This Is What "Terminator: Genisys" Could've (Should've) Been.

I enjoyed Terminator: Genisys from a fan service standpoint. The return of Arnold and the old storyline was enough to make me happy. But overall, I was disappointed by what might have been. The most infuriating thing is that a better film is buried within Genisys. The core story could remain (they could even go the whole “Stop Judgment Day” route), but the focus would be quite different. Put shortly, I would make the T-800 (Pops in Genisys) the main character that we never leave. I’m not into writing screenplays, so I’ll just present my version of this film in a disjointed summary. So here it is, my plan for Terminator: Reset the Future. (I thought the tagline for Genisys was a much better title.)

The film would begin at the Connors’ cabin at the lake in the 1970s, when Pops arrives. Enough of this starting in the miserable future crap. The opening scene could be a nice, peaceful moment with Sarah and her family, and then the scene she describes in Genisys happens. But we don’t jump to 1984 after that. We stay with Pops and Sarah for at least the next twenty to thirty minutes. I’m not sure the exact scenes that would play out here, but there would definitely be a scene of Pops explaining things to young Sarah. There could be a vignette of moments showing Pops as a surrogate father (tying her shoes, getting her food, tending playground wounds, Sarah making drawings for him, etc.). There could also be some awkward comedy here and there. Can you imagine how Pops would react to and explain Sarah’s first period? Maybe that wouldn’t be that great of a scene, but it’s what I thought of when Sarah revealed that Pops had basically raised her.

The scenes between Sarah and Pops get progressively more militaristic as he teaches her combat skills and prepares her for 1984. Then we get to 1984, not showing Kyle Reese until he arrives in the timeline. Then the film plays out just like in Genisys. This would make some of those scenes a little too expository since the audience knows everything Kyle is told, but that could be fixed by simply showing them begin to talk as the focus goes to Pops working on something.

This is where the film would be drastically different. Instead of following Sarah and Kyle to 2017, the film stays with Pops in 1984. This segment would be at least thirty minutes long (although I think it would make a fairly interesting film on its own). A number of individual scenes track what Pops has been up to during the thirty-year wait. We see him setting up the new bunker, working at Cyberdyne, missing Sarah, listening to her tapes and looking at her drawings. Perhaps some more comedy could be implemented here. Some awkward interactions with co-workers. People picking up on the fact that he never eats or uses the bathroom, etc. This could play as a very somber portion of the film, but I think it would work better with a bit of humor.

Or if you wanted to go full-blown comedy, perhaps Pops could get a job that
that utilizes his natural ability to work well with children.

Pops would also take notice of John Connor’s arrival in 2014 at Cyberdyne and discover that John is now a Terminator. (I know we haven’t seen John yet, but he could easily be introduced as John Connor in front of Pops while he’s working.) Pops continues to spy and bide his time, then he lies in perfect wait for Sarah and Kyle so that they don’t get arrested this time. (I really don’t understand why he wasn’t able to handle this in Genisys. He obviously knew where they would appear, so why couldn’t he just be there in the road waiting? How hard would it be for him to cause a traffic disturbance at the exact location they would show up?)

Pops tells an unbelieving Sarah and Kyle about John, but they are eventually convinced in the same manner as in Genisys. Then the film could play out very much like Genisys, but with Pops showing much more command of the situation as he’s been able to sabotage Cyberdyne over the years through hacking their system and/or hiding weapons and explosives in key locations. I am truly not a big fan of them doing the same thing they did in T2 by destroying all the hardware and whatnot, but if they tweaked it a bit and acknowledged that they need to do more than just blow up a building it might work. Maybe go all Independence Day and have them give the program a virus or something?

Of course, this is a rough outline that needs some work. Issues that jump out at me mainly concern John Connor. How does he still exist? I didn’t think they answered this in a satisfactory matter at all in Genisys, but it’s forgivable since we’re dealing with a series in which a man sends his own father back in time to create himself. The main issue with what I’ve come up with is how does Pops detect John without John also detecting him? But since Pops said he worked at Cyberdyne in Genisys that means they may have crossed paths before and nothing happened, so if it’s an issue in Genisys it can be an issue in my made-up version too.

Another title could be; Terminator: Genisys (Now with Less Jai Courtney!)

So that’s it, my Pops-centric version of the latest Terminator. I just felt that Arnold was the strongest aspect of the film, but the least utilized. Why focus on Jai Courtney? Why introduce Matt Smith just as a connection for a sequel? Just leave how Connor became a Terminator open if you need sequel bait. You already have that with the mystery of who sent Pops back, so just go with it. This film used Arnold less than any other Terminator film (excluding Salvation, of course) and needed him the most. Of course, what’s done is done. Too bad the real world isn’t more like the world of Terminator. That way someone could be sent back to fix this. But then again, we would have to deal with Judgment Day… I think it’s worth it.

Arnold Is Back...Sort Of. Schwarzenegger Is Underutilized in the Decent but Disappointing "Terminator: Genisys."

Terminator: Genisys

They definitely relied on this gag too much. This is one of four or five times you see the smile that originated in 1991...

At this point, the Terminator franchise has been rejuvenated more times than Judgment Day has been avoided. The last attempt, Terminator: Salvation, was meant to be the beginning of a new trilogy. It is now regarded a disappointment with the box office and fans alike, so that was scrapped (even though there are people who liked it, like me, and it made $371 million worldwide). Now, with Terminator: Genisys, much like Skynet, they refuse to let the franchise die.

The easy way to describe Genisys is that it’s not as good as the first two, but it’s better than the last two. Simplistic, sure, but it’s accurate, especially since Genisys is a return to the storyline of the original film. Of course, a real assessment is more complicated than that, but to get into it completely, spoilers are involved. So, if you want to watch Genisys completely fresh, stop reading now (although if you’ve seen the previews for this movie, everything mentioned in this review has already been spoiled for you).

Genisys has one of the worst marketing plans for a movie in recent memory. It is revealed, both in previews and articles (like the one I regretfully read in Entertainment Weekly which didn’t even feature a spoiler warning) that John Connor is now a Terminator. Usually when a preview reveals something like that, it means it happens early in the film. But in Genisys, it is a major twist roughly forty-five minutes in. What is truly irritating about the twist being spoiled is that it could have been actually surprising. For some reason, the marketing team thought spoiling a major plot point would drum up more business (it didn’t).

Spoilers aside, Connor as a Terminator is a decent and interesting change to the storyline. Aside from that change, Genisys is much more interested in reminding fans of the past. The main element is the return of Arnold Schwarzenegger to his career-defining role. His presence, along with a return to the 1984 setting of the original, should be enough to please fans of the series. Some have complained about the movie resorting to fan service elements, but if you’re a fan, what’s the problem? (By the way, I am a fan, and the fan service did its job; overall, I liked the movie.)

That’s Genisys in a nutshell: fan service. People want to see Arnold in awesome action sequences spouting off one-liners (even though it makes no sense for this version of him to know those one-liners, but who cares?). The action of Genisys is fine, though sometimes it feels too fake (the old Arnold vs. young Arnold sequence comes to mind). There are some standout moments, however (the bus sequence is pretty great). Put simply, it’s a serviceable action film, but not genre-redefining like T2.

The main problem with Genisys is that it doesn’t adhere to the original film enough. In the original, the Terminator was as much a character as Kyle Reese or Sarah Connor. Here, he’s subordinate to Kyle and Sarah, which is a mistake. Kyle Reese was not the main character in The Terminator. He was one-third of the focus. Here, he’s the main protagonist with Sarah Connor the close second lead. Arnold is reduced to being their violent robot butler (I know, I know, it’s “cybernetic organism,” not robot, but I prefer “robot”).

Arnold playing third fiddle is annoying for two reasons. First, Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn in the original) is now played by Jai Courtney, an actor who is mediocre at best, and an unlikable husk at worst. Here, he’s mediocre bordering on likable for a change, but he’s no Michael Biehn, and worse, he’s not playing the character like Beihn at all. Kyle Reese went from an intense, jittery time traveler to a milquetoast everyman who seems pretty calm about traveling to a time that should be unrecognizable to him. So he’s not the best character to be stuck following.

Second, this version of Arnold was sent back in the 1970s to protect Sarah Connor and then be a surrogate father to her. We’re shown a glimpse of this in a flashback, but how much more interesting would it have been if the film started there and followed Arnold and Sarah all the way through? On top of that, there’s a point in the story when Kyle and Sarah must travel from 1984 to 2017, and Arnold can’t go with them. So he has to bide his time for over thirty years. Those thirty years would be an interesting movie on their own, but in Genisys, we don’t see a second of it. At the very least they could have done a montage sequence or something. (Perhaps the progression of Joseph Gordon-Levitt to Bruce Willis in Looper could have been mimicked.) It’s just unfortunate that positive elements of the film are overshadowed by what might have been.

The positive elements make Genisys an enjoyable, if disappointing, film. Arnold still inhabits the Terminator effortlessly and makes every scene he’s in better. Emilia Clarke (Game of Thrones) is an interesting choice for Sarah Connor this time around. She’s a good combination of the original, fragile Sarah and ultra-militarized T2 Sarah. And, despite the obvious setups for future movies (it is never revealed who sent Arnold back to the 1970s, for instance), it is interesting to see where the story goes from here.

The best thing the series can do, however, is end for good once this planned trilogy is over (if the trilogy even happens, that is, since this film isn’t exactly tearing up the box office). The most boring aspect of this film is that it’s about stopping Judgment Day again. Hate the last two movies all you want, but at least they were willing to accept that Judgment Day is inevitable. Whatever happens in the future of this increasingly convoluted time-traveling saga, let it at least come to a true, final conclusion. Let’s just hope Arnold is front and center for that conclusion. 

Terminator: Genisys receives a:

Random Thoughts (even more SPOILERS)

Some people have applauded the film for returning to a more light-hearted tone. While this film contains more jokes than the extremely bleak Salvation, I don't think T2 was as goofy as everyone remembers. Sure there was the smile and all the catch phrases, but Genisys crossed the line with the mugshot scene set to the COPS theme music. 

The Arnold vs. Arnold sequence really disappointed me, especially since the young Arnold in Salvation somehow looked better. Granted, young Arnold is cloaked in shadows in Salvation, but at least they were aware of their limitations. A couple of moments during the fight in Genisys it looked like a videogame.

John Connor as a Terminator is interesting because it takes the ending of Salvation and tweaks it a bit. I just wish he was meant to be a bridge between man and machine (like in Salvation when he get a heart transplant from a hybrid Terminator) rather than just a new tool for the machines. Aside from the initial reveal, the characters seem to have no issue with actively trying to kill John Connor, the man the entire series has been about. The twist is really wasted since John simply ends up being the new, "bad" Terminator. It would make more sense for Terminator John to stay in the future and figure out a way to end all of this rather than go back to make sure Skynet happens. They could have sent back any mimicking Terminator to provide the info to get Skynet going. John Connor isn't the only one privy to that info.

Stopping Judgment Day and Skynet is just stupid at this point. And naming it "Genisys" now is just annoying because every time I type it I have to deal with the computer telling me it's spelled incorrectly. Anyway, remember Terminator 3? The whole point of that movie was that Judgment Day was inevitable, and the reason was because everything is connected now. Destroying a hard drive in some office building isn't enough in the internet age. And they figured that out for a 2003 film, when the internet was not nearly as prevalent. Back when phones were still mainly used for communication. You might think that it was more advanced, but the movie actually has the villain log onto the internet through dial-up. I'm serious. This is why it's so stupid that a movie set fourteen years later would revert back to early 90s T2 logic: just smash it all up, and it will be okay. It's just lazy.

Finally, I think people need to reevaluate the last two movies. They get a bad rap, but at least they were willing to do something different with the series. Terminator 3 was meant to put n end to the Judgment Day stuff, and the character of John Connor was very interesting because it evaluated what time travel and prophecy could do to someone. Who is John Connor without the end of the world? And Salvation was a straight up war film that didn't even feature time travel. John Connor was dealt with interestingly here, as well. Some people didn't believe he was all that great, and he's really only a "prophet" because he's been told everything, not because he's some miracle worker. The films have their flaws, don't get me wrong: until the end, Terminator 3 is just about prevent Judgment Day again, and Connor in Salvation is kind of a screaming lunatic. But they dared to take the series in a different direction, which is more than you can say for Genisys.

Yippee Ki Y- Oh, Who Cares Anymore?

Directed by John Moore, written by Skip Woods, starring Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Cole Hauser - Rated R

 

The Die Hard franchise has been ripe for parody since the first sequel.  After Bruce Willis, as Detective John McClane, wondered in Die Hard 2, “How can the same [thing] happen to the same guy twice?” it was obvious that the audience should accept the ridiculousness of the franchise and just go with it.  I’m okay with that, but I have a couple issues.  First, you shouldn’t necessarily take any advice that comes from the script of Die Hard 2.  Second, and most important, John McClane needs to continue to be that “same guy.”  Also, how unfortunate is it that the sketch from “The Ben Stiller Show” called “Die Hard 12” is starting to seem like a possibility?  (Haven’t seen that sketch?  Watch it now.)

 

Yes, Bruce Willis is still cast as John McClane in A Good Day to Die Hard (I would prefer something less stupid for a title, by the way, like Die the Most Hardest or something), but he is a mere shadow of himself.  Willis’s portrayal of McClane is what makes these films great.  His exasperated tone, his quick wit, and his laughter as he takes a beating.  That stuff sort of exists in this film, but it seems so forced that it doesn’t matter.  Not to mention McClane has changed over the years.  He went from a reluctant hero forced into a situation he wants to avoid into a kill-crazy vigilante who rushes into violent situations for little or no reason. 

 

Perhaps it’s the setting.  Moving John McClane to Russia just seems wrong.  For starters, this isn’t 1985 and McClane isn’t Rocky.  This plotline about Chernobyl and nuclear weapons would have felt lazy in the first Die Hard film, much less the fifth one.  The story felt more at home in a direct-to-video Jean-Claude Van Damme movie.  Wait…is this the plot to one of the Universal Soldier DTV sequels?  (Sadly, I’m not joking.  Check out Universal Soldier: Regeneration if you don’t believe me.) 

 

So the setting sucks.  There’s still a slightly interesting bad guy for McClane to banter with, right?  Nope.  The villain is vague to the point that I couldn’t tell which plain, middle-aged Russian man was “good” and which was “bad.”  Maybe that’s the point, but it made for a lame story.  McClane does cross paths with a dancing bad guy at one point, but their banter is more head-scratching than knee-slapping. 

 

But there must be a sidekick along for the ride, right?  Die Hard With a Vengeance set the bar high with the tumultuous team-up with Samuel L. Jackson, and Live Free or Die Hard gave us the timely and surprisingly amusing duo of Willis and Justin Long.  Good Day introduces the barely talked about son of John McClane played by Jai Courtney.  Courtney previously played a thug in Jack Reacher, and that’s pretty much all he’s good for at the moment.  There is just nothing interesting about this guy, whether that’s a character or acting fault is irrelevant.  I didn’t want to see these two teaming up for anything, especially since the new character is barely established and we’re given almost no explanation for their hatred for one another aside from the fact that it must be hard to be the kid of an action hero. 

 

The upset kid dynamic just makes no sense for a film like this.  The audience has almost no knowledge of this son character, so we’re with McClane all the way.  We’ve been through four movies with this character, so if we’re taking a side, guess which one we’re going with?  On top of that, we don’t know specifically what McClane did to upset the kid, so the son comes off as an ungrateful jerk.  Who thought it was a good idea to try to get the audience to hate the main character for being a dead beat dad?  I hope this duo isn’t the future of the franchise.  Actually, after this, I’m not sure I want a future for this franchise.

 

All of these major elements aside, this is still Die Hard, and that name has become synonymous with crazy action (whether or not that’s a good thing is beside the point now).  If the action holds up, then this film could be barely worth a watch.  The action is…crazy, sure, but it doesn’t save the film.  So much of it seemed like it was pointlessly trying to be insane.  Did you hate the sight of McClane on a fighter jet during the last film?  Then you won’t care for this one at all.  As for the style of it, I didn’t know what to think once it was over.  There were so many strange, extreme slo-mo moments.  Slow motion explosions?  How is that impressive?  And who wants to see two people falling in slow motion for what seems like five minutes?  Upon research, I found that director John Moore had also made the abysmal Max Payne, and then it all made sense. 

 

After all of this bashing, though, I can’t tell the die hard (pun totally intended) fans to skip this one.  It’s still Bruce Willis and he’s still John McClane, kind of.  Some fans are bound to like it.  I really wanted to, but I can’t ignore the utter disappoint I felt walking out of the theater.  If you’re on the fence, maybe this will help you: I am now going to re-watch Die Hard 2 because I think I might like that sequel more than this.  If you’re the same type of fan as I am, then that should tell you how much I disliked this movie.  Watch at your own risk.

"Jack Reacher" Still Entertaining, even if Cruise Falls About Two Feet Short...

Jack Reacher - Written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie, based on the novel One Shot by Lee Child, starring Tom Cruise, Rosamund Pike, David Oyelowo, Richard Jenkins, Robert Duvall, Jai Courtney, and Werner Herzog - Rated PG-13

 

Jack Reacher is a character many have wanted to see on the big screen for quite some time.  I must confess, I had never even heard of this character from the popular Lee Child novels until this film went into production.  I picked up a copy of the book that the film Jack Reacher is based on, One Shot, and immediately understood why people liked the series and wanted some movies.  Reacher is a fun character because he’s a no-nonsense hulk of a man who can just as easily solve a complex crime as he can beat someone to death with his bare hands.  He stands for what is right and does not care what society or the authorities have to say.  Also, he’s a ghost in a modern world that seems more and more impossible to disappear in.  Needless to say, after reading the book, I too became very excited about this film.

First, the controversy.  Jack Reacher is described as a very large man, and Tom Cruise, shall we say, falls short.  Reacher fans have been very vocal about their hatred for this casting, but it didn’t bother me at all.  I’ve been watching Tom Cruise beat up dudes and do his own stunts for a long time now, so it isn’t that big of a stretch to see him as an action star.  Yeah, he’s not tall, but so what?  Nothing in the film ended up being improbable just because of Cruise’s size.  Though I am not sure fans of the book can forgive the casting because they’ve probably pictured a character that looked nothing like Cruise all of these years whereas I knew Cruise was cast when I read the book, so I was picturing Cruise the whole time and it didn’t bother me.  I imagine when tiny Tom Cruise replaces the imagined beast you had created for Reacher, it is a bit upsetting.  A quick reminder, though, Reacher creator Lee Child approves of Cruise.

Casting aside, everyone should give Jack Reacher a chance.  It is a smart, funny, tense film that follows through with the premise that Reacher is a man who does whatever he wants.  But the story of Reacher has some unfortunate timing (which may be indicative of its middling box office thus far).  The movie begins with a mass shooting portrayed with methodical, cold detail.  It’s impossible (at this moment) to watch that opening scene and not think of the recent mass shooting in Connecticut.  Of course, this is no fault of the film, just a very bad coincidence.  Movies are meant to be, for the most part, escapes from reality and Jack Reacher unintentionally shoves reality right back into your face about five minutes in.  If you can keep watching after that moment, though, the film really pulls you into the case.

The shooting seems like an open and shut case with plenty of evidence to prove that the shooter is a veteran sniper who was very quiet and unassuming (typical mass shooter description).  What’s strange is that the shooter, before he is put into a coma from a beating he takes in custody, asks for Jack Reacher, a former military police detective.  As it turns out, the shooter had done this before, and Reacher almost had him.  So basically Reacher shows up to make sure this guy pays for his crimes.  This is important because the typical scenario would make Reacher an old Army buddy who was there to expose a conspiracy.  Reacher’s desire to bury the suspect makes it that much more interesting when he decides to look deeper into the case.  Of course, there is more to the shooting than meets the eye. 

As a detective story goes, Jack Reacher is interesting and even a little fresh.  The recreations and the way revelations occur are handled in effective ways.  The noir qualities of the film are fun, too.  Reacher does everything his own way, interrogating and intimidating whomever he needs to.  Oh, and he can fight.  The action sequences in the film are all handled very well.  The action is easy to follow, and it never feels like it’s there just to kill time.  Often, violence and action are used for a bit humor.  It is also used to show a bit of brutality.  A tough balance to keep, but writer/director Christopher McQuarrie found a way to pull it off. 

Story and action are great, but it really helps when the cast is up to it.  Cruise, as I stated earlier, is fine.  This is nothing new for Cruise, but that’s no big deal.  This is a role he’s perfect for.  If you’re not a fan of a typical Cruise film, this one won’t change anything.  As for the rest of the cast, there are some great supporting actors in this one.  Rosamund Pike portrays Cruise’s main ally, but she basically just gets to react to shocking revelations.  Her low cut shirts make a bigger impression than her performance.  (Seriously, the amount of cleavage shown by her character starting midway through the film seemed to come out of nowhere.  No major complaints here, though.)  David Oyelowo serves as good competition to Reacher as the cop who wants the open and shut case to remain that way.  Oyelowo is one of those actors who can do a lot just by giving an intent stare, and he uses that for all it’s worth in this movie.  Richard Jenkins is as good as always as the DA.  And Robert Duvall provides some good comedic relief in the third act as an unlikely ally. 

The film’s best supporters are the villains.  Jai Courtney does a great job of creating tension in what could have been a very plain Thug Number One role.  German director Werner Herzog turned out to be the best unlikely casting of 2012 as the Zec, a disfigured, sadistic mastermind.  He had too few scenes, but he made each one vastly interesting with his ghostly gaze and trademark accent.  Plus, as a cinephile, it was great to see the famous auteur acting in a blockbuster.

Jack Reacher has a lot going for it.  While it is pretty much exactly what you would expect for a Tom Cruise action flick, it also provides plenty of interesting and entertaining elements that set it above most thrillers.  Try not to let the headlines or controversial casting decisions keep you from enjoying this fun movie.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

With the book fresh in my mind, I was definitely looking for differences, especially since the location was changed from a smallish city in southern Indiana (my area of the world) to Pittsburgh.  I would have preferred the location stay the same for a couple of reasons.  1. I'm from Indiana and this is a pretty forgotten chunk of America, and it's always nice to see something take place in the state. 2. The smallish city aspect of the plot makes a bit more sense for why everyone knows everyone and people keep bumping into each other and whatnot. 

 

The location change did allow for a funny moment for those who have read the book.  First, there is the problem of the redhead hitting on Reacher at the bar.  She says something about him being new in town.  That's a bigger red flag than her expecting his name to be Jack Reacher.  How much of a soak do you have to be to notice a new face in a packed bar in a large city?  There are probably multiple new faces every single night.  Why the change made it funny, however, is the fact that she says that she works at "the" auto parts store.  At first, I thought this was a slip up.  How could Pittsburgh just have the one auto parts store.  When it turned into a joke, it made me okay with the change.  I really liked the fact that the auto parts store ended up being called "Default Auto Parts."