Skip to main content

Why are they always trying to kill you?

Terminator Genisys
(2015)

(SPOILERS) The critics have not been kind to Terminator Genisys, and for the most part I can’t take issue with them. Which is a shame, as this fifth instalment of what has become a terminally erratic franchise shows commendable willingness to tackle the conundrums of time travel head-on. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t follow through very well. It suggests what is (unchecked by insufficient box office to complete this prospective trilogy) an unwieldy and aesthetically incoherent infinite regression of Sarah Connor/Skynet timelines. This is the sort of thing that, with due care and a modicum of gravitas, might have been stunning: a plunge into the quantum labyrinth of possibilities inherent in each moment of existence, a blockbuster entry to take a worthy place next to Back to the Future Part II on the podium.


Patrick Lussier and Laeta Kalogridis have bashed out a screenplay that recognises many of the logistic and logical bugbears of Terminator lore, but they’re unable to mine a sufficiently sophisticated and cogent plot from their efforts. So the question, “Why doesn’t Skynet just send a Terminator back to kill Sarah Connor’s parents?” is sort of addressed by sending one to kill her back in 1973. Likewise, one I raised in my Terminator Salvation revisit, “Why doesn’t Skynet just travel back to a point where it can beef up it’s resources and so be invincible by the point John Connor has any say in the matter?” is partly interrogated when it sends nano-John Connor back to 2014 in order to spruce up Cyberdyne tech.


These are good moves, if one really must continue this series. Complaining about the lip service given to why the altered timelines don’t change nano-John/Sarah/Kyle/Arnie is rather redundant after four sequels that have flagrantly disregarded this inherent glitch in such narratives. Lussier and Kalogridis give nano-John a few lines to show they are at least aware of the problem, when he comments they may be special cases, set apart. They also give Arnie some intentionally obtuse speculation regarding the quantum entanglements that may have given Kyle memories of his Genisys timeline self. But acknowledging plot black holes doesn’t smooth them over.


And there are additional, curiously schizophrenic impulses at work here, suggesting the tools of their take on time travel are continually escaping them. They make a point of picking up the first movie’s predestination paradox backbone when they have Sarah and then Kyle complete the causal loop with young Genisys Kyle. This is essentially the “It has to happen because it has always happened” that informs the conception of John Connor in the original movie. It’s also something we have recently seen Inception. The problem with this is, it’s much less grating to know as a fleeting mention that John Connor spent 40 years prepping to send his father back in time than it is to actually see it unforgivingly harsh floodlights. So it is with young Kyle (and so it is with the ultimate silliness in this regard that is Time Crimes, where the protagonist has to repeat every beat of the things that have been done to him in order to fulfil the loop).


This is the kind of pseudo-cleverness with time travel that isn’t really at all; look no further than Stephen Moffat’s Doctor Who for numerous ker-razee! time travel plotting where it breaks down on a causal level. Bill and Ted went here first, to frequently hilarious effect, but embracing the absurdity they embrace in narratives that (at least purport to) take such mechanics seriously is playing with fire and audience patience.


Curiously, given the slavish (well, not that slavish; check out the half-arsed performances of the trio of punks who accost Arnie) re-enactment of scenes from the original, this Terminator isn’t even picking up from the timeline of that picture. It was probably inevitable that the series would go to the well of showing just what happened when John sent Kyle back (like the Norwegian camp in The Thing, it’s best left to the imagination), but even before John gets nano-fied things are different; Kyle still possesses an undamaged photo of Sarah Connor.


Dropping the 2003 rejigging of Judgement Day from Rise of the Machines is perhaps understandable if one wants to get back to basics (hardly what Genisys does, but still); it’s interesting that it then proceeds to throw both T2 and T1 under a bus. One wonders how many pleading calls it took from Arnie to get James Cameron to endorse this as the “worthy” third instalment to follow his two pictures.


Rather than the time travel, what grates the most are the well-worn and always badly used crutches. First, following on from Rise of the Machines’ “Skynet invades the Internet” now we have “Skynet invades your iPhone/Pad” via the ultimate killer app. Both choices in both movies fundamentally weaken the impact and intended enormity of the drama. Something as commonplace as an app doesn’t instil fear as presented here, it just induces a shrug of “Oh, they went there”.


Likewise, while I don’t have a problem with series cypher John Connor being turned to the dark side, making him a nano-man is the height of lazy brainstorming. It didn’t work for Johnny Depp in Transcendence and it doesn’t work here (although the magnetised means of disempowering him at least makes a change from the de rigueur fiery furnace finales of the series to date).


The problems with Genisys are more fundamentally ones of aesthetics and casting than they are of plot, however. Alan Taylor’s a competent director, but his true home may be cinematic TV rather than passable cinema. Genisys is much more dynamic than Rise of the Machines, and it moves at a fairly breathless pace (when it does stop, though, you really feel the dead air), but visually it pales in comparison to Salvation. I’m not going to big up McG, but that picture, the odd scene excepted, offers tangibility in its future world.


Genisys offers a succession of obvious CGI-sourced sequences and crazily acrobatic visuals. Byung-hun Lee’s T-1000 manages to be less visually impressive than Robert Patrick’s then cutting-edge edition, yet one has 14 years of rendering advances on its side. Go figure. Nano-John is exactly what you’d expect from Hollywood’s banal take on nano-technology (Lucy, Transcendence).


But such failings (and I’m hard-pressed to think of any really impressive effects in the picture aside from 1984 virtual-Arnie) would be forgivable if the story and characters carried weight, if the stakes counted for something. The nano-gubbins and the Genisys app would be more than forgivable if you cared about the characters.


Arnie is rock solid. He’s way more engaging and entertaining than he was in Rise of the Machines, and even underplays the funny-wisecracking Terminator in a more effective way than in Terminator 2. The writers have gone for a subtext of “Pops” growing to love his surrogate daughter (he has photos stuck to the wall during the 30-year Doc Brown-esque absence from her life), and introduce a heap of ill-advised paternal disapproval towards suitor Kyle, but Arnie makes most of it work. Even when the lines falter (and most of them do) he pushes forward by dint of sheer charisma (I did quite liked his encouragements of Sarah to “mate now”, and meaningful glance at Kyle’s “tiny” part).


JK Simmons is great too as O’Brien, a cop saved in 1984 who becomes a terminator buff and helps the gang out. By the time he shows up, it’s a breath of fresh air to have someone who can so easily inhabit this insubstantial world and lend it a burst of energy and sense of unforced fun.


Elsewhere, the picture is far less fortunate. Emilia Clarke is passable as Sarah Connor, although you never believe she’s a bad ass. The writers make the mistake of giving her a bickering relationship with Kyle over his chauvinist protective sensibilities/the expectation that they are destined to be lovers. Trying to do a screwball comedy thing where the gags fall flat was the last thing the series needed.


Jason Clarke is okay too, as the one-note villain. He’s basically Skynet with a flavour of John Connor, which saves the writers from putting effort into designing a fully-fledged character (the buddy conversations between John and Kyle in the opening sequence are painfully laboured, and learning they tried making moonshine together lends the future nightmare a lovely nostalgic hue). This plundering of the original ending of Terminator Salvation doesn’t have any real impact because we have no reason to care for John Connor; we don’t know him, and he’s only nominally sympathetic. We’ve been told he’s the saviour of humanity so many times he really needs to do something to impressive, so our reaction is much the same as Sarah’s when she refuses to believe he’s really John (but with an added shrug).


Matthew, I mean Matt, Smith is a dead loss as Skynet/Genisys itself. Skynet wasn’t much cop when it was Helena Bonham Carter, so there’s no change there. The junior version might have been vying for the demon child vibe, but is too insubstantial to matter.


The biggest problem, however, is the casting of Jai Courtney. He looks entirely wrong for a malnourished future soldier for a start (the glimpses we get of 2029 are a much more vacuum cleaner-friendly than Cameron’s mecha-nightmare or even McG’s muddied wasteland). Most damaging, though, is the way Courtney plays him as a very modern day smart-mouthed meathead who wants a bit of Sarah action. The romance in Cameron’s picture wasn’t the subtlest of sledgehammers, but at least it was sincere. This is so glib, it’s just insulting. And it means we don’t care about them. We don’t care if Kyle and Sarah get together, we don’t care if the future is saved (not that the “John Connor is vital” version appears to matter by the end). I didn’t mind Courtney in a few things I’ve seen (Jack Reacher, Divergent) but he’s a bust in this, and he pulls down any investment in the picture with him. There’s one point where Arnie starts throttling Kyle, and you’re disappointed when he stops.


Courtney’s deleterious presence underlines what has now become a time travel game for this series. If you can bounce back and forth across the decades this way, rewriting (and recasting) hither and thither, there’s little drama to bite down on. Now both Kyle Reese and Arnie can survive to fight another day. It would have been better to ditch the Sarah Connor angle entirely. Send a terminator back to Ancient Rome and bring on Skynet two millennia early. Really go nuts with the concept if, and only if, you have really bashed out the fundamental mechanics of the way time travel’s rules operate in this universe.


It’s only really Arnie who entitles this to call itself a Terminator movie. When Lorne Balfe’s lacklustre score kicks in with the familiar Terminator theme bars, there’s no sense of iconic glory being rekindled. Far more than in the last couple of iterations, those essaying established characters feel like they’re playing dress-up in a badly conceived homage or very expensive fan film or, at worst, parody.


Some would say this is the final nail in the series’ coffin. Financially, it may be (all will depend on international rather than US receipts). This is far more beholden to trilogy plans than Salvation was, with the mystery of who sent Arnie back to 1973 and the mid-credits sequence, so it will look the more foolish if those sequels don’t materialise. That said, Terminator Genisys’ overall mediocrity leaves it pretty much on a par with its two predecessors. It’s a more engaging movie than the lumpen Rise of the Machines, and lacks the self-importance of Salvation, but burdened by fundamental miscasting and uneven production values this has become a facsimile of Terminator rather than the real thing.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.