Christian Bale is an intense guy. He can make reading the phone book sound like he's reciting the launch codes on a nuclear submarine at zero hour. This intensity, his full pucker delivery, works in a number of the projects he has attached himself to (3:10 to Yuma, Rescue Dawn, The Machinist). In this goofy, mishandled rattle box of a movie his seriousness plays like a man who is gritting his teeth and making race car noises while riding a merry-go-round.

This wholly unnecessary prequel/sequel (depending on how you want to view the chronology) shows audiences the fight between the human race, fronted by John Connor (Bale), and the legion of machines spawned from Skynet.

This is another in a long line of "what could have been" movies made over the past few years. Instead of a compelling piece of science fiction or at least a mesmerizing slab of Hollywood trash, director McG (We Are Marshall) ended up with a lifeless, content-free reminder of just how good James Cameron was in his heyday.

This is little more than a series of chase sequences glued together with an overabundance of yelling. Connor's fight is afforded no real cause outside of simple survival. This may sound like a good reason to fight, but good reasons don't mean they play well on screen. He needed some purpose, a deep, moving reason propelling him forward. This is missing - so this is disjointed and unsatisfying.

In addition, there is a decentralized counter-force working against Connor. This means there is no real bad guy. For the thousandth time, let's go through this: Every film needs one hero. It needs one villain. They need one central goal that puts them in direct and unavoidable conflict. Everything else will branch from this relationship. That's it. It is literally that simple. Attention Hollywood, please figure this out.

Connor discovers Marcus Wright, a confused guy who doesn't remember the apocalypse. Wright turns out to be part man/part machine. The point here is that Connor needs to decide if he can trust the thing. This is a pale replication of his relationship with the cyborg in Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Again, this film is a sad reminder of how fun the concepts were when they were handled by more talented hands.

Wright is performed by Sam Worthington (Avatar) one of the least charismatic big screen presences of all time. All I'm saying is that it is logical to have the man play a machine.

The film is a mess. It is loud, senseless and unappealing. Worst of all, in parts it is downright boring. Avoid this tedious, fumbled shame and go rent the original film. Sure the special effects seem cheap by today's standards, but I am willing to bet you will still enjoy the flick more than this overpriced heap.




Related Reviews:
Christian Bale movies
The Prestige (2006)
Reign of Fire (2002)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Cinematroplis
Fistful of Donuts





Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: Arnold Schwartznegger, Christian Bale, film, movie review, sequel

Short Review: The media reports of Tom Cruise’s kid’s feces being bronzed may be in error. As it turns out, it may have actually been the shooting script for this film.


There are two big issues with this Tom Cruise movie:

1. Tom Cruise
2. The movie

My issue with Cruise is that he is Tom Cruise in nearly every movie he appears in. He is not an actor. He is a personality. I'm not a fan of personalities.

Looking beyond Cruise, which normally involves simply standing up, you will find Alias and Lost creator JJ Abrams at the helm of this project. This was his first feature film. I enjoy Abrams’ television work. His shows are vacuous and embarrassingly simple. His characters are emotional single-line caricatures but are given enough clever flints of dialog to make them likable. His shows are what they intend to be, disposable yet addictive fluff.

This film is just as disposable as Abrams' TV work. The difference is that this film actually prompts you to throw it away.

Where Abrams’ Alias can get you to suspend your disbelief so you’ll buy that Jennifer Garner can smuggle a XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle in her camisole, his big fat McMovie can’t get beyond its own bloated subplots. This whole film is one big Alias episode without the benefit of Garner’s charm or Kevin Weisman’s (Marhsall Finkman) humor. Abrams goes so far as to insert, for no reason, Greg Grunberg (Alias’ Eric Weiss) into the first act. This would be like Leonard Nimoy striking it out on his own back in the 70’s but refusing to take off his pointy ears.

Absent the distraction of Jennifer Garner in a body sock shooting a TM-203 Grenade Launcher, Abrams' adoration of cheesy scripting is made just that much more obvious.

If you haven’t seen the film you may want to stop reading, I’m about to spoil the works. Although now that I consider my warning, I'm not sure that's really possible. Can you spoil trash?

The central point of the film is that super-spy Ethan Hunt tries to prove to himself (and others) that he can have a normal life with a wife and the whole shebang. All of this is wrapped up in a muddled plot which pushes Hunt to obtain “The Rabbit’s Foot”. This is currently in the pudgy hands of bad guy arms dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Yes, the villain’s name is really Owen. Owen. " Oh, no here comes Owen." "I'm so scared of Owen!" Why not Karl, or perhaps Irwin?

“The Rabbit’s Foot” is a toxin Owen is looking to sell to bigger badder guys. Actually, we’re never told what “The Rabbit’s Foot” is and why we should care. For that matter, we’re not given the identity of the bigger badder guys and why they're so scary. Everything is nebulous, which means they are meaningless.

Owen, while performed well by Hoffman, is not an ominous figure. Since he and Ethan aren’t the focus and the conflict between the two is not clearly established, the climatic scenes lose their wind. Any momentum found in the first act is spent by halfway through the film because Abrams is too intent on wedging in a conspiracy subplot into the piece that the film simply can’t support.

Here is a heads up for all of the big time, huge budget Hollywood goofballs; If you have a big, fat McMovie and you need to reach a broad international audience, the recipe is easy:


What this does is create a firm central plot from which you can hang subplots and any other nonsense you want.


If you’re a fan of JJ Abrams’ work, stick with his small screen products. This film, while offering a few well crafted moments, will ultimately waste your time. If you’re going to do that you may as well see Jennifer Garner kill a dozen guys with a flame-thrower while parachuting wearing nothing more than a teddy.


Related Reviews:
Tom Cruise movies
War of the Worlds (2005)
Vanilla Sky (2001)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film School Rejects
Beyond Hollywood




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Billy Crudup, Eddie Marsan, film, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Keri Russell, Laurence Fishburne, Michelle Monaghan, movie review, Philip Seymour Hoffman, sequel, Simon Pegg, Tom Cruise, Ving Rhames

Short Review: Everything they did right in the first movie, they did wrong in this one.


In this follow up to Iron Man, director Jon Favreau comes down with a serious case of the sophomore blues. The original film had a sarcastic edge that smoothed out a clunky but still enjoyable plot. The origin story of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) introduced an externally belligerent/internally weak man who finds the cure for his mid-life crisis. In the original Stark is forced to beat down his past self, personified by his business partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges). This outing avoids all of that messy character stuff and focuses on lots of loud noises, flashing lights and Scarlett Johansson in a body sock.

Tony Stark returns having achieved world peace thanks to his use of the Iron Man suit. At least, that is what we're told. We never get to actually see him protect the world. It's all explained in a Senate hearing. This makes Stark's hero work an abstract. This in turn makes it meaningless. If it is not on the screen, it doesn't exist for the audience.

The screenplay by Justin Theroux clearly explains that the world is at peace in the opening moments. One would then expect that in turn this world peace would be threatened. Nope. Stark is attacked by Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a Russian physicist with a grudge. Vanko's personal vendetta is funded by Stark's weapons manufacturer rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). World peace is never actually threatened. The only things threatened in this story are the egos of a bunch of scummy super-geniuses. This does not make for a riveting central conflict.

This lack of stakes is the main reason the film fails so completely. Theroux doesn't paint himself into narrative corners, he paints himself out of the whole room. He is so busy introducing characters for the upcoming Avengers movie and fumbling with technological presentations that he almost doesn't have time shoehorn in any actual characterization.

There are numerous scriptural issues that make the story fall flat. This is evidenced in Stark giving up his company in the first act. Once he does this he has literally nothing to lose. At no time does he find it critical to get his company back. It is just something that happens. If it has no deeper value, why does Theroux involve it in the film?

At one point Hammer tells Vanko to take Stark's "legacy" from him. How does the audience know when his "legacy" is taken away? We are given a statement of action by the villains and it involves a motive no less intangible than them saying they're going to hurt Stark's feelings. This is poor writing.

Vanko's whole motivation is a vacuum. Favreau gives us enough to understand that Vanko is fueled by revenge, but this revenge is hollow because we don't understand its cause. This results in Vanko being little more than another hurdle Stark must overcome instead of a villain to confront. (Spoiler warning) This is why at the end, Stark so easily overcomes Vanko and his droid army and why Vanko's death has zero dramatic punch. He is a non-entity. (Spoiler done)

The film also lacks any symbolism or meaning. In the original we were given the cheesy, but effective symbol of Stark's heart. Does Tony Stark have a heart? Yes, and its sitting in this little glass box. It is a symbol that is referred to and played upon throughout the entire film.

In this film, Favreau sets up a similar conceit. Stark is literally being poisoned by his suit. While the suit gives him fame and glory, it is also making him more toxic (both literally and figuratively). This is a solid metaphor and it is strongly established early on. It is then left unused.

One would hope that when they set up in the first act that Tony Stark and Iron Man are one in the same and that he gains so much through wearing the suit, that in the end he would have to discard the suit in order to complete his heroic task. This would make Stark the real Iron Man and make the suit his accessory, instead of it being the other way around. No such luck.

Overall, this version of the film is an incomplete draft of what should have been a more enjoyable production. It stinks of something that was rushed to market. This is not a good movie. Its not even a passable one. The film ultimately becomes an elongated teaser trailer for the upcoming The Avengers movie, hitting screens in 2012.

Labels: Don Cheadle, Jon Favreau, Mickey Rourke, Robert Downey Jr, Sam Rockwell, Samuel L Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, sequel, superhero

There is an old saying that "good things come in three's". The person who coined that phrase didn't live long enough to witness this cinematic trio of tripe.

But hey, at least these vampires don't sparkle like a bunch of mincing fairies.

This is like the others in the series: schlocky and overwrought. If you enjoy watching very good actors taking their material far too seriously and screaming nearly every line - knock yourself out. If you have better things to do than watch something as sophomoric as vampires fighting werewolves while taking off their clothes and rolling around in the moonlight and then chopping an untold number of people in half - then do those things.



Related Reviews:
Michael Sheen movies
Frost/Nixon (2008)
Underworld (2003)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
ReelTalk
The Movie Report

Labels: Bill Nighy, film, Michael Sheen, movie review, Rhona Mitra, sequel, vampire

Screenwriters: Michael Patrick King
Director: Michael Patrick King (Sex in the City)
Actors: Sarah Jessica Parker (L.A. Story), Kim Cattrall (Porky's), Kristin Davis (Deck the Halls), Cynthia Nixon (Warm Springs), Chris Noth (Mr. 3,000), Miley Cyrus (Bolt), Penélope Cruz (Nine) and Liza Minnelli (Arthur)

Labels: Chris Noth, Cynthia Nixon, film, Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis, Liza Minnelli, Miley Cyrus, movie trailer, Penelope Cruz, Sarah Jessica Parker, sequel

Screenwriters: Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis
Director: Joseph Kosinski
Actors: Michael Sheen (The Queen), Jeff Bridges (Tron), Olivia Wilde (Year One), John Hurt (1984) and Bruce Boxleitner (Gods and Generals)

Labels: film, Jeff bridges Olivia Wilde, John Hurt, Michael Sheen, movie trailer, sequel

I have to admit when I first heard they were making yet another Terminator movie I didn't think it was a good idea. The third Terminator movie was so pathetic, and given the relentless parade of remakes and sequels this just seemed unnecessary and tired. When I heard Christian Bale signed on as John Connor I figured, based on his stellar track record, that maybe they could pull it off. This footage prompts me to admit that I was wrong. It looks like they've done it the right way and this is something that certainly appears compelling.



Screenwriters: Paul Haggis (Letters from Iwo Jima) and Shawn Ryan (The Good Things)
Director: McG (We Are Marshall)
Actors: Christian Bale (The Dark Knight), Sam Worthington (The Great Raid), Common (Smokin' Aces), Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village), Helena Bonham Carter (Fight Club) and Moon Bloodgood (Pathfinder)

Labels: Christian Bale, film, movie trailer, sequel

Looks like a good piece of McMovie nonsense. In a time of sequels, rehashes and adaptations its actually a relief to see something that looks like it may be worth the effort of sitting through. Christian Bale is quickly becoming one of the most trustworthy actors working. His resume is a list of must-see movies. I hope this one builds on the trend.




Screenwriters: Paul Haggis (Letters from Iwo Jima) and Shawn Ryan (The Good Things)
Director: McG (We Are Marshall)
Actors: Christian Bale (The Dark Knight), Sam Worthington (The Great Raid), Common (Smokin' Aces), Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village), Helena Bonham Carter (Fight Club) and Moon Bloodgood (Pathfinder)

Labels: Christian Bale, film, movie trailer, sequel

A nearly unwatchable follow up to the less than impressive original National Treasure. This film suffers from not having a real purpose for being made. The original film ended on a conclusive note. Reviving the characters for another adventure seems unnecessary other than for the hopes of making a few more bucks. The original was irrational enough, this outing involving the secrets of John Wilkes Booth's diary that shows the hero, historian Ben Gates' (Nicholas Cage) great grandfather was a co-conspirator in Abraham Lincoln's assassination. The plot then weaves a path utilizing historical references, treasures and locations at every turn.

Ultimately this is a hollow movie with a bunch of plot contrivances and historical pseudo-facts thrown in to make it look like there's something going on.


Related Reviews:
Nicholas Cage movies
Matchstick Men (2003)
Ghost Rider (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Confessions of a Film Critic
The Critical Critics

Labels: film, Helen Mirren, Jon Voight, movie review, Nicholas Cage, sequel

Screenwriters: Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber and Steve Martin (The Jerk)
Director: Harald Zwart (Agent Cody Banks)
Actors: Steve Martin (Cheaper by the Dozen), Jean Reno (La Femme Nikita), Emily Mortimer (Redbelt), Andy Garcia (The Untouchables), Alfred Molina (Prick Up Your Ears), Aishwarya Rai (The Last Legion) and John Cleese (Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

Labels: Aishwarya Rai, Alfred Molina, Andy Garcia, Emily Mortimer, film, Jean Reno, John Cleese, movie trailer, sequel, Steve Martin

Y'know, for a movie about vampires and we. rewolves, they're taking themselves a little too seriously.

To be honest, the first Underworld movie was a good piece of thoughtless, filler (Spike TV has to get their weekend programming from someplace). The second one at least had some good design work. This one? Well, something stinks and I don't think its all the undead guys running around.





Screenwriters: Danny McBride (Underworld), Dirk Blackm(an (Outlander) and Howard McCain (Outlander)
Director: Patrick Tatopoulos
Actors: Rhona Mitra (Doomsday), Michael Sheen (The Queen), Bill Nighy (Underworld: Evolution) and Shane Brolly (Room 6)

Labels: Bill Nighy, Rhona Mitra, sequel, vampire

Screenwriter: Chris Morgan (Wanted)
Director: Justin Lin (Annapolis)
Actors: Vin Diesel (Find Me Guilty), Paul Walker (Running Scared), Michelle Rodriguez (Girlfight), Jordana Brewster (The Faculty), and Laz Alonso (The Last Stand)

Labels: film, Michelle Rodriguez, movie trailer, Paul Walker, sequel, Vin Diesel

Labels: Bruce Willis, Justin Long, Kevin Smith, Maggie Q, movie trailer, sequel