Sarah C. I knew that this is what Lisa Joy and Jonathan Nolan, the creators of HBO series Westworld (2016) were working with which is why I decided to check it out.The dialogues are humorous (in a good way -- I can understand why HBO fished out the Westworld series from the ancient void of movie irrelevance in the first place since what we get here is contemporary banter, sex-bots of all sex organs for everyone, and a wee bit of android free will philosophy, which indubitably all of us love) but everything else, including the execution of plot twists, dreadfully insipid pacing (boredom followed by something that actually passes for "not bad" dialogue then switching back to Plan 9 from Outer Space-grade SFX action or whatnot), character interaction, "romantic" subplot, is laughable (in a bad way), save for the touching heartfelt relationship between Bernard (I mean "Harry") and the faceless android named Kent which was shown in a positive light the entire time even with all that cheesy cartoonish tone to it.The "evil" bad guy, sort of a cross between Westworld (2016)'s Dolores and Ford, who talks about replacing world leaders and key corporate figures with logical, greener Earth-conscious androids before irresponsible humans ultimately and inevitably destroy Earth (if Skynet went full eco-friendly?) and you have to wonder, wow, that's it? That's the supah ebil premise that is supposed to knock my socks off? The 1970s Hollywood and society, for all its burgeoning sci-fi and environmental awareness, was incredibly anti-environmentalist and anti-technology-leaning ("Durr, da Saylort Greeny iz peeplz!!! Oh NOEZ!"). Or maybe fear-mongering just sells, I don't know, what am I, a sociologist?But I digress. I am sure the 1970s movie-goers loved this future-phobic spectacle before hopping into their ridiculous-looking ominously heavy carbon monoxide-emanating automobiles, having a TV dinner, kissing their spouses goodnight, and praying to God the Almighty not to die in a Cold War-fueled nuclear holocaust tonight. (Not much has changed, huh?)This movie is completely dismissible on its own and only works in the context of exploring what Joy and Nolan were working with in which case, if you have the spare time you can pointlessly waste, check it out.

SnoopyStyle The year is 1985. It's been 2 years since the events in Westworld. The owners have spent $1.5 billion to rebuild the park and added Futureworld, a rocket space-based theme park. Newspaper reporter Chuck Browning (Peter Fonda) receives a tip but his informer fails to show up. He is teamed up with fame TV personality Tracy Ballard (Blythe Danner) to attend the park's reopening. Unbeknownst to them, something even more sinister is going on this time around.I like premise. It's a nice continuation from the original premise. It injects enough difference to be a compelling sequel. I don't really like how the premise is revealed. Essentially, it is revealed openly, all at once, and without any mystery or tension. There are ways to reveal it slowly, with mystery, and with shock. Being the more famous one, Tracy should be the obvious target. While investigating the park, Chuck could notice something different about Tracy and it could climax into finding the park's secret. That would be a more compelling way to tell this story. This is one of Yul Brynner's last roles. He has a few scenes in the second half as the voiceless robotic gunslinger. The first half builds up to the intriguing premise. After the reveal, the second half bogs down a bit.

utgard14 Overlong, unimaginative, boring sequel to Westworld has reporters Peter Fonda and Blythe Danner visiting the re-opened Delos amusement park to see if the new management has gotten all the murder out of its androids. Turns out they haven't. A sequel that didn't need to be made with an embarrassing role for Blythe Danner. Despite this being made in the 1970s, feminist revolution and all that, she spends the entirety of the movie imitating Noel Neill. Only there's no Superman to save her, just 'king of the wimps' Peter Fonda. She also has a bizarre sex dream about Yul Brynner. Because why not, I guess? That's his sole contribution to this movie, by the way. So if you're a fan of Westworld, don't be fooled into trying this one out thinking at least it's got Brynner going for it. Because he's in it for maybe three minutes.

edwithmj Westworld is one of my favourite sci-fi films. When I heard there was a sequel, I rushed to track it down convinced it couldn't be that bad a film. What I wanted to see in this film were more robots, and more great action scenes but what I actually saw was quite different. Here are my complaints: Two bland lead characters about whom I couldn't care less. The man was too smarmy and smooth and seemed to be suspicious the whole time. I wanted to see someone who was surprised the resort was bad to add some suspense. The woman was annoying as well and the way the man kept calling her "Socks", ugh what a horrible nick name for someone he barely knows.Harry. Harry is some sort of mechanic who lives in the basement with his pet robot who has no face (one of the few robots we see). His character is unbelievable and he's portrayed as some sort of nincompoop.The evil scientist and the ludicrous conspiracy. There's some sort of evil scientist who wants to replace every world leader with a clone (not a robot but actual clones) so that the world will not shut down the resort. Words cannot express the sheer cartoonishness of this plot: it's completely nonsensical.Where are the robots? The only robots we see are all the workers who are robots whom we only know to be robots because they either say "I'm programmed for blah-de-blah etc..." or because our bland hero says they are. We aren't treated to much of the inner-circuitry at all. There is a cameo from Yul Brynner but it's in a dream sequence and absolutely forgettable.Yes there's a machine that can record dreams and our hero perversely watches a dream described as a fantasy lover or something.The ending. We're supposed to be kept in suspense by not knowing whether the clones or the real versions of the two lead characters got away at the end but I knew the real ones had won. We're then treated to the hero giving the mad scientist the middle finger and that's the end. Why didn't the scientist go after them?This film is nothing like the original and seems to be an amalgamation of various 1970s sci-fi clichés such as cloning, dream sequences, space, mad scientists and ridiculous conspiracies.The special effects are terribly outdated. The original didn't need that good effects because the acting and directing were so good. The cloning machine, the dream machine and the horrid chess set sequence are all examples of this.I absolutely detest this film because it offered so much promise and it sullies the original so much.