Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy (Rooney Mara) thinks she's suffering from an average case of nightmares that are causing her to lose sleep. A burned man with blades on his fingers haunts her dreams. She doesn't think much of it until her friends start getting picked off one by one while they sleep and are dreaming of the same man. Something happened during their childhood that connects them to this man that their parents are trying to cover up. As far as anyone else is concerned, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) never existed. What their parents refuse to believe is that Freddy exists in the dreams of their children causing them to remember their past and kill them. Now it's up to Nancy and her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner) to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit before they become Freddy's next victims.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
Twisted Cysts (13 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Action (2 more)
Performances
VFX
Terminator 3?
I need your clothes, your Re-boot and your motorcycle.
That’s the second l pun I’ve made out of that infamous terminator 2 line this week and I feel dirty because of it;
Dirty, much like how I imagine the Terminator franchise feels after Genisys (or however they spelt it)
Terminator:Dark Fate however is billed as a follow up to Terminator & T2;
The former an 80’s classic that sparked a franchise & its sequel that has easily landed itself as one of the best sequels of all time.
So you probably know that this one is ditching all those other terminator films that came in the couple of decades that came between & aims to be the definitive third instalment of franchise (for the third time after Rise Against The Machines & Gen-I-size also promised to do the same) and it’s actually succeeds somewhat, but maybe not in the way a lot of die-hards will want it to.
It’s the “Day After Judgement Day” and Dark Fate opens strong; using footage of Sarah Connor’s crazed speech of Judgement day & machines whilst being interviewed by doctors from T2.
you’ll immediately appreciate Linda Hamilton’s presence one again & from the first scene that follows it’s immediately clear that the previous sequels were missing her presence on screen.
We get a very brief tease of that 80’s style future of skulls on beaches and red & blue lasers that you’ve now seen in 6 films before it but This film doesn’t mess about, Judgement Day didn’t Happen, Sarah, John & The T-800 stopped it in terminator 2 and this film wants you to know that.
You see this film takes a huge risk that may divide fans, but imo it’s a risk that needed to be taken;
it’s no longer about John Connor, not anymore.
We’re introduced to Dani Ramos (Natalia Reyes) & her brother Diego (Diego Boneta) as factory workers facing replacement my machines (see what they did there, I’ll forgive it though as it gets good).
Next up is the rather brutal and badass introduction to the new Kyle Reese in the form of McKenzie Davis’s Grace & then a similar although ironically more Graceful introduction to the new Terminator (Gabriel Luna) both coming back in time via the iconic time bubble effect of series has had since 1984.
And he’s The most polite & possibly menacing Terminator since the T-1000…
Yes I said polite but I’ll get back to that later.
This new ‘black metal’ terminator or “Rev-9” as its referred to is a sort of 2 for 1 deal Terminator, like a T-800 and a T-1000 at the same time, able to split up and act independently as liquid and skeleton simultaneously.
Unlike previous attempts though this terminator is genuinely threatening, he isn’t messing around and finds his new target Dani within minutes.
He’s lightening fast, intelligent and creepy.
The VFX on him thankfully holds up as well and look fantastic other than a few shoddy cgi jumps that can be forgiven.
Within minutes we’re into an explosive highway car chase and the action rarely lets up after.
Genuinely… theres a Mexican border assault, a US detention pen riot, a fight on fucking C5-M plane (it’s big) and then some.
The action in this film Is relentless, gripping and satisfying as fuck.
But story itself, is Terminator 1984, again…
New familiar threat from the future under a different name and that’s all that’s really new at its core.
That’s because Terminator Dark Fate actually serves as a Star Wars: The Force Awakens style Reboot.
T2’s Judgement Day didn’t happen, Skynet didn’t happen, Terminators as we know and love didn’t happen…
But eventually another A.I does and forces our incredibly toned soldier & the black-metal Rev-9 to Time Travel back to our present day.
Despite the opening chase echoing T2 this film matches Terminator 1 in tone entirely,
Everything is very desperate and our character are almost constantly on the run. If anything this is a beat for beat remake that also happens to be a sequel by bringing along the old cast (No J.J Abrams was not involved.
The cast are fantastic, every single member, this film is stollen by McKenzie Davis and Natalia Reyes, they own their roles.
Gabriel Luna as mentioned before is fantastically creepy, this terminator has one mission and won’t waste time killing innocent bystanders, he’s even well mannered! Which just adds to the creep factor.
And don’t worry, his eye-rolling one liner of “my whole body is a weapon” from the trailer is thankfully immediately shut down by an extra in the full scene.
As a re-boot these cast need to be the ones you care about. Wether you like it or not this is a passing of the torch from old to new and luckily They deliver.
I cared about them more than I did about Sarah Connor!
Who Now bitter as fuck, as ruthless as ever and making it known that she had nothing in life other than a vengeance for Terminators and a fear of a Judgement Day she’s actually prevented.
Linda Hamilton is also great as expected. Her character being even more cold, cynical and sarcastic than ever and if you think about that’s how it should be. Her presence is essential though and makes it feel like a sequel to terminator 2.
The comedy of T2 is missing until we’re eventually re-introduced to Arnie’s Terminator.
I genuinely found him hilarious, and his humour it not forced, he’s the most dead-Pan he’s ever been and of course you know that Sarah Connor isn’t going to trust this weirdly humorous rust-bucket.
But his story is quite a hard one to swallow, without spoiling we get an evolution of his character, one that’s definitely an interesting take, one that also create its own Jokes out it. But it’s doesn’t quite land. It’s too much.
That having been said Arnie is also absolutely fantastic with what he’s been given but unfortunately I didn’t care for him as much as I wanted to.
You’ll have questions multiple times throughout this film but thankfully our characters are intelligent enough to ask them before too long whilst the action is unfolding.
The film never hangs around too much and suffers a little for it, the story comes off as very little more than a remake and passing of the torch.
We get the sorry of this new threatening 2042 future via flashbacks (or is it flash forwards? time travel) and it’s grittier than we’re used to.
More in vein of Salvations dusty, military future than the synth wave metal and blue lasers, which is a shame but ultimately makes sense and enforces the idea that the future we saw in T1 & T2 was actually prevented by John & Sarah back in T2.
It’s risky but it’s the deviation from the formulae of the past attempts at a new Terminator that the franchise needs.
Luckily the risks set up also give us an appropriately emotional if predictable ending. There’s just not enough of the touching character development the the first two films had.
The film succeeded in making me care about the new characters but I left feeling like I didn’t get enough despite a bit of fleshing out via flashbacks that unfold as the film progressed.
Tim Miller (Deadpool) has directed one hell of an action film, Dark Fate is a sequel that wipes the slate clean for a future of new terminator films and just about succeeds buy the skin of it’s endo-skeleton teeth.
It’s not the best, it’s essentially the first film again with new and old cast but it’s good enough for a new series to blossom off it and thrill ride for the most part.
There are few questions left for the sequel and three-quel that I know are already planned (what the fuck does Rev-9 actually stand for anyway?) but that’s understandable, I just hope we get that sequel and that it’s as good or even better because this is the only terminator film I cared about since terminator 2.
The box office will ultimately be the decider and I can already hear the keyboard warriors that haven’t even seen the movie panning it on twitter but I for one, really enjoyed Terminator: Dark Fate.
Photo courtesy of Skydance & Paramount VIa talent house media.
7/10
That’s the second l pun I’ve made out of that infamous terminator 2 line this week and I feel dirty because of it;
Dirty, much like how I imagine the Terminator franchise feels after Genisys (or however they spelt it)
Terminator:Dark Fate however is billed as a follow up to Terminator & T2;
The former an 80’s classic that sparked a franchise & its sequel that has easily landed itself as one of the best sequels of all time.
So you probably know that this one is ditching all those other terminator films that came in the couple of decades that came between & aims to be the definitive third instalment of franchise (for the third time after Rise Against The Machines & Gen-I-size also promised to do the same) and it’s actually succeeds somewhat, but maybe not in the way a lot of die-hards will want it to.
It’s the “Day After Judgement Day” and Dark Fate opens strong; using footage of Sarah Connor’s crazed speech of Judgement day & machines whilst being interviewed by doctors from T2.
you’ll immediately appreciate Linda Hamilton’s presence one again & from the first scene that follows it’s immediately clear that the previous sequels were missing her presence on screen.
We get a very brief tease of that 80’s style future of skulls on beaches and red & blue lasers that you’ve now seen in 6 films before it but This film doesn’t mess about, Judgement Day didn’t Happen, Sarah, John & The T-800 stopped it in terminator 2 and this film wants you to know that.
You see this film takes a huge risk that may divide fans, but imo it’s a risk that needed to be taken;
it’s no longer about John Connor, not anymore.
We’re introduced to Dani Ramos (Natalia Reyes) & her brother Diego (Diego Boneta) as factory workers facing replacement my machines (see what they did there, I’ll forgive it though as it gets good).
Next up is the rather brutal and badass introduction to the new Kyle Reese in the form of McKenzie Davis’s Grace & then a similar although ironically more Graceful introduction to the new Terminator (Gabriel Luna) both coming back in time via the iconic time bubble effect of series has had since 1984.
And he’s The most polite & possibly menacing Terminator since the T-1000…
Yes I said polite but I’ll get back to that later.
This new ‘black metal’ terminator or “Rev-9” as its referred to is a sort of 2 for 1 deal Terminator, like a T-800 and a T-1000 at the same time, able to split up and act independently as liquid and skeleton simultaneously.
Unlike previous attempts though this terminator is genuinely threatening, he isn’t messing around and finds his new target Dani within minutes.
He’s lightening fast, intelligent and creepy.
The VFX on him thankfully holds up as well and look fantastic other than a few shoddy cgi jumps that can be forgiven.
Within minutes we’re into an explosive highway car chase and the action rarely lets up after.
Genuinely… theres a Mexican border assault, a US detention pen riot, a fight on fucking C5-M plane (it’s big) and then some.
The action in this film Is relentless, gripping and satisfying as fuck.
But story itself, is Terminator 1984, again…
New familiar threat from the future under a different name and that’s all that’s really new at its core.
That’s because Terminator Dark Fate actually serves as a Star Wars: The Force Awakens style Reboot.
T2’s Judgement Day didn’t happen, Skynet didn’t happen, Terminators as we know and love didn’t happen…
But eventually another A.I does and forces our incredibly toned soldier & the black-metal Rev-9 to Time Travel back to our present day.
Despite the opening chase echoing T2 this film matches Terminator 1 in tone entirely,
Everything is very desperate and our character are almost constantly on the run. If anything this is a beat for beat remake that also happens to be a sequel by bringing along the old cast (No J.J Abrams was not involved.
The cast are fantastic, every single member, this film is stollen by McKenzie Davis and Natalia Reyes, they own their roles.
Gabriel Luna as mentioned before is fantastically creepy, this terminator has one mission and won’t waste time killing innocent bystanders, he’s even well mannered! Which just adds to the creep factor.
And don’t worry, his eye-rolling one liner of “my whole body is a weapon” from the trailer is thankfully immediately shut down by an extra in the full scene.
As a re-boot these cast need to be the ones you care about. Wether you like it or not this is a passing of the torch from old to new and luckily They deliver.
I cared about them more than I did about Sarah Connor!
Who Now bitter as fuck, as ruthless as ever and making it known that she had nothing in life other than a vengeance for Terminators and a fear of a Judgement Day she’s actually prevented.
Linda Hamilton is also great as expected. Her character being even more cold, cynical and sarcastic than ever and if you think about that’s how it should be. Her presence is essential though and makes it feel like a sequel to terminator 2.
The comedy of T2 is missing until we’re eventually re-introduced to Arnie’s Terminator.
I genuinely found him hilarious, and his humour it not forced, he’s the most dead-Pan he’s ever been and of course you know that Sarah Connor isn’t going to trust this weirdly humorous rust-bucket.
But his story is quite a hard one to swallow, without spoiling we get an evolution of his character, one that’s definitely an interesting take, one that also create its own Jokes out it. But it’s doesn’t quite land. It’s too much.
That having been said Arnie is also absolutely fantastic with what he’s been given but unfortunately I didn’t care for him as much as I wanted to.
You’ll have questions multiple times throughout this film but thankfully our characters are intelligent enough to ask them before too long whilst the action is unfolding.
The film never hangs around too much and suffers a little for it, the story comes off as very little more than a remake and passing of the torch.
We get the sorry of this new threatening 2042 future via flashbacks (or is it flash forwards? time travel) and it’s grittier than we’re used to.
More in vein of Salvations dusty, military future than the synth wave metal and blue lasers, which is a shame but ultimately makes sense and enforces the idea that the future we saw in T1 & T2 was actually prevented by John & Sarah back in T2.
It’s risky but it’s the deviation from the formulae of the past attempts at a new Terminator that the franchise needs.
Luckily the risks set up also give us an appropriately emotional if predictable ending. There’s just not enough of the touching character development the the first two films had.
The film succeeded in making me care about the new characters but I left feeling like I didn’t get enough despite a bit of fleshing out via flashbacks that unfold as the film progressed.
Tim Miller (Deadpool) has directed one hell of an action film, Dark Fate is a sequel that wipes the slate clean for a future of new terminator films and just about succeeds buy the skin of it’s endo-skeleton teeth.
It’s not the best, it’s essentially the first film again with new and old cast but it’s good enough for a new series to blossom off it and thrill ride for the most part.
There are few questions left for the sequel and three-quel that I know are already planned (what the fuck does Rev-9 actually stand for anyway?) but that’s understandable, I just hope we get that sequel and that it’s as good or even better because this is the only terminator film I cared about since terminator 2.
The box office will ultimately be the decider and I can already hear the keyboard warriors that haven’t even seen the movie panning it on twitter but I for one, really enjoyed Terminator: Dark Fate.
Photo courtesy of Skydance & Paramount VIa talent house media.
7/10