Terminator Salvation: Review Central

What did you think?

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
Here's another positive Review:

http://media.www.cm-life.com/media/...ine/Review.Terminator.Salvation-3742953.shtml

A few quotes:

In the words of the Terminator, "I'll be back," and so it was, and it was awesome.

"The Terminator" series returns with its newest edition, "Terminator Salvation." The expectations surrounding the hype are definitely met.

As with many science-fiction movies, there remains a subtextual commentary on some social issues, such as the idea of people having second chances or the gray area that can sometimes occur between classifying anything as either man or machine.

Four out of five stars
 
Even the positive reviews kind of suck... "Brainless action"?
Hey guys... remember Star Trek? What was it then? A tear-jerker docu-drama?

I'm also surprised everyone is calling this movie superfluous. It's like everyone but me have seen a secret 3 hour long Terminator film in which Cameron shows EVERYTHING that happened during the war

Everything in this movie is fresh. We have never seen this stuff in any of the previous movies. Except the land and flying HK's everything is relatively new....

Star Trek was brainless action but at the same time that movie had characters that people could latch onto and actually invest themselves in while watching the movie. It seems most reviews are pointing out that there's no one to latch onto (except maybe Marcus) while watching Salvation. It seems the characterization gets glossed over and when that happens all you have left is cinematography and boom, boom, boom action.

Think about what Cameron did with Aliens. That movie was pretty damn bleak as well (much like Salvation will be) but you had characters (Ripley, the Marines, etc) that you were invested in throughout the movie. You didn't need something blowing up every 10 minutes because the characters actually kept you interested. Great action AND great characters, that's what people want to see, people like me anyway. If any director is skimping on character development to blow sh** up he already lost half the battle.
 
Can't attest to the first point, but he's made an edit about the second. The article now says, ""Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991) was a fairly terrific movie, set in the (then) future, to prevent the nuclear holocaust of 1997."

That's true, since T1 took place in 1984, and T2 took place in 1995. Which is certainly further along in the future than 1991. :funny:

The point I was just about to make when i read this, when i said earlier about his T2 statement being valid it was after the edit. I didn't realise it had been edited until just now.
 
I kinda did. Actually it wasnt as much of an assumption as wishful thinking.


Well, that's all you then. Personally, it's silly to put any film on some pedestal sight unseen.
 
Most critics aren't very helpful when it comes to the quality of a movie - they're people paid to write whether they LIKED a film or not. Very few of them were delve into the real strengths and weaknesses of a movie. Like, actors have actually very little to do with that, unless they overact and call attention to themselves. It's all about the writing, editing, and pacing.

And I think that movies should better be able to stand on their own. That's why it's a separate movie and not an episode of a TV series. Heck, even a single TV episode should be able to stand on its own, story-wise. I shouldn't have to be familiar with all of the details of a film's mythology to comprehend one of them. This aspect was a definite weakness of Watchmen, although some newbies got on board regardless.


From details Harry wrote, it seems like there were screenplay weaknesses. Not to say that the story itself was weak, but that the movie wasn't compelling enough for people to overlook certain plot and logic holes.

I strongly disagree. Not every movie should be able to stand completely on it's own. You can't pretend to review or judge some movies in a bubble. I also disagree because I don't think every movie should spoon-feed you everything if it's part of a franchise or mythology. I think some movies should have things implied or left up to people's imagination.
 
Well, that's all you then. Personally, it's silly to put any film on some pedestal sight unseen.
true, but it seemed like all the talent was there, and it was just a commercial and critical sucess waiting to happen. all I care about is if I'll like it myself. I should seeing as how I liked stuff like Eagle Eye.
 
If you liked Eagle Eye, I'm sure this will be on Par.
 
I thought it was pretty cool. It took me awhile to get into it, but once I got into it, its pretty sweet. The action is terrific. However, Bale is the only actor who knows what he's doing. There are tons of WTF moments and the ending
John Conner is going to die, but Marcus gives him his heart
is really lame. This film is not a high quality film, but it is high on the entertainment factor which is what summer movies are about.


Yeah, I forgot to say, my buddy works at a theater, so i got to go with him to the employee screening last night. I have legitimently seen the film
 
I thought it was pretty cool. It took me awhile to get into it, but once I got into it, its pretty sweet. The action is terrific. However, Bale is the only actor who knows what he's doing. There are tons of WTF moments and the ending
John Conner is going to die, but Marcus gives him his heart
is really lame. This film is not a high quality film, but it is high on the entertainment factor which is what summer movies are about.


Yeah, I forgot to say, my buddy works at a theater, so i got to go with him to the employee screening last night. I have legitimently seen the film

So are you saying Worthington isn't as good as most are making him out to be?

I'm really curious because as far as I can tell everyone is praising him(in general, not just for TS) which I think has a lot to do with people wanting that next big action star for this generation rather than because of his acting ability. I'll find out myself with TS and Avatar.
 
So are you saying Worthington isn't as good as most are making him out to be?

I'm really curious because as far as I can tell everyone is praising him(in general, not just for TS) which I think has a lot to do with people wanting that next big action star for this generation rather than because of his acting ability. I'll find out myself with TS and Avatar.

I didn't feel he did that great of a job as far as acting goes, but he was great in the action sequences. Also the poor writing hurt him. His character had some really cheesey lines.

But Arnold's cameo is by far the best part.
Conner is looking for Kyle Reese in Skynet and he is freeing prisoners when he comes to a locked prison door. He opens it up and the Governator walks out and beats the **** outta Bale.
 
So are you saying Worthington isn't as good as most are making him out to be?

I'm really curious because as far as I can tell everyone is praising him(in general, not just for TS) which I think has a lot to do with people wanting that next big action star for this generation rather than because of his acting ability. I'll find out myself with TS and Avatar.
:funny: Geez, we as fans can't really get a handle on who brings out the better acting performance(s) in this movie.
 
Weezer I'm not reading that spoiler and if I quote you I will see it anyway but whan that Cameo happens is there any hint of the Terminator theme at all?
 
Heavy Metal

Movie Review

May 21, 2009
By A. O. SCOTT
Published: May 21, 2009


“Terminator Salvation”? Really, that’s a bit grandiose. Given the quantities of distressed metal on display in this sturdy and serviceable sequel — only the fourth “Terminator” movie in a quarter-century — “Terminator Salvage” might be a more apt title. Still, some things are saved, even redeemed, in the course of the movie, including, perhaps, the audience’s interest in killer cyborgs from the future and the fate of the Connor family.
More About This Movie.

A detailed recap of the franchise’s empretzeled chronology will not be possible here. But recall that, way back in 1984, a mean and muscular killing machine, the T-800, showed up in Los Angeles spouting Austrian-accented catchphrases and trying to kill Sarah Connor, who was played by Linda Hamilton. Some of us still harbor fond memories of Ms. Hamilton’s way with a pump-action shotgun, and miss her all the more when her voice is heard on old tape recordings in the new movie, from which she is otherwise absent.

By 1991 and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” the first terminator had turned friendly, and devoted himself to protecting Sarah’s son, John (Edward Furlong at the time), from another killer android, who was determined to prevent young John from growing into a leader of the anti-machine guerrilla resistance. But John survived, grew into Nick Stahl and has now matured into Bruce Wayne — I mean Christian Bale, all grizzled cheekbones and frayed vocal cords — while the original T-800 runs the State of California.

And that’s without getting into the metaphysics of time travel, the self-updating allegory of technological anxiety, “The Sarah Connor Chronicles” on television or the complex development of a malignant military application called Skynet. Since the last installment, “Rise of the Machines,” a fairly pedestrian action film released in 2003, Skynet, having become “self-aware” (more, perhaps, than the films themselves), unleashed a nuclear holocaust and now wants to wipe out the resistance and the rest of humanity along with it. Eventually it will master time travel, but that will be in a future sequel, which makes the current one an act of extortion by Warner Brothers. If not enough people buy tickets to “Terminator Salvation,” we may never find out just how Arnold Schwarzenegger arrived in California.

After an early bit of foreshadowing set on death row in California in the present decade and featuring a bald Helena Bonham Carter, “Terminator Salvation” plants itself firmly in an apocalyptic future, the terrible year 2018. The death-row inmate, Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), pops up for reasons that will become obvious to you long before they are revealed to him. He runs into various ragged resistance fighters, significantly including Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), who will go back in time to become John Connor’s dad.

Reese also stumbles into a quasi-romance with Blair Williams (Moon Bloodgood), one of Connor’s lieutenants and a character who pays homage to Ms. Hamilton’s pioneering action-heroine achievements. (Bryce Dallas Howard, as Connor’s pregnant wife, upholds the maternal side of the original Sarah Connor legacy.)

The palette is a dull steely gray, coarsened by dust and rust and occasionally illuminated by a bright orange fireball. And the action, in spite of some aerial special effects and a few high-tech battles, is accordingly loud and blunt, a symphony of screaming gears, anguished torque and thumping collisions of metal and flesh. As the floor of the screening room rumbled and the walls seemed to shake, I began to wonder if Skynet were not a subsidiary of the Dolby Laboratories, softening up a few human targets before the big battle.

But the movie, directed by McG (yes, him, the one-named auteur at the helm of the “Charlie’s Angels” pictures) from a script by John Brancato and Michael Ferris, has a brute integrity lacking in some of the other seasonal franchise movies. It parades neither the egghead aspirations of “Star Trek” nor the thick-skulled pretensions of “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” but instead feels both comfortable with its limitations and justly proud of its accomplishments.

Among these are efficient, reasonably swift storytelling — the movie, less than two hours long, is densely populated with semi-important characters and crammed with exposition and incident, but it rarely feels busy or talky — and a mastery of the vernacular of chases, fights, explosions and crashes. McG may not yet have a signature style — he lacks the baroque vulgarity of Michael Bay (“Pearl Harbor” and “Transformers”) or the punchy inventiveness of Brett Ratner (the “Rush Hour” movies and “X-Men: The Last Stand”) — but he manages speed, impact and the choreography of technomayhem with aplomb and a measure of wit.

It has been a long time since the Terminator cycle served as a showcase for state-of-the-art cinematic special effects. The morphing of Robert Patrick’s flesh into metal in James Cameron’s “T2” was something new under the sun, but “Terminator Salvation” seems more like a throwback than a harbinger of things to come. Especially toward the end some shiny, floating video screens appear, but for the most part the aesthetic is mechanical rather than digital. With its clanks and creaks and broken-down contraptions, this movie is a battered Wall-E to “Star Trek’s” sleek and seamless Eve.

Which is fitting, since part of the point of the Terminator movies is to register ambivalence about technological progress, which fills our lives with all kinds of cool, convenient stuff that somehow brings an intimation of our eventual obsolescence. “Terminator Salvation,” digitally engineered to approximate a rough, analog feel, is less a cautionary tale than a consumer advisory. Enjoy your new gadgets, but don’t let them out of your sight, and don’t forget where the off switch is.

“Terminator Salvation” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Explosions. Fights. Mild profanity. Heaps of scrap metal.
 
I strongly disagree. Not every movie should be able to stand completely on it's own. You can't pretend to review or judge some movies in a bubble. I also disagree because I don't think every movie should spoon-feed you everything if it's part of a franchise or mythology. I think some movies should have things implied or left up to people's imagination.
Well I mean you shouldn't need to have knowledge of the mythology to find a movie engrossing, that's what I mean.

Why do we care about what happens to John Connor? People familiar with the other Terminator movies will know, but we can't assume that everyone's going to care about him by default. You still have to make his character compelling. That's not spoonfeeding, that's respecting the audience. If they shortchange him, they're basically saying, "You should care about John Connor because he's John Connor ZOMG" and the audience may very well respond with, "Well, what does that mean? Screw you."
 
MovieMantz Review: 'Terminator Salvation'
Updated 1:00 PM CDT, Wed, May 20, 2009

When "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" opened on July 2, 2003, it did so under an incredible amount of scrutiny. It had been 12 years since the last "Terminator," 1991's groundbreaking "Judgment Day," so how would this new movie stand out in a post-"Matrix" world? Would people still be able to take Arnold Schwarzenegger seriously? And how good could a third "Terminator" possibly be without its original creator, James Cameron, calling the shots?

Pretty good, it turns out, despite the fact that "Terminator 3" was basically a loose remake of "Terminator 2." It may not have been a necessary movie, but it was certainly an entertaining one, and it allowed "Arnold the Terminator" to go out on a high note before becoming "Arnold the Governator."

VIEW THE PHOTOS: Summer Movie Preview 2009

That brings us to "Terminator Salvation" — the fourth installment of the popular series that started in 1984. But if the third film faced a lot of scrutiny, then the fourth movie faces even more. The closest its director, McG, came to an action film was directing the two "Charlie's Angels" flicks. The person most closely associated with the "Terminator" films is far too busy running California into the ground, and then there's Cameron, who moved on a long time ago.

But if the third movie was better than it had any right to be, the fourth film isn't nearly as lucky — and that's because it's a loud movie that doesn't have a lot to say. In fact, if there's anything to be learned from "Terminator Salvation," it's that a) McG likes to blow stuff up, and b) Christian Bale, who plays resistance leader John Connor, likes to shout — a lot. (Though we learned that a few months ago, after Bale's infamous on-set tirade made the rounds on the Internet).

If a big, loud, action-packed spectacle is all that you're looking for in a summer blockbuster, then "Salvation" certainly delivers the goods. Otherwise, there's no story or character development, and the weak screenplay (co-written by "T3's" John Brancato and Michael Ferris) is filled with corny, cheesy dialogue. And where the earlier "Terminator" films were inventive and imaginative, "Salvation" is contrived and derivative of other post-apocalyptic classics like "The Road Warrior," "Blade Runner" and the brilliant remake of TV's "Battlestar Galactica."

VIEW THE PHOTOS: Christian Bale

The previous "Terminator" films took place in the present day, but "Salvation" is the first in the series to take place in the future. The year is 2018, Judgment Day has come and gone and human beings are an endangered species. Their only hope against the killing machines produced by Skynet lies with John Connor (Christian Bale), the resistance leader whose mother saw this day coming. But Conner's faith is shaken with the arrival of Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a mysterious stranger whose secret past holds the key to the future.

"Salvation" reeks of being directed by a filmmaker who has something to prove, but at least McG proves that he can handle a $140 million action movie. In fact, some of the sequences are downright intense, particularly when he depicts the takeoff and crash landing of a helicopter from the cockpit's point of view. It's also thrilling to see other killing machines, like the early T-600 model and a giant Terminator (or is it a Transformer?) that features detachable motorcycles on its legs.

The main problem is with the screenplay, which is severely lacking in character development. And while Christian Bale brings credibility to the series, he lays on the intensity too thick to make his version of John Conner a dynamic personality. If anything, the movie belongs to Australian actor Sam Worthington, who makes Marcus Wright the most interesting character of the bunch. Anton Yelchin also stands out as the young Kyle Reese, but the resistance fighters played by Bryce Dallas Howard, Common and Moon Bloodgood barely register.

The film's biggest "wow" moment is also its best surprise (or is it?), so to reveal it would spoil the fun. But everyone who's seen the first movie knows that the only way John Connor will be born is if he sends Kyle Reese back in time to meet his mother. "Terminator Salvation" never gets that far in the story, which means they'll be back in "Terminator 5." And if they do make another movie, you can bet that it will be under an incredible amount of scrutiny.

Verdict: SKIP IT!
 
Weezer I'm not reading that spoiler and if I quote you I will see it anyway but whan that Cameo happens is there any hint of the Terminator theme at all?

theme as in music? i don't remember, it was 1:30 Am. If you mean any hints towards the previews films, no.
 
Now Im officially worried. :csad:
 
Armond White gave this movie a positive review... not a good sign
 
Well I mean you shouldn't need to have knowledge of the mythology to find a movie engrossing, that's what I mean.

Why do we care about what happens to John Connor? People familiar with the other Terminator movies will know, but we can't assume that everyone's going to care about him by default. You still have to make his character compelling. That's not spoonfeeding, that's respecting the audience. If they shortchange him, they're basically saying, "You should care about John Connor because he's John Connor ZOMG" and the audience may very well respond with, "Well, what does that mean? Screw you."

The first two movies did more than enough to establish why we should care about John Connor. Focusing a lot on why we should care about Connor in this movie would have been redundant, since much of the content and themes from the first two movies would be rehashed. Yes maybe it would have been nice to make the movie a bit more emotional, if McG had a better script to work with, but he was stuck mostly working with Brancato and Ferris material (even with the rewrites). Considering Connor did not even have a story arc in the original script, I think McG did a pretty good job, and that Bale it seems worked with what he had.

The way I feel about this movie is that initially, Halcyon Company wanted this to be similar to what Abrams did with Star Trek; full of sex appeal, one-liners, deviating from established mythology, having lots of "fun" and "optimism", based on a thin plot and corny content. From everyone who has read it, the original Brancato and Ferris script was apparently really really bad. What McG and the cast/crew did was raise this movie above and beyond it's script and initial goals of Halcyon.

For all the criticism of McG, I bet he wanted to film a better and more grand movie than he was allowed to. He had to work with the script they gave him, there was no choice in that. The best that McG could do was get some rewrites done. I think we will never know if it was studio pressure that forced him to cut out scenes from the movie, even though I strongly feel that is the case. In other words, I do feel that McG tried to make this movie more for the fans at the cost of the general audience, but that Halcyon and WB limited him in certain ways which has resulted in a strange situation.

What will be interesting to see is how much control the studio gives him for the next movie. Will he be allowed to get a writer of his choice for the script? Will he still be pressured by runtime constraints or ratings?
 
Last edited:
Well I mean you shouldn't need to have knowledge of the mythology to find a movie engrossing, that's what I mean.

Why do we care about what happens to John Connor? People familiar with the other Terminator movies will know, but we can't assume that everyone's going to care about him by default. You still have to make his character compelling. That's not spoonfeeding, that's respecting the audience. If they shortchange him, they're basically saying, "You should care about John Connor because he's John Connor ZOMG" and the audience may very well respond with, "Well, what does that mean? Screw you."

I'm sorry to inform you, but that is how it is.
 
The first two movies did more than enough to establish why we should care about John Connor. Focusing a lot on why we should care about Connor in this movie would have been redundant, since much of the content and themes from the first two movies would be rehashed. Yes maybe it would have been nice to make the movie a bit more emotional, if McG had a better script to work with, but he was stuck mostly working with Brancato and Ferris material (even with the rewrites). Considering Connor did not even have a story arc in the original script, I think McG did a pretty good job, and that Bale it seems worked with what he had.

The way I feel about this movie is that initially, Halcyon Company wanted this to be similar to what Abrams did with Star Trek; full of sex appeal, one-liners, deviating from established mythology, having lots of "fun" and "optimism", based on a thin plot and corny content. From everyone who has read it, the original Brancato and Ferris script was apparently really really bad. What McG and the cast/crew did was raise this movie above and beyond it's script and initial goals of Halcyon.

For all the criticism of McG, I bet he wanted to film a better and more grand movie than he was allowed to. He had to work with the script they gave him, there was no choice in that. The best that McG could do was get some rewrites done. I think we will never know if it was studio pressure that forced him to cut out scenes from the movie, even though I strongly feel that is the case. In other words, I do feel that McG tried to make this movie more for the fans at the cost of the general audience, but that Halcyon and WB limited him in certain ways which has resulted in a strange situation.

What will be interesting to see is how much control the studio gives him for the next movie. Will he be allowed to get a writer of his choice for the script? Will he still be pressured by runtime constraints or ratings?
She is right, batmop. I am aware of the Terminator mythology and watched the first two quite often, and while I love to see why Connor is the supposed Badass he is, the creative side has a different say.

Connor was a McGuffin, because it is likely it he will never live up the expectation of what many think of him. This gives the character a certain mystique. More importantly, the title of the film is called "Terminator" not "John Connor".

If T4 was a solely Marcus driven, and it was compelling story, it won't matter it was not about Connor.

Why? Good stories are good stories.

And from a creative POV, it makes more sense this way; a protagonist with no baggage, to help new and old viewers absorb this "future" tabula rasa, and it works as a stand alone piece. The only obligation is a good story, not because fans want Connor.

Don't tell me you don't see the potential of a purely Marcus film, starring Bale (as Marcus). On the surface layer, your typical action film. On another layer explores dualism ala "Ghost in the Shell". Whilst all of it was scripted by Jonah from scratch.
 
Last edited:
I'm confused...what are the common things people are saying is wrong with the movie? Because I think it looks amazing...
 
I'm getting the impression that some critics felt like the movie didn't add a whole lot to the series.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,368
Messages
22,092,903
Members
45,887
Latest member
Barryg
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"