If the film boasted similarly great action to that which made the franchise's name (all we get is a bunch of crummy CGI firefights) or an overriding forward momentum, then perhaps itd be possible to ignore these fundamental flaws (heck, we all do for the various narrative convolutions of the first two). Sadly Genisys is such a bland watch that the only excitement comes from picking apart those ridiculous plot holes; I dont think I've ever had as many stupidly unanswered questions after a film before. It's not just that the film can't get over the apparent complexities of time travel though. On a basic level, Genisys hasn't decided what it's trying to be. Is it rewriting the original, remaking Terminator 2: Judgement Day or soldiering forward with the vague plot beats of a new trilogy? It's all of these, kinda, but all it really wants to do is appeal to a general audience whose Terminator knowledge goes as far as knowing Ill be back." This brings us to a bigger issue with the film, and the franchise as a whole; Terminator isn't the innate blockbuster behemoth every studio who's chased the brand appear convinced it is. Terminator 2: Judgement Day was a box office smash, sure, but that was less to do with the name and more down to it boasting a visionary director at the top of his game, the presence of the biggest action star of the time and a the mammoth tie-in merchandising push that made it an icon for children who were too young to even see it. The Terminator name means a lot to film fans, but to the mainstream it's a legacy property they have no affinity with. There's probably another good Terminator movie that could be made, but as long as the series is mired in making generic action blockbusters that tie to the franchise's legacy purely through obligated homaging we'll never get to see it. Do we really need more time spent obsessing over the fact Jai Courtney is John Connor's father? No, but Genisys still drags up the thirty year old twist as a key plot point, even though all that timeline busting makes it somewhat redundant. Although Terminator 5 is clearly a studio-driven exercise, much of the blame must fall on the director. Alan Taylor seemed like a competent filmmaker with his work on Game Of Thrones, but his efforts since - Marvel low-point Thor: The Dark World and this - show hes nothing more than a corporate stooge, happy to churn out audience-baiting mediocrity without a care for the fans of the source material. The opening, which hews close to Camerons early two movies, shares some of the master's directorial tics, but the box-ticking later sequences show how Taylor's only creative aim is to please the suits. Theres so many moments in the film that insult the intelligence of the general audience (a bus flips because a thing moves a bit) or long-standing Terminator fans (Jai Reese Courtney has a vision), but the worst is the explanation of what the sub-titular Genisys is. The grammatically messed up name has already raised eyebrows, but the in-movie explanation of the title - Genisys is a mundane, simple and, worst of all, already existent idea - is so oblivious of the real world that it single-handedly seals this film as the worst in the franchise. Termynaytor Genysis is in awe of the originals (it even lavishly recreates the opening of the first movie), but, for all its reverence, it misses what made the franchise so potent to begin with. The original Terminator is about Cold War paranoia, female empowerment and humanity's endurance. Genisys is about how we may use our mobiles a little too much. What did you think of Terminator Genisys? Agree with this review? Let me know what you thought on Twitter - @ADLeadbeater.
