Men in Black...III

So, they made another Men in Black movie.  It's actually a little surprising to me, considering that it had been 10 years since MIB II and if memory serves, it wasn't really all that well received. At least by me. I didn't care for #2...it seemed the story really wasn't that great and it wasn't as much fun as the first one.  Actually, I can remember nothing about #2, other than J went to find K who was working at the post office with a bunch of aliens...I don't remember the main villain or anything.  Needless to say, didn't even see it in the theatre which is dry, considering Men in Black 1 was one of my first DVD's.  So, I went to see this one and you know what?


It actually was pretty good!  I don't think it was as good as the first one for sure, that movie is just so much fun, it's ridiculous. However, this one is pretty good, nevertheless.  There's a ton of aliens again and there's a lot of humour as well, I think the humour fell sort of flat in MIB 2, but it really works on this one.  I find that Smith and Jones are pretty good foils for one another and the fact that Tommy Lee Jones plays everything dead straight no matter how ridiculous the situation is just awesome.  His eulogy for Zedd is great!


I was a little nervous about him going back in time because you would lost the whole Smith/Jones dynamic and it's true, I don't think Brolin and Smith are as good together as Smith and Jones, but then again, Jones' face is impossible to duplicate.  I will say this for Brolin though, his impression of Tommy Lee Jones is scary and I mean SCARY good.  When he was talking, if you closed your eyes, you would think it was Tommy Lee Jones speaking.  It's that insane.  


The storyline is okay, the main villain is actually really memorable (the wildman Kieran from Dinner for Schmucks) and it has a nice nostalgia to it as most of the film takes place in 1969.  That means the MIB run into Andy Warhol, there's more racism, the cars are different, the technology is different, it's just a different time and place and I guess it was one way to breathe life back into the franchise.  To be honest, I think this might be the end of the Men in Black films, at least in this incarnation and if so, then they wrapped everything up really well.  


If you skipped this one because you weren't that impressed with #2, that's perfectly understandable.  Men in Black II was a huge misstep, but they're back with a vengeance in this one and they really went out and tried to make this movie fun again.  There's a lot of aliens, there's gadgets and there's laughs.  That's all you really need in these types of movies.  So, catch in on DVD if you can, it's one of those movies that doesn't try and be anything other than a fun movie and really, what more can you ask?


Rating: 4 out of 5 stars. 


- Stephenstein

Total Film's 50 Most Hated Films of All Time #29 - Spider-Man 3

So, this one made the list.  I can't say I'm surprised, Spidey 3 has gotten a lot of bad press.  Total Film stated that this movie is hated by the fans. Actually, they said that three-peats try to do too much (debatable to say the least) and that "Marvel went ahead anyway."  Uh-uh.  Listen, you work for Total Film, okay?  Get your facts straight.  Sony is doing the Spider-Man pictures.  SONY.  Not Marvel, Marvel would not do a crappy Spider-Man flick, which is what #4 is looking like, okay?  You work for Total Film.  This is your job.  This is your brand.  If you're going to make a lame list like this, at least sound like you know what you're talking about (even though clearly, you don't), okay?


So, the contention is the fans hate this film.  Okay, fair enough.  However, who are the fans?  Are we talking about fans as in the first time I saw Spider-Man was the first Raimi film?  Are we talking about Spider-Man fans as in collected the comics, saw the television series (live-action and the 1960's/1990's cartoon), bought the toys and when Spider-Man first hit theatres in 2002, took the day off school/work and went to see it?  What are we talking here, what is your definition of the word fan?  Because if it's someone who only cared about Spider-Man since the first live-action film, then who cares?  What do they have to say about it?  What is their basis of knowledge, the other two films?  There's so much about Spider-Man, I would find it extremely hard to give credence to the opinions of a bunch of johnny-come-lately's.


That being said, I do agree that the movie did try to do too much.  Look, putting in Venom and Sandman was a mistake, having one or the other would have been fine.  You could have the 2nd Green Goblin (or the Green Skateboarder or whatever the hell he was supposed to be), but really, putting both villains in the movie does justice to neither.  Also, Sandman killing Uncle Ben was terrible.  Spider-Man does not need a personal vendetta to go after Sandman, the fact that the man is walking around, robbing armoured cars and the like is sufficient enough.  We don't need this extra drama that really doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. 


That being said, I think this movie is a mixed bag.  The black costume is great (didn't the fans like that?), I like how Peter Parker is wrestling with good and evil, Sandman himself was great and this was the first film in the series where I didn't want to punch Mary Jane Watson out.  So, it wasn't as terrible as everyone says and for the record, I used to get the Spider-Man comics whenever I could as a kid, so it's not like I'm one of these first day fans like the people talking trash about Spider-Man on the 'Net.  To me, it's still a lot better than what this fourth film is looking like and I think when it's all said and done, Spider-Man 3 will have it's own fans, though I will admit it's not as good as the first two films, it's not bad enough to be hated. 


Worth the hate?  Nope.


- Stephenstein

Assemble!

Today, I have seen The Avengers for the 2nd time.  That's right, I have seen it twice in a span of three days.  If anyone out there wants to go again, give me a ring, because I could do it, right now.  Forget everything you've heard the past little while, forget the over-analyzers and the people who are calling this film Transformers 3.  Those people are fools and their opinions should not be taken into account.  This movie is the real deal folks, you read a lot of bitching on this post about movies and with very good reason, but this one is the one to go and see.  You won't be disappointed.  Where do I begin?


When the movie was announced, I was skeptical.  Of course I was.  We've heard about team-ups before concerning comic books and they never seem to work.  X-Men?  Yeah, the films are getting worse.  That's right, worse.  Any attempt at imagination or innovation has gone out the frickin' window, it's the same drum that keeps getting banged each and every time.  If you want to know what X-Men First Class is about, just watch X-Men 1 and 2.  Same themes, same storyline, same boring crap.  Fantastic Four?  It's heart was in the right place and they weren't as bad as everyone says they were, but I didn't leave the theatre inspired or anything (a cloudy Galactus will do that to you.)  Justice League?  The live-action film got it's plug pulled, because no one could figure out how to do it, (you put a bunch of heads together in a Hollywood studio and what to do you get?  Sawdust).  So Avengers, no matter how quality the films were preceding it, I was not convinced all the characters could get the screen time they needed or deserved to have the audience give a damn about them.  In today's world, it just isn't done anymore. 


Well, I was wrong and I'm not afraid to put it into print here.  Everyone gets their moment, you get team-ups within the film, everyone gets a crack at the main villain, it's all there ladies and gentlemen, the film that you would want made about The Avengers was done.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe I'm writing this sentence. I would have thought it would have been another "yeah, it was good, but you know, they could have done this, this and this."  Nope.  No complaints.  No gripes.  It's an event picture.  You remember what it was like, lining up for Return of the Jedi or something and the anticipation was off the charts and you couldn't wait to get to your seat, grab your popcorn and wait for the flick to get started?  Where they're showing the trailers and you're like, get on with it, already?  This is this movie.  This is a bonafide, no-kidding, no schtick summer blockbuster.  Everything you would want, the characterizations, the plot, the spectacle, the action, the humor, the moments, it's all in there. 


This movie makes me want to flood Marvel with emails. I want them to reclaim Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four.  It is a crying frigging shame that these properties are not getting the treatment they deserve.  Marvel would elevate all of these films, believe me.  How awesome would it be to have Avengers 2 with Spider-Man joining the team?  It could happen.  It should happen.  Marvel has proven that a movie on this epic a scale can not only be done, but be done right.  I think there should be some sort of campaign to have Marvel grab all of their properties back.  It has to be done.  If they can do a movie this big, this good, this spectacular, then any other Marvel movie that is being made by another studio is nothing but a waste of everyone's time.  


So, go see this movie.  Again...and again...and again.  Support it loud and proud.  This is one movie that is deserving of every dollar it makes.  I can't wait for Avengers 2. 


Rating: a big time 5 out of 5.


- Stephenstein

If you have to drive...

I did not see it in 3D, so don't ask me how the 3D is.

I did see it though and overall, it was pretty good. It was shot in the Grindhouse style and you can tell it was made to be a Grindhouse movie. There's shots of appendages being blown off, there's nudity, there's swearing, there's cars, it seems to be shot in a very "naturalistic" way, as far as the shots and what not, plus I read that's what they were going for.

As for the characters, Nic Cage is Nic Cage. Either you like him or you don't. I do and he turns in another solid performance here. I was surprised that he was actually a bad guy (as in he deserved to be in Hell), so none of that "he was really a good guy" sort of nonsense. Nic had a good part where he's having sex with this waitress fully-clothed and she asks him why he doesn't undress and he answers "I never disrobe before a gunfight". Just before a really big gunfight.

The Accountant was the best part of the movie, though.

Favourite line: Bad Guy: "I'm going to live forever". Accountant: "If forever you mean the next five seconds, then yes, you're going to live forever." This guy was just jokes, everything he did I thought was funny or neat. He just really seemed relaxed and those make for the best type of characters, as we all know.

As for Amber Heard, didn't care for her so much. She came across like trailer-park trash. I'm not even saying that's not what they were going for, but I buy the "hooker with a heart of gold" less and less these days. She just came across as this foul-mouthed bitch who will screw anyone for her own amusement or what she can get out of something. They redeem her at the end, but by then I'd checked out of the film.

There's not really much more to say. The story is standard (Cage is after the guys who mudered his daughter and kidnapped his grand-daughter), you can see the action so that's always a plus and there's some nice action pieces. Oh and for those of you who might be pumped up, Tom Atkins has a small role in the film!

Rating: 3 out of 5.

- Stephenstein

It Could Have Been Stopped!

Yeesh...

I hate movies "based on" or "inspired by" a true story. Most of the type, it's over-dramatized garbage. I'm also not a big fan of disaster movies, man-made disasters, or natural disasters. Usually, you're just waiting around for the disaster to hit, twiddling your thumbs...

So, why did I go see this movie again?

I like Denzel. That's basically it. Oh, and my Dad wanted to go, and my Mother wouldn't go with him, yadda, yadda, yadda. So, I went and saw this flick. Guess what? It's actually, really, really GOOD! I kid you not.

See, the guy behind this, Tony Scott, was smart. He didn't make us wait around for the action to start. Within 10 minutes, that train is barrelling down the track, unmanned, and with no one with any idea how to stop it. Denzel and Chris Pine do go after the train, but they find out about it when we were already about 60 percent into the movie, so you have a lot of the supporting characters trying to stop it.

So okay, the plot is simple, and we know how it's going to end. Why is it good? The editing is really good. It doesn't relent and keeps the focus on that train, and the efforts to stop it. That's all it's about, stop the train, stop the train, STOP THE TRAIN! I also liked the use of news footage style shooting, there was a lot of dynamic angles, and it just really kept you in the excitement of the moment. Then there's the soundtrack. It reminded me a bit of Bangkok Dangerous, it was very fast, very duh-duh-duh-duh duh-duh, it accented the action nicely. You would think that with the ending pretty obvious, and bound to one straight path, the action would not be that exciting, but trust me, the suspense and the action was pretty darned good.

Then there's the suits. In the movie, when the suits for the railway are contacted about the calamity unfolding, they worry about the potential cost of of de-railing it, and how much the stock would drop, not the people. Now, 10 years ago, I would have scoffed at this as being ridiculous. However, nowadays...it's not only possible, it's likely! I have worked for a major corporation for the last nine years, and trust me friends and folks, they DO NOT care one ounce about you. It is all cost, and stock depreciation, and all that garbage. I actually had something come up that could be harmful to customers, and had a manager say to me "well, it's only going to affect 10 percent of the people, so that's not bad." Only 10 percent. Yeah, only 10 percent of the population will get AIDS, that's not so bad, is it? When it gets to 25, call me. That's why these big telefons and charities tell you 10,000,000 are affected by this disease, or this social problem...if they told you the percentage, you wouldn't care! Also, like in real life, everything the suits try to stop the train doesn't work. Why? Because they know jack about the employees...just like real life. Oh, P.S...I hate suits, so anytime they look stupid, I'm happy.

This movie had a lot of jargon, which is sometimes bad. Bad because the average layman doesn't understand the terms, and the ones who do, call out the inaccuracies. It's also stupid to add too much jargon. This movie had too much jargon in my opinion...and didn't really need all the inside terms stuff. Really, did I need the term "riptrack" thrown at me? It didn't matter, did it? The train's out of the control, that's all that matters! So, half a star off for jargon for jargon's sake.

As for the actors, Denzel was Denzel. I didn't like Chris Pine for the first half of the movie, because he seemed to be channelling Captain Kirk, but after that, he was alright. I'll give him a pass in this one, but I don't think he's going to be nearly as good as they're making him out to be. Everyone else was fine.

All in all, this was one enjoyable ride. Yes it's predictable, and yes, it's nothing new, but it was a tight, well-paced, well-shot, well-scored action/thriller, that kept me engrossed throughout the entire film. At the end of the day, what more could I want?

Rating: 4 out of 5.

- Stephenstein

Not in 3D

Well, I refused to see this one in theatres, just because of the 3D garbage. I hate 3D. It's a gimmick, and I hate gimmicks, especially lame gimmicks, and 3D is in my opinion, a lame gimmick. So I waited, and caught this one elsewhere. I like the Resident Evil franchise, I own all the movies, so I wanted to see this one. Just not in 3D.

So what's new? Well, let's start with what's old. Alice and her clones are back (the clones don't last too long, unfortunately). Claire is back, and is joined by her brother, Chris (and you fans of the game franchise know who he is). K-Mart is back in a small role, as well. The zombies are still there, and Albert Wesker is back (he's the main villain now, and yeah, it only took 4 films to make him the main villain, but then again, they were too busy dealing with the various freaks).

This one starts off where the last one left off. Alice storms Umbrella's Tokyo base, and then heads to Alaska for a less than hopeful discovery. Then she ends in Los Angeles with Claire, where there's a bunch of new people to run into (including Chris), zombies to fight (including an Axeman who is a dead ringer for the terrifying Ax guy in Silent Hill), humans to fight with (Kim Coates is the resident jerk in this one), and at the end, when the credits are rolling, an old face returns, setting up who the main villain would be in the next movie (hint: this character was last seen in the 2nd film).

So how was it? Good. I wouldn't say I liked it more than part 3, but that's for a number of reasons.

Firstly, I was disappointed that the clones were wiped out fairly quickly. Okay, I know logistically, they can't have multiple Alice's running around the entire film. Okay, fine. Then why even introduce the idea? Then right at the beginning, they have Alice lose all her powers. Once again, this is because she can basically just create an earthquake, and wipe out everything, and it really doesn't matter in the rest of the film if she has the powers or not (Milla is still badass), but once again, then why bother? I'm not a fan of people losing powers, especially characters who are the main heroes.

I was disappointed by the last fight in the film, too. They set up Wesker as this unstoppable, superhuman guy, who took out both Claire and Chris, after fighting them both at the same time. Milla, though? De-powered Milla? She doesn't fight Wesker, the final boss. She just shoots him a couple of times in the head. That's it. That's the extent of the final confrontation between him and her. Big deal. They could have got anyone to do that. I wanted a big superhuman fight, not Kill Bill 2! Now, it's set up he can return in the next film as well, but if that's the extent their going to use him, then he might as well have stayed dead.

I did still like the movie, though. The action is pretty good (and you can see it all, so that's a plus). Milla uses a variety of weapons (swords, explosives, machine guns), and she's the same, Milla is the rock of this franchise, and as long as they have her, you're going to do okay in these films. The supporting cast is the usual assortment of stock types (the arrogant schmuck, the buff, but logical dude, the guy whose good with machinery), and the majority of fighting is relegated to enclosed spaces again (Umbrella's Tokyo Base, a Los Angeles prison), so if you're a fan of action taking place in small, enclosed locations, than you'll like this movie.

That's about it. It's Resident Evil, so you all know what to expect. It was a decent effort in the series, and I am curious to how 5 will play out.

Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars.

- Stephenstein

Not your father's Robin Hood

Robin Hood.

The name itself ellicts all sorts of different iconography. Sherwood Forest. Merry Men. A noble archer. A dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham. A pompous Prince John. An archery tournament for a golden arrow. There have been several adaptations of the legend of the outlaw from Sherwood who robs the rich to feed the poor. The latest (and probably the best) was a BBC series which ran for 3 seasons. It was on the heels of this that they originally announced "Nottingham", which was supposed to be a twist on the famous legend, told from the Sheriff's point of view, where the Sheriff was the good guy, and Robin was the villain.

Interesting concept. Of course, it never would have flew, but nice idea, nevertheless.

So instead, we got this version of Robin Hood (or as I refer to it, the version that never should have been), and oh boy, does it fall flat. Robin Hood is not really Robin Hood in this movie. He's an archer in the King's employ (and Richard is a jerk, let me tell you), and when the king dies, he takes the opportunity to run. By chance, he comes across a dying knight (Robert Locksley), and the crown, and uses the identity of the dead man, and the crown to get safe passage back to England (p.s., he's in France, not the Middle East), and then returns Locksley's sword to his father, where he then meets Maid Marian, and instantly becomes married to her.

Umm...where do I begin?

First of all, I am not impressed that Robin does not really earn any of his good fortune. He happens to find the crown, happens to find Robert (conveniently when he's dying), happens to luck into a marriage with Marian. Wow, how lucky is this guy? Luckier than good. Then there's the famous supporting characters. His Merry Men (Little John, Will, Alan) are all bland and pointless, the Sheriff of Nottingham is non-existent, Richard's a bit of an ass, and Guy of Gisbourne is nowhere to be found. Instead, we have Mark Strong as "Sir Godfrey", and he's the main villain (he's a traitor to England, and an ally of France). Oh yeah, France are the bad guys in this film, not Prince John (who becomes King John, and at least has a semblance of a character here).

That being said, this movie is epic in length, but not in scope. They try and throw Robin's courtship of Marian in there, the disapproval of the Queen and William Marshal with King John, the French invaders plans, Robin wandering around with his Merry Men...there's no real flow to this film, it's a bunch of jumbled scenes together. You can tell where the different writers stepped in, and took over, and I'm shocked there weren't a hundred writers credited for this film, because it felt like it. It's just an utter mess, and if you want to see a Robin Hood movie, see the Errol Flynn one, the BBC series, the Prince of Thieves, hell watch Men in Tights or the Disney one, just don't bother with this one, it's a waste of your time.

Rating: as a movie - 2.5 out of 5.

as a Robin Hood movie - 0 out of 5.

- Stephenstein

The Book of Denzel

You know, you have to hand it to Denzel Washington. The man's going to be 56 years old this year, and he just keeps on headlining. He even takes on physical roles like this one in his latest movie, "The Book of Eli". Yep...and I keep on paying to see his movies, too. Mostly to marvel that the man can still do it, but Denzel is always solid. Always.

So, if you've caught the trailers for this one, you would see Denzel walking across the a destroyed landscape ala Mad Max, and it's obvious he has something that Gary Oldman wants. From the title, you would gather it is a book, and you would be correct. What Denzel's mission is, and what the book is, I'll leave to you to discover (though the book should be fairly obvious, considering the title of the movie).

What's important in this film though, is that Denzel is on a mission. A mission he believes in with his heart and soul, and he will not let anything (and I do mean ANYTHING) stop him from his mission. What his mission is, is his business, but let me tell you, woe betold anyone who tries to stop Denzel from achieving his goal. You think he was serious in "Crimson Tide"? You have no idea how serious this man is in this movie. He is dead serious, and you'd be nuts to take him on, or try and take his book, believe me.

So, how about the acting? Denzel is solid, as always. I mean seriously, when have you walked out of movie, and mumbled to the person next to you "Man, Denzel was really ass in this movie?" (P.S. you may want to make sure you know who the person next to you is, when you mumble that...it might actually be Denzel...stranger things have happened...though Denzel has never been ass, so you won't mumble it, anyway). Gary Oldman is his usual charismatic scenery-chewing villain as the leader of the small town who really, REALLY wants Denzel's book. Mila Kunis...okay, I'm going to go off on a rant here...on a separate paragraph. Seriously, this needs to be addressed.

You know, a lot of young actors these days are crap. Seriously. I have now seen Mila Kunis play a bitch on "That 70's Show", I've seen her try and be the protagonist's sidekick in "Max Payne", and now once again, she's the sidekick, though a tad more feisty, in this film. You know what? It might be the writing, and it might be the editing, but she comes off as incredibly bland. She tries, I'll give her points for that, but mostly, she's just there. Oh, and she needs to gain weight. You read that right. Gain weight. She is painfully thin. She turns sideways, and looks like a toothpick. Now, I don't know the *ahem* tastes of the people reading this blog, but let me tell you, Stephenstein does not find a toothpick attractive.

So now, let's move on to the ending. J-Man informed me that Ebert said the ending was so implausible, it is to be seen to be believed. Okay, I saw the ending. Was it surprising? Yes. Was it Sixth Sense game-changing I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter crazy? No. The ending did not make me re-evaluate the entire film in a new light. It was a leap of faith, no doubt, and it did sort of put things, including the main character, in a slightly different light...but I wasn't destroyed. I mean, we're talking about a world where there was a nuclear war that ripped a hole in the ozone layer, and caused the sun's rays to come in and burn everything...I think plausibility has now officially left the building. So, ending good, not great, and certainly did not destroy me.

In the end though, this is a solid movie, that is worth seeing at least once. Will this be a purchase? At this juncture, I'm saying no. I appreciate Denzel's character, and his resolve, and his mission, and I'm always good to see Gary Oldman yelling and screaming, but in the end, one viewing is probably good enough for me.

Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars.

I bid thee a fond goodnight.

- Stephenstein

Sherlock Holmes

I have never read a single Sherlock Holmes story...let me rephrase that...I have never read a Sherlock Holmes story written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I have "The Best of Sherlock Holmes" book in my bookcase, but with a thousand billion other things to read, it gets a little tough to fit everything in. Why the confessional? Just to let you know that I don't know jack about Sherlock Holmes, the actual literary character. I am reviewing this film for a position of ignorance, at least as far as the original subject matter is concerned. Does that matter? You be the judge.

So, on to the actual film, which I actually did like, quite a lot. It wasn't a perfect Sherlock Holmes story; I mean, they portray Holmes as an eccentric genius mostly, which is how I would think of him, but there are some scenes, and nothing really big immediately comes to mind, but I'm sure the other members of the Zone who see the movie would be able to point them out...there are some scenes that I think has less to do with "Haha, Sherlock is eccentric, but he's still brilliant", and more to do with "Sherlock Holmes is a bumbling idiot". I don't like that. Sherlock Holmes is supposed to be the most brilliant detective ever created, as far as I'm concerned, and even if he makes a mistake, he's not supposed to look like a moron when he does it.

Anyhow, I was quite surprised that there is a lot of deduction and investigation in this movie, and the really cool thing is, when Sherlock is going over things in his mind, or thinking back on things, you see the things he saw (or foresees, in some cases), which is really kind of neat. Yes, there is action (and I'm sorry to say, some of it is the same poorly edited, fast-cutting crap), and there is some humour (though not as much as I feared there would be), and no, he doesn't actually end up with Rachel Mcadams' character (which was also, something of a relief).

So, as for the actual mystery, well, you know who the villain is, from the trailer. The mystery surrounds what his final plan is going to be, and how he did the "supernatural" feats that he is credited with doing. For his plan, it's pretty much run-of-the-mill, which was a tad disappointing, but I think it's intimidating writing for Sherlock Holmes...I mean, if I had to come up with a brilliant plan for him to solve, I could do it, but it would be tough. Like I said, it's just breaking down how Lord Blackwood did things, and when he's going to strike next, that is the true mystery.

So, as for the players. Downey Jr. was pretty good as Sherlock (even if he kept losing his English accent), Jude Law was pretty good as Watson (he did a bit more than I expected.) McAdams was a pretty face and not much else as Irene Adler, and Mark Strong was imposing as Blackwood, though he appeared very little in the movie. Oh, and yes, Moriarty does appear in the movie, in case any Sherlock fans were wondering.

Anyhow, that's a wrap on the last 2009 movie I'm reviewing this year. My top ten will follow.

I bid thee a fond goodnight.

- Stephenstein

Terminator Salvation (aka the best lit movie in Hollywood)

Terminator. The name inspires images of a frowning Arnold Schwarzenegger going back to the past, alternately attempting to kill, and attempting to save John Connor. Through the entire franchise, we have heard whispers in our ears: Judgment Day. (Okay, most people were hearing those whispers...I was hearing "where'd you leave the toilet paper this time, you little ass!") But I digress...this is not the time to discuss whom left the toilet paper where. This is Terminator. This is serious. This is...McG. Excuse me? McG. The Charlie's Angels guy? Are you serious?

To best answer that question, I will simply say: yes. Yes, I am serious. This movie rocked. It rocked all night, and partied every day. This movie delivered, in a series of movies, where some were okay (Wolverine), and some were bad (Star Trek), this movie delivered large and in spades. What do you want? Do you want a large friggin' robot attacking people, and then little motorcycles spawning from his legs to give chase? Yes, we had that. Do you want, in one particular scene, missiles fired, land mines detonated, John Connor shooting a Terminator from a helicopter, and then burning the surounding landscape, before crashing the 'copter and doing battle with some water-based robots? That may be the longest sentence I've written in my entire life, but yes, you got that. Do you want a serious, hardcore, relentless action film set in the Terminator universe, complete with a big muscular guy with Arnold's face in a cameo? You have that. You even have the best lit movie in history (as Christian Bale would attest). This movie DELIVERS people, flat-out delivers, and whatever you've been reading on the 'Net, whatever you think about this movie, think again. Remember, those goofs on the web slamming this movie probably think Transformers rock...and that not being able to see action is cool. You want to see the story of these guys? It's actually already been released. It's called Idiocracy.

So, do yourself a favour, and plop down 12 bucks and see this movie. It must be seen in the theatre, for its great cinematography, for the effects, for the unreal sound, for everything. If you miss out on this movie, if you decide to rent it on DVD, you are just not getting the full effect of this movie...and just remember...diss the Terminators...and Arnold (or his CGI variant) will get you. He'll be back.

I bid thee a fond good night.

Rating 5 out of 5.

- Stephenstein