Review: It Follows

Okay so, I had my doubts about It Follows; horror films have become something of a laughing stock recently, but in fact... this film is really good!

After sleeping with a guy she likes called Hugh, Jay begins to see a mysterious figure approaching her that no one else can see. Its intent on murdering her can only be stopped by passing the curse on to someone else.

I certainly had my doubts about It Follows, I figured it would be a sledgehammered moral story about sexually transmitted disease in the guise of a spooky ghost story. But the critics loved it, and now I can see why.
Horror films today are generally quite terrible: poor scripts, poor screenplays and cliches, or at best: debatable acting, overuse of gore and violence or making everything found-footage. 
But It Follows doesn't trend into any of these modern problems or tropes, at worst you could say its all about teens, again. But that isn't really the case (and really, horror's main demographic is teenagers, so it makes sense as a necessary trope).

This is a stalker film, a lot like John Carpenter's acclaimed Halloween, the camera pans softly and slowly across suburban America, while subtle synth music lifted gently from early 80s thriller and horror genres makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. It is a film of omnipresence, our lead character Jay is left mortified and frightened of the world around her, afraid of something no one else can see.
The metaphor that this film hammers in is less about the act of sex and more about the nature of growing up, and the fears of adulthood.

The atmosphere is thick, layered on with stretches of silent ambiance, but our characters do get a chance to act. Jay has friends to help her recover from her initial encounter with Hugh, but they must also help her when things get far, far worse. The acting is decent across the board, the script is minimal but not insultingly mumbling; enough to get the point across. A lot of our young characters intentions and feelings are expressed silently or quietly.

I had plenty of theories as to where the story would develop, but I did not expect the direction the film took. Any escalation throughout the film felt natural and none of it forced. The supernatural "rules" implemented were not exhaustive or convenient to the plot; they were just enough to inspire possible loopholes while at the same time restrict our protagonists. What jump scares there are they are used sparingly, equally so with any visual effects.

It is as simple as it can get, and often with horror films the simpler it is the more haunting and memorable it becomes.
If you are a fan of horror It Follows is a must see, and even if you aren't but like a old fashioned scare once in a while, this is for you too.

      

Review: Ant-Man (2D)

One of Marvel's main characters is one of the harder sells, and while Ant-Man isn't a game changer it has risen above the criticism and difficulties during its development.

Hank Pym, a scientist for Shield developed a super particle that compresses the space around atoms, allowing objects to be shrunk down. But when Howard Stark and others wanted to use this science, Pym hid it away. Now though, to stop others developing their own weaponised version, Pym needs someone younger to become the Ant-Man.

I will be the first to admit, I had little hope for Ant-Man. Not only does it (to my un-geek-cultured, non-comic-reader mind) sound ridiculous, but a favourite director Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim Vs the World and Hot Fuzz) dropped out of the project midway through to be replaced by Peyton Reed who has a much less credible resume (Yes Man, The Break-Up, Bring it On) and that is isolated from the fact that Ant-Man has also been in development hell since 2006!

There was every reason to believe that Ant-Man would be either laughed off stage or for it to take up the mantle: "When Marvel lost it".

But while the scope of Ant-Man feels more like the first Iron Man film than recent sprawling Marvel flicks, perhaps in result of its long development time, this retro feel actually works in its favour. Paul Rudd stars as Scott Lang, a father and ex-husband just released from prison for robbery, a man struggling for cash and is approached by the legendary Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) to train and become a superhero thief.
That's right, Ant-Man is Marvel's heist movie! Scott Lang's friends are a trio of streetwise thieves, including Michael Pena in a comedic turn, while Pym's fiery, headstrong daughter Hope is played by Evangeline Lily (redeeming herself completely from the stupidity of Tauriel from The Hobbit) and there's a great sense of bigger things going on but this story is a slice of life. It has a great moment where Lang, when faced with impossible odds, yells: "Why don't we just call The Avengers!?"

With a small scale but frankly excellent acting from our heroes (especially Michael Douglas) Marvel hammers home with a lot of fun and humour. There were a couple of real laugh-out-loud moments, and not just that one from the trailer. It is a well known fact now that Marvel makes comedies, but you know what... after the depression that was Terminator Genisys, Ant-Man was great levity!

I will say though, once again Marvel's formula strikes again with a film that knows how to develop heroes but cannot make a decent villain. Much like Iron Man with Obadiah Stane, Darren Cross is little more than a dark side of Hank Pym's brilliance. Marvel have had twelve films now, twelve, and Loki is the only one people can argue is memorable.
That and, by its very nature, Ant-Man is extremely CGI heavy, perhaps more than even Guardians of the Galaxy? Not to say it is bad CGI (in fact it is great to see him shrink and grow!) and I cannot suggest an alternative, but it does become a bit of an ocean of computer effects at times.

There's lots of good performances, a great sense of fun and adventure as well as a little bit more world building for Marvel's Cinematic Universe. It isn't a game changer, but it isn't the train wreck people are afraid it might be.

   

Review: Spring Breakers

2012's Spring Breakers is hard to review as a Brit who has no concept of what Spring Break can really be like. It is a beautifully shot but grim film.

Four college girls want to go on Spring Break to escape their repetitive normal lives, but haven't the money to pay for it. Three of them resort to robbing a restaurant to remedy this and Spring Break is theirs... only their trip goes in unexpected directions when they befriend a drug dealer.

The film's gaudy advertisement is deliberate; these girls are airheads of the modern generation, grown up on MTV and broken pop idols, they act with vulgarity and complete ignorance of consequence and their surroundings. Supermodel looks, yes, but utterly unlikable.
The dislike I have for he characters (while quite deliberate of the film) not withstanding, I found the film's screenplay too obvious for the most part. One of the four girls is somewhat reluctant and is a Christian, being told early on that "she will have a means of escape should things go wrong in life", and that her friends had "demon blood" and shouldn't be trusted.
Yikes, foreshadowing much? 
From the beginning we get gratuitous shots of bikini clad bodies (it would make Michael Bay blush) nudity, drug and alcohol abuse, during which the scene edits are often exaggerated with the sound of a pistol being reloaded or a gun being fired.

This film is not subtle, nor is it ever light. Spring Breakers is a Natural Born Killers-esque dive into psychosis and depravity. We watch as outsiders as four thoughtless, stupid girls are lost because they don't understand the gravity of their situation.

It is a hard film to like. Critics praise it and the public despise it. On the surface it may appear to be heartless, empty and shallow... but those problems are central to the characters, the girls are all of those things and the film embraces it. 
You could also argue that it is a film designed by someone who hates "spring breakers" and extroverts who, to them, deserve what's coming to them; that the story being a direct message towards rape culture.
James Franco plays the drug dealer who befriends them after he bails them out of jail, and he looks like he's having a lot of fun with the characters, the film's climax was not what I expected.

It isn't a film I will watch again. It is extreme and full of deliberately unlikable characters, as well as glamorising lifestyles far, far removed from my own even though it does everything to trash them.

  

Review: Minions (2D)

A spin-off from the Despicable Me films, Gru's loveable minions get a prequel; showing us how the fan favourite babbling twinkles got to where they are now. Sort of.

Minions, named exactly that, have existed before humans and yet their purpose has always been to serve a master. From Tyrannosaurus Rex to cavemen, but the Minions had to hide from one particular angry boss, and when they become disillusioned three of them bravely set out to find the tribe a new master.

For me Despicable Me was a pretty good film, mostly because of main anti-hero Gru; it was a refreshing turn on the superhero genre. The second film drops the ball a little with not only a deviation for Gru (as natural as it was) to a hero / smitten lover. The minions too, the minions overrode the movie.

Now they have their own film? The multiple babbling yellow blobs have a whole movie to fill? Ouch.
But luckily for us the Minions movie is barely an hour and a half, perhaps even eighty-five minutes? So the movie doesn't do the worst thing imaginable: outstay its welcome. Parents rejoice!
The film runs much like its trailer does (a little like this year's Shaun the Sheep in that regard) we start with possibly the best segment, a narrated nature documentary-esque sequence that moves through different time periods. That's Geoffrey Rush (Pirates captain Barbossa) as the narrator, and the whole film could have been in this format for all I care!

But no, we had to have some story besides the Minions. Enter Scarlet Overkill, voiced by Sandra Bullock, perhaps the Minions best chance at a new master. I hate to say it... but Bullock's voice acting and the character of Scarlet generally was quite irritating. I guess there was too much shouting? I never really thought she was the capable super villain the film was portraying her as.
I didn't know what to expect from the Minions solo outing, but it certainly wasn't them battling Scarlet over possession of the United Kingdom and the Queen's crown! Enter a lot of British puns and humour, which vary between great and tired, somewhat reminiscent of Ardman Animation Studio work.

The film has a frenetic pace, as one might expect, once enemies have been made the Minions find themselves in danger constantly, while at the same time being their usual gormless and innocent selves. The Minions aren't as toilet-humour prone as I had expected, and their language is quite endearing at times... even if it was a little like watching a new generation's Teletubbies.

It got a few chuckles from me, which is more than I would have expected! It wasn't fantastic, it wasn't bad either though, certainly one for the kids to enjoy. I would argue it is better than Despicable Me 2 but not a patch on the first film.

Additional Marshmallows: Co-director Pierre Coffin not only created the original Despicable Me films, but also voices the Minions themselves!

Review: Terminator Genisys (2D)

So it finally happened, the studios bent the Terminator over their knee and snapped it in half like a twig, making the entire series feel about as relevant in the process.

From what one can gather from the plot, when Kyle Reese is sent back in time to protect Sarah Connor from a cyborg assassin known as a Terminator, he discovers a new timeline from what we are familiar with from the 1984 The Terminator film. Sarah has been protected by another Terminator since she was nine. Now this new trio must do battle with multiple enemies in a final effort to stop the apocalyptic artificial intelligence Skynet from being created.

Terminator Genisys is a travesty of gargantuan proportions, not just because it is the total undermining of two of cinema's finest achievements (that isn't just me saying that, it is fact) but it is a terrible action film with one ugly script and no heart.

Within the first thirty minutes this film compacts the first two movies: we get a jumble of action sequences that set the tone; we get shot-for-shot scenes of The Terminator's 1984 arrival (neatly halted before any actual gore occurs, befitting of this trashy 12A nightmare) we get regular Terminators, we get T-1000s we get old Arnie, we get future war scenes. All packed so tightly it is a complete mess; like watching a 30-minute Youtube video of "all the best Terminator fights from all of the movies", and about as well edited.

That's only the start! It doesn't let up. As evident of the script, this film cannot rely on talking; when it does it descends into a constant stream of time-travel mumbo-jumbo and critically laughable chemistry between our main protagonists Reese and Connor. While Game of Thrones star Emilia Clarke isn't bad as Sarah, she has such a young face that when coupled with her "I'm a soldier, grr-grr I am strong and I don't need you" attitude, she comes off like a brat at times. No fault of hers, the script made her that way. This is no Terminator 2 Linda Hamilton.
Then there's Jai Courtney... who I don't think studied who Kyle Reese actually is before walking on set. There's nothing behind his performance, and this is not the Kyle Reese we all know - critically his character should be the exact same as Michael Biehn, he's the only one this new timeline hasn't altered.
Arnold's reprise of The Terminator is... quite average actually. At worst he is The Expendables answer to this franchise: the catchphrase "Old, but not obsolete" is thrown around liberally. The film prefers to stick with the Connor/Reese romance, occasionally throwing Arnold in to glare at them, asking Sarah: "Have you mated with him yet?" All of his lines are okay, but they are all used at least twice!  

You could go on and on about how bad this film is, the layers upon layers of nonsense, but it is often best to use broad strokes.
Genisys, in my opinion, is the worst Terminator film made to date. When a film looks bad from the trailer, the poster and even the promotional material and lives up to that, you know it is failure.

Additional Marshmallows: I don't know why JK Simmons is in this film.

Additional, Additional Marshmallows: What they do to Skynet is worse than Helena-Boham Carter in Terminator Salvation.

Additional, additional marshmallows: During the nonstop opening thirty minutes we get a "tense" moment that involves molecular acid. The scene is so poorly established that I wouldn't have been surprised if a xenomorph from Aliens was about to jump out.

Saga Review: The Terminator

So with Terminator: Genisys arriving to cinemas soon I feel it is important to look back at the series as a whole.

I love the Terminator franchise, or at least I love the first two movies and appreciate the mythos and universe they have created. The series itself is a bit of a contradiction: on the one hand it is one of the most successful and bankable franchises Hollywood has produced, but on the other hand The Terminator narrative is a black hole of various time paradoxes. Paradoxes that only seem to become worse as the series goes on!

A great deal of people boycott any of the films after Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and I mostly agree.

What I will say, and plead to everyone reading this, if you haven't seen The Terminator or Terminator 2 but intend to see Terminator: Genisys, please, please, please watch the two of them first.
While I would love to be wrong about this, Genisys looks like it is going to be a massive failure, or at least poison the new generation with a watered down "alternate version" of two of cinema's greatest achievements. I do not exaggerate.

Not doing anything tonight? Watch those films! 

The Terminator (1984)

Before either of them were the famous Hollywood icons they are now, Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron created a small but unstoppable film that would define 1980s cinema.

In 2029, humanity is on the brink of extinction: the machines and computers once built to protect and serve them having gained intelligence and caused massive nuclear destruction. But as one savior rises up, John Connor, the machines send an assassin back in time to 1984 to kill his mother.

It cannot be disputed, this is one of the greats. Director James Cameron had only "Piranha Part 2: The Spawning" to his name, and while Schwarzenegger of course had a career in bodybuilding, he had only the two Conan films critically by this point. The Terminator would make these two become fast friends, create a franchise, teach Cameron a great deal about film-making and bring together several people before the creation of the blockbuster hit film Aliens.

What can be said about the film itself, asides from its legacy? It is a short movie at one hundred minutes (its sequel is a mighty two and a half hours) and I was surprised and impressed how silent it is. Here's a film that knows when to keep things simple and never over explain or talk needlessly. The term Tech Noir isn't just restrained to a club in the film itself, but as a descriptor for The Terminator's cinematography; the film is set perpetually at night as our victim Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) is pursued by the inhuman malice and aided by future war soldier Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn). The colour palette is often stark steel grey and blues, the music is either a shrieking synth or droning, thudding bass, representing the cold future war scenario leaking into our time.

It is a continuous chase. As Kyle Reese says: "It absolutely will not stop", our heroes are worn out over the experience, even while the Terminator isn't present it has a sort of omnipresence akin to the Alien.
I really wish I could have experienced it when it released (but then this was one of the many amazing 1980s films released in my birth year!) and appreciate the terror that it must have given. This is a horror film, or even a slasher film, long before 1991's Terminator 2 made itself an action thriller. The Terminator is at first believed to be a serial killer by the police department; systematically murdering all of the Sarah Connors in the phone book (yup, the phone book) by simply arriving at their front door and silently gunning them down. That, and the chilling final scene that still grips me. I adore practical effects, and the Terminator puppet work is one of my all time favourites.

Sure, it has dated. "Oh, look, lawl, its soooooo fake looking," says the newest generations, "That's totally a model lawl, this is dumb" even the music at times can feel retro and not in the good way. Especially since the Terminator franchise has now exploded so far as to have spin offs with Alien and Robocop. But considering it only had a budget of $6 million (compare that with Ghostbusters of the same year with $32 million!) it is an incredible achievement!

The Terminator, regardless of what the franchise has warped it into, or what the public foolishly demands it becomes, is the definition of the series. This hard as nails, bleak and brutal science fiction slasher film is genesis.

Additional Marshmallows: I even noticed something new, after a dozen times I have watched this. During the pickup truck / motorcycle chase, the Terminator's sunglasses reflect the two red taillights of the truck ahead, depicting the machine's piercing red eyes.

Additional, additional Marshmallows: Did you know that Harlan Ellison, a speculative fiction author, sued Cameron for copyright infringement, believing the material to have been ripped from his scripts of two episodes from The Outer Limits? He was given an undisclosed sum as compensation.
But in reality, The Terminator was conceptualised after James Cameron had been ill and had dreamt of a metallic torso dragging itself from an explosion carrying kitchen knives! His dreams having been influenced by the 70s and 80s boom of slasher movies.   

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

The defining sequel of all action movies; bigger and badder, a defining milestone of cinema special effects, and to this day an effective (albeit preposterous) way of making 30-something men tear up.

About a decade after the events of The Terminator young John Connor is targeted by a new, more deadly machine sent by Skynet from the future. However, another protector was sent back once again to defend him, it is a race against time and humanity's fate is on the line.

I must attempt to resist gushing about this movie like my inner ten year old wants me to, but seriously, I have seen this film so many times. I had lots of the toys when I was younger (I still keep my silver Terminator endoskeleton as a prized possession) I definitely watched this under-aged as I used to shy away from the gorier moments but relished all the action and Arnold's awesome portrayal as the iconic cyborg.

The film, released seven years after the original, follows director James Cameron after he had reached dizzying heights with Aliens and The Abyss, both praised for incredible vision and effects both digital and practical. Terminator 2: Judgment Day remains to this day a milestone in these practices. Virtually flawless, it hit a sweet spot in cinema history with the advent of fully digital effects and priceless puppet work (I still adore that opening sequence!) with the right man at the helm: this was Cameron's baby, the successor to the work that made his name.

But Schwarzenegger was clearly a massive star by 1991. Since we last saw him in the role he had completed Commando, Predator, Twins, Total Recall and even Kindergarden Cop! Now a cynic could argue that someone decided portraying Arnie as a villain again would be a terrible misstep, that the audiences were used to him as the hero. Whether that is true or not, the effect of switching the Terminator from antagonist to protagonist was a dynamite move here as it flipped our perceptions of him.
More importantly, it changes Sarah Connor's character, reprised by Linda Hamilton who honestly makes the film her own. This isn't Arnie's film, it isn't even John Connor's film (the savior of humanity!) it's Sarah's film and her battle to protect her son and the one against her own personal demons. It is a powerful performance.

While far more bombastic and hair-raising than its predecessor (with a whopping budget of $102,000,000, a mere $96,000,000 more than The Terminator!) and it has bone rattling chase sequences that go on and on and on (so good) it is still amazingly well shot and still keeps itself paced and grim when it needs to be.
You know how action movies these days always shake the camera? All the time? Terminator 2 never does that, ever. Intense, awesome and spectacular action sequences are all captured with slow, calm and measured camera work! The movie takes time to show you details even during intense moments, why else do fans adore the moment when the Terminator reloads a shotgun by spinning it around his wrist while riding a motorcycle, because we can see it happening!

As for the newcomers Robert Patrick, in his most stand out role, as the mercilessly cool headed T-1000, and young Edward Furlong as John Connor are excellent and debatable respectively. Patrick has the tough task of appearing more threatening than Arnold in full costume with a lithe figure and a police uniform... and it works! While Furlong... plays Connor as a product of the early 90s... which is unfortunate.
The tried and tested "machine learns what it means to be human" storyline is somewhat laboured nowadays, coupled with Connor's now ridiculous 1990s dialogue, gets a little silly, but the heart is in the right place when put together with Linda Hamilton's bold, stoic mother figure.

It is a feat of cinema hardly matched, you simply don't get action movies like this anymore; they are bogged down with romance, overuse of CGI, needlessly attempting to recapture past glory or all three. I basically just described the future of the Terminator franchise.

Now I am sad.

Watch Terminator 2: Judgment Day before any other in the series, I beg of you. This to me is when the franchise ended, it was short but it was sweet, so very sweet.

Additional Marshmallows: If you haven't seen any Terminator films before the release of Terminator: Genisys then please, at least, watch this film. I swear you won't regret it and I am only asking of you 143 minutes of your life.           

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

I think this is the last time I watch Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

After the events of Terminator 2, Judgment Day has been prevented and John Connor finds himself paranoid without purpose. But when the Terminator returns once again from the future to protect him from an even worse threat, the Terminatrix, he discovers fate may be even harder to escape than before.

Straight out of the gate, something is wrong with this film: there's no Terminator theme over the opening title. That's like a Star Wars film without an opening title crawl! 

After this blasphemy things look slightly up, we see an older John Connor played by Nick Stahl who remains consistent throughout the film and is possibly its only decent contributor! John is lost and paranoid over the prophecy he is meant to fulfill, a moody narration and night-time bike ride introduction reminds us of where we left off.

Then the Terminatrix appears... and we realise the true tone of this movie. Kristanna Loken plays the new "advanced" killing machine. A killing machine so cold and merciless that when pulled over by a cop for speeding she is inspired by a Victoria's Secret advert to inflate her breasts to get the drop on the cop.
Then the Terminator arrives, Arnold Schwarzenegger weathering the twenty-two years surprisingly well, only to be entering a bar hosting a Ladies' Night. The only man with clothes the right size? The stripper, who has rose-tinted star-shaped sunglasses in his pocket and tells the Terminator to "Talk to the Hand".

(audible sigh of disgust)

Terminator 3 is a product of lazy writing and the need to make a quick buck; it is a parody of Terminator 2, and that is putting things nicely. Director Jonathan Mostow has only two other major films to date (U-571 and Surrogates) and apart from Nick Stahl (who I think was working solely off material from Terminator 2) he apparently cannot direct actors to save himself. 
Kristanna Loken's Terminatrix is awful, just awful. Inclining her head "robotically" every chance she gets, pouting, experiencing orgasm when she discovers John Connor's blood, her robot inflections are garbage to the point people would suspect she was a machine! Robert Patrick's T-1000 has more infiltration skills than her!
Heck even Arnold, the one who made the franchise what it is and the reason this film exists, looks like he's phoning it in; stomping around like Darth Vader at the end of Revenge of the Sith.

Mostow clearly didn't know what he was doing with the series, so he compensates with action sequences. After all, Terminator 2 defined the modern action genre. But so much of this film is played for laughs, even the action scenes, I cannot appreciate it at all! Terminators constantly make metal "bong" sounds when they hit into things, Arnie gets pasted into the windshield of an oncoming truck like a massive Austrian mosquito, the Terminatrix grabs his crotch at one point, the Terminatrix gets her head smashed down into a toilet, there's even a random garden toy that gets knocked aside and it goes "bi-ong!".
What... what garbage is this?? Who thought this was a good idea? WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?

I really struggle to find goodness in this pile of regurgitated virtually-12A nonsense. Nick Stahl and Claire Danes as John Connor and future wife Kate Brewster are interesting enough; they both get opportunities to appose the Terminator's mission and it doesn't feel contrived or forced.
The Terminatrix assassinating kids (who will grow up to be Connor's lieutenants) was interesting and obviously wanted to tap the 1984's original horror vibe, but it is shot poorly and the preceding breast inflation scene somehow kills the tone!

Apparently "fans" wanted Arnold to reprise the role of the Terminator, and this is what they get: a tacky parody of a film that defined and celebrated cinema action films. Good job.

Terminator 3 is a missed opportunity, I believe that had Cameron directed a final chapter it could have been engaging. If they had made the Terminator the villain again and didn't pander to the wallets of studio executives and the rabid Schwarzenegger fans, it could have been even more intriguing.

But no, we get Kristanna Loken playing a character I thought up when I was ten.

Additional Marshmallows: So colour me curious but... this film reveals to us that all Terminator T-800s have extremely volatile fuel cells in their chests, that explode when ruptured like a small nuclear blast.
Did... did these writers even watch the first film!? Because I remember things differently!

Additional additional Marshmallows: This film was so despised that they made a television series The Sarah Connor Chronicles starring Lena Headey that completely erases this film from the timeline. While the show did not receive much praise, I like to commend it just for this fact.

Terminator Salvation (2009)

You won't find a greater sympathiser of Terminator Salvation than me; that despite poor casting, poor director and poor script, I still commend it for even trying.

Judgment Day has passed and John Connor is finding his place amongst the post-apocalyptic chaos, with humanity scattered and scared and military commanders doubting their belief that Connor can save them all. Connor's own agenda to find his to-be-father Kyle Reese conflicts with his superiors' plans, but a mysterious individual going by the name of Marcus Wright could provide him his hope.

Terminator Salvation is an unlucky beast and continues a legacy of ill-advised director choices with McG, a man with only the two Charlie's Angels films to his name before and This Means War and 3 Days to Kill after his go at the Terminator franchise. Yet the studio had planned this as a new trilogy, a trilogy that would close the circling narrative of the series, to end at the beginning. Sadly, those high hopes died with an incompetent director, a furious lead actor and a lukewarm critical reception.

Personally any attempt to progress the series to new concepts, no matter how flawed, is to be commended and appreciated. 
We have no Arnold Schwarzenegger, we have no time travel, and no chase theme with destruction of contemporary surroundings. This film is set in heady 2018, before humanity was following Connor's tactics and were being wiped out by an ever increasing and evolving machine army, even the classic T-800 Terminator hadn't been created yet. The world is a blasted wasteland, the film is a wash of greys and browns and does not visually hark back to the originals at all. In fact at times Salvation is an ugly film to look at, spattered in grease and clouded in smoke.

But at least it has the freaking Terminator theme unlike Terminator 3! And at least there's plenty of practical effects on the Terminators (again, unlike Terminator 3!) which is great with the film being credited In Memory of Stan Winston, creator of the Terminator skeleton and many other film effects.
We get to see the first Terminators, described by Kyle Reese in the original film as being covered in rubber skin and were easy to spot, we get to see numerous other machines employed by Skynet, from scout drones to prison barges.
Perhaps the most interesting element is Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), and he steals the show from Christian Bale's John Connor perplexingly enough. His character shows a piece of Skynet's more insidious side; how much of the series main antagonist is rooted in humanity's own achievements and mistakes. Sadly this plot is somewhat subdued and underplayed. Anton Yelchin plays the young Kyle Reese and also does a surprisingly good impression of Michael Biehn and could be the only thing tethering this film to the overall series.

Anyone can punch holes through Salvation as easily as a Terminator punches through a ribcage. Christian Bale infamously had a massive on set row with the film's director of photography, which was mutually resolved later, but I cannot say I think much of Bale as Connor here; he is stiff and constantly angry. He says all his lines with a gruffness that gets tiring quickly, and while adult Connor was never previously depicted in the series, I struggle to imagine this being the eventual result.
The rest of the cast is forgettable (some with silly names: Common; Moon Bloodgood) such as Bryce Dallas Howard as Kate and Michael Ironside as Michael Ironside Character No.5.

There are also massive plot inconsistencies that do more harm than good to an already questionable film series. Number one offender being Skynet's plan: kidnap Kyle Reese to lure and kill John Connor. Does Skynet not know that once you capture Kyle, killing him will erase John from existence? Thus removing John from the equation without even involving him? 
Terminator's ridiculously broken narrative means that Terminator Salvation is both a sequel and a prequel (which is unique) but this film depicts a sort of 80s Saturday morning cartoon Skynet, a Skynet that waxes lyrical instead of murdering everyone and winning.

Terminator Salvation feels like a half-hearted attempt at something that should have been fascinating and deeply threatening and bleak. The 12A and PG-13 certificate did not help this at all. To make a trilogy out of the Future War would have been an excellent change of pace and breath of fresh air in a stagnant series, but it looks like salvation will not come so easily.

Review: Inside Out (2D)

Pixar elite director Pete Doctor returns with another colourful yet human experience with Inside Out.

Riley, a young eleven year old girl, experiences the hardships of moving house with her parents, her emotions are running riot inside her mind. Literally. Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear and Disgust are all present and failing to cope, especially when Joy is lost.

Inside Out is an incredible stand out experience in Pixar's library, there isn't anything quite like this which may prove it to be divisive among the general public. Pixar have always held "family friendly" as keystone of their productions, catering to both adults and children.
Despite what critics have said already, I think Inside Out is angled far more towards teenagers and adults.

The film is dealing with mental states, neuroses and the building blocks of youthful experiences that can shape who we grow up to become. That's some heavy and frankly endless material right there! Couple that with a (mostly) fully realised fantasy organisation within all of our characters' heads and the characters there too! Come to think about it... an hour and a half seems too short.
The trailer gave little away, so I didn't know what to expect, but I felt somewhat short-changed in the delivery of these concepts. The film barrels along, often at breakneck speeds to keep children entertained, while throwing great jokes and awesome visual metaphor left and right, but I wish there had been more attention given to some aspects.
Example: Riley is young, her emotions (and by extension; the characters in her mind) are young and inexperienced, so they are prone to becoming frantic and don't even know how their own surroundings work. We as the audience therefore don't know how it works either. This is great as far as the concept is concerned, but I would have liked some comparison with mature minds (such as her parents - who's emotions are barely featured beyond what was seen in the trailer!) to show us why everything is so fraught all the time, like a sixth character for maturity or restraint.

There isn't much attention given to the human characters either; Riley and her Dad have bare bones of character given while Riley's Mum has absolutely no development at all! Asides the memory of a hunky helicopter pilot, that is.

It is an extremely ambitious project to be sure, especially to cater for both young and old. Pixar deliver gorgeous visuals and top quality animation, even the soundtrack stood out to me, and though these are a given nowadays they shouldn't be ignored. 
It really sounds like I found a lot to dislike about the film, but in all honest it is worth a watch! It has a unique and challenging premise for a family film and had me laughing throughout as well as feel a lot of familiarity with the story. 
(Sure, I may have shed a tear somewhere too) 
With the simplicity of the film but the complexity of the subject matter, I just found a lot to nitpick.

Inside Out is a great film, perhaps more angled towards older audiences who will pick up every joke and reference (and there's a lot of them!) but I am not sure I would ever own it in my collection.

Additional Marshmallows: Is it wrong that I found the character of Joy intensely annoying?