Home ยป Movies
'TERMINATOR SALVATION'
JUDGMENT DAY FOR FOURTH INSTALLMENT
By Sean Chavel
Terminator Salvation is a fireworks show that pops the eyes and blasts the ears, and for awhile, it has the potential to be more than that. But it has abandoned everything visionary that made the James Cameron installments classics in the sci-fi genre. The new film has countless fights in the desert. Bands of Resistance fighters combat one or two cyborg killing machines at a time, or perhaps a lethal hovercraft. In the series origins there was apocalyptic hopelessness shot in black and dark blues colors. Armies of Resistance fighters were matchless against innumerable cyborg armies. Survivors, the sick and feeble, crowded helplessly in the underground. Too bleak to laugh, to love, to bundle safely. This new film by the director who calls himself McG ("Charlie's Angels") prefers to embrace easy action-adventure conventions and depends on developing an overly sophisticated Resistance that doesn't fit the series lore.
If there's a casting concept that makes sense it is hiring Christian Bale to play post-apocalyptic John Connor circa 2018. Bale is the best actor to play John Connor since that anonymous actor played the older John Connor for a few seconds in the prelude of "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991). Bale has a brooding presence in roles good ("The Dark Knight") or evil ("American Psycho"), and that fuming ticking time-bomb persona in him is perfect for a character like John Connor, who is one of the last Resistance aspiring to save humankind. Connor is a character imbued with shame and fury, as if he hasn't gone far enough to risk his life for the sake of a greater purpose. Yet forget the character for a second. What makes Bale, a performer with great tension wound up in his face, so interesting is this unusual paradox: He simultaneously craves to be in the center frame and also appears to be the only actor out there today that seems like he hates himself for not putting enough of himself on the line. Sort of like John Connor.
Lesser known Sam Worthington is also a casting coup. He plays Marcus Wright, whom in 2003 is a death row convict shortly away from execution. Then Judgment Day came which annihilated most of the human race and pitted surviving humans in a war against the machines. Marcus awakens in the future to a devastated mankind. Worthington is given piss-poor dialogue to work with considering how he never asks the right questions as to why the world came out this way. Worth-ington does have an affecting scene where he asks Resistance fighter Blair Williams (Moon Bloodgood) if she believes people deserve a second chance. Worthington is an unknown stranger who will eventually - and conveniently - meet up with John Connor as well as contribute to the fate of mankind.
The apocalyptic future is a man's world but what about the women? Bloodgood is the most stirring female character in the film, certainly more suited to the story's tone than actress Bryce Dallas Howard ("Lady in the Water"), whom as John Connor's wife, seems appropriately concerned with John's safety but not too reactive when it comes to being concerned about the well-being of the entire human species. Here is an actress with the myopic limitation to concern herself on how to play an individual scene but not fully realizing of the tone and atmosphere of the movie's whole implications.
Getting back to the essentials, the key character to the film, and nearly the entire series, is Kyle Reese who is in this film played by Anton Yelchin ("Charlie Bartlett") who plays Reese as a young man. Reese will eventually grow up and travel back in time to 1984, behest, he was played by Michael Biehn in "The Terminator." Reese would eventually impregnate Sarah Connor and give birth to John. It is retrospective memory of Michael Biehn's performance of what made early "Terminator" movies so touching. I have mentioned the gloom and doom, the hopelessness, the lovelessness, of Cameron's first film. Why was his version so much more appealing and engaging? What made the emotional content so rich is that Biehn came from a future of war-torn madness, where his character Reese had rarely experienced human rights such as honest love and tenderness, and hungered for it with Sarah Connor. But on a greater analysis scale, the few human optimists fighting through the darkness and debasement is much more compelling than seeing this version's future where everybody seems well-enough equipped and instilled with strong coping mechanisms.
"Terminator Salvation," which seems more concerned with its pyrotechnics, loses its sense of sci-fi ingredients of paranoia and dystopia, the bread and butter of true science-fiction. In one scene, an outfit compound behaves mutinous over the arrival of human visitors Marcus Wright and Kyle Reese and youngling Star (Jadagrace). Den mother Virginia (Jane Alexander) of the compound, insisting an exchange of peace, offers carrots and cabbage to the youngster. All I could wonder is how in the world could there be a surplus of vegetables in the desert where no agriculture exists? In one scene, there are a couple of roaming goats in the background. That makes more sense. People could live on goat meat.
Every new "Terminator" movie seems to introduce a new cyborg model. While the movie employs the standard all-metallic model T-600 frequently, this installment nevertheless does introduce the Harvester, a big hovercraft which snatches people up with its claws and transports them back to Skynet where cyborgs generate themselves. This concept of collecting people has been seen in "Soylent Green" and "War of the Worlds," in both movies the harvesting of people had practical purpose. But the Harvester in this film raises dubious issues. People are collected. Sent up north to Skynet. Put through an assembly line (a slaughterhouse? No, not quite). Then encaged. There is no point of collecting and keeping people alive except to lure Resistance rescue teams. If that's the case, why don't the Terminators kill 98% of their captives and keep the ones they need for their insurance purposes? Why risk a force of 100% rebellion? Aren't these cyborgs supposed to be merciless and uncompromising efficiency experts?
In a movie filled with overblown action, there is a five-minute segment about halfway in where the Resistance team blows up the surrounding perimeter of their compound area, setting tons of trees on fire in the process. Every time they fight they are signaling other Terminators to locate their area. It's foolish to believe that a sensible John Connor, and his militia, would shoot after two targets that are a limited threat in relation to the firestorm of Terminators that could now locate and infiltrate their compound.
"Terminator Salvation" really isn't much different from other action movies today which contain scenes of heroes getting pummeled before they pop back up again to fight some more. It's the multi-life video game syndrome. I suppose to demerit this film on the same grounds of other contemporary action movies that violate the same sin is unfair, except that the "Terminator" movies deserve much better. When James Cameron unleashed the original part one (and part two with its ground-breaking special effects) he made humans not invincible or impervious to pain, but vulnerable and pitiable. This made for two films that were scarier, more terrifying, and a lot more thrilling. "Salvation" does have a surprise or two but it's the story foundation that crumbles disappointingly. As the story removes its action-adventure from the city to the desert (a cheap and plain way to shoot a movie), it's all the more double-disappointing. Die-hard "Terminator" fans will undoubtedly line up for this movie though, it's vital enough to gear up for the upcoming "Terminator 5" scheduled in two years.
Departures
By Ted Ott
This film is absolutely amazing. Were it an American movie we'd call it a 'little film.' But, there is nothing little about it at all. This is the story of a young and totally engaging couple. He's a member of a symphony orchestra, playing the cello. She designs websites. Life is perfect. Then the orchestra is disbanded because of paltry ticket sales and the young husband suddenly finds himself no longer the bread winner. Humiliated by his loss of employment, he retreats into the far northern reaches of Japan to the house in which he'd been raised and which his late mother had left to him.
He is desperate to find another job, any other job. Then he sees a job offered in the newspaper. He doesn't know it, of course, but there's been a misprint in the newspaper ad so that what he sees as a job helping with departures is actually an offer of a job helping with the departed. That he only discovers once he's hiked across town looking for some kind of travel agency. The proprietor is an older man who appears world weary and is so happy to see the young applicant; he hires him on the spot with only the most perfunctory of interviews. When, the next day the newly hired assistant discovers the exact nature of the job he is taken aback. It seems there is a strong prejudice in Japanese culture against touching the dead and this job is the respectful, ritualized preparation of the recently deceased for their ceremonial cremation. He comes to see what he's doing as the service to the community which it is and begins to take pride in his work.
For the wife who's stood by him through thick and thin, never questioning and always his staunch supporter, finding that he's lied to her, even if only by omission, is a shock and heartbroken she leaves him, telling him to come back to her when he can give up this disreputable job. He is hurt by her departure, but has really begun to see what he's going as a calling and not just a job. He helps families heal and contributes to their ability to achieve closure.
This film is so well made it transcends the limits and strictures of language and its native culture. I remember reading that Laurel and Hardy's silent films were understood and cherished all over the world, because their subjects were universal and transcended those same limits. I thought of them while watching Departures, because at some point in the film, I had unconsciously ceased reading the subtitles. They were unnecessary. This film speaks to its viewers in the gentle and loving respect it shows its characters and through them, its viewers.
How long has it been since you had the opportunity to be cherished by a motion picture? Who knows when you'll get that chance again?
Night at the Museum 2
By Staff Writer
Night has fallen upon the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. The guides have gone home; the lights are out, the school kids are tucked in their beds...yet something incredible is stirring as former night guard Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) finds himself lured into his biggest, most imagination-boggling adventure yet in which history truly comes alive. In this second installment of the Night at the Museum saga, Larry faces a battle so epic it could only unfold in the corridors of the world's largest museum. Now, Larry must try to save his formerly inanimate friends from what could be their last stand amid the wonders of the Smithsonian, all of which, from the famous paintings on the walls to the rocket ships in the halls, suddenly have a mind of their own.
The first film ever shot in the Smithsonian complex, the fun begins as Larry has left behind the low-paying world of guarding museums to become a sought-after inventor of Daley Devices infomercial products. He seems to have it all - but something is missing in his life, something that draws him back to his old haunt, the Museum of Natural History, where he once had the magical night of a lifetime. There, he makes an unsettling discovery. His favorite exhibits, indeed some of his truest friends, have been deemed out-of-date. Packed into crates, they await shipment to the vast archives of the Smithsonian.
Their fate is unknown - that is, until Larry receives a distress call from the miniature cowboy Jedediah (Owen Wilson), who informs him of an impending disaster. It seems the newcomers have awoken their new digs, including the Egyptian ruler, Kahmunrah (Hank Azaria), who's in a particularly nasty mood after 3,000 years of slumber. Now, he and a trio of history's most heinous henchmen - namely Ivan the Terrible (Christopher Guest), Napoleon Bonaparte (Alain Chabat) and Al Capone (Jon Bernthal) - are plotting to take over the museum (and then the globe), as they unleash the Army of the Underworld.
Speeding to the nation's capital, Larry is clearly in over his head. But he's got some impressive new friends - from the brilliant Albert Einstein to honest Abe Lincoln to the one exhibit who takes his breath way -the irrepressible Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams), who spurs Larry to rediscover his missing his sense of fun and adventure. Along with his old buddies, including Teddy Roosevelt (Robin Williams), Octavius (Steve Coogan), Sacajawea (Mizuo Peck), Attila The Hun (Patrick Gallagher) and the Neanderthals -- Larry will stop at nothing to regain his friends and restore order to the National Mall, from the Lincoln Memorial to the Air and Space Museum, before the stroke of dawn.
NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM: BATTLE OF THE SMITHSONIAN marks the first action-adventure film ever shot at the Smithsonian Institution. "We wanted everything we did in the first movie to be not only bigger but better in the second," explains returning director Shawn Levy. "We wanted a journey for Larry that would be even more captivating, that would help him find his way back to the better self he got a glimpse of in Night at the Museum. When the idea came up of taking Larry and his friends to the Smithsonian, we knew this was it."
The Smithsonian Institution is a centerpiece in our nation's capital, the largest museum complex on earth and a repository for everything from ancient bones to vital U.S. historical documents to such cultural artifacts as Archie Bunker's chair. Some 25 million visitors each year are dazzled by all that lies within, from the awe-inspiring paintings in the National Gallery to the vintage planes in the National Air & Space Museum.
For the filmmakers, the very notion of using the Smithsonian as the very core of a grand comic adventure was like letting hungry kids loose in a candy shop. "Unlike the Museum of Natural History, which is all under one roof, the Smithsonian is spread out all over the National Mall," muses Garant. "We were faced with the extraordinary challenge of how to tell a story that would move through the entire complex without it being one non-stop chase."
Some of the Smithsonian's most popular subjects sparked the writers' imaginations in totally new directions. The Air and Space Museum's tribute to adventurous aviator Amelia Earhart and the cherry red Lockheed Vega (in which she made her record-breaking flight across the Atlantic) transported the writers -- and subsequently Larry -- into an unforeseen romance. When Amelia's statue comes to life she becomes not only Larry's savvy sidekick but also the unexpected romantic foil that reawakens his sense of fun. "From the moment we saw the Amelia Earhart display in the Air & Space Museum, we knew she would be the female character who helps Larry find his way home, literally and metaphorically," says Lennon.
Garant and Lennon had a blast with Amelia's moxie-filled banter, marked by a vintage love witty turns of phrase, and peppered with "boffos," "chin ups" and "skidaddles." "We thought about her talking sort of like how Katharine Hepburn might talk in a Howard Hawks movie," explains Garant. "It was so fun to write dialogue like that from the grand movies of that era."
Amelia quickly becomes the linchpin of the story, making a major impact on the future direction of Larry's life in a single unforgettable night, one that unfortunately can't last, no matter how close it brings them. "This time it's not just a guy running away from exhibits that have come to life. It's emotionally more interesting because the love story between Larry and Amelia becomes the heart of the movie. Our goal was to make the sequel more astounding and adventurous, but also to deepen the themes and relationships, and this screenplay pulls it off. Amelia's a spitfire and she and Larry have a wonderful, bittersweet romance because they know she will be wax again when morning comes."
'ANGELS & DEMONS'
FOUR TIL MIDNIGHT
By Sean Chavel
Angels & Demons can be seen as a glorified chase picture or as something more. Certainly there exists chase pictures of good tracking evil down non-descript alleyways, corridors, warehouses, and other generic passageways. Then there are glorified chase pictures like this one, which takes you through churches, crypts, catacombs and the streets of Rome - glorified backdrop splendor. Ron Howard ("Frost/Nixon," "The DaVinci Code") directs with robust energy and yet without regard to plausibility. But is there something more going on here, perhaps any theological semantics worth pondering over that underlines the plot's embedded action? Perhaps in sporadic gushes in Dan Brown's book, but rarely in the movie.
The fate of four men rests in the hands of Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) in "Angels & Demons," plus a ticking time bomb comprised of explosive antimatter that could blow up Vatican City and perhaps other bordering cities in Rome. The four men, by the way, are special candidates of the Catholic Church. They are preferiti. The recent death of the standing Pope (terrific crowd shots of believers in mourning) requires an election process, and so the four preferiti are mercilessly abducted by a shadowy group called the Illuminati. The bomb can't be deactivated before anything else. Langdon explains to the Swiss Guard that each checkpoint has to be met and solved first, saving the holy preferiti, before they can locate the bomb.
The Illuminati is a 300-year running outfit of freethinkers that exists basically to overthrow the Church. Their terms are unexplained yet the proposal is urgent. Each preferiti is to be executed at 8, 9, 10 and 11 p.m. with the bomb going off at midnight. It's Langdon's job, along with Swiss Guard escorts and sexy scientist Vittoria (Ayelet Zurer), to race across town constantly to beat the clock. The diabolical plot carried out by Illuminati assassin Mr. Gray (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) is needlessly diagrammed and overcooked. You may wonder why he isn't named Jigsaw. As symbologist Langdon, Hanks has an overcranked highbrow that allows him be a convincing scholar and code-breaker. But the embedded codes themselves seem arbitrary after a certain point. All that's missing is a hearty menacing laugh by Mr. Gray following any time the codes aren't broken within assigned time.
If Mr. Gray is a rep of Illuminati couldn't he have shown more mercy? The execution by cremation scene will cause some audiences to recoil. Then again, we don't know much about the Illuminati other than the broad description that they are a bunch of haters, so if inhumane killing practices are their thing then let it be. What is gossiped is that an Illuminati member has infiltrated the Vatican and is among the cloth. Ewan McGregor is the Camerlengo, the priest entrusted in overseeing the Vatican between papacies, and he makes his man of cloth into an understanding, gracious and pro-active supporting protagonist to our hero. On the other hand is Stellan Skarsgard as the Swiss Guard commander who suspiciously seems to counteract on Langdon's progress. Then there is the private enclave of Cardinals where internal opposition is ongoing and possible traitors lurk.
The movie exhausts at 2 hours and 18 minutes. Tom Hanks uses wit and sly dialogue asides to keep the audience engaged; occasionally bouncing off of his female co-star Zurer to get laughs (they clumsily play pretend husband and wife in one scene). His smart-cracker Langdon character continuously is put up against pompous characters that don't believe his methods until he is able to sway everybody to follow his lead. Langdon also has to read through deception. Don't ever count out the Double-Reverse. You know what that is - when a character appears good at the beginning to conceal his true evil. Or appears sinister and suspect only to turn out to be pure and good. The Double-Reverse can work in two ways.
Plot reversals and wisecracks don't compensate enough to justify its running time or conceal the gaps in logic. The movie has some entertaining moments within its non-stop pursuit - the oxygen-zero library scene shot in saturated red light is a highlight - but the film has a hazy aftereffect where you remember running, lots of running. If you're not already in Dan Brown's camp then you are not going to have any deep long-lasting thoughts over this one. Note: "Angels & Demons" is treated as the cinematic sequel to "The DaVinci Code" although Dan Brown's "A&D" came published first.
'SUMMER HOURS'
THREE ADULT SIBLINGS DIVIDE AND TIDY UP
By Sean Chavel
French import Summer Hours is an unusually thoughtful film. Three grown siblings attend their mom's 75th birthday. One brother remains in France. The other brother travels from Hong Kong. The sister has flown in from New York. They rarely get together anymore but they said they wish they would. Helene (Edith Scob), the mother, pulls aside her son Frederic to discuss the estate. To discuss such touchy and dismal matters makes him ill at ease. Helene continues to discuss the inventory of paintings, tea sets, vases and armoires. Frederic, who clearly loves his mother, cringes in the face of being held with the responsibility as the executor of the estate.
What an interesting and energizing mom Helene really is, she encompasses everything cool within a distinguished and revered mom whom has acquired a lifetime of wisdom and astute humor. Despite there being no apparent illnesses, Helene will not live to her 76th birthday. The next time the children meet they will discuss the fate of the country house. The country house has been a large part of their lives, so they will do what they can to preserve it. Right?
Frederic (Charles Berling) thinks it is very likely that his children would like to use it for holidays. Jeremie (Jeremie Renier) has children, too, and the house was meaningful to him - as you can understand and likely relate to it is the key to their upbringing. But he announces that his company is going to station him in Hong Kong permanently. Frederic asks how Jeremie's children are going to adjust to a foreign language. Jeremie says, "They'll learn." Adrienne (Juliette Binoche) is not going to leave New York. She announces that she is going to marry and permanently reside in the States. Frederic had thought out on how to be fair in how to divvy up access to the house. But now it sounds like he will be the only one that would get use out of it. Jeremie and Adrienne propose that they will benefit only if the house is sold.
It's not accurate to call the film's style impersonal, but the characters veer off to obscure directions as the estate's objects and pieces takes precedence in preparation for an estate auction. Frederic is sad that things will never again be intact. But he is in charge making sure art pieces get sold, that the right persons inherit certain objects, and that the housemaid gets a fair severance. Helene's uncle was an artist so many of the house's objects have value. Unfortunately the children will be taxed by the state upon any sale because Helene failed to get a proper trust finalized.
When it's all over there is a certain melancholy attributed to the drama. The house will not be there for family reunions. Visits between siblings will become rare. The three of them will go on to build their own families. Frederic is more heartbroken than anybody else that things have grown apart. Olivier Assayas ("Demon-lover," "Clean") wrote and directed - he's never been one much attuned to warmth but he finds subdued pathos with Frederic. He also ends the picture on a bittersweet note with a kind of unforeseen gesture that embraces the happiness and the joy of letting oneself be young.