Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015)

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015)

Director: Christopher McQuarrie

Cast: Tom Cruise, Rebecca Ferguson, Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, Jeremy Renner, Alec Baldwin, Simon McBurney, Sean Harris

I’ve gone down as saying that writers turned directors don’t always make the best movies which is true a lot of times, but in the case of Christopher McQuarrie this isn’t so. McQuarrie started out writing The Usual Suspects (1995), then he took a stab at writing/directing with The Way of the Gun (2000) which I remember not loving so much the first time I saw it. I haven’t seen it in ages so I might feel differently about it now. His first experience working with Cruise was on Valkyrie (2008), which wasn't a successful movie, yet started their professional relationship which led to McQuarrie writing and directing Jack Reacher (2012), which also starred Tom Cruise. I remember it having an amazing car chase sequence that stood out. Making Jack Reacher with Cruise must have been a good experience because here he is again working with Cruise on his first big budget summer blockbuster; Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015). This is the fifth installment in the still running strong franchise, which is growing in popularity with each picture. In my opinion, each film has been better than the last. So what’s so cool about this fifth installment?

This time around the IMF (the Impossible Mission Force) is being disbanded by the American government because apparently their results are too destructive. But of course, Ethan Hunt and his team aren’t that easy to disband, and so they go on one final mission to try and stop ‘The Syndicate’, a group of terrorists who are out to destroy the Impossible Mission Force, so they can go about their usual villainous plans. Can Ethan and crew clean their name and prove themselves useful to the U.S. government once again? Or will their names remain tarnished for all eternity?

I’ll be honest, I’ve never been a huge fan of the Mission Impossible movies, but from the fourth one on, for some reason I’ve started liking them more. I guess the stunts and the action have gotten way more interesting, even more impossible. And the fact that Tom Cruise is doing a lot of his own stunts makes everything way more fun. I mean, truthfully, screw all the crap that’s been said about Cruise, I’m all for applauding genuine talent, and Cruise has proven himself to be the quintessential action star, unafraid of going out there and really giving us a show. And by going out there, I mean, really literally going out there and doing stunts himself! The man is currently 53 and he still looks like a million bucks! I guess when you're a millionaire film star, when you're not making movies you're in the gym working out with your personal trainers, while a professional cook makes you the healthiest dinners imaginable. The dude looks brand new, healthier and more active than a lot of men at his age, so expect a Cruise that looks like he’s still 30.

The film is none stop action from beginning to end; it starts with an action set piece where Cruise is hanging from a plane…literally! Sure he used wires and harnesses, but still, it’s admirable that he was actually hanging from that plane in a day and age where everything is done with green screen! Tom Cruise, I salute thee! This movie is so gung ho for reality that there’s this underwater sequence in which Tom Cruise has to hold his breath for an extremely long time while switching a computer disk on an underwater computer. It’s an extremely complicated scene that I thought was completely CGI, but upon my investigations of how it was done, I was amazed to learn that it was truly shot underwater. This means they built the actual set, filled it with water and shot the sequence down there. Awesome. Any other filmmaker would have done that whole sequence in CGI, again, my hats down to McQuarrie and crew for choosing to shoot their film in front of their cameras as opposed to the inside of a computer. On this show Cruise even rides motorcycles at high speeds! There’s this moment in which he scratches his knee on the road while taking a curve and I was like whoa! That’s what I’m talking about! So yeah, it’s true, Tom Cruise is the big special effect of this franchise. Similar to how Jackie Chan was on his films, Cruise is an actor and a stunt man all in one.

It was good seeing the Mission Impossible Force together once again. Here we get Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner and heeelloooo, Rebecca Ferguson! Holy Moly, this actress looks stunning on this movie! You might remember her as ‘Ergenia’, the bow and arrow specialist in Brett Rattner’s Hercules (2014). I mean, this lady is a show stopper. Not only does she look amazingly beautiful, the epitome of sensuality, she also kicks major ass on this movie! She has this fight sequence where she’s saving Tom Cruise’s life that is a wonder to behold, she has great physical ability that’s for sure! Then we have Simon Pegg with the comedy relief, he reminded me of the obligatory comic relief guy from 80’s action films, where the big action star always had a ‘funny’ guy tagging along saying one liners and jokes throughout the whole movie, only Simon Pegg is actually likable and funny. So all in all, I’d say that this Mission Impossible is a sure fire winner. Even better then Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011), and that’s saying a lot because Ghost Protocol was tons of fun, however simple it was. The good thing about the action on this film is that the action sequences are intricate, extensive and aren't throw aways, they really go out of their way to do something that will entertain, that will sustain our attention for a long period of time. Don’t even think so hard about the story or if you’re getting it or not, remember everything will be explained in the climax, just go with the flow. By the time it’s all over you’ll be a satisfied moviegoer, that’s a guarantee!

Rating: 4 out of 5

Pixels (2015)

Pixels (2015)

Director: Chris Columbus

Cast: Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Michelle Monaghan, Peter Dinklage, Josh Gad, Brian Cox, Sean Bean, Dan Aykroyd

Currently, it feels as if people are programmed to hate any Adam Sandler film released, even without having seen it. They’re prerogative is that Adam Sandler no longer makes “good movies”. Nowadays, you can’t read a review for an Adam Sandler film without it centering around how much Sandler sucks now and how he hasn’t made a good movie in eons and blah, blah, blah. I’m not into hating for hates sake, which is what is apparently happening with Sandler, it’s this hive like mentality of hatred towards Sandler. Where does the hatred stem from? Probably from the string of bad movies he’s been making. The last torturous one I saw was Jack and Jill (2011) and that one turned me off from seeing Sandler movies. How did I end up seeing that one in theaters you might ask? Well, I like to give movies the benefit of the doubt, sometimes I come out a winner and discover a film I would have not seen otherwise, but other times, like with Jack and Jill it’s just like“WHYYYYY?!” The way I see it and in Sandler’s defense I will say that we can’t really blame Sandler for making bland family movies, because that’s who he is, he’s the all encompassing actor who makes films that are supposed to appeal to everyone. He’s movies are made to be consumed in mass quantities and in order to do that, the film has to be a certain way. They can’t be too intense, or bloody, or offensive or violent, they gotta have that ‘feel good, nothing bad is going to happen’ vibe to them. Like, don’t take nothing to seriously, you’re here just to have some fun. Let’s just accept that he’s the guy who makes that type of film, that’s who he’s become. He’s gone the way of Eddie Murphy, but in a successful way? My advice is, if you don’t like the crappy pappy movies that Sandler makes, don’t go and see them! Just wait until he works with a good director, gets critical acclaim again and makes something like Punch Drunk Love (2002), his only truly good film if you ask me.

So just how squeaky clean is Pixels? Well, just by way of an example, in one scene when Sandler sees Pac-Man eat the hand of his creator, and Sandler he says “that was some weird….stuff” instead of “That was some weird…shit!” He even pauses before saying ‘stuff’ as if mentally correcting himself saying “nope, gotta keep it PG-13!” But whatever man, you can say “shit” in a PG-13 movie, it’s just that you’re so self censored that you can’t even bring yourself to say shit. The most basic of cusses. It feels as if Sandler is in a censored state of mind even as he films, in other words, no real space to cut loose and go crazy. Feels like there’s no improv and if you have a good comedian on your film, usually that’s where comedy gold is at, the improv. But no, dialog here is clean as a whistle, god forbid word of mouth spreads and a mother ends up saying something like “my kid is not going to see that nasty Adam Sandler movie, he’s always cussing”. So following Sandler’s squeaky clean movie rules, the film will have kids and families, often times dysfunctional families facing problems and overcoming them (like a divorce for example) and Sandler will be sympathetic and kind to the kid in the movie because that’s the target audience. So this is the kind of movie you can expect my friends. A film following a formula every step of the way. Nothing is to be taken too seriously; you can’t invest yourself emotionally because you know nobody will die. Not in a squeaky clean Adam Sandler family movie like this one, so just sit back and watch the fireworks, which is really the only thing that this movie is good for.

Some folks seem to think that this film was based on an episode of Futurama that has a similar premise, but in reality, this film is based on a French short film that lasts only about 2 ½ minutes, it is also called Pixels (which you can see here) and it sets the ground rules for the look and the mechanics of the’ video games come to life’ part of the film. The short makes no sense or meaning, it just shows us a guy putting an old television in the garbage and suddenly from said television all these old video games emerge. Suddenly Donkey Kong is on top of the Empire State building throwing barrels, Pac Man is eating street cars and Centipedes fly through the skies. In the short, the video game characters destroy the city by turning everything they touch into square little pixels, but that’s about as far as the thing goes. It has no story, no villains, no heroes, just a concept which Chris Columbus and Adam Sandler ran with and stretched into a film. And I say stretched because that’s what they did, the films premise is so simple, the story so non-existent, the characters so one note that they had to stretch things out. Pixels feels  repetitive and one note; we fight one video game, beat it, then fight the next one, and they go on and on like this till the end. There’s nothing unexpected here, this is as formulaic as it gets. Worst part? This is the kind of movie in which the trailer has shown you everything. If you’ve seen the trailer, then you know, step by step how this movie is going to go.

What this movie is though is a nostalgia bomb. If you were born in the 80’s and played video games in arcades the way I did, you will feel a shot of nostalgia in your system. I have to admit it was cool seeing a giant Pac-Man eating up taxi cabs and city streets, especially since I’m such a Pac-Man nut! It was awesome seeing a giant King Kong throwing barrels at Adam Sandler, and then there’s this scene where they simply throw as many old video game characters on the screen as they can, so you’ll see Frogger, Q-bert, Paperboy, Centipede, Galaga, Space Invaders…and that’s without counting all the other characters from 80’s pop culture that show up in the film like Max Headroom, Ronald Reagan, Madonna and Hall & Oates. The soundtrack is made up of hits from the 80’s all the way. So in this sense, the movie proves entertaining to an extent, you will be like “Oh there’s Q-Bert!” Still, I think they could have used even more classic video game characters on the film, apparently they could only afford to use a limited amount of characters. Where was the knight from Ghosts and Goblins? Sadly, the novelty of seeing old video game characters on screen is the only thing this film has to offer, the movie itself is just a bunch of empty calories starting by the fact that the villains in this movie are faceless, we never really know who they are because they talk through videogame characters. So suddenly, our favorite old school video games are evil. I mean, I never saw Pac-Man as a bad guy? But there he is eating people up! So yeah, this is yet another film with a weak villain whom we never even get to meet. Pixels is extremely simple and banal that’s all I can say.

Chris Columbus directs this film and it's sad to see him directing such a simplistic film, considering he's actually done decent family films like Home Alone and Home Alone 2, hell this is the guy who wrote Gremlins (1984) and freaking The Goonies (1985)! I would have liked something from Columbus with a little more story put into it, instead the whole film runs on a gag, not really even trying to get us invested. Pixel does have its moments, again, mostly its moments are associated with the appearance of the giant video game characters, but where’s the comedy? It’s not here; Pixels feels like they are not even really trying. I mean, you got all these good actors and comedians in your movie, why not have them throw in some of their own personality, let them improvise, let them put a little of their soul into the proceedings. This is the reason why Ghostbusters (1984) worked so well, it had a lot of Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd in it, it’s their personalities that bring those characters to life. In contrast, on Pixels Sandler seems to have no personality, he’s got this spaced out, bored look on his face all the time? Like he doesn’t even want to speak? He’s so laid back that he comes of as lifeless. So yeah, I get why people hate on Sandler so much, he’s just not doing anything relevant lately, I hope he gets his mojo back at some point. Still, Pixels isn’t terrible, it’s completely watchable, just not very engaging or hilarious. It’s simply put a very average film. But hey, there’s Frogger jumping and smashing a car into pieces! Cool!

Rating: 2 out of 5 

Ant-Man (2015)

Ant-Man (2015)

Director: Peyton Reed

Cast: Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Evangeline Lilly, Michael Pena

Ant-Man’s a superhero character that has always been underestimated because you know, what’s his power? Getting real small? Wow. People think, what, he talks to ants? That’s his power? Which takes me back to when Garrett Morris (who by the way cameos in this film as a Taxi Driver) played Ant-Man in  the fourth season of Saturday Night Live. In that sketch, a bunch of superheroes are gathered in a party and Flash (played by Dan Aykroyd) and Hulk (played by John Belushi) are giving Ant-Man a rough time, making fun of his super powers. The Hulk looks at Ant-Mans ass and asks “where you got your ants?” and The Flash is like “Hey Hulk, check this guy out, he has human strength!” And that was the 70’s! Today people feel the same, like Ant-Man is not one of the big heroes. Ever since an Ant-Man movie was announced, I myself thought it wouldn’t be a huge hit because when compared to the big superheroes like Thor or Iron Man, well, Ant-Man’s “small potatoes”. And so I kept thinking, this is going to be the first Marvel Studios movie to flop; I know I wasn’t alone in thinking this way. Most film critics and movies buffs thought the same; our collective expectations for an Ant-Man movie were low all around. Plus, Ant-Man isn’t a a new character (he's been around since the 60's) but he's not household name like Spider-man or Superman, this guy is really new to the masses. So it’s to be expected that the level of excitement surrounding the Ant-Man movie was nowhere near as high as other Marvel movies. Hell, I was already branding it a future flop! It goes without saying that Marvel Studios had a huge task in their hands to try and convince us that this movie was just as valid and entertaining as previous Marvel films. So, was it? Is Ant-Man one of the good ones? Is it a worthy addition to the already awesome Marvel Studios cinematic roster?

Movies about miniaturization have been around for quite a while, here’s a couple of them: The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957), Fantastic Voyage (1966),  The Incredible Shrinking Woman (1981), Innerspace (1987) and Honey I Shrunk the Kids (1989) all of these deal with people who are shrunk to microscopic size. They all have one thing in common, the effects work involved building props and sets that made humans look small and the creative use of foreground and background imagery; all done to create the illusion of a human that’s microscopic in size. Other films that played with these types of special effects were Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959), The Gnome Mobile (1967) and The Borrowers (1997). Ant-Man has the advantage of modern day computer effects which gives the movie an upper hand that previous movies with this theme never had. In other words, the effects work on this movie is top notch and surpasses anything that had ever been done in these types of movies before. Camera angles take us into the smallest places imaginable. Ever been sucked into the inside of a vacuum cleaner? Well, now you’ll know what that feels like. You ever wanted to know what it feels like to be inside of an anthill? Look no further, Ant-Man takes us there! This is something I really enjoyed, the concept that we are seeing things we will probably never get to see. This is the films most innovative angle, its strongest attribute. Ant-Man isn’t about gigantic black holes opening up in the middle of New York City, nope, this one goes the opposite way, to the microverse, the idea of “worlds within worlds”.

Ant-Man takes a cue from Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in the sense that it’s lighthearted, entertaining and fast paced. The dialog is often times funny as are the situations. The addition of Michael Pena to the cast was a good choice, he offers up some of the funniest moments in the movie. Ant-Man also has heart and soul, because it’s all about a dad wanting to prove his worth to his daughter. You see, this is the story of Scott Lang, a burglar who’s just gotten out of prison and now that he is finally out, he wants to do good. He wants to be the good guy for this daughter; he wants to finally take the reins of fatherhood. But it isn’t easy when you’re an ex-con and not even Baskin Robbins will give you a job. So of course, stealing shit is the only option Scott has, or is it? Basically this is a story about Scott Lang’s redemption, which he gets a shot at thanks to Hank Pym, the original Ant-Man who wants to give Scott a second chance at life by passing the Ant-Man torch over to him.  Will he prove to be a worthy successor to the Ant-Man legacy? Will he ever regain his daughters respect?

So it was the idea that this was “just” a movie about a guy who gets really small and controls ants that made me think this movie was going to be so-so, yet what surprised me the most about Ant-Man is how far they took the concept of miniaturization. They really do play a lot with the idea, they even went with the idea of enlarging things which was awesome, and it really presented us with some unexpected concepts. For example, how far can you miniaturize a person? What happens when you reach a sub-atomic level? What happens when you get smaller than an atom and beyond? This took the film into surreal territory, in fact, I felt like I was truly going into the unknown. In some ways it reminded me of movies dealing with Black Holes, where the big mystery is what happens after we actually go into the black hole. Disney’s own The Black Hole (1979) played with traveling into the unknow. In that film, when they go into the black hole the film suddenly turns into a surreal, dreamlike nightmare! Ant-man has moments such as these, in fact, in the theater I was in, somebody said “that’s fucking weeeeiiiirrrd!” during said scenes. I felt pretty much the same way, which was awesome; it’s not every day that a film can actually amaze you with its concepts. So yeah, conceptually speaking, Ant-Man is a winner.

The film has a few surprises up its sleeves so keep your eyes peeled. I like how they introduce us to the idea of Ant-Man becoming one of the Avengers because if we get down to it, Ant-Man was actually in the very first original line up of the avengers, way back in Avengers #1 (1963) so it makes perfect sense that they are so obviously lining the character up for greatness on a future Avengers film. Actually, one of the after credits sequences (of which there are two) connects Ant-Man directly with Captain American: Civil War (2016). I love how they are mixing all these characters and films; it really does feel as if they are part of one cohesive universe. But I see what Disney/Marvel is doing here. They want to make a really kick ass first movie (which in my opinion they’ve pulled off) so you’ll have no problem in accepting Ant-Man as a future member of The Avengers. Paul Rudd did a fantastic job as Ant-Man, he is the perfect fit for the character, he plays the everyman to perfection. Michael Douglas and Paul Rudd have great chemistry together. Kudos to Michael Douglas for finally playing likable characters, for a while, all Douglas ever played was assholes. Here he plays the very likable Dr. Hank Pym. Evangeline Lilly rounds things up rather nicely, I have a feeling we will be seeing a whole lot more of her in future films. I’m looking forward to seeing this new chapter of the Marvel Cinematic Universe develop further, but for now, don’t underestimate Ant-Man, it’s a kick ass, fun ride every step of the way.

Rating: 5 out of 5 

Dan Aykroyd (left) and Garrett Morris (right) making fun of superheroes on SNL

Terminator: Genisys (2015)

Terminator: Genisys (2015)

Director: Alan Taylor

Cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jason Clarke, Emilia Clarke, Jai Courtney, J.K. Simmons

Terminator: Genisys is one of those movies that nobody really felt safe about because, if it’s a Terminator film and Terminator creator James Cameron isn’t involved, then what’s the point right? Terminator (1984) and Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1995) are as mind blowing as they are because of Cameron’s involvement and because of the creative team that he amassed to make them. A work of art is the way it is because of the artist behind it. In the world of film making certain directors stand out as having their own unique style. There’s only one Sam Raimi, there’s only one David Lynch, and there’s only one James Cameron. You try and follow in the footsteps of a distinctive filmmaker that everybody loves and you’ve got trouble coming at you on a massive scale. In this sense, Alan Taylor, the director behind Thor: The Dark World (2013) had a gargantuan task in front of him. Why give a huge film like this one to a director whose only made one film prior to this one? It was probably a monetary decision; inexperienced directors are probably cheaper than paying an a-lister. Still, a Terminator film is better than no Terminator film so of course I decided to give Terminator: Genisys a chance. The previews didn’t look to promising, but I’d read some good reviews saying it was at the very least, entertaining. So is this new Terminator movie worth a damn?

The thing about Terminator sequels from Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) onward is that they’ve all been made by different production companies, so each sequel has a different tone and voice to it. Most of them have tried to imitate James Cameron’s first two films. Did they try and fail? No. They tried and died. The rights to the Terminator films have been bouncing around from Production Company to Production Company like a hyper active jumping bean. Sadly, this has created unevenness in the whole franchise, actors keep changing, concepts get twisted…by now we’ve had four different actors play John Connor! And that’s without including the television show! The only consistency in these films has come from Arnold Schwarzenegger who keeps coming back to play the T-800 because he is very fond of this particular franchise almost as much as he’s fond of the Conan franchise. No matter how shitty the idea, he’s going to be there because Terminator and Conan made Arnold who he is, those where the films that truly put him on the map. So here he is, back again in another Terminator sequel without James Cameron behind the camera. My question is, if it wasn’t for Arnold, would we even care about these sequels? I’m thinking Arnold is the only thing keeping us old school Terminator fans going back to these films. Thankfully, we do get a good dose of Arnold throughout the whole film; he’s on it for most of the running time which is great. The younger cgi version of Arnold was well achieved in my book, not as fake as I thought it would look.

    

The thing about these sequels (at least from my point of view) is that they are not complete crap. In my book, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) was a decent sequel; it had tons of action and took the story to interesting places. I didn’t like Nich Stahl as John Connor, but whatever, the movie was well made. After Rise of the Machines, the rights went to some other production company and so those characters were never heard of again. And then we got Terminator: Salvation (2009), which introduced us to a whole other set of actors, characters and premises. Salvation had its moments, but it kind of fell apart in its third act, the way these filmmakers envisioned Skynet was such a letdown! And now with Terminator: Genisys we’re presented yet again with a new premise set of actors and so forth, there’s just no consistency with this series of films! Each one is a different take on the Terminator universe and not a true blue sequel with any sort of continuity. The big problem is there’s no creative force uniting these films, like say George Lucas behind the Star Wars films. Fine, so the sequels are all a disparate bunch, what was this fifth installment like? 

Basically the idea behind this sequel is forget everything that happened in the previous films because what happens on this film is an alternate timeline, so everything has changed. If you thought this was going to be a remake, then you will soon discover you were completely wrong, this is a straight reboot of the franchise. For a moment we do visit 1984 and we get to see familiar events transpire, we soon discover this isn’t the same 1984 we saw in Cameron’s The Terminator (1984). This is where I step in and warn you that the whole time travel element can get a bit confusing, so you’re better off just ignoring the whole time travel mumbo jumbo and just enjoy the movie, it’s what I did and it worked out just fine. Time travel movies by nature can get your brain circuits all crossed, especially when Arnold starts talking about quantum fields and nexuses and time points…my advice is let it all glaze over. That being said, I was having a blast with the first half of Genisys. The film functions as a prequel, showing us the events that lead to Kyle Reese being sent to 1984. This part of the film I really loved! These are events that have always been alluded to in previous films but were never shown, so it was great to finally get to see how it all went down.

In terms of action and special effects, nothing will ever surpass Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1995). What James Cameron offers us with his movies is jaw dropping action scenes that are meticulously planned; showstoppers that take over the film. This is something that a lot of the directors that have taken over the franchise don’t understand; the action in these films has to be special because it’s what we’ve become accustomed to. Action scenes can’t be five second cgi cheats, they can’t be run of the mill chase sequences, they have to be special somehow, they have to blow us away and they have to be spectacles. I mean, how bad ass was it when they blew up that real building in T2? Sadly, no single Terminator sequel has ever come close to achieving this level of awesomeness, Genisys included. While Genisys does have explosive action sequences, there’s nothing that offers that extra wow factor because we know a lot of it wasn’t done live. Most of the stunts and action scenes in Genisys are computer generated, including this nifty helicopter chase sequence that was cool, yet completely unrealistic, and realism my friends is what sells an action scene. One other action sequence involving a school bus in the San Francisco Bridge was cool, but sadly falls on cliché. How many times have we seen a car or a truck flip over? How many times have we seen said vehicle dangling from the edge of a bridge? Actually, that scene with the bus dangling from the bridge was the only true letdown in the whole film for me, I was rolling my eyes. So the film does have its action, it’s just nothing that we haven’t seen before.  

The film does have a decent cast holding it together and that’s a bonus for this one. The ones that stood out for me were Emilia Clarke as Sarah Connor and Jason Clarke as John Connor, they offered good, solid performances. J.K. Simmons does his usual crazy guy thing here, again, but of course it’s J.K. Simmon’s so it’s entertaining. And of course, it was a pleasure seeing Arnold back (just like he always said he would) playing The Terminator. Its funny how they’ve gone and switched things around making the monster from the first film into a father figure throughout the rest of the sequels. This is one of the things that I miss the most from the original film, that feeling like you’re in a horror movie, and The Terminator is the monster. That first film has a feeling of dread that none of the sequels has been able to match. By comparison, this new one feels like a family film. No guts, no nudity, no profanity, no blood. The first film was for adults, a hard ‘R’, this one is aimed at everyone. Everything here is squeaky safe, a la Disney films. There’s no edge like in the first film, when the Terminator rips his hand open to fix it, or when he gauges out his eye. There’s no steamy sex scene...once again, the dreaded terror of the PG-13 rating has struck with a vengeance. It’s the same cleansing process that films like Total Recall, Robocop and Poltergeist went through with their remakes. I’m dying to see films with an edge again. I remember going to the theater at one time was kind of scary because you never knew when a film was going to go “over the line” and shock you. Nowadays it’s all a lot of gee whiz effects, but none of the edge. It’s all perfectly safe entertainment. Terminator: Genisys falls in that ballpark.

Bottom line with Terminator: Genisys is it didn’t surpass my expectations, but it didn’t piss me off either.  James Cameron endorsed this film by saying that “if you like the Terminator films, you’ll love this movie”, and I have to say that I agree somewhat with this statement. Genisys does give us a lot of visual homage’s to the first two films and then twists them around just when you think you know what’s going to happen, I really liked that. It has many inside jokes that Terminator fans will no doubt enjoy. Also as a fan of the first two Terminator films, I was twisting and turning in my seat with some of the events that transpire which is a good thing. At least the film was getting a reaction from me. But essentially, what we have here is a squeaky clean reboot of a franchise that has had trouble trying to return to the grandeur that once was. They’ve gone and rebooted Terminator for a generation that has been born and bred in PG-13 cinema. Once again, a franchise has been neutered. Still, I reiterate that it’s not a total disaster, but then again, I don’t want a Terminator film that’s just ‘okay’ I want one that will freaking blow me away! Let’s see if this film makes enough money to jumpstart a new cycle of Terminator films. They better spit out as many as they can before 2018, when the rights to the Terminator films go back to James Cameron! That will be the day! Maybe then we’ll see a decent Terminator film, cause god knows only Cameron knows how to make a Terminator film right.

Rating: 3 out of 5   

   

Jurassic World (2015)

Jurassic World (2015)

Director: Colin Trevorrow

Cast: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins, Nick Robinson, Irrfan Khan

The concept of an amusement park filled with dinosaurs is an attractive one because, let's be honest, who wouldn’t kill to see living breathing dinosaurs? In the Jurassic Park franchise genetic manipulation and biological tinkering have made it possible for us to see ancient creatures that were once extinct, same as if you were visiting a zoo. Unfortunately, as the last three films have taught us, giant meat eating dinosaurs are not that easy to keep in captivity. This is the fourth film in the beloved Jurassic Park franchise, and it’s only now, after four films and three failed test runs, that the park finally opens its doors to the public. Only now it’s called Jurassic World. Why would anyone want to visit a park where many people have died at the hands of genetically mutated dinosaurs is beyond me, but I guess the idea behind Jurassic World is that people have gotten over the events that occurred in Jurassic Park (1993), The Lost World (1997) and Jurassic Park III (2001). I guess the curiosity of seeing real live dinosaurs is just too much, people just don’t care, they’re going anyway. Chalk it up to confidence in human superiority. Our conquest over the natural world, we’re the kings of the planet and all that. I guess its similar to how people still go on roller coasters rides, even though people have died riding them. Just google the words “roller coaster tragedy” and you’ll see what I mean.  The premise for Jurassic World is that the park has been up and running for some time now, and that seeing a T-Rex or a Velociraptor is now commonplace. What can park owners do to keep the masses entertained?  And how long before the shit hits the fan?

Jurassic Park are a series of films with strong foundations on Michael Crichton’s book about genetic manipulation being conducted in secret islands, unbeknownst to the rest of the world. I remember reading Jurassic Park eons ago, it had an essay that talked all about how these genetic experiments are actually conducted with sheep, we just don’t know it. This gave the whole novel and subsequent film a scary legitimacy; a plausibility that might not have been there otherwise. Suddenly the story had foundations in the real world. Mix that idea with an amusement park gone berserk and you have a winner. Genetic engineering has always been a scary sort of concept; it makes humans seem like gods, playing with life, this is the reason why it’s always been a controversial matter in the real world. To this day, Crichton continues exploring this theme in his post Jurassic Park work, like for example, his 2006 novel entitled ‘Next’, a novel in which he continues to explore genetic research and corporate greed.  Jurassic World explores these ideas via these scientists that splice DNA from different dinosaurs to create entirely new species of dinosaurs. This is how we come about the main baddie in this film, the new dino created solely for Jurassic World, the ‘Indominous Rex’, a mix between a Velociraptor and a bunch of other dinosaurs. 

  

The concept of an amusement park in chaos is nothing new to Crichton, who explored this premise in the film Westworld (1973), a film Crichton himself directed about an amusement park that reproduced the old west, down to having cowboys walking down the streets, cantinas you could visit and horses you could ride. Tourists could come in and live in the old west for a couple of days. Things get crazy when robot cowboys malfunction and start shooting the tourists. As you can see, Crichton has been toying around with these ideas since the 70’s. In fact, Hollywood has used this concept before in films like Jaws 3-D (1983), were a vengeful shark runs amok inside of a Sea World, eating the people on the water rides. So to the seasoned movie buff, this concept is nothing new. What does Jurassic World have to offer that we haven’t seen before? A whole lot as it turns out because we’d never seen this concept played out with dinosaurs! These films strive on that one moment when it’s all about the chaos and the thousands of park goers running for their lives! There’s an awesome moment where Pterodactyls break loose and start snatching up tourists! Chaos indeed!

Of course comparisons to Jurassic Park (1993) are inevitable, so let’s get them out of the way. True there are nods to the original film, which fans will immediately spot. We revisit places from the first film, we see certain recognizable props and vehicles from Spielberg’s original. Some scenes in Jurassic World pay homage to Spielberg’s film, but that’s just director Colin Trevorrow respectfully acknowledging Spielberg’s genius. Thankfully the films offers us original elements as well, it’s not all one big homage like some reviewers are making it out to seem. In terms of the way it was made, well, Spielberg’s Jurassic Park is special in the sense that it mixed practical, physical effects with digital ones. Back in ’93, when Jurassic Park was made, it was the first film that showed the world how far digital effects could go when done right. I remember the first time I saw Jurassic Park in theaters! I was blown away, and yes, why not, I’ll admit it, when the T-Rex first roared, I got goose bumps. It looked so real. A lot of it had to do with the use of amazing puppets built for the film. If you go back and see Jurassic Park (1993) you’ll see, most of the time, the T-Rex is not computer animated, most of the time; it was all done through giant, life size puppets. Fast forward 22 years into the future and filmmaking has drastically changed, today computer animation has completely taken over movie making and so, we don’t see many puppets on this film. Most of the time, the dinosaurs are entirely computer generated. That’s just the way cinema is nowadays, so I guess we just have to accept it and enjoy those few moments when an adventurous filmmaker decides to make things the old fashioned way. Yet, when computer effects are done right they can blow us away and Jurassic World has good computer animation, so in that area, you won’t feel let down. We get top notch computer animation here.   We also get to see dinosaurs we haven’t seen before, like the giant whale dino.  

The film moves at a great pace, it slowly introduces us into the whole world. We get to see how the park works, who runs it. It takes its time to set things up properly, which is something I liked. You feel like you’re watching a real movie as opposed to a movie that’s in a hurry to get to the “good stuff” without setting up things properly first. In my opinion it’s a very well structured film. In fact, if you ask me, I say that that this film is better than The Lost World (1997) in the sense that The Lost World, though entertaining, felt like it was an unnecessary sequel which ran on one simple premise alone, putting the dinosaurs within the context of the city landscape. The third one was also pointless to me. In contrast Jurassic World feels like a natural continuation of the original story line which had everything to do with opening the park to the public, which finally happens here. I loved the way they portrayed the fully functional park, you’ll wish that it existed! Another plus is of course Chris Pratt as Owen, playing the role of what can only be described as a ‘Raptor Whisperer’. Chris Pratt looks like Indiana Jones on this one, it wouldn’t surprise me if he actually ends up wearing the Fedora hat at some point in his career, especially now that he is working with Spielberg. So that’s it ladies and gents. What we got here is a film that doesn’t surpass the original but is better than all previous sequels. All in all, a fun time at the movies.

Rating: 4 out of 5  

11 Reasons Why Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) is Cinematic Gold

Like most film buffs out there, I’ve seen Mad Max: Fury Road more than once already and I've realized one thing: I’m ready for another watch! Actually, I’m seeing it tonight, on the silver screen, where it should be seen! If you haven’t seen Mad Max: Fury Road yet, stop whatever you are doing and watch it! This movie is a masterpiece and I’m using that term in the most literal way possible. Mad Max: Fury Road is George Miller’s best film to date, Miller finally made the Mad Max movie that he's always wanted to make. But why is Mad Max: Fury Road so freaking cool? Well, it’s a spectacle in every sense of the word, it's sensory overload! At times there’s so much coolness happening on the screen that I simply could not take my eyes off the screen! This does not happen often. Usually I’m rolling my eyes back at the stupidity I see in theater screens, but with Mad Max: Fury Road it was like watching a masterpiece unfold, like I was being a part of cinematic history by watching this one for the first time in theaters. So since this film has turned me Mad Max crazy, I’ve decided to count the many ways in which this film kicks ass, just to make sure that you, my dear readers, finally take the plunge and see this one in theaters. So kick back and relax, cause up next, I offer you 11 reasons why Mad Max: Fury road is the best Mad Max yet!

It’s Pure Eye Candy

Normally one doesn’t associate the post apocalypse with color because post apocalyptic movies are usually a bleak and dark looking bunch. Not so with Mad Max: Fury Road! On this film George Miller wanted to create a beautiful and colorful take of the apocalypse. This doesn’t mean that the movie loses its post apocalyptic look or feel. You’re not going to see rainbows and flowery fields on this film, this is still very much George Miller’s post apocalyptic wasteland, but the color palette that was used turns everything into intense reds, yellows, blues. It’s no wonder one of the characters says: “Oh what a lovely day!” Indeed.

The Post Apocalyptic Wasteland is Epic on this One

If you’ve seen the Mad Max trilogy, you probably noticed that the post apocalyptic wasteland grows with every picture. Where the first one only showed us a glimpse of society disintegrating, by the second film the post apocalypse shows its head and the craziness begins to grow. By Thunder Dome we have entire societies forming, trying to reinstate normalcy by adding a form of government with new rules and laws. But this growth is only natural, with each movie, the budget kept growing. For example, with the first film Miller had less than ten million dollars to fulfill his post apocalyptic vision, but for Fury Road Miller managed to get 150 million, so of course the post apocalyptic wasteland we get in Fury Road is more epic than what we’d seen in previous films. The society that we are presented with on this film has actually found a way to survive in the wasteland; a society whose main concerns are feeding, breeding and driving cars. They’ve even created a new religion where heaven is called Valhalla and you have to spray metallic colored spray on your mouth before you die serving your leader! The post apocalypse has never looked or felt more epic.

Say Goodbye to The Interceptor and Hello to Imperator Furiosa’s War Rig

In the first five minutes we are treated to visuals of Max, basking in the wasteland with his trademark Interceptor parked by his side. The Interceptor still looks every bit as cool and kick ass as it ever did, but Miller apparently wanted you to cut ties with the old movies and absorb the new one, so in the first few minutes during Fury Road its goodbye to The Interceptor which gets taken out of commission rather quickly. Of course, you came to see a Mad Max movie; you want more of that cool looking Interceptor. But wait, we are then presented with Imperator Furiosa’s War Rig which is this kick ass gigantic rig that Max drives for most of the flick, it’s just awesome looking. When you see how cool it looks in action you won’t have time to even remember The Interceptor. Of course, The Interceptor can never be replaced, but the War Rig is a fine substitute; at least for this film. And speaking of cars…

The Cars are Bigger and More Elaborate

Since this time around George Miller has a bigger budget to bring his visions to life, this time the cars are bigger and way crazier in design. I loved the cars in this movie! I was watching Road Warrior the other day and really, the cars in Fury Road leave the cars in previous Mad Max films in the dust. They are bigger and way more outlandish! You have to see them to understand but these are monster trucks, gigantic in proportion, with more fiery turbines and gigantic tires than you can shake a stick at! They are awesome to see in action!  Once again, you get the feeling that this is what George Miller always wanted to do with his Mad Max films, and since this is the most expensive Mad Max of all, he really wen't crazy with the designs for the cars. Everything is bigger and crazier! 

It Plays with Interesting Themes.

The first one was a revenge flick, the second one was purely about survival and the third one was about Max the savior. What’s this fourth outing about? Well, on this film Max plays the savior once again, helping Imperator Furiosa and her five lady friends reach ‘The Green Place’. In this sense, Fury Road felt a bit like Thunder Dome. Yet this new film also plays with new themes to the series, namely, it’s all about feminism. On this film, Immortan Joe treats women like breading cattle. For Immortan Joe, women are for procreation and for drinking their delicious breast milk. It is alluded that they are objects to him, which is why the five wives run away with Imperator Furiosa, leaving graffiti all over Immortan Joe’s chambers that read “We are not things!” and "Our babies will not be Warlords!" Also sending a message of peace. So Immortan Joes wives run off in search of their freedom, hopefully to a place where they can be treated as human beings.The film also touches upon politics and religion through the characters of Immortan Joe and his crew of zealot followers. They will do anything to serve the Immortan, but at the end of the day, it's all a facade. Immortan Joe is a sick man, lying to all of his followers. Ultimately, they learn that a god can die.   

It Isn’t Centered Around Max, Yet the Movie Still Manages to Grab You

This is probably the only hiccup I found in this film, that it wasn’t really centered on Max, it's Theron's Imperator Furiosa who takes center stage. But, on my second watching I realized this really doesn’t matter. Aside from the fact that Theron's character is great, and their story a good one, this wasteland is such an interesting place, filled with so many crazy characters and cool looking cars that I realized that the real star of these films is the world that Max inhabits. It is so rich, so well constructed. Sure Max is the driving force at the core of these films, but the world he inhabits is really what wows us. I’m sure Miller will give us more of Max in future films, but the star of the show will always be The Wasteland Miller has created. Even the title of the proposed next film lets us see what these films are all about. The next films title is: Mad Max: The Wasteland.

It Is George Miller’s Best Film to Date, Period.

I’ve seen all of George Miller’s films and he has a pretty solid repertoire. First of course there’s the Mad Max franchise, but then we have the ‘Nightmare at 20,000 Feet’ segment from Twilight Zone: The Movie (1982 ). Millers segment was so good that they used it to close the film with a bang. The Witches of Eastwick (1987) is a great film about Satan (played by Jack Nicholson) falling in lustful love with three witches played by Susan Sarandon, Michelle Pfeiffer and Cher. It’s an awesome comedy, from the bygone era when they made comedies for adults. Its script explored the nature of men and women, relationships and sex. The film also has some excellent visual effects. Then Miller went with a dramatic film called Lorenzo’s Oil (1992), a story about two parents who never gave up in trying to find the cure for their sons decease. Then he made three children’s films one after the other: Babe: Pig in the City (1998), Happy Feet (2006) and Happy Feet Two (2011). I’m of the mind that Miller made these in order to make the studios happy so they would give him the money to make Mad Max: Fury Road (2015). To me Fury Road is the culmination of all of Miller’s cinematic knowledge. Mad Max: Fury Road is without a doubt in my mind Millers most amazing, escapist fantasy. The cinematic wizardry displayed in this film and the sheer understanding of what makes a film amazing could only come from a master with the knowledge and experience that Miller has acquired through the years.  

Computer Generated Effects Do Not Take Over the Film!

This is something we hardly see today. A film that was actually shot in front of the cameras and not inside of a computer! Do you know how I’ve longed to see a movie like this one? Only a handful of directors have resisted giving into using computer effects extensively, Tarantino and Scorsese come to mind. These are directors who understand that a film simply looks better when it’s actually shot on film in front of a camera, with actors and sets. Nothing can replace that realistic, tangible feeling you get from capturing visuals through the lens of a camera. Of course Miller uses computer generated wizardry as well, but he uses it to enhance what he has already filmed, to paint a landscape, a vast colorful wasteland. In no moment do you feel that you are watching minutes upon minutes of entirely computer generated images. Nope, on this film the cars blow up in your face and the fire and brimstone feels and looks real. Thank you mister Miller for that! Lovers of film were missing that real, tangible cinema!

Intensely Evil Maniacal Villains are Back!

Yes! Finally! This is something I loved from films that came out of the 80’s the villains where insane and maniacal! Absolutely psychotic! Memorable! Hell, sometimes the villain would steal the show and become the main character of the film. Remember those days when we’d get villains like Jack Nicholson as The Joker in Tim Burton’s Batman (1989)? How about Clarence Boddicker, the crazy bad guy from Paul Verhoeven’s Robocop (1987)? Still remember them don’t you? That’s what you call a memorable villain. Sadly, Hollywood’s current idea of a villain is a banal one. Today’s films are filled with lifeless villains you could hardly tell apart from the good guys. For an example of this watch the Robocop remake, blah. Invisible villains seems to be the order of the day at Hollywood. Thankfully, truly evil bat shit insane villains have always been one of George Miller’s specialties. Remember The Toecutter from Mad Max (1979)? That guy scared me as a kid! How about Lord Humungus from Mad Max 2 (1981)? Totally insane, that one even went for sadomasochism! Immortan Joe is another fine addition to the list of insane villains and it’s the kind of villain I love. Over the top, crazy looking and relentless! Boy, I had truly been missing these kinds of memorable villains in my movies. Thank you George Miller for bringing that back!

It Feels Like the 80’s Again!

The ideas in this film are so crazy that they bring to mind the 80’s, a decade when the craziest films would get made. I mean, who the hell green lit Dead Heat (1988) you know what I mean? But suddenly, there you are, watching a zombie cop, fighting a re-animated dead cow and you’re left wondering just how the hell did this movie get to the silver screen? Who the hell said sure, here, take 5 million dollars and make that zombie buddy cop movie you always wanted to make? I don’t know, but it was the 80’s and crazy movies like that one would get made left and right and get released in theaters! Nowadays seeing a movie of such a crazy nature released theatrically is a rare thing. Machete (2006) and MacheteKills (2013) are two rare exceptions. Want to make a movie about a baby crazed, milk drinking villain who runs a post apocalyptic society with an iron fist and likes to chase heroes through the dessert on monster trucks? Sure, here you go Mr. Miller! And you say you want a truck with a rock and roll stage on it, with flame throwing guitars? Sure, here’s 150 million! Do your best! Make your masterpiece! And thank the movie gods, Miller did just that!

Mad Max: Fury Road is Why We Go to the Movies!

We go to the movies to escape our reality, to let our minds go for a while and escape the every day life. We want to see something grand, something amazing and Mad Max: Fury Road offers us that and then some. It's non stop action from beginning to end, now go and watch this masterpiece before it leaves theaters. This kind of film only comes around once in a blue moon. It’s a special kind of film, the kind that is crafted not by a studio but by a filmmaker who truly wanted to make it. Mad Max: Fury Road is the reason why we go to the movies, now go watch it where it’s meant to be seen: in the theater!