Terminator Salvation

[Jim H]

So, I saw Terminator Salvation at a midnight screening.

It's not good.  No, it isn't mind-numbingly awful, but it almost never rises above mediocrity, and at times that bothered me more than anything else.   

I'm not really feeling up for writing a full review write now, so I'll give a list of what's good and bad.

Good:
Sam Worthington is OK.
Anton Yelchin is OK.
The film looks pretty solid (though, I might add, no where near as good as the future scenes in Terminator 1 and 2)
Good effects work.
The PG-13 rating didn't make much of a difference, though I will note for a war film you see almost no humans die on screen.  That did seem odd.

Bad:
-The action scenes rarely rise above competent.  That doesn't sound BAD, but in this series, it is.  The weakest action in the first two films is superior to anything in this one.
-Christian Bale is one note and bland.  I think this is the worst performance I've seen from him.
Most characters are barely one dimensional.
-I got REALLY tired of terminators that fight by grabbing people and then throwing them, something the earlier films mostly deliberately avoid.   Do you think the T1000 would have grabbed John Connor and thrown him into a wall?
-This is a classic example of a film that lacks narrative tension.  The film is a bunch of noise and stuff that happens, with no rising and falling actions.  Think Pearl Harbor, a film I consider to be on a similar level to Terminator Salvation.

***SPOILERS BELOW***

-BAD writing.  I mean, some legitimately BAD stuff.  I actually Booed the film when Christian Bale says, "I'll be back".  There are numerous other cutesy references like this, most of which are forced and VERY awkward.  "What day is it?  WHAT YEAR!?".  I'll state this: I found out this is from the writers of Catwoman, and I thought "That makes perfect sense".
-Plot holes - So Skynet KNOWS Kyle Reese is John Connor's father, but keeps him alive.  Why?
-The explanation Marcus gets towards the end is ridiculously long and insulting to movie goers intelligence.
-I didn't really notice it at the time, but another review says the score is bad...  I have to agree.  Not ONCE in the film did it have much effect on the emotional feelings of any scenes.  a good score could have helped this film, but this one was weak.  The use of the Terminator theme only happens once after the opening, and it comes in super loud and came across as ridiculous to me.
***END***

I haven't decided if I like this one more or less than Terminator 3.  I will say as taken as separate from their franchises...  I think Terminator 3 is a better film for the most part.  At the very least, it has better action scenes, and is a little more fun.  Terminator 3's plot points in relation to the first two films, and the change of attitude, hurt it a lot in my book though.

My overall rating is a 5/10.

[Skull]

Hmmmmmmmm

PG-13 and similar to Pearl Harbor... I'll wait until its free on cable.... :)

[Rev. Powell]

I trust Jim H, this sounds like one to skip.

[D-Man]

Well, I for one thought Terminator 3 was horrible, and that this, for all its minor faults, was still a major improvement.

I'm not sure what people were expecting exactly, but I went in expecting a good popcorn flick, and that's what I got.  People all over the internet seem to be ripping this movie to shreds, and it just boggles my mind. 

Frankly, I'm wondering if this film even had a chance, good or not, because people were criticizing the choice of McG as a director since day one.  But then again, it wouldn't have mattered what director they chose, in the eyes of fans, because none of those people are James Cameron.  Plus, I think the fact that there was no Ah-nold in this one p**sed off some others. 

I will agree, though, that Christian Bale was a rather uninteresting John Connor.  I don't think he was the right fit for a part like that.

[akiratubo]

I think Terminator 4 is good.  It delivers the best robot action I've seen in an American film in quite some time.  That's all I cared about and that's what I got.  It's also a great post-apoc flick.

Does it fit with the apparently all-important story of The Terminator?  I guess it could if you fudge it.  I'm not really concerned.

John Connor's part of the story was uninteresting and I didn't care about it at all.  That's pretty much par for the course though, I didn't like him in Terminator 2 or 3, either.

Plus, I think the fact that there was no Ah-nold in this one

Oh, really?   

[D-Man]

*Spoiler*



That's another thing...a lot of people are moaning and complaining about the CG Arnold terminator, but I thought it was pretty nifty and life-like. 

[Jim H]

I'm not sure what people were expecting exactly, but I went in expecting a good popcorn flick, and that's what I got.

That's what I was hoping for, but for me it was only a partial success on that level.  I didn't think the action scenes were particularly good - they lacked any real resonance, I think is the best word for it.  Just a lot of stuff happening, with no real moments of intensity.  You need moments of building tension and release to build a great action scene.  I will say I think McG at shoots action better than a lot of his peers - at least you can always tell what is happening.  But, I will say I find it sad that I thought he did a better job with action scenes in Charlie's Angels than this film (though that might be due to a Yuen working on the film).

I think I'm also getting tired of massively huge CG action scenes - I don't think they ever play as well as lower key, more reality-based battles between men (I think this is one reason I prefer the first Terminator film over the second). 

Another thing: the CG cameo is probably the best CGed person I've seen in a film - but it still isn't really convincing.  The film makers obviously realized this, as they kept the face shots to a minimum.  I thought as a cameo it was OK, but they didn't do as much with as they could have.

But then again, it wouldn't have mattered what director they chose, in the eyes of fans, because none of those people are James Cameron.

That's right.  The first two films are such a product of that one man (I mean, he's the one that even designed the title character, along with Stan Winston) that making more films without him means you're already likely stepping in the wrong direction.  That, and Terminator 2 is one of the best sequels ever made, which means you've got a VERY hard act to follow.

It delivers the best robot action I've seen in an American film in quite some time

While I thought the shakey-cam went way overboard in a lot of scenes, I'd still say the action scenes were better in Transformers.  And the action scenes in Wall-E were better than both. :)

People all over the internet seem to be ripping this movie to shreds

As did the critics.  It's at about 34% on RT, compared to T3 at 70%.  The audience ratings aren't too bad though, actually.  So it's certainly just a very vocal minority, as usual.  :-P

[D-Man]

Actually, I just mentioned in the Good movies forum that this movie got beaten in its first weekend by Night at The Museum 2...so now everyone's gonna say that this movie is a bomb, no matter how much money it makes from here.

I'm ok with CG action if it's done well, but either way, we've gotta get used to them, because they're cheaper to shoot than live FX.  I work at a corporate owned store, and I know all too well that corporations are all about saving money, no matter what. 

[Jim H]

I'm ok with CG action if it's done well, but either way, we've gotta get used to them, because they're cheaper to shoot than live FX.  I work at a corporate owned store, and I know all too well that corporations are all about saving money, no matter what. 

It depends on what type of action it is, I should think.  For huge scale vehicular stuff or armies, yes.  But not for relatively small scale gun battles, fist fights, one-on-one chases, etc.  And I usually find that type of action more entertaining.  Terminator 1 had a budget of about 6.5 million, for example..  Probably in the $20-30 million range in adjusted costs.  That had a number of explosions, several vehicular chases, an assault on a police station, etc.  Terminator Salvation cost $200 million.

At this point, I should mention I loved Speed Racer, and thoughts its visuals and action scenes were great.  So it is not that I'm all down on CG in general or anything.  I'd say it is more like it is inherently more difficult to stage good action scenes in CG than in reality, since we always know on some level it isn't real. 

[WingedSerpent]

I'm typing this just after getting home from seeing it with a couple of friends. 

I found it to be better than T3 but not better than T2 or T1.  As I was watching it, I thought of a flaw in Skynet's plan to kill John Conner in the past.  The reason Skynet exists is because it was built from the remains of the Terminators in the previuos movies.  Why start with t-600, when it sould have had the t-800 skematics from before.

Okay, back to the movie.  I didn't like how there was really only two battles against "terminators".  Only one real battle against a functional T-600 model.  And the rest were against the other types of robot Skynet created.  At times it seems the resistance was shooting and fighting other people rather than the machines.

But there was some good action scenes, and Moon Bloodgood is easy on the eyes (as well as having one of the best names ever).  I also tried to think of which scene was the one were Christian Bale wents nuts in, was.

I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10.