Latest news with #Terminator2
Chicago Tribune
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Chicago Tribune
Review: ‘Jurassic World Rebirth' is tense but a downer, with dinosaur fatigue part of the story
No novel in history has tailored every paragraph and plot point more deliberately for the movies than Michael Crichton's 'Jurassic Park.' There's a reason. Crichton mapped it out as a screenplay first, back in the pre-digital 1980s, when screen dinosaurs looked a little goofy still. The 1993 Steven Spielberg film changed that, building on early '90s breakthroughs in digital effects found in 'Terminator 2' and others. Spielberg oversaw several storyline changes as well, in his commercially canny pursuit of roaring terror and solemn wonder in more evenly alternating currents. The franchise has gone back and forth between those currents ever since. We've had interesting, controversial sequels (J.A. Bayona's 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom,' especially when it turned into a gothic haunted house suspense affair) and billion-dollar mediocrities ('Jurassic World: Dominion'). So what's the deal with 'Jurassic World Rebirth,' beyond its blatant misspelling of the word in its title that clearly should be 'Reboot'? Mixed, let's say, and that means mixed often within the same scene. More broadly, it's mixed in the early critical reaction, considered a widely well-regarded success in the British press but mostly bleh here in these United States. 'Jurassic World Rebirth' is a genuinely peculiar seesaw, with 'Godzilla' and 'Rogue One' director Gareth Edwards managing some occasionally striking jolts amid a lot of tonal uncertainty. Rarely an exuberant spirit as a filmmaker, Edwards here directs a rather mournful script by veteran pro David Koepp, the primary adapting writer on the '93 franchise-starter. Coming off 'KIMI' and 'Black Bag' with director Steven Soderbergh, Koepp's return to dinosaurs builds its premise on what might be termed the inevitability of franchise fatigue, coded here as dinosaur fatigue in the popular imagination. The world, as this movie depicts it, has plainly had it with the human/dinosaur integration experiment. Dinosaurs are no longer trending. Fleetingly, one poor specimen glimpsed early in 'Jurassic World Rebirth,' under the Brooklyn Bridge, lives with the indignity of graffiti on his aging hide. 'Nobody cares about these animals anymore,' we hear at one point, evoking what may have been the thought balloon floating above Koepp's head as he wrote this seventh 'Jurassic' go-around. Koepp's script imagines a Big Pharma weasel (Rupert Friend, inspired by Paul Reiser's 'Aliens' antagonist every step of the way) hiring globe-trotting mercenaries (Scarlett Johansson and Mahershala Ali), an idealistic museum paleontologist (Jonathan Bailey) and a bloodthirsty hunk ('Game of Thrones' alum Ed Skrein), among others, to harvest precious DNA samples from three different bioengineered dinosaur species — land, air and water dwellers. The illegal but potentially lucrative gig takes them by boat to the forbidden (fictional) Caribbean island of Ile Saint-Hubert, not far from French Guiana. Thailand provided most of the movie's lush exterior locations. En route, the passengers on the Ali character's boat encounter two problems: the mighty and mighty hungry water dweller known as Mosasaurus, followed by a meteorological phenomenon known as the B Plot. Much of 'Jurassic World Rebirth' follows the travails of a sailing family's oceangoing excursion, interrupted by a Mosasaurus attack. Adrift but alive, dad (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), daughter (Luna Blaise), daughter's unpromising boyfriend (David Iacono) and daughter's younger sister (Audrina Miranda) are rescued by the mercenaries' expedition. Then they're separated on the island from their rescuers. Worst vacation ever! The DNA is to be used for life-saving heart disease cures, to the benefit of millions, and with trillions in profits. It's a time-tested setup promising reasonably high stakes. Yet the early dialogue sequences are determinedly casual and easygoing to the point of 'yeah whatever.' Johansson and Ali are both formidable wellsprings of charisma but their roles stick to basics. Most everyone on screen has either suffered or is in the process of suffering, or both. Ali and Johansson's characters carry deep-seeded emotional wounds from the loss of loved ones. The anguish endured by the rescued family, especially by Miranda's traumatized preteen character, render large swaths of 'Jurassic Park Rebirth' more grueling than exciting. Compared to 165 million years for the small-brain dinosaurs, humans will be lucky to last a million years on this climate-changed, nuke-crazy planet, the Bailey character warns at one point. The movie feels more than a little down in the mouth, even with its string of cliffhangers, some visually impressive, tied together with some ill-fitting comic relief. The moments of awe, involving the pleasant, plant-eating dinosaurs, provide callbacks to previous movies (cue the John Williams 'Jurassic Park' theme for another reprise). But the conspicuous newcomer, a bio-engineered mutant misfire called Distortus rex, pushes things into a different breed of monster movie. And yet: There are flashes and occasional whole sequences when Edwards' directorial eye snaps into focus, as in the brutal but superquick demise of one shipmate, seconds after making it to safety on shore, only to learn that safety is relative. The strategic conceals and reveals of the latest predators recall the best of the director's 'Godzilla,' unfashionably sparing in the visual exploitation of its antihero. But the first-rate digital creature designs must contend with an air of weariness. Still, I'd rank 'Rebirth' ahead of two or three previous chapters in a franchise whose sole consistency lies in a simple question: How have humans survived this long, even? 'Jurassic World Rebirth' — 2.5 stars (out of 4) MPA rating: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence/action, bloody images, some suggestive references, language, and a drug reference) Running time: 2:13 How to watch: Premieres in theaters July 2
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
I Watched Terminator 2 When I Was Only 8. Should I Let My Own Children Watch R-Rated Films? Let's Talk
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Back in my day, we used to watch R-rated movies all the time. In fact, when I was only 8 years old, my dad took me to see Terminator 2: Judgment Day in the theater, and it still, to this day, has my favorite introduction to any movie ever. Well, being the idiot that I am, I showed my son and daughter, who are 8 and 9, respectively, this intro, and I stupidly said, 'You know, Grandpa took me to see this when I was only 8, and it's rated R,' to which my children obviously asked, 'Can we watch rated-R movies then?' I walked right into that one, didn't I? I told them no, of course, since I felt bad for even taking my then-six-year-old son to a PG-13 movie like Godzilla Minus One. But my children asked me why I could watch a rated-R movie at their age, and they couldn't, which really got me thinking: Should I let them watch R-rated movies? Well… Terminator 2 is rated R, sure, but I don't know if I would consider it a heavy R. What I mean is the rating is mostly because of the violence, as well as the profanity, as the movie has around 52 f-bombs in it. Yes, that's a lot, and the first time I saw the movie, I was shocked! I distinctly remember turning to my dad, who gave me an apologetic expression, and I exclaimed, 'They can say that?' How naive I was, as the word was uttered several more instances after that first time. But, here's the thing: after that initial f-bomb, it didn't have the same impact for me anymore. In fact, I kind of didn't even notice it after awhile. So when it comes to my own children, would it really be so bad if they heard a few f-bombs in a movie? I mean, kids at their school say the f-word all the time, and I only know this since I've heard other kids saying it when I've picked my own children up. So, really, if I let my kids watch an R-rated flick, it all depends on the movie. For instance, my son has asked if he can watch Deadpool, and I said absolutely not. Besides the profanity, there's also a lot of sexual innuendo in that movie, and the violence is a bit too extreme. My daughter asked if she could watch The Evil Dead, since it's in one of my favorite horror franchises, which, in my enthusiasm, I've told her about several times. But besides the gore, that movie also has that scene (and you know what scene I'm talking about). So even though I saw an R-rated film when I was only 8, I'm not sure if my own kids are 'ready' yet. But that brings me to my next question. I've settled on 13. Is that the best age to let kids watch rated-R movies? Honestly, I have no idea, but I figure that if I tell my kids a certain age that's not too far away, then they'll be more amenable to accepting that rather than me just saying, 'Wait until you're 17.' Because, honestly, I trust my children, and I don't think watching a rated-R movie is going to warp them or turn them into deviants. For example, I've been a diehard Mortal Kombat fan ever since the first game debuted back in 1992. In fact, everybody I knew back then was a big fan of Mortal Kombat, and we turned out just fine. Also, I swear I watched every Friday the 13th movie, unedited, by the time I was 13. My mom worked nights, so I used to wait up until my older sister fell asleep, and then sneak downstairs to watch them (in fact, I watched a lot of movies my sister told me not to watch). In that way, 13 feels like a good age to me. That's because I'm the kind of father who has been answering any questions my children have from as early as they could talk; my rationale being that if they're old enough to wonder, then they're old enough to know the truth. So, when they asked me where babies came from, I took them to the library and showed them an age-appropriate book. I didn't say, 'The stork,' or anything that I would have to walk back later. I respect their intelligence, and when my daughter started watching The Simpsons, I was a little apprehensive at first since there are sexual jokes. But at the same time, I know these jokes are coming since I've seen every episode multiple times, and I'm prepared to explain any bawdy humor that comes up whenever my daughter asks, 'What do they mean?' Which brings me to my next point. When my dad took me to see Terminator 2, we went into it blind. He told me that he had asked a coworker of his if it was 'appropriate' for his 8-year-old son, and his coworker said that it was. But what's appropriate for one parent may not be appropriate for another. For example, I don't curse in front of my children, but I know there are plenty of parents who do. So for them, Deadpool's dialogue may not be an issue. For me, it is, at least when it comes to my kids. As another example, a lot of the kids in my son's class have already watched Squid Game (my son's friend asked him if he wanted to play 'Russian Roulette,' to which my son, thankfully, didn't know what he was talking about). So whatever R-rated movie I let my children eventually watch when they turn 13, I'll of course have to watch it first. In other words, unlike my dad, I won't just take another person's word for what is appropriate for my kids. I feel this is my job as a parent anyway. I'm not throwing any shade, but my kids don't even have cell phones. I know, how is that even possible, right? When even kindergarten kids have smartphones these days, I feel like the odd parent out since I won't let my children have them. But even with parental settings on, there are just too many outside factors that I can't control that I don't feel comfortable with. This brings me to my last point… Being a parent is knowing that your children aren't going to do what you want them to do, probably 99% of the time. For example, my mom didn't want me watching Friday the 13th, or the Halloween movies (which I've also watched all the way through), but I watched them anyway. It's mostly because my mother and I never had that conversation of what I should or shouldn't watch. It was just implied. However, it doesn't matter the generation. If a kid wants to see something badly enough, they'll find a way to see it, and my kids are no exception. Like, my son had to be the one who narc'd on his sister when he told me that she watched an episode of Hazbin Hotel on my account. I have since pulled Prime Video from my television and now only watch it on my phone. That said, for my son to even narc on his sister in the first place just tells me that 1, she must have done something that pissed him off, so he wanted to get her in trouble; and 2, even he realized that she shouldn't have been watching a show like that. So, when it comes to an R-rated movie, I want to be there when they watch one all the way through. Firstly, I want it to be something that they want to watch so it shows that I trust their maturity level. And secondly, I want it to be there to explain things, if need be. For example, when I used to sneak downstairs and watch Jason kill horny teenagers, a part of me thought sex was bad and that the camp counselors DESERVED to die since they shouldn't have been having sex in the first place. But I don't want my kids to grow up thinking sex is 'bad,' or that violence is 'good,' which I grew up believing since I watched these films alone at such a young age. I want them to know the risks of sex and the consequences of violence, and I feel I can do that if we watch these films together. But what do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Tom's Guide
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Tom's Guide
‘M3GAN 2.0' takes the killer robot doll in a ridiculous new direction — and it mostly works
The original 'M3GAN' succeeded in part thanks to its simple, straightforward premise: Robot doll turns murderous. There's nothing simple or straightforward about the new sequel 'M3GAN 2.0' (in theaters Friday), which is both a strength and a liability for writer-director Gerard Johnstone's film. It's impossible to say that 'M3GAN 2.0' is just a repeat of its predecessor, which is a trap that too many horror sequels fall into. But by shifting so sharply away from small-scale horror into what is essentially a superhero action movie, 'M3GAN 2.0' loses a bit of what made the first film so appealing. Still, I'll take an ambitious mess over a boring retread, and even at its messiest, 'M3GAN 2.0' is lively and fun, full of the same snarky humor and gleeful nastiness as the original. The first movie rose to popularity on a wave of memes, and there are times when 'M3GAN 2.0' is clearly trying to engineer new meme-able moments. It's tough to recapture that same kind of viral attention, but even if 'M3GAN 2.0' doesn't equal the first movie's quotable charms, it has plenty of memorably outrageous bits. The biggest change between the 'M3GAN' movies is that M3GAN herself is now more or less on the side of the good guys. Originally designed as an android companion for young orphan Cady (Violet McGraw), M3GAN (played onscreen by Amie Donald and voiced by Jenna Davis) went rogue in the first movie, taking her mandate of protecting Cady way too far by murdering anyone she perceived as detrimental to the child's happiness. There's now a much more dangerous threat in the form of Amelia (Ivanna Sakhno), a military-grade android who's disobeyed her programming and seems intent on staging a robot uprising. Of course, M3GAN wasn't actually destroyed at the end of the first movie, and her electronic consciousness lives on, keeping tabs on Cady and Gemma (Allison Williams), Cady's engineer aunt and M3GAN's designer. When government agents break into Gemma and Cady's house demanding information about Amelia, who was built using M3GAN's initial designs, M3GAN reveals herself and offers to help track down her megalomaniacal counterpart. The most obvious touchstone for this transition is James Cameron's 'Terminator 2: Judgment Day,' which refashioned Arnold Schwarzenegger's killer cyborg into an ally for potential human savior John Connor (Edward Furlong) and his mother Sarah (Linda Hamilton). M3GAN even ends up with an inhibitor that prevents her from killing humans, just like the order that John gives to the T-800 in 'Terminator 2.' But there's also a long history of superhero stories about wary team-ups between heroes and villains in order to take on bigger enemies, putting M3GAN alongside characters like Magneto and Loki. Like those characters, she retains her devious edge even as she agrees to a truce with Gemma and semi-apologizes for her past behavior. In that way, 'M3GAN 2.0' gets to revel in M3GAN's violent actions and snarky asides while making her into a more palatable — and even nuanced — protagonist. It takes nearly an hour of the overlong two-hour movie before M3GAN is once again fully functional, though. There's way too much set-up to get to that point, involving Gemma's new role as an activist for responsible technology, working with her smarmy boyfriend Christian (Aristotle Athari), plus Gemma's tech start-up with returning colleagues Cole (Brian Jordan Alvarez) and Tess (Jen Van Epps). Jemaine Clement has an amusing supporting role as a grandiose tech mogul who wants Gemma to work with him, but he mostly serves as a red herring, disappearing from the movie far too early. By the time M3GAN convinces Gemma to build her a new, stronger, taller body, the world is already on the verge of an AI apocalypse, and 'M3GAN 2.0' has practically turned into a 'Mission: Impossible' movie. There are multiple sub-missions within the main mission, leading to lengthy villain monologues and somewhat obvious plot twists. There are also some well-staged action sequences, including a battle between M3GAN and Amelia at a tech conference in a neon-lit corridor that looks like something out of 'Tron.' There's some genuine character development for Gemma, Cady and M3GAN, with strong performances (including Donald and Davis working well in tandem). It gets excessive and tiresome after a while, especially in the drawn-out climax involving multiple reversals. 'M3GAN 2.0' doesn't resemble a horror movie at all, but it's not like the original 'M3GAN' was all that scary. By expanding the character's world, Johnstone and co-writer Akela Cooper set the stage for future installments, making M3GAN into a high-profile vigilante who could take on any future nemesis. The message about technology and AI is hopelessly muddled by the end, but the message about M3GAN herself remains clear: She's fierce and formidable, and she isn't going anywhere.
UPI
25-06-2025
- Entertainment
- UPI
Movie review: 'M3gan 2.0' has fun with upgrades
1 of 5 | M3gan (Amie Donald) only wears her signature outfit once in "M3gan 2.0," in theaters Friday. Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures LOS ANGELES, June 25 (UPI) -- M3gan 2.0, in theaters Friday, attempts to advance its franchise the way Aliens and Terminator 2 did theirs. It's not as natural an evolution as James Cameron's sequels, but it's still good, silly fun. After the artificial intelligence doll M3gan (Amie Donald with Jenna Davis' voice) went on a rampage in the first film, the military applied her technology to Amelia (Ivanna Sakhno). When Amelia goes rogue in the sequel, M3gan is the only one who can stop her. So M3gan contacts her creator, Gemma Forrester (Allison Williams), via her smart house technology. After Gemma saw M3gan violently defend her niece, Cady (Violet McGraw), in the original film, Gemma now advocates for limiting technology amongst children, and developing any technology responsibly. The expansion of the M3gan world is not simply that there are now two robots causing trouble. The film's entire concept of artificial intelligence is larger. M3gan does need a new body, and Gemma is the one capable of rebuilding her. This forces Gemma to form an uneasy alliance with her former tormentor, like Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) and the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger). The dynamic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is dramatically interesting. Gemma and M3gan keep trying to outsmart each other while facing the larger threat of Amelia. Writer/director Gerard Johnstone is in on the joke with the convoluted plot he's creating. Characters breeze through exposition to keep introducing absurd technological developments with a sense of humor, from the smart house defending Gemma and Cady from intruders, to a Fast and the Furious/Knight Rider car chase between M3gan and Amelia. Every new aspect of M3gan's plan requires expensive technology. The film simply glosses over how M3gan manipulated technology to buy said tech and set it up previously so it's ready for the current scene. At two full hours, the plot goes a bit too far and for too long. By the climax, twists become predictable. The sequel ramps up the personality M3gan developed via learning in the first movie. She enters this film already making sarcastic, passive-aggressive remarks. M3gan also transitions into beloved antihero, the way T2 made Arnold Schwarzenegger's robot the good guy moving forward. It also leaves the horror genre behind to become primarily an action movie. Since M3gan and Amelia are only going after generic tech workers or government agents, it's not as scary as M3gan retaliating excessively against regular people in Cady's life. This sequel also loses touch with the heart of M3gan in a way that Aliens and Terminator 2 did not. Though there are moments in which Cady reckons with enabling M3gan and M3gan seeks Cady's forgiveness, it feels like the movie really just wants to get M3gan and Amelia in the same room. While Aliens took Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) back to the planet with the alien colony to fight an army of creatures, it sincerely developed her trauma from encountering just one. Sarah Connor faced two robots while trying to protect her son, but also took drastic action to prevent their creation. M3gan 2.0 is too busy with its new toys to really focus on its characters. That's mostly okay though. The filmmakers spent Universal's money on a robot movie where M3gan adds to her dance repertoire and sings an '80s power ballad. Gemma's corporate rival is Alton Appleton (Jemaine Clement), a tech mogul who developed a neural AI that allows paraplegics to walk. M3gan wears a lavender suit for most of the movie that makes her look like a superhero. Amelia does look more human than M3gan, though just shiny enough to still be robotic. All of these developments pay off in the film's action. There are many more inventions in M3gan 2.0. While some judiciousness may have been warranted, any of those new creations could be someone's favorite part of the movie. Fred Topel, who attended film school at Ithaca College, is a UPI entertainment writer based in Los Angeles. He has been a professional film critic since 1999, a Rotten Tomatoes critic since 2001, and a member of the Television Critics Association since 2012 and the Critics Choice Association since 2023. Read more of his work in Entertainment.
Daily Mail
23-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
80s child star who acted alongside Arnold Schwarzenegger in huge film looks worlds away from his younger self
80s child star Danny Cooksey looked worlds away from his younger self in a snap with his daughter Zoe Leigh Huish. Danny, 49, was a familiar face in Hollywood as a child and made a name for himself acting in Diff'rent Strokes, The Cavanaughs, Xiaolin Showdown, and Salute Your Shorts. He also jokingly describes himself as 'the guy with the sweet mullet in Terminator 2' after starring alongside Arnold Schwarzenegger in the classic film. Stepping into the shoes of Tim for the second instalment in the Terminator franchise, he played a friend of the young John Connor. Needless to say, his mullet is now long gone, and it couldn't be more apparent in a snap celebrating his then-impending status as a grandfather. He wrote at the time: 'Getting closer. So exciting. Can't wait for my first granddaughter.' Danny is pictured in the snap with his daughter Zoe, who gave birth to his first grandchild in 2022. The little girl is now a staple of the actor's Instagram account, where he proudly declared that she has the 'cutest face ever' in a recent snap. While most of us may not recognise Danny from his child acting heyday, he is still very much in the business. And while his red mullet is gone, you can still tell it is the same person thanks to his facial structure and red hair, which these days he styles short and in a goatee. Some of Danny's more recent projects include lending his voice to The Lorax and the Kung Fu Panda TV series. Still celebrating his status as an 80s legend, he jokes in his Instagram biography: 'Actor/musician known for such roles as the little white kid on Diff'rent Strokes. 'The guy with the sweet mullet in Terminator 2 and yes Budnick'. The actor may also be familiar to 90s children too, or at least his voice will be, as his credits also include voicing Stoop Kid in Hey Arnold! - a role he went on to reprise for the Hey Arnold! movie in 2017. Danny (L) is pictured here acting in Diff'rent Strokes in 1985 as part of his glittering career as a child star In an interview with a Hey Arnold! fan website in 2019, Danny reflected on what it was like to work on Terminator 2 as a child. He explained that it was shot close to where he was growing up in California, and ahead of his scenes, the film crews actually made it hard for him to get to school. The actor said: 'It was such a big production - it was awesome. 'I actually lived in the area where it was filmed. 'So, about a week or so before I started, I was driving to school and my normal route was totally blocked with all sorts of production trucks and what-not.' Danny also said that while it looked like his character Tim was killed by the T-1000, in his mind, he is still alive. He said: 'C'mon now, Terminator or no Terminator, you can't kill a power mullet that easy. 'Tim is alive, homeless and crazy - living somewhere on the sunset strip.'
