Video Game Review: Doom (2016)

"Weaponizing demons for a better tomorrow."—UAC slogan.
---------------------
Video games have come a long ways in 23 years. In the 90s, Doom was one of the biggest game-changers of the industry. It was a smooth, rip-roaring demon-slaying experience, with its own unique texture and style. It paved the way for hundreds more FPS games to follow in its wake. Isn't it strange that after all this time, there's only been two official sequels? Since the release of Doom 3, shooting games fell into a pretty generic niche, thanks to a plethora of military-themed titles. We've seen more innovation out of Bioshock, Tomb Raider, The Last Of Us, Heavy Rain, and other odd places. Where has Doom been all this time?

As it turns out, Doom 4 was in development for a while, but had to be scrapped because it just wasn't cutting it. Developed from the ground-up, 2016's Doom is made as a return to form. It's not the harrowing horror/survival ordeal that game #3 was, this was designed to tap into the energy and spirit of the original saga. So the question now is, did id and Bethesda succeed?

I was honestly afraid to play this game, remembering how unsettling Doom 3 was. I wasn't sure I could handle the new Doom, especially after hearing that many levels would force you to clear out hoards of demons in large arena-style levels before being able to move on. It sounded punishing.

It's not. Like all great games, 2016's Doom is empowering—the game offers you immense firepower, speed, and abilities to turn you into a fast and vicious demon-slayer. It's challenging, but hardly impossible—the game is smooth and fast, and you have to stay fast to make it past each area. You get a pretty nice arsenal of guns (everything from a puny pistol to a chainsaw to the Super Shotgun to the BFG and everything). You get upgrades that can make you a faster and better marine. You get powerups at key spots. One really wicked feature that makes this game even more empowering is "glory kills," which allow you to rip demons apart with your bare hands. The game might seem imposing when you start, but once you unlock weapons and upgrades, it's a breeze (unless, if you're a real hardcore gamer who craves a challenge, you can always play the campaign on nightmare mode). Each level is immaculately detailed and well-designed, with secrets in many interesting corners, and a lot of awesome scenery to behold. Populated by so many recognizable creatures (everything from imps to the Spider Mastermind), the game is a massive throwback, but its experience is genuinely fresh and awesome.

The games wastes little time in developing its story. From the opening onwards, you snap into action, finding yourself in the middle of a ruined Martian base overrun by demons. As you progress, you'll catch on to what happened. There are just a few characters to the game—there's not much development to them. I wish there could be more substance to the story, but for Doom, it's fine for what it is. Just like the original two games, story is not the main draw, its just a way to string levels together. In this case, the story's a little better than the original game, but not quite as complete as Doom 3.

On top of that, the game offers a few solid multiplayer options. The classic game modes—deathmatches and such—are available and are fine for what they are. It's pretty standard: you join a match, you shoot people, you level up and keep going. You can choose some loadouts, but it's far simpler (and less refined) than a Call of Duty game. A far more interesting feature is the Snapmap mode, which allows you to construct levels with modular tools. The array of rooms and objects available is limited, but logic tools let you design games with countless possibilities. It can be quite adventurous and intriguing to see what inventive levels users have published using these simple features.

The game itself looks pretty sharp and polished. It sports decent textures, lighting, rendering, and very smooth animation. Sounds and voices are good—music is smashing. This game is well-written, more in the sense that the game shows you its ideas through the gaming experience rather than dialogue.

Just when I thought Doom wasn't for me, this game comes along and reminds me of what it is that made the originals so appealing. Far less clunky and more polished than its predecessors, I'd say this is the best one of the lot. It successfully empowers and immerses you in the hellish fantasy of a demon-stomping marine. It can't get much more awesome than that.

4.5/5

Film Review: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

"The light — It's always been there. It'll guide you." - Lupita Nyong'o
--------------------
It's easy to become burned out over Star Wars. 38 years ago, the original film whetted audiences appetites for escapist adventure and fantasy, with spectacles the likes of which had never seen before. The original magic and charm became buried beneath the vitriol and controversy surrounding the sequels, prequels, revisions, spin-offs, and more. With George Lucas selling his company to Disney in 2012, the floodgates suddenly opened for a wave of new talent - writers, directors, actors, and more - to pick up the legacy of this troubled series and take into the next generation.

The Force Awakens is certainly the experience Star Wars fans crave. It has spectacular action - it starts off hard and fast with stormtroopers razing a village and fighters clashing in the skies. The most spectacular sequences include a breakneck chase scene over deserts and through the heart of a crashed spaceship. The last act is an all-out battle that shows X-Wings battling TIE fighters while the characters duke it out with blasters and lightsabers. It's all fast and it's some of the biggest scenes in the series.

Fortunately, it's not all that exhausting either - the film finds a decent balance between the spectacle, humor, and rolling the story forward. Most reviewers have generalized this as a remake of A New Hope. Undeniably, the film banks quite a bit on nostalgia, and it does repeat the broad story beats of the original films. Despite the notable similarities, I never once felt that I was being beaten over the head by nostalgia. It's merely a knuckle in the overall fist that smashes the face of Star Wars apathy. Even with familiar faces returning, the film's focus is firmly set on new characters, and they are truly a lovable bunch. Finn and Rey are heroes who elicit great empathy in their struggles, and show a lot of personality and character through their various nuances (which is especially phenomenal given the short amount of time they actually have to develop in the midst of so much action). Kylo Ren may come off as a whiny emo kid, but he is far more volatile than any before him, and he's clearly a conflicted soul with depth to him that's begging to be explored. Once the motivations are clear for these characters, one can't help but to wonder what directions they will go next.

Unfortunately, that leads me to wonder what else is left unsaid in the film. Many questions won't be answered until the next episode. Others can only be speculated in the gap between this and Return of the Jedi (I personally wish more was said about the New Republic, the New Order, Snoke, and other odd things). Characters like General Hux and Captain Phasma are great to behold, but are the shallowest characters of the lot and receive very little screen time.

Despite the even flow and attention to characters, the plot itself is fast and loose (come to think of it, all of JJ Abrams' films are like that). There are a few gaps and plot holes that can either be shrugged off, or may become points of contention for fans.  Parts of it seem to be rushed.  The film's biggest issue is that, like a Marvel movie, it is built to bridge a franchise, rather than to craft an original story. It requires knowledge of what happened before, and it sets up what will happen next. The film does its job admirably to revitalize the series with new faces, an expanded universe, and the old-fashioned sense of adventure. With recycled scenes and archetypes, however, some audiences won't be so easily swayed.

Of all the Star Wars films, this may be one of the best-looking ones of the lot. Filmmakers took great care to craft a plethora of authentic new creatures, sets, props, weapons, vehicles, costumes, and more. The film is packed with real-looking places and things, lending it the same sense of realism that made the original so jarring. What computer-generated effects the film has are spectacular and take nothing away from the experience. An even more pleasant surprise is in the acting and the script. Dialogue is often sharp, witty, and provides enough depth to make the story feel more relevant (even if it is a retread). Daisy Ridley brings Rey to life beautifully, with a commanding presence and emotional range. John Boyega's performance is superb and fun to watch. Oscar Isaac is surprisingly playful as Poe Dameron. Adam Driver portrays rage and tragedy very well in his part. Despite his age, Harrison Ford inhabits the body of Han Solo like wearing an old jacket, and he's surprisingly endearing that way. Carrie Fischer still plays it tough as Leia. Lupita Nyong'o plays an alien, and it's interesting. With so many players going all at once, what matters the most is that all of them pull their weight so that every little face, gesture, and word contributes to their respective characterization, giving much more depth to them through the art of showing more than telling. John Williams' music score is notably different, but I believe it lends the movie its own unique style and feeling.

Some might call this an unoriginal sellout, lacking in the boldness that the other films presented. However, it is a well-crafted crowd-pleaser. It entertains not only through its action, but also captivates with its characters. What I like about it the most is that, like many of my other favorites (including the original Star Wars), its nuances show more than tell, to capture and let our own imaginations fill in the gaps. With my own imagination filling with the possibilities of what could happen next, my appetite is now whetted for the next episode, and any Star Wars fatigue I had is gone.

4.5/5

Book Review: Logan's Run (William F Nolan and George Clayton Johnson)

The Logan's Run film has been a seminal staple of sci-fi cinema my whole life. It's a film that presents its unique premise with plenty of flair and adventure. It seemed essential that I had to read the original book to see where this marvelous movie came from, and how it compared.

The book is as short, breezy, and pulpy as they come. It wastes no time in establishing the funky world Logan 5 lives in, and the madcap quest he embarks on. It's a sprawling adventure that goes all over the place, from one perilous situation to another. There are definitely unique ideas and vivid settings to behold, and it is quite a wonderful sci-fi adventure at times.

Unfortunately, I did find some things to be rather wonky. Strange as it may seem, I thought the plot of the movie adaptation was handled better - it made more sense to me that Logan would be put on a mission, rather than how it is in the book, where on his very last day of living he decides to try and find Sanctuary on his own initiative. Mort importantly, the events of the book are so tightly-packed, it's almost dizzying. Logan goes from one city to another, through canyons and glaciers, confronting Sandmen and killer robots and a crazy nursery and everything. Little time is spent in between the peril to settle down and get to know the characters and their world (world-building is effectively shown, but it still feels like a lot condensed into a very small space). In the end, the actual plot and sequence of events is very random.  It's exciting at times, but not always compelling.

As far as characters go, surprisingly little is said about them. Despite all his strength and determination, I didn't think Logan's motivation was that strong, and there wasn't much for the reader to relate to. Other characters are quite flat.

Ideas and the world-building are immense, but once again, I felt the movie handled them better. The book details multiple cities worldwide, rather than just one. I can't say I can comprehend how the world as a whole could condone and conform to the system that's described, but the whole idea of controlling population by limiting age is a naturally compelling one (even if limiting it to 21 seems rather young).

The prose is pretty trim, tight, and easy to read. It might even come off as rather brusque in style. Descriptions are minimal, and most details about the world and the premise behind it are more shown rather than told. Action is always moving, dialogue is not bad, and the book overall gets the job done fine and dandy.

It is a fairly enjoyable piece of pulp sci-fi, but I personally value the movie more - its plotting is hammered out better, and its pacing much more even, whereas the book is tight and nonstop. I feel it's a little too fast and loose, and it doesn't quite capitalize on characters, concepts, and plotting as well as the movie does. It's worthwhile for sci-fi fans, but this is one rare case where I believe the movie is better.

3.5/5

 

Writing: National Novel Writing Month 2015 - Thoughtless

It's time once again for National Novel Writing Month! This year will be my fifth year in a row.  For those who don't know, NaNoWriMo is a worldwide event in which writers all over the world attempt to pump out 50,000 words in one month.  It's a personal goal more than anything - a way for writers to motivate themselves and improve their productivity.  There are write-ins to attend, where writers can meet face-to-face in their local regions.  It's a rather informal, casual affair to promote the creative spirit.

Realistically, I find that 50K words in a month is more than do-able - it amounts to 1,667 words a day (a few pages).  It doesn't have to be pretty - editing while writing is actually counterproductive and unwise during this period of unbridled drafting.  It doesn't even have to be finished.  As long as you can pump out 50K words by November 30th, you're a winner.  You can always use December onwards to finish, edit, and rewrite the novel.

Technically, there's nothing stopping you from copying and pasting one word 50,000 times and calling yourself a winner.  The problem is, if you do that for whatever reason, you're doing a disservice to yourself (unless you truly believe 50,000 of one word is actually sell-able as a novel - in that case, good luck).  It's all for a writer's personal benefit.

This year, I plan on tackling a story idea I've had in mind since 2012 or so.  This is an idea that came up out of a conversation I had about how technology often does our thinking for us, and removes our own capacity for thinking.  As technology becomes more convenience and intelligent, what reason does a person have to learn or exercise existing skills? If the mind doesn't get exercised often enough, it is bound to be come dulled, leading to a society of people who can't think or function without technology.

Out of that line of thinking, my new novel will be about a future where everything is run by an omnipresent artificial intelligence.  It is called NORA - the Neurological Oligarchy of the Reformed America.  It is a future in which NORA runs every department in the government, and it uses implants in every citizens' brain to analyze their lives and make their decisions for them.  It would tell everybody what to eat, what their careers are, who they should socialize with, who to marry, what to say to people, and everything else.

In this setting, the story will be about Tom Guilding, who works as a police officer in an elite first response team called D-40.  He will become involved in a case in which a terrorist named Lucifer has stolen funds from NORA, and plans to destroy the AI through some unknown, nefarious means.  In order to catch Lucifer, NORA takes out Tom's implant and sends him undercover.  It is up to Tom to find Lucifer, uncover evidence, and learn what his plan is in order to stop him.  However, without the guidance of NORA, Tom will have to exercise his mind for the first time.  He will have to operate and overcome challenges on his own.  The more he learns, however, the more he questions his loyalty and questions who the real villain is.

This novel will be entitled Thoughtless.  It will take after a lot of sci-fi classics that I know and love - stories like Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and George Orwell's 1984, and films like Logan's Run, Equilibrium, The Matrix, Swordfish, Point Break, and The Dark Knight.  Tom is a character inspired by the heroes of these various stories - usually authority figures who are made to see the evils of a dystopian society.  Lucifer is an unhinged, unstable villain originally inspired by the various villains that John Travolta played in various films, but at this point Lucifer has become a much more menacing figure in the same vein as The Joker or Fight Club's Tyler Durden.  Altogether, my story will carry some pretty heavy-duty themes concerning the dangers of allowing technology to take over responsibility over our lives, and at its heart this will be a story about a man freeing his mind.

Some music to inspire me for this project can he heard on 8tracks.  My playlist includes a ton of electronica - bands like Kosheen, BT, the Chemical Brothers, Phutureprimitive, The Crystal Method, The Glitch Mob, Celldweller, and more - and some soundtrack music, such as the film scores for The Dark Knight, Takers, Transformers, The Social Network, Ghost in the Shell, Lucy, and more.  There's a ton of beat to it all.

This is one of those projects that's been bouncing around in my head for a while, and it'll be quite a blast to finally manifest it into a tangible form.  My progress can be tracked at the NaNoWriMo website, and I should be able to get this whole thing completed before the end of the year.

Film Review: Moonraker (007)

James Bond has been to just about every country on the Earth. Now, his struggles take him above and beyond...into outer space

In the aftermath of the blockbuster supergiants, Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, sci-fi was becoming huge in the late 70s. For better or for worse, producers decided to rocket this Bond picture into space and capitalize off of the craze. What results is easily the most stupidly excessive film of the lot. This is one long film that includes Bond skydiving, Bond trying out astronaut training machines, Bond going hunting, Bond going to Rio, Bond going to Venice for a big boat chase scene, Bond going to the Amazon jungle for an even bigger boat chase scene, and then after all that, Bond finally reaches space. The space scenes are probably the biggest highlight, as we watch a fleet of space shuttles departing Earth, Bond confronting the bad guy in a massive space station, and inevitably, there's an all-out laser-beam battle everywhere. Those lasers sure are cool. Just about every scene looks larger than life, thanks to all the grand views and exotic locations that serve as a background to the elaborate onslaught of peril and action. They pretty much throw everything at you - the sum of all the parts will seem messy, but if you take it scene-by-scene, it is a genuinely fun and fulfilling experience.

The plot pretty much goes through the motions of every other Bond adventure, simply swapping out secret lairs for a space station. All the usual elements are there - gadgets galore, ladies, class. It's nothing original or deep. It has practically nothing to do with Ian Fleming's original novel (which is actually a decent spy thriller). You just have to watch it for what it is: escapism at its most extreme.

This film uses excellent photography and editing. Roger Moore plays the same old Bond we all know and love (or hate) by now. Lois Chiles plays a rather flat character. Michael Lonsdale is okay to watch as the villain, but his performance is rather robotic in nature. Richard Kiel is awesome. Writing is not too terrible, especially given the material. This production spares no expense on the lavish locations, sets, props, costumes, and special effects. John Barry's music score is not bad, but I am not a fan of Shirley Bassey's theme song.

Moonraker represents the absolute height of excess in a James Bond film - it's so ridiculous, it has to be seen to be believed. I personally value the film the most for just being a nonstop chain of fun scenes, all the way to its far-out climax.

3.5/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: The Spy Who Loved Me (007)

The Spy Who Loved Me was a Bond movie that was just bound to happen. Not only because it's yet another Ian Fleming book that had yet to be adapted, but because this is the one where James Bond has to ally with a Soviet to get stuff done. It's like the 007 variant to The Man from UNCLE. And in the Roger Moore age, it's bound to be larger than life and ridiculous as hell.

This film is probably most memorable for being the one with all the submarines, including a tanker that eats other submarines. It's an elaborate plot by some villain in a secret underwater lair to cause the world powers to blow each other up in nuclear war (yep, this plotline was bound to happen). Bond travels from Egypt to the depths of the sea to investigate. He confronts a huge man with metal teeth - an awesomely invincible henchman named Jaws. There are fights. There are car chases. Inevitably, his adventure requires the use of a car that turns into a submarine (seriously, WTF?). It gradually culminates into a huge, all-out battle in the middle of a supertanker, and a showdown in the secret underwater lair.

Bond adventures don't get more over-the-top than this, although it's not always that thrilling of a picture. The first half of the movie always felt rather dry, long, and stuffy to me. Even with Roger Moore's wit and charms, pacing seems to drag at times. When the big finale hits, it can be rather thrilling, especially with the stakes elevated to such a massive degree. What makes this film more interesting will be the characters. With Bond being paired with his Soviet equivalent - a woman just as skilled and confident as he is - the dynamics become fairly more interesting than normal. Unfortunately, I always felt that Stromburg is the least interesting villain of the series, so the whole thing comes off as dry and forgettable.

Oh yeah, this is also nothing like the original book. Then again, I wasn't a fan of the book. Read Dr. No instead.

This film uses pretty good photography and solid editing. Roger Moore continues to exude charm and wit as James Bond. Barbara Bach is lovely in her role and she plays the part pretty well. Curt Jürgens strikes me as extremely flat and stereotypical as the villain. Richard Kiel is awesome. Writing in this movie is so-so. This production uses good-looking locales. Sets, props, and costumes range from being okay to being rather fake-looking. Marvin Hamlisch's music score features some more disco-type of stuff, which I find gaudy. I am not a fan of Carly Simon's theme song, but most people love it.

The joy of The Spy Who Loved Me is partly in its unique (albeit inevitable) premise and partly in just how over-the-top it is. It's exactly the same kind of stuff that would inspire Austin Powers twenty years later. I don't think it's always that fun of a picture, but it's good fun for all Bond fans.

3.5/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: The Man With the Golden Gun (007)

James Bond has faced a plethora of iconic villains at this point - Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Auric Goldfinger, Dr. No, Emilio Largo, and more. All of them have matched Bond with their charisma, wits, and ruthlessness. The Man With the Golden Gun does so as well, in addition to matching Bond in skill.

The second film featuring Roger Moore will likely come off as just more of the same to most people - it's another outlandish adventure in which Bond travels abroad, gets chased, faces the bad guy, and gets the girl in the end, as always. I always felt this was one of Moore's funner pictures though - the levity is present, for better or for worse, but the pacing hardly ever drags. There is a great car chase scene in the middle of the movie, with a magnificent stunt in which a car jumps over a river and does an inverted twist in midair (just, ignore the slide whistle they stupidly added in). There are great scenes where Bond confronts leads and outwits his enemies throughout Hong Kong and Thailand. There's a kung-fu fight in the mix, just for the hell of it. It all builds up to a showdown with the titular villain on his own island, which is set up as a deadly funhouse. The whole movie exudes the classic blend of Bond escapism that we all know and love, even if it does seem really light and fluffy.

The plot is probably too convoluted for its own good - it's an elaborate plot in which Bond gets a bullet with his name on it, but it turned out to be a ruse to get him to kill the bad guy, and so on. A senseless subplot involving an outlandish device - the solar agitator - makes it even more senseless. Despite all these contrivances, there is at least one thing that I think makes this film the most redeemable: the villain. Francisco Scaramanga is the perfect foil character to James Bond - both are gentlemen with charm, taste, and charisma. They both womanize and share the same vices. Unlike Bond, however, Scaramanga takes pleasure out of killing, and it molded him into a shadowy reflection of what Bond's own dark side must look like. On these merits, I find the showdown between Bond and Scaramanga to be an epic moment for the series.

This film boasts pretty good photography and editing. Roger Moore continues to keep his tongue in his cheek as James Bond. Christopher Lee is chillingly perfect as Scaramanga, and quite possibly steals the show. Hervé Villechaize plays one of the more memorable henchmen in the series (and it's a part that doesn't seem too far off from his eventual role in Fantasy Island). Maud Adams and Britt Ekland are both lovely and charming to watch as the Bond ladies, although the latter can be a rather irritating twit at times. Cliffton James returns as the buffoonish sheriff from Louisiana - we all wish he didn't. Writing is okay, it gets the job done. This production uses plenty of exquisite, foreign locales. Sets, props, and costumes are pretty lavish and good. John Barry's music score is decent. I don't think Lulu's music score has aged that well, but it sure is catchy.

Most folks have been dismissive of The Man With the Golden Gun, but I love the sense of adventure it has. More importantly, I love the characters - especially the villain, who stands out among the other goons that Roger Moore's Bond has to face. I see it as a decent balance of escapism, action, and levity, and it comes out as my favorite film from Roger Moore's repertoire as Bond.

4/5 (Experience: Very Good | Story: Okay | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Live and Let Die (007)

In James Bond's eighth cinematic adventure, Roger Moore steps in the well-worn shoes of the famous British spy. He goes on an adventure that involves drug trafficking, and oddly enough, voodoo.

The film definitely has action to spare - there are a few car chases, a major boat chase, and a chase scene with a plane on a tarmac. In between these setpieces, Bond faces various sorts of peril, including a pretty cool scene at a crocodile farm. The tone is light, but there is some edge to it as Bond traverses through the streets of Harlem, the bayou of Louisiana, and the superstitious realms of the Caribbean. And, of course, it all ends at a secret lair of some kind... With Roger Moore in the lead this time, Bond becomes a lot less about kicking butt and taking names, and a lot more about the tongue-in-cheek wit and charm - it's not quite as overbearing in this film as it is in others, but it's quite the departure from the 60s era of Bond.

This plot has always been a little hard to grasp to me - the film shows you all the different aspects of the villain's sprawling plot, but does little to tie them together. Bond seems to go from one end of it to the other based on the whims of the script. There's nothing much to the characters - they're as one-dimensional as they can be. The film carries over some aspects of blaxploitation, which was big at the time, but it's hard to tell if it's really a good fit for Bond or not.

This film has good, but hardly great, photography. Editing seemed a little screwy to me at times. Acting is a bizarre thing to judge - you'll either love or hate Roger Moore's version of Bond, but in this first film, there are times when he tries to act good and tough. I enjoyed watching Yaphet Kotto and Julius Harris as the villains. Jane Seymour looks great and plays her part well. Gloria Hendry does the same. Cliffton James plays a cartoonish buffoon of a sheriff, and it's so goofy it's embarrassing. Writing is so-so. This production uses pretty real-looking locales, but the sets, props, and costumes are a bit on the fake side. The music score's okay. Paul McCartney's theme song is one of the classics - unfortunately, I feel it's been played to death after all these years.

There are fun moments in Live and Let Die, but the plot and all the things in it makes for a rather strange brew. Still worth a look for Bond fans.

3.5/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Diamonds Are Forever (007)

For the seventh James Bond adventure - and the last EON production featuring Sean Connery - the famous spy goes on one of his wildest and weirdest adventures.

The film starts off briskly, for in the immediate aftermath of OHMSS, we watch Bond mercilessly hunt down his arch-nemesis and take revenge. Presumably. The events of the last film are never explicitly acknowledged, but it firmly re-establishes Bond as an unstoppable man of action. From there on, however, the film remains light and campy in its tone. There is action to be had, including a few car chases and a big gun battle on an oil rig. It seems like Bond is thrust in and out of peril repeatedly. But there's also a lot of goofiness to it - Bond commandeers a moon vehicle in one scene, he fights a pair of acrobats named Bambi and Thumper just for the hell of it, and there's a pair of hitmen who act fruity. There's jokes that aren't that funny, and much like the actual casinos Bond moseys through, the film feels quite tacky and cheap.

The story's not too terrible, but it does venture into outlandish territory. Bond's investigation has a lot of ups and downs, with some deception games involved, but once everything clears up it becomes a race to stop the villain's evil plan. The film is pretty evenly silly throughout, and it doesn't leave that much of an impact in the end.

This film is made with good, but rarely great, photography. Editing is okay. Acting is swell - Sean Connery is still apt as James Bond, even with more tongue-in-cheek humor involved. Jill St. John is quite the looker in this film, but I found her character borderline unlikable. I loved Charles Gray's performance as Blofeld - the sheer villainy and class he exudes is phenomenal, just as it should be. Writing is pretty dumb. Most of this film is set in Vegas, so naturally, a lot of it looks tacky. But all things considering, the locales, sets, props, and costumes get the job done well. Special effects towards the end are terrible. John Barry's music score is really good, and Shirley Bassey's theme song is great.

Diamonds Are Forever is as silly as a Bond film can get (at least until Moonraker came along). Even then, there are things to like and enjoy about it, and it's still good-natured fun for Bond fans.

3.5/5 (Experience: Goofy | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: You Only Live Twice (007)

After so many plots unraveled across four classic films, James Bond would finally reach the top and confront the head man of SPECTRE, in You Only Live Twice.

This time, Bond's mission takes him to Japan. It starts off hard and fast, as he fakes his death, and then struggles to escape death in a constant string of confrontations and encounters on foreign soil. When Bond has to infiltrate a secret volcanic lair, he resorts to the ultimate cover: marrying a Japanese girl, while learning ninjutsu and getting facial surgery. It all adds up to a big, explosive battle in the middle of the volcano. As always, there's gadgets (the biggest thing being a small DIY helicopter with loads of weapons) there's ladies, and there's danger galore.

The story follows the original novel just a little bit, but the book will always have the edge because it has one important dramatic angle that the movie misses out on: the theme of revenge. The book was a pretty intense struggle, because it follows immediately after On Her Majesty's Secret Service. If you know what happens in that story, then you know how driven Bond becomes to finding Blofeld and making him pay. Also, Bond actually became a ninja and infiltrated a castle to get his vengeance - how cool is that?

The movie misses out on many of these opportunities, and instead keeps the tone light and fluffy. It takes some pretty ridiculous turns, including a useless subplot involving a rocket that steals other rockets in space. The only thing that makes this feel special is that he fakes death and assume a disguise, but it never reaches a level of significance that affects the plot much. For Bond, it's just business as usual.

This film is made with decent photography. One thing I think it weird though is that most shots, especially during the fight scenes, are taken from really really far away. Editing is okay. Acting is fine for what it is: Sean Connery seems to give a more tongue-in-cheek portrayal of Bond, but his presence is still welcome. Donald Pleasence plays the villain pretty dryly, but his mere presence and look is iconic. I have no complaints with Akiko Wakabayashi's, Mie Hama's, or Tetsuro Tamba's performances. Writing is okay, but most of the jokes fall horribly flat. This production has good-looking locales. Some of the props, costumes, and special effects appear cheap. I was never a fan of Nancy Sinatra's theme song, but the music score is alright.

You Only Live Twice is enjoyable, but also lightweight, silly, and rather shallow. The book is quite a bit better, but even by the standards of the film series, there are better Bond adventures.

3/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Average)

Film Review: On Her Majesty's Secret Service (007)

Of all the classic Bond films, this one represents the most drastic deviation. It's a darker, more serious adventure that takes the character to more profound levels of peril and tragedy.

Right from the start, the film differentiates itself with its dreary imagery and a hard-hitting fight scene on a beach. Then there's a long, winding series of fights, deception, and intrigue. A good chunk of the film is devoted to a lengthy chase across Switzerland, which includes a ton of skiing, a huge avalanche, and a car chase. It eventually builds up to an all-out battle in the mountains. Then there's the ending, which is the one thing that pushes this whole film above and beyond the normal levels of a Bond adventure. It is a dramatic and profound turn for the character, and it has to be seen to be understood.

The story's generally more of the same: Bond has a mission to find a bad guy, reveal the evil plot, then take him out. He spends most of the time undercover, so the thrills and intrigue are much more grounded. The actual plot that's revealed is as outlandish and weird as they come. What matters the most are the characters: Bond is still the man, but the love interest provides a touching flourish that gives the story more weight.

Most of this film features good photography, but some shots are a bit hectic. Editing is very punchy, to the point where shots become compressed to mere seconds, and it almost appears agitating (though not nearly as bad as most modern movies, like the Bourne series, or Quantum of Solace). For a film from the 60s, it's pretty wild. Acting is quite the mixed bag. I was never a fan of George Lazenby, but the more I watch the film, the more forgiving I am of him - he embodies the voice and swagger of the character well enough. I'm still not a fan of Telly Savalas, whose portrayal of Blofeld feels very odd and foreign to me. I do love Diana Rigg in this film. Writing is okay. This production has good-looking locales. Some of the sets, props, and costumes are a bit gaudy and weird, and most special effects look kinda bad. John Barry's music score is superb - his main theme is so dramatic, it's chilling. Unfortunately, I am not a fan of Louis Armstrong's love theme.

Even though there are odd things to hate about OHMSS, it is a bold film that offers an intriguing direction for Bond, and offers a little more substance to its story that gives the ending a proper punch. For that alone, all Bond fans need to see the film at least once.

4/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Thunderball (007)

After seeing James Bond in action in three big, iconic missions, Thunderball blasts to the scene with the promise of more action, more gadgets, more ladies, bigger stakes, more exotic locations, and so much more!

At this point, the Bond formula had been established firmly enough so that Thunderball only has to follow a template full of established tropes and cliches. Many folks will say that it makes this one of the duller movies. I personally always thought it was a blast though. Among the highlights, this film follows Bond on a colorful journey to Nassau, where he has to constantly out-think and outwit the opposition. There's a lot of deceptive mindgames at work, followed by some chasing and some fighting, before a massive all-out battle underwater. It's a long film, but it is consistently thrilling and it has a satisfying payoff. Best of all, the film remains iconic thanks to the classic elements at play: Bond's classic charm, a classic villain we love to hate, and an overall sense of class.

The premise is pretty simple, generally not much different than a lot of modern action movies revolving around stolen nuclear weapons (like Broken Arrow, The Rock, Mission Impossible, you name it). It follows Ian Flemming's novel practically word for word (which is unsurprising, since it was based on a screenplay to begin with). What makes it so fun is that it's twisty and complex, but not impossible to follow. Each new scene offers something that's either thrilling or alluring. The characters are as endearing as ever.

Caught in epic widescreen photography, this film boasts plenty of bright and colorful scenery. Most of it looks great, especially with some steady and well-choreographed underwater photography. Some scenes, especially during the parade scene, are a bit rough around the edges. Editing can be nutty, as some dialogue has been cut, dubbed, and recut for various versions. Scenes usually transit well regardless. Acting is great: Sean Connery is still the man, and I always enjoyed the performances of Adolfo Celi, the lovely Claudine Auger, and the lovely Licuana Paluzzi. Writing is okay - the plot unravels well, and the dialogue is usually good, but some of the jokes can be a little goofy. This production uses great-looking locales, and lots of fine-looking sets, props, and costumes. John Barry's music score is as good as ever, and Tom Jones' theme song is hip.

To me, Thunderball is one of the most perfect Bond adventures. It has all the right signature elements we know and love, but with tons of thrills and action. It is a long adventure that might strain the patience of many viewers, but I think it's classy, sexy, exciting stuff.

4.5/5 (Experience: Perfect | Story: Good | Film: Very Good)

Book Review: Insurgent (Veronica Roth)

In Divergent, we were introduced to a unique semi-post-apocalyptic world where society was split up into five groups, and Tris Prior was thrown in the middle of an evil faction plot that led to war.  This follow-up takes off in a thrilling new direction, seeing Tris and her accomplices on the run, hunted, and targeted for some experiment that may change the future.

There is plenty to enjoy out of Insurgent.  At the very least, it is as breezy as its predecessor, with simple language that flows well and has enough color to keep things enjoyable.  It's a fast and enjoyable read, with action, thrills, some levity, and some interesting twists and turns.

However, the experience is hampered a little by the exact same issues that makes other YA stories (like The Hunger Games or Twilight) drag.  As the story of Insurgent goes on, Tris develops a tendency to mope and fixate on things, always questioning feelings and loyalties, to the point where it can stall the story's progress and make her character a little less likable.  The issue is further compounded by a few other character twists and subplots; one important character becomes a traitor, in a twist that makes me want to punch the wall in frustration.  One other character suddenly becomes good, but is still not nearly likable.  The romantic element becomes challenged and strained, and other things happen that makes the story overall feel less likable and endearing.

The story itself is interesting, and it is refreshing to see that it doesn't rehash the first novel.  There is one huge plot twist at the end that is really intriguing and clever.  Sadly, I felt the actual plotting could have been better.  It feels like the characters wander to and from different factions so much, including the enemy faction.  The mystery behind the factions' motives causes the events to fold out in ways that might seem confusing, but really I feel the film adaptation handled it all much better.  The film takes the same plot and condenses it, while making it clear what the enemy's motivations are and keeping things simple.  In the film, it's easy and understanble to follow Tris' journey, because she remains in one setting for most of it.  In the book, it feels like one too many steps to the endgame.

Like before, the book is written with simple, easy-to-read language.  It doesn't get heavy with details and descriptions, but it does have decent dialogue and characterization.  It's just plain good writing all around.

I can't say I find the characters or plot of Insurgent nearly as likable as the first novel, but it is a fun read.  However, I do think the film adaptation fixes a few of the issues present in the book, and straightens the story out a little better.

3.5/5 (Experience:  Good | Story:  Okay | Book:  Pretty Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

In Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, there was a brief mention of a new mission, before Ethan disappears into a cloud of steam. In his fifth adventure, Ethan would go face-to-face with the "Rogue Nation," a Syndicate so threatening that it threatens the world powers and forces Ethan and the team to face their toughest challenge yet.

This mission has its share of incredible peril. Once again, the entire IMF is rendered useless (this time out of political squabbling among the Intelligence Community), forcing the heroes to go off on their own off the grid to find the threat and use their limited resources to stop it. In their struggles, the characters have to infiltrate an impossibly secure facility, which involves Ethan swimming through a water-filled computer core. Given the physical threat and the physical feats involved, this scene is genuinely gripping. There is a pretty cool motorcycle chase in the middle of the movie. There are shootouts and fights. It all amounts to a complex cat-and-mouse chase, in the same vein as Skyfall, but with a bigger emphasis on deception. The push and pull and mindgames may need some suspension of disbelief - it seems as though Ethan can somehow plan for the most incredible of plot twists in advance and always come out with an even more elaborate plan - but it is fun to watch it all play out.

The story has its worthy moments. The premise is naturally thrilling, as the IMF team confronts great stakes once again. Ethan and the others have become a familiar family by now, and they remain endearing characters. What makes them stand out more now will be the themes of trust, especially with everyone questioning William Brandt's loyalty and what Ilsa Faust's motives are. Faust is a lovely new character caught in the middle of a tricky spy game, and her situation elicits decent empathy. Behind it all is a fairly menacing villain, who comes out as Ethan's direct foil; a mastermind terrorist who becomes obsessed with outwitting the IMF and becoming a true rogue nation.

Despite all the twists, the story does suffer a little. For a movie about a "rogue nation," I expected something bigger, like an actual nation of rogues or something. I expected the villains to have a grander level of influence and infrastructure, but they turned out to be a limited number of well-armed and well-funded men out for petty vengeance. The film ultimately doesn't reach the same level of stakes, personal or political, that were represented in MI:III or MI: GP. On top of that, the film seems to drop everything regarding Ethan's wife, obliterating any character arc that had developed. There are a few scenes that seem a little too incredible, especially in how convoluted the mindgames become. The opening sequence is too short for my liking (I actually wish the plane stunt was somewhere in the middle of the movie, so it would give us all something incredible to look forward to). Regardless, this film is a fine spy thriller, but not the all-out MI extravaganza I would have expected.

This film boasts good, but rarely exceptional, photography. Editing tends to be rather fast. Tom Cruise is still apt as Ethan Hunt. Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, and Ving Rhames are fun to watch. I thought Rebecca Ferguson was perfectly lovely in her role. Sean Harris is a pretty decent villain. Alec Baldwin plays a pretty grumpy dude in his role (and coming from a man who once played Jack Ryan, I find his character a bit too unreasonable and unlikable). Writing is okay. This production uses pretty good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are okay. Stunts are good. Locales are pretty good, but they don't really stand out as much as in other movies. The music score seemed really bombastic, for better or for worse.

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is far from my favorite of the series. I personally wish the plot wasn't quite as implausible. I wish the nature of the "rogue nation" was different. I wish that a bunch of other little things could be altered. Despite my petty complaints, it is entertaining and worth a look.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

"The President has initiated Ghost Protocol. The entire IMF has been disavowed." - Tom Wilkinson
--------------------
Mission: Impossible III may be a tough act to follow, given its superb balance between action and storytelling. Who would have thought that there would be even bigger and more daring missions to come?

Ghost Protocol takes the IMF team and plunges it into immediate danger, cut off from their parent agency and disavowed. On their own, without backup and support, they rely on what scant leads, tech, and resources they can to stop a bunch of villains from kick-starting nuclear war. In this mission, Ethan Hunt busts out of a Russian gulag, infiltrates the Kremlin (in the coolest way imaginable), and chases bad guys in cars and on foot. One of the biggest and most iconic scenes shows the man scaling the side of the Burj Khalifa Tower, hundreds of stories high, filmed in stunning detail with IMAX cameras. With so many stunts, so much deception, and such high stakes, the mission has never been more exciting and incredible.

This story doesn't have the same emotional heft as its predecessor, largely because Ethan's wife is out of the picture (and there is a nice subplot that explains what's going on there), and because the story's villain just doesn't have that much presence or motivation. What this film does have, thankfully, is a superb cast of heroes we love and can root for. Ethan had teams in all the other movies, but they feel like more of a team in Ghost Protocol, largely because they are all forced to work together without outside help. The conflict and banter between them allows these characters to develop their own personalities, which makes them all people we can relate to and root for. The actual plot retreads the tired old territory of "we got to stop nuclear war!!" but it does an apt job of stringing together the setpieces in a logical way, crafting a well-rounded adventure.

This film boasts superb photography and editing. Just about every shot is cool, without too much camera shake (like Abrams' film) and without any superfluous style choices (looking at you, John Woo). Tom Cruise is still quite the action hero, but is still well-grounded in this. I loved watching Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Paula Patton, and Léa Seydoux. Even though his character wasn't that well-developed, Michael Nyqvist was a convincing villain. Writing is pretty good. This production uses plenty of good-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales. Special effects can be a hit or a miss. Music is good.

Even though MI: III offers the best characterization and story, I favor MI: GP the most for its fabulous setpieces, while still retaining a lovable core cast and presenting a thrilling plot to bring it all together. I think it's a total blast, and one of the best spy movies in general.

4/5 (Experience: Very Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Very Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible III

For years, a third Mission Impossible movie seemed unlikely, until JJ Abrams accepted the mission to make it happen. As Abrams' debut picture, Mission Impossible III is a rip-roaring thrill ride full of color and energy.

From its first scene onwards - half of a torture scene that is ultimately revisited later in the picture - the movie sets itself apart from its predecessors. It is grittier and more violent, showing agents skirting death and disaster in the hands of dangerous villains. There are really neat scenes of infiltration and deception, including a daring operation in the Vatican and a building in Shanghai. There's also a lot of loud and frenetic action, to include a thrilling helicopter chase scene through a windfarm, a drone attacking cars on a bridge, and plenty of gunfighting.

There is plenty of action and energy to keep the film rolling at full steam ahead, without being overblown. As welcoming as the pace is, one thing keeps it from being perfect: the cameramanship. Photography is good a lot of the time, but there are a lot of scenes where the camera shake becomes erratic, and it often hinders the action more than it helps. It's not quite as awful as The Bourne Supremacy or anything, but I would have liked MI: III a grade more if the camera would settle down a bit more.

What makes this film work, thankfully, is the storytelling. It's a pretty simple and straightforward affair. The plot ultimately revolves around people fighting over "The Rabbit's Foot," the full details of which are never disclosed (although it's not too hard to figure out what it could be in the end). It's ultimately not the focus of the story; it's just a device to showcase the true conflict, which is between the hero and the villain. At this point in the series, Ethan Hunt has become a more reluctant hero, having found a woman to settle down with. When he's dragged back into action, he spurs the villain, Owen Damien, to hit back where it hurts the most. Characterization is at its best in this film; Ethan is finally given something for the audience to latch onto emotionally, and when it becomes threatened, it reveals Owen Damien to be one of the most chilling and heartless villains committed to the big screen. This simple focus on characters makes the story and action flow much better than everything that happened in the previous movies, representing a huge step-up in quality storytelling.

This film is captured with very striking photography; colors are very vivid, details are sharp, and the film looks very slick overall. Camera shake does rear its ugly head in many scenes, but for every shakey scene there's also a very good-looking scene, so it balances out. Editing is pretty sharp and concise. Tom Cruise seems to play Ethan with more maturity than before, ditching most of the cockiness and adding in a decent amount of emotional heft. Phillip Seymour Hoffman excels as the villain in a chillingly perfect performance. Michelle Monaghan is lovely in all respects, and it's great to see Simon Pegg and Maggie Q in the mix. Other actors aren't bad. Writing is pretty straightforward and good. This production uses good-looking sets, props, costumes, special effects, and some real-looking locales. Music is pretty good.

The first mission had great scenes, but came off as being rather dry. The second mission was just crazy. The third time is the charm, thanks to the focus on an actual story with actual characters worth seeing. This mission comes highly recommended, even if you haven't seen the others.

4/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible II

"We just rolled up a snowball and tossed it into hell." - Tom Cruise
--------------------
Ethan Hunt returns for another mission. This time it's far more extreme and far more impossible. Riding the wave of insane action movies of the 2000s - utterly ridiculous films like Charlie's Angels, Die Another Day, xXx, and more - MI:2 is an adrenaline shot full of flash and style.

Unlike the first film, which was more interested in being a spy thriller, MI:2 comes off as a pretty silly and trashy action flick. Much of the story revolves around a biochemical weapon, so the film takes some time to set up the characters with some deception and counter-deception games. When the last hour hits, it becomes an all-out bombardment of over-the-top setpieces, featuring lots of explosive gunplay, dramatic fistfights, and vehicular carnage. There are some bizarre motorcycle stunts, including a scene where Ethan pops a wheelie on the front tire; I'm pretty sure a lot of this defies the laws of physics. A lot of these scenes are ordained with dramatic slow-motion flames...and doves! Lots of freaking doves everywhere for no apparent reason! What do they mean?!

The experience of this film is a weird one; the action can be pretty enthralling in its own right, but the build-up to it drags at times, and then when it all goes into overdrive, it's almost overbearing. A lot of scenes require a huge suspension of disbelief. Above all though, the film feels like it follows in the footsteps of so many other action films before it, such as The Rock, GoldenEye, and John Woo's own films like Hard Boiled and Broken Arrow. In the end, it feels like a tiresome "all style no substance" show.

A lot of this is because the whole plot around the Chimera virus doesn't really break new ground, and combined with the ridiculous action and style, the film feels shallow and senseless. There are a few redeeming qualities, however. Inspired by Hitchcock's Notorious, MI:2 does handle its characters well enough; the romance between Ethan and Nyah is pretty nice, the villain is a good bad guy we can love to hate, and their interactions overall gives the plot enough weight to make it work.

This film is made with some very flashy photography and editing; there are a few transitions I find gaudy, but most of the film is pretty stylish and good-looking. Tom Cruise still does his usual schtick, but it is pretty fun to watch Thandie Newton, Ving Rhames, and Dougray Scott in their roles. Brendan Gleeson and Anthony Hopkins are respectable in their small roles. Didn't care much for John Polson. Writing is not particularly great, but some of the lines are pretty amusing. This production uses some very exotic locales, sets, props, costumes, and special effects. I love Hans Zimmer's music score for this - a pretty wild blend of operatic and metal cues - and the film does use a few excellent heavy metal songs (for better or for worse).

This is a pretty odd film for the series; it's not much of a Mission: Impossible film, but it is pretty entertaining as a mindless action flick, and it does represent the height of John Woo's stylistic excesses. Genre and franchise fans should give it a try once.

3/5 (Experience: Mixed | Story: Okay | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible

In the 90s, there was a pretty decent wave of spy movies; it started with a bang with 1994's explosive True Lies, which was shortly followed by the Brosnan era of James Bond, The Saint, Sneakers, and more. In the middle of this wave, Mission: Impossible burst into the blockbuster scene in '96, offering a flashier update on the classic TV series, complete with a prolific cast, some thrilling and memorable setpieces, and of course, action.

There are some great moment in this film. One of the most famous scenes is watching Ethan infiltrating a high-tech vault on wires, dangling over a pressure-sensitive floor while hacking into a secure computer; it's still quite the tense scene. On top of that, the bullet train scene is pretty awesome. There is a good amount of fights, chases, and explosions. There is plenty of tech on display, which all seemed really cool in the 90s (to include self-destructing video tapes, glasses with cameras, explosive gum, computer stuff, and more). There's political intrigue abound, causing the plot to twist around with themes of deception and counter-deception. For a spy movie, Mission: Impossible offers plenty to enjoy.

Unfortunately, the experience is hampered a bit by an overall feeling of dryness, causing some drag in between the more exciting scenes. This happens because the characters themselves are dry and fairly shallow caricatures; Ethan Hunt is a pretty standard action hero in this film, who watches his team fall apart and he's forced to go out on his own to find answers. This would be a great premise, but there's nothing much to Ethan's character to make us care for him. Without any personal stakes, the plot comes off as dry and shallow. There are neat ideas behind it, such as using a digital list of undercover agents as a MacGuffin, but on its own this is all rather dry and stuffy. On top of that, the film distances itself greatly from the source material; even though some names, some gadgets, and some aspects (like the use of masks) remain the same, the intrigue of the original show is ultimately replaced by pure spectacle. The original cast of the show hated this film, and if you're a fan of the original, chances are that you may not care for it (or its sequels) either.

Fortunately, the film looks good and professional, with fantastic photography and solid editing. Tom Cruise does his usual schtick in his role, smiling a lot and acting all cocky; Jon Voight does his normal  thing, and is pretty decent. The smaller roles by Jean Reno and Emilio Estevez are great. Other actors aren't bad. Writing could use more personality and color, but it's fine as it is. This production uses some really nice-looking locales, and some decent-looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Danny Elfman's music score is a pretty standard variation on the classic TV show's theme.

Mission: Impossible has a lot of cool parts, but the sum of those parts aren't quite as endearing. The various sequels, especially the third film, would properly align the series with a greater level of heart and ambition. As it is though, this first film is a pretty neat thriller, especially for its time.

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Good)

Film Review: Terminator: Genysis

"Old...not obsolete." - Arnold Schwarzenegger
--------------------
For over 30 years, James Cameron's The Terminator has relentlessly entertained with its punchy visual flair and its elegant narrative. It presented an iconic franchise, and it did so telling a great story with time travel that actually made sense. With three sequels of varying quality and substance, the series became rather convoluted. With Terminator: Genysis, filmmakers decided to "hit the reset button" and set a new direction for a potential new Terminator saga.

To be honest, I expected Genysis to be a horrid mess. There might be some who will label Genysis as such a mess, but personally, I was pleasantly surprised by the film's earnestness.  Make no mistake though, the film does have its share of humorous banter and over-the-top action. Chief among the action setpieces, there are a lot of Terminator brawling scenes, where machines fight each other and destroy just about everything in their wake. There are car chases, and there's even a helicopter chase. The firepower is more explosive, the fights are at their most hard-hitting, and the experience as an action film is satisfying.

As with any film, it's the story that will either make it or break it. Even with a cursory glance, viewers can nitpick about plot holes and contrivances with Genysis, given the fact that all Terminator movies mess up the timeline more and more. In this case, the film takes after the first film and neglects the rest, before presenting a number of twists that splinters the plot into an alternate timeline. This time, Kyle goes back in time to find Sarah is already protected by a T-8-800, and is armed to the teeth. There are already T-1000s lurking around 1984, and everything the characters thought they knew becomes irrelevant. In spite of this, the film does one thing that the other sequels never could: it liberates itself from the original formula of The Terminator and opens up the possibilities to any number of directions. Kyle and the Connors are no longer bound to a singular timeline and forced to fulfill their established destinies; as they journey through a new and uncertain future, they confront threats old and new, and once again prove that anything is possible. Because of the way the film remixes aspects of the original film, it slickly utilizes a few scenes from the first film, and is loaded with references and familiar lines. The film adheres closely to ideas and concepts introduced in the first two films. Thus, it feels like a natural extension of the first film, and in all respects, it's a pretty fun alternate sequel.

If there is anything that hampers the storytelling, it would be the characters. They aren't terrible by any means - Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor are as great to watch as ever - but their relationship takes on a totally different dynamic, and the way it turns out in the end could have been refined more (the romance felt forced; I actually question if it's even necessary in the alternate timeline). More screen time for "Pops," John Connor, and O'Brien would have helped tremendously. Danny Dyson appears in just one scene, but I wish he could have had a much bigger role in the film.

The film is made with decent, but rarely memorable or great, photography. The camera work can be a little shakey in a few scenes, but a lot of the imagery is solid. Editing is not bad. Acting is fine for what it is: Arnold Schwarzenegger returns as the iconic Terminator, and he's still a blast to watch. I felt that Emilia Clarke's performance as Sarah Connor was appropriate. I can't say I like Jai Courney as an actor, but I have to admit that him playing Kyle Reese wasn't terrible; he looked the part, and was appropriately stoic. Jason Clarke is decent. Writing is okay, but I felt it could have used a lot of refinement, especially in defining the villains' intentions and fleshing out character relationships. Plenty of exposition is delivered regarding the various plot twists, and even though it often feels forced, it helps make sense of what could have been a screwed-up plotline. This production has pretty good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Some special effects are great, others not so much. The music score reprises a few of the classic themes in an elegant manner, and it is really nice.

Terminator: Genysis is not nearly as bad as I expected; it won't top the first two films, but it's certainly superior to the last two. There are a few things I wish could have been better, but the film does promise a thrilling new direction for the series' future, and it promises to be quite the explosive ride.

3.5/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Okay | Film: Okay)