Short Take: "John Carter" and "Wrath of the Titans".

If you thought Clash of the Titans was forgettable, Wrath of the Titans seems to have been made exclusively to steals its title as most forgettable movie ever. This time around Zeus (Liam Neeson) recruits his stubborn son Perseus (Sam Worthington) to save the world from his evil half-brother Ares (Edgar Ramírez) who has formed an alliance with Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to kill the gods and unleash Cronos from his underworld prison. As is the norm with movies featuring villains that want to destroy the planet, nobody ever really specifies where the villains would move to after the apocalypse, but who cares because you know Perseus will indeed save the day.

The problem with Sam Worthington embodying a world savior isn't really that he's extremely flat (which he undeniably is despite the 3D effects) but that he makes everyone around him become just as bland. Watch him literally suck the life out of Rosamund Pike, who tries as she may, fails to to make her warrior queen Andromeda remotely interesting. Worthington only comes off better when he's next to the obnoxious Toby Kebbell who plays Agenor, son of Neptune. 

Watching the way in which director Jonathan Liebesman cheapens the concept of Greek mythology, you can't help but wander in your head and wonder why has Hollywood made such a hard effort to uglify everything? When compared to the way movies were made in the past, in which legendary actors played supporting roles (everyone from Brando to Olivier) and Greeks were always spotless, you have to wonder if the filmmakers behind this really think that watching Perseus dirty will make any difference and invite us to identify with him.

Everyone in this movie is either dirty or looks smelly, which not only fails to humanize their adventure, it's also preposterous to be watching in 3D. The visual effects in this movie are also so unimaginative that you wish they would've just stuck to voiceovers to describe what was going on. Lucky for you, by the time the film is over you probably will have already forgotten you saw it, which might be the only truly divine intervention that occurs here.

It seems that unless your name is James Cameron, you should be forbidden from trying to emulate the wow factor that George Lucas introduced to the space-fantasy genre with Star Wars. Why? Because most filmmakers lack the guts to go all through in their visions of new worlds and instead of imposing a brand new set of rules, they adhere strictly to previous visual references. Reason why everything in John Carter seems to have been done, and much better, in other movies.
Taylor Kitsch stars as the title hero, a US Civil War vet who accidentally gets transported to Mars where as a Messiah he helps solve various crises, including toning down the violence among a group of four-armed aliens who regard him as a sort of Spartacus figure and getting involved in a civil war between humanoids. Of course he ends up falling for a sexy princess (Lynn Collins) who makes him wonder if home is where the heart is and considering that the film's original title was John Carter of Mars you kinda know where this one's headed to.
Directed by Andrew Stanton of WALL-E and Finding Nemo fame, it's rather surprising that the film feels so lacking in imagination. Every scene is either a blatant ripoff or an "homage" to movies like Gladiator, Avatar, Star Wars etc. and there's obviously nothing wrong with showing off your ability to stylishly reference other works (Tarantino has forged an entire career out of said gimmick) the problem is when you're excessively reverential or, eek, just plain dull.
Despite a superb star turn by Kitsch, who seriously does more than show off his impeccable body by giving Carter a soulful desperado vibe, the movie comes off as taking itself too seriously. By the time the characters are done talking about Martian myths, social issues and backstabbing, you have pretty much lost all interest in the fact that the movie promised you Indiana Jones like treats.
You can practically see Stanton's sweat drop down his forehead as he composed every frame carefully trying to show off his skills as a visual artist, yet the creatures, costumes and design in the movie feel lacking. The color palettes are arid and fail to arrest your senses. Watching John Carter feels like traversing a desert, which ought to mean big business for theater concessionary stands but just makes the audience wish they'd just get to the oasis and be done with it.

Grades
Wrath of the Titans *
John Carter **

Short Take: "Take Shelter", "Margin Call" and "Texas Killing Fields"

In Take Shelter, Michael Shannon plays Curtis, a man who is having constant apocalyptic visions, and can you blame him? With the world going through one of its most severe cases of economic, cultural and sociological

crises, he would need to be heavily sedated to be optimistic. This is the film's magic, how writer/director Jeff Nichols transports all these feelings of impending doom and crafts with them, not a preposterous ode to negativity but an intelligent psychological portrait about the way in which our subconscious manifests its fears.

The film isn't clever because we wonder whether Curtis' visions are signs of insanity or actual premonitions, but because of the way in which Shannon taps onto the fear of losing one's mind when trying to remain a responsible member of society. The film is almost socialist in the way it so fixates itself on work, as Curtis builds a shelter to protect his family (the ubiquitous Jessica Chastain plays his wife and is nothing short of perfect). Nichols crafts a workman symbolism as we see, construction worker, Curtis dig deep down into the ground to escape from a sky that for the first time seems to be noticing him. He's trying to escape doom by working harder. Now how's that for a pitch perfect snapshot of our times?  

Margin Call deals with the corruption that goes behind the stock market and emphasizes on the "thrills" that make Wall Street such an adored object of Hollywood's attention. Why not make a comedy about  this for once? The film doesn't really contribute anything new to the genre with Penn Badgley and Zachary Quinto playing the wide eyed virgins willing to sell their soul to get a piece of the pie and Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Irons playing larger-than-life monsters who control everything with their ruthlessness and suspenders. The ensemble is quite effective (despite having the likes of Simon Baker and Demi Moore in its ranks) but the film's lack of actual excitement makes it endlessly dull.

Oy, Sam Worthington really needs blue aliens or Keira Knightley to turn in semi-decent performances, playing a violent detective in Texas Killing Fields does him no favors, but then again the material does none of the actors any favor (although Jessica Chastain somehow manages to deliver the goods). This serial killer flick had all the makings of a B-gore fest, but everything is so overdone that its intention to be some sort of feminist essay bites in the back by becoming endlessly stereotypical and cliché. The film was directed by Michael Mann's daughter and one would wish she had inherited some of her dad's stylish eye for crime movies.

Grades
Take Shelter ***
Margin Call **
Texas Killing Fields *

Short Takes: "One Day" and "The Debt".

Even if it never makes justice to the book it's based on (the eponymous novel written by David Nicholls), One Day is an often delightful romance powered by pure star wattage and a great - albeit slightly gimmicky - concept. The film follows the relationship between Emma (Anne Hathaway) and Dexter (Jim Sturgess) over the course of two decades, but does so by showing what they do on the exact date they met. We see them grow from awkward college graduates to decently rounded adults; they survive destructive relationships, family tragedies, divorces, career and country changes etc. and the one thing that remains constant throughout is their love for one another.

Perhaps the novel's reach is a bit too ample to turn it into a small romantic comedy (it certainly would've been wonderful as a miniseries that took longer to flesh out Em and Dex better) because as it is, we often have a hard time knowing why the characters do what they do. Even if they never become mere archetypes - he of the fun-loving lothario and she of the obsessive control freak - we feel cheated, like we could've benefited more from knowing what they do on the dates we don't get to see.

Directed with a precise hand by Lone Scherfig (who follows the joyful style she used in An Education) the film has moments of marvel as well as scenes that seem to drag forever. Fortunately most flaws can be overlooked because of the performers. Sturgess is unusually passive, almost lacking in the exuberance needed to turn Dexter into a character we could hate and then fall in love with, however his quiet performance reveals that Dexter is a man who never knows himself fully (his scenes with Patricia Clarkson, who plays his mom, are violently delicate).

Hathaway - who sadly never mastered the required British accent - is all smiles and wide eyed contempt as Emma. As usual, Hathaway grabs a simple character and layers it with the kind of star quality few performers can add (only Julia Roberts lights up the screen with the same ease) while keeping a deep humanity that reaches to you beyond the screen. The film is by no means perfect (although the ending might just leave you weeping) but it works because of its utter sincerity. Few films nowadays are so straightforward about breaking your heart.

You gotta give it to John Madden: he's one versatile filmmaker! His constant traveling of genre to genre (he directed Shakespeare in Love and Proof) have turned him into the equivalent of a studio era director, who worked under producers and got little input to create his own authorial signature. With that said, he doesn't hit the mark in his espionage thriller The Debt, a decade spanning film that follows the lives of three former Mossad agents from their first big mission, to the fame it eventually brings them.
The spies are played by Jessica Chastain, Marton Csokas and Sam Worthington as young agents trying to catch a deranged Nazi surgeon in the 1970s. Their mature versions are played by Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson and Ciarán Hinds respectively (in a quite good casting decision). They all come together in their old age to settle a secret they've been living with for decades, the film then uses flashbacks to show us what marked and bonded them forever.
The main issue with the film is how Madden tries to trick us, only to then reveal how entire scenes are nothing but lies. This never works because in the film's context - which most certainly isn't an artistic exercise a la Antonioni - all the scenes seem to be fact based. His idea of toying with perception is indeed respectable but the execution is sloppy and often causes confusion (did we see right or were we dozing off mid-screening?).
Mirren is fantastic as usual but the best in show honor goes to Chastain who plays her character with an angsty vitality one would only attribute to someone like, well, Mirren. She conveys such a damaged past that we only have to see in her eyes to understand where she's coming from and why she's doing what she does. Few performances are this magnetic and exciting, anyone looking for a new action heroine, take note.

Grades:
One Day ***
The Debt **½

Last Night ***

Director: Massy Tadjedin

Cast: Keira Knightley, Sam Worthington, Eva Mendes, Guillaume Canet

Stephanie Romanov, Daniel Eric Gold

When did Keira Knightley become such a fascinating actress? Her performance in Last Night sneaks up on you in completely unexpected ways, proving that she's become one to watch. In the film she plays Joanna Reed, a modestly successful, but insecure writer married to real estate agent Michael (Worthington). Minutes into the running time the young couple arrive at a party where Joanna meets Michael's new coworker, the voluptuous Laura (Mendes), she watches her husband and this woman together and becomes convinced that they are having an affair.

Back home they engage in a discussion where she tries to squeeze the truth out of her husband, however she wants to hear the truth she thinks is real.

Massy Tadjedin's Last Night then slowly begins to show its true colors, it's not a standard drama in how it follows a chronological order, instead it's more of an exploration of what shapes our lives as adults and an oneiric study of what exactly constitutes love after marriage.

Some scenes are insterspersed with other scenes to highlight specific passages or to make us doubt what we are watching. This happens mostly in latter scenes where Joanna goes out with former lover Alex (Canet) while her husband is away on a business trip with Laura.

Director Tadjedin may not always be subtle, in fact some of these bits are enough to make your eyes roll as we can tell that she does indeed like some characters more than others and there are some stories she wished she'd pursued more.

Why then does she seem to punish some of the characters by condemning them to lives they obviously do not want? The truth is that the director faces these truths as absolute and wonders why have we created the need to adjust ourselves to the unwanted?

Last Night goes beyond being a Closer redux about how adults in romantic relationships hurt the hell out of each other and turns into a clever questioning of the power of love. Notice how she quietly reveals her interest in discovering whether two loves can live within the same heart. It's fortunate for the audience that she gives Knightley a real chance to show her chops and it's her character that haunts us the most after the movie ends (the last two minutes are a thing of real beauty).

To be fair though, everyone in the cast is superb, Worthington tries to imprint his character with a bit of mystery and turns out delivering a performance of troubled feelings, Canet has to do little more than smile to make us woo and wish we could leave our entire lives for him and surprisingly Mendes turns in some stunning, affecting work as the femme fatale who might not be one at all.

Last Night is a delightful reminder that movies about adults don't need to have screenplay gimmicks in order to catch our attention, this film, like having too much wine leaves you lingering on a cloud of fuzzy guilt and craving for more the following night.

Clash of the Titans *1/2

Director: Louis Leterrier
Cast: Sam Worthington, Gemma Arterton, Mads Mikkelsen
Jason Flemyng, Polly Walker, Hans Matheson, Luke Evans
Alexa Davalos, Nicolas Hoult, Danny Huston
Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson

Imagine for one second that you're living in ancient Greece, with no television, internet or movies and all you have to entertain yourself are stories.
These stories of course won't tell you about mundane events but about things so fantastical that not only do they make your jaw drop to the floor but also serve as explanations of what's going on in the world around you.
Now before getting too deep into the concept of myth, imagine that centuries later you get these stories, but they are being told by someone who has great editing software, satisfying CGI but not an ounce of imagination.
This would sum up the experience of Clash of the Titans, a remake of the 1981 camp classic which tells of the struggles between men and deities in ancient times.
Sam Worthington (the go to guy for ordinary men-with killer calves-turned unexpected hero) plays Perseus, a demigod, son of Zeus (Neeson) and a mortal woman, who is chosen by the people of Argos to save them from the wrath of the Kraken.
The beast will be released by, god of the underworld, Hades (Fiennes) to teach humans not to defy the rulers of the Olympus.
Of course Hades has secret plans of his own (how could he not when played with such delicious wickedness by Fiennes?) and while Perseus has his adventures down below, the gods go through their own drama.
It should suffice to sum up the film's quality to say that you often might want more of the Olympian drama (probably owed to the quality of the actors playing them) than the struggles of Perseus who seems to fulfill cliché more often than prophecy.
Worthington lacks qualities to make his character interesting; when someone tells him that he has the "best of both worlds" they must be referring to sculpture and athleticism, because he lacks any inkling of humanity and doesn't have the grandiosity to be godlike. The other human characters fare equally, with princess Andromeda (Davalos) being little more than an ornament (while straying greatly from the myth and the original film) and the people Perseus encounters being nothing more than an assortment of great actors (Mikkelsen, Walker and Postlethwaite come to mind particularly) in tepid roles.
Perhaps the film's biggest flaw is in fact its constant ability to underwhelm. With or without added visual dimensions the film never transports you to another place. Visuals for this kind of movie should feel mythical, the ones here are yet another version of what was done in The Lord of the Rings trilogy and 300 to greater effect.
Action sequences are done in the recurrent style of making as many cuts as you can, which never gives us time to grasp the unique aspects of the creatures Perseus fights and every moment that promises excitement is minimized by the director's tendency to make everything seem rushed and easy.
How can a story of its kind be passed on to others when there is no sense of heroism or any special qualities to it?
In the end Clash of the Titans sadly never seems able to comprehend what epic means.

Couple More Thoughts on "Avatar".

This post may contain spoilers so do not read if you haven't seen "Avatar".

After watching the movie for the second time and in 2D there were some points I noticed the first time but had no opportunity to insert in my official review seamlessly.
Each of those points would've demanded I wrote a different review about the movie, so this will be an idea of what those would've looked like.

• I couldn't help but wonder if "Avatar" isn't a naive attempt to recreate nature in all of its splendor or if it's in fact a threat of things to come.
  Thinking about "WALL-E" earlier today I remember how much I was stricken by the fact that in the movie the humans aboard the ship have to learn about Earth through images and that they in fact have never seen anything like it before.
  With the creation of planet Pandora which is obviously an Earth ripoff is James Cameron announcing to us that there will come a time when we will only see CGI vegetation?
  Why then would he bother recreating something we can see for free? Was his desire just to emulate nature?
  
  
• What was going on with Jake Sully's narration? When the movie began it instantly reminded me of a Raymond Chandler novel and/or film noir.
  Cameron suggests that when he mentions Jake's brother being killed and for an instant make us think that there's more to that than what is mentioned and there might be some big conspiracy behind it.
  Jake's sense of humor as a narrator also seems worthy of Philip Marlowe (the nods to the economy made me chuckle and hope it'll all be fixed by the year 2154).
  
  
• I hadn't noticed that the film starts with practically the same image it ends with. This whole idea of rebirth and succeeding lives makes for an interesting subject in two different perspectives.
  On one side there's the whole need Jake had to fill an empty role, first with his brother and then with the Na'vi (you could even say he was trying to fill the role of a soldier once he became disabled). This gives the film a fascinating psychological background because Sully is always trying to live up to something.
  His trials are almost Steinbeck-ian in their cyclical nature. Are we supposed to think once the movie's over his issues are done and dealt with?
  There's also the whole idea of rebirth seen in a spiritual way. It's easy to guess that Cameron extracted his ideas from actual native groups and the naturalist view as well as their idea that everything is reborn gifts the movie with an illuminating point of view.
  Cause there's also the problem Dr. Grace (Weaver) encounters when she tries hard to decide whether it's magic or science in there.
  Watching Weaver's inner struggle is a thing of beauty and when she says there must be a biochemical element in Pandora, we might as well be watching someone converting, which leads me to my next point...
  
  
• As rousing as the whole Toruk episode is with Jake fulfilling a sort of prophecy and winning his place among the Na'vi I couldn't help but wonder if this was another naive move by Cameron's part or is there something else beneath this.
  From the minute Neytiri (Saldana) tells Jake the story of her grandfather's grandfather mastering the beast it's beyond obvious that Jake will be the next one to fulfill this role.
  But how much of this is Cameron following "how to write a screenplay" rules and how much is it a subconscious attempt to subjugate his own creations based on Imperialist thinking?
  When everyone is cheering as Jake arrives to save the day, very few people must be asking themselves why didn't any of the Na'vi try to accomplish this feat before?
  Cameron paints them like a civilization waiting for this prophecy to be fulfilled by a foreigner (something that reminded me of the Incas) and it's somewhat awkward to see Neytiri's panties get in a twist as she sees this man who just betrayed her a few scenes before is now her hero.
  Is Jake Sully the one meant to fulfill this mythical role (Joseph Campbell would have a blast with all the codes in this movie) or is he merely a clever "white guy" using the natives' stories to get his way by manipulating them?
  
  
• Last but not least, in Cameron's defense I was watching the movie and suddenly started wondering on the nature of what makes a screenplay good.
  Considering how much James Cameron's screenwriting work gets trashed by critics and audiences.
  It's true that not everyone can be Woody Allen or Pedro Almodóvar, but a screenplay's magic is not only found in its dialogue. The Academy has spoiled us to have that misconception.
  Watching the lovely flowers and animals in this movie I suddenly had the notion that James Cameron actually sat down and wrote all of these details down for the visual effects people and the rest of the crew to bring them to life.
  Therefore a screenplay can't merely be judged by what we see, in fact it can't. AMPAS should sit down its members and have them read every screenplay to make the vote fair.
  If not they should choose to reward "line delivery" instead.
  
  
  

Avatar ***1/2

Director: James Cameron
Cast: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana
Michelle Rodriguez, Stephen Lang, Giovanni Ribisi, Dileep Rao
Joel Moore, CCH Pounder, Laz Alonso, Wes Studi, Sigourney Weaver

There's a fascinating paradox at the center of "Avatar". On one side we have an open critique to how big corporations treat the environment, colonialist invasions and the destruction of ancient cultures but on the other side the movie itself is a product of an industry that has endorsed those very things throughout its existence.
Yes, movies made within a system can be critical and question said surroundings, but "Avatar"'s sense of self grandiosity makes its message sound almost ironic.
With lesser movies-in terms of audience expectation and several years of hype-there's always the benefit that comes with novelty, but "Avatar" has been surrounded by "most expensive movie ever" stories and there are few people in the world who don't know that James Cameron made the most popular movie of all time before this one.
Fortunately for Cameron, few will find the time or energy to finds flaws in his newest epic. The man sure knows how to tell a story and with "Avatar" he once again proves he's also the best at taking us right into the narrative.
Set somewhere in the future the film tells the story of Jake Sully (a wonderful Worthington), a paraplegic marine deployed to planet Pandora on a special mission.
He has to become a link between humans and locals called Na'vi-blue feline like humanoids with slender bodies and tails-who are against the invasion of their planet.
The human colony is in search of a powerful fuel called "unobtanium" for which they have to destroy forests and mountains so they plan to achieve diplomatic success by using half-Na'vi, half human creations named avatars which are accessed by putting the chosen human in a technological trance and uploading their consciousness onto the avatar which they can control during said "sleep".
Blinded by the possibility of having a movable pair of legs, Jake takes on the mission unprepared for the ethical dilemmas that will come from it.
He enters the Na'vi community where he's reluctantly taken in by Neytiri (Saldana), the leader's daughter, who's chosen to train him in their ways.
Before long Sully is working for three teams. There's the human scientists fascinated by the biological richness of Pandora who are led by Dr. Grace Augustine (played by Weaver, Cameron's sci-fi muse by excellence).
There's also the military team led by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Lang) who care little about the Na'vi as long as they can complete their mission and the Na'vi themselves who begin to take Jake as if he was one of their own.
Cameron lacks profound writing abilities (seriously the word "unobtanium" itself spoils the whole thing) and his story takes all the expected routes as Jae falls for Neytiri and has to decide if he will remain loyal to his army or his newfound beliefs. The movie most often feels like a CGI adaptation of Disney's "Pocahontas" as the Neytiri represent Native Americans (James Horner's score doesn't help dispel this notion as he recurs to tribal instruments and motifs that recall "Titanic"'s intense romance) and humans are the British in this case.
And the plot is plagued with inconsistencies we're supposed to take for granted like Weaver's strong willed character being shocked by the discovery that the soldiers are willing to kill the Na'vi in order to take over their land.
But Cameron is a sly player and what he lacks in writing genius he more than makes up in visual grandeur and with "Avatar" he doesn't just make us feel like his visuals are distracting us from plot holes and cliché, he pulls off something greater: convincing us that these things shouldn't
even play part of our viewing.
The director makes a deal with us: if we wanna take in his mastery of technological craft, we have to give up his inefficiency at achieving character depth.
He mostly gets away with it because "Avatar" is just magnificent to behold. Cameron's CGI innovations virtually create a photorealistic planet where every little thing is a world unto its own.
Scenes set in Pandora's jungles are like alien editions of National Geographic documentaries, with every plant and animal something exotic and beautiful to behold. Cameron has a ball showing off his creations and relies on huge "Out of Africa"-like vistas to make us try to understand the scope of this planet.
It helps that the Na'vi are nature lovers because this gives him the chance to concentrate on every little organism of the place. He's also spectacular with action scenes because unlike other directors he let's us see what's going on.
This makes sense given the hard work the effect team put behind a movie that's mostly made of computer images, Cameron evokes the magic that made our jaws fall to the floor as children and when one of the characters says "you're not in Kansas anymore" he's not only paying tribute to the wizard, he's also reminding us the long way we've come from 1939.
It's just sad that because of his story this comes with the tragic realization that if Pandora was real, we would already be destroying it.

Clash of the Trailer.

I'm a big fan of 1981's "Clash of the Titans", I grew up on its strange combination of legendary actors playing gods (talk about a not so subtle comparison) and the divine work of Ray Harryhausen.
So naturally I'm very excited about this new version, I have my reservations of course, which with the trailer have become a ton.
Why the hell does CGI have to come and mess with my childhood memories? The wonderful thing about Medusa in the original was that she looked as if she was made during the glory days of the Greek! This shiny snake looks like Angelina Jolie in "Beowulf".
And as much as I love watching Sam Worthington in a skirt, why is he forced to act like a "300" extra? And what's with the ominous rock song used in the trailer?
And what the hell is wrong with that tagline? "Titans will clash"????? Really? Is that the best a multimillion dollar marketing team can come up with?
The silly redundant tagline could've worked if they'd gone straight to the release date afterwards, but no, they had to establish the movie's name...
Let us hope the movie is at least campy.

Terminator Salvation **

Director: McG
Cast: Christian Bale, Sam Worthington
Common, Anton Yelchin, Bryce Dallas Howard
Helena Bonham Carter, Jane Alezander

The fourth installment in the "Terminator" series begins in the year 2003 where Dr. Serena Kogan (Bonham Carter in full Burton, necrophylia mode) convinces death rown inmate Marcus Wright (Worthington) to donate his body to science. After this "random" prelude we flash forward to 2018 where Judgment Day has taken place and humans are living in hiding under the threat of Skynet and their terminators.
After a Resistance attack, Marcus Wright wakes up and finds himself with no memory of what happened to him after his death. He decides to find answer at Skynet.
John Connor (Bale) is now a leader of the Resistance planning a massive attack on Skynet enterprises. Little does he know that the company has a plan of its own and are trying to kill his yet-to-be father, the young Kyle Reese (Yelchin) who is unaware of being a target.
Before you can say Arnold Schwarzenegger their stories become intertwined and fans of the "Terminator" franchise will hopefully be thrilled to find out new links in the mythology they follow religiously.
For the rest of the audience the film will seem yet another mindless summer blockbuster and that is obviously its biggest flaw.
The characters' history is quite easy to follow, you just need to know "John Connor must die" and disengage all scientific notion of time travelling to get in the film's universe.
This however doesn't justify the fact that the movie feels mostly like a very long prequel to the upcoming sequels.
The film's very existence is impossible to justify as it doesn't add much to what should feel like a saga. You never really care for the characters because early on the filmmakers reassure us that life is expendable if you have time travel and evil machine corporations.
This leaves them time to fill two hours with explosions, all the kinds of robots they can invent (look it's a Motonator!) and references to the previous movies.
The ensemble is mostly uninterested and uninteresting; Bale loves his time in the spotlight and squeezes even the last tough scream and grunt he can get out of a single line of dialogue (is his character dislikable because of the arrogant incident between the actor and the film's cinematographer? It obviously adds a little something to those watching the film), Alexander is cast as one of those "wise and eccentric post apocalyptic priestesses" sci-fi has reserved for respected actresses, Yelchin lacks presence to feel as if his character is important and the underrated Howard is left as an accesory.
The film overall would be a complete miss if it wasn't for the electrifying Worthington who convinces you there is something meaningful going on, at least through his character's eyes.
He turns Marcus into a battlefield of emotions and after a twist (revealed in one of the trailers...) he finds the humanity nobody else in the film ever achieves.
Even when the plot gives him opportunity after opportunity to revel in grandiose moments deemed to be iconic for the franchise (the whole Jesus Christ metaphor is ridiculous and lacks subtlety...crucifixion motives, the whole resurrection issue, John Connor's initials and their connection in the end...) Worthington keeps it down to Earth and visceral. He is this sequel's salvation.