Month: November 2019

Categories
5 Stars Movies

The Irishman (2019)

Last year, when Netflix released the masterful film Roma, it was clear they were wanting the Academy to take them seriously. While it did win a good amount of awards (including Best Director), it did lose the big one, Best Picture, to Green Book (a film that, while charming at first, may be destined to be forgotten as time goes on). Much of this had to do with voters not liking the fact that a movie on a streaming service would win the night’s biggest honor, hoping instead for the winner to be one that was released theatrically.

Somewhat ironically, during the same Oscar telecast, we got the first (and very brief) teaser trailer for Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman, the film I personally have waited for all year. Along with Scoresese, names like De Niro, Pacino, Pesci, and Keitel filled the screen.

 With Roma, Netflix was clearly swinging for the fences. With The Irishman, they are swinging for the parking lot past the outfield bleachers, which, bluntly put, is the result we get.

I admit that it takes me more than a viewing or two to totally understand even the best of mafia themed films, but I will do my best. The film tells the story of a real life mob hitman named Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro, in his first Scorsese film in almost a quarter century). Towards the end of his life, we hear him narrate as he recalls making his way through the mob with the Buffalino Family, after encountering Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci), Frank’s new employer who reports to the big boss Angelo (Harvey Keitel). Eventually, they make there connections with helping the infamous union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino), the man now most famous for his mysterious disappearance.

There are others in the cast who fill their roles with uncanny professionalism, as we see actors like Jesse Plemons and Bobby Cannavale. Though the film is indeed a male dominated one, Anna Paquin does some of her best work in years as Peggy, one of Frank’s grown up daughters. Still, I was most delighted and surprised to see Ray Romano as Russell’s cousin who acts as Hoffa’s main attorney. I have always loved Romano ever since I saw Everybody Loves Raymond as a kid, but it never crossed my mind that he would be cast a lawyer in a Scorsese crime drama, much less be as good as he is.

The normal themes of Scorsese films are present. I am not just talking about the swearing and the violence. The master film maker has indeed been vocal about being influenced by his cathlocism, which is evident in his films (at least the ones I have seen). The thought of having one’s occupation take priority over one’s morality. The idea of characters feeling utter remorse after the act of sinning, and seeking forgiveness afterwards (similar to Raging Bull and Goodfellas).

Though The Irishman does stand as its own achievement, it probably has more in common with Goodfellas than any other Scorsese film. Both are about two separate men rising in the mob world, only to enter that aforementioned remorse at the end. Goodfellas did dive more into the “family” aspect of the mafia, as well as it being more biographical than The Irishman (which centers more on a part of life than the whole life).

Parents, there is no beating around the bush: the film is rated R for good reason. Even if there is no hint of sexual content (despite one or two times characters kiss), it is more than compensated for with the swearing and graphic violence.

It is not much of a surprise that the 2010s have not been the best of decades for either Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, or Joe Pesci (mainly since Pesci came out of retirement to do this film), at least when compared to past decades. That said, it is easy to say that it is the best any of them have been in years. Much of that credit should also be given to the film’s screenwriter, Oscar winner Steve Zallian (Schindler’s List, American Gangster, Moneyball).

We get a much more subtle De Niro than we are used to, but that does not make him any less affective. It is a little strange seeing Pesci being the authoritative figure to De Niro, but Pesci is just as brilliant even if he is not as bulldog crazy as he was in Goodfellas. The one with the most to do is Pacino. To me, Pacino has always been the only actor who you can always hear even if you put the mute button on. Here, he is not overacting because he chooses to, but because we sense that is how the character would be.

The three main lead actors are in their mid to late 70s, yet the special effects mixed with the superior acting makes us not think of anything but the story. The only flaw with the film (and it is as minor a flaw as can be) is that some moments do show the actor’s age (they can make the face look younger, but certain body movements do seem a lot slower for that young age).

One thing I have not yet mentioned is the runtime, which stands at nearly 3 ½ hours. Yes, that is a long time, but I assure you not one second of that is wasted. If the film seems slow, it is because it is patient in the storytelling (most notably in the last hour when we see Hoffa’s outcome. Nothing is on screen that does not need to be.

The Irishman clearly marked all of my expectations, and then some.

Overall:

Rating: 5 out of 5.
Categories
3 1/2 Stars Movies

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)

For one reason or another, I was very worried when I first heard that Tom Hanks would be playing “Mister” Fred Rogers, especially only a year after the superb documentary Won’t you be my Neighbor? (which I am surprised was not nominated for an Oscar). The great Fred Rogers was someone we all, to some extent, truly took for granted. A soul of pure kindness that everyone would have given anything to have called neighbor, and ended up being the host of one of the greatest children’s programs in TV history (probably second only to Sesame Street). Truly one of a kind, I did not even think someone like Tom Hanks could replicate the aura of Rogers.

Obviously, I was wrong. It is the best Hanks has been in years, even though he is not the true center piece of A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. That falls on Lloyd Vogel (Emmy winner Matthew Rhys), a journalist known for writing profiles that seem to always bring the negative out in the subject. When asked to do a piece on heroes, no one wants him to do the profile. No one, that is, except Mr. Rogers. When he mentions it to his wife Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson from the TV show This is Us), she begs her husband, “Please don’t ruin my childhood”.

It does not take long for the viewer to realize Lloyd’s own troubles, as he has a rather rocky (to say the least) relationship with his father Jerry (Oscar winner and always reliable Chris Cooper), resulting in some punches thrown at the beginning of the film (he assures others who see his wounds that it was a softball incident). This part of the plot does teeter a bit towards the mundane, if only because experienced movie goers will know the expected outcome. Thankfully, that does not mean it is not effective at times. This mainly occurs when Lloyd finally begins to open up about his feelings, first with Rogers.

One of the more interesting things of the film is how director Marielle Heller (who was at the helm of 2018’s Can You Ever Forgive Me?) structures it like an actual episode of Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood. I found this both effecting and sometimes perplexing. It is how we are introduced to the Lloyd Vogel character (who is based on real life journalist Tom Junod), as Rogers asks us if we know what it means to “forgive” (something all ages need to remember these days). I was okay with the fourth wall breaks that occurred, but some segments seemed almost superfluous, such as Rogers spending a few minutes showing us how a magazine is made.

There is no way for me to continue with the review without talking about Tom Hanks. It must have been truly inevitable that, when the time came for Mr. Rogers to be portrayed on screen, only Hanks could have done so. When looking back, perhaps I was worried about the casting because Hanks does not show much of a physical resemblance to Fred (my expectations can be high at times). Thankfully, I soon realized that did not matter, because the attributes of Mr. Rogers’ character were the crucial part, and Hanks has those in spades. The kindness. The smile. The heart. The unrivaled sense of decency.

There are very few (if any) celebrities who have been labeled as being one of the nicest people ever than Hanks. Think about it: When was the last time you heard Tom Hanks in the headlines for a scandal, or seen in the tabloids? His quality of the “every man” has resonated with him for years, similar to acting icon (and also acclaimed nice guy) James Stewart. This is not to even mention his highly underrated sense of humor (he is one of the funnier guests I have seen on late night talk shows). In a nutshell, my little brother Connor put it best: “When Tom Hanks dies, the world will be sad.”

Parents, the film is a rather soft PG rating. Along with the one brief early fight scene, I counted only a couple of the most minor of swearing, and nothing else. This is the type of film families are perfectly fine with seeing.

The film did not hit me in the feels as much as the documentary Won’t you be my Neighbor? (though few films have done so like that in the last few years), but the lessons are still clear (Rogers clearly is breaking the fourth wall when he asks Lloyd to take one minute to think of all the people who have helped him in life, something the real Rogers did many times). The lesson of everyone needing to give a little kindness. The lesson of how to forgive. The lesson of how (as Rogers says in the film),

“Fame is a four-letter word. What matters is what we do with it.”

Overall:

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

Categories
4 1/2 Stars Movies

Ford v Ferrari (2019)

Of all sports, car racing is easily the one I have had the least knowledge or interest in. That is not to say I hate the sport, just that various factors in my life have made me unmoved by the idea of fast car driving. The same can be said for me about cars in general (when ever people ask me what type of car I drive, my immediate reaction is “Silver”). Up until seeing Ford v. Ferrari, I did not even consider that race cars would be equipped with windshield wipers. Aside from names like Dale Earnhardt and Jeff Gordon, the most I know about racing was that the cars did not shoot off red turtle shells or banana peels.

Like all good sports movies, Ford v Ferrari is about much more than just the sport. It is about the drama (and sometimes comedy) behind the scenes. In 1966, Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) decides to put all that the company has to making a new car that kids today would like. After failing to merge with the Ferrari company and having his character insulted (“he called you fat, sir”), he vows to beat Ferrari at the 24 hour le mans in France. Enter retired race car driver/car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon). He brings in his long time friend Ken Miles (Christian Bale) as the lead driver, though some at the corporate office do not like Ken’s attitude.

I have yet to mention the rest of the stellar cast, all of whom fill their roles perfectly. Two of the key roles of the film are Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) and Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas), both assistants to Mr. Ford. It was Iacocca who initially came up with the idea for the Ford company to have a new racing program, though Beebe was against it. As an actor, Bernthal has been known for playing really tough guy roles (he was The Punisher on Netflix, as well as Shane in AMC’s The Walking Dead). Here, it is a rather subdued, kinder performance, and rather impressive at that. Lucas, on the other hand, is nothing short of a brownnoser. He is sneaky, slimey, and so believable you want to have someone just punch him in the face.

There is also nice work from Caitriona Balfe as Ken’s wife Mollie and the very talented young actor Noah Jupe (who was the son in A Quiet Place) as Ken’s son Peter.

Undoubtedly, the key component that keeps the film afloat is the on screen chemistry bromance of Damon and Bale. Damon has always had star quality (sorry if you are reading this, Jimmy Kimmel), and Bale has yet to show me a bad performance. Each are struggling with their own personal demons (Shelby had to quit racing for health reasons and Miles is having IRS issues). They truly have moments of sharpening one another (bringing Proverbs 27:17 to mind). One of the more comical scenes of the film comes when Carroll tries to apologize to Ken, only to get a good sock in the nose. Soon, they are both wrestling each other (as Mollie brings a chair out to watch). In other words, it is not two enemies duking it out, but each friend unleashing inner feelings at each other.

Another key scene to the film involves Carroll and Ford, in which Ford suddenly breaks down in tears. At first, this seems really funny, only to realize it is somewhat symbolic to the Ford dynasty. It is rather brilliant done by Letts.

Perhaps the film’s stand out star is the director, James Mangold. Some of his previous work includes the 2005 Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line (with Joaquin Phoenix), 2007’s underrated Western 3:10 to Yuma (with Bale and Russell Crowe), and 2016’s Logan, which gave us an uncanny swan song performance by Hugh Jackman. There are hardly any current directors who can make films like he does that display real authentic grit (sometimes literally) and poetic backbone. 

As is the case with all great directors, he knows that action sequences are only part of the movie, not the main part. That is not at all to say that the racing scenes are sub par. In fact, they are nothing short of riveting.

Parents, the film is rightly rated as PG-13. While there is plenty of drama, the rating is mainly due to swearing, but nothing that a typical middle schooler would not hear in the hallways. There are no sex scenes of any kind.

I have never seen a 24 hour le mans event (or any car race for that matter), but I can imagine it has a sense of surrealism. The same can be said about this film, which is indeed long at two and a half hours. Still, the movie reminds us that races are not always about who gets to the end first, but the trip taken there in the first place.

Overall:

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.
Categories
Movies

How Hollywood is Tearing Us Apart

In the history of film, no aspect of the movie making process is easier to see how far we have come than that of special effects. From 1903’s A Trip to the Moon to King Kong to Star Wars to James Cameron to the MCU, it is no secret that CGI is a key factor (if not the key factor) to a box office smash.


Back in 2008, the movie The Curious Case of Benjamin Button told the story of how the title character (played by Brad Pitt) lives a life in reverse: being born old then gradually getting younger. Since then, we have seen more examples of Hollywood using technology to either bring back actors to life, such as in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, with the character of General Tarkin being brought back despite the fact that the actor, Peter Cushing, died in 1994. The same movie used the same trick with Princess Leia, played by the late great Carrie Fisher (from what I have read, this will not be the case for the upcoming Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker). Actors are also now able to look younger, most recently with Will Smith in Gemini Man and with characters in Martin Scoresese’s newest film, The Irishman (unseen by me at this writing, though I have been waiting for this more than any other 2019 film).


However, this technology has taken a big hit of criticism last week, when it was revealed that a film would be made using this form of CGI to bring back James Dean to star in a movie.


If this is the first time you are hearing about this, I assure you it is not a joke.


James Dean, who died over half a century ago, will be “brought back” to star in a movie. This ranks up with the “colorizing” of old movies (in which Ted Turner made Black and White classics look like trashy coloring books) as the most ludicrous of Hollywood ideas.


Anyone even remotely interested in film history will have heard of James Dean. Born in Indiana in 1931, he starred in only three films: East of Eden, Rebel without a Cause, and Giant (the only one of which I have yet to see).

Though he lived to see East of Eden released, he died in a car crash at the age of 24 nearly a month before the release of Rebel (for which he is probably most famous for). He was the first actor nominated posthumously for an Oscar, then received another posthumous Oscar the next year (for East of Eden and Giant, respectively). The true legend of Dean was now born.


In the 1950s, he grew up when it was cool to rebel, and became one of the symbols of the term (the others would be Elvis Presley and Dean’s own idol, Marlon Brando). Like Brando, he brought a new type of acting to the screen (most commonly known as “the method”), making Dean seem more visceral and raw than others before him. Who knows what kind of career he would have had if it weren’t for his fatal car crash (he was a notorious fan of high speed racing).


His influence is clearly felt to this day (even The Room‘s Tommy Wiseau is a fan, hence “You’re tearing me apart, Lisa!”), or else directors Anton Ernst and Tati Golykh would not have had the idea to use him (well, his image) in their upcoming movie Finding Jack. Based off of a book of the same name by author Gareth Crocker, the film is about a Vietnam soldier named Fletcher Carson (Dean) who is recovering from a recent tragedy. Despite wishing to die in the war, he befriends a dog that brings his life new meaning.


According to the filmmakers, they did plenty of auditions for the role of Carson, but decided that Dean would be the only actor who could play him, despite the fact that another actor will have to voice the character.


There are a few instances where this has been used are far back as commercials in the 1990s, such as soda commercials involving Humphrey Bogart and James Cagney. During the 84th Academy Awards (the one that was sadly hosted by James Franco and Anne Hathaway), there was a segment when Billy Crystal came out to talk about the legendary Bob Hope as a projection of Hope was on stage cracking jokes. Though there was no real reason for this other than to show the technology (the image of Hope basically introduced the next presenters), I still found it cool (I mean, Bob Hope was arguably the greatest Oscar host of all time. Even Billy Crystal would say the same.) The difference is that was the performer representing themselves, not used to serve a work of fiction as some sort of puppet.


God gave us Artistic freedom, but I would argue that this is robbing others of their freedom. Not just the living actors who could perform these parts (the filmmakers said they auditioned many before they determined only James Dean could play the part, but since the Screen Actors Guild has roughly 160,000 members, I have some doubts), but also the director. Film director/icon Alfred Hitchcock said, “In feature films the director is God; in documentary films God is the director”.


Thankfully, the idea of digitally “reanimating” deceased stars is being shot down in the media. Captain America himself Chris Evans has called it “shameful”, as have others such as Dylan Sprouse and Elijah (“Frodo Baggins”) Wood. Perhaps the biggest opponent of the idea is Zelda Williams, daughter of the late great comic Robin Williams, pointing out how her father would not let anyone use his likeness of this sort for 25 years after his death (and if there is ANYONE you can not replicate, it is Robin Williams).


It gets even worse. A licensing specialist CMG Worldwide has combined with a creation studio named Observe Media to form Worldwide XR. According to their website, James Dean is just the beginning (they do plan on using his image more, using the shameless phrase “Think of it as James Dean 2.0”). They have plans for other celebrities, not just film stars like James Stewart, Ingrid Bergman, Dorothy Dandridge, Rock Hudson, and Christopher Reeve. From what I have seen, this would include people such as wrestler Andre the Giant, baseball legends “Shoeless” Joe Jackson & Lou Gehrig, jazz drummer Buddy Rich, and aviation icon Amelia Earhardt.


The idea of this is not only foolish, but borderline dangerous. I don’t just mean from a financial aspect (the cost of The Irishman was mainly related to the technology). It is bringing people back to life who more than likely did not know about this advanced tech in the first place (let alone any tech, for that matter. It is almost like necromancy for the 21st century.

Imagine if Jordan Peterson had his image taken, and someone was able to have him talk (or someone imitate his voice) about the wonders of atheism. It would be like me, someone who is five foot, made to look like I can out dunk Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.


It is as if the people in charge failed to remember the advice given from Jurassic Park in which Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum) argues about why bring dinosaurs back to life is a bad idea.


“Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

Categories
4 Stars Movies

JoJo Rabbit (2019)

Growing up, I had a slight impression that film comedies that were called “satirical” were always a little “smarter” than other comedies, not to mention sometimes riskier.

When Charlie Chaplin made The Great Dictator in 1940 (one year before the US entered the war), he was finally playing off the premise of how Adolf Hitler (who, it is said copied his mustache off of Chaplin) looked just like him. During the 1960s, Stanley Kubrick decided to make a satire off of nuclear war, and in the process, his Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) became one of the best of the genre (“You can’t fight in here: This is the war room!”)

All that said, it is not hard to see how some will be disturbed (to say the least) about the newest film by Director/Writer Taika Waititi (who made 2017’s Thor: Ragnarok, as well as played the film’s sidekick Korg), JoJo Rabbit, which has been billed as an anti-hate satire. Set in the last year or so of the war, the film centers on its protagonist Jojo (Roman Griffin Davis, who gives quite a film debut) as a somewhat precocious ten year old. Having lost his older sister years ago and having his father fighting in the war, he is left basically alone with his loving mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson).

As is the case with every 10 year old boy (and I would assume girls as well), he needs someone to look up to. Due to the time period and the fact that he lives in Germany, there is really no one else he could idolize other than Hitler, who shows up as his imaginary friend (played by Waititi). He goes to help at the local Nazi center which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Oscar winner Sam Rockwell) and his assistant Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson). Even in this setting, Jojo is somewhat of an outcast desperately trying to fit in, with the exception of his friend Yorkie (played by a scene stealing Archie Yates). Jojo’s life is thrown a curveball when he realizes that his mother has been hiding a young Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie, who starred in 2018’s criminally under seen great film Leave No Trace).

Most of the film is indeed shown through young Jojo’s eyes, with the exception of a few scenes. The most affecting ones are those with him and Elsa (who I was friends with Jojo’s sister years before). There is some funny imagery of their first encounter, where McKenzie is showing movements like she was almost out of a horror film (she does this on purpose). The rest I won’t spoil for you, except to say that it is proof that these are two young talents worthy of future attention.

The character arc of Jojo is well executed (no small thanks to the young Davis). His mother is out during the day, so most of what he experiences and learns from Elsa (as well as from the Nazi center) is authentic and direct. There also were not as many scenes as I was anticipating with Waititi’s Hitler (though they are rather amusing). By the end of the film, it has indeed died down on the comedy, as the whole situation of the war is finally revealed to the titular character. Moral relativism does not abide in this film: there is a true understanding of what happened and why it was bad. Moral implications also arise, given the nature of hiding a Jewish person from the authorities.

Parents, the film is PG-13 mainly due to swearing (one F bomb) and some violence. Mainly, the content and premise is what to watch out for if anyone sees this movie without knowing it is a comedy.

As an aside, I feel I should point out that I am more than aware of the atrocities that the real Hitler executed during his time of rule. Millions of lives were lost, and the affects are still felt to this day. How there are people who actually believe the Holocaust did not happen is something I will never know, nor want to. Sometimes humor is a way that people deal with evil and suffering, so having a comedy set in Nazi Germany is one of the ways we can emotionally deal with the atrocities that occurred.

The issue I had with the film was how, at times, it seemed to have difficulty finding its tone . The movie really only started working for me once Elsa was introduced. Still, credit should be given to the cast and crew for attempting something not only risky, but original.

It isn’t every day you see Hitler jumping out the window.

Overall:

Rating: 4 out of 5.
Categories
3 Stars Movies

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)

Going as far back as the 1927 German film Metropolis (by renown filmmaker Fritz Lang), we as humans have been exposed to the idea of robots (or cyborgs: I know there is probably a difference of some kind). Ever since, we have gotten examples ranging from the Cybermen of Doctor Who (of which I am a huge fan), 2001’s HAL 9000, and the Blade Runner replicants to the lovable animated robots of Big Hero 6 ‘s BayMax and the titular hero of WALL:E. Which leads us, of course, to the Terminator franchise.

The newest film, Terminator: Dark Fate, takes place after 1991’s T2: Judgement Day (which I would rank in the top five or so greatest sequels in the history of cinema), meaning it disregards the previous films, only one of which I have seen, 2015’s Terminator” Genisys (which was a disappointment to say the very least). After the success of preventing Judgement Day, we learn that Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) and her son John made it past that day in August of 1997, but that did not mean they were completely safe. The film opens with John’s murder from a terminator, leaving Sarah on her own. She lives live now gettting mysterious texts from a source letting her know when other terminators will enter her time line.

One such event occurs as she helps protect a young Mexican woman named Dani (Natalie Reyes) from a newly evolved terminator called a Rev-9 (Gabriel Luna), which is somewhat of a cross between the normal t-800 and t-1000 (except its liquid state is much darker and muddier). Sent back in time to protect Dani is Grace (Mackenzie Davis), who is somewhat of a machine but more on the human side. Before her arrival, Grace had a tattoo applied, showing her cooridinates that match those of the mysterious texter (though it is really easy to predict who it is).

Of course, being a terminator film, you have to have Schwarzeneggar, being this is the role that made him a household name (and, as a kid, made me believe robots/cyborgs were real). As always, he is perfectly convincing, even when he is saying lines that are hard for me to comprehend the silliness. Just as convincing is Hamilton, playing a character that has become synonymous with the idea of a woman you don’t mess with (the only one more intense would be Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley from the Alien franchise). She also has to face the idea of forgiveness towards a certain character, which is something not in her blood. Davis does a decent job of being a protector who becomes more friendly as the film progresses, and there is a fine character arc for Reyes as her Dani quickly goes from “What is happening?!?” to “Enough is enough”. Luna also does an okay job as the villain, though he lacks the amount of cold menace from the 1991 film given by the great Robert Patrick.

The time travel formula is basically the same as the original two (which is where I learned the effects of time travel): protect the past to save the future (in this film, the company that has made new forms of technology is called Legion, as Skynet is now just a word only known to Connor and the T-800). Unlike Terminator: Genisys, this film thankfully is easier to follow the time travel aspect (Genisys was, to borrow a line from Doctor Who, was too “wibbly wobbly” and “timey wimey”).

The action sequences are just basic, but sometimes impressive. There are other nice touches from the original films, such as car chases in actual vehicles, not just sports cars. It also takes place, for the most part, in just two days or so.

One of the more interesting aspects of the film is how the Arnie character has been living as a human (he goes by the name Carl, and works selling draperies. He has fallen in love (so to speak) with a single mother (Alicia Borrachero) and taken care of her son Mateo (Manuel Pacific). He has almost learned to have a soul, so to speak, though his relationship with his wife is not physical (“Does she know you weight 400 pounds?”, quips Connor). It is not entirely clear if Carl has developed a full imbodied soul, but he does truly know how to keep a family safe.

Parents, as is the case in the other films, there is some nudity (though it is not sexual here). There is still a good amount of violence and much swearing that makes this R rating what it is.

There is an intriguing line by Grace, after Sarah has mentioned what she had originally done in the previous films, which changed the future.

“You may have changed the future, but you didn’t change our fate.”

As humans, we are now more reliant (and, especially with cellphones, rather addicted) on technology than ever. Whether it will bring us to near extinction is up for debate. We as human beings are indeed supremely intelligent, but can we make intelligent beings that can think and feel for themselves? Comment below with your thoughts.

I am reminded of a joke from a minister. When scientists come to the conclusion that God is no longer needed, God asks if they are even able to make people from the dust of the earth, they say yes. Intrigued, God knows this is something he has got to see. When the scientists grab the dust of the ground, God quickly says, “No, make your own dirt.”

One thing that can be said is that, if we are in a future similar to that of the one we get in these films, what technology won’t be able to overpower is that of the human spirit, ensuring us that we will, in the end, be back.

Overall:

Rating: 3 out of 5.