Redux: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Redux #089: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Cast: 

Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Terminator), Nick Stahl (John Connor), Kristanna Loken (T-X), Claire Danes (Kate Brewster), David Andrews (Lieutenant General Robert Brewster), Mark Famiglietti (Scott Mason), and Earl Boen (Dr. Peter Silberman) Directed by Jonathan Mostow.

Review: 

From my review on January 25, 2012: 

This is a film I had forgotten to review a while long ago (man that sounds redundant), and so I will do it justice. As such, let us see if this film is any better then the two before it. And in a few words it is not so. It's a decent film, as it has action to entertain you. The plot is not as interesting as the first two, but the film at least doesn't make that happen on purpose. It tries hard to revive the series, and it succeeds. The film isn't as good as the first two, but it is at least decent. This film basically sells all that the first two did in story all to just to revive this franchise, So...We have 3 films in which the Terminator is our real hero, and now we have a fourth on our hands. Who's the hero? Batman? Oh wait, that Batman...What's the name? Salvation. Huh. Fitting title, isn't it? This ends Part IV of Robot Week.

On July 2, 2003, the third film of The Terminator series seeped into theaters. You may remember Terminator 2: Judgement Day had come out in 1991, twelve years prior. James Cameron had made it with the idea that it would be the end of the series. Of course, he didn't own the franchise, but even he had an interest in doing another film by the time he was behind the studio park attraction T2-3D: Battle Across Time in 1996. The bankruptcy of Carolco Pictures created a conundrum of who would own what eventually led to Mario F. Kassar and Andrew G. Vajna spearheading an effort to make a third film (which meant paying its key star a good deal of money) rather than 20th Century Fox or Cameron. Schwarzenegger thought about rejecting the film before he was convinced by Cameron that if they had a good script idea and a ton of cash to pay, "don't think twice". The first draft was done by Tedi Serafian in 1999. In 2001, Jonathan Mostow was recruited to direct the film on the heels of his first two features as writer and director) that received attention with Breakdown (1997) and U-571 (2000). Right after he was brought in, he sought the help of Michael Ferris and John Brancato, a screenwriting duo that had also went to Harvard University with Mostow (the most noted of the screenplays written by Ferris and Brancato is probably The Game (1997)). While he knew that there would be immense skepticism towards the idea of a third film, he felt that the best way to disarm those people would be to make the choice to use humor, for which he has stated that some parts have not aged quite well with time. With a budget over $150 million, the film was a general success, although a fourth Terminator film would not come out until 2009, as done by new owner of the series in The Halcyon Company with an entirely new cast while Ferris and Brancato were kept as one of numerous writers.

Truthfully, I feel more of an obligation to look back on films with milestones now more than ever to see just what I got right and wrong within my perceptions years ago. I didn't really have doubts about the first two Terminator films, those reviews were most re-done because I felt like it. But I was curious to see what I would feel about the third film, which is now twenty years old and is generally felt to be the peak for Schwarzenegger as an action star. One month after the release of the film, he made a run for the recall race for Governor of the State of California, which, well, he won. It is evident quickly that the movie is looking to be an entertaining movie in scale to make up for the obvious fact that it is the third film of a series where the last two are basically the best thing one could ever hope to make with the series. Of course, there is one other thing that sticks out to me when compared to the other two, but more on that in a bit. Honestly, I had a fear that I would think the film as too good to be true the next time seeing it. Hell, what do you know, I found it to be a delightful feature that might as well serve as the true example of a big-budget B-movie in all of its odd characteristics. The best of these are ones that don't shy away in embarrassment. Schwarzenegger was actually 55 at the time of the release of this film, but he still has the chops required to pull off the beat of "kicking ass" while also providing a bit of levity (shtick or not). Stahl was cast after a bit of time was spent in preproduction with original T2 star Edward Furlong only to see him deal with personal issues that had him leave. I think he does pretty well here, all things considered. There is a soulfulness needed to convey the tension of this character that is seen here as drifting aimlessly until fate steps in. He grows in to a role that is not so much about relating to Schwarzenegger again like the previous film but instead about relating to getting a grip beyond despair and moving forward. Danes makes a quality piece of the traveling trio, wrapped in a panicked and weary timing that obviously merits watching in further movies with screen time.  Loken says fairly little by the halfway point, which means a good deal of stone-faced watching for a role that makes for fairly decent menace when considering that the role probably has a body count comparable to a slasher. 

I enjoy the movie as a spectacle because it does keep momentum within its chase in a time where there was still practical use for staging and stunts that tries to keep everything wrapped under two hours. The sequence where one has to convince the other to not fail their mission (namely by killing them) is a fairly neat sequence to stand well before the climax, although obviously the initial chase is a good one as well. The climax ends where else but by having the world get nuked. Oh, yeah, it does that. Actually that is probably the best way to end the film and maybe set up another one, just clean the slate and establish, that, well, maybe there was a time for one to make a fate for themselves, but that some things are just inevitably over. The third Terminator film can't handle a comparison to the previous two Cameron films, but who honestly can? It still makes a quality blockbuster venture that saw its star get one more glow in the spotlight and deliver some entertaining spectacle for those who care for that sort of thing, which makes it all worth it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Igby Goes Down.

Review #1253: Igby Goes Down.

Cast: 
Kieran Culkin (Jason "Igby" Slocumb, Jr.), Claire Danes (Sookie Sapperstein), Jeff Goldblum (D.H. Banes), Amanda Peet (Rachel), Ryan Phillippe (Oliver "Ollie" Slocumb), Bill Pullman (Jason Slocumb, Sr.), Susan Sarandon (Mimi Slocumb), Bill Irwin (Lt. Ernest Smith), Jared Harris (Russel), and Celia Weston (Bunny) Written and Directed by Burr Steers.

Review: 
Call it writer's block, call it a logjam - this review took over a week to actually come to fruition, with two reviews sandwiched between UHF and this.

What is there to say about a film like this? It is an independent comedy drama that likely fits best to languish on a film shelf for years before you eventually get around to actually seeing if its worth it. The most annoying films to write about are the mediocre ones, where it isn't a terrible experience to sit through but it also isn't anything to really write home about either. In the long run, this mixed bag middles too much with its misanthrope main character for its first half while faced with more interesting supporting actors before its second half lands with a soft thud. There isn't a terrible performance in the bunch, nor is the film really that awful to sit through in the long run, but it sure takes its time in making itself seem worth a look, as if making a coming-of-age movie needed acidic foundations (in this case, a nutty rich family) to really make for entertainment. It feels like an interesting film when not faced with its silly misanthrope lead (or when he isn't being romanced / being assaulted by someone, like a therapist), but it really does seem at times more fitting for a novel than a film, albeit with a few chapters being tossed around. The best response one can have for the question of why should I care about what is going on is that it is meant to be sharply witty and observant, the kind of film that can picked and poked at the same way one could poke at The Catcher in the Rye, I suppose. This for a film that features a scene of someone who when told of how dirty he looks comes back to the family dinner table without clothes. When I really care about the movie is the parts around the main character - it needed more weird moments with people like Goldblum, Pullman, and Sarandon, who are each adept at garnering some humor along with showing the flip-side of life as an adult with some money - whether that involves hypocrisy or succumbing to pressures. I do at least appreciate Culkin for taking a role as ridiculous acidic as this one is and making an attempt to garner some humor. The same can be said for Danes and Peet, who clearly need more time on screen besides just being around the main character from time to time. Phillippe and Irwin provide small but useful moments. Sometimes a film can make you think about how you were growing up with all the changes that occur around you, whether through friends, family, or all of the above. Igby just happens to be on the fringes of adulthood - what better way to respond to it by skipping school, romantic moments, and plenty of loathing to go around. It sure wants to play cynical with its coming-of-age story - heck, why not go further? Fully drag its soap opera level of weird events to its natural conclusion - blather on for longer than 98 minutes and give these characters enough depth (and perhaps rope) to trap themselves within hypocrisy and what it means to be a human being - whatever that means. Go nuts and make this an attempt at garnering some real humor instead of trying to have it both ways with jokes and pathos. Of course one can't really take much of this that seriously, minus the parts involving Igby and his father (to a point); the time spent with him and his mother only really seems to come out in the second half rather than really drive the film home all the way. On the whole, this proves to be a frustrating film to sit through, where one can see the intentions from its director/writer Steers try to come out through a film that can't quite live up to making a clear resonating path. It becomes more depressing to see where the cast is and isn't used than the material itself, really. It may prove well for those who seek it out and have the right mindset for its tactics, but I just couldn't find this a clear enough winner to recommend it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Romeo + Juliet (1996)

Review #103: Romeo + Juliet.

Cast
Leonardo DiCaprio (Romeo Montague), Claire Danes (Juliet Capulet), Brian Dennehy (Ted Montague), John Leguizamo (Tybalt Capulet), Pete Postlethwaite (Father Lawrence), Paul Sorvino (Fulgenio Capulet), Diane Venora (Gloria Capulet), Paul Rudd (Dave Paris), and Vondie Curtis-Hall (Captain Prince). Directed by Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge!)

Review
Well, well, well, look what we have here. This is a "modern retelling of the classic story by William Shakespeare. And it is not a great retelling really. The casting is allright, especially with Romeo and Lawrence. However, at points it gets silly and stupid, such as the beginning scene, in which shouting is the only thing heard (And guns, so there ya go) It's a weird little film that uses the same dialouge from the play, cuts things out (such as the servent scene and others), and yet doesn't feel like a retelling. It feels like someone wanted to make Romeo and Juliet, but they were too lazy to just use the city of Verona, so they just used Verona Beach and messed around with the naming. It doesn't satisfy the modern audiance much in terms of making it big extravagence, and it doesn't impress the buffs of the play, making this an odd experiment that's point was...I don't know. Maybe it was to jump start plans for Hamlet 2000...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.