Terminator Genisys

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

Roar

SirLemonhead wrote: »

Hah, that article thinks T2 was set in 1991

Yup that's a pretty glaring error!

faceman

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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

What was the post credits scene? I didn't stick around for it. (I hate when movies do that.)

PhiloCypher

faceman wrote: »

What was the post credits scene? I didn't stick around for it. (I hate when movies do that.)

You didn't miss much, the camera just pans down through the wreckage of the cyberdyne complex to a glowing crystal that presumably houses a back up copy of Skynet.

Mitch Connor

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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

yeah, the extra terminators have absolutely no explanation in this movie - none.

Carlos Orange

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Emilia Clarke, completely unconvincing as Sarah Conor Warrior princess! Maybe her age, but she looks like she'd be more comfortable in some teen movie?

Not sure I see an age problem with Emilia Clarke being 28. That is exactly the same age Linda Hamilton was in the Terminator.

Faith+1

psinno wrote: »

Not sure I see an age problem with Emilia Clarke being 28. That is exactly the same age Linda Hamilton was in the Terminator.

True but Linda Hamilton looked like a grown woman, Clarke looks about 15.

Future Primitive

Faith+1 wrote: »

True but Linda Hamilton looked like a grown woman, Clarke looks about 15.

Don't let that 80's haircut fool you. Hamilton looked very young back then too.

constitutionus

seen it a few days ago and its a servicable enough actioner which has some lovely ideas in it and set peices.

the raid on the time machine for instance. it was actually nice to see more of the future skynet dominated world and i enjoyed how fast the HKs moved and to see how the war actually ended.

but its just got no soul to it. no REAL drama.

T2 is just after startin on channel four now and theres more emotional heft to the opening sequence of that than this whole film put together. theres nothing in this that requires you to pay attention where as 1 and 2 have plenty of bits in em where what someone says is heavily layden with suggestion

TBH The one thing i really did enjoy in genysis was JK simons doing a "jack mcgee" . dont get me wrong ive no problem with any of the other actors in this, they just had bugger all to do beyond shoot and run.

i enjoyed gensys better than 3 and salvation, mainly cause of the nods of the head to the first two which in places did bring a smile to the face (the punks at the beginnning for instance. gas to think that was actually fashionable at the time ) but i was just left with an oddly "meh" feeling leaving the cinema

its not jupiter ascending bad, but its not the fun jurassic world surprised me being either.

guess if someone asked me if they should go see it i'd describe it as a film to see if its raining out. ya wont hate it , but ya wont be pushed seeing it again.

5/10 from me.

and mainly for some of the neater ideas they played with.

SouthTippBass

PhiloCypher wrote: »

You didn't miss much, the camera just pans down through the wreckage of the cyberdyne complex to a glowing crystal that presumably houses a back up copy of Skynet.

Great. Thanks for the spoiler.

Mitch Connor

SouthTippBass wrote: »

Great. Thanks for the spoiler.

You only have yourself to blame. It was clear what the post was going to talk about, and you continued to read it.

pah

Mitch Connor wrote: »

You only have yourself to blame. It was clear what the post was going to talk about, and you continued to read it.

That's not how it works.

Thargor

Absolutely abysmal film, one of the worst films Ive ever gone to the cinema to see, really regretted giving them my money for this one. Too much stupidity to list. Worst thing is that just like Salvation it starts out promising then they yank the rug out. I cant even be bothered writing about it, read the wikipedia plot summary, it has about as much soul as watching the film. Emilia Clarke just cant act, at all, neither can Kyle Reese whatever his name was.

Cantstandsya

This was pretty bad. I wasn't expecting a lot, just an enjoyable popcorn movie (I quite liked Salvation) but this was tough to sit through.

As a GoT fan I was curious about Emilia Clarke, I thought she was cringe inducing bad.

ps3lover

Looks like this has pretty much bombed in the states with a $28 million opening weekend and $44 million for the 5 days. That's well bellow the other sequels, and that's not even adjusting for inflation. Really bad for a major blockbuster opening on a holiday weekend.

It may get saved by international box office but I really don't see those sequels going ahead.

Why did this fall so badly? I'd probably blame poor marketing that decided to spoil the movies biggest twist, even the director voiced his displeasure at that.

PhiloCypher

ps3lover wrote: »

Looks like this has pretty much bombed in the states with a $28 million opening weekend and $44 million for the 5 days. That's well bellow the other sequels, and that's not even adjusting for inflation. Really bad for a major blockbuster opening on a holiday weekend.

It may get saved by international box office but I really don't see those sequels going ahead.

Why did this fall so badly? I'd probably blame poor marketing that decided to spoil the movies biggest twist, even the director voiced his displeasure at that.

F**k thats pretty bleak, there was 20 people tops at the showing I went to in Dun Laoghaire(scr1), which was shocking even for a film that had such a bad buzz around it . I rationalised that nobody wanted to risk the Galactic 3D(whatever the **** that means) showing but maybe the 2D and Standard 3D showing were jammed. But if the above figures are correct maybe that sort of poor turnout is standard across the board.

Cantstandsya

PhiloCypher wrote: »

F**k thats pretty bleak, there was 20 people tops at the showing I went to in Dun Laoghaire(scr1), which was shocking even for a film that had such a bad buzz around it . I rationalised that nobody wanted to risk the Galactic 3D(whatever the **** that means) showing but maybe the 2D and Standard 3D showing were jammed. But if the above figures are correct maybe that sort of poor turnout is standard across the board.

I went to see it in Cineworld on Friday and the cinema was completely full... but I guess that's the busiest time of the week.

e_e

Cantstandsya wrote: »

I went to see it in Cineworld on Friday and the cinema was completely full... but I guess that's the busiest time of the week.

Busiest cinema in Ireland too.

Greenmachine

Baby faced Emilia Clarke, unconvincing as Sarah Connor. Hate the lack of darkness in the later incarnations. T2 was geniunely the best one by far.

Carlos Orange

Faith+1 wrote: »

True but Linda Hamilton looked like a grown woman, Clarke looks about 15.

Granted she is the height of a typical 14 year old but that didn't bother me. I only really thought about it in the one scene where they poked fun at it.*


* may not have been intentional by the film makers

Thargor

Did anybody see the bit where she says "Bite me" for no reason? And then "Pops" says "You are being very rude young lady" or something like that? It was unbelievable, who wrote this sh1te? All the comedy was making the 20 or so people in my screen groan.