The Blob (1958) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Blob
Year: 1958
Director: Irvin S. Yeaworth
Country: US
Language: English

By the late 50's, monsters from outer space were firmly established in movies. The popularity of Universal Studio's classic monsters from the 30's (Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolfman) enticed major studios to create serious big-budget horror/sci-fi pictures like Howard Hawks The Thing From Another World  and Robert Wise's The Day the Earth Stood Still. Unlike Wise's picture, The Blob was made in glorious color, to show off the slimy oozing gelatinous title creature. The film wasn't expected to make much due to its strange premise, but surprised everyone by earning over $40 million.

 A mysterious creature from another planet, resembling a giant blob of jelly, lands on earth. The people of a nearby small town refuse to listen to some teenagers (one played by Steve McQueen) who have witnessed the blob's destructive power. In the meantime, the blob just keeps on getting bigger.

 Due to the popularity of Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) we tend to think that all 50's monster movies had novelty record tie-ins, however that film fails to mention The Blob was the first to do so. Burt Bacharach and Mack David's title song.was incredibly catchy, inspriring later films like Journey to the Seventh Planet (1962), The Lost Continent (1968), and The Green Slime (1968) to try to establish their own hit pop title songs.

Most 1950's pictures tend to sway in two directions; they either depict the family unit as the ideal "leave it to beaver" household or they pick apart the family dynamic and show a household who is at odds to due generational gaps. The Blob goes in the latter direction, shaping itself to be a more horrifying version of Rebel Without A Cause. The teenagers (a term used to describe post pubescent adolescents, which was coined in the 50's) have great difficulty making their presence known among the various authority figures in their small American town. The relationships portrayed throughout the picutre are rarely cohesive, nor do they have an solid foundation. Society itself is a greater threat than the gelatinous menace. In-fact the blob is only a threat because the society is one small argument away from imploding.

More modern day pictures try to give the blob a detailed set of physical characteristics such as a mouth or internal organs, possibly in attempt to make the creature look more "scary".  The original unadorned mass of rolling goo is somehow more visually powerful and remains uniquely pleasing. The key to this character, made in a world decades away from CGI, was gravity, with the clever manipulation of models and camera placement using the laws of nature to make the blob seem to roll and ooze. It's remarkably simple, inspiring even. Nowadays so much money is put into monster movies that it seems impossible and thus intimidating for an independent filmmaker to make one, but this picture reminds the viewer that great films can be made rather cheaply. Praise it! 5/5

22 Jump Street Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: 22 Jump Street
Year: 2014
Director: Phil Lord
Country: US
Language: English

21 Jump Street was a surprise hit in 2012; very few people though the film would become a financial and critical success due to a lack of general nostalgia for the original series starring A-list actor Johnny Depp. The film was somewhat loyal to its source material, but strayed far enough to be considered clever and original. Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill proved to have great chemistry together. They worked off one another to create some pretty good screwball/slapstick comedy. Hollywood was so impressed by their endevour that they green-lit a sequel for 2014. 

After making their way through high school (twice), big changes are in store for officers Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) when they go deep undercover at a local college to try to stop a synthetic drug operation.  

22 Jump Street is a very meta film, in that it's a sequel about sequels and often analyses the cynical appeal of a sequel. The investigation is so similar to the last that the main characters point it out any chance they get. At the beginning of the film Capt. Dickson (Ice Cube) claims that sequels are always "worse the second time around" but they get a much bigger budget. Indeed the script points out this "bigger budget" at every opportunity they get. They poke fun at Jump Street’s expensive new headquarters and have the boys crashing into various objects with no consequences (until later in the film when they're low on budget and have to avoid hitting objects) 

I'm not sure indirectly telling one's audience not to expect much out of this sequel is the best way of promoting it. It's clever, but a few steps above just telling them to get a refund. 22 Jump Street both indulges in- and makes fun of- societal masculine codes. It takes the homoerotic energy bubbling under the surface of buddy action flicks and raises it into the sunlight. In one scene the duo visits a counselor in order to save their partnership. Although this "we're not gay!" gag eventually becomes repetitive to the point of boredom, and one wonders if it's borderline homophobic. 

22 Jump Street is silly and has some very funny gags, but unfortunately many of the gags are repeated so often that they become stale by the end of the film. It's an entertaining film, much like 21 Jump Street was, but this sequel was indeed worse than the original. The first 20 minutes and the credits are worth watching, but the rest can be skipped. 2.5/5

21 Jump Street Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: 21 Jump Street
Year: 2012
Director: Phil Lord
Country: US
Language: English

21 Jump Street was an American police procedural television series that aired on the Fox Network. It ran from 1987 to 1991, having a total of 103 episodes. The series focuses on a squad of youthful-looking undercover police officers investigating crimes in various teenage venues. The address the title indicates is the home of the unit's headquarters, which coincidentally is a chapel. The show was a big hit for the Fox Network and lead actor Johnny Depp. The show brought his career to new heights; without it he would not be the A-list actor he is today. 

Made in 2012, the film reboot of 21 Jump Street has a very similar premise. A pair of underachieving cops (Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum) are sent back to a local high school to blend in and bring down a synthetic drug ring.

Made 21 years after the original television show's run, 21 Jump Street succeeds where many films set in high school have failed. Rather than showing us tired old cliches about jocks vs, nerds or dividing the school into cliques and factions, the picture shows a topsy turvey high school where anything can go.  Suddenly owning a car is not cool anymore, and being incredibly nerdy (dressing up as Peter Pan) is "in". While it does sway uncomfortably close to the "buddy cop" formula, its focus on screwball and slapstick comedy make for a lot of laughs. 

21 Jump Street isn't shy about pointing out the absurdities of its premise and the improbabilities of our characters being able to pass as not only high school students, but as brothers. The script is somewhat self-aware and does its best to navigate through the film without becoming tiresome, stale or a clone copy. The film is lined with dick jokes however, which gets old really fast. The mixture of low brow humor with a sneaking sentimentalism is very off putting. I wanted to believe I was watching a great comedy, but many scenes took me out of the moment and reminded me that the target demographic was probably pre-pubescent teenagers. 

The camera shot transitions, scene changes and music integration were quite awkward at times. Though many people won't notice, I think 21 Jump Street needed a far better editor. While some may be annoyed, I'm glad that I didn't have to watch the television show in order to understand this movie. The picture contains bits of  familiar comedic formulas, but is just different enough to keep from being predictable. 3.5/5

Love and Death Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Love and Death
Year: 1975
Director: Woody Allen
Country: US
Language: English

Woody Allen once joked: "I took a speed reading course and read War and Peace in twenty minutes. It involves Russia". He must have picked up something else however, as Love and Death is considered a great spoof on the works of even greater Russian authors like Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky. Filming the picture would prove much harder than speed reading War and Peace; when they needed good weather, it would rain. When they needed rainy weather, the sun would shine. Allen claimed that the production was chaos due to the cast and crew being of a varying degree of languages, it also didn't help that all except Allen suffered from dysentery during the making of the picture. 

In czarist Russia, a neurotic soldier (Woody Allen) and his distant cousin (Diane Keaton) formulate a plot to assassinate Napoleon (James Tolkan)


"All men live under a sentence of death. They all go sooner or later. But I'm different. I have to go at 6 a.m. tomorrow morning. It would have been 5, but I had a good lawyer"

The quotation that begins the film serves as a bridge between comedy and tragedy. Allen has perfected this curious blend over time; creating films that will bring you to tears while simultaneously bringing in fits of laughter. Love and Death is particularly hilarious because it places the typical Allen character (neurotic, incompetent, cowardly, horny) and puts him as a "pacifist" soldier in 19th Century Russia. His comedy comes from not only language, but slapstick reminiscent of the silent era. In one scene, Allen decides he needs a break from the battlefield, so he hides inside a cannon. The cannon goes off and sends our "hero" flying, inadvertently killing four generals upon landing and making himself a hero.

Allen's onscreen persona, while very neurotic, is very easy to relate to. He's sweet, he wants to do the right thing and  he represents the possibility that simplicity still can prevail in the world. Diane Keaton's character is a shade of grey; not necessarily good nor bad. Her character is more developed and has more room to grow than in previous Allen films where she played merely the foil for his character. Though filled to the brim with comedy, Love and Death is a clear indication that Woody's films were heading into a more philosophical Bergman-esque direction. From this point on he becomes more forthcoming with his angst against a problematic world. His philosophic nuances dominate over his typical comedic tone. 

Love and Death is a fantastic picture that gets the mix between jokes & existentialism just right. Characters break into syllogisms and formal arguments at the most unlikely moments.  Is it morally wrong to kill Napoleon? Perhaps you shouldn't have that discussion when Napoleon is in the room. Intellectual comedy at its roots. Praise it! 5/5

Five Easy Pieces Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Five Easy Pieces
Year: 1970
Director: Bob Rafelson
Country: US
Language: English

"You want me to hold the chicken, huh?" - "I want you to hold it between your knees." 

The stories stemming from BBS Productions contributed to-and represented- the national counter-culture identity. They would capture the 60's attitude of rebellion against authority, while maintaining a sense of autonomy and freedom. Pictures like Easy Rider and Five Easy Pieces simultaneously celebrated and criticized America. Setting them apart from Hollywood, their characters were complex and could not be easily defined as either "good" nor "bad". Typical for a 60's picture, the anttagonist was usually society itself. 

A drop-out from upper-class America (Jack Nicholson) picks up work along the way on oil-rigs when his life isn't spent in a squalid succession of bars, motels, and other points of interest.

Five Easy Pieces represents the men and women who refuse to be tied to one place or one "stable" identity. They were discontent with the cards life gave them, and made great effort to find happiness, if it existed. It is easy to label these people as lost, selfish, cruel, depressed and likely even easier to get them a diagnosis, but in the 60's these people were celebrated and even admired. To be one of these people is largely discouraged now; mainly because most people who do this currently  leave their pregnant spouses, their established family and/or are in a mid-life crisis and have psychologically imploded well before they take another road. 

There's not any clear moral in this film, as was the standard at the time. The Director does not say Nicholson was right, nor does he say Nicholson was wrong. We sympathize with the character, because he is emotionally isolated in his solitude and obviously very troubled. Nicholson's lonely confession to his unresponding father at the top of a hill, written on the set by the actor, is an uneasy self reckoning that tells us a great deal about his pain and the reasons he drifts. The character tries very hard to ease his woes, but he can't find it in work, the bottom of a bottle, a hot (dumb) blonde or philosophical conversation. He is no saint either; Nicholson is impulsive, angry and misogynistic. He's not the kind of person you would want as a friend or lover.

Five Easy Pieces is easily one of my favourite films to come out of the American New Wave. The characteristically gorgeous cinematography from Laszlo Kovaks; a soundtrack that skilfully offsets Tammy Wynette and Chopin; excellent writing throughout, remarkable character development and some very black humor all contribute to a creative masterpiece of cinema. Praise it! 5/5

Bicycle Thieves Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Bicycle Thieves
Year:1948
Director: Vittorio De Sica
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

The Golden Age of Italian Cinema was characterized by stories about the poor and working class. Also known as Italian Neorealism, this period in Italian film came about when the allies won World War II and Benito Mussolini's oppressive government crumbled. The Italian film industry lost its balance due to the damage studios had taken during the war. Thus films were often shot on the streets and were focused on cultural change and social progress, something Mussolini would not have allowed during his reign. As a counter to Hollywood at the time, Neorealists filmed on location, frequently used non-professional actors and strayed as far from "fantasy" as possible. 


Ricci (Lamberto Maggiorani), an unemployed man in the depressed post-WWII economy of Italy, gets at last a good job - for which he needs a bike - hanging up posters. Soon his bicycle is stolen. He and his son (Enzo Staiola) walk the streets of Rome, looking for the bicycle. Without it, he cannot maintain employment and thus will continue to struggle in poverty. 

Perhaps in 21st Century North America it may be difficult to understand the necessity of a bicycle in terms of supporting a family. In Post-war Italy, and many places in Africa currently, this seemingly primitive mode of transportation may be the difference between a life of ease and a life of hardship. With Vittorio De Sica's Bicycle Thieves I was struck by how heartfelt, humble and honest the picture was. The Director really gives a loud enigmatic voice to the common man and thus brings poverty to the forefront. Even the most cold of the bourgeoisie would have difficulty holding back tears at this powerful picture. 

Unfortunately, due to the controversy of Shoeshine (1946) and the rebellious attitude of Bicycle Thieves' script, Vittorio De Sica was not able to achieve financial backing from any studio and thus had to fund the film by himself. A proletariat in his own right, having worked as a post office clerk in his youth to support his poor family, Sica understood the importance of neo-realism and desperately wanted filmgoers to connect with the working class. 

Overall Bicycle Thieves is beautifully shot. The black-and-white photography and full aperture give it a classical look. The compositions are extraordinary; there are poetic moments throughout. The actors' faces are incredibly expressive; De Sica could have made this picture a silent film and it would have worked on body language alone. The theft of Ricci's bike unveils an onion's worth of layers regarding corruption in Italy. We get a sense that post-war Europe was full of injustice, making it a miserable place to live. Bicycle Thieves is memorable; a great sorrowful film. Praise it! 5/5

Goldfinger Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title Goldfinger
Year: 1964
Director: Guy Hamilton
Country: UK
Language: English

Created by Ian Fleming in 1953, The James Bond series revolves around a fictional British Secret Service agent. Fleming originally featured him in twelve novels, but since inception the character has also been adapted for television, radio, comic strip, video games and film. The films are the longest continually running and the third-highest grossing film series to date. They started in 1962 with Dr.No starring Sean Connery and as of 2015 are still remaining strong. Twenty three pictures have been made, the greatest universally considered as being 1964's Goldfinger. 

In Bond's third outing, his  mission takes him to Fort Knox, where Auric Goldfinger (Gert Frobe) and his henchman are planning to raid Fort Knox and obliterate the world economy. To save the world once again, Bond will need to become friends with Goldfinger, dodge killer hats and avoid Goldfinger's personal pilot, the sexy Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman) 

James Bond has remained a durable character mainly because he has not swayed too far from Fleming's original conception. While Dr. Who gets rebooted time and time again, Bond remains the suave mysterious figure we've known since the 60's, even when he is played by a variety of actors. The series is known for its dazzling opening title sequences, which consists alluring and sexual images in Goldfinger and is combined with Shirley Bassey's haunting vocals. 

Only a 60's Bond flick can get away with naming a female character "Pussy Galore". As you can guess, Goldfinger is ripe with sexual innuendo and visual teasing. There are no extended sex scenes in the Bond pictures, only preludes and epilogues. The sex is hinted at with cute puns and sexual innuendo, but never discussed explicitly. All the Bond movies have featured stunning women, but they are never nude (at least in the movies). Even 21st Century Bond, which has less restrictions regarding censorship, isn't as overtly sexual as it is allowed to be. 

The seemingly primitive 60's special effects are still quite breathtaking. The script is well written, containing a perfect blend of wit and drama. "Do you expect me to talk?", "No, I expect you to die!" Perhaps Bond is a greater character in this film because he at his most vulnerable. He doesn't easily beat the bad guy and he isn't able to save the people he loves. I was relieved by how short the running time was. It kept Goldfinger at a tight, pulse pounding pace that left me wanting more from this series. Praise it! 4/5

Face/Off Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title; Face/Off
Year: 1997
Director: John Woo
Country: US
Language: English

Born May 1st, 1946 in Hong Kong John Woo is a noteworthy film director, writer and producer. His best films (Hard Boiled, The Killer, Red Cliff) were made in his native country, but he has made modestly successful pictures in Hollywood. He is considered a great influence in the action genre, known for creating an atmosphere of suspense, often ending in a Mexican standoff. In 1993 he emigrated to the States as he was contracted by Universal Studios. Later Paramount Pictures contracted him to make Face/Off. Woo rejected the script several times, until it was written to suite his signature style of filmmaking.

To foil an extortion plot, an FBI agent (John Travolta) undergoes a face-transplant surgery and assumes the identity of a ruthless terrorist (Nicholas Cage). But the plan backfires when the same criminal impersonates the cop with the same method.

To date, this is my favorite Nicholas Cage flick. Though directed by a dramatic film-maker, Face/Off is a remarkably fun and off-kilter picture. The two actors play it loose, having given a freedom to act like each others public and onscreen persona.  Travolta does his best impression of the bizarre cage, and vice-vesa. Travolta and Cage do not use dubbed voices, and don't try to imitate each other's speaking voices precisely when "occupying" each other's bodies. Instead, knowing that the sound of a voice is created to some degree by the larynx of his host body, they provide suggestions of each other's speech and vocal patterns, along with subtle physical characteristics.Thanks to a microchip implanted in their larynx, vocalization of each other is made easier.

Of course only their faces are switched, so this does lead for some interesting plot-holes. Wouldn't somebody notice that Travolta's character has a different body? There is a sex scene in the picture, wouldn't the woman notice the difference in penis size? Woo is not really concerned with this, but he does explore how appearance shapes our identity. When Travolta has the face of a killer, his body language becomes more cold and calculating. There is a tremendous amount of action in this movie, which deters from Face/Off being allowed to become a more intelligent picture, but Woo's action is well choreographed and entertaining.

I enjoyed Face/Off even though it was too frantic at times to allow me to indulge in the moral and philosophical implications of exchanging faces with a criminal. The usual cat and mouse game has been turned up a notch, as this is not a predictable action/thriller (though it does contain the cliche speedboat fight) The writing is clever, witty and engaging. This is above average, even though it is quite goofy. 3.5/5

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title- Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Year- 2003
Director- Jonathon Mostow
Country- US
Language- English

Arnold Schwarzenegger almost didn't reprise his role as The Terminator, mainly because James Cameron wasn't at the helm of director. After a conversation with the Canadian, in which he told Arnold to "ask for a shit-load of money, the former California governor did just that and received a much higher pay than the previous to Terminator films. Linda Hamilton turned down an offer to reprise her role of Sarah Connor, thus in the film there is a line of dialogue from John Connor which explains that his mother died of leukemia. Edward Furlong had to be dropped from the film due to substance abuse problems and was replaced by Nick Stahl. 

The Terminator travels back in time to protect a 19-year old John Connor (Nick Stahl)  and his future wife (Claire Danes) from an  advanced female T-X (Kristanna Loken) and to ensure they both survive a nuclear attack.

Considering how bad Genisys was, it's strange how James Cameron considers that film as cannon, but Terminator 3 as outside of cannon. Compared to Genisys, T3 is fantastic. Of course one can compare almost anything to pure crap and look good because of the comparison. T3 is the  3rd best picture in the franchise, but that doesn't mean much. T3 is made in the spirit of a modern CGI action-fest which abandons atmosphere and tradition, focusing solely on wall-to-wall action, which amounts to one long chase and fight.

 The plot is thinner and more superficial, the characters have little impact on the audience. In Terminator 2 Edward Furlong's character was tragic in nature because he was a rebel who ultimately became a victim of fate. Nick Stahl plays his character like a hero, one who can control his destiny, and thus loses our sympathy. While it's nice to see a strong female in American Cinema, the villain isn't as ominous and threatening as the one in T2, thus there is a decreased sense of urgency. 

If there's one positive note about T3, it's that the ending is pretty great due to being so grim and broody. While I enjoyed the first two Terminator flicks, I was always disliked the "moral" about how one is in control of their destiny. I feel that, like this picture tells, these characters must be of tragedy and fate, rather than heroic changers of destiny. I'm impressed that the film was able to show so many scenes of a Schwarzenegger beating up a woman, even if she was a robot. This inter-gender brawling would likely not fly in today's PC Hollywood. 2/5

Terminator Genisys Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Terminator Genisys
Year: 2015
Director: Alan Taylor
Country: US
Language: English

In an alternate timeline, in the year 1990, Sega's Game Gear goes head to head with Nintendo's Game Boy and devastates the competition. Nintendo's stock has fallen so greatly that the heads of Nintendo are forced to sell their company to Sega. 20+ years pass, due to competition with Microsoft's X-Box One (Playstation does not exist as Sega joined  them on a CD add-on venture in the late 90's, thus not making enemies out of them) Sega decides to collaborate with Skynet and releases the Genisys. Little do the executives know, the Genysis will trigger the end of the world as we know it.

Alright, I lied. That plot synopsis is more intriguing than the actual premise however. John Connor (Jason Clarke), leader of the human resistance, sends Sgt. Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back to 1984 to protect Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke) and safeguard the future, but an unexpected turn of events creates a fractured timeline. Now (SPOILERS!) there are three Terminators in 1984, and Sarah Connor was saved by a good Termie when she was a child, and John Connor is evil when they time travel to 2017? I'm already confused.

More Spoilers
If Connor gets attacked by Skynet in 2029 while Kyle Reese in the midst of time traveling to 1984, how does that change the past? How does that create an alternative timeline?  How does John Connor exist in alternate 2017 (let alone be evil) if Kyle and Sarah hadn't made babies yet? How does Reese remain in alternate 2017 if he stopped Skynet and thus had no reason to go to the past in the future? So are there two Kyle Reese's in 2017? Why do Kyle and Sarah decide to stay together if they know it'll create John Connor who is either Humanity and Skynet's last hope?
End of Spoilers 

Compared to the first three Terminator movies, Terminator Genisys is a complete clusterfuck. Random events happens for illogical and unexplained reasons. Though the series has always had canonical inconsistencies, this picture ups the bullshit to 11 and then some. Kyle Reese has been completely squashed as a viable character, as with John Connor and the T-1000 (Spoiler- who dies very easily in this flick)  Sarah Connor's mystique has faded a little, she doesn't look like a hardened paramilitary character Linda Hamilton played, but she has some of the strong qualities we know and love from T2.

This is strange to say, but even though Terminator 2 was made in 1991 its special effects looked far better compared to 2015's Genisys.  This is because the Director replaced animatronics with CGI, and the creative way T2 made liquid metal  (a computer simulation of the movement desired and then use a computer paintbox program to give it surface color and texture) with even more CGI.The use of CGI has been done correctly before, but its quite obvious that the Special Effects team half-assed their work as many scenes look more cartoon-ish than believable. 

In an interview, Screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis has said that the main inspiration of the film was the second-half of Back to the Future Part II. If that's the case then the writing team managed to make both Terminator and BTTF series look bad. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled off a funny and heartfelt performance, but his acting could not save this sinking ship. Fun mindless action, but if you turn your brain on just a little your head might explode. Piss on it! 1/5

The Terminator Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Terminator
Year: 1984
Director: James Cameron
Country: US
Language: English

"I'll be back" is not only the most iconic line in the Terminator franchise, but it's one of the most iconic lines in American film history. It has been re-used over and over again by Schwarzenegger himself, as well as parodied in numerous forms of media. In 2005 it was chosen as #37 on American Film Institute's List called 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes. The original line in James Cameron's script was a not so memorable  "I'll come back", but after Cameron changed the line Schwarzenegger suggested it be "I will be back". Relatively new to English, the Austrian-born actor thought "I'll" was too feminine. Thankfully Cameron stuck to his gut and refused to listen to Arnold. 

A cyborg is sent from the future on a deadly mission. He has to kill Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), a young woman whose life will have a great significance in years to come. Sarah has only one protector - Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn) - also sent from the future.

Orion Pictures was a studio that wanted to be known for its artistic integrity, producing films like Amadeus and Platoon, thus they perceived their co-production The Terminator as a low budget action film that was intended to make a quick couple of bucks. James Cameron was living in his car at the time, struggling to make ends meet, and felt the film could be movie magic. The relationship between James Cameron and executive producer/Hemdale head John Daly went quite sour because of their view of what the film should be. Cameron felt Orion's advertising support was poor at best, as the company constantly denied his requests to beef up the campaign. Orion also wanted to end the film quite early, but the Canadian Director argued until Orion backed down. 

Linda Hamilton's acting in this entry was superb, although I felt her character was underdeveloped compared to Terminator 2: Judgement Day. Here she isn't the kick ass mother we know and love; rather she's dependent on a non-robotic male named Kyle Reese and plays more of a heroine in distress. The best performance is Arnold Schwarzenegger. He acts like a killing machine should; incredibly cold, sterile, soulless and unyielding. His facial expression never changes throughout the film and his physical appearance makes him slightly more imposing and intimidating than the Liquid Terminator.

The special effects are remarkable, though not as impressive and revolutionary as those seen in  T2.  The vision we see of the metal Cyborg walking from the truck fire is special effects magic,it looks quite believable even though the film was made in the early 80's. The score is memorable and the overall frantic tone of the picture create an atmosphere of suspense and urgency. While I normally roll my eyes at a Cameron film, Terminator is a good picture that is enhanced with the sequel. 3.5/5

Terminator 2: Judgement Day Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title- Terminator 2: Judgement Day
Year- 1991
Director- James Cameron
Country- US
Language- English

Terminator 2's large budget made it the most expensive movie ever produced at the time The first film to spend more than $100 million, it went far over its original $78 million budget and greatly concerned the studio, who demanded a few iconic scenes be cut, such as the bar scene which introduced the Terminator. Luckily James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger refused because they believed in the importance of those scenes to the overall plot.  Given Arnold Schwarzenegger's $15-million salary and his total of 700 words of dialog, he was paid $21,429 per word. "Hasta la vista, baby" cost $85,716.

Almost 10 years have passed since the first cyborg called The Terminator tried to kill Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) and her unborn son, John Connor, the future leader of the human resistance against an apocalyptic robot uprising. Now another Terminator is sent back through time called the T-1000 (Robert Patrick), which is more advanced and more powerful than its predecessor. The Mission: to kill John Connor (Edward Furlong) when he's still a child. A T-101 is reprogrammed and sent back in time to protect Connor and his mother.

 You would think the T-1000 would know better to go back in time, since John Connor is already alive in the future which must mean any attempt to kill him as a child would be destined to fail. Alas, such paradoxes are not addressed in the movie, but honestly they do not matter. Terminator 2 is a mindless action movie at heart, and it's beloved for being just that. My favorite scene in this installment is the remarkable revelation that the T-101 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is not the protagonist in this movie, but the antagonist/protector. Though the former Governor was never a "good" actor by any stretch of the word, his usual robotic performance proves to be a considerable asset in this series.

James Cameron pushed for the Academy Awards to nominate Linda Hamilton for a "Best Supporting Actress" award, but unfortunately they didn't bite. Quite a shame considering she had the best acting in the series, and oozed charisma. Sarah Connor was unlike most female film characters at the time; she was a tough woman who didn't take crap from anybody. I think Hamilton raised the bar in terms of gender standards.

The T-1000 (Robert Patrick) is a startling villain who is worthy of his onscreen presence. This cyborg is made out of a newly invented liquid metal that makes him all but invincible.Many scenes involving the T-1000 involve ingenious creative work by Industrial Light & Magic, the George Lucas special effects shop.The process of turning moving liquid metal into human form and back is done by creating a computer simulation of the movement desired and then use a computer paintbox program to give it surface color and texture. Overall the special effects are awe-inspiring. They add to a rather simplistic yet suspenseful and captivating story. Terminator 2: Judgement Day is definitely my favourite Hollywood action movie. Praise it! 5/5