as well as a couple of other films TBA. Also. Any readers out there that want me to review something specific, just drop me a line at jon@filmbrats.com


Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Review by Jon Waterman

****

It’s been a little more than a decade since the Terminator tried to kill Sarah Connor, and thus stop her son John from being born. John will grow up to become a great leader. He will fight off the machines in the year 2029 and give humans new hope. That is, if he can live that long. The Terminator is back for round two, except now he’s fighting to keep Connor alive. It will be a tough fight, too, because a new and improved killing machine, the T-1000, will not stop until John is dead.

I’ll just quickly mention that there are some time issues. If we are led to believe that the film takes place in 1991 (the year of release), then John Connor would only be 6 years old or so. Since he clearly appears to be older, we must assume that the film takes place sometime in the near future…perhaps 1995 or 1996. Just keep that in mind when watching.

Just like with the first film, director James Cameron writes a brilliant, nearly flawless script. He covers virtually every angle. The plot is intelligent, consistent, occasionally funny and action-packed. I dare you to find another science fiction film that works through a two and a half hour running time smoother, more efficient and with greater entertainment value. The film may be long, but it is tight as a drum and you won’t want to leave your seat.

Robert Patrick comes in as the T-1000 out to kill John Connor (played by newcomer Edward Furlong). The T-1000 is easily one of the most ruthless villains ever shown on screen. Much credit has to be given to Patrick for playing the cold, methodical, emotionless beast. It’s a calculated, yet careless character. With his morphing and reconstruction abilities, possibly nothing can defeat him. This updated monster is craftier, more cunning, quicker and overall downright scary. Arnold Schwarzenneger’s Terminator is an outdated model and it shows (although, one must ask if this is the same model as in the first one, then why is his hair different? Was that part of the change brought about by the events in the future?).

The chase scenes are unique, yet still exhilarating. Most movies find anything fast to race against each other. In this film, any mode of transportation available is used to escape or hunt down. Big rigs and trailers become equally as heart pounding to watch as motorcycles and helicopters. Which brings up another point. The chases vary. The majority of the film may be spent trying to get away from the menacing machine, but no two chases are alike. The action is spread out amongst the exposition and in-depth storytelling rather than put in one large chunk at the end. It makes the film that much easier to take in.

Unlike the first film, which was more sci-fi thriller, “Judgment Day” is more sci-fi action. I’m not saying that action is better than thriller, but it reiterates the concept that we are presented a new film, rather than a rehashing of the old one. A big contributor to this is in the much-improved special effects.

Stan Winston and his crew create some of the most elaborate and mind-blowing effects seen on film to date. Not only are the revolutionary computer generated morphing effects stunning, but even some of the puppetry may not be caught by the untrained eye. Over a decade after this film was released, the special effects still look better and integrate into the film more believably than some modern movies (“The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen,” “Spiderman”).

My Closing thoughts: James Cameron delivers a rock (or should I say metal) solid film once again. “T2” is one of those rare sequels that surpass the original. Sound byte time: Incredible. Absolute must see.

Terminator Week continues. I bring you two reviews today. Scroll down for the original Terminator movie review. Check back later for T2. And next week, I'm taking a break from the action movies and will review The Shape of Things as well as a couple other non-destructive films. Enjoy.


The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Review by Jon Waterman

1/2 star

A group of legendary characters from around the world work together to track down and defeat an evil genius attempting to start a world war.

This league is formed of the most classic literary characters in history. Under the command of Allan Quatermain (Sean Connery) are Captain Nemo (Naseeruddin Shah), Mina Harker (Peta Wilson), Rodney Skinner as the guy who stole the invisible man’s formula (who knew – played by Tony Curran), Dorian Gray (Stuart Townsend), Tom Sawyer (Shane West) and Dr. Jekyll along with alter ego Mr. Hyde (Jason Flemyng). Each brings a unique ability to the table. It’s pretty much “Mystery Men” all over again, only we now have pre-packaged literary legends instead of created superheroes and the humor is unintentional.

The dialogue sounds like it was lifted straight from the comic book it was based upon. Now, I haven’t read the comic, but let me explain. The interchanges between characters are clunky and awkward. This is not meant to insult the writers of the comic, it’s meant to point out the difference in style. Acted spoken words work much differently than written words that one reads. Screenwriter James Robinson may have been trying to make this movie a more accurate adaptation, but instead gave us unusual and shoddy dialogue. Not only that, but some of the situations are just downright absurd. I’m sorry, but just because you may not have seen a car before, doesn’t mean you can defy the laws of physics by jumping out of one at high speeds and magically land on the ground without tumbling or even having to run. That’s bull. I’m all for suspension of disbelief (I’ll grant the dual Hyde monster premise and all of that “good” stuff), but keep it reasonable, please.

The special effects were abysmal. Easily the worst I’ve seen in a contemporary film. Movies from the 80s had better computer graphic effects than this hurried piece of suck. It’s as if they didn’t even try. Maybe they didn’t have the budget, but if they didn’t, then why try to pass off some second-rate hack job as the real deal? Ugh. Makes me sick that these people may still be working in the city as “professionals.”

The acting sucks. The plot sucked. The effects sucked. The boring movie seemed incredibly longer than it actually was. I hope it wasn’t the intention of this film to encourage people to read the books these characters came from. I have a feeling such a boring, poor quality movie will deter anyone from wanting to learn more about these characters’ solo adventures. I bet the comic is far superior and wittier and would actually spawn some interest in the classics. To sum up: Worse than “The Hulk,” but not by much.


The Terminator
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

A war is being fought between man and machine in the year 2029. Metal has taken on a life of it’s own and man may be no match for its strength. The humans have one hope: Sarah Connor. She is the mother of a great leader. She just doesn’t know it yet. Unfortunately, the future does. A cyborg is sent back from the future to kill Sarah before her child is even born. The humans send back a man of their own to fend off the machine and rescue Sarah so her unborn child can lead the resistance.

The key to making a successful science-fiction movie lies within the believability of the script. “The Terminator” is one of the greater science-fiction movies out there. First time director James Cameron shares writing duties with Gale Anne Hurd (producer and Cameron’s future wife) with a bit of help on the dialogue from William Wisher. They created a tightly constructed backstory that leads these two creatures (human and non) to the present day. The psychologist in the film acts as the audience, questioning all the details and looking for flaws in the logic. The reasoning behind the time-travel and everything in the movie works. One thing I did not understand is the lack of culture shock on the part of Kyle Reese, the human being from the future (played by Michael Biehn). Perhaps there’s no time to be amazed by still-standing buildings and the thousands of happy people wearing bright clothing and the everything else when you have to track down the great Sarah Connor (played by Linda Hamilton – Cameron’s future wife). In fact, I wasn’t too interested in most of the characters from the 80s. Paul Winfield as the seen-it-all Lieutenant was my favorite of the bunch. Most of them weren’t developed enough and only acted in ways to further the plotline. The point of the film was the chase, anyway.

The film works so well because it crosses a variety of genres. Of course there is the science-fiction aspect. However, more prominently featured are the action and thriller facets. And, as there is with most movies, we have the love story (although it is very plot-driven). The Terminator himself (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger of the “Conan” series) is treated like a movie monster. The early part of the film acts as a slasher flick as he goes from house to house killing off humans. Suspenseful music and darkened rooms abound. Later, as the backstory gets more fleshed out, the film becomes essentially a straight-up robotic cat and living mouse action movie. The concept of the Terminator is a frightening thought. An incredibly strong machine hell bent on destroying you and possibly cannot be stopped no matter what you throw at it.

Another great aspect of the film is the underlying message it conveys. It shows that everyone has some purpose on the planet. You never know what your existence might mean in the long run. Sure most people won’t take that message to heart, but the fact that a moral or a subtle concept like that exists in a destruction fest such as this really says something good about this film.

Throw some cheesy synthesized sounds of 80s for the score (by Brad Fiedel) on top of the thrilling, heart-pounding excitement of people and machines being shot and beaten up and cars getting destroyed and things blowing up real good and you got yourself one hell of a movie.

Terminator Week has begun (see below). As an added bonus, I'm throwing in a couple other action movie reviews this week as well (this one and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). That's right. 5 reviews in one week. How's that for carpal tunnel, eh? So, enjoy.


Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle
Review by Jon Waterman

***

The three angels are back to fight a new set of bad guys and save the day. Someone has stolen the two rings that contain the true identities of everyone enlisted in the Witness Protection Program. The ladies must battle their way through a slew of goons and return the rings to the rightful hands as well as try to defeat the evil genius behind the scheme.

It all sounds like a mindless, goofy time, doesn’t it? Well, it is. But luckily, that’s a good thing.

I really wasn’t too fond of the first one, but maybe I should go back and reevaluate. I felt this film better represented the “girl power” mentality the first film was boasting. The girls are strong, intelligent, flexible in several different senses of the word, jills-of-all-trades, and totally in control (besides taking orders from a faceless man). The first film seemed to play off their sexuality too much. Their looks are obviously present, yet they don’t drive the narrative. They don’t use their figures to get into the buildings or steal the plans (except for at the very beginning).

Speaking of the beginning. I truly enjoyed the idea of reintroducing the cast in the opening credits flashback story thing. It added to the concept of making the films separate episodes rather than continuations. It’s a smart move and you don’t feel like it’s wasted time.

Cameos, cameos, cameos. Oh my. Too many of them, and none of them worthwhile. I’m beginning to really hate the idea of cameos. Tell me how it’s funny to show Bruce Willis for two minutes? Or the Olsen Twins? Or whomever else I don’t care about seeing? Blah. As for the other actors, I don’t have much to say. Can you really expect gold from a popcorn flick? I say, “Only on the butter.” But I do expect more than really bad. Most of the actors were standard. But the one that everyone will be talking about is Demi Moore. Most will welcome her back to the screen and whatnot and say how great she looks and all the other brownnose stuff. But why would I want to welcome her back if I didn’t care she was gone to begin with and her return performance is the worst in the film. Her acting was incredibly campy and way overdone (and that’s really saying something for this movie). It made me cringe.

The music in the film somewhat hit a sour note (sorry about the pun, couldn’t resist). Supposedly there is a composed score in there somewhere (by Ed Shearmur), but I couldn’t tell you where (except in that opening credits sequence). The fight scenes and every other background sound was either some appropriate or wildly out of place pop song. It sometimes distracted from the movie, because the focus switched to the song from the visual. Music is intended to be subtle background emotion-enhancing stuff. This was an in-your-face full assault of cheesy, played-out Top 40 hits.

What really made the film worthwhile were the action sequences. Unlike most blockbusters, you can actually easily follow the movements. The jarring music video style editing is sparsely used, which is odd, considering the director, McG, got his start making popular music videos. Slow motion was overused, but the intention was good. Unlike most films that use wires to enhance the stars’ fighting abilities, “Charlie’s Angels” uses wires to defy all logic. They don’t try to play off the stunts as being life-like. It knows these are cartoon moves and has no shame about it. That makes it better and more fun to watch.

You know what. It’s summer. Have fun. Don’t take things to seriously. If this is your attitude, then run out and see this movie.

We begin a much delayed Terminator Week here. Expect the rest of the trilogy soon. As well as a couple of non-Terminator films to make up for the absence.


Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Review by Jon Waterman

**1/2

John Connor, future leader of the human resistance movement, lives in LA with no home and no way to contact him. He fears for the future that he helped to prevent. No longer will robots take over. Or will they? Two terminators from the future come to the past (which is the present to the audience) looking for Connor: One to kill him and one to protect him.

Arnold Schwarzenneger reprises his role as the Terminator sent by future Connor to save current Connor. Kristanna Loken comes back to wipe them both out as the evil T-X. The T-X is the strongest, smartest, baddest motherrobot this planet has seen. Her eyes don’t glow a puny red like the others. Nope. Hers are the menacing light blue! Her arms can turn into myriad complex weapons and are not limited to simple metal hooks and claws. Hell hath no fury like a woman programmed to go back in time and kill humans. Now, Arnold has been doing this a while, so he has gotten good at acting like a machine – emotionless and stiff. On the other hand, that’s not really much of a stretch for him, is it? Loken comes in as the new, improved machine. I guess new and improved means more human-like characteristics. She showed too much emotion. She practically had an orgasm when she learned she was close to Connor for the first time. The other actors give typical action movie performances. Claire Danes as the love interest. Nick Stahl (not Edward Furlong, thanks to drugs) as Connor. The dad from the Twisted Sister Video (“What do you want to do with your life?”), I think – correct me if I’m wrong -- David Andrews, as the love interest’s father. Chris Hardwick (MTV’s “Singled Out”) as the guy that is for some reason in this movie for five minutes.

Ok, I have to give this film a lot of credit for limiting the digital effects. There were some parts where it seemed necessary (but fake) like when Arnold crashed through a glass building during the excruciatingly long and overtly pointlessly destructive crane chase scene. But the machines were real virtually all the time. The introductory Terminators (the T-1s and the like) were real moving touchable metal pieces. Sure they look like a cross between Johnny Five from “Short Circuit” and ED-209 from “Robocop,” but hey, they actually exist.

What I didn’t like, though, is that some of the shots seemed to be altered in other ways. I’m pretty sure I saw some shots that were digitally sped up or slowed down. This irked me. I’m not a real big fan of slow motion shots in action movies to begin with. I feel they are overused and clichéd. But to go back and slow down regular speed shots in post-production is going too far.

Now, let me just say quickly that this film probably shouldn’t have been made. The second film wrapped the story up so tight that it made this one improbable. It seems like the writers pretty much just ignored the ending of “T2” and went and did their thing to make a buck. It’s a decent action movie, but probably would have worked much, much better had it been a stand alone, instead of a sequel.

Most of you will have already seen one or both of the previous “Terminator” movies and will base your decision to see this new one on that, thus rendering my writing useless. But, just in case some of you haven’t seen any and are considering making this one the first of the three to watch, let me warn you that the other two are better and more entertaining. Sure there are plenty of crashes and gunshots and car chases and metal things, but it’s not as intelligent and doesn’t really leave you with the “Wow” feeling that was there with the first couple. It’s worth it to go ahead and see the whole trilogy, but start from the beginning.

The terminator trilogy reviews may be delayed. My hometown was hit by a destructive storm that took power from tens of thousands for days. My internet access was non-existent until a few hours ago. I will do my best to catch up despite the unforseen set backs, however, I cannot make any guarantees. Until then. Thanks for reading.

It may be short, but it sure ain't sweet. Scroll down for The Rules of Attraction (posted earlier this fine independent evening). The Terminator Trilogy is coming up next week so stay tuned.

Cheats
Review by Jon Waterman

*1/2

A group of four high school boys do everything they can to pass…except study. They build up a reputation within the school as masters of the ways of cheating. There is no job that is undoable, and they’re out to prove it.

The film is actually based on the experiences of writer/director Andrew Gurland and his friends. Nearly all of the situations are real, as far-fetched as they appear to be. Keeping this fact in mind will enhance the enjoyment of the movie. Knowing that Gurland and his gang of ruffians actually negotiated and conned their way through school as well as stealing tests and files makes what is seen more amazing. In fact, if the film was presented as pure fiction, I doubt I would have cared to sit through it. Think of this movie as the pseudo-documentary form of “Slackers,” but less funny.

Meant to be taken as a comedy, I just didn’t see the humor. I understood where the comedy supposedly came in. I have heard punch lines before. Nothing here struck me. I doubt I laughed once. Granted I’m pretty picky about what I laugh about. The jokes were not off-the-wall. They did not surprise. They did not have people delivering them correctly. Plus, they were very predictable.

Perhaps the fault should lie with the actors. Trevor Fehrman and Martin Starr (the main character and the nerdy crib sheet writer who writes “crazy small” respectively) are pretty new to such large parts. Maybe the pressure got to them. Maybe Gurland didn’t direct them as well as one could have hoped. Matthew Lawrence has experience in horrible comedies (“Brotherly Love” and later seasons of “Boy Meets World”), so it’s no surprise after watching that he was involved. Elden Henson (“Idle Hands” “The Mighty Ducks” trilogy) has made the best career choices overall, but he still tends to slip up half the time. Mary Tyler Moore (as principal Stark) is just trying to hold onto any type of non-television related career.

The film contained little to no character arc, which in one respect seems more realistic. Yet, it’s not as fun to watch. I sort of wish something was made up for the big climax. The moments lacked intensity or drama. The stakes never seemed to be raised to a significant degree so as to warrant us caring if they got caught. No serious repercussions makes for dull viewing.

I think if it were not for the fact that these events took place (or so they tell us), I wouldn’t have watched the whole thing. Fact may be stranger than fiction, but many times, fiction is more interesting to watch.

Let's see if I can get "Cheats" reviewed tonight, too. Happy 4th, everybody (in the USA). Happy Friday, everybody (in the world).

The Rules of Attraction
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

It’s easy to sum up this film: Sex, drugs and, as Sean so often says, “Rock ‘n’ roll.” These may be the basic elements that drive the narrative, but the film is far from being as shallow.

The film starts at the end. We learn the fate of the majority of the characters as they wind up at “The End of the World Party.” The rest of the movie is devoted to showing us the earlier part of that college semester which leads them to their current states. The result is a fascinating ensemble dark satire of the post-high school years.

Before I rave about the good, I’ll get the not as good out of the way. In order to show that the film was taking the post-modern way out by going back in time, it shows a long series of actions played out in reverse. The concept is accepted and appreciated, but quickly wears out its welcome. I don’t need to see two or three minutes of smoke going back in a mouth or a couple walking backwards or a leaf going onto a branch. Pick and choose. We’ll still get it. Other than these overly long sequences, the novelty shots contained within the film are quite effective. The split screen coming together worked well. The rapid-fire video segment added an extra punch to that part of the story.

The other “bad” part was Fred Savage as “A Junkie Named Marc.” He actually wasn’t a bad performer, but he only appeared in one scene. The fact that his character was reduced to a cameo level left a bad taste in my mouth. I felt his part was there just to show that he’s still out there and he’s hip, too. He wasn’t trying to play a good role; he was after more work after this. A resurrection. This may not be true, but that’s how it came across to me.

Now on to the good. “The Rules of Attraction” is an intelligent satire (based on the book by Bret Easton Ellis). So much so, that the people that could identify with the characters in the film wouldn’t be the ones to watch it. And if they did, they may not truly understand the movie as a satire, but rather take it as pure drama. With the exception of the chaste Lauren (Shannyn Sossamon) and possibly the hopelessly gay Paul (Ian Somerhalder), each person is portrayed as being evil for having and acting on their animal desires. Without getting into a religious debate, I’ll simply say that for the purpose of the film, there should be nothing inherently wrong with some of the behavior these people exhibit. But the more innocent debauchery leads to the more dangerous and more emotionally destructive actions. Watching the sudden shift from one-night stands to faking deaths to drug deals gone awry makes the film the force and farce that it is.

Aiding in the enjoyment of the story are the wonderfully callous performances. James Van Der Beek (as Sean) shows he’s more than a repulsive teen idol by actually creating an inherently repulsive personality. The same basic framework appears in the acting of Jessica Biel (another teen sensation) and Kip Pardue (I don’t know him). Only one person was raw to the point of unbelievability. Clifton Collins, Jr. as the drug dealing Rupert went so over-the-top that I thought about fast-forwarding through his scenes (I guess that should have gone in the bad section with Fred Savage).

Director Roger Avary (“Killing Zoe”) has created a wonderful film looking into the deep recesses of the college psyche expressed in the extremes. Well worth watching to make you feel better about your own life.

The first of many. Your day is near, MeyerSSSSSsssssssss (sounds like I'm turning into a cartoon ssssssnake).

The Hours
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

The film follows the story of three women: Virginia Woolf, a 1950s housewife and a modern day woman. Virginia struggles with the pressures of her daily life as well as the pressure of writing her latest book, Mrs. Dalloway. Laura Brown, the housewife, struggles with her self to find meaning within her daily life. Clarissa Vaughn struggles to find meaning in the relationships she shares with her partner, Sally, and her dying friend, Richard.

The main appeal of the film comes from the interchangeability of the three threads into a wonderfully woven tale (written by David Hare based on Michael Cunningham’s novel). I could see some people criticizing the movie for having three characters that are virtually identical despite this being the whole point of the film. The interest in each era comes not with identifying with a new characteristic, but rather with how the same issues are handled and resolved within the time periods. Virginia occasionally tests out ideas for her book, “Mrs. Dalloway,” by living them out. Laura attempts to better her existence by using “Mrs. Dalloway” as a guide, consciously following the words like a Bible. Clarissa’s life and personality mimics that of “Mrs. Dalloway,” (which has even earned her that nickname) even though she has no real plans or want to do so.

The film flows very well, although not subtly, from one time period to another. Especially in the beginning, the easily recognizable transitions aid in getting an understanding of the motivations of the women and being able to identify with their collective temporal being. Editor Peter Boyle also keeps the pace moving throughout. The film never lingers on one particular decade for a prolonged period. So, even though the women are big balls of confusion, the story telling is anything but.

The acting in this film is incredible. Nicole Kidman (Woolf) makes it easy to forget that you are watching a person behind make up. Julianne Moore (Laura) and Meryl Streep (Clarissa) are surrounded by top-notch supporters John C. Reilly, Ed Harris and Allison Janney. No one acts inappropriately and the collective cast astounds.

I also want to congratulate director Stephen Daldry (“Billy Elliot”) and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey for creating the distinguishable range of feels for the three times. Each era was assigned its own look and style from the autumn, winds of change feel of Woolf’s time to the more sterilized, harsher feel of Clarissa’s. Mixed with the editing, the film works to grab hold of the audience sooner by bringing together all of these devises in a non-hokey and non-obvious manner.

Truly one of the better films of 2002, “The Hours” may not be entirely thought provoking, but it is a gripping story and an emotional film (potentially emotionally draining). If I have any problem with it, I would have to say that Philip Glass’ score sometimes seemed to want to take control over the scene and became slightly obtrusive. Other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed this one-way roller coaster ride.

Yes, MeyerSSSSSSSssssssss, I want sold!

Waterman will have his own rise of the machines to combat your puny underlings. Just you wait.