shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 18, 2015 6:44:05 GMT -5
So here's a thought that occurred to me this morning:
Terminator takes place in 1984. No way that's the 1970s; it's modern day for when the film was made, complete with mid 1980s dance clubs playing mid 1980s dance music, 1980s cutting edge automated manufacturing plants, and even 1980s answering machines.
Sarah Conner is first pregnant with John Conner at the end of that film.
John Conner is about 14 years old in the second film (released in 1991)
We learn in the second film that Skynet will become self-aware in 1997.
So, even though John Conner is seven years older than he's supposed to be in T2, it can't be 7 more years into the future.
Huh.
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Jun 18, 2015 7:46:49 GMT -5
Going to continue on with Part 2, and, while I've never seen Part 3, the reviews for it aren't so bad, so I may check it out too. Haven't seen it since the theatres, so my memory is sketchy. My memory is that it wasn't very good, but not without merit. I tend to think they are all worth watching. Salvation had its rough spots but also good bits. And Sarah Conner Chronicles went great until it cut off mid-story making you wonder what the point of all the sub-plots that built to nothing was. The first film is a class apart from the rest though. I think it's a masterpiece, whereas the rest are fun continuing explorations of the universe. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 18, 2015 10:58:08 GMT -5
So here's a thought that occurred to me this morning: Terminator takes place in 1984. No way that's the 1970s; it's modern day for when the film was made, complete with mid 1980s dance clubs playing mid 1980s dance music, 1980s cutting edge automated manufacturing plants, and even 1980s answering machines. Sarah Conner is first pregnant with John Conner at the end of that film. John Conner is about 14 years old in the second film (released in 1991) We learn in the second film that Skynet will become self-aware in 1997. So, even though John Conner is seven years older than he's supposed to be in T2, it can't be 7 more years into the future. Huh. I think T2 is supposed be set in the then not too distant 1995 and in the novelization I think I remember him being 10, which would line up if we assume that the original Terminator took place in 1984. With the huge difference time between T2 and T3 they got creative and explained that the Terminator was partially successful in his mission in that although he didn't prevent Sky-Net's creation his actions did postpone it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jasoomian on Jun 18, 2015 14:57:32 GMT -5
I'll probably have to see it. Is Thunder Dome required viewing in order to understand it? Can't we just get beyond Thunderdome? |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 18, 2015 20:35:39 GMT -5
Logan's Run is showing on TCM on June 24.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 22, 2015 10:27:09 GMT -5
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Wow. This one held up a lot better than I expected it to. While the original film was 99% perfect in my book, I'd give this one a solid 88%. Thoroughly entertaining from beginning to end, but far more of a blockbuster film, and that compromised it in places. There were logic gaps (why not send the next Terminator back to 1984 too -- could Sarah and Reese really take out TWO terminators?? Why would getting rid of the first Terminator's remains and the scientist studying them prevent Skynet from happening? Obviously, someone else built Skynet the first time around, without the help of a Terminator microprocessor), Arnold was a little too human when playing for laughs and pathos, and Eddy Furlong was most certainly NOT 10 years old, but these are minor quibbles. Really, my only big complaints with an otherwise awesome film are the following:
1. Tone: The first Terminator film was an unrelentingly tense horror film. This is not. Beyond the big budget hollywood glam action sequences and comedic relief moments, equipping the good guys with a battle-hardened Sarah Conner and a fully functioning Terminator and then having them spend most of the film fighting hospital orderlies and SWAT team officers as opposed to the T-1000 removes all the vulnerability from the film. This is no longer the story of a naive and innocent 18 year old against an unstoppable force with (almost) no one around to help or believe her. Thus, the action is played more for mass popcorn consumption than depth.
2. Protagonist: The first film does a flawless job of following Jospeh Campbell's Hero's Journey, and a critical component of that is having a protagonist who is a neutral mask -- ordinary, vulnerable, and someone whose persona the viewer can effortlessly slip into. While this film largely follows the same structure, it cannot decide who the protagonist is. Is it John, the overly sassy bad-ass 10(?) year old? No, he's a pathetic attempt to pander to pre-teens with a character they would admire but not easily relate to. So is it Sarah Conner instead? No, she's endured years of training and psychological hardship that we weren't privy to; thus we can sympathize and be impressed by her, but we can't RELATE to her. In the end, the character with whom we can best identify ends up being Dr. Dyson, but he enters halfway through the film and is killed off twenty minutes later, forgotten beyond that point. Still, that actor did a brilliant job with such a small and blandly written part.
So not a perfect film, but way better than it needed to be. I love what they did with Sarah, in particular, as well as that opening sequence up through the credits with the burning playground. And, though overly cutesy at times, the concept of the fatherless child bonding with a robotic replacement and struggling against his stubborn mother to become his own man, as well as the future leader of mankind, was appealing as well.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 23, 2015 9:37:57 GMT -5
Day of the Dead (1985)
The least known of Romero's original Living Dead trilogy, Day is actually the one I find most impressive. The original was brilliant, but also limited in scope (the title and epilogue even suggest it was a one-night occurrence). Dawn explores the concept further, but also has fun with it. I think people love Dawn most because there's a fantasy/wish-fulfillment aspect at its core, as well as a brilliant social critique. But Day is the one I find the most disturbing and, therefore the most powerful.
It's a simple but bold premise: what if you had everything necessary to ride out the zombie apocalypse? You've got enough food that you don't need to ration, running water and electricity, a helicopter and seemingly unlimited supplies of fuel, an impenetrable fortification, copies of virtually every film and book ever made, a regiment of soldiers to defend you from zombies and looters alike, and four leading epidemiologists working to find a cure for the zombie plague. You've thought of everything and are perfectly safe from the outside world -- so what happens next?
The true surprise of this film is that the zombies are never the scary part. What terrifies is man's inhumanity to man once society has broken down , anxiety and depression have hit the ceiling, and there are no more rules. In fact, in contrast to the devolution of mankind that's portrayed in this film, we also witness the first signs that the zombies are evolving in contrast. In the end, they aren't the monsters intruding upon our planet; we're the monsters intruding on theirs.
Not a fun film by any stretch of the imagination; it outright hurts to watch this sometimes, but it's brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jun 24, 2015 19:36:58 GMT -5
The gore in this film is a huge step up from Dawn of the Dead (1978). Some of Tom Savini and Gregory Nicotero's finest special effect make-ups that hold up incredibly well today. The real star of this movie is Sherman Howard who plays the zombie Bub and is arguably the most endearing movie monster since Boris Karloff in Frankenstein. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Jun 28, 2015 2:54:21 GMT -5
Panic in Year Zero A little on the edge of this month's theme, it focuses on a single family who survives the nuclear war and goes to live in the mountains, struggling to balance their survival with their sense of ethics. A decent film, but very much up my alley. What stands out the most is the score, which at no point seems to match the tone of the film. I can't decide if it's a directoral misstep or directoral brilliance. A Boy and his DogI read the short story years ago, and still consider the final sentence to be the most disturbing and haunting sentence I've ever read in a graphicless novel. The movie captures the story faithfully enough, at least to my limited recollection. And it uses the same ending, but it lacks a bit of punch knowing what's coming, and even if I didn't, still lacks the biting edge of Ellison's words.  Both decent enough post-apocalyptic films, but neither truly excellent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 6:12:58 GMT -5
Post Deleted - Wrong thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 28, 2015 9:16:01 GMT -5
Finally get to join in this month.
Watched Escape From New York last night with my youngest son.
I hadn't seen this in a decade or two. But Con-Man is a bit of an SF buff and loves 80s action films so I figured it would be up his alley. The first thing that stands out is that there is an excellent supporting cast in this film. Donald Pleasance, Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, Harry Dean Stanton. And then you look at the budget, $6 million was pretty miniscule even in 1980/81, and you realize that John Carpenter was a freakin' wizard to be able to make this film for that price. This was also the film that completely changed Kurt Russell's career. Until he played Snake Plissken he was still seen as that Disney kid and was mostly doing comedies. This one made him an action star and considering he was well down on the want list for the role, was pretty lucky to get it.
There's always danger in watching "near future" films. Was more than a bit disconcerting having Snake land on the Twin Towers. But what a fun movie.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 28, 2015 19:05:04 GMT -5
A Boy and his DogI read the short story years ago, and still consider the final sentence to be the most disturbing and haunting sentence I've ever read in a graphicless novel. The movie captures the story faithfully enough, at least to my limited recollection. And it uses the same ending, but it lacks a bit of punch knowing what's coming, and even if I didn't, still lacks the biting edge of Ellison's words. Both decent enough post-apocalyptic films, but neither truly excellent. Been years since I saw this. Pretty sure I recall enjoying the original story better than the film. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Jun 29, 2015 0:09:10 GMT -5
My Planet of the Apes collection I ordered from amazon will alas not arrive in time for this month's theme.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 29, 2015 0:12:58 GMT -5
My Planet of the Apes collection I ordered from amazon will alas not arrive in time for this month's theme. Booo! If it's any consolation, most used music/movie stores will have the old boxed set for $20 or less. It's good quality, but lacks the anamorphic widescreen. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 30, 2015 21:02:33 GMT -5
Well, I managed to sneak in Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970) tonight. Man, that film gets worse with each viewing, but it's the only Apes film I hadn't seen in a while.
|
|
