|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 23, 2022 2:03:12 GMT -5
OK, my review of The Terminator as a first-time viewer is here!
Unlike some of the movies on my list, this is one of those movies that I feel like I'm very familiar with even though I had never seen it from start to finish. Prior to this, I had seen T2, T3, and Terminator Salvation (T2 on video, T3 and Salvation in theaters), and as a result knew the overarching mythology of the franchise. I had even seen scenes here and there on cable TV, but never actually sat through the whole thing.
Based on the other movies I've seen in the franchise, I would classify the Terminator films as action movies (with a dose of sci-fi). But upon watching T1, I was surprised at how much closer it felt to a slasher film. All the tropes are there -- the unstoppable killer, the female friend who gets killed post-coitus, the final girl, the "killer-surviving-a-seeming-death-to-come-back-one-last-time" scene, etc. Except for the fact that there are a lot of guns and things blowing up, there was a lot here that reminded me of slashers. I suppose given their popularity at the time, this may have simply been an inevitable influence.
(Speaking of guns -- guns were all over the place in 80s films and TV, and I saw plenty of it growing up. But living in the times that we do with reports of mass shootings commonplace, I have to admit that Arnold's shooting spree in the dance club and police station made me cringe a bit. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like contemporary screenwriters would be much more hesitant to put a scene like that in a movie these days.)
In comparison to other special effects heavy films of the era, I don't think the effects have aged well. The stop-motion animation and battle scenes from the future look dated, with the latter looking more like something from a TV series. On the other hand, the make-up effects still look pretty convincing, especially the scene where the T-800 performs surgery on himself. They must have had a low budget, given that Star Wars has already happened by this time and shown everyone what's possible with special effects.
The music was perfect. The synth-heavy score reflected the 80s aesthetic in the best way possible. It's futuristic sounding but retro all at the same time. I can definitely see this score as one of the musical inspirations for Stranger Things.
The leads gave good performances. I was used to seeing Linda Hamilton as the badass survivalist in T2, so seeing this version of her character showed that she had a great range. Michael Biehn was a little one note, but I suppose that's all his character really called for. At least he was convincing. As far as Arnold... let's be honest, this role is not about his acting and all about smart casting. He doesn't need to do or say much, but for what he needs to do, he's perfect for it.
Overall I'd give this a 7/10. It's an almost 40 year old movie that, aside from some dated special effects, still holds up pretty well. I think it's also worth noting its contributions to the "time travel" and "robot apocalypse" film genres. Shortcomings aside, I think it's definitely one of those movies that should be seen for its historical value.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 21, 2022 15:24:16 GMT -5
I'm definitely not denying it's been done, it just doesn't seem like something done every single time which is what habitual implies to me. Probably splitting hairs. If the word "habitual" is problematic for you, then feel free to disregard. My larger point was that it's done often enough that it's a noticeable pattern, and doesn't necessarily have to be every single time. Connecting back to my original post, there seems to be a similar type of pattern in fiction with people who suffer from mental illness. There are few instances where these individuals are portrayed in a positive light, and more often than not they are portrayed as villains. Historically, people who suffered from mental illness were pretty marginalized and few were willing to advocate for them. But these days there is a greater awareness of these issues, and people are more willing to talk openly about their own struggles. If it goes anything like the way it has for the LGBT community or ethnic minorities, the "lunatic killer" as a stock character may be on borrowed time.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 21, 2022 10:24:08 GMT -5
...I really don't remember there being a lot of gay villains.
Silence of the Lambs and Basic Instinct were the first ones that came to mind. The serial killer in the former (Buffalo Bill, not the character played by Anthony Hopkins) was what we would label "transgender" today, and Sharon Stone's character in the latter was bisexual. There's also Catherine Deneuve's character from The Hunger (bisexual vampire). I'm sure there are more if I google. It's not like American cinema doesn't have a long and rich history of playing up stereotypes to portray people from minority communities as villains. Fu Manchu anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 20, 2022 0:23:47 GMT -5
I just realized that Ming Na may very well be a vampire as she just looks too damn young to actually be 58. Asian women often look younger than their real age (a lot of my female Asian friends were carded well into their late 30s... us guys, not so much ), but Ming Na Wen is on another level. I don't know any Asian women her age that look like her, and I feel pretty confident in my sample size. She's not quite the same age yet, but another actress that I'm pretty sure will forever look like she's in her 20s: Zhang Ziyi
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 20, 2022 0:16:19 GMT -5
I'm genuinely curious how this show will be received by the mental health community. I recall that the M. Night Shyamalan movie Split, which was also about a character with DID, didn't get a warm reception. I think there was a similar reaction to Joker.
With people being more aware of mental health issues these days, and advocates having a bigger platform than ever, I wonder if the clock is ticking for these kinds of characters. It wasn't too long ago that LGBT characters were habitually portrayed as murderous villains, and now everywhere you go there is an announcement for a new LGBT superhero. Times have changed in that regard and I wonder if it's just a matter of time until characters suffering from mental health problems will change in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 20, 2022 0:04:04 GMT -5
I missed a lot of stuff from early the late 60s ad early 70s through being too young to see them at the theatre and the substantial time lag back then between theatrical releases and network tv showings. So many very famous movies like the Godfather or the Exorcistat I didn't get to see until the 1990s, when I finally had a vcr of my own and could rent them. Then afterwards, into the late 70s and later, when i was old enough to see whatever I wanted, I would still occasionally miss things through not being able to get to them in time before they left town - Alien, for example, was a big one that as a huge SF fan I was really disappointed not to see during its original release. Close Encounters as well - actually I still haven't seen that one; or ET, speaking of Speilberg, but I've never felt any great urge in that last case, and might never get around to it. Terminator I never saw on the big screen but I did see it on video not too long after its original year of release. But even in terms of seeing them at all, whether small screen or big, there are still many very famous movies I have yet to get to, far too many to start listing them off. One of the things that makes the Favourite Film of Year XXXX thread so much fun is being reminded of all the things you want to see, or learning about ones you didn't know about.
Close Encounters and Alien are both on my list!
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 19, 2022 14:39:02 GMT -5
I've recently started a project to watch a bunch of older films that I missed while growing up. I consider myself fairly well-versed in the movie culture from my youth (80s and 90s), but I will admit to having some fairly significant gaps in my film diet. Most of these are movies that were successful and had a big impact on pop culture, but for one reason or another I just never got around to watching.
I'm planning to document my project here by jotting down mini-reviews of the movies as I watch them. Feel free to chime in with movies that you missed or your thoughts on classics that you have recently watched for the first time.
The first movie on my list: The Terminator. My review coming soon...
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jun 1, 2021 14:58:27 GMT -5
Mile High was the first I ever dealt with, but it looks like the website hasnt moved on in 20 years, and Ive struggled to find stuff I like at mycomicshop(this is Lone Star isnt it?). Paul
I think mycomicshop officially separated from Lone Star Comics as a business a few years back. IIRC, Buddy Saunders sold their physical stores to a bunch of separate buyers (mostly former employees, I believe) and went all-in on the online store.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on May 13, 2021 22:12:53 GMT -5
The biggest problem I have is conceptual, but it is a factor in a lot of Hollywood productions, especially now. One, actors don't realistically portray soldiers, unless they go through Dale Dye's training camps. The 60s generation had mostly served in the Army, for at least a couple of years and could play soldiers. Modern actors never get near the military and play a writer's conception of what it is like. They substitute jargon for research and slap a uniform on an actor and that is supposed to work. That also translates into how soldiers fight in combat; and, specifically, super-soldiers. Steve went through elaborate training before and after his transformation. The serum improved his body; it didn't give him tactical skills and hand-to-hand combat training. Bucky was also a trained and experienced combat vet. Sam is a trained veteran. Karli and the other Flag Smashers? Nope. Sure, they are stronger and can move quicker; but, boxing and MMA have long shown that skill trumps size, until both skill levels are equal. Then, it's down to who can make the other fight their game. Karli and the others should be getting finessed by Walker and Bucky and even Sam, as he has enough gear to compensate for his strength level. The Dora Milage demonstrate that skill outclasses serum, in the fight at Zemo's, when Walker gets his butt handed to him (foreshadowing the ending).
I agree with your larger points that most Hollywood writers and actors lack first-hand military experience, and that the Flag Smashers should not have had the skill to go toe-to-toe with trained military personnel. But having said that.... I also find that Hollywood overestimates the hand-to-hand fighting capabilities of most military personnel. Most military personnel receive little training in hand-to-hand. Even those in combat roles are primarily trained to use guns and other weapons that are more efficient in taking out enemies. Sure, there's the occasional individual who specialized in hand-to-hand, and personnel from elite units like the Navy SEALs are, on average, probably better fighters than rank-and-file infantry. But if you go by Hollywood standards, most soldiers who served in combat could don a cool costume and become the next Batman.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on May 13, 2021 10:08:56 GMT -5
The only thing interesting about Riker in the first two seasons is the way he sits down in chairs: I'm kidding, I liked him from the start. But once the writing staff was able to actually start developing the characters in Season 3, he and pretty much everyone on the show got better. Especially when you consider he wasn't even much of an original character when Roddenberry created TNG. He got everything that was left over from Decker in Phase II that they didn't use in The Motion Picture.
I have been a Trek fan for over 30 years and watched TNG in its original run and have re-watched most of the episodes multiple times but how have I never noticed this oddity?
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on May 4, 2021 12:59:07 GMT -5
Interesting that there's no indication they are planning a big, Avengers-style team up film in the next few years. I think this makes a lot of sense if this is an intentional decision. The MCU is getting bigger, so they need to create the space to introducing new characters and concepts. Having smaller team-ups (like the next Doctor Strange film, or Disney+ shows like FatWS) maintains the shared universe connectivity without having to re-hash their past formulas. I'm sure that we'll eventually get another Avengers movie, but it may be after a longer period than we had in the first three phases of the MCU.
Here's a crazy thought -- if I had the time stone and could go back change to things, I think Marvel should have swapped their plans for Iron Fist and Shang-Chi. Back when the Netflix shows were still a thing, they should have introduced Shang-Chi in place of Danny Rand. I think Shang-Chi would have worked much better in the less fantastical world of Netflix MCU, and he would have integrated very easily into a bigger story about battling the Hand. With minor modifications, they could have kept his original concept and adapted him to be the rebellious son of the Chinese faction of the Hand. Meanwhile, the Iron Fist mythology would have worked much better in the theatrical end of the MCU where we have alternate dimensions and "magic" established thanks to Doctor Strange and Thor. The first Doctor Strange movie would have been the perfect place to have a mid-credits scene introducing Kun Lun.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Apr 27, 2021 12:10:48 GMT -5
Caught the first three episodes this past week. Pretty entertaining, although I feel like my enjoyment is slightly muted because I've read the comic series, so some of the twists and gags are not as entertaining as they were when I first read them.
I thought they made some interesting choices in updating the characters. They made Amber black to reflect the ethnicity of the voice actress (Zazie Beetz). And I'm guessing that we are to understand that Mark Grayson is of partly Korean descent, as Steven Yeun is the voice actor and the mother is played by Sandra Oh. It didn't register with me at first, because the Grayson family in the comics all have dark hair, and the adjustments made to make Mark and his mom look Asian are subtle.
I also noticed that Eve's costume was modified from the comics. To be honest, that didn't register w/me either until because it seemed pretty faithful to the comics. In one episode one of the villains makes a remark that her outfit panders to gender stereotypes, and then I remembered that she had a slightly skimpier costume in the comics.
Anyway, interesting choices in adapting the source material. I hope that, as with The Walking Dead, they remix things enough with the show to give people who have read the comics something new to enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Apr 27, 2021 11:56:03 GMT -5
Finally got to see the last episode. Overall, I'd say the series was a competently entertaining effort, but not especially risky or groundbreaking. I'm in agreement with most in this thread that the latter half of the series was stronger, and that the show could have performed well as a movie in condensed form. From the perspective of a "dramatic" story, the plots regarding Bucky's redemption, Sam's internal struggle, and the government's treatment of black soldiers were pulled off well enough to move the action along, but would not have been enough to make a compelling story on their own. There are other Marvel productions that have handled "big ideas" better than FatWS.
Some of the Wandavision comparison are, I think, a bit unfair. As with their films, Marvel is trying to make different types of shows that might appeal to different audiences while trying to service larger narratives. Wandavision was a trippy mystery/exploration of grief, FatWS is pretty much a basic action/adventure show. For what it's trying to be, I think it was done well enough.
Some things I didn't like:
I never clearly understood the Flag Smashers' motivations. I think part of this is because the post-Endgame MCU productions have been vague regarding the geopolitical state of the world. We are meant to understand that bringing back half of the world's previously disappeared population had massive repercussions on the world's governments (understandably). And we are meant to understand that the Flag Smashers' believed things were better before those people came back. But how does that translate into "one world, one people"? Was it ever established that the Snap led to universal open borders?
On Sharon Carter, {Spoiler: Click to show} I dislike the reveal that she apparently is the Power Broker. I'm not against the idea of her doing a heel turn in principle, and they present some solid reasons why she might have done it. But I don't think the twist was earned. In the previous films she is presented as a heroic, true blue believer in doing The Right Thing. While it's certainly possible that such a character could take dark turn, it's just not plausible to me with what they've shown us so far. They would either need to have shown her as a character with an existing dark side to her, or they need to have shown the hardships that shaped her into her current state. The MCU has done neither so the whole twist just feels like it was pulled out of thin air.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Apr 22, 2021 23:02:51 GMT -5
I agree with earlier sentiments that it will probably flow better in a binge session than as episodic with a wait between chunks. Considering that we couldn't even get through a chunk, I'm not sure watching it all in one sitting would fare much better for us. I'd seriously consider leaving the theater after the second hour.
I myself am enjoying the show, the later episodes more so than the earlier ones, but I can get why it might not resonate. As someone who has done the force-myself-to-watch/read-something-because-everyone-says-how-great-it-is thing, I have learned that sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't. The key is to make the call before you have wasted a lot of time. Sounds like you made a valiant effort. Life's too short to force your self to consume entertainment that you're not enjoying.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Apr 19, 2021 22:14:37 GMT -5
A podcast I listened to has presented the plausible-to-me-theory that
{Spoiler: Click to show} Bucky will not survive this show. They make the case that once Bucky's made his peace with his past, his story's done and there's nowhere else to go with his character. While I don't think it's a slam dunk, I think it's plausible because the character of Bucky as written in the MCU is not really a character that stands on his own. His entire raison d'etre was to bring our aspects of Steve Roger's character in the films, and now Sam's character in this show. Besides that, the growing friendship and trust between Sam and Bucky shown in episode 5 reeks of that thing writers do where they make you really start caring about a character and his/her relationships in order to heighten the emotional impact from killing them off.
|
|