TERMINATOR RESTART IS A NO-GO

EPISODE 512, in which I don my Film Curmudgeon Hat yet again for a spoiler-y review of TERMINATOR: DARK FATE. Feel free to a) pop some popcorn or b) run for the hills. I’ll wait.

[Brief interlude for Jeopardy theme music.]

 

The best part of TERMINATOR: DARK FATE: the heroines.

I’ve been a fan of the TERMINATOR movies since Linda Hamilton battled the seemingly invincible AI robot played by Arnold Schwarzenegger back in 1984. The first two films, written and directed by James Cameron (AVATAR, ALIENS, TITANIC, etc.) are SF classics, and set a high bar for the film and TV sequels that followed (a bar that wasn’t always cleared).

Altogether, though, the TERMINATOR franchise created a screen canon that made SF sense, one that entered the common consciousness of people who hadn’t even seen the films. Almost every SF fan can tell you the premise of that canon: a man from the future is sent back in time to find and save Sarah Conner from an AI robot assassin (the Terminator). It is vital Sarah survive because she is destined to bear and raise the future leader of the human resistance to the sentient machines that will soon take over the Earth and attempt to eliminate humanity. That future leader’s name is John Conner, and he is the one who sends the man back to save his mother. The man, of course, turns out to be his father, who eventually dies fighting the Terminator. (It’s time-travel. Don’t think too much.)

The sequels involve storylines with John and Sarah at various times after he is born, both before the AI apocalypse and after. And, up until this latest entry in the TERMINATOR franchise, they have all fit into the canon, that is, they all made sense according to the premise I just outlined. Not so TERMINATOR: DARK FATE.

[SPOILER ALERT. Remember, I warned you earlier.]

In the first few minutes of this new film, also written by James Cameron, and directed by Tim Miller (DEADPOOL), we see in flashback that the Terminator somehow found John and Sarah in their sanctuary in Mexico and killed John at the age of about 12. Presumably this means a new resistance leader is needed for the future, so a young Mexican woman (Dani, Natalia Reyes) is tapped for protection by a cybernetically-enhanced human soldier (a female, this time, Grace, Mackenzie Davis) against a yet-more-intimidating AI robot (Gabriel Luna, meh). Sarah Conner (Hamilton), who has been finding and killing Terminators on the regular, led by mysterious texts signed “for John,” shows up to help the new savior and her cyborg protector. They are eventually led to the texter, who turns out to be our old Terminator nemesis (Schwarzenegger), who has developed an almost-human conscience over the years.

Action/mayhem/smashing of vehicles ensue until the good guys win, but not without some sacrifice, yada, yada, yada.

All this is entertaining enough, until you stop and think: if John Conner had been killed as a child, there would have been no one to send that man back from the future to warn or save Sarah Conner in the first film. She would have gone blithely on about her business until the original AI villain (Skynet) caused the first apocalypse. That’s the thing about time-travel and the consequences of messing with the timeline. No John Conner, no resistance. No resistance, no one to go back in time to find Sarah Conner, or create John Conner or, eventually, to destroy Skynet. That was the premise of the first film, indeed of the whole franchise. Take John Conner out of the equation, you have to restart everything

 Much has been made of the fact that James Cameron wanted to restart the storyline with this film, taking up from where he ended it with TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY (1991). I have no problem with that scenario, but even Cameron must know that you can’t kill John without resetting the entire timeline back to zero. That means Sarah Conner has no significance in the new timeline. That also means Linda Hamilton and Arnold Schwarzenegger have no roles in the new film. If he was going to start over, he should have had the courage to go all the way. 

I also have no problem with rethinking the idea of “woman as mother and protector of future male leader of the resistance,” transforming it into “woman herself as leader of the resistance.” However, Sarah Conner has long been held up as a role model for kick-ass SF heroines, her family role notwithstanding. I think it’s dangerous to assume the job of bearer and nurturer of future leaders is “lesser” somehow, especially when the person doing it is one tough, um, mother. 
 

Sarah Conner (Linda Hamilton) SF's toughest mom.

I can understand the powers that be are less concerned with the screen canon of the franchise and more with the box office. After all, they’re looking to fill seats with a good action film. TERMINATOR: DARK FATE mostly succeeds on that level, though we’ve seen many of its tricks before. But a young viewer new to the franchise is really going to wonder why those old people (Hamilton and Schwarzenegger) are even part of the story. And going back to watch the earlier films is not going to help them figure it out. 

Sorry, but this one is a NO-GO. 

Cheers, Donna

CAMERON, RODRIGUEZ FAIL TO WOW WITH ALITA

With a writer like James Cameron (TITANIC, AVATAR, et al) and a director like Robert Rodriguez (DUSK TO DAWN, SIN CITY, GRINDHOUSE, et al) you would think the SF action film ALITA, BATTLE ANGEL, in theaters now, would be a slam-dunk. 

In fact, I couldn’t wait to see what the collaboration of these two cinematic visionaries would produce. After all, we have hundreds of science fiction romance novels and stories being published every year—plenty of raw material to work from, right? The state of the art in computer-generated imagery is phenomenal. If you can imagine it, someone can put it on the big screen. And with guys like Cameron and Rodriguez on board, money will be no object.

But, though it’s true ALITA, BATTLE ANGEL is chock-full of CGI visual delights, it is sadly lacking in narrative cohesion or any kind of depth. Even the angst that usually affects Rodriguez’s charismatic antiheroes is missing here, replaced by a predictable cyber-teenage coming-of-age theme. The director’s touch is apparent, though, as [spoiler alert] romance falls by the wayside in favor of the tragedy that spurs our heroine on toward her ultimate fate.

The film has its moments. There is no denying the technology that allows actress Rosa Salazar to become the cyborg Alita onscreen is amazing. The incredible array of human/machine, animal/machine and machine/machine combinations that litter the screen staggers the imagination. And, of course, the fight scenes, chase scenes and rolling arena battles (think ROLLERBALL on steroids) between and among these cyborgs are a heck of a lot of fun to watch. This is a Rodriguez film, above everything.

The A-Team actors perform their jobs admirably, too, though they are given precious little to work with. Mahershala Ali, Jennifer Connelly and Christoph Waltz (who plays Dr. Ido, Alita’s savior and father-figure) behave as if they are in a real movie, while I’m sure with every break in filming they went back to their trailers and consoled themselves by repeating, “I won an Oscar!”

Much of what is wrong with ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL lies in the fact that it has nothing new to say, despite all its visual flash. The powers that be in both publishing and filmmaking persist in thinking that SF is the realm of teenagers, so we get coming-of-age themes, whether the protagonist is a young Jedi, a rebellious winner of deadly games or a rebuilt cyborg. If that protagonist falls in love, it is first love we see, and likely tragic.

In this particular case, Scarlett Johansson’s THE GHOST IN THE SHELL (2017), like ALITA originally based on a manga story, addressed the themes of identity and humanity much better because Johansson’s Major was an adult. She had agency; she could act for herself from the beginning of the story (though the question of who is really in control is central to the film).

We don’t get much of those themes in ALITA. We get a lot of action, a lot of teen yearning. We get some “who am I?” We get bad judgment from both our heroine and her teenage love interest that leads to plot turns. But nothing unpredictable enough to be called twisty or even thought-provoking. We’ve seen this before.

And that’s a shame. With all the resources behind this film, we should have been open-mouthed with awe.

Cheers, Donna