Purging Through the Jungle with a Big Fucking Giant

Ahh. The Fourth of July Weekend. This has traditionally been a powerhouse weekend at the Cinema, but truth be told, in recent years past that distinction has been put to the test. We have three films dropping this weekend, none of which I'd expect to really light up the box office. Still, let's try to discuss their critical, cultural, and commercial potential. First, though, let's update on Independence Day Weekend:

Way back when when I was crushing The Long Halloween, we discussed the obvious choice this weekend - Independence Day (1996). We're lucky to have Resurgence (2016) still slumming around theaters this weekend, and you should probably go see that. We haven't actually had an outstanding Independence Day weekend in a while though. If you check out the top all time, we have Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) at the tip-top and Despicable Me 2 (2013) at the #3 slot, but that doesn't feel quite like a Fourth of July America Fuck Yeah-sort of blockbuster, does it? We're five years past Dark of the Moon - what else we got?

Well, the only other films in the past decade are a Twilight film, The Amazing Spider-Man (2012), and the original Transformers (2007). Recent years have given us some epic misfires, from Terminator: Genisys (2015) to Tammy (2014), The Lone Ranger (2013), and The Last Airbender (2010). These are some of the most high profile bombs of all time, or at least recent cinematic history. Once you get out into the aughts there are some better candidates like Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009), Hancock (2008), and Superman Returns (2006), but very few of these echo that epic patriotism of Independence Day. That's likely a solid reason why Transformers has done so well here. America wants to turn its brain off and watch some explosions, jingoism, and some fucking flag waving for the grand U S of A. I'm still kind of surprised that Tammy fell on its face, because even though it was a bit of a mess, it was totally a summer movie that had a lot of fun with itself, even if it had some heavy parts that didn't really hit on a tonal level.

My point is that in the 90s this weekend saw Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990 - which, by the way, what did audiences think of the Christmas-themed film that uses a snowstorm as an integral plot component coming out in the Heart of Summer?), T2: Judgment Day (1991 - somehow this is way more of a patriotic movie than Genysis. Maybe it's just a better movie), Men in Black (1997), Armageddon (1998), Wild Wild West (1999), and The Patriot (2000). These are the films that Independence Day built its back on. All of these are classic American blockbusters. Well, Wild Wild West and The Patriot sort of, but they're still pretty damn American.

On that note, we ought to talk about Will Smith, who appeared in four of the above movies (plus Men in Black II [2002], also a Fourth of July movie). These were all decently successful. Even Wild Wild West made as much as Bad Boys (1995) and Ali (2001) put together. His absence in any good film since...jeez, I Am Legend (2007)? If that? Maybe we go back to Hitch (2005)? Anyway, his absense in any good films, despite how incredible and weird and awesome his brief scene in Winter's Tale (2014) is, is surely felt in a country that yearns for someone to fill the big gap left by his departure. And we have another Independence Day right now! Why wasn't this worked out? Damn it. Damney damn it.

So let's go through these films in order of how much I want to see them, and I don't think I'll spend all that much time on anyone this go around. I say that now. Let's start with The BFG. Now, I was an enormous fan of the Roald Dahl book as a kid, and twenty years ago I'd be ecstatic at the prospect of a film adaptation. I'm not into it nearly as much now for some reason. Maybe it's just because I haven't read the book in twenty years. I remember the Fleshlumpeater and that farting scene. And didn't he really like pickles or something?

That's not natural.

The BFG just really doesn't look that exciting. I don't want to blame the layers of endless hokey CGI...but it's probably the endless layers of hokey CGI. I also can't understand Spielberg's sudden love affair with Mark Rylance. I'm not convinced of his acting ability at all, Academy Award be damned. Maybe the whole thing is just a little childish for me. I was also never into The Adventures of Tintin (2011), which was due to a simple disconnect from the material, which I think The BFG echoes.

There's no real reason to expect a poor movie out of Spielberg, although Tintin is unfortunately the closest thing you can compare this to. He's always avoided streaks or trends (he made The Lost World [1997] in between Schindler's List [1993] and Amistad [1997] and 1941 [1979] in between Close Encounters of the Third Kind [1977] and Raiders of the Lost Ark [1981] - you never know what you're going to get). I get a bad feeling about The BFG. I don't think Independence Day Americans want to see a British-based fantasy film. There hasn't been that much urgency to any of the marketing material, and there doesn't seem to be any must-see scenes or cultural resonance to it. I'd call it a hard pass at this point.

Roald Dahl film adaptaions are also a fairly mixed bag. For every Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971) you have a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). Even in animation, they range from the dreadful James and the Giant Peach (1996) to the sublime Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009). I'd argue that this essentially all comes down to the adaptation team. Mr. Fox is very much a Wes Anderson film the same as Charlie is, for better or worse, very much a later-era Tim Burton film. It's hard to predict anything, but I'm siding on the "no one cares" angle.

Moving on to The Legend of Tarzan (2016), which is another movie where I don't understand its existence. Why do they keep greenlighting Edgar Rice Burroughs stories? This actually seems to have an interesting twist - it's set after Tarzan has already left the jungle and depicts him coming back and re-adapting to Ape Culture. That's totally not communicated in the marketing and I feel a Hercules (2014) thing coming on where you get all pumped up to see Hercules and then it turns out that Hercules isn't even Hercules.

Watch out for that tree!

Of course, Tarzan is one of the most popular film characters of all time. He's appeared in 54 films since 1918. Of course, 44 of those films came before 1980. Still, there's been ten Tarzan films since 1980! Did you even know that?! The most high profile recent film is probably the bizarre dreadlocked Disney Tarzan (1999) with Rosie O'Donnell and a particularly brutal villain death, even for 90s Disney Films. But did you catch the Casper Van Dien film from 1998!? That was the last live action Tarzan film, and because of its serialized Johnny Weissmuller history along with its trend towards ultimate camp (Christopher Lambert taking the title role in 1984 seals it), it's been kind of a weird IP to add legitimacy to.

Still, it's public domain, so play ball. The cast of this one is actually pretty spectacular, re-uniting Django Unchained co-stars Sam Jackson and Christoph Waltz (who actually seems to be kind of awful in non-Tarantino films), along with Margot Robbie, Djimon Hounsou (who I feel like is in everything), and Jim Broadbent. The weak link is probably Alexander Skarsgård, who is a competent enough actor, but has never been really exceptional or a memorable draw. I suppose this is his chance, and he has the abs, so that works.

It's actually a bit weird how pervasive Tarzan is in our social consciousness. I've never seen a Tarzan film outside of the Disney version, but I totally know the story. The yell, the loincloth, it's all good. Most my memory is probably more Brendan Fraser George of the Jungle (1997). I mean, this is gold. Pure gold. I'm not going to be able to watch The Legend of Tarzan now. All I will think about is Brendan Fraser swinging into trees. Does Tarzan really deserve the rain-soaked gritty treatment? The dude's in loincloth surrounded by Apes. He better do the yell. I hope this film doesn't think it's too good for Skarsgård to scream through the jungle like a maniac. It's like Godzilla's fire breath; the most distinctive trait for the character.

I don't think anyone will want to see a Tarzan movie for the same reason they didn't want a John Carter movie or a Lone Ranger movie. These are old characters that we don't really care about. Every kid and nerd wants to see a movie about Captain America because they grew up reading stories about him. No one has sat around reading Tarzan stories in literally a hundred years, and even back then, they were niche pulp, not highly respected literature. My hopes for this film's success are about as dismal as The BFG. Again, if you're an overzealous American kid on Independence Day do you want to see some Brits wandering around the jungle screaming at Apes? Where is my damn fighter jet. Now, if they were to finally come out with a Magnus, Robot Fighter movie, then we'd be getting somewhere.

So now we move on to The Purge: Election Year (2016). Thank you, Purge. Thank you. This is my #1 movie of the week, at least that I'm pumped up about. It has tended to be a niche film, although to be fair, the original, even if wouldn't compete with traditional summer blockbusters, made thirty times its budget worldwide. It sequel, The Purge: Anarchy (2014) made a bit more than that, but more importantly, it drastically expanded its world in a way that I really respected. Election Year looks like it's going all-out nuts crazy, which is awesome. It feels like this series is getting looser and crazier as it goes on, toying with its premise in ways that progressively blur the line between horror and horror-comedy.

Do your patriotic duty and watch The Purge.

It's also flatly American. If there's any theme to this Independence Day Weekend post, it's that these films should have something American to them! I suppose the big studios don't actually care about that anymore because they can actually get a little more bank by focusing on more global issues while securing high worldwide grosses. Eww. Lame. There also seems to be a derth of political films in general this year. We've at least had W. (2008) or The Campaign (2012) in years past. Maybe The Purge: Election Year fits in with that lot.

Two years ago I argued that Purge movies could go on forever with the articulate yet simple high concept world they've built. The cool part is that they're not tied into any specific character or scenario. They can spin it into whatever they want. Obviously this year, with the chick from The Santa Clause 2: the Mrs. Clause (2002) wanting to ban the Purge, well that just won't stand. Hey it can't end with her being successful, right? Then these movies will stop! Maybe the creators are all purged out. No, that will not stand!

In terms of cultural resonance, I actually see Election Year blurring with Anarchy, unless it ends up really setting itself apart. It certainly seems like it could. It has the style, sardonic wit, and murderous irreverence to do so that seems to up the ante from the previous installments while communicating a pretty simple plot efficiently. Out of all the films coming out this weekend, Election Year is somehow the only one that has actually given me a compelling reason to see it - I want to know if the Purges stop!

Election Year will almost certainly make money, even if it doesn't debut near the top of the Weekend, which it'll honestly have to get through Finding Dory (2016) to get through, which ought to crush at least another $30 million. I can see The BFG reigning supreme, although it's going to be a close call. Election Year may also run into some trouble from The Shallows (2016) and The Conjuring 2 (2016), both of which have done decent for what they are. Are we horror'd out for Summer? They're all pretty different movies - ghosts, sharks, legal murder for 12 hours. What movie do you think will earn the crown this weekend?

Road to a Blockbuster: Terminator! And Strippers!

Ah, Independence Day Weekend. Is there a better time to blow up a small part of this great country in celebration of freedom, democracy, and capitalism? For me the answer is...almost any time, because explosions are great and there's never a bad time for fireworks. Really, there's never a moment where I'd be standing around somewhere and someone is like "Hey you want to see some fireworks?" and I'd be like "No, that sounds terrible." What a time to be alive.

Thank goodness marriage equality passed, or
I'd feel funny staring at this...for hours.

Like every Friday this Summer (and beyond), we'll take a look at the major motion picture releases for the day, and we have two very special films coming out today that I've been wanting to rant about for a while. The first is the highly anticipated follow-up to the surprisingly excellent male stripper movie, Magic Mike (2012), which will try to succeed despite the lack of its two biggest at-the-time draws, Matt McConaughey and the steady hand of director Steven Soderbergh. The second is Terminator: Genisys (2015), which, SPOILER ALERT, I'm going to absolutely shit on for the next dozen or so pages of text. Let's start with Magic Mike XXL.

The big question with Magic Mike XXL is simply, "Will it work?" Soderbergh is still in as the cinematographer and the editor, and director, Greg Jacobs doesn't have a ton of work to his credit, but he has been Soderbergh's first AD forever. If there's anyone to carry on Soderbergh's legacy as a retired director, he's the dude. It's sort of funny that Magic Mike XXL is his first shot to do so, but whatevs.

Channing Tatum's star has only risen since Magic Mike, and the cast has switched around a little bit, but does any of that actually matter? it's all just saucy lady boner fuel, and any abs will do, really. Magic Mike worked because it gave a lot of the pathos and nuance behind the crumbled dollar bills, and the outrageous stripper scenes were just window dressing to make all that other boring shit more fun.

The issue is that I'm not sure it has the energy of the first one, or the daring to do things any different. Is this sequel really necessary? Well, the answer is, of course not, I mean, no sequels are, but is it actually pushing the story in any kind of worthwhile way? From the marketing material I can say that I have no idea at all what is happening, but then again, the first film didn't present much other than hot abs, so whatever. This ought to do alright, because it's targeting a decidedly female-centric audience, although to be honest, there actually has been a solid amount of female protags so far this summer, so maybe that won't be counter-programming enough to serve an under-served audience. Nah, no other film in a while has matched this well with the interests of horned up young women.

So, now, let's move on to what we all came here to talk about, the bound to be completely awful Terminator: Genysis. Err...Genisys. Whatever. You didn't even notice that was a typo, did you? Now, just for fun and to have a little something in the background while I wrote this, I searched Netflix for Terminator and found they only have the first one. That's kind of odd, right? I mean, this is the originator of the franchise, but one can hardly project how overblown and crazy shit got after this relatively straightforward story. Actually, T2: Judgment Day (1991) is relatively straightforward as well, but applied a spin to the story along with cutting-edge effects to beef it up without becoming overblown. It's one of the reasons I wrote a whole article about it being one of the greatest action movies of all time.

That was actually five years ago and I still have the same torn feelings towards the Terminator franchise. On the one hand, it produced two of our greatest sci-fi action films, including a rare sequel that improves upon its predecessor in nearly every way. On the other hand, it's given us three sequels now, each more emblematic of Hollywood's simultaneous inability to innovate beyond their past success along with their urge to rekindle a long-dead franchise every couple of years.

Seriously, all three terrible Terminator sequels were long-range pointless follow-ups. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) actually has some cool parts, and to be honest, I dig the ending a lot, although the TX as a villain just can't compete with the T-1000 and the whole thing just feels like a hollow echo of T2, without adding any actual value to the franchise.

It's almost hard to believe that as much time passed between T3 and Terminator: Salvation and that movie to now, but there it is. Salvation was supposed to promise a new trilogy, but who knows how the hell that was supposed to happen. That film is mostly remembered now as the scene of Christian Bale's temper tantrum over Dave the Lighting Guy, which is almost too bad, because there's a handful of cool things going on. For the most part, though, it's stuck in its own nostalgia, with literal shit like flaming garbage cans and a rubbery CGI Arnold to beat up poor John Connor, who Christian Bale somehow doesn't embody as well as Edward Furlong.

There are almost too many problems with Salvation to catalog. No part of it sells John Connor as a leader or an expert at defeating machines like T2 or even T3 did. You know, I want to comment again about watching Terminator (1984) right now - Arnold looks fucking cool. Like, he's not trying to be cool with the all black leather. Because why would a robot care about looking cool? He's got some bizarre 80s Tee on with a gray jacket, it's fantastic. Salvation also introduced Marcus Wright, who would be interesting if his character made any sense or worked the way anyone wanted him to in the movie, and maybe better if he was played by anyone other than Sam Worthington, who really gained the most notoriety by being the first of the super bland leading men, to be followed by Garret Hedlund, Taylor Kitsch, Charlie Hunnam, and our very own Jai Courtney.

So, Salvation didn't work on any critical, commercial, or cultural level, and no one really cared about it, so any and all sequel plans fizzled out. That's almost a shame because it was a departure from any other Terminator movie and proved that that world could be expanded without sticking to the repetitive robots-through-time shtick that the first two sequels couldn't break away from. The problem with this is that, as it turns out, the little glimpses we saw in Terminator and T2 were enough, and apparently, the more interesting story was always in the present.

So, if Magic Mike XXL was unnecessary, this sequel is totally unnecessary. There is zero storytelling effort going into this and virtually nothing to be gained other than an Arnold Schwarzenegger vanity project that is supposed to set up the studio with their next franchise. But this isn't like Jurassic World that is deferential while blazing its own path through intelligent self-reference. This is just this really dissonant experience between literally repeating the past and offering some extreme mind-fucks in its own insane meandering towards who knows where.

Hasta mañana.

Apparently, this also takes the path of X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) and Jurassic World (2015) in selectively honoring certain sequels and ignoring others. It's not a terrible proposition, but I can't figure out why sequels tend to care at all about continuity. It's as if there's this big concern about fans being able to keep up, which I suppose is true in our obsessive, Internet-adled age, but I sort of wish sequels would be brave enough to just pick and choose without having to resort to big continuity jumps. Again, I'm describing Jurassic World, which didn't have to jump through hoops to remind us that Jurassic Park III (2001) sucked.

Now, I have only watched the trailers and every television commercial, but it's as if Genisys offers nothing new, only what worked in the past but remixed. It's blatantly declaring itself to be everything wrong with franchise sequels, which just stings more after other flicks this summer like Jurassic World, and fuck, to an even greater extent Mad Max: Fury Road got so much right. If you have confidence in your world you can make a great movie out of your setting if you just focus on making a great movie first and worry about setting up your sequels or shared universe or whatever later.

That probably wouldn't leave room for Arnold's involvement, and that might make him sore, but he's really really just too old for this. It might not be a coincidence that the trailer for Creed (2015) dropped this week, which showcases Stallone's most famous long-running franchise character, but it appropriately pushes Rocky to the side in favor of rising star, Michael B. Jordan. It's a spiritual passing of the same themes, which may not be appropriate for the Terminator (I can't picture Arnold coaching young...Terminators), but it's a step in a satisfying direction and an actual show of humility and realistic expectations from its aging superstar actor. I'm not sure after Salvation the studio wanted to risk another go around without Arnie, though.

Speaking of which, the Young Arnold in this does look far better than the one in Salvation, but that belays the point I just made - they can't get away from his legacy. No one saw Fury Road and thought "This would have been improved by Mel Gibson." Why can't we do the same with Terminator? Is it that Arnold is much more well-liked than Mel (arguably true, but they've both had their share of pretty rough scandals), or is it just that they want some bankable star to lead this crop of newbies? Hate to break it to you, but since his governator days, his three 2013 films haven't been so great in any sense of the word. Those being The Last Stand, Escape Plan, and Sabotage. He's not quite as bankable as he was in the 90s.

The rest of the cast is a total mixed bad. Emilia Clarke should be a superstar. She can be. Jai Courtney has tried so hard to be a superstar, but always turns into a dope. This won't push him to the A-List. Maybe Suicide Squad (2016) will if he can be sort of memorable. In Jason Clarke's two most high profile roles, he has been solid but hateable in Zero Dark Thirty (2012) and the most uninteresting part of an otherwise great film, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014). This role here as the villainous John Connor (more on that later) just seems too damn weird to make a case.

I am actually a big Byung-hun Lee fan after G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra (2009), where yes, he's the best part, and The Good, the Bad, and the Weird (2008), which is a crazy fun action adventure western out of Korea. But he succeeded in these roles because he was a hardass who was allowed these little moments of humanity to show emotion, which made his characters subtext really interesting and well rounded. Robot. Totally.

Okay, let's discuss the John Connor thing. The trailers have given away what even director Alan Taylor has said is a decent spoiler, that somehow the machines made him into a super Terminator and also sent him back in time. So, he's now the bad guy. So, if that's the fucking case, then why do they have to go back in time at all to kill Sarah Connor? I mean, as I just found out in Terminator, the point is that John Connor won, and the Terminator was a last ditch effort. So killing him just undoes a lot of the shit he did. But if they still capture him in the future and make him a Super Terminator, can't they just rebuild from there? Or at least use him to wipe out the rest of his command? I haven't seen this yet, admittedly, but why is anyone going back in time? Why not make all their enemies into terminators? This is all retarded.

Evidently, the spoilers started popping up, ironically to spark interest and show the world they are into new directions, but they've totally made me want to see this movie less. Everything about this marketing campaign has just reeked of desperation. The latest trailers playing in theaters are even trying to get James Cameron's endorsement, which is just all soo, soo, sooooo pathetic. It's clawing at any strand it can and just shows that the studio has no faith in this project.

Plus, the title is terrible.

And if you want my honest opinion (if you haven't figured it out so far), I actually sincerely believe that they should just play Judgment Day in theaters this weekend instead of this. I would honestly go see Judgment Day in theaters if it was playing. That'd be sweet. I've never seen it in theaters. I have no desire to see this and the sooner we can all forget about it, the better.

Now, will this actually make any money? There's maybe enough distance from Jurassic World, but it could very well get buried by that and Inside Out (2015) which is still going strong. Its appeal is way more that classic PG-13 action blockbuster nerd crowd, though, and it's been a little while since we had a really good one of those. It's Independence Day, long weekend, things could go smoothly. It's not going to set any records, but it probably won't do completely terrible.

So, what do you think? Do you already hate this movie as much as I do? Will you be shelling out for Magic Mike XXL instead? Terminator is on Netflix. Give it a shot!

First Impressions: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011), otherwise known succinctly as M:I:IV-GP is by and large one of the superior action films of the year. It's interesting that somehow the Mission: Impossible franchise has largely enjoyed some of the better action film writers and directors leave their marks in its 15 year history, above and beyond the typical nostalgic-TV-series-to-movie bullshit treatment. It's successful because these directors hold their films to a high standard and despite Tom Cruise's insane personal life and reputation, he rarely appears in a poor movie.

Mission: Impossible is Tom's franchise. It's his Rocky series or his Terminator series, tho he has taken some healthy breaks in between each installment, helping not to crowd things all that much or really push things only for nostalgia. In fact, neither M:I:IV-GP nor Mission: Impossible III (2006) has many winking callback moments that plague other travesty late-period franchise installments such as Terminator: Salvation (2009). It feels fresh as its own film as much as an installment in a trilogy.

Tom is an Insane, Insane Man

M:I:IV-GP rests soley on the Cruise. While the 49-year old not only still miraculously looks fully capable of believably performing all the stunts he pulls, he...actually does perform all of those stunts. That's really him dangling from the Burj Khalifa (with some ropes deleted in post-production), but it's also him running, jumping, and kicking ass all over Russia and Mumbai. He brings this insane, fearsome energy to his role, it seems like he's always on the brink of madness, even when he's coolly smiling or undercover.

This could diminish any other movie, but it really works here. Ethan Hunt is no longer the semi-retired, calm and collected dude from M:I:III. They brought his character to some dark places (although they magic marker-erased it by the film's end, a stumble which is largely the film's greatest fault) and this simultaneous tired craziness along with an unyielding focus towards his mission (even while on the absolute brink of Armageddon) makes Tom the perfect dude to play this role.

One Day Every Franchise will Feature Jeremy Renner

Supposedly also the new Jason Bourne, as well as Hawkeye, Jeremy Renner is tempting overexposure in a very large way and is looking at a big 2012. His role here though is interesting. He's like this amalgam of Tom Cruise's action credentials and Simon Pegg's comic relief character. He serves as this running commentary of how insane everything else in this movie is, heartily questioning Tom's antics and even their enemies' subsequent reactions. While the franchise has become too bloated with characters indoctrinated in their own insane world, Renner actually serves somewhat as the audience's connection to the other characters and provides an outlet for those "what the hell was that?" questions.

In general though, this film doesn't paint is heroes as super at all. Nearly every plan gets a chink in it and it seems like nothing goes well (which Tom later comments on). Whether it was showing Tom's age or just showing that his character is human, there is also a great deal of mis-timed jumps and landings that really knock him around. This is a great film to watch if you really want to seem Tom Cruise get his ass kicked. Like, Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) is still able to do everything that he did in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981). Tom here is sloppy. He needs to go to the hospital...a few times. It's not like it makes the film realistic or anything, there are certainly some goofy script problems (like the precisely inconvenient sandstorm), but there is a greater human touch than the typical actioner revival.

In Soviet Russia, Kremlin Bombs You!

I don't think any of these spy movies are the same after the Cold War ended. For some reason having that enemy that was so clearly defined who also acknowledged us as an enemy just made for lots of really great stories. The Soviet Union also worked because they didn't even really do anything to us either, it's not like you were offending anyone or bringing up a national tragedy to feature them as evil dudes in a movie. Nowadays it's difficult to pinpoint another omnipresent threat, which is weird because there's real dudes out there like Team 6 doing badass covert stuff more important than any movie.

That said, it's tough to find a good international enemy. Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) went back in time to fight the Nazis, Iron Man (2008) got away with killing some fictional group of bad brown people, but nowadays Bourne fights his own government and Bond fights a group of mysterious unattached Europeans. M:I:IV-GP interesting brings back the Russians as the big bad, although they only chase our hero due to a frame up. This film and GoldenEye (1995) interestingly deal with the espionage remnants of a Cold War Hangover.

What Else?

That dude from Slumdog Millionaire (2008) was unnecessary. Paula Patton is hot. The technology was ridiculous. I don't even have a smartphone. Brad Bird, welcome to live action, glad to have you stay. I really thought that Tom Cruise was starring in a Prototype movie when I first saw this.

Tops: Least Annoying Movie Kids

In honour of the recently released Hanna (2011) I thought I'd take a moment today to recognize Children in Cinema. Now, typically stuffing some wiener kid in the middle of an action flick is terrible - they whine and bitch and just slow things down. I'm thinking of War of the Worlds (2005), The Phantom Menace (1999), Superman Returns (2006), Mercury Rising (1998) and just about anything with Haley Joel Osment and the entire cast of the first two Harry Potter movies (especially Rupert Grint - stop shitting yourself, kid).

Yet there are a handful of movies I think with some great kids that actually contribute to the story without so much irritation that gets in the way. For the purposes of this article I'll try to leave out "Kid-Centric" movies like The Sandlot (1993) and Little Giants (1994). Let's begin.

#5: Kevin McCallister (Macaulay Culkin) in Home Alone (1990)

I have actually seen this brat in a few "Worst Kid" lists (like this one, whose only real complaint is Culkin's later drug issues - he's a child actor! Of course he's going to have drug issues!) but I find his performance relatively tolerable. He's a bit of an asshole (Possibly more so in Home Alone 2: Lost in New York [1995]), not that cute and plays well tormenting innocent men who only want to rob his home. Is that so wrong, really? The McCallisters can make do. Anyway, he gets the #5 spot from declining my need to punch him in the face after sustained viewing periods.

#4: Lex and Tim Murphy (Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello) in Jurassic Park (1993)

I have also seen this pair on Worst-Of Lists, and in all reality Lex is dead weight until she inexplicably saves the park by understanding Unix. Other than that and a handy Velociraptor Twarting in the Kitchen she's mostly a screamer and a crier, which is awful. Tim on the other hand has that classic kid mentally - Dinos come to life and rampaging through an island is fucking awesome. Tho they both have their wiener moments they grow on Grant and the audience as well. They react as real kids instead of constantly whining and dragging down the action - instead shit keeps happening to them with no respite. Oooh Chaos at work Dr. Malcolm.

#3: Boo (Mary Gibbs) in Monsters, Inc. (2001)



This could have very easily have gone terribly - having this little cute animated kid in the middle of an eponymous Monster Movie seems terrible on paper. She works well though even though she does do a lot of crying and screaming she does just as much giggling and actually looks cute instead of infinitely creepy like some of Pixar's early work. Ugh that thing is terrifying. Boo is really endearing though and is integral to every part of the story of Monster's Inc., successfully being more cute than irritating. It's mostly that she's actually pretty well behaved if not just curious about a few things and with what could have easily turned into a two-hour "Baby on a Steel Girder" joke is actually a bit more. Yay.

#2: Hit-Girl (Chloe Mortez) in Kick-Ass (2010)

Absolutely the anti-cute annoying kid, she has a maturity beyond her years as exemplified by her swearing and killing skills. Regardless of how to feel about her actions or the integrity of this movie, Hit-Girl ain't a wiener kid and there's hardly a time when watching this film that you feel like you're even watching a little girl (Of course when you step back and realise it's a little girl you may be horrified...and call out bullshit on Mark Millar). She is very entertaining though and doesn't slow the story at all. Actually the characters around her need to slow her down.

#1: John Connor (Edward Furlong) in Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

This kid isn't without his detractors, clearly, but I don't see any problemos with this dude. In fact I've already named him my favourite incarnation of John Connor and he's got more balls than Nick Stahl and more...things to do than Christian Bale. Sure he's a punk kid but he's a punk kid who already distrusts authority, knows how to survive on his own and manipulate machines and sustains a strong connection to humanity through his Mother and that Black Guy. He's a jerk-off but a young John Connor needs to be a jerk-off. Besides he handles himself pretty well considering how many people really want to kill him. I'm sorry...robots aren't people.

Bonus: Staying up late the other week watching terrible repeats on SyFy I managed to catch Stephen King's The Langoliers, a 1995 TV Miniseries that is far less cooler than this seems. It stars that dude from The Rock (1996), that other dude from Perfect Strangers and the faggiest little blind kid ever. All he does is complain and whine, he doesn't even complain about being blind, he just bitches about the air being stale and stuff. I loathe him. He needs the Robert Downey, Jr. treatment. Actually I think it's a girl. Ugh who cares, just die.

So that's that. Actually looking at this lot it seems like there aren't really any good kids in adult movies. Don't read into that. Don't get me started on that little wiener from Jerry Maguire (1996) either.

Trends: Comic Book Movies over True Action Films, 2002 - 2008

The biggest movie news of last weekend was The Expendables (2010) proving that Julia Roberts and Mike Ceratops were...expendable. Hey oh!

But anyway, it got me thinking about the Modern Action Film. You don't see a lot of them anymore. Original Tentpole Films were absent for the majority of the past decade. There wasn't really any good True Action Film to latch on to. There wasn't a Die Hard (1988) or a True Lies (1994) or an Armageddon (1998). Hell, I'd even take The Last Boy Scout (1991). While we've had Comic Book Movies dating back to Superman (1978), I'll place 2002 as the year when Hollywood first realised that these Superheroes would be the future of Action Films.

"I'm Sick of Being in the Van:"

There is a certain distinction between pre-programmed Superhero Films and Real Action Films. Action Movies feature a Cop, a Marine, even a Biochemist placed into outrageous situations and fighting their way out. The late 90s had an awesome score of these kinds of films which I covered last summer. These were (for the most part) original ideas, many Hard-R Types with big action names like Schwarzenegger, Stallone, even the Cage. I mean, Stallone even turned Arm Wrestling into heart-stopping action. Yeah, what the hell...?

Anyway, these films followed a certain beat. They were hard, exploding films with little illusion of safety. Comic Book Films are propagated in part due to advancements in CGI which make it easier for ordinary men to do the impossible (compare and contrast the limitations despite age of John McClane in the original Die Hard vs. Live Free or Die Hard [2007]). This is simply to say the two naturally go hand-in-hand. As technology allows filmmakers' imaginations to expand it allows for more Super-Powered Individuals to strut across the screen. The 90s are known as this really explosive decade. We had these huge overblown budgets but really only practice effects to work with. Thus there's this great period of insane explosions everywhere. CGI though, combined with the rapidisation of Franchise Features and Built-In Trilogies around the Turn of the Century easily allowed Cookie-Cutter Comic Book Films to overtake True Action Films.

This article published a few months ago on IFC also points out the lack of popular acceptance for cartoonish villains and plots in a serious, politically correct minded post-9/11 world. A film like The Expendables belongs in the 80s in many ways - the big muscular dudes, excessive violence, inconsequential plot and filmic interpretations. More on that later.

"We Need an Old-Fashioned Cop:"

One huge disparity between Comic Book Films and Action Films is the relationship between actors and their characters. Schwarzenegger is Quaid, Stallone is Gabe Walker , Willis is Korben Dallas (I had to look up these names). They incorporate these characters into their own personas. This is some of the reason why it's so hard to duplicate a Terminator film that doesn't feature some incarnation of Arnie. The Pop Culture Memory of what the Terminator is started with Arnold. All of these Action Heroes really just played folds of their Popular Personas, it's more like "Cage is kicking ass" or "Jean Claude doesn't take shit" than "Oooh, look at Spider-Man swing!"

My point is that actors starring in Comic Book Films are typically smaller than the comic. The Comic Book Film is sold on its print property, a True Action Film is sold on a combination of Star Power and Ridiculous Premise. Most successful Comic Book Adaptations however, star unknowns in the lead who can take upon the mantle of the character rather than the other way around. Tobery Maguire, Hugh Jackman and Brandon Routh come to mind as actors who built their careers around playing already firmly established characters rather than providing a foothold of their own. There's not a whole lot of room to place distinguished personas in these roles.

There are a few exceptions, of course, though mainly these are for Chameleons rather than Typecast Actors, as highlighted in an article featured on IMDB today. Robert Downey, Jr puts a lot of himself into Tony Stark (and if his Sherlock Holmes is any indication that is all he feels like playing these days), but he's certainly a more versatile actor with a wider range than some of the old Action Staples. Other notable actors playing Superheros has a variety of effects. I actually don't mind Ben Affleck's Daredevil that much and Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen certainly shine in X-Men (2000). This doesn't belay the simple fact however, that Superhero films simply cannot replace Action Films, which was de facto for a huge amount of Summers between 2002 and 2008.

"I'm Gettin' Too Old for This Shit:"

This is all of course not to say that there weren't any True Action Films in the 2000s. There's definitely discrepancies between Vin Diesel/Dwayne Johnson-type movies and the old Arnie/Sly flicks. There is even a great "passing of the torch" moment in The Rundown (2003) where Arnie wishes The Rock good luck. Who would have ever guessed this would happen to that Budding Action Star just a few years past.

Prior to Spider-Man (2002), the true moment when Comic Book Films took over, we had this assortment of Action-Driven pieces. After that though, we basically had a handful of Jason Statham Movies, Smokin' Aces (2006) and...what? Paycheck (2003)? I, Robot (2004)? Babylon A.D. (2008)? Holy Shit. These are dark times.

2008 was the Banner Year for Comic Book Movies. A healthy combo of Iron Man, The Dark Knight and The Incredible Hulk all proved that Superhero films could be damned good, even Academy-Award Winning. All three of these also made ridiculous bank in addition to widespread critical acclaim. Finally melding True Action Films with Comic Properties, all three starred established, critically adored actors, as if it finally wasn't beneath critics to praise Superhero acting. The films were sold on this combination of Actor's Clout and pre-established property.

Since then, however, we have actually moved away from Comic Book Films a bit. There are a surprising amount of Original Ideas this Summer (How they've fared is not as optimistic). More importantly, across the past two years we've had many successful Action Films that, while not in the true 90s mold at all, are moving away from the Stale Superhero Format. These include Taken (2009), District 9 (2009), Inglourious Basterds (2009), AVABAR (2009), Inception (2010) and The Expendables. Taken and The Expendables tend to actually fit the mold pretty well (except of course for the fact that all our Action Heroes are now in their 60s).

Even films based on prior properties like The A-Team (2010), The Losers (2010) and MacGruber (2010) have that distinct Fun Action feel rather than that brooding, whiny emotional Comic Feel that had pervased Cinema since Spider-Man 2 (2004). I mean, this was one of the most awesome fucking moments in movies in years. Either way, newer ideas doing well bodes well for the return of True Action Films.

"Relationships that Start Under Intense Circumstances, They Never Last:"

2011 is going to Atom-Bomb any hope we have. Among releases include Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, X-Men: First Class and Green Lantern. The Summer after that should be even more huge with The Avengers and Batman 3: Pajama Party. Marvel vs. DC truly pitting their giants against each other. Wowsers. Will we ever get our True Action Film back again?

Sure, if Sly and The Expendables 2: The Reckoning (2012) have anything to say about it.

Tops: Four Great Songs in Great Trailers for Cruddy Films

I believe it was all those Terminator Trailers I was watching a while back that got me thinking of this. Sometimes there's a film on the Release Horizon which has some potential to be pretty awesome but there's a lot of doubt until the trailer comes through. These could be a tricky adaptation, an unnecessary sequel or even a wholly new idea that's yet untested. In any event we require some solid trailers in order for filmmakers to sell us on their product.

Every once in a while then, one of these potentially shitty films delivers a trailer that knocks the shit out audiences. What sparked my interest here are four recent trailers that are particularly tied to certain songs, musical cues that pushed them over that edge of doubt. More often than not, the films did turn out to be really shitty. But these trailers and the songs attached are awesome:

Terminator Salvation (2009): "The Day The Whole World Went Away," by Nine Inch Nails

Full Song Here, check out its use in the trailer below:



Wow. This trailer is still awesome. This is one of the most lopsided trailer-to-film ratios I can come up with. Watching this right now actually makes me want to waste my change again to see T4. But I know it's shit now.

This trailer is awesome in a few ways - it introduces a new facet of SkyNet's arsenal against mankind (an unknowing-cyborg Sam Worthington), new huge powerful machines, plausible Human Uprising ("A strength that cannot be measured..."), and lots of explosions and Bale Yelling. There's a sense of danger, a sense of mystery, man vs. technology, John Connor finally becoming the man he was foretold to be, and Nine Inch Nails really fills in the punctuation - melodious humming for the quiet moments, added gripping Ax Riffs in all the right places, wow. It's awesome. Then the Terminator Drums kick in at the end! Holy shit!

McG needs to be burned and then eaten alive for his atrocities against Man and God.

Where the Wild Things Are (2009): "Wake Up," by Arcade Fire

Full Track here, here's its use in the trailer:



Doesn't that look like such a fun movie to go see? It's got this great mixture of adventure, playfulness and innocence with an equal measure of fear and darkness. You get the feeling that it should be this film that really captures the essence of childhood, discovering the world and conquering fears. Instead it's a parable for divorce.

Ahem. I suppose in part it turns out to be a child conquering his fear of pain and divorce, creating monsters and a fantasy world as a subconscious coping method to put the situation of his broken home into more palatable terms. In fact, the film does an excellent job of making the audience feel like they are caught in a conflict that isn't quite understandable. What happened to the wild rumpus though?

Arcade Fire's ups and downs, childlike choir notes and melody that stretches from epic to juvenile all while remaining in the realm of the fantastic make it the perfect track for this movie. It works really well as a counter-balance to everything shown on screen for those two minutes. The film itself, while not meeting expectations for many film-goers, is a beast all its own. If you get what it's trying to do to you and are cool with it, it's pretty enjoyable. If not, sucks.

Watchmen (2009): "The Beginning is the End is the Beginning," by Smashing Pumpkins

Listen to the full song here, then take a gander at the trailer below:



Yep. The Watchmen trailer was a true thing of beauty. I believe it was sidled with showings of The Dark Knight (2008), which really fulfilled any Fanboy's fantasies. The song perfectly lines up with the action on screen, even providing pauses for money quotes ("God help us all...," "The world will look up and shout 'save us' and I'll whisper...no.") and money shots (Manhattan's Mars Creation; Dong). It even matches up to an unfurling flag on the grave of The Comedian. It does its job by introducing interesting aspects and relationships of every character as well as providing a pretty real sense of danger and intensity. That shot of Nite Owl screaming in the snow is still haunting.

What's a real shame then is the utterly uninspired selection of songs in the actual film and soundtrack. I mean, one after another. Holy fuck. Clichéd and out of place constantly. Whatever your opinion of this film, it's fair to say generally it sucked a pretty hard dick with far too much teeth for anyone to enjoy. This trailer still pumps me up though.

Pineapple Express (2008): "Paper Planes," by M.I.A.

This incredible song featured here, it's trailer companion below:



Legendary shit. I ranked Pineapple Express as one of my favourite films of the past decade and its status gets bumped up every time I see it. It's a great movie and "Paper Planes" really captures its double-hit of fun, goofiness and some hard action. It's a balance between sincere reality and stoner comedy that makes the film work and the "Some, Some, Some I, Some I murder/Some I, Some I let go" mood of M.I.A. fits in this hazy area really well.

It also paces the trailer really well, the obvious cuts along with the glock clicks and gunshots are key, but as is the redemptive naked fire-carryout along the tune of "Pirate skulls and bones/Stick and stones and weed and bongs" that makes this soothing, take-pot-and-violence-for-granted tone that makes it such a perfect match for this flick.

It's also important to note here that after she was featured in this trailer, M.I.A. blew up huge everywhere. "Paper Planes" became an international hit, she was featured in a ton of other Hip-Hop tracks and then went and got herself preggers. The trailer did it baby, and that's the whole point of his post.

I'm sure there are many other Song/Film/Trailer combos that really worked (or didn't) out there but these are the four that most catch my eye. Willing to here more ideas below:

Happy Listening!

Because it was on TV: The Success and Failure of the Terminator Franchise and the Future of Blockbusters, Part II

Welcome to Part II of Norwegian Morning Wood's longest ever titled post, examining the modern blockbuster with a special focus on the Terminator franchise. Bounce over to Part I for some initial ramblings on some of the genuine merits of one of the greatest action movie of all time, Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991). After watching this on TNT last week, I started thinking about its role against more recent action films. One question I think we need to address is thus, Do we think T2 is so good because today's blockbusters are so bad?

So, What have we got?

I've been racking my brain to find another blockbuster as good as T2 from the past decade. There's not a lot even from the 1990s. Now what I mean, for the sake of argument, is let's say a big "event" tentpole film that grosses at least $120 million. Big action films that have some kind of artistic merit. Amongst all the shit that has come out this decade, I'll posit myself that the following action films have come close to replicating T2, although none I think are as well paced and structured as the 1991 Epic. After we run through this I'll mention a few close calls and some clear exceptions.

The Bourne Series (2002 - 2007): These are all pretty good while Identity (2002) barely covers my wide ranging appeal criteria, the subsequent films did in spades. Identity is by far my pick for the best in the franchise, though and its influence within both the spy and action genres in this decade is enormous.

Harry Potter (2001 - Present): While all of these are above average blockbuster films, the only really exceptional one is Prisoner of Azkaban (2004), which of course has the least gross.

Star Trek (2009): By all rounds this had the pacing and thrill to rival T2 but by far its complications, array of characters, lack of an iconic villain and "easy" ending bring it down for me. Remember how basic and simply driven T2 was from its four primary characters. In Trek we get to know the Spock/Kirk dynamic a bit but beyond that the crew are basically stock (except Simon Pegg).

Spider-Man 2 (2004): I have some problems with the first and third installments, but the second Spider-Man is about as close to a perfect superhero movie as you can get. In Summer 2004 no one thought this one would be topped.

X2: X-Men United (2003): Keeping with superheroes for a second, X2 shines far above the other X-Men films. Again, being on the top of the Comic Book pile isn't a great accomplishment.

Minority Report (2002): Underrated and one of both Spielberg and Tommy's best films of the past decade. It has a sense of classicism that should give it more credence amongst SciFi fans that it currently has.

That's about all I got. I'd also give Steve and Tommy War of the Worlds (2005) if they hadn't mucked up the ending so hard. I still contend that that film has some incredible moments, intense drama and is the type of film that is thoroughly more enjoyable in a big loud theater than on a TV screen at home. Speaking of movies that need to be seen in theaters, I'd actually rather not mention AVABAR (2009). AVABAR sucks. What you should immediately get from that list is pretty basic - none of them really even come close to how awesome T2 is. None of the above feature the combination of groundbreaking action, deep characters and legitimate thought-provocation that T2 elicits.

Now, I was watching I Am Legend (2007) last weekend, which inspired a lot of this post. As I'm watching this thing start I started remember how awesome this movie was. The opening empty streets of NYC, hunting deer with a canine buddy in a sports car, there's a good amount of iconography at work here and some great scenes...in the first half. The threat of the Anti-Sun Zombie Vampires is insane, there's such an unstoppable fear to them during those first slow scenes, building up the horror Will finds when he sees them huddled in a Breathing Corner in that abandoned building. It builds up really cool, Will does a great job on his own and there's this affection between man and dog that you can tell lasted the apocalypse.

Then (SPOILER) the mutt dies. It's powerful and sad shit, but after that the movie just becomes this big rolling piece of shit that won't stop. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, this ending would have saved it a bit (for some reason half of that video is in German, you'll get the just of it), giving the monsters a lot more depth as well as attributing new contemplative meaning to both the entire story as well as the title. Instead, we got normal Hollywood shit. Let's move on with our lives.

That Can't be it!

There's two big franchises I've left out here. The first is every movie in the Lord of the Rings series, all of which are peak film experiences. They approach the unspeakably good level, and unlike its comparative trilogy from last generation, they don't sell themselves out as they go along.

Then we've got Nolanverse Batman. Like I said, when Spider-Man 2 emerged, no one thought superhero films could get better. A year later they did. On IMDB, Batman Begins (2005) is the #107 movie of all time, The Dark Knight (2008) is #10. Ridiculous internet voting aside, these are two fantastic movies, and I hate them for it. I hate them because they buck the trend. For the next couple years whenever anyone complains that no good film makes a lot of money at the box office, or that superhero movies are really pretty shitty, anyone can always pull out The Dark Knight as a counterpoint. It sucks. It's almost like Godwin's Law. The more we talk about shitty blockbusters, the closer we'll be to talking about The Dark Knight. I'll be the first to admit that it is a fantastically well-made film. I don't believe it deserved a Best Picture nomination (C'mon - Gran Torino [2008] should have won...) and it certainly has its own problems, but in the end it is a film that elevates itself above the competition of the past twenty years and ends up (along with any Lord of the Rings) as the only film that can stand against T2.

Wasn't there some Terminator Sequel recently that was supposed to rule?

Okay, so we've found that there are a handful of pretty good blockbusters, but it's admittedly rare. Now, pretend it's Spring 2009 and you see this trailer:



Holy Shit! McG didn't screw this up! This is one of the most incredible trailers to come out in recent memory, every part of it is fucking fantastic - you're promised a great actor, Christian Bale in the lead role (to be fair, Bale's been the most boring part of his last four films), grisly Worthington supporting, terror on the face of Katherine Brewster. Katherine Brewster is fucking shitpantsed, look at that face. She shit her pants from awesome. This is inspirational in every way a Terminator trailor needs to be - humanity facing a fruitless war against cold machines but fuck it - we have a strength that CANNOT BE MEASURED. Not to mention that if we stay the course, WE ARE ALL DEAD! Then the drums come in, how can you not get pumped at that thudding. The trailer evokes every great part of the glimpses of the future we saw in the first three films and promises more.

Then it just kind of stumbled and fucked up. Apparently, McG could screw up this franchise. He could screw it up pretty bad. I mean, watch Charlie's Angels (2000), this shit makes no sense. I mean, we can have all the fun in the world adding another movie to Common's filmography where his character is completely unnecessary, but this is getting ridiculous. Every cool part that could or should have been developed (Connor's baby, all of what Sam Worthington's means) wasn't, and the thing ends with this dependability on Arnold, which is below the franchise at this point. It was always Connor's story, that's the catch more than that fucking Austrian. This really pisses me off here.

I'll even support T3: Rise of the Machines (2003). Granted that couldn't live up to the enormous standard set by its predecessors and reads more as a generic action movie, it's got its great moments (Elton John glasses, truck chase (from dawn to morning better than T2 and the graveyard are all pretty top-notch). It stumbles with the mythology, but whatever, it's probably the best we could have expected. With an "I'll be back" or an "Hasta la vista" line it could have sealed the deal on cultural ubiquity. There just wasn't enough in this movie that felt like it deserved that Terminator mantle.

But no, T4 managed to take what is ultimately an okay film in T3 and kick it in the balls so hard the franchise got cumstains on its tongue. T3 sure did lower standards, but this is fucking terrible. How did this happen? I cry at night in bed after watching both these movies and struggle every day believing they're in the same franchise.

So what now?

There's hope yet. 2009 had a slew of good, cheap films like District 9 and Inglourious Basterds to its credit, along with the aforementioned Star Trek. Throw in The Hangover and Moon and we had one hell of a summer last year. This year so far hasn't seen anything that could possibly come close and unless The Expendables (2010) delivers what it's meant to, we might as well hold our blue balls hoping Thor (2011) kicks Holy Ass next year.

Where art thou, Superior Action Film? Where art thou?

Because it was on TV: The Success and Failure of the Terminator Franchise and the Future of Blockbusters, Part I

Congratulations on the longest blog title ever.

This is something I've needed to address for a while. In the past couple months I've had the opportunity to watch every Terminator film over again (except T4, but the taste of shit is still pretty fresh in my mouth from last year) and during last week's spectacular line-up on TNT, which included both T2: Judgment Day (1991) and I Am Legend (2007), I began thinking about the blockbuster. The first Terminator (1984) is far from an tentpole although it did pretty well. It views more like an 80s horror or even a B-Movie (we also need to re-evaluate our standards for 80s films, outside of Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies, the decade wasn't really filled with Big Budget Franchises like our Summers are today). T2, however, is not only one of the best blockbusters I've ever seen, it's probably one of the best films I've ever seen period. I want to ramble about this for a while, contrasting it to the later films in the Franchise and then talking about the lacking quality in our Contemporary Tentpole. Let's begin:

The Merits of T2

Why is this movie so awesome? It exudes awesome out of every possible pore. Almost every facet is close to perfect. It works largely because while it is an action and effects driven sequel, it also is intently character driven while simultaneously limiting the scope to four major characters (Sarah and John Connor, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the T-1000). While implementing an initially similar plot as the first film, T2 quickly establishes itself as tonally distinct while progressing its characters into new interesting yet plausible states.

Characters are what makes a film last in memory. The Characters, for instance, were the glue that kept LOST grounded amongst the most ridiculous TV plotlines in history. Likewise, as complicated as the plot of the Terminator's franchise was (it was never that tough, I don't think), the characters kept viewers tuned in and interested. Let's start with really the only common thread between the first two films, Sarah Connor.

In the first movie Sarah doesn't know shit. She's kind of flighty while still bold, but eventually steps up into her role and kills the Terminator sent to kill her. Thus in T2 her plot line continues as she becomes harder and harder until she becomes really the toughest, hardened character in the film. Throughout Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) and Terminator 4: Shitmouth (2009) she becomes only a legend in death. I feel like while this was a good step to go with the character rather than overusing her potential, when she was lost we lost that one person who had glimpsed Apocalypse. Through her dreams and direct contact with the Human who had lived through it, Kyle Reese, her connection and desperation was always more driven than John Connor's. In T3 John is trying to save the world because someone told him to. In T2 Sarah Connor tries to save the world because she needs to. Something is lost here.

In four films we have three John Connors. Edward Furlong does the best job portraying this character although I give in that this could be only because we always picture his potential instead of witnessing it. That's actually a fine reason in itself - Nick Stahl and Christian Bale never really do much shit as the Saviour of Humanity to earn that title. Furlong is this punk kid who 1) continually outwits machines and deploys a knack for hacking and using them to his advantage, 2) is incredibly aggressive with all kinds of authority figures (hating foster parents and cops) and 3) cares deeply for humanity (preventing Arnie from killing innocents, preventing his mother from killing Dyson and expressing a love for friends and family). These are all the qualities a great leader against the machines needs. Let's evaluate Stahl and Bale.

Stahl is whiny. Furlong had this whiny streak but countered it with an equally aggressive streak. Stahl doesn't outwit any machines when he should be starting to become clever enough to do so. He's more passively antagonistic with authority figures, desiring fear of loss instead of drive to win. He also wishes to bone Claire Danes, but other than that never really shows compassion for humanity. His only explicit distaste for machines must be initiated by Arnold himself. Bale is even worse really. Although he does two cool things in the film, including taking out some machines in the beginning (losing a ton of men in the process) and grabbing a Robo-Cycle, he isn't really capable of anything great once inside the Skynet City. He's a bitch when dealing with the Human Submarine Council whatever, though he plays rogue a little bit and never really has enough emotional depth to express care for humanity. Bale is always too focused on being badass rather than selling the character's heart - which is of course what he's supposed to be fighting for. The thing about T4 is that it never gives John a chance to prove that there's a reason Humanity should follow him. That should have been the point. If this guy is so important that Skynet sends three Terminators to the past to take him out, which must require a huge amount of energy and Robo-Tax Dollars then he needed to prove that he was worth it. It just doesn't.

The major fault of T2 is actually that it's so iconic, filled with elements that are just so "perfect" that it's about impossible to ever duplicate. The T-1000 is a good example. This new Terminator is an exponentially worse threat than the already formidable Arnold from the first movie. I mean, this cat can hide in the floor! It's major power is deception and investigation, through disguises as authority figures and ruthless access to information. Add a modifiable weapon and tool arsenal (metal that can pierce a milk carton or open an elevator), as well as a basically invulnerable structure and the T-1000 is one of the most powerful villains of all time. Really, think of anything other than a tub of molten metal that could kill this thing. Ever. The Sun maybe? The only thing that could kill it or even trap it is if Arnold threw it into the Sun. The TX does not top this, she merely retreads old ideas and is never the threat that the Kilo is. Of course then, nothing in T4 comes close.

At the core of T2 is a tremendous plot shift that is simultaneously repetitive. The major villain from the first film is now the major hero, fulfilling the role of "Protector from the Future" that a human served in the first film. What's awesome is that not knowing about this plot shift going into the film offers a very unique experience. It's not until both Terminators stumble upon John Connor do we understand who was doing what. Some of the trailers hinted at this, although I don't believe the final one did:



Let's get back to the characters. Every single character in this movie has a genuine arc, even the robots. T2 becomes a great film not in its explosive chase scenes or effects wizardry (which still look great, as I'll talk about later, even I Am Legend looks shitty) but rather in its smaller moments. Moments like Sarah Conner with the swingset, the bonding between John and Arnie in the desert, and the repeated crying motif. That whole desert scene is one of the best, it's one of a bunch of moments when John Connor acts like a real kid who has the coolest toy on the planet. Sarah's monologue is the soul of the film - the machine that will never beat him or neglect him, never abandon him, the best father that John could have. The bond between man and machine that fosters an understanding in John that subsequently allows him to save Humanity. All of this going on in T2's subtext underneath a shiny veneer of cool explosions lifts it above its successors.

I think I've run out of room again. I'll next talk more in-depth concerning this film's relation to its own Franchise as well as the Blockbusters of our time. Stay tuned, dear readers.

Terminator 4 and the Blessid Failure of Major Franchises

Today we see the release of one of the most disappointing movies of 2009 on DVD, Blu-ray and presumably VHS, Terminator 4: Shitstorm. T4 just about blew all opportunities to be a great film, from the missed major themes to the general dumbness of the basic plot. I actually had some enjoyment watching it, mostly for really nailing the gritty apocalyptic world and some cool effects on Sammy Worthington's half-man half-robot battle damage. All in all, though really an incredibly bad movie.

But what's sweet is that this didn't kill the franchise. That honour is of course reserved for Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003). In essence, the series can never be ruined now, because T3 already ruined it years ago. We can all rest easy. But what went wrong, and is that a bad thing?

Let's travel back to 1991. T2 is incredible as a genuinely good action film. I contend that the computer-generated imagery still looks good today (even against T4). The plot, the fights, "Hasta la Vista" (what fucking kids actually said that in the early '90s as an actual slang term before that movie?), everything is instantly iconic. I think one of the biggest achievements that many people tend to forget these days is the first act twist that the evil Terminator from the first movie is the protector of the second. Leading up all the way to that mall hallway scene audiences had no idea who was what, which is sweet. James Cameron in his prime, awesome, kick-ass.

T3 in many regards is a good action movie. It's just really not Terminator good. Nothing is really incredibly groundbreaking (although I do think that Arnie's late battle damage face is pretty damn good [#24 what]). There's also some sweet naked babe re-entries, graveyard fight and Elton John glasses. That's about it. It sucked because nothing special really happened, although it progressed the story in a natural, decent if not great way. The biggest thing that marred it was probably a public's obsession with nostalgia for Schwarzenegger and atmosphere (funny, it seems Skynet in T4 wanted to kill John Connor with the same ideas). T3 lowered expectations for T4, and T4 lowered our expectations for any more of these monstrosities (which we'll definitely see in this Millennium or the next).

It's very difficult for franchises to keep going after the core story is set. Oftentimes characters or situations end up just becoming a parody of themselves (see John McClane in Die Hard: With a Vengeance 1995). What's sweet is that when franchises are ruined there's no where to go but up, mostly in the form of re-boot / re-make / re-imagining whatever. James Bond is pretty famous for doing these about once a decade (thank you Martin Campbell). Considering that Quantum of Solace (2008) was a little on the weak side, I expect another slippery downfall pretty soon. Don't worry though, the franchise was already ruined by Die Another Day (2002), wait...I meant The World is Not Enough (1999), or no, no A View to a Kill (1985), no shit, definitely You Only Live Twice (1967). The sweet thing about the franchise is that for every License to Kill (1989) you've got a GoldenEye (1995), for every Die Another Day a Casino Royale (2006). The Bond Series can never be ruined. It's been ruined literally dozens of times before. Many franchises are like this.

Godzilla is notable for pretty much throwing in the towel at their third film, then proceeding to make twenty-five more. See also Spider-Man 3, on pace for the same result. I shouldn't even have to mention Indiana Jones...yeah that movie lost me at gophers way before refrigerators. And now Indiana Jones can never be ruined. How about that?!

Some studios though are on incredible hot streaks. Pixar's had an incredible fourteen-year, ten film streak that never ceases to astound me. Likewise Marvel Studio's self-produced films have been very good so far with much more in development. Unfortunately this creates a pretty high standard to live up to. The glass hasn't broken yet. The other foot's gotta fall and it's gonna fall hard. Shit. You've got to love a series like Terminator that blows away any hope of redemption instantly in favour of shitty shitty storytelling and failure to innovate after remolding the entire industry. Such spectacular failure surely funds the next re-boot or whatever happens that can then be truly great. Beware an excellent franchise, their eventual failure will be spectacular. Shitty films are where the true genius lies. Somehow I can follow this logic.

Of course you've also got a series like Transformers that instantly starts out shitty and then goes downhill from there. Now, Michael Bay may be on to something here, if the third installment is somehow incredibly good and blows away all kinds of expectations, he will be forever praised as a golden god walking among mere mortals and I'm sure will be granted an instant Oscar. It's all about the expectations. We'll see, dear readers, we'll see.