Iro's One Movie a Day Thread

→ in
Tools    





Welcome to the human race...
#401 - The Terminator
James Cameron, 1984



A cyborg travels back in time from a future where humans and artificially intelligent machines are locked in constant war in order to murder the woman whose unborn son will become the leader of the human resistance.

With Terminator Genisys coming out later this week, I made a plan to re-watch all four Terminator films in the lead-up to its release (even the last couple, but you'll hear about that when I get to those). Obviously, this means starting off with the low-budget B-movie that started it all, 1984's The Terminator. It has been a favourite of mine since 2003, cracked both my Top 100 lists, and has stood the test of time as well as almost any other major favourite of mine. A lot of that has to do with the fact that, despite the quality of its most immediate sequel, it at least maintains some degree of logical consistency that handles well on its own yet only gets tampered with further with each new sequel. That doesn't make this single film immune to nit-picking, especially considering how the sort-of-slasher vibe generated by the eponymous antagonist leaves it open to all sorts of contrivances in order to extend its running time and keep the heroes alive. The effects work may also alienate people with its uncanny animatronics and later tendencies to lapse into stop-motion, as well as the fact that the acting is little more than serviceable on the part of the human actors.

Even so, there's still plenty of things that I like about this film. The unapologetically dated 1980s production informs a present filled with neon, New Wave music, and feathered hairdos while the future is full of lasers and robots, providing a consistently great aesthetic. This also extends to the effects work, which might prove uncanny to modern audiences but the late great Stan Winston and his team show some serious skill nonetheless. Arnold Schwarzenegger's work as the Terminator is deservedly iconic, whether he's delivering his few lines in his accented monotone or robotically stalking his prey (no matter how many instances there are of his character dropping the ball for the sake of the narrative - when your target is trapped in an overturned truck within walking distance, why would you instead hijack another truck and try to ram them?). As I stated, the human characters are solid enough (especially considering how much of the focus is on the Terminator) and though they're not amazing enough performers in their own right, it's hard to imagine anyone else doing these characters justice. Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn are believable as Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese respectively and sell their somewhat implausible relationship well enough, while Paul Winfield and Lance Henriksen make for good support as a pair of bickering detectives. They deliver exposition at a good pace and weave in some memorable dialogue in the process.

The original score is arguably the most dated part of a film that felt incredibly dated when I first saw it well over a decade ago, but its clanging percussion-driven score and sinister synths actually define the film in a positive manner. It's just part of The Terminator's charm that extends beyond virtually every possible technical and narrative weakness and has made me decide to give out what is now an extremely rare rating on my part - the full five out of five. Occasional spot of goofiness aside, it's still an effective slice of sci-fi that is slightly more intelligent than its killer robot high-concept might suggest and has the people to back it up. While there's really no telling whether or not a film can ever truly be considered an all-time favourite, after twelve years I'd say that this one comes pretty close.




Welcome to the human race...
#402 - Red Heat
Walter Hill, 1988


"...COCAINUM."

A Russian detective is forced to head to Chicago and team up with a local cop in order to track down the drug dealer who murdered his partner.

I know I shouldn't expect too much from any Schwarzenegger-starring film that doesn't also involve the name "James Cameron", but Red Heat at least had the director of The Warriors (one of my favourite cult action movies) and it has a rather promising premise that uses the Cold War climate to inform its mixture of buddy-cop action and fish-out-of-water comedy. My initial reference point was Rush Hour (which swapped a Soviet one for a Hong Kong one - nothing new under the sun, huh?). The opening sequence, which takes place in Russia and features Schwarzenegger's character infiltrating a unisex bath-house surrounded by snow and fighting a bunch of virtually naked guys while wearing what barely counts as a loincloth, does set quite the precedent for an action film that will be hard to forget. Unfortunately, things get bogged-down once Schwarzenegger is forced to head to America in pursuit of his perp, which results in him being teamed with Jim Belushi's wise-cracking blue-collar detective.

I can see how having a sarcastic foil to a straight-faced, business-minded Soviet agent would make for comedy gold (hey, it worked for Ninotchka, didn't it?), but as far as potential candidates for such a role go, Belushi is less than desirable. He basically comes across as a cut-rate Bill Murray with his deadpan snarking at Schwarzenegger's expense and, though he does generate the occasional laugh through his brash yet slovenly American character, it's clear that most of the humour is generated by Schwarzenegger's comically serious delivery in, well, just about every scene he's in (I mean, just look at that header image). He definitely carries Belushi for the most part and adds all the most worthwhile moments to an otherwise pedestrian cop movie. Notable actors like Laurence Fishburne or Peter Boyle do their best with the material they're given, but they're not given much. While Red Heat is intermittently awesome and not totally awful, it doesn't have nearly enough redeeming features to make it a quality film, but not even Belushi's comedic shortcomings are enough to totally sink it either. It's a shame, since Hill is capable of directing some decent action scenes here and there but ultimately has to risk it all on the chemistry of Schwarzenegger and Belushi. Fortunately, the risk doesn't turn out to be that great.




I agree with you about Red Heat. It's a film I'd like to like a lot more than I do but just can't. For me it's not Belushi, though. I didn't care for the talented one in the family, let alone the name-tagged brother, but he doesn't really bother me in this. I think it probably is to do with the chemistry between Arnie and James, but the film doesn't seem confident about what it is. Sometimes too dark, others too light.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



Welcome to the human race...
I agree with you about Red Heat. It's a film I'd like to like a lot more than I do but just can't. For me it's not Belushi, though. I didn't care for the talented one in the family, let alone the name-tagged brother, but he doesn't really bother me in this. I think it probably is to do with the chemistry between Arnie and James, but the film doesn't seem confident about what it is. Sometimes too dark, others too light.
Belushi doesn't bother me either - at least his buddy-cop relationship with Schwarzenegger is reasonably tolerable compared to, say, the one from Bad Boys II in that it's just sporadically funny rather than painfully unfunny. You're definitely right about the tonal inconsistency - that's a major flaw, alright.



Welcome to the human race...
#403 - Terminator 2: Judgment Day
James Cameron, 1991



A cyborg is sent back in time from a future where humans and artificially intelligent machines are locked in constant war in order to murder the leader of the human resistance while he is still a young boy.

The Terminator run-the-series continues with Terminator 2, which is often considered the best film in the series and one of the best blockbusters ever made. It's not without reason as its ability to balance ground-breaking special effects and exciting action with a competently written science-fiction storyline that more than justifies a sequel's existence (though, like any Terminator continuation, its existence threatens to compromise the logic of the universe established by the original film, but whatever). The radically increased scale takes the franchise from its humble yet ambitious B-movie origins into the stratosphere and becomes one of the definitive blockbusters to the point where many lesser imitators (and even its successors within the franchise) do their best to duplicate its rather deft combination of plot and spectacle. Of course, even now after having been wowed by it at first (hey, I was thirteen, what did you expect?), I never quite considered it to be superior to its predecessor, flawed that it may be.

If Terminator 2 can be said to have inspired a whole generation of blockbusters, then it's not hard to see the flaws that would definitely get magnified by many other films that failed to capture the same magic. For starters, it's a bit on the long side no matter what edition you watch (I think the bulk of my viewings have involved the special edition, which adds roughly fifteen minutes of scenes). At least even in the extended version the extra scenes add to the film more so than they detract, but even so the execution of the exposition tends to be bloated and less engaging than its predecessor (especially when a lot of it involves Edward Furlong as the young version of John Connor, who was decent enough on initial viewings but now a lot of the scenes that involve him in a greater capacity do tend to drag, with the occasional exception involving his humourous attempts to bond with Arnold Schwarzenegger's emotionless killing machine). The characterisation is solid enough now that there are two cyborgs on the scene - Schwarzenegger's reputation for becoming a charismatic fountain of one-liners isn't remotely tempered by his character's mechanical stoicism, while Robert Patrick as the antagonistic T-1000 also comes as a surprise not just because of his shape-shifting qualities but also because of his far more human mannerisms that serve to distinguish him further. Linda Hamilton returns as Sarah Connor, whose determination to prepare both herself and John for Judgment Day has made her into a fearsome warrior at the cost of at least some of her sanity (she does spend the first act of the film in a mental institution, after all), while character actor Joe Morton plays Miles Dyson, the tech genius whose groundbreaking work is what leads to the creation of the system of robot overlords known as Skynet. He gets in a solid sub-plot as a well-intentioned scientist who is forced to confront the reality of what he's created.

Action-wise, the film is rightly considered a classic, though it's not hard to pinpoint several instances of short-sightedness or incompetence on the part of hero and villain alike that extend and complicate the plot (for a ruthless killing machine who provides the bulk of the film's body count, the T-1000 sure as hell can't hit his primary target). Gunfights, fistfights, chases involving running and several different types of motorised vehicle, explosions, a relative lack of human casualties, and one awfully contrived yet visually stunning finale abound. The effort put into the CGI still shows up many films that followed in its wake, while Stan Winston once again provides magnificient-looking practical effects to temper the computerised work. While it generally has a reputation for being a superior film to The Terminator, I find that its slightly excessive running time and less-than-stellar use of its quieter scenes are points that work against it just a little too much for its own good. It'd be interesting to see if it could get whittled down to about 100 minutes or so, though I definitely think there's enough here that cutting it down that much would definitely be a mistake.




Like most normal people, I prefer the first one to the sequel, too. As you say, it's too long and I've always thought so. It's a good film, though.



Welcome to the human race...
#404 - Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Jonathan Mostow, 2003



A cyborg is sent back in time from a future where humans and artificially intelligent machines are locked in constant war in order to murder the leader of the human resistance, who is currently a homeless drifter.

I first saw the previous Terminator films in the lead-up to the cinematic release of Terminator 3, and as you can clearly see earlier in this thread I had enjoyed them enough to seriously look forward to this one. Even so, I was still cautious that the absence of creative driving force James Cameron and the passage of twelve whole years since the previous installment would naturally lead to a lesser variation on the same "time-traveling robotic assassins" formula that had brought the older films success and acclaim. In a rather unsurprisingly turn of events, Terminator 3 ultimately ends up being a far cry from its predecessors no matter how much it tries to increase the carnage and bring a sense of closure to the film series in the process. As the sub-title would suggest, the film chronicles the events that lead up to Judgment Day (which had not been stopped but merely postponed by the events of the previous film). The focus is on John Connor (Nick Stahl) once again being targeted by a Terminator; this time, it's a highly advanced model (Kristanna Loken) that is armed with built-in weapons and hacking abilities, which make it a threat not only to humans but also to other machines and Terminators - then guess who else shows up...

Put bluntly, Terminator 3 is a misfire. It has a decent enough concept (if a little fatalistic) amidst the usual killer-robot shenanigans of the franchise that doesn't drag things out like its predecessor did, plus it does raise the scale of the action thanks to its significantly larger budget. Of course, being able to create greater amounts of destruction and introduce more ambitious effects work isn't necessarily the best substitute for a good story, and I have very mixed feelings about how the creators develop Connor's arc. It starts off promisingly with Connor drifting aimlessly through life with no sense of purpose now that Judgment Day is supposedly cancelled; looking back now, it's not hard to think of this as Stahl doing one long audition reel for his role as an equally reluctant prophesied hero in HBO's Carnivàle. Though the film is ultimately supposed to showcase his maturation from listless loner to committed soldier, Stahl isn't the actor to pull off such a transformation convincingly. Weaved in with Connor's arc is his chance encounter with a veterinarian (Claire Danes) who also has her own part to play in not just this adventure but the film's future; while she fills the role of audience surrogate well enough, the film's attempts to forge a romantic sub-plot between her and Stahl in addition to developing her into a capable fighter don't come off well at all. As for the robot leads, this version of the Terminator may still be played by Schwarzenegger but he lacks a lot of his usual charm due to the film's extremely compressed timeframe not allowing for much development even by the character's fundamentally limited standards. Instead, the decision to play up his comically serious delivery ends up being overdone to the point of considerable irritation, most notably through him learning how to tell people to "talk to the hand". There's not much to remark upon about Loken's turn as the T-X beyond the physicality involved with the role, as she doesn't even have the same small level of personality that Robert Patrick's T-1000 did.

As for the film proper, well, at best it's derivative of Terminator 2 with its many call-backs and references (which are of extremely debatable quality and are more likely to invoke exasperation than fondness), and at worst it's a sloppily written piece of work that's chock-full of coincidences, contrivances, and conveniences in order to keep the film length. Despite the brief running time (it is the second-shortest film in the franchise by about two minutes), it still manages to feel bloated with sub-par characterisation and action scenes that are full of chaos and explosions but don't leave memorable enough impressions in the same way that, say, a police station shoot-out or a three-vehicle chase through an empty canal would. The action isn't totally awful, though - the extremely ambitious car chase that closes the film's first act might just be the high point of the film, even if it is a little on the long side - but they are far too frequently provoked by frustrating circumstances and ignorance of previously established facts that you can't believe said scenes are happening even as they happen. The CGI that was once used so sparingly but effectively in the previous film is far more pronounced here with barely a shred of the same impact. Even though there is the odd good moment here and there (the ending might be a bit divisive for people, but I personally thought it was another highlight), Terminator 3 is most definitely the weakest film in the "main" series. Not only does it fall prey to the same flaws that appeared in prior films (the key one being how the over-powered villains conveniently don't use their full power to kill the heroes at the most opportune moments, but instead end up doing unnecessary convoluted or pointless moves), but its attempts to pay homage to its predecessors frequently come across as patronising and disappointing while its attempts to break new ground fall apart under the weight of over-reaching visual spectacle.




Gotta disagree. Not with the specific appraisals (there are lots of goofy moments), but with the weight placed on them relatively to the things it does well. The fact that it manages to simultaneously subvert and compliment the previous film(s) is terribly impressive, and for me, that covers a multitude of (relatively) small signs about a cramped running time or throwaway explanations (the goofiest being "My father's plane, I trained on it!" just as they're running towards a plane and need to explain why she can fly it).

Good action set pieces, too. The film's mandatory Chase Scene In A Vehicle Not Suited To It is really well executed, as expected.

But yeah, overall I'm just impressed that it managed to twist the mythology in a way that actually fed a new understanding into all that had come before. That's really cool, and for that achievement I can forgive the rest.



Welcome to the human race...
Gotta disagree. Not with the specific appraisals (there are lots of goofy moments), but with the weight placed on them relatively to the things it does well. The fact that it manages to simultaneously subvert and compliment the previous film(s) is terribly impressive, and for me, that covers a multitude of (relatively) small signs about a cramped running time or throwaway explanations (the goofiest being "My father's plane, I trained on it!" just as they're running towards a plane and need to explain why she can fly it).

Good action set pieces, too. The film's mandatory Chase Scene In A Vehicle Not Suited To It is really well executed, as expected.

But yeah, overall I'm just impressed that it managed to twist the mythology in a way that actually fed a new understanding into all that had come before. That's really cool, and for that achievement I can forgive the rest.
Sure, it subverts and compliments the previous films, but my question is "does it do either of those things well"? If this extends to the fact that the heroes aren't able to stop Judgment Day after all and instead accept their fates instead of trying to fight them, then yeah, it makes for a poignant enough ending (and a good conclusion to John's character arc), but it's still buried under some bad writing that doesn't go all that well when it comes to developing John or Kate or their interactions together, thus mitigating any payoff's potential impact. Are all the narrative conveniences supposed to be a deliberate statement about inevitability as well? Also, is it really that good that the T-101 went from "loyal dad" to "mean step-dad" between films? It seems like an unfortunate compromise between the attitudes of the first two T-101.



Well, yeah, I think the inevitability does inform the plot. And the fact that they were fighting something inevitable actually makes the previous films more interesting to rewatch with that in mind.

It's just a question of emphasis, I suppose. I can't think of many (any?) sequels made by different people that manage to pull off that kind of narrative jujitsu, so the bulk of my grade comes from that single, impressive fact. If you prefer execution over narrative high-wire acts or general plot coherence, then naturally you'd find it a lot less enjoyable. But for me, the actual plot line was always the biggest thing (which is the case with most sci-fi films, and certainly with most films involving time travel), so nailing that outweighs everything else.

It probably also helps that, on net, I found the execution more mediocre than actually bad.



Welcome to the human race...
How does it make the other films more interesting in retrospect? There's never really any indication given that they've actually stopped Judgment Day in either of those films (which is obvious in the first one, but the second one ends up on an ambiguously hopeful note, which a lot of people seem to have interpreted as a "happy" ending). Besides, there's the whole "stable time loop" thing that would break without the existence of Skynet and John Connor. This series doesn't exactly seem to play by Back to the Future rules here.

As for "narrative jujitsu", the only other film I can think of off the top of my head that pulls a similar stunt is Alien 3, which I'll concede is somewhat underrated but it's debatable as to how well that pulls off its left-field twist to a serialised narrative. While I can sort of appreciate what they were going for, just the fact that it exists in the first place doesn't guarantee that it was the best possible idea for a continuation of the storyline. I sort of get that feeling with T3.

Besides, my "mediocre" is most people's "bad". That's what 2s and 2.5s are for.



How does it make the other films more interesting in retrospect? There's never really any indication given that they've actually stopped Judgment Day in either of those films (which is obvious in the first one, but the second one ends up on an ambiguously hopeful note, which a lot of people seem to have interpreted as a "happy" ending)
You sort of answered your own question: the second film clearly implies that they've changed history (describing the future as "unknown"). Which means, after watching the third film, all their struggles in the second are futile.

In fact, it creates a symmetry that brings the whole series full circle:

The Terminator: the person sent back to save his mother becomes his father. Fate appears inevitable.

Terminator 2: they fight back against the seeming inevitability of their destinies, and appear to succeed. "No fate but what we make."

Terminator 3: fate course-corrects and they finally realize it's inescapable. Fittingly, this is preceded by Sarah's (she of the carving quoted above) death. She dies thinking she succeeded.

Besides, there's the whole "stable time loop" thing that would break without the existence of Skynet and John Connor. This series doesn't exactly seem to play by Back to the Future rules here.
Ah, but that's part of the point: we don't know what rules it plays by, and when taken together, the films oscillate between different conceptions of time travel, before finally settling on one. There's not just drama about whether or not they'll succeed in a specific action, but also drama about what kind of story they're in, and whether or not their actions matter at all.

And this is true both for the audience and the characters. The characters have some reason to believe fate is inevitable, but heck, the machines are bothering to try, so clearly they don't think history is unchangeable.

As for "narrative jujitsu", the only other film I can think of off the top of my head that pulls a similar stunt is Alien 3, which I'll concede is somewhat underrated but it's debatable as to how well that pulls off its left-field twist to a serialised narrative. While I can sort of appreciate what they were going for, just the fact that it exists in the first place doesn't guarantee that it was the best possible idea for a continuation of the storyline. I sort of get that feeling with T3.
I wonder if it's not a coincidence that both films are sequels made by different people than the original, both dark/violent sci-fi, both follow-ups to James Cameron works, and both generally tepidly received.

Besides, my "mediocre" is most people's "bad". That's what 2s and 2.5s are for.
Fair enough.



fate course-corrects and they finally realize it's inescapable...

To me, this is self-evidently cool...
Does that mean you think the Final Destination movies are cool?



Welcome to the human race...
#405 - Showdown in Little Tokyo
Mark L. Lester, 1991



A pair of Los Angeles detectives are paired together in order to wipe out a drug operation being carried out by the Yakuza.

As far as campy action movies go, Showdown in Little Tokyo actually does alright at doing what it sets out to do. It actually establishes a decent buddy-cop dynamic (which is pretty difficult, as several other films reviewed in this thread sadly demonstrate) with its very mismatched pair of cops who nonetheless develop a decent dynamic. Dolph Lundgren stars as a white Tokyo-raised detective who is well-versed in Japanese culture and has a vendetta against the Yakuza after one clan member murdered his parents in front of him while he was a boy. Brandon Lee makes for his counterpart, a biracial American who is nowhere near in touch with his Japanese heritage, making him an amusing counterpart to Lundgren's for reasons beyond him being a wise-cracking foil to Lundgren's serious-minded warrior. Thrown into the mix is Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as the main villain who relies on his raw charisma to make an otherwise one-note character work, while Tia Carrere pops up as a nightclub singer who gets drawn into Little Tokyo's seedy underbelly.

A good reason why Showdown in Little Tokyo works so well (within reason, that is) is that it knows its limitations and plays to them. The film is 79 minutes long - to give that some perspective, Bad Boys II is 147 minutes long (that's nearly twice as long) despite having the exact same plot about two mismatched detectives taking on a drug operation. It's almost refreshing just how lean the plot is, even when it results in the occasional spot of underdevelopment such as the romantic sub-plot that occurs between Lundgren and Carrere. In any case, Lundgren and Lee have good chemistry together and they are both competent action heroes that provide plenty of good fight scenes. Being directed by the same person responsible for Commando means that, despite its early-'90s release date, it is still heavily rooted in the '80s with its guitar-and-synth score and straightforward action plotting. There's lots of martial arts and swordfighting plus the occasional gunfight and it's all captured with sufficient competence. I'm giving this a relatively favourable rating because it got more than a few chuckles out of me and doesn't waste time getting bogged down in unnecessary sentiment or poor attempts at humour (like a certain other film...) I don't think I can honestly give it too high a rating - I wasn't sure whether I wanted to give it two-and-a-half popcorn boxes or three, but I think I'll go with reasonable doubt over the benefit of the doubt and give it the lower rating. Still worth a shot if you're into silly fun movies that manage to be funny in both deliberate and unintentional ways.