"BABYLON 5" RETROSPECT: (1.11) "Survivors"
For the first time during its five-season run, the award-winning science-fiction series, "BABYLON 5", focused on the major supporting character of Security Chief Michael Garibaldi. The name of the episode was Season One's (1.11) "Survivors". And I never realized until now, how much it foreshadowed future events in the series' major story arc, until recently.
"Survivors" begins with the news network, ISN, announcing President Luis Santiago's intention to pay a visit to Babylon 5 during his tour of Earth Alliance outposts. The president also intends to present a new wing of starfuries (fighter planes) to the station. While Garibaldi and Babylon 5's second-in-command, Lieutenant-Commander Susan Ivanova, discuss Santiago's upcoming visit, the station is rocked by an explosion inside its Cobra landing bay. An injured crewman named Nolan is tended in Medlab by medical officer, Dr. Stephen Franklin; while Garibaldi, Ivanova and Commander Jeffrey Sinclair (the station's commanding officer) discuss the possibility of sabotage. Santiago's security detail, led by one Major Lianna Kemmer, arrives on Babylon 5. Kemmer, who knew Garibaldi when she was a child, treats him coldly and demands that her detail investigate the Cobra Bay explosion. She and her aide Cutter, interrogate the badly wounded Nolan against Dr. Franklin's wishes and manages to extract one name from him - Garibaldi's - before his death. Kemmer demands that Sinclair put Garibaldi on suspension. And when Cutter finds the Cobra Bays blueprints and a bag of Centauri ducats inside Garibaldi's quarters, Kemmer tries to arrest the security chief. But the latter makes his escape and tries to learn who had framed him.
Judging from the episode's initial plot, one might be led to wonder what the title had to do with it. I mean . . . "Survivors" . . . in a tale about a political assassination plot? Once the episode moved into the details of Garibaldi's history with Lianna Kemmer, I understood . . . completely. Babylon 5's security chief had been a twenty-something Earthforce security guard at the ice-mining station on Europa, when he first met a shuttle pilot named Frank Kemmer and his family. Garibaldi had also developed a drinking problem to deal with the strains of working at the station. Garibaldi managed to make a few enemies on Europa, who decided to retaliate by rigging his friend's shuttle pod to explode. Frank Kemmer was killed, Garibaldi was blamed and retreated further into the bottle. He eventually became estranged from Frank's wife and daughter, Lianna, when he left Europa without any further word to them. Lianna grew resentful and angry over Garibaldi's disappearance from the Kemmers' lives. This continuing resentment spilled over into her willingness to quickly assume his guilt on the word of a dying terrorist. The presence of Lianna brought back painful memories of Europa for Garibaldi. His situation grew even worse after being named as a collaborator in the bombing and stripped of his position on the station. Once viewers became of Garibaldi's history with Lianna, it became easy for me to see that the episode's title referred to both characters.
I read a few reviews of "Survivors" online and noticed that most critics seemed to regard this episode as either a filler or an opportunity to flesh out the Michael Garibaldi character. On a certain level, they might be correct. The events of "Survivors" were never referred to again in the few episodes that followed, aside from a brief mention of the Cobra Bay bombing and President Santiago's visit. And yet . . . I noticed something else. This episode also featured some major foreshadowing that not only played out by the end of this first season, but also as late as Season Five. One of the episode's foreshadows featured Garibaldi's alcoholism, which will rear its ugly head in future episodes. Many fans have never been able to deal with it. They were barely able to tolerate his alcoholism, as long as he was able to overcome it by the end of this episode. But when he succumbed to it again, they complained. Loudly. Apparently, they could not deal with him succumbing to it . . . again. And I never understood their attitude. Surely, they understood the struggles for any addict not to succumb again. But it seemed as if they could not deal with a guy like Garibaldi possessing such a major problem in the first place.
I must admit that it was interesting to watch someone like Garibaldi, an authority figure who knew more about the in and outs of Babylon 5 than anyone else, find himself stripped of his authority, neutralized from his friends and hunted down by an authority higher than the station's commander, Sinclair. What made it even more interesting is that Garibaldi's situation led him back to the bottle and at his lowest, before he could climb out of the gutter. It was also interesting to watch both Sinclair and Ivanova try their best to help Garibaldi. The commander came to Garibaldi's rescue in a brief, yet rousing fight; while the latter was being beaten down by bounty hunters. And I found Ivanova's subtle, yet brief threat to Lianna, when the latter tried to enforce her authority in the station's Command and Control Center rather amusing. But in reality, there was very little they could do. It was Garibaldi who had to climb out of the bottle, do his own investigation and convince Lianna that he was an innocent man.
"Survivors" featured solid performances from the likes of Michael O'Hare, Claudia Christian, Richard Biggs, Tom Donaldson, David L. Crowley, Andreas Katsulas and Peter Jurasik. But the real stars of this episode were Jerry Doyle as Garibaldi and Elaine Thomas as Lianna Kemmer. At first, I was not that sure about Thomas. She seemed stiff and a little uncomfortable in her early scenes. But once her character's determination to hunt down Garibaldi became prominent, Thomas really grew into the role. And she did a marvelous job in her final scene. Jerry Doyle gave an outstanding performance as the increasingly besieged Garibaldi. Not only was he very effective in portraying his character's growing desperation to escape the situation he found himself in, Doyle was surprising effective in portraying Garibaldi's alcoholism. And I have noticed that portraying a drunken character does not seemed to be an easy thing to do.
I would never count "Survivors" as one of my favorite "BABYLON 5" episodes. I would not count it as one of my favorite Michael Garibaldi episodes. But I must admit that I have always managed to enjoy myself, while watching it. Unlike many other "BABYLON 5" fans, I have never been put off or outraged over the show's portrayal of Garibaldi's alcoholism. It gave Jerry Doyle an opportunity to really strut his stuff. And show runner J. Michael Straczynski managed to reap narrative gold out of this character trait - not only in this episode but also in future ones.
"HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE" (2005) Review
Despite the release of the first two movies in the film franchise, I did not become a fan of the "HARRY POTTER" series until I saw the 2004 movie, "HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN". I became so enamored of this third film that I regarded the release of its successor, "HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE", with great anticipation.
Released during the fall of 2005 and based upon J.K. Rowling's 2000 novel, "HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE" follows boy wizard Harry Potter's fourth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. This year proves to be a special one for Harry when he unexpectedly finds himself competing in the wizard world's Tri-Wizard Tournament, a magical competition for young wizards from three different schools, who are 17 years old or older. Not only does the 14 year-old Harry have to deal with the contempt from Hogswarts students who believe he had cheated to enter the competition, he also have to deal with the dangerous tasks that make up the competition and an unpleasant surprise that awaits him once the tournament ends.
When the movie first hit the theaters nine years ago, many had hailed "GOBLET OF FIRE" as the best of the fourHARRY POTTER movies, released thus far. I wish I could have agreed with that assessment of "GOBLET OF FIRE". I really wish I could. But . . . I cannot. Personally, I feel that these critics may have overrated the 2005 film. Why? I considered it the weakest of the first four movies. I would not consider the movie a complete waste of my time. It did feature some very entertaining and mesmerizing scenes. My favorites include the opening sequence in which Harry dreams of Lord Voldemort, Peter Pettigrew and a mysterious man being interrupted by an elderly handyman named Frank Bryce inside a mansion, before the latter is killed by Pettigrew; Headmaster Albus Dumbledore pulling the names of the Tri-Wizard Tournament competitors from the Goblet of Fire; Harry and Ron's quarrel over the former being one of the tournament's competitors; the competition's second task; the third task inside the claustrophobic maze and Harry's encounter with the . . . uh, unpleasant surprise. But my favorite sequence in the entire film has to be the Yule Ball - the Christmas celebration for the tournament's participants, the foreign visitors and Hogswarts' students and faculty staff. I would say that it is one of the best sequences in the entire "HARRY POTTER" film franchise. It is just a joy to watch . . . from the preparations for the ball (that included finding dates and learning how to dance) to the immediate aftermath of the special night.
"HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE" featured some pretty decent performances. But they seemed far and between. Both Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint gave excellent performances as the two best friends - Harry Potter and Ron Weasley. I was especially impressed that they managed to restrain from any theatrical acting when their characters became drawn into a quarrel over Harry's participation in the tournament. Maggie Smith was her usual competent self as the always dependable Professor Minerva McGonagall. Alan Rickman's portrayal of potions teacher Severus Snape continued to be a joy to watch. My only disappointment was that his role seemed rather diminished in this film. I was pleasantly surprised by Brendan Gleeson's portrayal of the colorful teacher and former wizard aurorer, Alastor "Mad Eye" Moody. Gleeson could have indulged in a great deal of hamminess with such an eccentric character. But he kept his performance in full control, while conveying the oddball nature of "Mad Eye". Miranda Richardson gave a deliciously wicked performance as Rita Skeeter, a reporter who harbored an indulgence for yellow journalism that annoyed poor Harry to no end. I found Jason Isaac's portrayal of Lucius Malfoy rather theatrical in the Quidditch World Cup scene. But I must admit that I was very impressed by the subtle manner in which he portrayed his character's obsequious manner in the film's last half hour. The movie also featured solid performances from Robert Pattison and Katie Leung, who portrayed the student lovers, Cedric Diggory and Cho Chang; Timothy Spall as Death Eater Peter Pettigrew; Robbie Coltrane as Hogwarts teacher Rubeus Hagrid; Frances de la Tour as Beauxbaton Headmistress Olympe Maxime and Eric Sykes as Riddle handyman, Frank Bryce.
Unfortunately, I could find nothing further to admire about "HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE". My first problem turned out to be the screenplay written by Steve Kloves. I did not expect him to be completely faithful to Rowling's novel. It would take a two-week miniseries to be completely faithful to it. But there were some scenes I with Kloves had eliminated. One, he cut the scene featuring the Weasleys' visit to the Dursley home on Privet Drive to pick up Harry for the Qudditch World Cup. I mourned this cut, for I believe it was one of the funniest scenes in Rowling's book series. But Kloves' further cuts left the main narrative with some serious plot holes. Kloves' screenplay never explained how Death Eater Barty Couch Jr. managed to escape from the wizarding world's prison, Azkaban, without the authority's knowledge. How did Lord Voldemort and Couch Jr. learn about the Tri-Wizard Tournament in the first place? Also, there was one scene that featured "Mad Eye" Moody's arrival at Hogwarts with no luggage or trunk. Yet, there was another scene in which Harry visited Moody's room and spotted a trunk. How did the teacher convey his trunk to the castle?
There were other problems that marred my enjoyment of the film. I read an article in which director Mike Newell decided to portray the Hogwarts students in a more "realistic" manner - in other words, as British school children would behave in real life. Unfortunately, his attempt at "realism" merely allowed most of the actors and actresses portraying Hogwarts students engage in theatrical performances. Even worse, Newell did the opposite with the visiting foreign students from Durmstrang and Beauxbatons by wallowing in one-dimensional cliches with their portrayals. I found one scene in which Harry's trip to the school prefects' bath was interrupted by a ghost known as Moaning Myrtle. I realize that Myrtle was supposed to be around 14 (the age of her death), the same age as Harry was in this story. But watching actress Shirley Henderson, who was 39-40 years old at the time, flirt with a half-naked or naked Daniel Radcliffe made me squirm in my seat with a good deal of discomfort. On the other hand, I felt a great deal of disappointment toward the movie's production style and look. I get the feeling that Production Designer Stuart Craig and Cinematographer Roger Pratt, along with Newell, were trying to recapture the look or style of Middle Earth, as shown in "LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS" and "LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING". I hated the look in those movies and I hated it in this film.
My biggest problem with "GOBLET OF FIRE" turned out to be the acting. I have already pointed out what I believe were the better performances in the film. As for the rest of the cast . . . sigh. I have never encountered so much hammy acting in my life. It seemed that three-quarters of the cast spent most of the time shouting their dialogue. I am not just talking about the performances of those portraying the students, but especially the adult actors and actresses. There were some questionable performances that really caught my attention. Emma Watson is a first-rate actress, but she seemed to be trying to hard in her portrayal of Hermione Granger in this film. Michael Gambon, who had done such a wonderful job in his debut as Headmaster Albus Dumbledore, gave a completely different - and very hammy - performance in "GOBLET OF FIRE". Roger Lloyd-Pack was another actor whom one could depend upon for a first-rate performance. Not in this film. He seemed to be a bundle of out-of-control nerves and theatrical in his role as head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, Barty Crouch Sr. The previous performances mentioned were nothing in compare to both David Tennant and Ralph Fiennes. Lloyd-Pack's twitchy performance was nothing in compare to David Tennant, whose performance as Death Eater Barty Crouch Jr. revealed more twitchy mannerisms in this one movie than Bette Davis did in her entire film career. But when it came to chewing the scenery, no one did it better than Ralph Fiennes in his debut as the series' main villain, Tom Riddle Jr. aka Lord Voldemort. Words cannot describe the over-the-top performance he gave in the movie's climatic scene. And I cannot help but wonder why Newell did not reign in his performance. Then again, he was barely able to do the same with other cast members, as well.
Yes, "HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE" struck me as far from perfect. Thanks to the plot holes, unattractive production look and the numerous hammy performances, I found it difficult to consider it a great favorite of mine. But despite its flaws, I still managed to enjoy the film. It just strikes me as a pity that it turned out to be a comedown after the franchise's first three films . . . at least for me.
DISAPPOINTING HOLLYWOOD SUMMER
The movie season for the summer of 2015 has been very disappointing for me. In different ways, it has been more disappointing than the summer of 2014. This disappointment stems from an observation that some of my favorite films during this summer have either bombed at the box office or have barely made a profit.
I believe that the quality of these films have nothing to do with the box office performance. However, I also suspect that today’s moviegoers have become increasingly conservative in their tastes in movies. These movie fans tend to cling to what is familiar to them . . . especially the younger moviegoers. This is why movies like "JURASSIC WORLD", "THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON" and "MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - ROGUE NATION" have been such major box office hits. Even "TERMINATOR: GENISYS" is transforming from a flop to a hit, thanks to its release in China. Are they the best this summer has to offer? I personally felt that "JURASSIC WORLD" was among my favorite films. I really enjoyed it. I also enjoyed the other two movies, but to be honest, I also found them disappointing . . . to a certain degree. I believe that the Marvel Cinematic Universe and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE franchise are in danger of running out of steam in the near future. I believe the TERMINATOR franchise already has ran out of steam. Worse, it has become just as convoluted as the X-MEN movie franchise. And a part of me wishes that the studios will move on to something new.
Then there are the films that did not do so well. "ANT-MAN" barely did well at the box office. Personally, I found it to be one of the most unusual films released by Marvel in so many ways. But it was not one of the typical films from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And instead of facing the unusual nature of the film, many fans accused it of being politically incorrect. I am still shaking my head over that. Both "TOMORROWLAND" and "THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E."bombed at the box office. Personally, I felt that both movies were first-rate and the types rarely seen in today's movie theaters. But moviegoers did not want to see or acknowledge an unusual film like "TOMORROWLAND". And no one was really that familiar with the old "THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E." television series. Those who were, seemed pissed off that it was not an exact copycat of the old series. And then there is "THE FANTASTIC FOUR". Granted, I do not believe it was a great film. The three scenes deleted by 20th Century-Fox Studios left the film with a rushed ending. But so many fans are so determined to label it as the "worst film of the summer". Why? I honestly do not know. But I have this uneasy feeling that fandom's racist reaction to Michael B. Jordan portraying Johnny Storm aka the Human Torch may have played a role in this ridiculously rabid insistence in labeling the movie as "the worst ever".
Judging from the reactions of these films, I suspect that Hollywood will become less and less willing to take chances. Look at the new "STAR WARS" movie that is due to be released in December. Aside from some new characters, it almost seemed like a copy of the Original Trilogy films that were released between 1977 and 1983. The idea of something completely new seemed to be repellent to many of the franchise’s fans. Many fans are relieved that Disney and Lucas Film will not be inclined to take chances with the franchise, which is now in the latter hands. They have made it clear that they do not want Disney and Lucas Film to . . . "repeat George Lucas’ mistake" with the Prequel Trilogy. Frankly, I wish the filmmakers would take chances. One of the reasons why I loved the Prequel Trilogy so much is that Lucas took chances and offered something completely new. If Lucas Film and Disney manage to do something completely new and surprising with the franchise, I will be very surprised.
I will also be surprised if the Hollywood industry, along with movie industries from other countries, will continue to take chances in the films they release from their studios. But after what happened this summer, I doubt it very much. Pop culture is truly going to the dogs.
"TERMINATOR: GENISYS" (2015) Review
I have a confession to make. I am not a major fan of the "TERMINATOR" franchise. It has never been one of my favorite pop culture obsessions. In fact, I have never seen the "TERMINATOR: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES" television series, aside from two or three episodes. But I have seen all of the franchise's movies, including its most recent one - "TERMINATOR: GENISYS".
Directed by Alan Taylor ("THOR: THE DARK WORLD"), "TERMINATOR: GENISYS" seemed to be some kind of attempt to reboot the franchise's main narrative. In other words, many fanboys believe that the 1991 film, "TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY" should have resolved the matter of whether Sarah and John Connor, along with the Terminator/T-800 (Model 101) cyborg, had permanently prevented Judgment Day (the date on which Skynet, an artificial intelligence general system, becomes self-aware and decides to exterminate mankind). In other words . . . there was no real need for the continuation of the franchise with 2004's "TERMINATOR: RISE OF THE MACHINE" and 2009's "TERMINATOR: SALVATION". This is due to the virulent dislike of the two movies by many fans. But what these fans had failed to take consider is that director James Cameron had failed to resolve the matter and allowed the John Connor character to exist in the 1991 movie's last reel. Producers David Ellison and Dana Goldberg must have realized this, along with screenwriters Laeta Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier. Or else there would have never been a movie like "TERMINATOR: GENISYS".
What this recent film did was pretty much reset the entire movie franchise - more or less. "TERMINATOR: GENISYS" began with Human Resistance leader John Connor launching a final offensive against Skynet in 2029. Before the Resistance can win the battle, Skynet sends a T-800 Terminator back to 1984 to kill John's mother, Sarah Connor. One of John's aides, Kyle Reese, volunteers to travel back in time to stop the Terminator and save Sarah. This sounds very familiar, does it not? Guess what? The plot is about to get tricky. While floating in the time machine magnetic field, Kyle spots another Resistance soldier attacking John. He also has visions of his younger self back in 2017.
Upon its arrival in 1984, the Skynet T-800 is disabled by Sarah and the Guardian, a reprogrammed T-800 sent back to protect her when she was nine years old. Kyle eventually arrives and is immediately attacked by a T-1000. Kyle, along with Sarah and the Guardian, destroy the T-1000 using acid. Sarah and the Guardian also reveal they have constructed a makeshift time machine similar to the one constructed by Skynet. Sarah plans to travel forward to 1997 – allegedly, the year Skynet becomes self-aware. Realizing the timeline has been altered, Kyle is convinced that the future has changed due to the warning he had received in his vision. He persuades Sarah to travel to 2017 with him in order to stop Skynet. But in that year, a surprise awaits the trio in the form of John Connor, who had been transformed into a Terminator by the physical embodiment of Skynet, the Resistance solider who had attacked him during Kyle's journey to the past.
I did like "TERMINATOR: GENISYS". Honestly, I did. But if I must be brutally frank, the movie's producers should have dragged the screenwriters out of bed and shot them for creating such a mucked up screenplay. I have not seen this many plot holes in a movie since 2009's "STAR TREK". It was a mess. First of all, Kalogridis and Lussier arrogantly ignored "TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES" by originally stating that Judgment Day happened in 1997. It was supposed to happen two years after the setting for the second film (1995), but Sarah, John and the first Terminator guardian prevented this from happening in"TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY". The screenwriters forgot this. They also forgot or ignored that Judgment Day actually happened in 2004. They also decided to ignore the fact that John was married to Kate Brewster by 2029. She was no where to be found. Although Kyle Reese originally did travel from 2029, the Resistance did not launch its final offensive against Skynet until 2032. And as a slap in the face against the fourth film, "TERMINATOR: SALVATION", the movie featured Kyle Reese as a boy between the ages of 10 to 13 or 14. In the 2009 film, Kyle was in his late teens - probably 17 years old . . . in 2018. I can only assume that the screenwriters (and possibly the producers) wanted to ignore what happened in the third and fourth films. And yet . . . they managed to ignore what happened at the end of the "highly acclaimed" second film, as well. To make matters even more confusing, John Connor was sporting a scar that he had acquired from a Terminator . . . in "TERMINATOR: SALVATION". Go figure.
Another matter in the script that I found confusing was the vision that Kyle had received from his childhood. How did he know that the warning about Genisys had something to do with Skynet . . . or that Genisys was the beginning form of Skynet? How did he know that they had to go back to the year 2017? To that exact year? And there is the matter of "the Guardian". I am speaking of the original Terminator T-800 who had been sent back to the 1970s to save and protect a very young Sarah Connor. This happens to be one of the movie's major plot twists, since it never happened in any of the previous four films. The problem is that the movie never revealed who had sent the T-800 back to the 1970s. And how did Sarah spend the rest of her childhood, being raised by an emotionless (back then) cyborg? This movie opened a new can of worms that demanded its own movie.
In "TERMINATOR 2", the Myles Dyson character (creator of Skynet) was killed by members of a SWAT team in 1995, while he and the Connors were breaking into Cyberdyne. If Sarah and Kyle's time jump erased the events of "TERMINATOR 2", this would explain Miles Dyson's appearance in this film. Frankly, I wish he had stayed dead, because Courtney B. Vance, who portrayed Dyson, was literally wasted in this film. And the movie allowed Dyson's son Danny, who was portrayed by Dayo Okeniyi, to be the force behind Genisys. And if this time jump allowed Dyson to remain alive, it probably erased the events of the 2004 and 2009 movies . . . along with the events of the second half of "THE TERMINATOR". Which means . . . John Connor should have ceased to exist by the second half of "TERMINATOR: GENISYS". Some fans claim that John's father was the guy Sarah had been dating before she met Kyle in the 1984 movie. But . . . considering the change of events (namely Sarah spending the rest of her childhood, adolescence and early adulthood with the Guardian), I guess that never happened. And since she and Kyle time jumped before they could conceive John in that motel room . . . why did he still exist in the movie's second half?
By this time, one might be wondering why I liked this movie in the first place. Because I do like it. "TERMINATOR: GENISYS" was filled with some memorable moments. I could not help but smile at the re-creation of Kyle's journey from the early 21st century to 1984. I also found the details surrounding Sarah and Kyle's journey to 2017 also amusing. In the TERMINATOR universe, one has to strip naked before making a time jump. Watching Sarah and Kyle squirm with discomfort as they strip and prepare for their time jump, was quite enjoyable to watch. It seemed very obvious they were attracted to each other, yet seemed bent upon denying their attraction. This attraction between Sarah and Kyle proved to be one of my favorite aspects of "TERMINATOR: GENISYS". In fact, I found the interactions between Emilia Clarke and Jai Courtney more fun to watch than those between Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn, who portrayed the same roles in the first film. It struck me as emotionally more complex and heated. And when the Guardian's character was thrown into the mix, the relationship between all three made this film very bearable and at times, rather fun. This was especially due to a surprisingly lively performance by Arnold Schwarzenegger. I might as well be frank. For me, the movie's highlight proved to be the relationship between the Guardian, Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese.
However, "TERMINATOR: GENISYS" had its share of some first-rate action sequences. I thought Alan Taylor did a well done re-creation of Kyle's original jump back into time. This became even more effective when the re-creation took a left turn with the appearance of a more militant Sarah and the Guardian. I also enjoyed the trio's encounter with the T-1000 (in the form of actor Lee Byung-hun) in 1984. And dealing with both the San Francisco Police in 2017 and the Terminator T-3000 (especially on the Golden Gate Bridge) proved to be quite exhilarating to watch.
I might as well be frank. "TERMINATOR: GENISYS" is not a perfect movie. I would not even regard it as a decent movie. It had too many plot holes for me to be comfortable with. And the movie struck me as an extremely clumsy way to reboot the franchise. As far as I am concerned the producers and screenwriters should have continued the franchise's narrative from where "TERMINATOR: SALVATION" left off. But thanks to some action sequences well shot by director Alan Taylor and the dynamic screen chemistry between Arnold Schwarzenegger, Emilia Clarke and Jai Courtney; I still managed to enjoy the film. Go figure.
