Terminator Genisys

TerrorFirmer

Looper007 wrote: »

I find it sad from some people who already saw it that basically the vibe I'm getting is "It's so-so but go see it anyway cause you know it's a Terminator film", that's the problem with us cinema goers today, we're happy to accept any old rubbish they give us.

Speak for yourself. Personally, I'm sick of this persistent whinging about how the masses are seemingly happy to lap up any drivel going - happy to accept any old rubbish, as you put it. It's used as a stick far too often to beat down films deemed irredeemable crap by those who often ironically haven't even seen the movies they're bashing.

The Fast and Furious franchise springs to mind, absolute tool on the 'worst films' thread constantly moaning about it, at one point stating that it's mindless drivel for 'mouth drooling imbeciles'. It later emerged on the same thread that he hadn't even seen any of the movies.

I choose to go and see Terminator Genisys and I enjoyed it. Some people seem to think that 'entertaining' is synonymous with 'rubbish'. It's not. A bad film is simply a bad film; Terminator Genisys isn't a brilliant Terminator film but it's a decent and entertaining one and I certainly wouldn't consider it a bad film and certainly not rubbish. If I only went to see critically acclaimed films, I wouldn't see a fraction of the movies I do on an annual basis - and I do see rubbish films on a regular basis, but the vast majority at least justify the ticket price and mostly exceed that expectation, Genisys included.

No-one is forcing you to 'accept' the film. Don't go and see it, it's a personal choice, and the original films are still there for you to enjoy now and forever more.

Dempsey

Arnie looked like he was there to babysit the franchise.

All the non cameron films are weak in their own ways and this is no different. They managed to stitch a poor story around all the cgi they had, unlike Cameron where the story came first and foremost.

The acting was by the numbers stuff from everyone and there was stuff they could have focussed more on.

Popcorn fodder, nothing more. I thought the 3D in this was a joke tbh

Looper007

Looper007 wrote: »

I find it sad from some people who already saw it that basically the vibe I'm getting is "It's so-so but go see it anyway cause you know it's a Terminator film", that's the problem with us cinema goers today, we're happy to accept any old rubbish they give us.

Or maybe some people, myself included enjoy going to the cinema and watching something a little fun that doesn't take itself too seriously. I love the first two Terminator films and enjoyed 3 and 4 and everything I've seen and heard about Genisys seems to indicate that it's an enjoyable blockbuster than entertains. Looking out the window, on my day off work and I'm thinking that an afternoon screening is in order. People writing the film off based on a few trailers are just wrong and those writing it off based on the rating it received are down right idiots, I'm all for voting with my wallet, it's why I never preorder a game but advising people to downland the film, as many are doing only hurts us in the long run.

I think that because of channels like HBO, people now a days mistake gratuitous sex and violence as being the defining characteristics of serious, adult entertainment. This isn't the case, some of the most adult television is happening not on premier cable channels like HBO bur rather on basic cable. Shows like Longmire and Mr. Robot tackle serious adult issues and never use over the top sex or violence to appeal. I have no doubt that Genisys is going to be pretty easy to watch fluff but a 12 or PG13 rating does not mean that a film cannot be adult. I'd much prefer a 12 rated film that tackled adult issues than I would an 18 cert that was just needless sex and violence.

Corvo

Deleted User wrote: »

Or maybe some people, myself included enjoy going to the cinema and watching something a little fun that doesn't take itself too seriously. I love the first two Terminator films and enjoyed 3 and 4 and everything I've seen and heard about Genisys seems to indicate that it's an enjoyable blockbuster than entertains. Looking out the window, on my day off work and I'm thinking that an afternoon screening is in order. People writing the film off based on a few trailers are just wrong and those writing it off based on the rating it received are down right idiots, I'm all for voting with my wallet, it's why I never preorder a game but advising people to downland the film, as many are doing only hurts us in the long run.

I think that because of channels like HBO, people now a days mistake gratuitous sex and violence as being the defining characteristics of serious, adult entertainment. This isn't the case, some of the most adult television is happening not on premier cable channels like HBO bur rather on basic cable. Shows like Longmire and Mr. Robot tackle serious adult issues and never use over the top sex or violence to appeal. I have no doubt that Genisys is going to be pretty easy to watch fluff but a 12 or PG13 rating does not mean that a film cannot be adult. I'd much prefer a 12 rated film that tackled adult issues than I would an 18 cert that was just needless sex and violence.

Nail on the head Darko

frostyjacks

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Or maybe some people, myself included enjoy going to the cinema and watching something a little fun that doesn't take itself too seriously. I love the first two Terminator films and enjoyed 3 and 4 and everything I've seen and heard about Genisys seems to indicate that it's an enjoyable blockbuster than entertains. Looking out the window, on my day off work and I'm thinking that an afternoon screening is in order. People writing the film off based on a few trailers are just wrong and those writing it off based on the rating it received are down right idiots, I'm all for voting with my wallet, it's why I never preorder a game but advising people to downland the film, as many are doing only hurts us in the long run.

I think that because of channels like HBO, people now a days mistake gratuitous sex and violence as being the defining characteristics of serious, adult entertainment. This isn't the case, some of the most adult television is happening not on premier cable channels like HBO bur rather on basic cable. Shows like Longmire and Mr. Robot tackle serious adult issues and never use over the top sex or violence to appeal. I have no doubt that Genisys is going to be pretty easy to watch fluff but a 12 or PG13 rating does not mean that a film cannot be adult. I'd much prefer a 12 rated film that tackled adult issues than I would an 18 cert that was just needless sex and violence.

Do you know what "gratuitous" means? Unnecessary; uncalled for. Violence in a Terminator movie is absolutely necessary. This is what they do.

If you remove that element from the story, then it's going to feel a little flat. Would you expect people to go see a comedy that had all the funny jokes removed? I'm sure Genysis is not altogether bad, but don't label people idiots for stating the obvious flaws with this money-spinner.

ancapailldorcha

frostyjacks wrote: »

Do you know what "gratuitous" means? Unnecessary; uncalled for. Violence in a Terminator movie is absolutely necessary. This is what they do.

If you remove that element from the story, then it's going to feel a little flat. Would you expect people to go see a comedy that had all the funny jokes removed? I'm sure Genysis is not altogether bad, but don't label people idiots for stating the obvious flaws with this money-spinner.

There's nothing wrong with violence, sex, etc being present in films as long as they serve the narrative. It's when they're deployed as a means of padding or to "sex up" the film that those elements become gratuitous.

Genisys is a laugh. If you like the look of the trailer, go see it. I prefer serious films but I like a treat now and then as well.

ps3lover

Has anyone been telling people to download this movie? I don't think I've seen that, not here anyway.

the_monkey

Kermode's review should be available soon , afaik his show on radio 5 was on today ..

AMKC

Deleted User wrote: »

Fast and Furious 5 is the best in the franchise and one of the best big budget blockbusters ever made.

Really I was dissapointed with 5 did not think it was the best and was way over hyped to me 6 is the best.

Paleface

I think its a damning indictment of this movie when people say its good just because it happens not to be the the worst in the history of the franchise. In other words if it had never been made no one would have missed out.

The sad part for me is that this franchise is only still in existence as people are trying to make money from it. If they tried harder to make a good movie that was anyway close to the standard of James Cameron's originals they would absolutely clean up at the box office.

The idea of making something mediocre and then counting on people to go along in there droves knowing that its mediocre from reading reviews etc. seems like a dumb strategy.

poncho000

My two cents:

Extremely convoluted plot.

They overdid the humor. Some of it was cringeworthy

Emilia Clarke and Jai Courtney were miscast as Sarah Connor and Kyle respectively. Neither of their portrayals were gritty enough.

Overall I felt like they basically used the Marvel series template of humour + cgi action.

On the plus side it was nice to see Arnie again.

Effects

AMKC wrote: »

Really I was dissapointed with 5 did not think it was the best and was way over hyped to me 6 is the best.

Funny, I just watched some of 6 last night. The script was really bad and just cliched, rehashed garbage.

frostyjacks

frostyjacks wrote: »

Do you know what "gratuitous" means? Unnecessary; uncalled for. Violence in a Terminator movie is absolutely necessary. This is what they do.

If you remove that element from the story, then it's going to feel a little flat. Would you expect people to go see a comedy that had all the funny jokes removed? I'm sure Genysis is not altogether bad, but don't label people idiots for stating the obvious flaws with this money-spinner.

We're all aware of what the Terminators do and the series has never really been that violent. People seem to recall the first two films being far more violent than they actually are and the fact that they are now 15 certs says a lot. There is no reason that the Terminator films need to have violence extreme enough that it rates an 18 cert which is what many of those here want. Terminator 2 was censored in the UK when it came out so as to obtain a lower rating, so it's not like aiming the series at a younger audience is a new thing.

And yes, judging a film based on its cert is idiotic. There's no two ways about it.

Looper007

Deleted User wrote: »

And yes, judging a film based on its cert is idiotic. There's no two ways about it.

No it isn't, its your opinion. I want a Terminator film to be a violent and dark action film. Not a 12A so you can take the whole family and have a good time with. I expect that from Jurassic World and Star Wars film not a Terminator film or a Mad Max or Die Hard film.

ancapailldorcha

Looper007 wrote: »

No it isn't, its your opinion. I want a Terminator film to be a violent and dark action film. Not a 12A so you can take the whole family and have a good time with. I expect that from Jurassic World and Star Wars film not a Terminator film or a Mad Max or Die Hard film.

I think the comment was directed at the practice of judging a films based solely on it's age rating.

frostyjacks

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And yes, judging a film based on its cert is idiotic. There's no two ways about it.

Why shouldn't we judge a film on it's age rating? Isn't that as good a guide as any? Probably more reliable than a lot of reviews out there. If I'm paying money to watch a film about killing machines sent from the future, I expect a certain level of violence and horror. I know from the 12A cert that I'm not going to get that.

Looper007

Looper007 wrote: »

No it isn't, its your opinion. I want a Terminator film to be a violent and dark action film. Not a 12A so you can take the whole family and have a good time with. I expect that from Jurassic World and Star Wars film not a Terminator film or a Mad Max or Die Hard film.

I think that it is more fact hat opinion, judging a film based on its cert is like picking up a book and refusing to read it if there are flowers anywhere on the cover. Yet you can take your entire film to see a Mad Max or Die Hard film these days. A 12s cert film can be dark and violent, it's not about what you show but rather what you say. You can have all the violence you want but that does not make a film.

frostyjacks

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why shouldn't we judge a film on it's age rating? Isn't that as good a guide as any? Probably more reliable than a lot of reviews out there. If I'm paying money to watch a film about killing machines sent from the future, I expect a certain level of violence and horror. I know from the 12A cert that I'm not going to get that.

That's like saying a film such as Olympus Has Fallen isn't worth watching because it was a 15A cert and if that that means that the whole family could go see it's obviously not that violent. And yet that managed to be far more violent than many of the beloved 80s action films.

Mickeroo

Age rating tells you nothing about story, acting, cinematography, direction etc so by default can't tell you if a film is good or bad,.That's a fact.

ancapailldorcha

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why shouldn't we judge a film on it's age rating? Isn't that as good a guide as any? Probably more reliable than a lot of reviews out there. If I'm paying money to watch a film about killing machines sent from the future, I expect a certain level of violence and horror. I know from the 12A cert that I'm not going to get that.

Are you being serious? I can think of plenty of 18 cert films almost completely devoid of artistic merit filled to the brim with over the top violence.

Bacchus

For me, a good Terminator movie (i.e the first two and to a certain extent the 3rd) builds a sense of dread and doom as opposed to out and out horror. The horror came from the fact that this machine that can't be bargained with, that doesn't sleep is hunting you and you are up against the odds. The gory bits of the first two just heightened that sense of how lethal and inhuman these things are. THAT's what I'd love to see in a Terminator movie. If Genisys has that, I'm onboard but I've not seen or read anything that looks like that's the case. If it's just a generic action flick (even a good one) with the Terminator name on top, I'll hang on till the DVD for this - perfect filler for a quiet Friday night.

ancapailldorcha

Bacchus wrote: »

For me, a good Terminator movie (i.e the first two and to a certain extent the 3rd) builds a sense of dread and doom as opposed to out and out horror. The horror came from the fact that this machine that can't be bargained with, that doesn't sleep is hunting you and you are up against the odds. The gory bits of the first two just heightened that sense of how lethal and inhuman these things are. THAT's what I'd love to see in a Terminator movie. If Genisys has that, I'm onboard but I've not seen or read anything that looks like that's the case. If it's just a generic action flick (even a good one) with the Terminator name on top, I'll hang on till the DVD for this - perfect filler for a quiet Friday night.

It's a Terminator-themed action flick. You might be better off avoiding it.

Simon2015

Kermodes review is up.

frostyjacks

Mickeroo wrote: »

Age rating tells you nothing about story, acting, cinematography, direction etc so by default can't tell you if a film is good or bad,.That's a fact.

I'm not judging whether it's good or bad, I'm judging whether or not it's going to meet my expectations given the subject matter. So I've no issue watching 12A or PG movies, but if it's a Terminator or a Robocop film etc, it should be minimum 15. They're not kids movies.

TerrorFirmer

To be fair last years Robocop was a 12A cert and it was comparatively both a far darker and better film than Terminator Genisys and packed some surprising emotional heft completely lacking in Genisys.

A film doesn't have to be explicitly violent to convey that sense of dread and menace that was lacking in Genisys, they just make a decision at some point on the film that it was going to lean towards the marvel style summer blockbuster. It could have been far closer to the original in tone whilst still being 12A if they had so wished - and I do wish they had chosen that path but they didn't and the result is an acceptable but far short of ideal film.

ps3lover

Simon2015 wrote: »

Kermodes review is up.

"This movie isn't needed" in fairness, is any movie needed?

Paleface

When multiple sequels to movies are made I think its a perfectly valid question to ask if they are needed or not.

Its like adding another blade to a Gillette razor and saying its better.

SouthTippBass

Why is this Kermode guys review so high regarded? Didn't seem like anything special to me.

Serious question.

Future Primitive

Paleface wrote: »

I think its a damning indictment of this movie when people say its good just because it happens not to be the the worst in the history of the franchise. In other words if it had never been made no one would have missed out.

I don't believe that's what people are saying at all.

You're putting words in people's mouths to give weight to your point.

People aren't saying it's good because it's not the worst, they're saying it's not the worst, therefore an improvement on the previous two and happened to find it a lot more entertaining as well and an overall better film. I certainly did.

It was never going to be as good as Cameron's two films. Cameron is Somewhat of a visionary and those people are few and far between, even in Hollywood.

Future Primitive

SouthTippBass wrote: »

Why is this Kermode guys review so high regarded? Didn't seem like anything special to me.

Serious question.

I don't know why people give any weight to film critics. Especially when it comes to these types of films.

I've seen them pan the likes of Predator and other older action films in the past only to appreciate it further down the line due their presence in pop culture so they can somehow stay relevant.

It's kind of sad actually, people circling like vultures when expecting a a high profile film to get slated just to say "I told you so", when it's all subjective anyway.

johnny_ultimate

Future Primitive wrote: »

I don't know why people give any weight to film critics.

The critic (or, I'd argue, 'reviewer') as trend-setter has... Wait a second, we tackled this a few days ago!

Dempsey

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The critic (or, I'd argue, 'reviewer') as trend-setter has... Wait a second, we tackled this a few days ago!

Often heard Kermode mentioned on this forum but my first time listening/reading him was that Entourage rant. I cant understand why anyone would listen to him unless its just to hear him have a rant about x y or z. He's a complete muppet

ancapailldorcha

Critics are just people at the end of the day. I've found him to be spot on more often than not, especially when it comes to Michael Bay's work.

kefir32

saw it last night, thought it was terrible and so generic.jai courtney was totally lost looking and wooden, i couldn't take emilia clarke seriously at all, the watered down t800 arnold was cringe, jason clarke was pretty underwhelming as john connor. i did like the homage to the 1984 movie at the start but went downhill after. as much as i loved t1 and t2 the franchise should have stopped at that the subsequent films are an embarrassment especially the last two. 3/10

johnny_ultimate

Put it this way: Kermode is one of the better 'Friday afternoon on the radio new releases reviewers' out there, but as far as insightful, thorough critical analysis - the kind of critic who truly enhances your appreciation (or, as the case may occasionally be, lack thereof) of the film in question - well then there are IMO far superior options out there. He's a populist at heart, and that will have its place, and he's infinitely preferable to some of the hacks out there. But I'd definitely file him under the 'easy listening' category when it comes to criticism, albeit a superior example of that form (he's nothing if not honest). I do find the cult that surrounds his reviews a bit out of proportion with the level of insight he actually offers, though!

ancapailldorcha

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Put it this way: Kermode is one of the better 'Friday afternoon on the radio new releases reviewers' out there, but as far as insightful, thorough critical analysis - the kind of critic who truly enhances your appreciation (or, as the case may occasionally be, lack thereof) of the film in question - well then there are IMO far superior options out there. He's a populist at heart, and that will have its place, and he's infinitely preferable to some of the hacks out there. But I'd definitely file him under the 'easy listening' category when it comes to criticism, albeit a superior example of that form (he's nothing if not honest). I do find the cult that surrounds his reviews a bit out of proportion with the level of insight he actually offers, though!

For most people, myself included that's more than enough. Too in-depth an analysis involving various aspects of production, marketing, etc.. is overkill to most people.

DarkoT

After reading all this comments, I've come up to conclusion ''it's not worth watching''...

Fysh

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

For most people, myself included that's more than enough. Too in-depth an analysis involving various aspects of production, marketing, etc.. is overkill to most people.

As with the films themselves, critics are a subjective thing. By chance I've found a few critics whose reviews I find a generally reliable indicator of whether I'll enjoy a film, but even at that it depends on the film.

I find I'm quite unforgiving of films that I see as flawed, so I always go to the cinema knowing what I want to see. I can't do that "I'll just take a punt on whatever's going" approach unless I'm killing time (and even then I'd rather watch a DVD or something) because I know I'll just get disproportionately annoyed if I pick something that I think is rubbish.

Steering all of this back to Genisys: the critics I follow, along with my own opinion of the trailer and what I've read about the new film, have led me to conclude it's not for me. I'd be more interested in something tonally opposite to Genisys (say, for example, the wonderful short Under The Terminator's Skin -

the password is Fanedit.org

), but it's no bother to me if other folks enjoy it

_Kaiser_

DarkoT wrote: »

After reading all this comments, I've come up to conclusion ''it's not worth watching''...

It's not.. saw it earlier out of morbid curiosity.

- The much talked about Arnie v Arnie fight lasts all of about a minute and comes to a very unsatisfactory conclusion
- The T-1000 is similarly dispatched very easily
- Emilia Clarke looks about 14 and is nowhere near convincing as Sarah Connor
- Kyle Reese is equally miscast
- Cringe-worthy humor
- Almost all of the (still relatively few) decent action sequences have already been shown in trailers
- The end of the school bus on the bridge sequence is lifted straight from Jurassic Park The Lost World
- They also rip a scene from T3 when the T-X is caught in the particle accelerator
- Arnie still has it (stupid humor scenes aside)
- As others have said it felt more like an Avengers/Iron Man film than Terminator

In short, if you haven't decided whether to go see it, don't bother IMO

CatFromHue

I saw it earlier too and

Reece and Sarah know all about infiltration terminators but then spend the whole film trying to talk John Connors out of being a terminator FFS

Dempsey

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's not.. saw it earlier out of morbid curiosity.

- The much talked about Arnie v Arnie fight lasts all of about a minute and comes to a very unsatisfactory conclusion
- The T-1000 is similarly dispatched very easily

In short, if you haven't decided whether to go see it, don't bother IMO

Regarding those two points, in fairness, how many years did 'Pops' have to prepare for the T-800 and T-1000 given that he knew details of certain future events. The traps setup for both werent clean kills either.

I agree with the other points although Clarke wasnt as bad as I thought she'd be. Hard to top Linda Hamilton & Michael Biehn's performances imo, they were very good imo. They acted like their lives depended on it.

Jai Courtney is just useless, doesnt matter the role. Jason Clarke was alright but his character had too convenient an Achilles heal although I thought that sort of terminator was what ruin the film and sent it into the Superhero genre. The only scene with any suspense was when the T-1000 regenerated the T-800 and he was going after Reese. Its miles away from what made Cameron's terminators so rememorable.

Like many Hollywood films, the concept is good, the execution leaves alot to be desired because there is too much design by committee

faceman

Surprised by this movie. It wasn't as bad as I expected. It was a poor movie but if it had its moments.

Kyle Reese badly written and miscast. I hated him
Same for John Connor
I like yer wan who plays Sarah
Arnie is Arnie

The film gets off to a good start in the first 20 minutes with its action and new look at the machines

The whole "Pops" things. FFS.

It's a better movie than the past 2 terminator films. Is it awful? Not as bad as is being made out. Should Hollywood stop making these type of films?

Yes.

Necronomicon

I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised by this, but I wasn't. Another painfully average entry in a series that has become more associated with mediocrity than quality.

• The forced and often cringeworthy humour feels so out of place. To this day T2 inspires a feeling of utter dread when I watch it, which is what makes it so powerful. This is closer in tone to The Avengers than Terminator.
• Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese are woefully miscast. Emelia Clarke is just not a convincing Sarah Connor.
• The writing is awful. Ham-fisted dialogue, an over-reliance on Arnold Exposition, and a theme about how we're inviting judgement day with our obsession with technology is as subtley crafted as blunt force trauma to the head.

I enjoyed the opening 20-30 minutes, between

the post-apocalyptic scenes and 1984

. I really found myself thinking maybe this is where the series is redeemed. But once

the T1000 and 80s T800 are disposed of

I thought the film went down hill.

The John Connor twist might have been a cool bait-and-switch had the trailer and every bloody poster ruined it.

PhiloCypher

Went into this expecting to hate it, the trailers were awful not to mention spoilery, Jai"I can't believe my luck" Courtney was in it, the general buzz about the film was awful. And yet . . . . and yet by some miracle I found myself kind of enjoying it. It doesn't really feel like canon, more like a DC Elseworld story and I think that was the key for me, that and T3 and Salvation had so divorced me from any sort of investment with this franchise that I was open to being surprised. This film was entertaining to me in a way that Jurassic World just wasn't.

Don't get me wrong Jai is no Michael Biehn, Emilia Clarke is no Linda Hamilton and the time travel mechanics will melt your head(but that has been true of all the films) but if you go into this with the right mindset and not a list of terrible Terminator puns like a lot of Critics seem to have done , you may just find yourself in danger of being entertained.

cloud493

Do I need to have seen any of the others to get this one? Apparently its a reboot of some sort I just wanna be sure.

faceman

cloud493 wrote: »

Do I need to have seen any of the others to get this one? Apparently its a reboot of some sort I just wanna be sure.

They show you most of the first 2 movies as part of this movie anyway so don't worry!

py2006

cloud493 wrote: »

Do I need to have seen any of the others to get this one? Apparently its a reboot of some sort I just wanna be sure.

You...haven't....seen.....the.....first.......two...?????????

:(:(:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

PhiloCypher

py2006 wrote: »

You...haven't....seen.....the.....first.......two...?????????

:(:(:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

He's obviously had his head in the clouds

_Kaiser_

One thing I realised this morning that I may have missed was did we find out who sent "pops" back?

A quick Google led me (Warning: massive spoilers) here which, in true form, just leaves even more questions!

Having read that, the whole thing is even more of a mess than I realised as I watched it

SirLemonhead

Hah, that article thinks T2 was set in 1991