Change Your Image
Scott-2071
Reviews
Terminator Genisys (2015)
10 of 10
Terminator Genesis is 27% approved by professional reviewers, but 69% of the audience liked it. WTF? I loved it.
Perhaps this is about Ahnolds politics? If so, that would be sad.
Ahnold is back! Jason Clarke and Jai Courtney nail their roles. Emilia Clarke is a bit soft as Sarah Connor, especially given the plot and it's twists, but that's a nit. Nobody can match the grit and sizzle of Linda Hamilton in T2. Just Sayin.' This is The Terminator universe from T1, T2, and T3. You don't come to this movie not knowing some or all of that. Time travel is a core part of this reality. If you can't suspend disbelief on time travel, then none of the Terminator movies will work for you and never will. Starting with T2, it got more interesting, because protagonists and antagonists time-travel across the same time lines before that installment's hilarity ensues.
Terminator Genesys is a happy reunion with that universe... with crashes and chases and lots and lots of stunts. There are plenty of plot twists involving time travel to keep it all interesting, plus a whole lot of nods to things in other movies that fans will love. Don't wait for economy hour, go in prime time and buy a BIG popcorn!
Xin hai ge ming (2011)
"1911" is NOT a movie about the Colt .45 semi-automatic Pistol.
"1911" is NOT a movie about the Colt .45 semi-automatic Pistol.
"1911" was the year of a people's revolution in China. Like many modern revolutions (Iran), this one did not end well (Mao - though that was much later).
1911 the movie is an historical drama based on the fall of the Qing Dynasty and China's first attempts at becoming a Republic.
Jackie Chan co-directed and stars in a supporting role. There is one "Jackie-Chan-class" martial-arts scene, to placate his fans, having little to do with the plot. It involves little screen time, and is barely worth mentioning as fight scene or plot distraction.
The camera loves Chan and he the camera. He nicely under-plays his character but has scenes where his familiar face and real acting chops anchor the movie for western audiences.
"1911" overlaps the time and events of the movie "Last Emperor of China" and spends considerable screen time in the Imperial Court. In "Emperor," we meet PuYi at age 2-3 when he becomes Emperor, then follow him into adulthood and old age. PuYi was a child of 5 in 1911.
1911 was a genuine revolution a couple of decades prior to the battles that begat the time of Chairman Mao. If like me, you are barely aware of this period in Chinese History, this movie may give resolve to learn more. I have visited the rather large memorial to Dr Sun Yat-sen in Guangzhou. The Chinese Garden in Vancouver BC is an even larger memorial to him.
In addition to political manoeuvrings, the movie is about the mud and the blood and the guts of a revolution. Beautiful young men and women thrown into the meat grinder for the cause of "freedom" - or so they had all hoped. The movie introduces many such young people, then returns to mourn them - brilliantly, I thought.
The Qing Dynasty's end involved a couple of women serving as empresses / regents for about 50-60 years. I do not mean to say that it was a cause, only that it was an unusual fact. "1911" showed Empress Dowager Longyu (Xiao Ding Jing / Xizi) as more focused on comfort and fashion that affairs of state. Hard to know how real that was from 100 years later. She would have been 42-43 in 1911 yet the movie shows her as a much younger very beautiful woman (played by Joan Chen). Her beauty is borne out by other reports from earlier in her life, however she passed away in 1913 at 44, and later pictures suggest significant dental problems.
PuYi, the "Last Emperor" was elevated to office at age 2 with affairs of state handled by a female Regent. From that day forward, PuYi was considered a living god with grown and powerful men kowtowing to his every whim. Probably bad for the psychological development of a 2 year old to say the least. I thought that 1911 showed this adequately.
An Emperor / Empress had total control to manage the affairs of state, and it would be the same for a Regent acting in his or her name. Like root/administrator access on a Linux/Windows Server that can work very well indeed if the administrator knows what s/he is doing. However that level of control can also destroy the system almost as easily through ignorance - or simple bad luck.
The political insulation and bureaucratic "plaque" built up for Chinese emperors is difficult to imagine. With occasional changes of dynasty through warfare, the concept of divine royalty had governed China for 2,000 years.
Behind high walls and gates, The Forbidden City/palace is nearly 8 million square feet (180 acres). The Vatican is about 3/5th as large, the Kremlin 1/3. It contains nearly 1,000 buildings and nearly 10,000 rooms. 9,000 people lived there to serve the imperial family. Only a select handful were allowed to even see the face of the emperor. If you weren't on that very short list the penalty for viewing his face was... death. Thus in modern dramas, you see high officials putting their faces to the floor when the emperor enters. That is by all accounts, quite real.
We know how isolated some of US Presidents have been, especially the bunker mentality of Mr. Nixon or Mr. Johnson late in their time in office; however the isolation from the "(wo)man in the street" of these Presidents is probably less than 1/100th that of the Chinese Imperial Court, due to scale, tradition and technologies.
Most of "1911" is in Mandarin with subtitles but you'll hear English where a scene is set in America's Chinatown or an aristocrat's gardens in England. At these garden parties, as European bankers would drink and dine and decide the fates of nations, Dr Sun Yat Sen lobbied them to stop loaning money to the Qing Dynasty. He succeeds, inhibiting their ability to buy weapons and pay soldiers. We also follow Dr. Sun as he travels to raise funds from the Overseas Chinese of America.
Dr. Sun declared that he would serve as interim President of China after sufficient battle victories allowed formation of a legislative body, but that he would resign as soon as the Qing Emperor abdicated. This he did. The political reasons and consequences of that decision are a major part of the movie.
Worth your time and money in theaters, but if that can't be worked into your schedule, be sure to rent it.
Scott-Bob
Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)
Shoulda beena contenda, but ...
Scott-Bob, says: Eight of 10 Stars. Actually a 7 but +1 for doing it for just $15 Million. Not bad at all for a $15 Million production budget.
Shoulda beena contenda, but falls a bit short.
Reasons to BUY a ticket include making a political statement, seeing a book you liked on the screen, or a watching a lesson in how to NOT make a political statement in a movie, despite a lot of momentum going in. As a clue that it COULD be done, this has value. Perhaps in 10-20 years, this will show another director what to do and not do and it will be tried again.
I am NOT calling fail. Just the absence of a win. It will NOT change minds.
It's a 2016 where the Arabs shut down oil production, making gasoline $37.50 a gallon. That worked. Air travel is pricey, so people who must travel use trains – that works. Restricting the scope of "Producers" to Railroads, steel and oil was thin, but it worked after a fashion.
WHAT WAS GOOD:
Condescending trophy wife underplayed very nicely.
Reardon Metal bracelet scenes all work, especially the first one.
Parties of the rich & famous - Gimme more!
Art-Deco architecture, evocative of the period in which Ayn Rand was active. Hope they got to shoot these pretties for cheap.
Good photography generally. Special Kudo's for shots of railroad hardware, including the machines that replace wooden ties with concrete ties. Nice helicopter shots of cities and countrysides, but that's been done.
CGI - A supertrain zooming through Colorado, glinting in the sun. Clearly CGI but it works.
Final take: Taylor Schilling as Dagney sold the scene that sets up Part 2 to me.
WHAT WAS THIN:
Offices of the major players were just wrong on several levels. A leaded-glass window of milky glass in a high rise? No. Didn't drive the plot, it distracted. Hank's office also didn't work for me. Again a distraction, but didn't blow up the story.
A young Power-babe role is sufficiently rare, even today. We should have been sold that she "has it" and "knows how to use it" at character introduction. Instead we get a rich man-child vs rich woman-child sibling rivalry. There's a confrontation with a union boss that could have been played much much stronger or much much softer. SOMEBODY should have raised their voice.
Boy/girl chemistry between Hank, the married industrialist and Dagny, a single power-babe was scripted, but on screen it was tepid at best. Shoulda sizzled. Didn't.
Dagney shows up to motivate her Colorado road crew dressed in suit, hose and heels. Downtown? OK. Muddy work-site? 10,000% wrong. No need for a full "Daisy Duke" but Jeans, Doc Marten's, a shirt tied with some tummy & cleavage showing, plus a hard hat and clipboard would have nailed it.
I would have felt better if the inaugural high-risk, high-speed-rail test run was preceded by a track inspection report. A nit.
WHAT FAILED:
SEX 1: The after-party "quickie" sex scene between Hank-the HERO and his ANTAGONIST trophy wife was utterly wrong on many levels. Here the HERO finishes quickly and goes back to work. The wife gently registers a "that's it?"
NOOOOO! Storytelling 101: THE HERO wants to give more, an antagonist-wife is barely interested or "done too soon" or thinking about the pool boy.
As is, or done better it should have setup a HOT HOT HOT "forbidden" sex scene. Nope.
SEX 2: The "forbidden" sex scene between Married Hank and Single Dagney was simply not all that hot. Everything between first kiss and first light of dawn could have been cut with zero impact on the story. It's really sad too: A *truly hot* sex scene can still be PG rated, just by showing how connected the couple are. The earlier "quickie" scene certainly set us up for that. This was a Double FAIL because it didn't deliver on the earlier promise.
METAL 1: A new bridge made out of Hank's new metal is a plot item. Bridges are things of great beauty, and have been since Roman days. Everyone loves the Golden Gate and new cable-stay bridges REALLY rock. After a big buildup, when finally we see Hank & Dagney's bridge, it plops by being impossible. Support towers and cable-stays are too short, even if made from titanium. That was so bad it broke my connection to the story. Silly, because it's just CGI - no extra costs needed. Silly because done correctly it coulda, shoulda, woulda looked magnificent.
METAL 2 In the same segment, a CGI high-speed-rail test run is a plot point and that works. However the train doesn't slow after a straightaway and takes curves at 250 mph - a speed 300% over what is physically possible. Again something broke my connection to the story. Hollywood usually fails to run things past an engineer or ANYONE who understands materials and physics. So sad.
POLITICS: Not showing the motivation of the political class as they muck with what actually works was a big fail.
DIVESTITURE: A plot item from the book was legislatively forced divestiture: "no one can own more than one company." That should have been skipped. Most families have retirement accounts containing mutual funds which own stock in multiple companies. Like the commercial says, you probably already own an oil company. This FAIL pulls your mind out of the story. I know, there's a plot line for Part 2 that it ties to, but it should have been re-worked.
There are more woulda-coulda-shouldas that would not have affected the production budget but I'll stop now.
Bottom line: Flawed, but not a failure. Worth seeing if only to see how well an independent production company did and didn't do on $15m.
Alexander (2004)
Worth Watching with all it's flaws
I find myself agreeing with almost all of the reviews here, from one star to ten stars. This could have been a great movie, with a different writer and director and star... However it is pretty close to an essential movie, so I recommend that you watch it. The extended wedding night scene on the Blu Ray release between Alexander (Colin Farrel) and Roxanne (the spectacular multi-ethnic Rosario Dawson) really crackles.
Stone missed on almost as many points as he hit, even in the Blu Ray "Final Cut" release, but it is an honest effort at a big topic. One may nit-pick it to death, but only after you've seen it.
I have watched it 3 times and do not regret those hours. That cannot be said of many movies watched only one time.
My first viewing was with Stone's commentary rather than on-screen dialog. It helped. The third was with the commentary by Oxford Professor Robin Lane Fox. Fox is author of a book on Alexander and on-set historical consultant to the film. They let him be one of a thousand extras in a big battle scene.
If one watches the included documentary by Stone's son, you get insight into Stone's relationship with his own parents which will give some significant insight into how this movie came to be what it is... as much about Oliver Stone as Alexander the Great of Macedonia.
The movie may seed your interest in Alexander, or give you glimpses at fairly good recreations of the art and architecture of those times. Love it or hate it, watching this movie is worth your time.