Re: Terminator 5

41
Alexhead wrote:Sadly I'll admit that my son really wants to see this so we'll probably go.
Can't you just tell him you got a advance dvd copy of the film and then show him the first two edited together? If you don't at least try this trick then I take back everything I said about good parenting. :)
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Terminator 5

42
He's already seen T2, hence is desire to see this. I suppose even if it sucks it'll be a decent bonding exercise. Same for Jurassic World.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Terminator 5

44
I have yet to see a positive review of this film. Even people who love all the films in the series including the shitty last two seem to think this one is rubbish.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Terminator 5

45
I think a pretty big tipoff has been the utter awfulness of the trailers. Sheesh, you can make a Michael Bay movie look good in a trailer.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

Re: Terminator 5

46
Aren't they trumpeting the fact that Cameron gave it a thumbs up? I'll probably be the one to fill you all in firsthand on how awful it is as It appears I'll be taking my son as noted above. He's getting pretty good at separating the trash from the treasures though, I let him watch Alien 3 this weekend and he thought it was "OK, but definitely not as good as the first two. Kind of the same thing over and over, and a lot of bald guys saying 'fuck' again and again."
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Terminator 5

47
Alexhead wrote: I'll probably be the one to fill you all in firsthand on how awful it is as It appears I'll be taking my son as noted above.
Did you go?
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

Re: Terminator 5

48
Managed to avoid it so far but I think I owe him a screening this weekend, probably Sunday.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Terminator 5

49
Well, let's start with the positives. I was really hungry by the time we got to the Alamo so my burger tasted fantastic. The sizzle reel Alamo always puts together in lieu of commercials was hilarious as usual, with lots of bootleg Terminator toys from around the world, not to mention clips from movies of the same ilk. And J.K. Simmons is in the credits! So there's that.

Semi-seriously, you can tell that some well intentioned fans of the original pair were tasked with regurgitating this thing and maybe shocking some life into Arnold's career, and came upon some potentially interesting character and plot twists that might have played out nicely in better hands. Two major updates to SkyNet had potential, at least on a surface glance. And the digital anti-aging they do on Arnold is ten times better than what we got in Tron: Legacy, so it doesn't yank you out of the proceedings the way that one did. A couple of the action setpieces are actually pretty well conceived and executed.

All that said, they looked at another franchise reboot that boldy went where no franchise had recently gone and said "hey, dudes, ALTERNATE TIMELINES!" Many high fives erupted in the writers room, and things proceeded to turn into an unintelligible mess by the third act. The first two almost have you hoping they'll stick the landing, but you're just left with a lot of head-scratching/banging depending on how seriously you're angered by time travel handled poorly (in other words, anyone reading this will probably be throwing shit at the screen by the 40 minute mark), a dumb happy ending that doesn't feel well earned, although the vague "what might come next" talk at the end is right up there with, well, Tron: Legacy as far as pisspoor halfhearted attempt at setting up a sequel. That's probably the good news, there's no goddamn sequel offered here. I of course didn't say there wouldn't be a reboot, though.

Forgot to mention the new Kyle Reese is a complete zero, and since in many respects HE is the central character this time around, they should have worked one hell of a lot harder on casting. Also, as you could probably figure out from the trailers, most of the action is a digital blur that feels like it's in green screen land and the stakes are zero. Methinks Alan Taylor is done with his 'continuing the franchise' gigs, maybe Game of Thrones will take him back.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Terminator 5

50
Alexhead wrote: That's probably the good news, there's no goddamn sequel offered here.
Oh, but there will be one. While the film is bombing here, it's doing reasonably well overseas. So I suspect we'll get stuck with more.

I hear the actress who plays Sara Connor is horribly miscast. Thoughts?
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Terminator 5

51
darkness wrote:
Alexhead wrote: That's probably the good news, there's no goddamn sequel offered here.
Oh, but there will be one. While the film is bombing here, it's doing reasonably well overseas. So I suspect we'll get stuck with more.

I hear the actress who plays Sara Connor is horribly miscast. Thoughts?
Emilia Clarke? Daenerys from Game of Thrones. She is actually a decent fit from a look standpoint, and isn't shamefully bad, but ultimately she's too soft, I mean everybody looks like a weaker casting choice, even the punks that proto-Arnold first rips his clothes off of in the first one. I'm much more hung up on how shitty Michael Biehn's replacement is, because again, his is really the central arc of the movie and it's a sloppy mess of a thing by the end. Seriously, I went in with no expectations, started to get mildly interested, and then it just toppled.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Terminator 5

52
Alexhead wrote:Emilia Clarke? Daenerys from Game of Thrones. She is actually a decent fit from a look standpoint, and isn't shamefully bad, but ultimately she's too soft, I mean everybody looks like a weaker casting choice, even the punks that proto-Arnold first rips his clothes off of in the first one.
Yeah, but Sarah Connor is a much bigger character in the franchise than a couple of punk extras. Hell, a whole fucking tv series was named after her. So I see two problems you've brought up here. One, they cast and or wrote her as too weak, and two, she's not central to the story as she should be. I suppose I'll sit through this thing eventually just because I like the first two and hopefully it'll put a few extra pennies in Harlan Ellison's pocket, but I'm less and less interested.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Terminator 5

53
Hopefully my review didn't give you reason to be truly interested in this. If so I apologize.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Terminator 5

54
And I don't blame Emilia, she could have been OK with a better script and director. The movie doesn't fail because they cast her, I'll say that.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Terminator 5

55
Alexhead wrote:Well, let's start with the positives. I was really hungry by the time we got to the Alamo so my burger tasted fantastic. The sizzle reel Alamo always puts together in lieu of commercials was hilarious as usual, with lots of bootleg Terminator toys from around the world, not to mention clips from movies of the same ilk. And J.K. Simmons is in the credits! So there's that.

Semi-seriously, you can tell that some well intentioned fans of the original pair were tasked with regurgitating this thing and maybe shocking some life into Arnold's career, and came upon some potentially interesting character and plot twists that might have played out nicely in better hands. Two major updates to SkyNet had potential, at least on a surface glance. And the digital anti-aging they do on Arnold is ten times better than what we got in Tron: Legacy, so it doesn't yank you out of the proceedings the way that one did. A couple of the action setpieces are actually pretty well conceived and executed.

All that said, they looked at another franchise reboot that boldy went where no franchise had recently gone and said "hey, dudes, ALTERNATE TIMELINES!" Many high fives erupted in the writers room, and things proceeded to turn into an unintelligible mess by the third act. The first two almost have you hoping they'll stick the landing, but you're just left with a lot of head-scratching/banging depending on how seriously you're angered by time travel handled poorly (in other words, anyone reading this will probably be throwing shit at the screen by the 40 minute mark), a dumb happy ending that doesn't feel well earned, although the vague "what might come next" talk at the end is right up there with, well, Tron: Legacy as far as pisspoor halfhearted attempt at setting up a sequel. That's probably the good news, there's no goddamn sequel offered here. I of course didn't say there wouldn't be a reboot, though.

Forgot to mention the new Kyle Reese is a complete zero, and since in many respects HE is the central character this time around, they should have worked one hell of a lot harder on casting. Also, as you could probably figure out from the trailers, most of the action is a digital blur that feels like it's in green screen land and the stakes are zero. Methinks Alan Taylor is done with his 'continuing the franchise' gigs, maybe Game of Thrones will take him back.
Well, once again, you and I largely had the same reaction to a movie. Were we separated at birth or something? ;-)

I "sneaked out" Friday night and caught a late showing. It was amusing seeing Taylor compile a mix tape of T1 and T2 highlights in the first reel. Emilia Clarke isn't a bad Sarah Connor — her Game of Thrones costar, Lena Headey, may surpass her a tad — but the script doesn't give her much to work with.

Absolutely correct about the nonentity playing Reese — you know, if they can de-age Arnold so well now, why not cast Jeremy Renner as Kyle and knock 20 years off him in post?

(I am not going to spoilerize this next part, because the marketing campaign already gave it away.)

Making John Connor the villain simply does not work. I get that we're into the fourth decade (and fifth movie) in this franchise, and you gotta do things to shake it up, but subverting the hero of the saga in such a way is up there with killing off Newt and Hicks in Alien 3, as far as I'm concerned.

I liked Arnold fine in this entry, much better than in T3. Surprisingly, the "Pops" relationship with Sarah stood out as one of the few bright spots, not nearly as hokey and embarrassing as I'd feared.

I really don't need more sequels, at any rate. Cameron is no auteur, but his sense of pacing, framing and tension in the first two are pretty much nonexistent in this one. This entry makes T1 and T2 look downright Kubrickian.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

Re: Terminator 5

56
Great minds thinking alike. Agreed on the Pops/Sarah thing, it more or less works. I was still confused as to which timeline evil John Connor came from, and why Reese couldn't just get a vasectomy and not worry about their eventually evil progeny...or should they worry about it? Who fucking knows by the time the credits reel. And
if you're going to bother to cast a recent, popular Dr. Who as a personification of SkyNet, do something with him.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Terminator 5

59
darkness wrote:Looks like this film is making huge bank in China. It made the entire domestic US's money in just a few days over there. So get ready for more sequels.
because robots, i guess?

Re: Terminator 5

60
TC wrote:
darkness wrote:Looks like this film is making huge bank in China. It made the entire domestic US's money in just a few days over there. So get ready for more sequels.
because robots, i guess?
That's Japan. :) Who knows what they think over there? China is also responsible for Fast and Furious 7's huge international box office which made more money there than Age of Ultron, so the robot theory is out the window.
Just cut them up like regular chickens