I didn't even get to the review Right below the picture is this caption...
Christian Bale is a much less human John Connor than Arnold Schwarzenegger was in the earlier films
...say what? I have to be honest and mention that I do love Ebert's reviews, and think he's one of the best critics out there, but is this some kind of joke?
I didn't even get to the review Right below the picture is this caption...
Christian Bale is a much less human John Connor than Arnold Schwarzenegger was in the earlier films
...say what? I have to be honest and mention that I do love Ebert's reviews, and think he's one of the best critics out there, but is this some kind of joke?
How about some things to look forward to?: (Spoilers!)
-The Build-up and pay-off of Arnold's T-800 is a blast! The whole theater was giddy like school girls. (Lots of happy laughter, and "yes's!," and "Oh s***" as he went on the attack.
-Christian Bale smacks Arnold upside the face, and "Arnold" gives "the look" back with his eyes while his head is still in place. (Great animation-- fooled people in my screening!)
-There really is a good bit of humor that naturally comes from the circumstances (intentionally).
-The cinematography, special and visual effects, sets, and action sequences are fantastic. Audio in the surrounds was almost constantly engaged with great, house-shaking bass!
-Editing choices were well done, such as not cutting to Marcus in chains for the first half of the conversation until his head is released.
-Loved the endless shot of Connor taking off in the chopper to being shot down to being attacked from behind while looking at the mushroom cloud in the distance.
-If you aren't spoiled (I was), I can see the ending
Trap
as an exciting, though predictable, twist.
-
T-800 uses the voice of Kyle Reese to trick Connor!
-While some of the acting falls flat and the characters are not fully developed, there are many more great moments (even from Bale towards the end) in terms of acting, and the movie works as a fast-paced action ride with keen focus on Marcus' Story (and the events that finally mold the confident leader John Connor).
-I horribly disliked Wolverine. T-4 treats the audience with far more respect, has far fewer obvious plot holes, has way more thrilling action with superior effects work, and provides much greater promise for future entries.
Overall, I gave Terminator Salvation an 8/10!
Granted:
-I had prior knowledge of all the events in the past three films.
-I could name a laundry list of objective problems with the film, yet it just had me absorbed the whole time.
-SONY product placement irked me (laptops and cellphones, very fresh from the store looking).
-I find the Charlie's Angels films enjoyable to a campy extent, and they actually made me like McG (complete opposite of the majority).
-I may feel different after repeat viewings.
The fourth "granted" may be what discounts my opinion, but I think this film is a great crowd-pleaser that would have been even better in an extended form.
I always hated that. Especially since my editor didn't have an ear for nice headlines or captions. They would always end up clunky and off putting, and I would always have to remind people that I didn't write them.
So... I find it a bit odd that some of the reviews on RT that are rated... say... 3/5 are registered as rotten. Is there some rule RT goes by that I'm missing?
Actually I just read the review, he says that Terminator 2 takes place in the (then) future, meaning when it was released T2 was set a few years ahead. If you remember T2 was set in 1994, but was released in 1991 so he has a valid statement there. But as for the not seeing T1 - how can he call himself a fan of film after that. Also the headline has been changed now to take away the schwarzenegger comparison.
Eh, he's probably in a tiff because WB didn't pay him for a review or give him an early screening.
edit: After reading it (God, I hate how he writes reviews sometimes) he definatly had some pee in his cornflakes. It has an odd tone to his review I cannot place, since I don't see him tear down films like this.
I usually don't mind harrys reviews but **** he tore this one to shreds, a little too harsh i think - the one thing that seems odd is every review so far, even the negative reviews have all had praise for worthington yet harry says its a terrible performance.**** all these reviews. I'll make my own mind up in two weeks. No more reviews for me.
Eh, he's probably in a tiff because WB didn't pay him for a review or give him an early screening.
edit: After reading it (God, I hate how he writes reviews sometimes) he definatly had some pee in his cornflakes. It has an odd tone to his review I cannot place, since I don't see him tear down films like this.
You do have a point though, look at his star trek coverage over the past year, he's promoted it more than the studio itself [/sarcasm], but he was treated to alot of press priviliges by the studio - the early screening in austin for example, he's still talking about star trek! I haven't seen an article over the past month which hasn't mentioned star trek in some way or another regardless of what the article is about. He also hasn't said a bad word about it, not one single bad word. I'm not dissing star trek, i thought it was great, really enjoyed it. But he does seem to be generous to films which have given him something of worth in advance.
Actually I just read the review, he says that Terminator 2 takes place in the (then) future, meaning when it was released T2 was set a few years ahead. If you remember T2 was set in 1994, but was released in 1991 so he has a valid statement there. .
Citation :
The first "Terminator" movie I regret (I suppose) I did not see. "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991) was a fairly terrific movie, set in the future, after the nuclear holocaust of 1997.
Batmop, respond back when you've seen the film. I'm not defending my thoughts against your *********ory blind insight.
By the way, I realize that its not meant to be "fun", but ultimately the film should either entertain or provide insight. It does neither. The Dark Knight was fun because it created compelling action scenes within a layered story. Salvations effects are dull and tiresome, without providing any sense of exhiliration. Fun doesn't necessarily mean brainless or light-hearted.
And while I readily admit T3 was campy and totally unnecessary, I'd much rather watch the spectacular action set-pieces in that film (the bathroom brawl, the massive truck chase) over anything in this film.
I will reply back to this once I have seen it, but I highly doubt my opinion will change. I have a good feeling I will like the movie based on all the clips I have seen, and the spoilers I have read.
Also based on what you said about T3, it sounds like either:
1.) You're not actually a Terminator fan
2.) You have no idea of what constitutes spectacular action set pieces (or what constitutes great CGI)
The bathroom scene in T3 had some horribly-done CGI effects that really took you out of and away from the atmosphere of the movie at that point. The truck chase in T3 also had unnecessary CGI as well as some inconsistencies of how it would happen in real life. That's also not even mentioning the ridiculous aspect of the T-X being able to remotely control multiple vehicles in that chase. Arnold hitting the firetruck was also completely absurd, since earlier in the same scene he knocked over an ambulance. Realistically a T-800 that weighs several hundred pounds would have smashed partially through that firetruck or at least damaged it a bit. Then there is the horrible CGI of the crane flip and crash landing.
One small thing to those who are already calling the critics jaded and wrong...there is no reason this movie should be viewed "in context." It is a sequel that is supposed to stand on its own. John Connor is supposed to lead mankind against evil ruling machines. That's it, there will likely be little chatter on all the time travel intricacies and plots of the previous films. And as the studio, including director McG in public interviews are calling it an interview, or as McG said "What Christian did with Christopher Nolan with Batman or Daniel Craig with James Bond," then yes, it should stand on its own.
I do not see how remembering the events of T2 in detail should effect the enjoyability of this film, because I guarantee the mainstream only remembers Arnold and his funny catchphrases from the previous movies.
Also, critics may not "remember Trek" as you say, which is fine, I know very little about the Trek universe. But I, like the critics, loved the new Star Trek movie without knowing all the details of Romulan and Earthling relations.
This movie could stand on it's own, but it won't be very enjoyable. Point is, it's a sequel and sequels by nature can't completely stand on their own. This is not a franchise reboot. To fully enjoy Salvation, you need to have seen the first two Terminator movies and to understand those movies. AS one review mentioned, if you haven't seen and understood the previous Terminator movies you are going to be lost watching Salvation. It definitely seems like a lot of critics were lost watching Salvation.
As I stated earlier, the reason that many people as well as you liked this Star Trek movie is because it's not really 'Star Trek'. It's more of an action movie in space that happens to have Star Trek characters and be called Star Trek. Sex appeal, one-liners, exaggerated lens flares, and jerky camera work is not what Star Trek is about. This is a Star Trek movie for people who don't like Star Trek.
I guarantee that most people who liked this Star Trek movie will not like older Star Trek movies that Trekkies hold in high regard.
You do have a point though, look at his star trek coverage over the past year, he's promoted it more than the studio itself [/sarcasm], but he was treated to alot of press priviliges by the studio - the early screening in austin for example, he's still talking about star trek! I haven't seen an article over the past month which hasn't mentioned star trek in some way or another regardless of what the article is about. He also hasn't said a bad word about it, not one single bad word. I'm not dissing star trek, i thought it was great, really enjoyed it. But he does seem to be generous to films which have given him something of worth in advance.
Harry has had that "bought and payed for" reputation since I started visiting his site around the time Godzilla was released, it has only gotten worse over the years as his bias on certain films is more apparent. But his promotion of Star Trek really makes me think he may be pushing that over Terminator like some damn sports team, or maybe he get's some more Drafthouse celebrity screenings for his Butt Numb-a-Thons..
Eh, he's probably in a tiff because WB didn't pay him for a review or give him an early screening.
edit: After reading it (God, I hate how he writes reviews sometimes) he definatly had some pee in his cornflakes. It has an odd tone to his review I cannot place, since I don't see him tear down films like this.
Well, that and the film may be unfairly marginalized by some reviewers who have an Axe to grind with McG, those who want Star Trek to be THE film this summer, and people who want to punish Bale for either his success or that rant.
It's no skin off my back if it flops, I'm only concerned with how I will enjoy it. It does bother me that there seems to be an agenda, especially considering the critical lap-dance Star Trek received considering some pretty obvious flaws and pacing issues critics overlooked.
Harry has had that "bought and payed for" reputation since I started visiting his site around the time Godzilla was released, it has only gotten worse over the years as his bias on certain films is more apparent. But his promotion of Star Trek really makes me think he may be pushing that over Terminator like some damn sports team, or maybe he get's some more Drafthouse celebrity screenings for his Butt Numb-a-Thons..
The godzilla saga was ridiculous, and it just proves how biased harry can be, and that at times he can be bought, i hate to say it about harry, i like his site, great news, most of the time it is unbiased (albeit it only from anyone that isn't harry), look at massawyrms review of terminator salvation, harry even commented in the talkbacks of how it was a bad review, he gets ****ed off when people argue with his views yet he goes and does it himself to his own contributers.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Right below the picture is this caption...
