Movie Impressions: Ant-Man

What happens when you take the traditional 'Marvel Experience' , The scale of Honey I Shrunk my Kids, and a bit of Ocean's Eleven heist and food blend them together? Well you get Ant-Man alright and it looks like the unthinkable has happened, Marvel has finally made its worst movie! Nah, I'm just kidding, its absolutely fine.

The story concerns the scientist Hank Pym who is trying to protect his shrinking technology from going into wrong hands. Once he gets to know that his protege now CEO of his company, Darren Cross has nearly replicated his technology with Yellowjacket, Pym enlists the aid of clever-burglar Scott Lang to steal  the technology and erase all his data. Or at least that was the plan.

This movie plays as a sort of a heist film and narrative-wise, its very streamlined and I do like that. It doesn't bog down with heavy themes or the like. Right from the gate you know what each of the character's motivations and their conflicts. That being said it will depend on the viewer's taste whether s/he feels it to be adequate or lacking in material since I sensed the latter at parts. Also, really dig the new 'cold-open' style that Marvel has recently started using before displaying their logo (previously seen in Guardians of The Galaxy) where it signifies as a prologue to the main story.

I really enjoyed some of the story beats for example the history of the Ant-Man suit and the whole 'what happens when you go sub-atomic' which really gave some great visual results and opens some new questions which could be addressed in sequels. It did a surprisingly good job justifying the existence of Ant-Man .The comedy is also a bit more restrained than usual and I believe this could be accredited to Edgar Wright's original involvement (btw he still gets story credit) since his style is also a bit more subtle and emphasising more on visual comedy. Speaking of Edgar Wright, director Peyton Reed gives some nice nods to Wright's style for example montage scenes that threw me right back into Shaun of  The Dead. It is quite nice to see that Reed tried to maintain his spirit but also makes you realise how different the movie would have been with Wright at the helm. Its not something negative, just an observation.

The performances are okay here, nothing super-memorable though substantial enough. Paul Rudd did bring some of his charm to Scott Lang and his story made him come across as a character you would root for with simple yet relatable motivations. I liked the character dynamic surrounding Hope Pym(Evangeline Lily) and her performance is alright as well, though this character's future is what excites me . My favourite part was Michael Douglas as Dr.Hank Pym, the original Ant-Man. I mean Micheal Douglas saying "Scott, you're full of shit" just proves how great of a casting this is. He just played the determined, grumpy yet understanding scientist really well. Hank had some really strong opinions about the Stark family, SHEILD etc. and I am curious to see where it goes .

There is also Scott's crew in which the emphasis is given on Luis played by Micheal Pena who is the comic relief. However that is not the only thing he does, and actually remains quite active, even saving Lang's life once, and also most of his stuff was improvised which was a pleasant surprise. Corey Stall plays the villain and Hank's protege Darren Cross/Yellowjacket and frankly it is very nice to see a more human (literally) villain after some time and he is trying to replicate Pym's shrinking formula. It is interesting to see that he is trying to do this out of sheer fandom and curiosity which turns to obsession and does bring out the question of where to set limits to discovery.

If you want a good excuse to see this movie, it is the action since it is some of the most creative Marvel has ever done. They nailed the shrinking as Scott Lang presses a button and he just falls into a bath-tub discovering the bath-tub is now like a mile long, or when he is clinging onto the grooves of a vinyl disc for dear life. Lang constantly alternating between different sizes turns into a nice fight style and also results in changing environments within the same 'battle-space' if you will. There is some awesome macro imagery here and I was quite surprised to know that those shots were mostly real, with real miniatures. Ants in here too(duh) which one can command via a hearing-aid shaped device that makes them do really cool things where ants putting sugar in tea is just the tip of the iceberg. The best part is that the action ups the ante with each set-piece, culminating into a very funny yet adrenal finale. Reed (in my opinion) has done a phenomenal job with such good paced action that gels with the visual effects nicely. The action here is a must-watch, any day.

In a lot of ways Ant-Man reminds me a lot of the Phase-1 movies, Iron Man (2008) in particular, which shows that Marvel still intends to make smaller and contained stories. I know how sad I was the day Edgar Wright left from the Director's chair and I'm sure that movie would have been truly something special. Nonetheless Peyton Reed rose up to the challenge and has r nothing short of great, plus he seems to be a big Ant-Man fan. Like any good origin story, it sets up all the characters brilliantly and opens up new doors. Frankly, its quite nice to see a good old fashion origin story and one that is this great. My point being see it, if you haven't already.

Movie Impressions: Maleficent

Yes yes I know it is not a new release, but I was feeling quite bad that there wasn't a movie impression this week. Then I caught Maleficent on TV and I remembered my intrigue about this when it released though my scepticism and general lack of interest in the subject matter held me back from seeing it at the cinema. Now after seeing it I just had to review it and asked myself that why Movie impressions should be restricted to just new releases? So every once a while I will also discuss an older release but most of the time it was a new watch for me.

Maleficent is the first in the line of the Disney empire's latest strategy to make live-action adaptations of their classic animated stories which was followed shortly after by Cinderella. Maleficent had two things riding for it: ye' old nostalgia that companies love to exploit and a genuinely new perspective to a classic story and that too a villain leading movie. Then you realise its done in a directorial debut by Robert Stromberg. The movie certainly looks awesome in a stylish way but there is not much story or depth to it to really add any significant value in the larger sense.

The movie first of all has a really high production value and it would be since this is I believe the most expensive film by a first-time director ever made. It looks like its directly out of the fairly tale and exploits all forms of colour contrasts which I do appreciate from a film. Large halls and sprawling grounds, it does set-up a contained world very nicely.

The cinematography here benefits the most from the production design and it fully exploits its scenes with stylish lighting and really runs with the fantastical in total stride.

The story follows the eponymous character played by Angelina Jolie and follows her life growing up to be the protector of the forest kingdom known as the moors, and how she becomes into the villain we all know from her perspective in the Sleeping Beauty story.

Actually that's half-true because even though it does show Maleficent's growth as a character and her perspective in this story very well. But, you can't really show another perspective of the classic story when you pretty much change the classic story. I mean this is a very different story to Sleeping Beauty, perhaps too different. Spoiler Warning: Maleficent dies in the original and somehow she lives in this version and she brought Prince Phillip to Aurora ? I just feels a bit lazy when they could've justified her position in a satisfying way keeping in with the original story. Also even if they had to deviate from it they could have played with the 'happily ever after' message much like Frozen did since there doesn't seem much point to change the story if the message is still pretty much the same. My overall point being, departure is good but there should be a good creative justification for that.

Apart from that also you will notice about 35 or so mins into the movie that the story hasn't moved much and yes there isn't much story here, however again it does cover Maleficent's arc very well as a sort of a redemption story but again its not the original which takes a huge hit for me.They play a sort of protector angle with Maleficent which works in some parts but somehow I never received the impact I should have felt. The lack of depth to the story really does feel too apparent and makes the movie feel slow since there is not much action that takes place. That being said, with its slower pace it does take time to develop its characters more carefully which prompts better growth.

Angelina Jolie was one of (if not) the best part of the movie, frankly it was perfect casting as she effortlessly nails the vengeful and nuanced Maleficent while also adding some gravitas and nuance in her performance as she plays a character who is a victim of her circumstances and makes you root for her with some quite heavy scenes. Also really dig the make-up cheekbones which makes her face more angular and those eyes do creep you out at times. The other best part was Sharlto Copley as King Stefan. I really liked his arc as we see him as an ambitious young man to a paranoid king sunk into schizophrenia. It feels quite realistic considering her daughter's situation and his performance really takes that to a whole new level. There is also a messed up love-story between them which I feel mixed about but it does provide some justification to Maleficent's current state. Elle Fanning also played the carefree Aurora really well, its just that the writing behind her does not give her too much to work with so it may come-off as one-noted, but the original one was pretty one-note as well. Her fairy-godmother relationship with Maleficent is something that I liked and I thought was a clever angle to explore as Maleficent grows fond of Aurora and eventually starts to regret her curse.

This movie is not bad, its got some great performances and has a stellar look, all of which point to a very confident and ambitious début director. Its just that I do not understand why they had to deviate from the source material this much to make Maleficent an anti-hero character, correction they made her a hero character which does take off the intensity of the situation while the same justifications could have worked better in the original story. However I would still say give it a watch just for Jolie's rather brilliant performance because its as real as maleficent gets. In the end I'm still not sold on this new strategy of Disney because it looks to me more like a strategy to milk than an actual creative endeavour since these classics needn't be touched again in the first place. Though, I will see how it pans out as time passes.

Suicide Squad Trailer: DC gone berserk

Just when I thought DC must be resting quite satisfyingly after that awesome Batman v Superman, one day later later they drop the Suicide Squad trailer. Firstly for obvious reasons, its not as epic as Batman v Superman trailer was and its not going for that either. It definitely is more of an edgier presentation.

Viola Davis' Amanda Waller just works. That headstrong authoritative character remains intact in the performance. In the trailer Waller seemingly discussing with an Army general for what looks like a grant to assemble a team which consist of convicted people. This what is Suicide Squad main premise lies and they also have a great excuse to build this team since they have 'built-in deniability' meaning the authorities can just blame them for if anything goes wrong. That's quite tragic yet interesting. The film-makers also managed to throw in a superman reference claiming him as a beacon for the villains to go back into hiding. I think from here we again can see the First Contact story angle in the DC universe where the arrival of Superman is used as a world-building device. 

I will be honest I did not know what Suicide Squad was before this, maybe I've heard the name before since it seems familiar. Anyway, my point being that when I was looking into the characters, many of them have you can say, 'exotic' abilites and I remain curious has to how writer/director David Ayer portrays these powers in a universe that is quite adamant about its realism. Though what does excite me is its really edgy tone with a dash of mania to it.

The trailer also gives us little bits of action, which again has a sense of zaniness with examples such as those absolutely crazy panda outfits and that Batman Mask. And yet somehow does sell an atmosphere of anarchy and distraught in a plausible way which DC seems to go for in its cinematic universe. They also put in that leaked Lamborghini scene with Batman on the roof, I'm personally quite hyped as to how this sequence takes place in the movie.

Even though we see all the team members of Suicide Squad such as the likes of El-Diablo, Killer Croc (though absurd looking in that press photo, surprisingly working in film), The Enchantress, Katana, Captain Boomerang etc. But this trailer mostly seems to focus on 2 of the members, Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) in particular plus the ending to which we shall come. shortly.

The trailer shows a sort of fatherly relationship with Deadshot and really delves into the whole anti-hero aspect of it all and even though I had my doubts with Will Smith's casting but from the trailer, I think I can run with it, he looks and sounds good in this. There is also a line by Jai Courtney as Captain Boomerang, he just sounds like Jai Courtney in a weird get-up, but again we haven't seen enough of him as of this point.

Most of the screen-time in this trailer is occupied by Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn. First Impressions: she fits as Harley Quinn and the design is accurate in terms of the 'New 52' rendition. The trailer first reveals her in what I assume is Belle Reve Penetentiary (from where the Suicide Squad operate in the comics) in a special cage, doing gymnastics? but it sells the whole creepiness the movie is going for. Robbie nails the voice where she does not copy Tara Strong's voice and her performance is quite original yet gives you a sense of how messed up she is remaining true to the character. I do have a theory that they will change her origin and as an extension Harley would play a really major part of the main story. In the original story Dr.Harleen Quinzel, psychiatrist at Arkham Asylum basically had Counter Transference (Google-it) with Joker and she got enamoured by his personality and since became his follower/sidekick. But in the movie I think that she will get (potential spoiler) mental torture as we can see when Joker is escaping the asylum (I think) and Harleen Quinzel strapped to a hospital bed and we see the Joker with that looks like electrodes used in Shock Treatment. It could be that he uses those on Quinzel to physically mess up her brain and you add the trauma of the event which makes her into Harley Quinn. Still just a theory. It does seem that the David Ayer will push this character and it could be something truly awesome. 

And of course we have our first performance reveal of Jared Leto as The Joker. I always did support this casting because he is an actor that can take his performance to crazy places which you need for this villain. When the first look of him in bleach came, I was quite mixed, where he did capture the psychopath side of him but overkilled it in what looked like a Marilyn Manson tribute. Plus that cringe-worthy 'Damaged" forehead tattoo, ugh and I don't like the teeth-grills too much since (to me) the silver just doesn't go with the white skin like it doesn't contrast the teeth. However Leto does justice with his performance where there are clear influences of Heath Ledger in his voice but his face does emote more than past Jokers and that completely sells the character. But in the end it depends on the character written because with Joker, a writer has 2 options: crazy lost the mind joker or the more calculative criminal who is seriously dark. The best Jokers (including Ledger's ) often walked the fine line between the two. From the looks of it, its gonna be the former, but you cannot judge a character from just a line though the performance is very scary and spot-on indeed. 

In many respects one can argue that Suicide Squad is DC's answer to Guardians Of The Galaxy and in that case it is a serious contender. It is pretty much DC setting out to prove that there can be a movie consisting entirely of villains though there is definitely a more anti-hero angle than downright villains with Suicide Squad. Nonetheless this teaser sets the stage and grabs our heads. My takeaway from this is that it looks to be a character driven adventure with a really edgy tone. However we are still not properly introduced to the whole team so we are still short of seeing the dynamic between the members. Though we must remind ourselves that this is a teaser, and a friggin great one at that. DC is totally hell-bent to capture Marvel's lead.



ps. ANT-MAN should have released this weekend but it has been postponed to next week in my region but I will try to review asap. God knows how much I want to kill the executives who changed the date.

Batman v Superman: The Trailer we Deserved

Now we are talking ! DC had released the new trailer for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice on July 9th shortly after their Comic Con 2015 appearance and God, is it mighty. I shall place the video down below just in case you haven't seen. Firstly I must give credit where credit's due, thank you Zack Snyder for finally giving us some actual colours in the movie.

The trailer started with a bang, with Superman(Buff as ever Henry Cavill) going to an activist-filled senate hearing (headed by Holly Hunter as a Senator) for the people to know just what his standing is in the world. Is it just me or did I quite verbose inspirations in this treatment of Superman to Dr.Manhattan from Watchmen (another DC movie he directed) in the way he depicted the situation of a god-like being who is put under heavy scrutiny for good reasons. Speaking of good reasons, I would like to see the faces all the fans who mobbed over director Zack Snyder over Superman not saving people and pretty much laying metropolis to waste. I did not see that coming, using the Metropolis fight as a powder keg moment for the world to just erupt on this guy and for Superman to face consequences. It was a genius story move.

Anyway the next big reveal the trailer shown was that Bruce Wayne (Batman just in case you live in a cave) was actually present in the Metropolis disaster has he pretty much practically runs into all that mess without his Batsuit (so heroic) and we see the broken sign of the Wayne Financial building in the left-hand corner. First of all it is nice to see the that last fight from Man of Steel from literally a different perspective on the people at the ground, and as a result it does elevate the impact of all the destruction that took place. But what doesn't click with me is that people sending Wayne letters saying "You've let your family die !" , well it wasn't his fault was it ? I don't recall the time where the owner of the World Trade Centre got a letter accusing him of letting those people die in 9/11. I don't see how he could've stopped the whole Metropolis thing. So I don't buy that motivation for him to destroy Superman, unless if there is more to it. Zack Snyder's idea of treating both Gotham and Metropolis as sister cities is a nice touch and that Gotham was more of a lower end(society/crime wise) city than Metropolis. They seemed to hint on this to factor into the story somehow, maybe that would be our extra motivation. Maybe we could expect some tension between the citizens of both cities.

This trailer also gave us a really good taste of the new Batman, as Perry White(Laurence Fishburne) claims to be a 'one-man Reign of Terror'. I really like that analogy. And it shows how brutal this Bat-fleck will be as we can see the Bat-symbol branded on a guy's chest. It leaves us no question that this Batman is a darker/more serious one than his predecessors. Also during the Comic-Con panel Zack Snyder claimed that the Batman mech-suit is not an armour but a self-preservation suit that doesn't actually enhance any of Batman's strength, hmm. Of what glimpses we have seen of the Bat-cave, I'm really liking the design of it like a very high-tech garage, which also was in the Watchmen movie which basically proves that he was trying to pull-off a Batman with that Night-Owl suit. Also it happens to be beneath a derelict Wayne Manor(or so it seems), so is it possible that he maybe had taken hiatus like Dark Knight Returns and that this whole Superman fiasco brought him back to the suit. That Robin suit with the Joker reference does add evidence to that theory. Something really trivial I thought that in a scene in the trailer (2:34) I do not know why but Ben Affleck reminded me of Vincent D'nofrio as Wilson Fisk in the Netflix Daredevil series? There is also a brief appearance of Superman as Clark Kent trying to find and take on Batman to which Perry White argues that 'no one cares about Clark Kent taking on the Batman' a bit of foreshadowing there. Also I am really curious as to how this plot-line pans out

Plus Jeremy Irons (from looks alone) seems to be a very different Alfred then Micheal Cain's portrayal. He appears to be a little more stern and straightforward to Bruce while still serving to be his voice of reason. there is also a brief appearance of Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian from Watchmen) as Thomas Wayne...as he gets killed in crime alley but it looks to be a very stylised version of it which I'm curious to see

We also see Batman in a desert-outfit fighting what seems to be really deviant trigger-happy followers of Superman, of what it looks like even Superman does not approve.It is very reminiscent of the followers in hockey pads in The Dark Knight. Are they called the 'Red Capes' as Lex Luthor happens to say in the trailer?

Oh yeah, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) is in this trailer and I still don't buy him furthermore that

hairdo regardless if its a wig or not, looks silly. What many people feared also kinda happen that it still looks and sounds too Jesse Eisenberg and its a but hard to see him as Lex Luthor.  I don't know maybe I'm wrong and he happens to be awesome, we will have to see. However I did like that Luthor revelled in the whole Batman v Superman fight. And also there is a scene where he nearly happens to be caressing Superman as he is kneeling before Lex and looking very angry. Interesting.

Now we all remember when it was announced that Wonder-Woman was going to appear in the movie in a major role and that it felt shoe-horned in. It was reported that Wonder-Woman will play a sort of drug to propagate the formation of the Justice League. We do not see her much in this trailer but of what is seen is indicative of that she and Bruce Wayne will have a lot of, mingling so to speak. It seems that Wonder-Woman will serve as a Third-Party perspective in this fight, which can go either way. As for Gal Gadot in the casting, I can sort of see what Zack Snyder is going for in the terms of an elegant Amazonian warrior-princess but yes she doesn't exactly fit the physicality of Wonder Woman that has become pretty archetypical to the character. And also I would have liked for DC to do a modern-take on her outfit but since I do not know what her story will be in the movie per se, I will give the benefit of the doubt,

Not all of the trailer is just people talking, there is also some really great bare-knuckled brawls of fighting scene and they look quite spectacular as pretty much the 2 most famous superheroes fighting each other. To be specific there is really a provocative image when Superman breaks the Bat-mobile's roof and Batman just stands up to him, that gave me quite the chills. I trust cinematographer Larry Fong to do a good job since his previous films 300 and Watchmen (both directed by Snyder) had a really stylish look to them which translates well into comic book movies. My only concern remains is that there should be a good reason for these two giants to fight so it doesn't seem like a squabble and there is some real emotional weight to the fighting. Though again the fights as themselves really look to be a DC fan's wet dream. One thing I must admit though, some of the special effects still looks just a hair bit rubbery, but they could improve it by the time of release.

This trailer is superb it just gives us enough information we need to know to get super hyped and make us watch the movie, it just goes above and beyond in its awesomeness. It has a nice 'First Contact' story feel to it and the story seems to be super-grounded in reality. It serves as an awesome first real look at Bat-fleck and gave us enough of the fighting with jam packed story content. Also there is a brief appearance of  General Zod's body, will he factor into Doomsday's origin if he at all is in there? .I don't know but I do believe that Zack Snyder and DC are definitely holding their cards to the chest and we would have to see the movie to find out. 

Movie Impressions: Minions

Few things become an instant hit like the banana loving Minions from Despicable Me and their own movie seemed, inevitable. Since Despicable Me 2, I saw that a story centred around the minions could work. Though the question remained that whether they could lead a movie on their own. The film-makers have served up a clever premise here where the minions existed for thousands of years and their only purpose, to serve the most despicable being alive. Could it actually work?

The story mainly follows our three leading minion characters Kevin Stuart and Bob, who try to find a new master to serve because the Minion family is getting bored without a master. So they find themselves in the 1960's and into service for Scarlett Overkill (Sandra Bullock), the first female villain-star and an assigment to steal Queen Elizabeth's crown. Though things don't go as planned which pits Scarlett and the Minions against each other. Let the hilarity ensue...

Firstly I must address the significant increase in the quality of animation, the Minions have never looked better, the amount of eye-candy is very impressive (and that is me after watching Inside out) which is supported with a nice colour palette which does illustrate the vibrancy of the 60's. The animation power here does not disappoint and executes itself with style.

The humour with the Minions has never been subtle, or even that clever since it relies heavily on physical humour and the weird yet enjoyable language that they have. I never had a problem with this style of comedy when done right, and it always was done right in the case of the minions. However I do understand situations where you might feel that the jokes feel too much of the same thing, because they do work best as a side-gag. But there are some jokes which are genuinely good such as the opening montage (narrated amusingly by Geoffrey Rush) and the Football game. But if you happen to be a kid, you will laugh your heart out and be immune to all such issues as I was assured by the kids in the theatre.

One thing I really liked in the story is that they really played off on the innocence of the Minions and never for once were they actually 'bad guys' and it was just sometimes they lost track of things or they were just plain clumsy and their actions made them perceive as bad even though their intentions were good-natured right till the end. I also like that it added to how close knit this group is and how much they care for each other.

The minions Kevin, Stuart and Bob are very well written which makes each of the three distinct personalities where Kevin the optimistic leader, Bob is over-enthusiastic and adorable and lastly Stuart is more of a ukulele playing guy who just wants to be famous. By the way, all voiced to great enjoyment by Co-director Pierre Coffin. Scarlett Overkill voiced by Sandra Bullock also makes a nice foil to the minions and has a motivation that actually made sense for her character.  The film also has other voice talents such as Jon Hamm as Scarlett's Husband/inventor Herb (really good voice acting and a different role for him). Micheal Keaton as Peter Nelson, the husband of a villain family (and hitching the minions a ride), among others.

So to answer the question did it work? could the minions hold up themselves, and...yeah I think they did because I felt more enjoyment just seeing minions bored out of their minds in a cave rather than the humans. The main minion characters were also great with individual personalities. The animation and setting were superb. And also the soundtrack by Hector Pereira had a very 60's Beatles/Hendrix-y rock vibe with also your normal orchestrations. Furthermore, The third act of this movie is some of the best minion action/comedy there is. Its just a solid movie that delivers what it sets out to deliver, nothing more nothing less. 

Movie Impressions: Terminator Genisys

Honestly, I was never that big into the Terminator franchise, but I always like that it had a really dark 90's sci-fi edge to it with some a high stakes war story background woven into a personal story about family and humanity as clever low budget film of its time. With Terminator Salvation, we all thought the franchise died for good and I wasn't all too sad. But now it seems Paramount Pictures wants to take another shot at reinvigorating the franchise with even more convoluted timelines and plot threads in Terminator Days of Future Past.....no, uhh, I mean Genesis....no, uhh GENISYS, yeah that's how you spell it...

This is a fractured timeline story much like the aforementioned X-men outing, just more convoluted and I really do not want to explain this spaghetti of a plot, but at the end of the day its main purpose is to change the status quo of the whole franchise using complicated time-travel, that again convolutes more than it actually resolves, and brings it to a point where any further sequels would begin to feel episodic. Though, it starts very promising in the beginning with a solid sequence in the apocalypse of 2029 but it quickly bogs down as it starts to set-up too many sub-plots for itself to keep track and eventually throwing most of it up in the air. There are definitely some real clever angles in the story, with opportunities for character drama and social commentary concept-wise but much of the story does not integrate into a whole. Not to mention that it feels like a retread of the basic plots of the previous movies and it proved that the marketing failure of a spoilt plot-twist from the trailers was indeed a huge dent in terms of story impact, because the underlying implications of that twist certainly would have been a big blow to the whole point of the story and challenge the whole point of these movies.

At this point I would like mention the director Alan Taylor, who you might know from Game of Thrones and more recently, Thor: The Dark World. From Thor I realised that he was definitely more focused on action than story. Though that is the case here as well, he juggles between the two far better. My only gripe is that he should have paid more attention to all the story-threads more because it isn't motivating the action all too well and it emotional detaches you. And that just becomes doubly disappointing since the action is quite good in itself, not T-2 levels (of course) but good nonetheless. There is also some really neat fan services to which Taylor meticulously recreated from the original movies, but it just doesn't have that weight to it that it should have. Also I just don't know if it's me or Genisys looks too colourful for a Terminator since the previous movies had more of a muted colour palette for the most part.

Anyway let us move on to the characters and performances since those are the stronger parts of Genisys. Jason Clarke as John Connor I went with it, he really came across as a strong leader with a sense of humour although it wouldn't argue if you said that he doesn't look like the dark war-torn John Connor from T-2. Linda Hamilton and Micheal Biehn both owned Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese respectively, however Emilia Clark's portrayal felt really respectful to the character and her predecessor right down to her physicality. Jai Courntey as Reese just did not cut it for me since the difference between him and Biehn is just...sad and he could not pull off a chemistry with Clarke, even though the love story between Sarah and Kyle seems to work in the story.

On the other hand Clarke's chemistry with Arnold Schwarzenegger is brilliant, serving as a father figure to Sarah, which made a nice dynamic and some nice comic and emotional moments. In fact everything about our old T-800 is brilliant in this movie, he played him spot-on, his character had a lot of heart to him yet he also spews one-liners and just being plain cool as usual. There is also a neat angle over here with an ageing terminator model and that he is an 'old relic from a deleted timeline' sort of like robot mid-life crisis which is a nice justification to accomodate his real age. He definitely serves as the emotional centre and levity of the movie contributed by Arnold's performance and some good character writing.

I was also intriguingly surprised to see J.K Simmons and eager to see his part, he's a cop and though underused his character actually has a neat back-story and Simmons used all the given screen time well. Matt Smith also has a huge role as he basically plays, well Skynet himself. And he too works very well as a menacing evolving system determined to ensure its own survival and dominance. 

The effects are okay here where the special effects on young Arnold are very good(certainly better than Salvation) yet there are also some 'CGI' that do feel 'CGI' especially the T-1000 that still looks like its from 1997. And I'm forgetting but I think that they did used more CGI than practical and frankly they should stop it since the Terminator franchise really prides itself on the use of both computer and practical effects in unison. And the audience has got bored with overused computer effects.

There is an undeniable stench of corporate around this movie, though it is good to see Terminator back in the first decent sequel attempt after a long while. Though if I had my way, I would really try to find a way to not do a time-travel story again and look for more story potential rather than making a 'greatest hits version', remixed.  The biggest gripe I had with this movie was that I had no take-away from this, it was like not even mixed just 'okay'. The movie didn't make me feel like it accomplished something since we have seen the same 'destroy skynet before it awakes' plot for 2 movies prior and this makes the third time, its really getting old. But again its not bad and it has apparently got James Cameron's seal of approval, and if you are a Terminator fan, you will not be that disappointed since it definitely has its moments its just that those most of the moments run dry in the first half or come few and far between and that it mostly comes from the inherent nostalgia (for the most part) rather than its own merits.