I really don't get the criticism of Bale. Like this is really bizarre to me because I felt he did a great job with the character, and was how I always envisioned him. The film moved a bit too fast for my liking. I would have liked for them to slow down at some point and give some time for character development but I'm convinced that any flaws in the film can be easily corrected with a solid director's cut. Is it the Dark Knight? No. But it's not Terminator 3 either. I'm sure not everyone will agree with me but for me it's comparable to Batman Begins. Tons of flaws, and some shaky dialogue, but it sets a good foundation for future films.
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.
It does seem that way. Not only that the "novelization/script' was quite impressive. Even though I said after my review of the book, I wonder how it will translate on film? It seems not well, it seems like they cut some of the more "human" moments in the book. Which is too bad. I admit I rarely get tricked like this, but McG is one hell of a talker, and got me believing in it, prior to July 08 I had no faith in T4 at all. Then I had a lot...now it seems to be kinda not what we wanted.
Well with MCG I always had the notion he was posturing, because of the sour reputation he carries. It was a matter of whether we could believe he'd deliver, and then some. Seems it's not a total reinvention of his talents as we had hoped. I guess that's why they call it faith.
This is probably my most irksome disappointment. If there's one thing they constantly lauded throughout the production, it's that this film could be performed on an empty stage and be riveting through performance and dialog alone. WTF happened to that? To make matters worse, whatever was left in, wasn't all that either. I feel like it's a total betrayal to the fan community to just blatantly misconceive in such a manner. I understand it is not uncommon, but christ, when you're trying to gain the trust, at least live up to your promises even partially.
I felt like the movie would have been better if it had been a half hour longer.
Two clowns that have no concept of film making pick up the rights to a beloved franchise to make some extra cash. The perfect formula for a successful film...
Nice find. I had never seen or heard these two speak. This further proves my point if these two clowns are actually running Halcyon, and are the ones that got the rights to the franchise and subsequently got McG to direct the movie, forcing him to work with the Brancato and Ferris script.
I honestly always get a little kick out of when I see the "I don't care about critics and their opinions" remark.
When films like Trek, TDK and Iron Man come out and are well reviewed fanboys sure as hell seem to care but when the opposite happens all of a sudden critics are idiots and they don't get these films despite evidence to the contrary.
I'm not saying the movie is going to be bad but when critical opinion is THIS low chances are something's going to be wrong with the film.
Huh? TDK fans KNEW that TDK would be a spectacular movie WAY before the reviews started coming in.
Exactly what "evidence to the contrary" is there with regards to Salvation? Critics "don't get it" because most reviews are judging the movie being ignorant or oblivious to the events and content of the first two. Reviewers are judging Salvation totally out of context. Salvation is NOT a franchise reboot which most critics seemingly assume it is. Salvation is actually a sequel to the first two movies, and should be judged as a sequel.
Why is this news or a revelation that something is going to be wrong with the film? ALL films have something wrong with them.
I always find it funny how on-line folk mockingly dismiss critics as being too cynical and pretentious to "get" a movie, or understand the mentality of the average audience.
Having attended critic's screenings, and socializing with film critics, on a regular basis for over a year now, I feel pretty confident in saying that, in regards to distorted perceptions and general bitterness, the internet film-fans far over-shadow them. Most of them (the Vancouver critics circle) are a pretty low-key group who just really love (and more importantly) understand film and what it can achieve.
I'd argue that its the web fanatics who are more out of touch.
You're speaking from personal experience. I don't personally know any movie critics, so I'm speaking from a neutral perspective.
From time to time I read reviews out of curiosity and for comic value. A large number of movie reviews I read prove to me that many critics *do not* understand film, nor do all of them love film.
Maybe the Vancouver critics circle accurately matches your description, I wouldn't know.
What I do know is that you cannot honestly tell me your description matches most film critics out there. Many of these film critics have never seen a Star Trek movie or a Terminator movie before, so they are reviewing movies out of context, or with no context to any mythology. I'm not even a critic, and I've seen more films than some of these purported "film critics".
If a person truly loves and understands film, then they must possess some level of respect for certain mythologies and franchises that some movies belong and adhere to.
"Much is made in "Terminator Salvation" of the strength and sophistication of the new killing machines. One is about the size of a five-story building and has a machine gun for a head. Most are human-size and look like animated metal skeletons. However, at one point in the film, Skynet comes up with a new creation that has human skin and can speak, and the company calls it the ultimate infiltration machine.
But wait. All three previous "Terminator" villains looked human and were capable of speech. They could infiltrate human society, too. So how is this new model an advance?"
The rest of the review was fine, but that right there made me want to bang my head against a wall...that is almost as bad as the people on IMDb asking why Kyle is young and/or not dead in this movie
PERFECT example of reviewers who just don't get it.
Here is another quote from another critic reviewing the movie completely in the wrong context and fashion (most ridiculous parts highlighted in bold):
The fourth Terminator picture in a fast-paced but slow-moving series (the first installment came in 1984, the second in 1991 and the last in 2003) is an attempted rebooting that, rather like the new Star Trak, takes us back to the beginningin this case the war between men and machines that lurched into the past with the time-travelling action of James Camerons first two pictures and Jonathan Mostows third. So its a prequel that actually occurs in the future (2018, to be precise), when John Connorthe human hero whose mother the original Terminator tried to kill in the first movie (and whose father arrived to prevent it), and whom other Terminators targeted himself in the other two films (and in the recently-cancelled television series)is the grown-up resistance leader that the machines will later (that is, earlier) seek to eliminate even before hes born.
It is NOT a reboot, and does NOT "take us back to the beginning". Salvation takes place chronologically after the first two (three if you want to count the third one) movies.
Also another quote, just because this review is particularly insulting:
You leave the new Star Trek feeling exhilarated at the revival of an old franchise. This movie you depart thinking, Been there, seen that.
... If you're not a Star Trek fan that is. If you're a Star Trek fan, likely you leave the theater feeling alienated and probably pissed off with the new direction. If you're a Terminator fan, you'll probably leaving the theater thinking "that was badass, can't wait for the next one" after watching Salvation.
More quotes from the same review:
Whoever thought in 2003 that we'd look back on "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" as the good old days? Yet, the previous "Terminator" film, thought to be the absolute nadir, had two things going for it. It had Arnold (if you think a "Terminator" movie can be bad with Arnold, try one without him). And it had a villain.
There is no villain in "Terminator Salvation," no locus of wickedness, just some nebulous evil entity known as Skynet, a company that builds killer robots and has already depopulated most of the earth through a nuclear holocaust.
The good old days? Is this guy for real? So the movie has no villain? Is Skynet not considered a villain? What about the T-800 at the end of the movie?
I just saw it too. I don't really share SOUVLAKI's love though. It was really one-note and uninspired through and through, with a script that didn't seem to know where to go from its central premise. Bale was almost annoyingly one-dimensional and not at all appropriate as the voice of inspiration for mankind, and should have been significantly cut from the film or recast. Worthington was fine, but playing a pretty blank character. The action was really well cut and directed. The problem is that, althought its technically spectacular, its impossible to care about the cyphers taking part in the mayhem. Just really bland and, well, not at all fun to sit through. MCG seems to have glommed onto Cameron's visual ideas, without having any understanding of the thematic foundations or science-fiction-based concepts which were layed out in the earlier films.
It's another testament to the difference in form a film of this nature and scope can undergo in hands of a visionary director versus a technically proficent tradesman. Very disappointing.
2.5/5 - I'll have a full review up thursday which will better lay out my points. The wounds of crushing disappointment are still too fresh.
1.) The premise and content of this movie was never meant to be "fun". This movie is supposed to show the 'Future War', and the bleak reality humans face when the world is dominated by machines. Feeling grim and bleak after watching the movie is exactly the point here. This movie might be fun for Terminator fans, but the reaction the general audience should be getting is bleak or grim. Not saying that's a great thing, but if that is what audiences feel then the movie has done it's job.
2.) The movie is supposed to show how John becomes leader and how bleak things look for humanity, not how humanity is inspired or how humanity overcomes the robots.
3.) The movie is supposed to be one-note; it's supposed to have a singular focus.
It appears as if the digitally replaced every scene with the T-600 wearing the rubber mask, because I don't remember a single scene where one was wearing the mask we saw in the trailers.
I disagree. It worked for me. Judging from the reviews I am getting the impression I will be in the minority in regards to Bale but I really don't get why people are all the sudden acting like he's the weakest link. Far from it. Worthington, while good, was completely overrated from the reviews I've seen. For me the real stars of the film were Bale, Yelchin, and Bloodgood.
I just talk to this guy who used to review movies and now his wife does reviews for children films. He told me just now, he liked it a lot and his wife said it was the most exciting movie she's seen in years.
Maybe 3 or 4 minutes? It was edited pretty quickly so you only see Arnold for a total of 20 or 30 seconds, but the scene itself lasted a lot longer than I was expecting.
I disagree. It worked for me. Judging from the reviews I am getting the impression I will be in the minority in regards to Bale but I really don't get why people are all the sudden acting like he's the weakest link. Far from it. Worthington, while good, was completely overrated from the reviews I've seen. For me the real stars of the film were Bale, Yelchin, and Bloodgood.
I wasn't even judging his performance because I haven't even seen the movie yet. I'm merely responding to your comment in which you say he mastered his Batman growl which I personally think he shouldn't of used in this movie. If I want to hear his Batman interpretation I'll revisit BB or TDK.
He should have given John Conner a unique voice not just a re hash of the voice he's used in the Batman films. As much as that might please certain individuals. I find his scruffy voice to be more of an annoying gimmick at this point. Not saying that he is a bad actor but that growly voice is getting annoying.
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.
Are you joking? Did you see the same film as me? Like I said, I don't expect everyone to share the same enthusiasm as me for this film. On the other hand I just cannot imagine how you could actually watch this film as a Terminator fan and prefer the third film unless you went into this film wanting to hate it.
Also, I didn't say it was as good as Batman Begins, but it's comparable. It has it's flaws, but it more or less stays true to the source material, and lays the foundation for what could be an amazing sequel.
Are you joking? Did you see the same film as me? Like I said, I don't expect everyone to share the same enthusiasm as me for this film. On the other hand I just cannot imagine how you could actually watch this film as a Terminator fan and prefer the third film unless you went into this film wanting to hate it.
Also, I didn't say it was as good as Batman Begins, but it's comparable. It has it's flaws, but it more or less stays true to the source material, and lays the foundation for what could be an amazing sequel.
I should mention though, that despite my own disappointment with the film, I'm pretty sure most of you will enjoy it. I'm more critical of blockbusters than the norm around these parts.
Definitely. I was expecting to have to look for his cameo. I was surprised Arnold got as many money shots as he did.
Also, about Linda Hamilton's cameo... it was cool but for the most part unmemorable. To me it didn't even sound like her.
Also, one thing that kind of irritated me about her "cameo" was during the first recording (there were two in the film if I remember correctly) she was pretty clearly reciting, almost word for word the recording she made at the end of the first Terminator film ("a person could go crazy thinking about this type of thing", etc. etc.), however it was obviously not the same recording from T1.
Shortly after the opening credits like in the first Terminator film there is text explaining Judgment Day and the war against the machines. In my personal opinion it would have been far cooler if Linda Hamilton had done a voiceover here instead of what we got.
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.
Here they average the scores calculated based on stars, grades, etc from the critics reviews. So far TS is at 53( mixed/average) which isn't so bad if you compare it to other movies that released this year it's actually closer to the top. It is slightly under Watchmen which sits at 56 and higher than Angels & Demons(48) and Wolverine(43) . It's till early though with only 7 reviews but i feel its going to stay in that mixed/average zone.
So now we resort to name calling when disagreeing with a reviewer? tsk tsk.
Someone shouldn't be a Terminator fan to enjoy the movie. It should hold itself by being a good film not just following canon. Ebert just further confirmed my suspicions that other reviewers have already solidified. This is nothing more than a movie set in the Terminator universe only with tons of CGI and very little character development and the lack of fluid progression of the story line that apparently doesn't move the franchise anywhere (just like T3).
Here they average the scores calculated based on stars, grades, etc from the critics reviews. So far TS is at 53( mixed/average) which isn't so bad if you compare it to other movies that released this year it's actually closer to the top. It is slightly under Watchmen which sits at 56 and higher then Angels & Demons(48) and Wolverine(43) . It's till early though with only 7 reviews but i feel its going to stay in that mixed/average zone.
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.
