Terminator: Salvation

So the year is 2018 and humanity has been routed by SkyNet and its plethora of machines. A resistance exists led by a group of secretive guys in a submarine. John Conner (Christian Bale) is commander of one of the resistance cells. Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) is a young man enduring a tough existence hiding from terminators in LA. And then there is Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington). Marcus was on death row back in 2003 and wakes up in 2018 not knowing what is going on.

So what happens? About the silliest things you can imagine. A giant Transformer reminiscent robot, numerous action sequences, a tough yet tender woman resistance fighter (Moon Bloodgood). As a fan of the Terminator series in the past, for many a year I have wondered and yearned for a tale of the future war wherein humans fight an unending flow of machines. I'm not exactly sure what the mess that single monikered McG gave us but it doesn't suffice.

I was going along for the ride for the most part, trying to keep repressed the parts of my mind that wanted to shout at the inconsistency of the plot or the fact that it didn't even try to match up with the existing films. And then came your standard expository scene where the bad guys explain there plan. And I said, "seriously? doesn't that require them to rely on a whole lot of coincidence?"

I implore you don't be like me and make the mistake of seeing this movie. As a general rule, if the words McG are attached, run away. run away. You'll thank me.

The Soloist

The Soloist is the latest film from director Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice and Atonement). It is based on the true story of a homeless mentally-ill man in LA who once studied at Julliard and is an accomplished musician. He is discovered by an LA Times columnist who tells his story and befriends him. The musician is played by Jamie Foxx while Robert Downey,Jr. portrays the columnist.

The plot revolves around Downey, Jr attempting to help Foxx and coming to terms with the fact that he does not necessarily know what is best for the homeless man. Its a highly sentimental film and attempts to manipulate its audience over deeply problematic issues of mental health, poverty and so forth. I'm afraid Mr. Wright's movement to telling more and more highly moralized tales has left a certain amount of distaste in my mouth and I sadly state that although his skill at establishing shots and directing is still well done, he gets lost in his overbearing message.

I was genuinely pleased with his first venture, the adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (note: not the BBC one). I thought it was well cast and acted and I even went out and purchased Jane Austen's novel because I enjoyed the story so much. And I have to say that it a pretty good recommendation in my book. Atonement didn't enthrall me so much although it maintained its high quality of direction and story telling. The second half was far less entertaining than the first and the "spectacular" one take camera shot mid film felt like the amazing technical feat that it was, not like something that worked for the film.

I'm not entirely sure that the story is a cinematic one and his attempts to set the backdrop as occurring during the Katrina hurricane made it even more unfortunate. It isn't clear to me what the intent there was but it seems like the story of one homeless man finding a friend and charity in the wake of millions being displaced from their homes and thousands being trapped in the Super Dome do to massive government incompetence is rather trite. Mr. Wright please get back to telling stories and save the preachiness for others.

Star Trek

The blockbuster movie summer season is upon us and requests (I assume insincere) have been made that my annoying voice be heard. I haven't seen a whole lot of movies so far this year (a mere 20 or so) and most of them have been lacking in what I would call quality. But there is nothing like a summer packed with GI Joe and Transformers 2. Both of these will be released this summer and both, based on the viewing of their trailers, which were appended to my recent trip to Star Trek, seem to sufficiently rape any fond memory of my childhood. Not that either of these shows was in reality any good but I was willing to leave them in the past as a pleasant memory.

Actually, this is a surprisingly good opening for a review of the new film by J.J. Abrhams. Star Trek, if for some odd reason you the reader didn't know, was originally a television show. Basically the one nugget of shiny silver (gold goes to far) that Gene Roddenberry ever hit upon. Seriously go watch an episode of Andromeda (also a Roddenberry idea) and then ask yourself: Nietschians? really? The show, that is, Star Trek, spawned a series of movies and four reincarnations on television.

The original show of course stared the lovably laughable esteemed Mr. William Shatner. Overacting to a fault and sleeping with aliens left and right. The original set of movies were entertaining most of the time and occasionally absolutely absurd (read: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home). Fellow blogger CinemaRomantico even gave weekly quotes from Star Trek IV one summer to celebrate the blockbuster season. Frankly, I miss that.

But I've ranted for three paragraphs now and said nothing about the new film. Perhaps that is because ultimately I wish Star Trek too had remained in my past. Sure there isn't anything technically wrong with the new film. Its competently directed, the action sequences on the whole work. Eric Bana is no Ricardo Montalban but then again who is? It is mostly well acted by Chris Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Karl Urban (Bones) and so on. There is of course the very unfortunate John Cho as Sulu and living up to my fears, Simon Pegg doesn't work as Scotty.

It has a successful explanation for rebooting the franchise that doesn't require them to forget the old stories (well I guess in a way they do). There is time travel (which I despise as a movie concept) and one exceptionally noticeable failure to acknowledge the laws of physics which I can't get past. But other than quibbles I can't say I hated the film and in some moments enjoyed it. So why, other than being another year of blockbuster blase am I so lukewarm to the film as a whole?

Kirk is born, some time travel occurs, Kirk grows up, Spock grows up, both are troubled, both end up at Star Fleet. Crisis, Enterprise, yawn, explosions, logic, yawn, film concludes. I'm having trouble recalling the film and I saw it 6 days ago. Yes it accomplishes what it sets out to do and does it entertainingly and for most of you that will be enough, but frankly I was hoping for more (or maybe less, if you follow).

I should probably count my blessings because this may be the one brief respite of decent summer fluff in an avalanche of the likes of Wolverine, GI Joe and Transformers. And in conclusion: the greatest Transformer review of them all.