Arrival (2016)

*major spoilers lie ahead

Denis Villeneuve, the bright director who brought us "Sicario" and "Prisoners," now delivers a mysterious alien visitation movie. He has a brilliant way of bringing a new twist to an old genre and "Arrival" is no exception.

One day on our blessed Planet Earth, 12 daunting spacecrafts appear out of thin air at 12 different cities. The lens-like obelisks just float there, taunting their viewers with the big questions: What do they want? Why are they here? Where did they come from?

The U.S. Military recruits linguistics expert Louise Banks (Amy Adams) and theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) to investigate and determine the giant squid-aliens' intentions. Through a series of charades and drawings, they begin to learn the beautiful loopty loop language that seemingly inks into the air as though it came out of a wizard wand. Louise explains to those who employed her (and the audience) how teaching and understanding the basics of language - things like pronouns and requests - they will eventually get to the bottom line: what's their deal.

The big story is interspersed with flashes of Banks' memories of her dying child, and a husband who left her. We are drawn in to her story and just as mystified by what haunts her. She performs her work with an air of sadness and burden but effectively connects with the aliens.

In the middle, things get chaotic. A message from the aliens is possibly misinterpreted as an attack and suddenly things start ~happening. Decisions are being made by people that are somehow important, communications are stopped (why?) and some rogue soldiers try to blow up the alien spacecraft that defies physics with a little bit of C4? A lot happens at once and I'll admit I was losing it a little then.

While everyone is running around like chickens with their heads cut off, Louise has a chat with our squid friends. Now, it isn't often that I am blown away by a plot twist, and maybe it's embarrassing how I didn't see it coming? But my whole opinion changed with the reveal.

Just like that, the past is the future, the present is the past, and the future is in her hands. With everything in perspective she is given the great gift of understanding and experiences the full breadth of her life in a single moment. Not only does she take charge of the alien situation at hand, but she makes decisions about herself. She chooses a life where she knows her daughter would die and somehow that's just amazing to me. She chooses the tragic, because she knew sweet moments would accompany it. How is that not empowering?

In one scene, she explains to her daughter that her name, Hannah, is a palindrome. This is also the key to the film structure. At the beginning, what we think is the past, is also the ending. It's a paradox and also very confusing but very powerful.

The acting lacked in some areas. Jeremy Renner didn't do much for me. I have never found him a very versatile or empathetic actor and he doesn't stand out in any way in this film either. He's a physicist but doesn't seem to do any physics or contribute anything at all. Forrest Whitaker also had a supporting role and seemed nothing more than a stereotype to fit.

None of that bothered me, though, with how fantastic Amy Adams was. She is a wonderfully diverse actress and this subtle, empathetic performance is one of her best. In many ways, this movie is all her. There are more close ups of her face than close examinations of the extra terrestrials; her reactions and wide eyes provide the insights we need to these other worldly visitors. The Academy sorely missed a nomination for her.

The best science fiction movies are deeply human at their core. This is a movie that gives its main character a powerful sense of free will and love and though "Arrival" struggles with some confusion in the second act the rest is so intriguing and mystifying that it doesn't matter. 8/10

Blade Runner (1982)

It's funny watching old sci-fi movies in the Year Of Our Lord 2016 to see how far off we predicted the future. "Back to the Future II" brought flying cars and hover boards to 2015. "Fahrenheit 451" banned books, and the jury is still out on whether a nuclear apocalypse will be here in 2029 as predicted by "Terminator." "Blade Runner" zooms in on dystopian Los Angeles of 2019, which looks like an overpopulated, gothic Tokyo/Hong Kong hybrid where cars zoom through the sky. The phones may still belong in the '90s, but this fictitious future for America depicts a moody, dark ambiance that has given this cult classic its well-deserved recognition as a pilot for sci fi movies.

In this universe, the Tyrell Corporation manufactures genetically engineered "replicants" that are visually indistinguishable from humans. Their use on Earth has been banned so they work, instead, on outer colonies as slaves. Certain cops known as "Blade Runners" dispose of rogue replicants loose on earth. Harrison Ford plays ex-Blade Runner Rick Deckard come out of retirement to hunt down four replicants on the loose.

The source material, "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" poses some fascinating questions about what it really means to be human. The film noir elements and examination on morality and science make the film go beyond skin deep. It's an action film interwoven with symbolism and ambiguity and while you might not "get it" on first viewing (or fifth) it is applause worthy.

These human questions on our existence - our rights, our abilities - are the driving force that make "Blade Runner" a revelation when the rest of the movie falls short. Unfortunately, the flaws outweigh the beauty. It seems that behind all of this ambiguity and thoughtfulness, the "why" is missing. These replicants have returned to Earth to seek their maker and extend their meager 4-year life span and yet it seems of the utmost importance that they be terminated. They kill some, yes. But there is no looming apocalypse, no maniacal killing sprees, no imminent threat to human existence besides those within the Tyrell Corporation. So, why kill the replicants? Now, there are arguments that the real villain is actually Deckard, not the replicants, and I subscribe to this theory. I find it the most fascinating conclusion, but I also find the lack of clarity frustrating. It is possible to create complex, ambiguous metaphors in film with more careful crafting of the narrative.

Harrison Ford plays no Han Solo in his interpretation of Deckard. I'd go so far as to say he was miscast in this role. It's no secret that there were issues with the casting as well as disagreements between Ford and director Ridley Scott. However it's unfortunate how bored Ford seems in the role (and don't get me started on that awful voice-over in the theatrical cut). Ford is at his best when he can be charming, likable, and funny. Perhaps I'm biased by selecting someone like Bruce Willis or a young Tom Cruise because I have seen the future of their sci-fi movies like "12 Monkeys" or "Minority Report." Deckard's character is intriguing, especially if you consider that he could also be a replicant. This is the most compelling facet of the plot, however vaguely it may be alluded to. It's unfortunate this character wasn't better interpreted.As it goes with so many of these stories, our protagonist falls in love with a replicant (played by Sean Young). She doesn't know she is a replicant until Deckard tells her. While she wrestles with this reality of her existence, Deckard forces himself upon her. Now, there are arguments for Deckard helping her "come to terms" with her existence, but I cannot see anything in this scene other than rape. It is the most awkward kiss I've ever witnessed on a screen, Deckard is incredibly disagreeable as a character, and how can we just look past the fact that he raped her?? Did everyone else watch the same movie as me? If there weren't enough other things to dislike, this scene alone is a total buzzkill.

The character that does stand out is the replicant leader Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer). His character shows the emotional complexity that I would hope from a layered movie like this. The final scene between him and Deckard is the best scene in the movie. I cared far more about the outcome of his character than I did of Deckard. Darryl Hannah as Pris was also good.

The other star of the movie is, of course, director Ridley Scott. Now famous for "Gladiator," "Black Hawk Down," and others, he was then known just for his work on "Alien." He had a magnificent vision for this neo-noir resulting in SEVEN different versions of his work. S-e-v-e-n. He worked tirelessly to perfect the film without studio restrictions and preferences. I admire his tenacity and his vision for this work of art.

I watched the theatrical cut, the director's cut, and the final cut. My first impressions of "Blade Runner" (all pretty negative) stemmed from the theatrical cut which has a lot of flaws, including the hokey ending and that terrible, terrible voice-over. The Final Cut certainly is a vast improvement and I felt like I ~understood "Blade Runner" better from watching it. This version also hints more at Deckard being a replicant himself with the weird unicorn sequence. Scott himself has said that Deckard is a replicant though it isn't overtly stated in the film, and this is the most fascinating arc of all, in my eyes. Perhaps this year's "Blade Runner 2049" will shed more light on this subject once and for all.

While I enjoyed the Final Cut better, "Blade Runner" still doesn't do it for me. It belongs in a museum with its important place in history, but a mere glance will do. It's really slow and the dialogue and narrative don't live up to its potential.

There are a few key things viewers should know about this film before watching. First of all, it's really slow, and the dialogue does not live up to its potential. As far as its place on the Top 100, I believe "Aliens" and "Terminator 2" are far superior sci-fi films. 4/10

Other Notes:

Directed by Ridley Scott

Nominated for 2 Academy Awards for  Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects

Ranked #97 in AFI's Top 100 Years... 100 Films in 2008

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)

"Are you, are you coming to the tree? Wear a necklace of hope, side by side with me. Strange things did happen here, no stranger would it be if we met at midnight in the hanging tree."

The next installment of the Hunger Games series takes place shortly after "Catching Fire" and a rebellion against the Capitol is in full swing. Our hero, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), is finally given a chance to catch her breath after the exhilarating events surrounding the Quarter Quell. She is reunited with her mother (Paula Malcomson), her sister Prim (Willow Shields) and best friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth) in District 13 - the secret, underground territory and headquarters for the rebellion. Now, however reluctant and emotionally broken she may feel, Katniss is poised to be the face for the rebellion. Their "Mockingjay." 

Without a Hunger Games, "Mockingjay" is a step outside of the usual formula for this dystopian series. But that doesn't mean that the games are finished for Katniss. As the symbol for the rebellion she must play her role to satisfaction for the new "game makers": Plutarch Heavensby (the late Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Alma Coin (Julianne Moore). It's almost a throwback to the first games where we got to watch Seneca Crane make all the moves to stage the perfect Hunger Games. Now we watch these two masterminds behind the rebellion stage (and film) the perfect scene of Katniss at the battlefront for the perfect propaganda. 

Like all games, there are two sides. Everything on the opposing side is strategized and orchestrated by the nefarious President Snow (Donald Sutherland). His strategy, though, is much more personal. His reactions to the rebellion's blows are concentrated on more specific targets. He knows that if he can demoralize the Mockingjay then the rebellion will be defenseless against his final check mate. Just as Plutarch and Coin are using Katniss, Snow has his own weapon: Katniss' Hunger Games counterpart Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson). Katniss might have been confused about her feelings for Peeta before, but those feelings seem to be much more apparent as she watches Peeta's bruised face on the TV denounce the rebellion. The games go on, and the games affect Katniss more. The PTSD is real and through terrible shocks of a destroyed home, a tortured Peeta and hellish nightmares Katniss becomes more broken.

"Mockingjay" is the deepest of the three movies. I believe most people would agree that the third book is the weakest of the trilogy, but director Francis Lawrence manages to faithfully stick to the source material while enhancing on the emotion. It's an adaptation that everyone can be happy with. One scene particularly stood out to me as one of the most feels-inducing, if you will. While Katniss is visiting District 8 with Gale and her film crew, hoping to deliver some hope to the hopeless, the Capitol retaliates to the Mockingjay sighting by blowing up a hospital full of innocent, wounded people. PTSD or not, Katniss can still perform under pressure and she won't go down before whipping out her bow and arrow and shooting down a PLANE. Action aside, what is emotionally stirring about this scene is Katniss' subsequent powerful punch to Snow on camera. "If we burn, you burn with us."

Let's be honest. This would be nothing without Jennifer Lawrence. Katniss is portrayed so genuinely and honestly. You watch her work in these films and it's no question how Lawrence has shot to the top so quickly in movie stardom. She is the girl on fire, but she brings something bigger to the table in this film. Even the subtle scenes - like thumbing Peeta's pearl to calm her anxiety - show her emotional depth. She is never over the top (a drawback in the source material, which was written in first person), her outbursts in anger are natural for the broken hero. I believe the scene featuring her singing of "The Hanging Tree" perfectly culminates Lawrence's ability to emotionally reach out to an audience, I certainly know I was moved. Just as the rebellion was nothing without the Mockingjay, the movies are nothing without her either.

The supporting performances are equally as impressive. I must admit, it was a little heartbreaking to watch Hoffman and realize that we will never be surprised by him again. Woody Harrelson as Haymitch and Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket also deliver in their small but key roles. Donald Sutherland portrays Snow with such subtle cruelty and, man, are we excited for his comeuppance. Stanley Tucci, though no more than a cameo, is still a pleasant face in a dark world. Julianne Moore, however, is the greatest addition to his already stellar cast. With her Cruella de Ville-like locks and her calculating but sympathetic eyes she is the perfect face for the rebellion's leader. Lawrence may be the star, but this isn't all her show.

The ending is rather abrupt as Hollywood once again exploits a franchise' success by splitting a 390 page novel into two movies. Like, seriously. It was ridiculous with "Twilight" and even more ridiculous with "The Hobbit." However, despite the abrupt ending (and rather cruel tease), I actually agreed with this decision for the first time. The novel is a confusing mix of an emotionally driven first half to an action packed second act. It would have been a rushed, confusing mix as a movie, too. Splitting it into two movies allows for the audience to compartmentalize those emotions and no doubt "Mockingjay: Part 2" will bring this series to a satisfying conclusion next year.

It may be nothing more than a set up, but Mockingjay: Part 1 still delivers an emotionally stirring transition to the conclusion of The Hunger Games series. 8/10

Inception (2010)

I will always remember the first time I saw Inception. Because I was living in Tahiti when it came out I wasn't able to see it right away (unless I wanted to hear a francophone Leo which I'm not really into). I was geeking out for WEEKS leading up to its release nonetheless and doing everything I could to avoid the internets. I would talk to my friends on the phone and the second the conversation turned to the great new Christopher Nolan flick I'd shout "STAHHHHP!!!" and then their eardrums broke. I lost friends. I take spoilers verrrrrry seriously.

I saw it within a week of being home. Three times. I remember eating Red Robin with two of my guy friends and not having two seconds to eat my onion rings because we couldn't shut up about whether or not the top was still spinning or whether it was wobbling. (Kinda sad I couldn't have enjoyed those onion rings more). But I was just so mind-blown. I had endless discussions about the ending, the music, the buildings folding on top of other buildings, how beautiful Joseph Gordon Levitt and Tom Hardy are, and the fact that THERE'S A ZERO-GRAVITY FIGHT SCENE. Those conversations didn't stop for weeks.

Where Following is Memento's father, Inception is Memento's son. Inception borrows elements from both films and marks Nolan's first original film since Following. I mention these connections because I have not been so floored by a movie since seeing the 1998 & 2001 predecessors. Though Inception is more impressive on a visual scale than Memento, we are still thrown for loops and twists in the narrative (albeit linearly this time). Memento is a puzzle built on polaroids and tattoos. Inception is a maze in a much more literal sense. The very buildup of the dreams in Inception is a labyrinth mirroring the maze that we the audience must navigate. Most of the time we're disoriented and confused, so we just have to trust that Nolan knows what he's doing and that we'll make it out safely. He didn't lead us astray in Memento, so we're confident it'll all make sense in the end this time, too.

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a thief (another nod to Following). His burglarizing territory, though, is not homes, offices, or computers. He specializes in breaking into the mind stealing secrets from high executives and business tycoons in their sleep. His skills make him a coveted player in this new game of corporate espionage. After a mission seemingly gone wrong, Cobb and his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon Levitt) are approached with a risky job of a different nature by a wealthy Japanese businessman named Saito (Ken Watanabe). Instead of asking them to extract an idea, he asks them to plant one. His target is the heir to a rival company, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). If all goes well, Fischer will wake up from a dream and decide on his own to dissolve his father's company.

It appears, though, that inception - the plantation process, not the movie title - is harder to pull off than their run-of-the-mill extraction jobs. "Don't think about elephants. What are you thinking about?" "Elephants." Arthur explains, "Right, but it's not your idea. The dreamer can always remember the genesis of the idea. True inspiration is impossible to fake." "No it's not," Cobb disagrees. He doesn't go into detail, but he knows it's possible because he's done it before. Despite the imminent risks, the stakes are high for Dom. He is less motivated by the excitement and intriguing concept of "inception" and more by Saito's promise to let Cobb walk away from the business and return home to his kids. Dom, after all, means "home" in most Slavic languages. DiCaprio plays Cobb similarly to his performance of Teddy Daniels in Shutter Island. Both are driven to obsession over loss and guilt (more on that later) and Leo can deliver in that type of role

So in true classic heist movie fashion, Cobb assembles his team to get the job done. Along with right hand man Arthur we have Eames (Tom Hardy), the "forger", shape shifter, and scruffy badass (associated with Ray & Charles Eames - famous architects), Yusuf (Dileep Rao) the sedative-concocting chemist (think Joseph - biblical dream interpreter to add to the name-tally), and Ariadne (Ellen Page) the maze-building architect wiz. Cobb is introduced to Ariadne by his father-in-law Miles (Michael Caine) who seems to know the ropes of the dream-invading course but doesn't run it anymore. It's just one of those things where Michael Caine appears on screen and you automatically assume he is wiser than anyone else and he definitely knew what he was doing when he brought the new girl on.

Cobb shows Ariadne just how limitless her power is in dreamland. We learn right along with her that physics and gravity no longer matter and architectural paradoxes are now possible. This is where all of the special effects eye candy happen and we're not disappointed by the grandeur and dazzling impossibilities. Not only does Ariadne build the mazes, she is the guide. Just like Ariadne the daughter of King Minos helped guide Theseus through Minotaur's labyrinth, she guides the characters and the audience through the maze of Inception and Fischer's brain. (More name significance, guys). Ellen Page portrays her with just as much realism and intelligence as she did the lead character in Juno three years earlier. We trust her like Cobb trusts her and her character is cleverly devised to enlighten us in this unfamiliar subliminal territory.

As an aside to that thought, let me give a plug to Nolan's storytelling genius, here. It is brought to our attention that we never really remember the beginning of our dreams - we always end up in the middle of the action. Holding to that idea, Inception is much more about process than about beginnings. Of course the idea behind dream invasion is foreign to our concept of reality. But the origins to the dream-sharing don't matter. During Ariadne's apprenticeship, we are provided with just enough detail to keep us satisfied, but ultimately we are enveloped in the process of this dream-world, not with how it came to be.

I digress.

Though special effects and visual bravado trump emotion in the story arc, the one relationship we are invested in is that between Cobb and his late wife Mal (enchantingly played by Marion Cotillard). Though Cobb is, like, on the run, forbidden to return to the US on charges for her murder. It's complicated. Mal is by far the most interesting character of the bunch. We get to know her as she haunts Cobb's dreams and the dreams he shares with others sabotaging their missions along the way. We feel invaded by her piercing gaze, enchanted by her curly bob and French accent, and haunted by the way she thumbs that knife. Her character is so complex and deeply layered that we connect to her internal conflict better than any of the other comparatively thinly-written characters. Cobb is driven to near insanity with guilt and grief over her death and his intense love for his unstable wife. If we're going to keep going with the whole name thing then "Mal" is "bad" in French which unmistakably reflects on her infecting presence in the dreams.

Also noteworthy is Marion Cotillard's connection to Edith Pilaf's song "Non je ne regrette rien" - a fun little inside joke with that key plot device.

Since it is so difficult to plant an idea without the dreamer detecting its origins and since Mal is making it her business to sabotage Cobb's missions they need to delve deep into the subconscious. A dream within a dream within a dream, if you will. Everything comes to a climax in the dream-sequence that spans over an hour of screen time. Fischer's name is no doubt a nod to the game of mind-chess that is going down in his psyche and each character needs to carefully strategize to get the check mate at precisely the right time. Regret, loss, obsession, and redemption are important themes intertwined with the intense action sequences jam packed with special effects. It's visually enthralling, mind-bending, confusing, and moving all at the same time. The more I write, the less sense it makes. It really is something that should be experienced.

That end, tho.

I won't get into it too much. Just like the beginning matters less than the process, the end is the same. Some argue that it was all a dream. Indeed, the audience doesn't have a totem like the characters do to distinguish reality and dreams and are therefore never clearly able to identify a given scene as reality. This would explain why the other characters are flat since they're only projections of Cobb's subconscious and it would also negate most plot holes. It's a compelling theory, but ultimately I am of the camp that there was some reality and that Cobb is not dreaming right before the credits roll (the he wasn't wearing his wedding ring, the kids are older, the top was definitely wobbling camp). Why? I don't know, maybe because I would like to think that Cobb found some happiness and catharsis in real life, not just in his dreams. Regardless of whether or not the top toppled after the screen turned black is rendered irrelevant because Cobb doesn't care anymore. He doesn't obsess over his dreams like he used to and he has emotionally broken through prepared to be with his kids again.

These theories are fun to hash out, but they're not why I love Inception. My experience with this movie four years ago changed the way I viewed dreams and my expectations for sci-fi movies. It anchors me in to experience something phenomenal. The music is enthralling, and the wholly original plot exciting. In short, Inception dazzles and reminds us why movies can be magical. 9/10

My last plug for the name thing: Dom, Robert, Eames, Arthur, Mal, Saito = DREAMS. Wut.

Star Trek (2009)

Turned on Star Trek the original 1979 movie. And then I remembered I was a Star Wars girl and turned it off.
— Lauren Smith (@lauren_smith_17) April 8, 2014

I am a Star Wars girl. It's true. It's also true that I haven't yet been able to bring myself to watch the other Star Trek movies. I thought it was against some sort of nerd-code to like both. You know? Anyone else with me on this? Apparently you can like both. I just haven't quite made it to that level yet.

That being said, these new movies are the shiz. Do I think it's a LITTLE weird that JJ Abrams is doing both Star Wars AND Star Trek? Yes. It's kind of weird. And a little traitorous (the nerd-code thing). But he made Star Trek 4000 times cooler by turning it into Star Wars! Does that mean that next year when Star Wars Episode VII comes out it will be morphed into the Star Trek realm a little? Perhaps. We'll get there when we get there. 

But for the meantime, I will enjoy these movies.

All I knew about the 'verse before I saw this a few years back was some stuff about Captain Kirk, the Enterprise, and Spock, of course. And, like, William Shatner. And stuff from Galaxy Quest. So take that knowledge, and throw it all through an awesome time travel loop and you got my experience with Star Trek. 

This story starts on the day our beloved James Tiberius Kirk was born, the same day his hero father is martyred saving his all-star crew from some time traveling alien bastards in search of Ambassador Spock. Who is also just a little dude. Irrelevant. The bulk of the story takes place 25 years later and Kirk has grown up (played by Chris Pine), but still a younger, more brash, rebellious version than the Kirk most fans are used to. See this whole time-traveling thing works out great because we get to enjoy younger, more attractive versions of the usual Enterprise crew-members who essentially feed off their older selves. Kirk, Spock (Zachary Quinto), Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, (Karl Urban), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), and Scotty (Simon Pegg) make up that crew, and they go through their growing pains with each other. When Spock meets his future self (played by Leonard Nimoy) he is shocked to hear that in this alternate all-too-familiar universe of original Spock & Kirk, he and Captain Kirk were best friends. Ultimately, the young crew, combat those same time-traveling alien bastards that killed Papa Kirk.

Besides all the cool time travel stuff (which, frankly, I'm super into), what gets me with this film is the characters and their interaction aboard the maiden voyage of the Enterprise. It being an origin story, we learn very interesting details about Kirk and Spock. Jim T's father made history in his battle against the nefarious Nero (awesomely hard-to-recognizely played by Eric Bana) and left Kirk with that legacy's shadow to hide from. He's convinced by Commander Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to join Starfleet, but his rebellious hot rod attitude inevitably clashes with straight-nosed half-Vulcan/half-human Spock. Spock is thoughtfully played by Zachary Quinto. He has a troubling background and goes through some serious emotional turmoil when his planet is blown up in front of him - Alderaan style. Spock is in a constant battle between his natural Vulcan instinct to be un-emotional and to proceed business as usual with his human side fighting from deep within to explode. Quinto's performance delivers something special: he stays true to character yet delivers every line and every gesture with subdued emotion and the feeling that something hot is boiling underneath his calm exterior.

If you're going to do a reboot - especially a reboot of a series so massive and with so many dedicated followers - this is the way to do it. Abrams goes back to the beginning (who doesn't love origin stories?) he brings out familiar characters but gives them a new twist, and he delivers everything with top-notch special effects, a clever story, great action sequences, and a good script to boot. If I knew more about science, I'm sure I'd be able to hate along with the rest of you on the actual implications of black holes and whatever. If I knew more about Star Trek in general, I might be able to do some hating that I'm sure I'll be throwing around when the new Star Wars comes out. But even long-timers can't hate on that new and improved Enterprise. It's beautiful. When it comes down to it, if we're talking about spectacle, 2009's Star Trek has got it. 8/10

The Terminator (1984)

Post-apocalyptic 2029.  The world looks pretty dark and gray.  The only thing stopping artificially intelligent beings from completely exterminating the human race is a handful of rebels led by John Connor.  Robots plan of action will execute itself on the battlefield of 1984, where a Cyborg Terminator (Arnold Schwartzenegger) is sent on a deadly mission to eliminate Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), the mother of the future’s rebel-leader.  Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn) is sent from the rebel’s side to detail Sarah and keep her safe.

I finally saw James Cameron’s sci-fi magnum opus, and Schwartzenegger’s defining performance as an actor before he became, you know, governor and stuff.  I always thought that Terminator would be one of those movies that gets its awesomeness because it’s nostalgic.. not because it’s actually good.  Well, this movie bears zero nostalgia for me and I absolutely loved it.  So I guess Cameron DID do a few things pre-Titanic.  I don’t know, maybe it’s just my nerdy fixation with sci-fi and dystopian societies.  Actually, that probably is it, but I still think that Terminator is a good movie.

First of all, while I’m not a huge Arnold fan in general, he is pretty boss as the ruthless killing machine.  His lines are few, but weighty.  “I’ll be back.”  He’s got some serious presence.  Annnnnd, he’ll probably be nothing but The Terminator.  The limited speaking fits the limited acting talent.  No offense.  The others are pretty good too – Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn in particular.  They didn’t shine necessarily, but they still were fine in a movie where the acting REALLY doesn’t matter that much.  Their interactions with each other?  Mehh.  Whatever.  Indifferent.

I guess what it boils down to is some serious surpassing of expectations.  Coming into this for the first time (finally, I might add) I was expecting some action-packed explosive kinda movie.  Lots of shooting… lots of blowing up… things like that.  Of course, there was definitely some of that junk.  I guess what I didn’t expect was the intrigue and mystique behind all the action.  The jumping back and forth through time and the detailed machines.  The dark thrill, the fear.  A computerized killing machine, programmed to do nothing but.  Man this crap is awesome.  It makes me proud to be a sci-fi nerd.

A word that keeps coming to mind is convincing.  I feel like the movie believes its own tale.  It believes in this world that we are so unfamiliar with that we hardly know to be scared out of our pants.  It convinces us that this could happen, it sucks us into this land of incredulity.  We’ve got Kyle to explain us the ups and downs (man I love those scenes where someone unfolds every detail for the audience).

And I could rave for days about the music.  Er, the main title anyway.  It’s such a quintessentially deep science fiction feeling.  I… adore it.  There’s nothing quite so captivating as a good score, and this nails that aspect.  The credits are rolling and I’m sitting there wide-eyed and drooling from my open mouth I feel so much from the music.  Yeah, I’m going crazy.  The main theme’s just really cool, okay?

What I found fascinating was how truly apprehensive I felt at the climax.  I am not one to jump or scream, but I was near holding my breath as our heros ran from the killing machine.  His seemingly human appearance is slowly unveiled and with that, the wall between comfort and terror.  His arm inching towards Sarah with such slow tension.  Yeah, I was kinda scared.  That rarely happens – and for it to occur in a freaking action movie with Arny was, well, remarkable.  The camerawork and special effects are also fantastic, as well as James Cameron’s craftsmanship behind the scenes.  I’m AMAZED at the low budget, it’s really top-notch even with the lack of funding.

The Terminator was ahead of its time.  Though one could still recognize it by some rather obvious 80′s labels, it does manage to achieve a level of timelessness still.  It will always be iconic, and it will always be parodied.  It will always be freaking awesome.  8/10