A-Purging We Will Go

Introduction: Despite the series' less than stellar critical reception, one must admit there is a kernel of fascination at the heart of the concept behind the Purge. And it has certainly captured the imagination of a whole generation (for better or worse) - I say as someone who has actually heard the phrase "we're going purging" slip from teenagers' lips on Halloween night. For a while now I've wanted to give these movies a proper sit-through, and I've finally found a relatively cheap 5-disc collection that will allow me to do that.

But before we begin, I have to mention one little piece of trivia - because I found out about it all on my own. Imagine my shock as I was watching the original Star Trek a few years back, and an episode from 1967 comes on (predating The Purge by almost 50 years!), in which Kirk and crew explore a planet with an otherwise buttoned-up society that goes all out for one night of the year. That's right - Star Trek predicted the Purge! Okay, now let's begin.

Warning: the following reviews will likely contain spoilers (although don't expect detailed play-by-plays). I'm assuming that, at this point, you've either already seen these movies, or don't care to. It's not my intention to hype them up. If that's what you're looking for, go read a synopsis on IMDb. I wanna talk about what happens in these movies - what works, and what doesn't.

The Purge (2013)

Amusingly, the events in this movie take place in 2022, which was last year. If Trump had been re-elected for a second term, I wouldn't even call that far-fetched. At this point in time, I don't think I could say anything about The Purge that hasn't been said already. But I can tell you what I thought of it. And I agree with the many people who say that although The Purge is a movie with an interesting concept (even if it doesn't stand up to any kind of intellectual scrutiny), it doesn't really do enough with that concept, and devolves into a mediocre home invasion thriller.

Not even a good home invasion thriller. Just a mediocre one. (Home invasion is a well-fed subgenre of horror, but The Strangers from 2008 is one I remember being pretty good). The family isn't very relatable, and their early bonding moments are pure cringe. No amount of moral high ground can change the fact that the boy's decision to let the stranger in (why did he even have the code?) was really stupid. But it sets up most of the action, and puts the family in a clever bind, so whatever. I appreciate that the movie attempts to be a morality play, but there is way too much focus on jump scares - the really irritating kind that is punctuated by the soundtrack and involves no stakes whatsoever (the proverbial cat jumping out of the closet).

I liked the marauders, even if they felt a bit like walking clichés. The leader was an interesting character (is it me or did his mask look exactly like his real face?). Complaints about the girls skipping around with knives instead of guns seem to miss the point, as these are people who think murder is a game and are probably touched in the head. I like that there were brief nods to some more elevated concepts, like the Purge existing to eradicate the poor and homeless, but those ideas weren't developed enough.

"We can afford protection."

I find it funny that everybody in the story defends the Purge by saying "it works!" Even if this half-baked thought experiment actually did work, the suggestion that the government and/or society would be more concerned with results than optics is hilarious. In the real world, we'd rather enact a policy that sounds good while doing the opposite of what it claims, than one that works, but which nobody can build their reputation on.

What interests ME about the concept of the Purge is the fact that laws are just approximations of what people in the aggregate think represents an ethical code (or a moral one - legislating morality introduces yet another angle for criticism). I wanted a movie that deals with the grey area of consensual crime, but in true American fashion, this story is overly preoccupied with violence.

Nowhere is the myopic focus on violence more frustrating than when the teenage daughter's slightly older boyfriend (honestly, they look about the same age) sneaks into the house - not to consummate his love, which could have set up a potentially enlightening subplot about statutory rape (that is, consensual sex with someone whose consent the law simply doesn't recognize), but in order to attempt to kill the girl's dad, who doesn't want them to be together. Like she'd want anything to do with him then. What a ridiculously stupid turn of events.

Anyway, I can see the merit in the concept behind this movie. I just wanted something a little smarter, and less dragged down by tired horror tropes. A home invasion thriller is admittedly a safe and simple way to introduce the world to the Purge. I'm hoping the sequels will open up that world, and explore some of the institutional facets (and repercussions) of this ill-advised annual Bacchanalia of blood.

The Purge: Anarchy (2014)

Anarchy feels like a much different movie than its predecessor. So much so, that I'm surprised it was written and directed by the same guy (James DeMonaco). With only a year between their releases, this movie feels much more modern, like going from a studio to an independent film. Unfortunately, that means we have to deal with more gonzo-style cinematography, including lots of claustrophobic close crops and shaky handheld footage that I could live without. But, despite still having more jump scares than I'd like, the writing is otherwise improved in this sequel, with a slightly more ethnic cast of less cringey characters, and a superior story.

While The Purge centered around a home invasion, Anarchy feels more like an action-packed apocalyptic adventure, as three groups of sympathetic protagonists converge downtown and must pull their wits together to survive the night. Where the first movie hid behind the shutters of a mansion, this one takes place right out on the streets. As such, we get to see how more people spend their Purge, from daring entrepreneurs rounding up riffraff to sell at auction to bloodthirsty hunters, to wealthy white families paying for the privilege of bonding over the slaughter of a poor black man in the safety of their own home. And then there's that guy with the sniper rifle in the tower who sits back and cracks open a beer. (I did appreciate the irony of a flaming fire engine, though).

As always, the fetishization of violence these purgers revel in is horrifying. When your neighbor is permitted by law - nay, encouraged - to break down your door and rape mother and child, all for the glory of God, can we even call that a society anymore? It's especially disturbing to think about the extent to which this movie captures the spirit of our school-shooting, Capitol-storming times (I don't think it's a coincidence that this is one of the popular horror franchises to come from this era). But I'm happy to see the introduction of a resistance movement (and a story told from the perspective of those who don't buy into the state's propaganda), and a more serious consideration of the political themes (i.e. racism, sexism, and classism) introduced as background noise in the last movie - exemplified by the inclusion of an organized military force systematically exterminating the poor in response to insufficient murder rates among the populace.

"Fuck you! Fuck your money! And motherfuck the Purge!"

In short, this was a better movie than the first. It's not without flaw, but I feel it was able to rise above its flaws overall, especially in the second half, once it got rolling and I felt invested in the protagonists' journey. As disturbing as the premise is, I'm glad this series hasn't turned out to be a complete dumpster fire, and I look forward to seeing where they take it in the next film. I hope the filmmakers continue to advance and innovate the narrative, and not resort to repeating themselves. The next movie's subtitle is "Election Year", and I could see it going one of two ways - either a campaign to end the Purge, or extend it year-round. It came out in 2016, so I'm already a little scared. But also intrigued, in a morbid sort of way.

The Purge: Election Year (2016)

Welcome to the third installment of the movie franchise that posits the question, "what if the United States turned violence into a national holiday?" By this point, I've seen two of these movies already. Sitting down to watch another one is a bit like visiting an old friend. But will the series be able to keep innovating, or will it fall into the rut of repetition?

On the plus side, Election Year raises the stakes by putting the future of the Purge in question. The establishment doesn't even talk about lowering crime rates anymore - it's all about saving the country from economic ruin, in what activists dub "predatory capitalism". After at least 18 years (and probably more) of purging, the growing anti-purge sentiment in the country has finally raised up a candidate who is poised to outvote the New Founding Fathers of America (NFFA). The idea of a conservative party running the country unopposed for more than four whole election cycles alone is a terrifying thought.

Naturally, to defend their power, the NFFA (who behave as much like mobsters as politicians, and are nominating a Minister as their presidential candidate) revoke the rule protecting high-ranking government officials on Purge night, and put in place a plan to assassinate the woman (a Senator) who is running against them. But guess who the Senator's head of security is? It's Leo, a.k.a. "Sergeant" from the last movie! But where he had to earn his reputation as a "badass with a heart of gold" before, it feels like now he's just coasting on it.

Unfortunately, this is where the movie starts to get repetitive. Despite the raised stakes, what follows is a formulaic repeat of what happened in the last movie - a few groups out on the streets coming together to survive. They're even led by the same guy! And, eventually, they come into contact with the resistance force. A few elements from the first movie are also borrowed, including a short home invasion sequence, and a bit of a morality play in the form of deciding whether to counter-assassinate the NFFA's candidate, or take the high road and win "fair and square". Realistically, taking the high road is a guaranteed defeat, but in this case, they seem to actually have a shot at winning (otherwise the NFFA wouldn't be so desperate), and I'd wager that the NFFA have an endless lineup of dummies ready to be propped up as figureheads for the party.

I've said before that what interests me about The Purge is the concept, yet these movies tend to focus on presenting increasingly extreme exhibitions of violence (which is no doubt what the audiences come to see). Normally, I'd be excited to hear a Miley Cyrus song in a movie, but her smash hit "Party in the USA" plays poignantly over a shameful display of youthful entitlement, in which shots are fired over a stolen candy bar. "I get mine" only works up until you start taking what's not yours. Only briefly touched on is the phenomenon of "murder tourism" - foreigners visiting America in order to Purge. This is contrasted by an offhand comment that puts things into context, considering other countries where this kind of violence is a day-to-day reality.

Interestingly, we get to see how the NFFA spend their Purge night - in church, of course - which demonstrates how the "religionization of murder" (as writer/director James DeMonaco phrases it) completely misses the target on the nature of "sacrifice". Sacrifice is giving something of yourself, not taking something from another. The mantra has evolved from "release the beast" to "purge and purify", but all these people out on the streets aren't making sacrifices to God and their nation (one and the same), they're just indulging in bloodlust.

"We will now Purge. We will torture you and violate your flesh.
Remove your skin and share in your blood. This is the American way."

To summarize, although it superficially raises the stakes by putting the future of the Purge in question, Election Year unfortunately falls into the rut of following the formula laid out in the previous movie. As such, it doesn't distinguish itself from Anarchy very cleanly in my mind, and while it does evolve the central concept marginally, it doesn't innovate on the level that I was hoping for. Which is to say, it's not any worse than the last movie, but I'm not sure it's any better, either. We leave off on a positive note, with it looking like the Purge might finally be eliminated. (Unfortunately in real life, election year 2016 was just the beginning - not the end - of a national nightmare). What a great time to go back and do a prequel!

The First Purge (2018)

We're three movies into this franchise now, and it's getting harder to find new ground to tread. That's why I'm intrigued by the idea of doing a prequel. We've seen the Purge; we've explored it. As interesting as the idea is, it has thus far been taken for granted. What could be more interesting than shining a light on the circumstances that led to (or followed from) the initial enactment of this social experiment, when the New Founding Fathers of America (NFFA) first came into power? That is, provided the concept doesn't completely fall apart under direct scrutiny, given how irrational it is. (But then, mankind is far from a rational species).

As familiar as the usual formula has become - a short establishment phase, characterized by a build-up of pre-Purge jitters, until the siren sounds and pandemonium ensues, leading to a climax at dawn, and a very brief denoument - this would have been a good time to mix things up and try a different format. Alas, the filmmakers are not brave enough to take that gamble. Despite having a new director at the helm (Gerard McMurray), you can tell James DeMonaco is still writing, because it's just another iteration of the same story that's been told at least twice before (although the fans who clamor "we want more purging" instead of, I dunno, "we want a smarter movie", are at least partly to blame). There might be some refinement of the concepts on display - and make no mistake, this is the most ethnic Purge movie yet, with a nearly fully colored cast - but the skeleton hasn't changed.

And speaking of skeletons, the "Skeletor" character in this movie is a tad over the top (although creativity points for the syringe claws that evoke a junkie Wolverine). The one thing of substance, I think, that this movie contributes to the overarching lore of the Purge, is that it never really worked. It was always just propaganda. And isn't that appropriate? As crazy as the idea that anyone would back the Purge on scientific grounds, the fact is, the trial (exclusively limited to Staten Island for the first year, with poor people being offered monetary compensation for participation - and issued trackers and glowing contacts that record everything they see) would have failed miserably if not for the government hiring foreign mercenaries to inflate the murder rate by (as we've seen in later Purges) systematically exterminating the poor.

"The conceit is not a political one. It is a psychological one."

Taking the place of an armed and organized resistance movement (that hasn't formed yet), we have instead a local gang that seems to be liberally swiping pages from The Wire. The movie questionably portrays the gang boss as sympathetic (glossing over the fact that he's a criminal peddling the streets with violence and drugs the other 364 days a year), but does so relatively effectively, culminating in a legitimately thrilling climax that channels action movie more than horror (in my notes I have written "black Rambo" - if you think this sequence stretches the viewer's suspension of disbelief, I'll remind you that all believability was thrown out the window with the idea that a third party could ever come to power in US politics). And there's definitely some "societal catharsis" involved in seeing the protagonists enacting a "freeing violence" upon authority figures in white hoods and masks that imitate blackface.

In its favor, this movie does briefly consider the concept of non-violent crime, before the murder really ramps up - being the first time these people have ever purged. One guy takes his anger out on an ATM. Several block parties crop up - ignoring the danger you and I (who have seen many Purges) know such activity would place people in, imagine an all-night rager with no noise limits, all the underage drinking, drugs flowing freely... At one point, there's even a couple going at it in public (not nearly enough nudity, though). Wouldn't it be more interesting if we had a night where all non-violent crime was legal? You know, instead of mostly just murder?

I could point out more little details here and there (like the irony of a church being called "the safest place on the island" - clearly, purging hasn't been fully "religionized" yet), but I'm gonna wrap this up. In conclusion, I think this movie does perfectly well within the confines of the formula that's been established. My biggest complaint is that it doesn't have the guts to break free from those confines and try something new. Will the next movie do that? I doubt it, but we'll see. I don't know what the premise is, but it sounds like the Purge might escape the bounds of a single night, erupting into total anarchy, perhaps leading to its final termination once and for all. Or maybe it'll be a period piece set in the lawless reaches of the Old West (just judging from the poster). That could be interesting. But I'm not getting my hopes up.

The Forever Purge (2021)

After three formulaic movies in a row, I finally get my wish of a Purge movie that tries something new! That is, if you can get past the first thirty minutes of ridiculous jump scares and cringey character introductions. It isn't until the morning after the Purge (picture a scene of getting up and going to work with corpses in the street and buildings dripping with blood) that things start to get interesting, starting with a tense stand-off, ultimately building to a rush to the border as the country descends into chaos.

If The First Purge was "the black Purge", then The Forever Purge (featuring a new director - Everardo Gout) is "the Mexican Purge". Familiar themes of classism and racism recur, but there's a new spice added to the mix in the form of xenophobia. We get to see how the Purge shakes out in Texas between the cowboys and the ranch hands, taking a cue from real world politics and the fear of immigration that Trump famously exploited. The "purification" element associated with purging also takes on a poignant new meaning - not to rid oneself of hatred or the urge to transgress, but a desire to purify the bloodline of America.

Don't let the first half hour of this movie rattle ya. It starts out like a typical Purge movie, with the events of Election Year pretty much tossed in the garbage. The NFFA has come back into power, and reinstated the Purge. So much for progress. But when a grassroots movement of so-called "patriots" decides that one night is not enough, the promise of Election Year's ending scene riots is finally realized - and the "Ever After" Purge begins.

"There's no such thing as crime anymore."

We get to see purging in full daylight. We get to see how the police and, after the NFFA disavows this demonstration of true anarchy, the military struggles to contain the violence. In a humorous switch, Mexico and Canada open their borders to refugees fleeing the States in fear of not just their freedom, but their very lives. Meanwhile, the whiter half of our miscegenated band of protagonists has to confront their racist assumptions (spotlighting the limitations of a "separate but equal" mindset). And eventually, a Native American tribal leader steps in with organized assistance (and explosive arrows!).

Although I like that this movie in particular (and the series in general) is partly a send-up of the type of religious conservative gun-toting maniac our country is currently plagued by, I feel like even this exaggerated fantasy doesn't manage to capture the full breadth of political madness we're living with. To wit, calling the Purge a "celebration of freedom", as if conservative pundits in real life aren't constantly pushing legislation to restrict our liberties. Then again, to be fair, the cognitive dissonance on display in these populations is quite significant.

I think this is the best Purge movie since Anarchy. And while it builds to an open ending - what would appear to be full-on civil war - I'm not sure where the story could go from here. Perhaps it's a good time to call it quits, and end on a high note? But we know that's not how capitalism works. I've heard there's a TV show; I think it could be interesting to explore different characters and how they personally contend with the Purge. You could go into greater depth on the particulars - moral issues, emotional repercussions, different types of crimes - especially if you have a good batch of writers. Could be a great subject for an anthology series.

But we are talking about the Purge, after all. The only thing American audiences want to see is more violence, right? I feel like showcasing Purge methods (and there are some pretty creative ones in these movies) is a bit like showing off new traps in Saw. Which is another hugely popular horror franchise from this era. In fact, there's a new one in theaters right now. Perhaps I have a subject for my next marathon. -_^ (On second thought, just watch this video instead).

The Purge (TV)

I'm not going to strain myself to extend this review even further, but I did see that the TV series was available on Hulu, so I gave it a watch. Unfortunately, it is not an episodic anthology of concepts, it's just a Purge movie stretched out into ten episodes. But, there are two separate and unconnected seasons.

The first one starts out okay, with some interesting characters and ideas, but has a tendency to drag at times, with a few belabored performances. Like most of the Purge movies, it was just okay.

The second season was a good deal better, because like The Forever Purge (which, if I've got my dates correct, actually came out after this series), it dares to explore events outside the bounds of Purge night. In fact, it covers a whole year between Purges, so there's actual room for character and story development, from the events of one Purge to the next. I think the series deserves kudos for that.

"What happens on Purge night, stays on Purge night."

If you're not a Purge fan, there's probably little here to recommend, but if you are, you can rest assured that the series is at least on par with the movies.

Terminator Genisys (2015)

Spoiler note: If you're like me and prefer to go into a movie without knowing too much about what to expect, in the hopes of being surprised, you might want to skip this review until after you've seen it. Otherwise, read on.

If there's one thing that disappointed me about Terminator Salvation, it's that it ended too early - it didn't go far enough to show John Connor sending Kyle Reese back in time to initiate the events of the original Terminator movie - which would have been an effective ending to the series. Of course, that left some room for yet another sequel, which is precisely where Terminator Genisys picks up. Jason Clarke is a scar-faced John Connor, leading the final battle against Skynet, which culminates in a hijacking of the time displacement device, which Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) is sent through, back to 1984, to stop the Terminator that was just sent through to kill John's mother Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke) before he was born.

But just as Kyle is about to hop the timeline, something goes wrong. If the first act of Terminator Genisys looks like it's shaping up to be a badass remake of The Terminator, and a reboot of the franchise, the second act plays out like a greatest hits of the first two Terminator movies (complete with state-of-the-art special effects), and finally addresses a long-standing plothole in the series - if the T-800 couldn't do the trick, why not send the T-1000 against a young Sarah Connor, instead of waiting until John is born? And this movie does it one better - the T-1000 is sent to take out Sarah while she is just a child! But it still doesn't succeed, and, contrary to expectations, what Kyle encounters in 1984 is a very different Sarah Connor than the one we saw in the first movie.

We still get Arnold Schwarzenegger as a sympathetic, reprogrammed Terminator - with a satisfying explanation as to its aged appearance, that becomes even more poignant when our leads, minus their cybernetic bodyguard (who is forced to take the long way), hop time to face the final confrontation in 2017 against a delayed Judgment Day (borrowing a thread from Terminator 3), by putting the kibosh on Cyberdyne Systems on the eve of the unveiling of Genisys - Skynet's newest alias, and the ultimate killer app to which the human population is all too eager to hand over control of their digital devices. And, of course, they'll have an all-new state-of-the-art Terminator to deal with - the newest upgrade, with similar capabilities to the T-1000, but unprecedented integration with its human tissue (and therefore greater intelligence and infiltration capabilities) via an army of nanomachines.

If the first half of this movie builds up to something of a time crisis of conflicting timelines, the second half unfortunately falls back into formula, treading ground that we've seen before at least twice already. But it's still more thrilling than any of the previous sequels it imitates. And while those other movies took the consistent time travel logic of the first movie and mucked it up, this movie does a very respectable job of repairing the timeline, even finally hinting at the genesis of the liquid metal technology, and the creation of an alternate time machine from which all these extra time-hopping Terminators originated from. The only remaining mystery is exactly who reprogrammed that sympathetic model 101, and why. But while the ending appears to be as conclusive as that of Terminator 2 (and we all know how that worked out), the movie closes with a piece of obvious sequel bait.

I would have been satisfied to see this movie finally close the series on a high note, but of course capitalism doesn't work that way. I don't hold much hope that yet another Terminator movie can improve on what this one accomplished, but it might be possible if they're willing to take some risks, like Terminator Salvation did, and not simply follow formula. I would kill to see another Terminator like the first one, but I fear that's impossible, now that the franchise has grown beyond the first movie's relatively small scope. But if anything, it's promising that this movie got so many things right, and nixed the tendency to push too far over into self-parody, and maintain a serious - if still sometimes respectably funny - tone (primarily with the characterization of the good Terminator). This is, in my opinion, the best Terminator sequel out there. It doesn't usurp the position of the original Terminator, which is still my favorite, but I thought it was even better than Terminator 2, for what that's worth.

Terminator Marathon

In anticipation of going to see the new Terminator movie in theaters (since I'd heard good things about it from a close friend), I decided to go back and rewatch the first two Terminator movies, as well as the third and the fourth that I had never seen before. Here are my thoughts on each of the movies:

The Terminator (1984)

It's easy to write The Terminator off as a brainless Hollywood blockbuster (mainly due to the success and reputation of its sequel, which often - and unfairly in my opinion - eclipses its predecessor), but I view it as one of the pinnacle examples of a brilliant sci-fi premise executed flawlessly. A cyborg assassin (Arnold Schwarzenegger, perfectly cast in a role that facilitated his transformation from an award-winning bodybuilder to a movie star) is sent from a future ravaged by nuclear war, where (much like in the Matrix), machines have enslaved and all but exterminated mankind. The Terminator's single-minded goal is to assassinate the leader of the human resistance - before he is ever born, by targeting his mother, Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton).

And so, without any concern for propriety or maintaining a low profile, the Terminator begins its rampage through Los Angeles, like an indestructible bulldozer, recklessly killing anyone and destroying anything that gets between him and his target. Sarah Connor's only protection is a human resistance fighter sent back from the future like the Terminator - a man named Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn, who, along with Lance Henriksen who plays a small role in this movie, also appears in director James Cameron's sequel to Alien), whose journey to the past initiates one of the great mindfucks of a time paradox in cinematic history - predating Back To The Future by a year! The Terminator's relentless pursuit of his target is thrilling to watch, and builds to a terrifying climax when the killing machine's true form is revealed. I unhesitatingly rate it one of the masterpieces of the science fiction genre.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

The Terminator was a pretty neatly-wrapped narrative (as time loops tend to be), but whenever the unavoidably inconsistent logic of time travel is involved, there is always room for retconning. So Terminator 2 starts by introducing a second Terminator sent back in time, this time to target John Connor himself (Edward Furlong) before the war (dubbed "Judgment Day"), while he was still a child. Linda Hamilton returns as the boy's mother, Sarah Connor, and Arnold Schwarzenegger reprises his role as the Terminator - with a significant twist: this time, he's been programmed to protect John Connor, against an even more powerful killing machine: Robert Patrick's T-1000.

This movie is a lot more self-conscious than The Terminator was (for better or worse, depending on your perspective). Arnold's entrance is no less badass, but this time it conspicuously strives to be "cool", whereas the first one was just terrifying. And while it's a clever way to put a twist on the story, I just don't like turning the unstoppable killer from the first movie into one of the good guys. Here, you have the Terminator learning to smile and crack jokes (and minimize human casualties); and while I'm sure having one as your personal bodyguard fulfills every 13 year old boy's fantasy, the Terminator is just not as awesome when it's reduced to fulfilling the role of a pet, or a toy.

On the other side of the ring, you have this new villain who I think works out better in theory than in practice. Robert Patrick is sinister-looking enough, but he doesn't make as intimidating a villain as Mr. Olympia (Arnold) did. The idea of liquid metal is undoubtedly cool, but the effects just don't impress me as much as a cyborg with a creepy-looking robotic endoskeleton. In summary, The Terminator was a desperate struggle to survive in the face of overwhelming odds, whereas Terminator 2 is a face-off between two juggernauts - and the movie feels different as a result. Personally, I prefer the tension and the despair of the former to the action and spectacle of the latter.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

With James Cameron no longer at the helm, and over a decade since the last entry, Terminator 3 is bound to feel like a departure from the previous titles in the series. Nevertheless, it picks up right where Terminator 2 left off, and utilizes a similar formula (arguably rendering it obsolete - especially considering that it's not as good - except for the fact that it retcons T2's resolution, making another sequel about the war-torn future possible). Although, like the original, T2's ending was pretty conclusive - Sarah and John Connor trashed Cyberdyne Systems' headquarters (the company that produced the AI that precipitated Judgment Day), thereby changing the future and averting the apocalypse - in T3, a young adult John Connor (Nick Stahl) is living in constant fear that fate will, sooner or later, find another way to manifest itself. And sure enough, it does.

Enter the new T-X (Kristanna Loken) - a female Terminatrix. She's a highly advanced model, taking on the best of the first two Terminators - a robotic endoskeleton underneath a layer of liquid metal - with added firepower and the ability to control other machines. This all sounds awesome, but I think it's gotten to the level of being a little ridiculous. (On that note, explosions are cool because fire, but I don't really need to see an entire city block demolished for no good reason - that's not entertainment for me). I don't want to be sexist - because women can be legitimately terrifying - but Kristanna Loken just isn't as intimidating as an award-winning bodybuilder can be. I feel like both she and Robert Patrick in T2 were trying too hard to imitate Arnold's emotionless, deadpan expressions that were so genuine in the original. It's a shame that they insisted on turning Arnold's Terminator into a sympathetic good guy - they should have just kept him as the villain.

Speaking of Arnold Schwarzenegger, he returns in this movie in a role very similar to the last. His entrance is even more humorous this time, when he enters a ladies' bar and steals the clothes off of a male stripper (I am not joking). No explanation is given as to how the Terminators make it to the past, two movies after we were told that the time travel device had been busted after Kyle Reese and the first Terminator went through. Plot consistency is tricky to begin with where time travel is involved, but the more they tack on to the story, the messier it gets. If repeated time travel is an option (via a repaired or second machine, for example), then questions arise, such as, why send the T-X (or even the T-1000) to kill an informed John Connor rather than an inexperienced Sarah Connor, as was the target the first time? And why not send a bunch of Terminators instead of just one? You can tell the series has gone from "I have a great story to tell!" to "what kind of story can we tell to keep this franchise going?"

Terminator Salvation (2009)

You could be forgiven for thinking that, twenty-five years after the first film, there wouldn't be any new ground left to tread in a Terminator movie, but you would be wrong. Apart from a few glimpses into the memories of Kyle Reese (played in this movie by Anton Yelchin), the story of the future resistance hadn't really been told. And I'm not sure that it could have been told until we'd seen the experiences (that span the second and third movies) that make up John Connor (Christian Bale, this time around)'s youth, and inform his prescient knowledge of the key to winning the war. That, and we also had to develop the special effects necessary to tell the story first.

An interesting thing about the Terminator movies, if you examine them, is that, despite it being a story involving time travel, that spans the years 1984 to 2029, each one takes place predominantly in chronological order. From before John Connor's birth, to his childhood, to the moments preceding Judgment Day, and now finally we move forward into the future to explore man's resistance against the machines. Terminator Salvation ditches the stale formula the series had latched onto, which is probably for the best. It is, therefore, an unpredictable movie, that doesn't feel like a classic Terminator - although it has lots of respect for the movies that preceded it - and it is a good movie nonetheless.

It is, however, a bleak and visually desaturated movie. But I like that it tries to do its own thing, instead of struggling to capture lightning in a bottle all over again. Arnold Schwarzenegger's absence isn't even that painful, since the Terminators have little need to disguise themselves as humans in the future - and they look as terrifying as ever here! Also, this movie provides an intriguing and far more effective example of a sympathetic rogue Terminator (portrayed by Sam Worthington) than we've ever seen before. It builds to a shockingly clever and exciting climax, that respectfully pays homage to its predecessors, with all new, updated special effects. As a total package, it's not as brilliant or flawless as the original Terminator, but I think I liked it better than the fan-favored Terminator 2.

Jurassic World (2015)

Warning: The following post may contain spoilers.

I grew up with Jurassic Park. My generation was the Jurassic Park generation. Jurassic Park was the movie of my childhood. I remember my excitement at the fantastic premise when I first started seeing trailers for it - a movie about an amusement park where they bring dinosaurs back to life?! And when it came out, around about the time I was 9 years old, I ended up seeing it a record number of times in the theater. I don't remember the count, but it was at least seven, and may have been as high as eleven. It takes a really good movie for me to want to see it in the theater twice; more than that is nearly unheard of.

What made Jurassic Park such a great movie? First and foremost, it was based on a brilliant novel by one of the preeminent science fiction (with an emphasis on science - Jurassic Park introduced me to chaos theory long before I earned my physics degree in college) authors of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. It had a killer premise - rife with potential for both action/terror (depending on how you approach it) and intelligent story-telling - with great, memorable characters. The movie was well-cast, well-paced, well-scored, and well-directed by a master of Hollywood blockbusters - Steven Spielberg - in his prime. And the effects were great, too. It became (and still remains) the best dinosaur movie ever made.

I read the book it was based on (after seeing the movie) in elementary school - being a bit mature, it was one of those books that other kids used to give me sidelong glances for carrying around. Then I read the sequel, The Lost World, when it came out. The movie sequel followed, but, as sequels usually do, it failed to live up to the quality of either the original, or the book it was only loosely based on, despite bringing back one of my favorite characters, mathematician Ian Malcolm. The most memorable thing about the movie sequel was a tense moment involving the T. rex and a car dangling over a cliff, and a forced attempt to bring the T. rex to the mainland (à la King Kong) - a potential story thread I'd daydreamed about since day one, but failed to live up to expectations. Perhaps the movie's most egregious error was completely ignoring the one point of sequel-bait that the original Jurassic Park had featured (and which still remains untouched): Nedry's canister of embryos.

A few years later Jurassic Park III came out, but even bringing Dr. Alan Grant back into the fold couldn't save it from being a mostly forgettable flop. The source material had already dried up by then, and advances in paleontology were leading to much-maligned design changes (enter the feathered raptor). Also, in a misguided attempt to one-up its predecessors, JP III arbitrarily introduced a bigger, badder dino (the Spinosaurus) to outperform the T. rex. (As we shall see, Jurassic World rectified both of those mistakes). Despite also expanding on the terrifying implications of the Velociraptors' intelligence, the most memorable scene in this movie involved Pterodactyls.

The franchise ran out of steam at this point, and what followed was over a decade of silence. Then, rumors of a new Jurassic Park movie began to surface, and it seemed that people were ready to give the series a fresh start. I admit that even I, after being less than impressed with the previous two sequels, was willing to believe that this new Jurassic Park movie would be different, and could do justice to the legacy of the original film. And now, having seen it, I believe that it does.

In a wise decision, Jurassic World mostly ignores the two sequels, but directly references the original. Here, we see the late John Hammond's dream finally brought to life (in spite of the earlier catastrophe) - a tropical vacation spot that marries an amusement park with a museum and a zoo, featuring the spectacle of living, breathing dinosaurs brought back from eons of extinction. The cautionary tale of the first Jurassic Park involved the dangers of man taking the reins of evolution from out of the hands of nature, and vainly bringing some of history's most dangerous predators back to life to coexist with humans.

Jurassic World takes it a step further - this time, it's the creation of a personalized hybrid, by demand from greedy corporations, and inspired by an increasingly jaded public, that, with its combination of size, unprecedented intelligence, predatory instincts, and other assorted evolutionary adaptations - the result of a mixed genetic cocktail of DNA - breaks loose and wreaks havoc across the island. This is the Indominus rex - a more plausible and intriguing variation of what Jurassic Park III's Spinosaurus wanted to be - and for all intents and purposes, an adaptation of the Carnotaurus from Michael Crichton's The Lost World, which I've been itching to see on the big screen for nigh on twenty years, since it was absent from the movie version of that Jurassic Park sequel.

The human element in Jurassic World is enjoyable enough to watch, if not completely remarkable. The humor seems to overpower the drama, as the main leads' romance isn't as compelling as Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler's more mature relationship in Jurassic Park. And the two kids in this movie aren't nearly as memorable as Lex ("I'm a hacker!") and Tim ("the human piece of toast") were. But it's worth noting that the male lead in Jurassic World (played by Chris Pratt), is basically a Robert Muldoon character (who was excellent but underused in Jurassic Park), elevated to the level of a lead à la Dr. Alan Grant.

But the real characters in Jurassic World are the dinosaurs. When Jurassic Park came out, it revolutionized the way dinosaurs were depicted on film. Inspired by Michael Crichton's true science approach, and based on the latest findings of paleontology, dinosaurs like the T. rex and the Brachiosaurus, in particular, were shown to stand and move in a more horizontal rather than traditionally upright position. But by the time the sequel came out, some of the details - such as the T. rex's motion-based vision - were being called into question, and the behavior of some of the dinosaurs changed accordingly (breaking plot consistency). Historical accuracy became a point of contention, and by the time Jurassic Park III came out, scientists were beginning to speculate on the possibility that some dinosaurs (including the Velociraptor) may have been feathered, like birds, rather than scaly, like reptiles.

The problem, from a narrative standpoint, is that birds are generally not as scary as reptiles. Well, Jurassic World deals with that problem in a very succinct and elegant fashion. Since de-extinction is not an exact process in the first place - DNA strands from long-extinct species have to be approximated, and filled in with fragments from other organisms - and since the company is already genetically manufacturing its own customized animals, considering that they are a corporate, profit-minded entity, it's not a stretch to believe that they would engineer dinosaurs that look sleeker and scarier, and maybe are even bigger, or have a few more teeth, or what have you, than would be historically accurate, all for the sake of putting on a good show for their customers. Lead research scientist Henry Wu says about as much, in fewer words, in a key scene during the movie.

The dinosaurs in Jurassic World may not be as unequivocal the threats they were in Jurassic Park - although even when helping or cooperating with humans, they are still dangerous - but that's a side effect of being able to have the audience sympathize with some of them. And while Jurassic Park succeeded as a violent thriller, twenty years have passed since then, and people have grown sympathetic toward the reptilian mascots of the franchise. While the I. rex is the clear villain in this movie, the raptors are its anti-heros. And as a longtime fan of Jurassic Park, I enjoyed the tag team between the raptors and the T. rex during the spectacular climax, which was littered with respectful homages to the original movie.

There's a little bit of cheesiness peppered throughout the movie, but I chalk that up to this being a self-conscious revival of an old and beloved franchise, resurrected for a new generation of fans (yet with its old fans kept in mind). Jurassic World isn't quite what Jurassic Park was two decades ago, perhaps, but I don't think that there really could be another Jurassic Park today, without completely reinventing itself - and I don't think that's what the producers or the audience really wants. It's more of a fun action flick than an intelligent thriller, but I feel that it's a worthy successor to the original - certainly much more so than the other two sequels we've had. I feel like Jurassic World is a Jurassic Park for a new generation - a generation where Jurassic Park has been around for a while; a generation that, like the people who visit the resort in the movie, aren't wowed simply by seeing dinosaurs in the flesh anymore. And isn't that just what Jurassic World should be?

North By Northwest (1959)

Of the three Alfred Hitchcock movies I've watched in the last couple of weeks, North By Northwest is the most conventional, in a Hollywood blockbuster sense (from a 1950s point of view). This is not necessarily a bad thing, as it means that it is more readily accessible and relatively action-packed (I mean, hell, there's even an explosion!) compared to Rear Window and Vertigo.

Cary Grant stars as Roger Thornhill, an advertising executive in New York City, who is unexpectedly abducted and escorted to a wealthy estate where a suspicious man by the name of Vandamm (played by James Mason) - or is it Townsend? - seems perfectly convinced that Thornhill is a secret agent working against his criminal interests. This unfortunate instance of mistaken identity instantly plunges Thornhill (like an unwitting James Bond) into the middle of an undercover operation involving international espionage, resulting in an extended chase across a portion of the American landscape.

The movie thrives on suspense and mystery, but also action, and not a few clever and daring scenes that are positively thrilling (such as the shocking United Nations setup, the iconic crop duster chase, Thornhill's ingenious and hilarious extrication from an auction house, and a climax set on the face of Mount Rushmore - though the latter drags on a bit, spectacular though it is). The movie slows down a bit when it switches gears to develop an off-the-cuff romance (the love interest played by Eva Marie Saint), but even then the danger is never very far off.

North By Northwest is another long movie, clocking in at just over two hours and fifteen minutes, but it has enough humor and thrills to make the time spent watching it sufficiently enjoyable. As I mentioned, it's more accessible than some of Hitchcock's more "specialized" films, but though it's relatively conventional in comparison, and is no less dated than any other films now over half a century old, it is nonetheless a solid demonstration of intelligent, technically proficient, and entertaining filmmaking, worthy of being called a classic.

Hanna (2011)

Hanna is a stylistic tour de force, with fantastic cinematography. A stunning Saoirse Ronan stars as the titular character - a girl raised by an ex-special operative (Eric Bana) in the Arctic wilderness to be a superhuman assassin. She's been training all her life to get revenge on the government agent that killed her mother (a chilling Cate Blanchett), and her coming of age means stepping out into a world she's a complete stranger to, in order to complete her mission.

The serious tone is tempered with some humorous and endearing scenes of social awkwardness on account of Hanna's upbringing, particularly those involving a likable family of tourists (centered around a hilarious Jessica Barden as a sassy teen). I could stare at the lovely Saoirse Ronan for hours, but the whole movie is filmed in gorgeous stylism, with some beautiful landscapes (from desert to winter wonderland). The plot's pretty straightforward, although there are some mild twists along the way, but this is a movie you watch for the journey, not the destination. It's cinema as art, and it's pure fun to watch.

Machete Kills (2013)

Back in 2007, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez joined forces to pay homage to the gratuitous sex and violence of the grindhouse era of cinema in their double feature theatrical release Grindhouse, combining Rodriquez's Planet Terror and Tarantino's Death Proof. At the time, several fake trailers for non-existent exploitation flicks were produced, to enhance the grindhouse experience of the double feature. One of them, Robert Rodriguez's Machete, starring Danny Trejo as the titular Mexican ex-fed, eventually blossomed into a feature film that was released in 2010. It was spectacularly gratuitous. And in 2013, it got a sequel - Machete Kills.

Machete Kills is every bit as bombastic as Machete was. Danny Trejo returns, with another star-studded ensemble cast. Particularly noteworthy were Mel Gibson's appearance as a tech CEO/cultleader, and Lady Gaga (among others) as a shapeshifting bounty hunter. Charlie Sheen (billed as Carlos Estevez) stars as the President of the United States, and Demian Bichir plays one of the film's most charismatic characters, a Mexican crimelord-turned-revolutionary. As for Machete himself, if this wasn't the case already, his international reputation, fighting prowess, and survivability is growing to superhero levels.

The stakes are high in this installment of the Machete series, with a threat that eventually escalates to the level of nuclear holocaust, giving the film the feeling of a gratuitous Mexican version of a James Bond flick. The sexual innuendo is blatant (if never very explicit), the violence as gore-tastic and over-the-top as ever (I loved the molecular blaster), and the straight-faced humor heavy. In fact, what might have begun as an ode to the grindhouse days seems to be evolving into something of a tongue-in-cheek parody (making comparisons to Austin Powers more and more applicable).

But it is a loving and playful parody. And nowhere is this more obvious than in the film's unselfconscious treatment of its own advertising potential. Since Machete began life as a trailer, it doesn't seem so out of place that Machete Kills plays up a new trailer to its own as-yet-unproduced sequel (which, I'll be honest, if I didn't see it listed as "in production" on IMDb, I would have thought was just a joke) Machete Kills Again... In Space! - which obviously parodies both Star Wars and Jason X (featuring that other popular violent marauder who loves to wield a machete). If you think that's taking even over-the-top to an over the top level, I'd be inclined to agree. But you have to admit, Danny Trejo wielding a light-machete is an image too hilarious not to take advantage of!

Catching Fire (2013)

Catching Fire is much better than the first installment of The Hunger Games. It's almost like magic. Something about The Hunger Games just didn't come together, and so I found myself quibbling over all the little problems the movie had. But Catching Fire is so good, none of those things mattered anymore.

I wasn't caught up in the casting of the characters, because what they were doing and saying were more important than all that - you could say I got lost in the characters and forgot about the actors playing them, which is what a good movie should accomplish. The ridiculous fashions of the Capitol didn't bother me as much, either - I actually started to like them (even Effie became likable).

Katniss' interview dress was a lot more impressive (and emotionally effective) this time around, too. And, thankfully, the Capitol grunts weren't just fruity like before, but were finally intimidating - as they should be - with their brutal reaction to the growing resistance in the outlying Districts. The ridiculous shaky cam in the first movie was also absent here, which is a great relief.

How much of all of this is due to the new writers and director, and how much is due to the story itself (The Hunger Games is tasked with introducing this unfamiliar world to its audience, while Catching Fire is free to focus on developing the rising conflict), I don't know. But in Catching Fire, the stakes are much higher, and it shows, and it is a much more powerful and effecting story than The Hunger Games was.

Jennifer Lawrence, too, is much better as the newly-crowned Victor Katniss, evoking more of the haunted pathos of the character than she did last time. They even managed to make the rather abrupt ending work out well, leaving, as it does, the audience clamoring for the next installment of the series, where the revolution inevitably explodes and everything will eventually come to a head.

I'm a lot more excited to see Mockingjay now than I was to see Catching Fire after watching The Hunger Games. But having been so thrilled with the second installment of the series, I'm going to go out and see it again - it's just that good. It's not that often you go out to a movie and get a real, thrilling experience. It's what you always hope for, but so rarely get. I hope they're able to keep it up for the two-part conclusion to the series.

The Hunger Games (2012)

It's ironic that I never wrote a proper review for The Hunger Games after I saw it the first time, the day it came out. Because when I read the novel it's based on, I had originally decided that, since this is more of a movie review blog than a book review blog, I would just wait for the movie to come out so I could review it, and refer back to the novel to make comparisons. But then I ended up writing a review for the book, and then when the movie came out, I didn't write a review for it!

Part of the reason for that was because I didn't really know what to say about the movie - I was too caught up with comparing it to the book to really appreciate it on its own merits. But with the second movie - Catching Fire - finally coming out, I thought I'd go back and watch the first one again, now that it's been so long since I've read the book. And yet, I still find myself getting caught up with comparing the movie to the book. Honestly, I think the biggest problem with this movie is that the book it was based on is just soo good.

I mean, it's an ambitious movie - the whole sci-fi dystopia thing, with a strong emphasis on action and human pathos. It's obvious that the film-makers went to a lot of trouble to create a futuristic world - complete with the drastic dichotomy between the starving residents of the poor districts and the fashionable socialites of the Capitol (although there is no excuse for the liberal use of shaky cam, especially in the earliest scenes in this movie). And it works. It's a great story. It builds to an exciting climax, and it hits some powerful emotional notes.

Yet, it doesn't ring quite as true to me as the book did. To me, the casting of a lot of the characters seems slightly off - which is another irony, given that I was convinced Jennifer Lawrence was the perfect choice for Katniss Everdeen, after seeing her in gritty, independent movies like Winter's Bone and The Poker House. But she doesn't seem as put-upon in this movie, in a role that demands it as much as any of her others.

Similarly, the poverty-stricken District 12 doesn't have as much authenticity or character as it did in the book. And Gale seems like more of a teen heartthrob than a rugged woodsman. I understand that The Hunger Games' primary audience is 12 year old girls, but the book is the true source of that appreciation, and I found its brilliance to be based on deeper foundations than such superficial appeals.

And the Capitol residents just look ridiculous. I realize this is at least partially (if not entirely) intentional, because part of the whole point is that the residents of the Capitol are so pretentious and full of themselves, that they'll devour the most ridiculous looking fashions and wear them with a straight face. And that there is some poignancy in the juxtaposition of the cruelty of watching children die for entertainment, and treating it as lightly as Monday night football. But for a sci-fi dystopia society, they just aren't very intimidating.

President Snow, for his part, looks way too kind and fatherly - I pictured him clean-shaven and with a sterner-looking face. And Caesar Flickerman is too boisterous, his charisma doesn't succeed like it does in the book (here, he could be easily mocked, but the most chilling aspect of his character in the book is that his sincerity feels genuine, in spite of the role he plays in these children's traumatic deaths).

During the Games themselves, the mutts have entirely the wrong look - as if the CG team opted to capitalize on the pun in their name instead of emphasizing their more frightening wolf-like aspects, meanwhile completely ignoring their most terrifying attribute - the eyes (although, to be fair, that element might be hard to get across in a movie).

It's inevitable that when a book is adapted to a movie, changes will be made. What's ironic is that The Hunger Games works better as a book than a Hollywood spectacle. But what makes the story great is that it's about so much more than a juvenile deathmatch. A movie is not introspective enough, and doesn't have the time to really get inside its character's head, and bring the world of its setting to life.

In the end, The Hunger Games just doesn't have the impact, the intelligence, and the perfectly calculated rhythm of the book it was based on. I'm still looking forward to seeing the rest of the series, but if you had to make a choice, you're much better off reading the book. And I'm not just saying that as a book snob, who thinks the book is always better than the movie; I'm saying that as someone who spends a lot more hours watching movies than reading books.

Riddick (2013)

Based on my originally lackluster reception of the Riddick saga, I didn't have very high hopes for the new Riddick movie when I first heard about it. But then I saw the trailer, while sitting in the theater for The Conjuring, and get this - I actually got excited! It looked like the movie was relying more on the scaled back formula of Pitch Black than the bloated Chronicles of Riddick, and best of all, the nighttime creatures shown in the trailer actually looked kind of scary this time! So I changed my tune and decided I'd give this new Riddick movie a try.

Well, it certainly follows the formula of Pitch Black - some might say too closely, that it becomes a bit repetitive. I was wondering how they were going to tell another isolated marooned-on-a-desolate-planet story after the ending of Chronicles, and they actually make a point to tell how Riddick gets from Point A (the Necromonger throne room) to Point B (random desolate planet), but honestly, it feels like a hastily-thrown-together explanation, and I'm left wondering if maybe the series would have been better off just picking off where Chronicles left off and not trying to repeat the success of Pitch Black.

In any case, the movie as it is, is still pretty interesting. The first section features Riddick, left for dead on the aforementioned desolate planet, nursing himself back to health while avoiding becoming prey to the planet's local fauna. It's a pretty neat marooned story, with some beautiful alien landscapes. The creatures are all obvious CGI, which is not a look I particularly like, but they're designed pretty well. There are some reptilian bird creatures, and a race of doglike animals, one of which Riddick befriends, but the real star is the badass, creepy-looking, scorpion-like puddle beasts, which appear to be the planet's apex predator.

At the end of the first act, Riddick spies a massive storm advancing on the horizon, with hordes of those puddle beasts in its wake, and decides to ring up some bounty hunters in the hope of catching a ride off the planet. Of course, the bounty hunters want nothing more than to capture Riddick's head as a trophy (or better yet, paycheck). So then we're treated to another pretty much by-the-books "Riddick vs. bounty hunters" match, with the approaching storm acting as the deadline that the coming eclipse served in Pitch Black. And when it arrives, well, all hell breaks loose, of course.

Riddick (the movie) is probably not as effective as Pitch Black. And one of the things I appreciated about Pitch Black is that it wasn't really a movie about the character of Riddick, Riddick was just an awesome character in a movie with an awesome premise. But by this point, the Riddick character has become the raison d'etre for the movie. Which is okay, I guess, but sort of defeats the purpose of trying to do another Pitch Black instead of continuing the story of The Chronicles of Riddick. I don't know why I thought this, but I was expecting this movie to wrap up the series and provide some closure for its titular character (maybe I just didn't think they would try to stretch it out beyond a trilogy). On the contrary, the door is wide open for another sequel. And if it means they'll readdress the Necromonger plot thread, then I think that's a good idea.

In the meantime, we have this movie. If you like the character, and especially if you're fond of Pitch Black, more so than The Chronicles of Riddick, then you're probably going to want to watch this movie. Your opinion of it, ultimately, may vary. I view it pretty much the same way I view the rest of the series - no groundbreaking masterpiece by any means, but an entertaining way to waste a couple of hours. And one thing that Riddick has over the other two movies so far in this trilogy (besides the surprise of a little bit of nudity), is the creature design for those puddle beasts. It's one of the things Pitch Black didn't do well enough - create an effectively scary-looking monster design. Well, they nailed it this time around.

It's only too bad Riddick has to spend time being an action and a sci-fi movie, because it kind of takes away from the massive horror potential this monster has. Hell, I've seen too many horror films that hinge on the creepiness of its monster design falling short, and they would kill for a monster this gruesome. Horror directors (and special effects crews) take note.

The Riddick Trilogy

Before hitting the theater to see the new Riddick movie, I decided to dust off my old DVD of "The Riddick Trilogy" and rewatch Pitch Black and The Chronicles of Riddick.

Pitch Black (2000)

A friend introduced me to Pitch Black many years ago, which I otherwise would have missed. It's a sci-fi/horror action flick starring Vin Diesel as an intimidating yet sympathetic antihero. And it's got the most brilliant premise - a ship (carrying the dangerous criminal Riddick) crash lands on a planet with three suns, that's about to experience its only night in every 12 years or so, thanks to a syzygy-induced eclipse. And guess what comes out at night - swarms of man-eating insectoid alien lifeforms! Riddick breaks free of his chains, but when night falls, the stranded crew has worse problems to deal with, and thanks to his surgically-induced night vision, Riddick may be their best (and only) hope for survival.

With such a slam-dunk premise, it's a shame I didn't like the movie more, but I thought that it fell a little short of its promise. It's still a fun movie to watch, and Vin Diesel's Riddick, the badass with a heart of gold, is very charismatic. But, it comes up a little short as a horror film, and I think it's because the CG creatures are not as scary nor as varied as they could have been. I mean, they look more like something out of Starship Troopers than Alien. That's not to say that they're poorly designed, but they feel more sci-fi than horror, and so they didn't really scare me.

The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)

Much to the chagrin of fans of Pitch Black, its sequel drops the horror pretense that made the original so compelling, and opts for more of a straighter sci-fi premise. Upon first viewing of this movie, my opinion was that it was not all that good. And so, when I recently popped in the disc for a rewatch, my expectations were pretty low. And maybe it's for that reason that I didn't think it was all that bad this time. The scale of the movie is pretty epic - an army of "Necromongers" (they worship death, or something) is basically destroying the universe, one planet at a time, and Riddick may be the only one capable of stopping them (according to prophecy) - but if you don't take it too seriously, I think it's a pretty fun and engrossing movie.

And here we get yet another charismatic villain in the form of Karl Urban's ambitious Necromonger named Vaako, who manages to outshine his superior, the Lord Marshal of the Necromongers. The most captivating segment of the movie occurs within and without a maximum security prison on a planet whose daytime surface temperature is hot enough to burn a man alive in seconds, that climaxes in a deadly race against the sunrise. There are a lot more fantasy elements included in this story compared to Pitch Black, like an elementalist who can vanish into thin air, reanimated corpses, and the Lord Marshal's ability to grab people's souls and tear them out of their body. It's no Star Wars, but it's not Plan 9 From Outer Space, either.

Equilibrium (2002)

I recently dusted off (literally) and rewatched a DVD I have in my collection - the movie Equilibrium, which seems to want to bill itself as a competitor to The Matrix, but, whatever stylistic similarities they may share, the movie fares better when you're not trying to compare it to the most awesome sci-fi movie ever made. Anyway, The Matrix is a mind-fucker, Equilibrium is more of a traditional dystopian flick. But it's a really good one.

The premise requires a certain level of suspension of disbelief, but if you're not sitting there trying to poke holes in it, I think it's both fun to watch, and also has a lot to say about human nature and the importance of art. The idea is that, in this near future society, ravaged by the effects of a third world war, humanity has agreed (with the urging of a charismatic leader, affectionately labeled "Father") to sacrifice the dizzying highs of human emotion in order to eliminate the abysmal lows, which inevitably lead to the atrocities that man commits upon himself - most notably, war.

So, the population of this "enlightened" nation, Libria, is regularly dosed with a drug called Prozium, which reduces their capacity to feel (emotions). Anyone caught skipping their doses or otherwise displaying feelings is charged as a "sense offender" and is sentenced to execution. The state's most talented soldiers, known as Grammaton Clerics, trained in the art of gun kata - which is like martial arts with guns, using stances based on statistical predictions to optimize both the practitioner's survival and hit rates - are trained to locate sense offenders, and are regularly deployed outside the walls of Librium to mop up pockets of resistance and burn the artifacts of culture (e.g., literature, paintings, symphonies) they're often found to hoard.

Christian Bale is excellent as Librium's premiere Grammaton Cleric, displaying subtle nuances of feeling underneath his cold, emotionless exterior, as the story follows his introduction to the world of sense offending, and his struggle to hide his little acts of rebellion until they eventually grow into a conviction to try and sabotage Father's censurious regime. The movie is expertly balanced between scenes of action and drama, and I found it to be especially moving as an art lover. Even to a jaded postmodernist, I felt that it managed to effectively evoke the beauty of a Da Vinci painting, a Beethoven symphony, a W.B. Yeats poem. And one of the most touching scenes hinged on the beauty of something we so often take for granted - the simple rising of the sun.

Taken at face value, it seems a little unrealistic to believe that society would (could) ever stamp out human feeling to this level, but, honestly, we're not so far off from a world that would, like in the movie's opening, destroy a man's life for looking at a picture of a girl. We already embrace censorship, we just defend it by believing that its selective application is justified. The censorship of all art is thus a dishonest projection (if a valid warning) of the current state of fear; nevertheless, it's a captivating nightmare vision, and it makes you think about the importance of art as a record of human experience, and how dangerous to the very core of humanity a regime of censorship truly is.

Kick-Ass 2 (2013)

I made the mistake of missing the first Kick-Ass in theaters, but it wasn't a mistake I was going to make twice.

In general, I don't get excited for superhero movies - and there have been a lot coming out lately. I was not oblivious to the comic book culture around me growing up, but I was never a diehard fan. Batman was one exception that I've always liked, possibly because it's more of a darker, gothic take on the superhero story (and, technically, Batman's not a superhero, just a clever, gutsy billionaire). That was reflected well in Tim Burton's film adaptations, and the more recent trilogy by Christopher Nolan emphasizes the realism of the story. Another exception was Watchmen, which I really liked (both the film and graphic novel), because it is a more serious and mature take on superheroes, and also approaches the theme from a realistic perspective.

The immediate appeal of Kick-Ass for me was that it was also a realistic take on the question: what would it be like if people started dressing up like superheroes to fight crime in the real world? Of course, Kick-Ass embraces humor and a cartoonish level of violence, so it's not entirely serious or grounded in reality, but in this case, I think that adds to its outlandish appeal. I mean, one of the highlights of the first Kick-Ass movie was the character of Hit-Girl, an 11 year old deadly assassin played brilliantly by the precocious Chloe Grace Moretz (one of my favorite young starlets, who has also played a vampire in Let Me In, among many other roles).

Much to my satisfaction, Chloe shines in Kick-Ass 2, and maintains a central role in the story. And better yet (at least in my opinion), the balance between Hit-Girl and Mindy Macready is, compared to the first Kick Ass, tipped more towards the girl behind the mask. Obviously, it's her masked persona that makes her unusual and memorable, but Chloe is such a fantastic actress, that it is a pleasure to get to see more of her, and the humanization of her character just makes her portrayal of Hit-Girl that much more poignant when she dons the costume.

Kick-Ass himself returns as the titular hero, as does the last movie's villain, Red Mist, who reinvents himself (in his characteristically comical fashion) this time as the world's first supervillain. Several new heroes join the fray (including an unrecognizable Jim Carrey), as the costumed vigilante trend grows in popularity, in an organic plot development that recalls to me the same thing that occurred in Watchmen's history. Mindy, meanwhile, is trying real hard to leave the crime-fighting business, and meets her match instead in the popular girls at school, in a subplot that almost seems to foreshadow her upcoming role in the Carrie remake, but proves to be more entertaining than its cliche setup might suggest.

I honestly don't know how I would compare the first Kick-Ass to its sequel - I like them both a lot. I think that the first Kick-Ass has the edge on badass action and the superior climax, but the sequel has much of what you loved from the first one - in both the violence, humor, and dramatic departments. Plus you get to see a whole lot more of Mindy behind the action in part 2, which is a big plus for me. I think the bottom line is that if you liked Kick-Ass, you probably won't be disappointed with the sequel. I, for one, would definitely see it again.

Django Unchained (2012)

So I borrowed a friend's DVD and finally got to watch Django Unchained, which came out at the end of last year. It's basically Quentin Tarantino doing a blaxploitation western (southern?). It's very much in the recent vein (of which Tarantino is a leading proponent, along with Robert Rodriguez - see Planet Terror, Death Proof, Machete, etc.) of homages to the classic era of grindhouse cinema. Also, in the same way that Kill Bill was Tarantino's take on the martial arts flick, this movie in some ways recalls the genre of "spaghetti" (Italian) western films, of which it draws much inspiration (the original "Django" - which spawned innumerable unofficial sequels - was one such film).

Django Unchained is a bit of a slow burner, with a runtime approaching three hours. But it's infected with Quentin Tarantino's signature style of humor and social commentary, which keeps you immersed, until it builds to its satisfying climax, which is unashamedly awash in Tarantino's typical brand of ultraviolence.

It's not only fun and exciting, but also racially rewarding, as although the film is populated largely with racist characters (the story takes place two years before the civil war), vengeance is ultimately exacted upon the racist characters by the badass black hero - Django himself - and there exists at least one black villain and at least one white hero, to avoid over-generalizing racial stereotypes.

As for the premise (for those of you who are curious as to what this movie is actually about), the story follows a German immigrant (the quirky and polite Dr. King Schultz, played by Christoph Waltz) who is employed in the U.S. as a bounty hunter. He tracks down and frees a slave by the name of Django (an intimidating Jamie Foxx) to help him I.D. one of his targets, and the two become unlikely but amiable partners.

Eventually, in search of Django's wife, the pair come up against a sadistically enterprising plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio's Monsieur Candie), aided by his head house slave (an idiosyncratic performance by Samuel L. Jackson). Our heroes concoct a dangerous ruse that involves feigning an interest in Mandingo-fighting (think cock-fighting but with human beings), and march right into the belly of the beast: a plantation deceptively named Candie Land.

The resulting suspense and inevitable standoff is nothing short of cinematic fireworks, and I recommend you see it for yourself.

Berserk - The Golden Age Arc 1: The Egg of the King (2012)

As a huge Berserk fan, I was eagerly awaiting the "new Berserk anime". For the unfamiliar, Berserk is a dark fantasy manga (Japanese comic) series by Kentaro Miura. It was adapted into an anime (Japanese animation) series once before, but its ending leaves off on a cliffhanger. So for years, fans have been clamoring for an extension of the Berserk anime series to cover the story as it continues in the original manga. Finally, the powers that be decided to animate a new Berserk series.

The only problem is that instead of continuing the story, they decided to start back at the beginning. This is not a surprising move, as, above all else, it will allow for the introduction of certain elements not included in the first anime series that are required for the plot's continuation. Ultimately, I think this series will serve mainly as a [really long] plot summary of all that's happened, to get us to the point where we're ready to show the rest of the story. And if the title credits animation sequence even in this first installment of the movie series is any indication (featuring flashes of characters not present until much later in the series), they do intend to continue the story beyond the end of the Golden Age Arc where the first anime series left off.

But we're left with the question of what purpose does this first installment of the series - the Golden Age Arc - serve if it's already been animated once before to excellent result? And the answer is, not a whole lot beyond setting up what's to come, as I just explained. You can tell they threw lots of money into the animation budget, as the animation quality is very high. However, I actually don't like it, as it tries too hard to be 'photorealistic', which actually puts it over the edge into the uncanny valley. It's just weird to see obviously cartoon-style characters moving ultra-realistically. I prefer to have room for my imagination to fill in the little things. Also you have the camera doing weird things to simulate live action filming (like one point when a drop of blood lands on the lens), which is cool when you're actually filming live action, but here it just emphasizes the artifice of the whole thing.

So I don't really like the animation, as expensive as it must have been. I don't especially like the new voices, any more than the old ones, which have been ingrained into my head as the characters' "right" voices. The music isn't nearly as good as the first series. And because there's less time, the story is jumbled up and progresses too fast without time to savor what's going on. Like the confusing dream sequence that instead of serving as exposition on Guts' history, raises more questions than it answers. And I know this is all a flashback to set up what's to come, but one of the great things about the first series is that it starts out and you know it's a flashback - but it's such a good flashback that it stands on its own. And so the flashback goes on so long, you forget that it's a flashback, except that in the back of your mind you're thinking, this is leading up to something. And damn right, it is, yet it still floors you when it finally gets there.

So I don't have much good to say about this first installment of the "new Berserk anime", except about what looks promised to come. The story covers everything from the beginning of the flashback (minus the present time setup that the manga story and old anime both start with - not giving you any idea really where the story is headed this time, for better or worse) to the part where Griffith tells Charlotte what a true friend is to him, as Guts listens on, after their encounter with Zodd the Immortal. I'm still interested to see how this series handles the second and third installments of The Golden Age Arc (if the snazzy, lifelike animation style is good for anything, it'll be the pivotal love scene and the Eclipse itself, I think). And I'm excited to see the story continue past where the first anime left off. Although, I wish they could have continued the story in the style of the first anime, and I hope the story-telling pace slows down after we get past the parts we've all seen already before.

Oh, and if this is your first exposure to Berserk, by all means, go back and watch the old series first!