Reviews

The injustice storyline is fantastic, the comic book run is simply to good to just be a video game tie in. It is simply a fantastic "What if" story. I was excited to see it brought to the screen but I am slighly disappointed in the results. It is an adaptation of the first two years of the injustice story which is close to 1000 pages in the comics. And the speed shows.

*Spoilers* The first inkling that I had the pacing would be wonky was when they killed the flash in the first 5 min and nobody actually acknowledges that he is dead. At is glossed over like Calendar Man (I did enjoy his Cameo). One of DCs founding titans is simply gone and never brought up again. In a normal DC movie it would at least take a moment to show some grief for the loss of Barry? Or Wally the movie doesn't actually tell you which Flash is dead. And quickly after his death the pace picks up. If you are a huge comic fans with years of lore you know what is going on but if you are a casual fan you might be confused by it. It isn't bad it is just super rushed and misses some of the best parts of injustice. (Comic Spoiler) To include some sentimental moments from Harley, Black Canary (not in the film) and Green arrow, describing how Harley gave up her and the Jokers child so it would not be raised by Mr. J. Small story beats like that are cut out so we can Superman go into his madness and thst aspect is perfect, but with it being an adaptation of 1000 pages of comics it is just to rushed. I recomend it as supplemental to the games or comics but as a stand alone it is passable.

It is a bold move killing off who was supposed to be your main character in the first episode, but the reactions of thebnew MC was down right disturbing. Her reaction to her childhood friend dying and saving the world was to be pissed off because she didn't know his secret. Jesus tap dancing christ your best friend and your hero died and our new main character acts like an entitled "female dog"

He man is a campy show that is very much a product of it's time. The 2001 reboot understood that and respected the old concepts but made slight changes. This one just threw out the old said they respected cannon, then killed off the Hero in the first episode brought him back and killed him again in the 5th episode. No worth the actual time to write a long review like I usually do because well if you watched the first two episodes you will understand. It only gets a 2 from me because the animation studio is great.

This is the 3rd attempt at creating a trilogy of terminator movies after T2. It fails and it fails for the same reason the other two did, the theme is wrong. The original 2 movies were made with a theme that it is our humanity that will save us from the machines and it is our humanity that makes us strong. In the original the only reason John Connar exists is because Sarah has a very human moment and sleeps with Kyle. The future of humanity succeeds because she is human, and does a normal human thing and becomes a mother. In T2 they deconstruct it a little bit. Sarah Connar has almost sacrificed her entire humanity to protect John. She acts more like a machine than Arnold does, and it all comes to ahead when she nearly kills an innocent to save the future...but she doesn't. She can't kill a man in front of her family. She can't do it and after that she scene she slowly regains her humanity, and it is her love and connection that allows her to fight for the future...Because what is a future if we lose our humanity... The original 2 still hold up to this day because those themes are so strong. This is why James Cameron has said multiple times that terminator ended after T2 and that the praise he gave the other movies was to help his friends make money.

This movie says leave those themes lets make everyone badass and subvert expectations in order to reboot the franchise... This movie is a cold calculated cash grab that comes from the Hollywood machine and it shows. The studio is Skynet, putting all the supposed right pieces together to make what should be a passable movie, but fails because it has no soul.

As for the politics displayed in the movie. Nothing is inherently wrong with having politics in movies, but when they are on the hot button topics of the day, it will horribly date this movie. The illegal border crossing and other jabs at the current political situation will seem VERY dated in 2 to 5 years. Timeless sci fi movies from Alien to Bladerunner don't touch those with a ten foot pole for obvious reasons. Traditional Science Fiction deals with larger issues normally about the nature of technology and humanity. This doesnt make the movie bad, but it hurts it because it is done so poorly.

*Spoilers Below*

The movie starts out with some great special effects and some amazing deaging on both Sarah and John. It occurs after T2 and the world appears to be safe. Until a random Arnold shows up, kills John and then just leaves...This opens a lot of plot holes but I won't nitpick that. It kills the past. Just to kill the past.

Enter Danny, She has same problem that a lot of current female protagonists have in today's cinema... She has no flaws. She helps the family, is the best at her job, she criticizes her boss and doesn't have any character issues. She is superwoman and hard to relate to because she is a strong independant woman that don't need no man... The sad part is this makes her more of a robot than most characters. In a franchise that is supposed to be about the things that make us human save us from technology, she is the worst type of protagonist.

Grace could have been a good character, but she doesnt get enough development. I really dont have to many negative things to say about her because the other characters are so glaringly bad.

The new terminator is a bit of a joke. This is the first ugly terminator and the least cool one. He has very similar powers to the T1000 except he can make a clone of himself. It is cool but what makes most terminators creepy is that uncanny valley that they have. The way the T1000 crooks his neck before stabbing someone, the robotic English of the T800, even the other two T3s had better terminators that shared this ability... This one lacks it.

Arnold and Sarah are poorly used in this movie. The story of the years between T2 and this movie would have made far better Terminator movies than what we got. The T800 slowly learning what it is to become human and learning to be a parent and father would be a good movie and a good counterpoint. It would be like going from Ender's Game to Speaker for the Dead. Two polar opposite books that involve the same characters. Sarah's story would not be as good because she would throw away the character progression she made in T2 and become that unloving killing machine that she becomes in this movie... It is a lot of wasted money and potential in those two.

The plot is all over the place. We get a new evil corporations, because reasons. We dabble into the current crisis at the border for reasons. Sarah by herself somehow manages to defeat Skynet because reasons. Arnold has been able to text and message Sarah because reasons (Sarah lets a stranger tell her what to do for 30 years because reasons) We have to go visit Arnold because reasons. Arnold suddenly has more human emotions despite not being reprogrammed because reasons. And it goes on and on.

Summary, this movie is a piss poor when it comes to story and themes. The action scenes are well done and the effects are good, cinematography is adequat (this is the only reason it gets a 4, it is a technically well made movie). But all the technical ability cant save you from a poor story. I have never wished more for a terminator to kill a protagonist. It is awful and misses the entire point of the original 2.

To make a long story short it is a passion project about Rocko making a passion project. It feels very similar to the 90s episodes in all of its pros and cons. Some people will complain because a throw away character that was in 2 episodes became trans. If you get that offended by it, then you forgot all the adult jokes in Rockos modern life. The title character worked at a phone line for a bit, and they also made a few jokes along with the gross out humor. Overal it is a good follow up that shouls remain as a stand alone film.

I don't know if you can spoil a talk show but this is just poorly written and a bit of a mess both structurally and tone wise. This isn't even touching the politics of it (I didn't vote Trump but it has a very significant Anti-Trump message). I have been a fan of Sarah Silverman for the past 20 years. I remember watching her on SNL in the early 90s. I like most of her stand up specials but recently she has been on a political bent that alienated many of her long-term fans and this is the result of it..."I love America" is...weak political commentary with dick and fart jokes. The show doesn't know what it wants to be... It is caught between a Parody News Show in the vein of Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and Last Week Tonight; a Late Night TV show like, Jimmy Kimmel (her ex who I think she stole some of the writers from); or an SNL knockoff. She doesn't have the deep understanding of political philosophy to be a critic of politics on principle and her comedy style doesn't mesh with her messaging. At one moment she is flashing a cock and vagina (the first 5 min...this is her opening monologue so you know that she is "EDGY" and adult). The next she is interviewing someone from the Westboro Baptist church (the only decent part of the show but it doesn't go anywhere besides a feelgood piece aka "You Trump supporters can change look at this terrible person"). The show doesn't know what it wants to be and of the different directions it is going it doesn't do them well enough. I don't think Sarah Silverman has the star power to keep a show like this going without significant help, she is a 50-year-old woman that has no kids and is not in touch with the audience she is trying to reach. It is trying to be to many things at once...and failing.

The direction that the film is attempting is valiant, but sadly as someone who has served, and understands combat this movie misses the mark completely. Man Down is a movie that wants to make a statement about PTSD and suffering but it handles the subject matter like a bull in a china shop. It handles the subject matter just like "The Hurt Locker", it will make most people emotional, but it will annoy every veteran because of how inaccurate the movie is about…well everything. Dito Montiel, the director, wanted to take an emotional movie about the ravages of war but his direction and understanding is terrible. Instead of showing real symptoms of PTSD it makes the main character look schizophrenic and crazy. This is exacerbated further by the non-linear story telling that at times jumps around the time line way too much. The very few times you begin to get into the scene, suddenly you jump to the main character and suddenly he has a beard and we are in the crazy phase again. Shai tries his best, but unlike in Fury he doesn't capture the essence of the Marine. It might be because he went from an eccentric secondary character into a crazy main character. The odd Soldier/Marine is a tough character to play and an even harder character to carry a movie.

This movie is a 4/10 for a civilian, lower if you are a veteran 2/10(not because it is about PTSD but because it handles it so poorly).

Before we go any further, I am a veteran, a gun owner, with a minor in film and a theater background, and I keep an open mind when I watch movies. I actually saw the movie and I will keep politics aside but as you can tell from other reviews a lot of people are just down voting or up voting this movie based on politics. My score and critique are primarily focused on the screenwriter and director. These two factors I feel sunk the movie. This is the Jonathan Perera's first screenplay and while a valiant attempt he wrote something in one of the hardest genres, about a culture that isn't his, dealing with an issue he doesn't understand. And the director who I loved in The Best Marigold Hotel has many of the same issues, not understanding the American landscape. It is like Mel Gibson doing Braveheart, it isn't accurate at all however the difference is that Braveheart wasn't being shown to William Wallace.

What made me want to see this movie is that it is a French company (EuropaCorp) with a British director and Screenwriter (John Madden and Jonathan Perera), a Dutch Cinematographer (Sebastion Blankov), about a controversial American industry (American Lobbying) that deals almost exclusively with a controversial American topic (gun control). It is almost a perfect storm of bad ideas and misconceptions, and it kind of is that. The one saving grace is that Jessica Chastain, who plays the lead, gives a great performance but it can't save this movie. The movie is meant to be an American Political Thriller that examines the corrupt world of Washington politics with a meaning message, but everyone involved is such an outsider to that world that it is greatly flawed, in both its depiction of D.C., lobbying, and American gun culture. The movie starts with Ms. Sloane being a powerful lobbyist in D.C. working for a right wing lobbying group. However for "reasons" when her boss asks her to start lobbying for a gun's rights, one of the most well-funded American Lobbying groups, she says no and immediately jumps ship and takes her entire team minus one member to a "rag tag" group. This is in the beginning of the film, and here is the fundamental issue. It comically misunderstands the issues and motivations of lobbyists in D.C, American Conservatives, and even American law. Besides the many non-competition clauses you sign when join a powerful D.C. lobby group, besides the gun lobby being portrayed in a comical fashion, what really hampers the movie is motivations of the characters especially the lead Ms. Sloan. She isn't an idealist or an activist. She isn't in it solely for the money. She just wants to win, but if that is the case you still question most of her decisions. But the moment you start getting into the movie, another terrible side character ruins it, or a terrible understanding of American politics ruins it, or a shoehorned in message about guns (really this is a very minor part of the movie seeing the ads and reviews you would think it was just about that). The movie does have a few tropes, such as the "Court Room Moment" that plays like the 15th season of law order as opposed to "A few good men". The movie is just lacking. The movie has a few good scenes but it is destroyed by inaccuracies and a lack of character depth. This movie has so much potential with this lead, but she can't save the sinking ship, and the marketing for it was just a huge risk that upset a lot of people, but that is what happens when a large team of outsiders only know America from online and media portrayals of us. See it only if you are a fan of Jessica Chastain. Otherwise go see Moana, or Rouge One, yeah they are Disney, but at least the motivations of the characters has more depth.

The third American remake of Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. It has a great deal of the same issues but they are exacerbated in this third iteration. This movie of the three has weakest storytelling but some of the best action, but it doesn't feel like a western. And it isn't quite an action movie instead it is this kind of middle ground that just makes the movie feel lost and out of place. And that is one of the over arching issues with this movie, it doesn't know what it wants to be.

*LIGHT SPOILERS BELOW*

Everyone besides Denzel Washington has no motivation. The big bad guy an evil corporate industrialist (who honestly gains nothing by destroying the town...he has the mine rights already and would greatly benefit from having a town nearby) decides to destroy the town, murder half the inhabitants and set the church on fire in the first 5 min...just so you know he is evil. Chris Pratt's character Faraday is motivated to get his horse back and an obscure promise of some payout. But he realizes early on that he has his horse back and the payout isn't that much, so he kind of stays and dies for no reason. Ethen Hawke's "Goodnight" and Byung-hun Lee's "Billie" show up because Denzel asked nicely (again no talk of a payout). And this repeats itself with the rest of the characters, (except for the good Comanche Indian Denzel ate a raw deer liver so they became be-sties). And it gets worse because all the magnificent seven are the same stereotypes you have seen in Hollywood since the 70's. Mountain Man into Jesus, Noble Indian Savage, Mexican Bandit, Confederate Soldier with PTSD, Gambling Cowboy, token woman that can shoot, Asain samurai with a pistol, and the only real character Denzel Washington as Chisolm.

The action in this movie is however fast paced and over the top...Think of a western "SHOOT EM UP" and you have it. They do not use the traditional idea of western movies that build up the tension over the course of a movie. It is suddenly, Chris Pratt kills 8 bad guys in 15 seconds. Billie (the samurai gunslinger) runs in the open and stabs 4 cowboys with knives (despite having two pistols), and Mountain Man tackles a horse (despite having a pistol, rifle, tomahawk, knife etc). It is cool to watch but will have you at moments go WTF.

If you think about the story you will have a bad time. If you want realistic western action you will have a bad time. If you want a mediocre action movie that takes place in a western town, this could be worth a shot but only if you watch during a matinée. It doesn't hold a candle to the original (1960). But it does have better action than the 1998 one...but the story is worse. So it is basically on the same level as the made to TV movie.