Terminator Salvation: Review Central

What did you think?

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
An interesting bit from the IGN review:

For those of you reading this who might be aware of the film's original ending, leaked to the press months prior to the movie's release, we can clearly say that the film builds relentlessly toward it – especially considering the underplayed theme of machines choosing their own humanity – and had the filmmakers shown the fortitude required to keep the conclusion intact, Salvation would have added something truly substantial to the Terminator mythology. Unfortunately, as it plays here, the film ends with a gutless whimper, promising future adventures that will no doubt continue to show us what we've already been told, albeit with as many explosions as humanly possible.

Maybe listening to the fan reaction was a bad decision? The way every review is saying Bale is more robotic than Arnold was, this might be the reason. It might've been the right performance for a different movie.
 
Honestly, I think making this movie was a bad decision, along with T3.
 
When I found out the screenwriters also worked on Catwoman . . . it shows.
 
It was a good decision for the people who will profit from it.

Whether the movie's good or not, it will make some quick cash. Warner Bros., right? Just be happy they haven't done this with the Batman franc...oh wait.



























mr-freeze.gif
 
EDIT: Found the info I wanted.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say the movie is as big of a disaster as Punisher Warzone.

That would be hard to accomplish though. That movie absolutely reveled in the fact it was bad. It flaunted it's suckieness right in your face.

Punisher Warzone is like going to a strip club and seeing Rosie O'Donnell as the featured attraction, giving you a two hour lap dance.
 
Oh, damn. I would at least hope for it to be fresh.

Anyone who has seen it answer me this: Is it better than T3?

Just barely. This movie is really silly. Whoever came up with the idea to make all the different model robots we haven't seen from the previous movies should be shot. The motorcycles were OK, but terminator fish? Biggest WTF moment in the movie for me.
 
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20279924,00.html

By Owen Gleiberman

As titles of apocalyptic blockbusters go, Terminator Salvation has just the right touch of post-traumatic (and post-grammatical) doomsday cachet. It certainly sounds classier than T4: Attack of the Robots, which would have been more accurate. We're in the year 2018, just after the fabled Armageddon known as Judgment Day, when the Earth's machines, rising up as one, launched their assault on humankind. Red-eyed, gleaming-silver-skulled Terminators now roam the wasteland, mowing down the last humans who try to scurry away from their programmed firepower. Even 
 a disembodied limb from one of these nasty droids can do damage. That's how the centralized brain of Skynet has built them: to come at you like Energizer Bunnies of death.

There are other mechanized aggressors — 
one resembles a flying saucer crossed with an electric shaver, one is like a five-story, looming, gigantoid version of RoboCop, only with a gun in place of its head. Watching Terminator Salvation, there is never any doubt that the machines are alive. Maybe that's because the whole movie is a bit of a machine.

The director, McG, is the wizard of whirligig whoop-ass who made the Charlie's Angels movies, and here he dresses up what is basically a blowout-in-the-junkyard battle film as if it were a holy conflagration. The color is bleached to granulated newsreel white, black, and beige, for that dead-serious Full Metal Jacket effect, and a transport car of human prisoners is shot to evoke the image of a death-camp train. McG also devises grimly novel ways to shoot action, like depicting a chopper crash in a single shot from the POV of John Connor (Christian Bale) as he pilots it to a topsy-turvy landing.

As a hero, Connor is really no more distinctive than the gnarly, unshaven outcast ringleader of every retro-future fantasy from Escape From New York on. Yet Terminator Salvation is invested in treating him like a grunge messiah. Bale brings the role his usual stylish, seething edge. He seems ready to blow at any moment, making his infamous on-set tantrum look less like a case of star egomania than like a Method actor's refusal to break character gone amok. Connor, leading a fringe of rebel fighters, is out to protect Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), a teenager who has no idea how important he is: If he lives, he will grow up to be Connor's father (the Michael Biehn character from the first Terminator), and will therefore sire the resistance movement. But all the loop-the-loop, boy-is-father-to-the-man-who-must-protect-the-boy-or-the-man-won't-exist stuff is more fun to make sense of when you're leaving the theater. On screen, it's just a dimly revolving puzzle.

Time-tripping flimflammery aside, a good Terminator movie needs a hook that's kick-ass basic. The 1984 classic had the vision of Arnold Schwarzenegger as a one-man demolition derby — an image that was also a Hollywood joke, since it turned Arnold's lousiness as an actor into the core of his appeal. T2: Judgment Day had its rock-'em-sock-'em face-off and all that mercury-robot shape-shifting. Following the noise and faux fury of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, Terminator Salvation has more ingenuity but still a lot of noise. It's basically a zombie movie with machines instead of the walking dead, and with Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright, a vicious criminal made over into...something else. Confronted with Worthington's square-jawed stolidity, audiences may be forgiven for wondering if he's meant to be a young version of Schwarzenegger's Terminator. It turns out, though, that he's not so easy to read — nor nearly as entertaining. He's a machine we're supposed to feel for, but every time the film asks you to do so, you may taste metal. B–
 
Hey did Arnie have a cameo in it at all?
 
The Vile One checks in with his full official review:

http://www.411mania.com/movies/film_reviews/105085

Terminator Salvation

Directed By: McG
Written By: John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris
Runtime: 115 minutes
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language.

John Connor - Christian Bale
Marcus Wright - Sam Worthington
Kate Connor - Bryce Dallas Howard
Kyle Reese - Anton Yelchin
Blair Williams - Moon Bloodgood
Barnes - Common
General Ashdown - Michael Ironside
Ivan G'Vera - General Losenko
Star - Jadagrace
Dr. Serena Kogan - Helena Bonham Carter
Sarah Connor - Linda Hamilton (voice)

There's a very old saying -- never trust a man named McG. OK, that's not an old saying, but ever since this project was announced, a dedicated film fan of the original Terminator movies directed by James Cameron couldn't help but be skeptical. Then came McG's San Diego Comic Con 2008 presentation, where McG came off as ridiculously scared and insecure. The director of such movies as Charlie's Angels was practically screaming, "Please don't hate me!" Not to mention the way McG seemed to really push the movie so hard that it feels more like Hollywood claptrap rather than the truth.

In recent weeks, much of McG's words turned out to be much the dreaded Hollywood claptrap a cynical minority would suspect. So that meant this would be the first PG-13 Terminator feature. Besides the fact that this is supposed to be a post-Judgment Day, war torn, human genocide via machine, post-apocalyptic future. PG-13 for this type of setting? Are you kidding me? If ever a Terminator feature needs to be darkest, most gruesome, grim, and R-rated, it would be here. Then there is the screenwriting issue. There were a lot of conflicting and suspicious reports about the writers on the movie. Seemingly to gain favor and credibility with the fans, McG would arrogantly boast how Jonah Nolan of The Dark Knight fame was the true movie's screenwriter, and had never met the blokes named Ferris and Brancato." Oh . . . and Casino Royale's Paul Haggis was also a writer. Yet, the WGA did not see fit to give McG's main writer a credit. There's also the lie that McG formulated about pursuing and receiving the blessing of James Cameron, only for James Cameron to embarrass McG by stating that he never formally gave McG any blessing at all.

C'mon McG, put up or shut up. Is anything you say even true?

Terminator Salvation comes off like a confusing bundle of assault on the senses action and plot that is also an utter disappointment. Yes I know a reboot of another beloved sci-fi franchise, Star Trek, also contains the time travel issue. But at least Star Trek gave a decent explanation of sorts for protection from any changes that might occur.

The new movie is continuing off of the plot established in Terminator 3: Rise of The Machines, where it seems Judgment Day was only delayed rather than averted. Judgment Day happened, Skynet and the machines have taken over, and in the ashes John Connor (Bale steps in after the latest Connor exit in Nick Stahl from Terminator 3) must become the great military leader and savior of mankind that Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor believed him to be. Bale is no doubt intense and righteously angry as Connor, but there seems to be little else to the character. Bales comes off as he is trying very hard to channel actress Linda Hamilton’s performance as Sarah Connor in T2, but in doing so seems to not acknowledge the person John Connor was before and in addition is sadly very one-note.

Speaking of Kyle, the man sent from the future to protect Sarah Connor in 1984 played by Michael Biehn in the post Judgment Day year of 2018, is still but a young teenager played by Anton Yelchin as a precocious survivor. Another survivor is a young mute but resourceful girl named Star (Jadagrace). For some unexplained reason, Skynet is fully aware of Kyle's existence and connection with John Connor, putting them on a kill list to put a stop to the future of the resistance once and for all.

OK hold up. Even going off of Terminator 2 and Terminator 3 how does Skynet know these things? In Terminator, Skynet and the machines were actually quite stupid. In sending back a T-800 model Terminator to kill Sarah Connor, Skyet did not prevent the birth of John Connor, but actually caused it. Kyle Reese traveled to the past and impregnated Sarah Connor with John -- in effect causing the future that Skynet was trying to prevent. The idea of Skynet's new found awareness of time and alternate time lines seems to come from traveling through the void of time like the Doctor's Tardis. None of this is even discussed or suggested by the plot. This simply gives the plot an arbitrary conflict and deadline; if John doesn't save Kyle then his existence would basically unravel, right? This is the problem with the movie, the story just tosses in this idea so McG can say he is honoring the first two movies, but in effect this plot element is completely and utterly ridiculous. Well . . . but think about it. Time has already changed hasn't it? It is clear that the Kyle Reese of the first movie came from a different time then the time in this movie. So wouldn't logic dictate that the Kyle Reese in Terminator and Kyle Reese in Terminator Salvation are not even the same Kyle? What would really happen if this Kyle Reese died?

In the middle of the conflict is the death row inmate with a flabby faux-American-trying-to-hide-his-Australian-accent named Marcus Wright (Worthington). In an awkward, lame, and forced prologue, Marcus is convinced to sign a release form to donate his body to science following Marcus’ execution. Marcus possibly did something terrible, but he appears remorseful and wishes for scientists to "cut him apart until there's nothing left." See, Marcus wants to give some sort of penance. Marcus feels guilt and wants redemption. Marcus does awaken though following a Skynet base infiltration by a resistance troupe that leaves only John Connor alive. Marcus unwittingly (or did he?) meets up with Kyle and Star who under constant pursuit from the machines try to find Connor. Connor, in his radio addresses, gives hope to the remaining humans on Earth. Hope and change you can believe in.

The John Connor thing feels like a bust. Ultimately it comes across like another retread of The Matrix Revolution (in itself reminiscent of the original Terminator films) because Connor is the all-knowing "The One" who will save humankind from the machines, while *****ebag commanders led by General Ashdown (Ironside) think Connor is nothing but a soothsaying kook. Since John is aware in advance of events from knowledge gained by the Terminators that protected him, shouldn't there be more of an urgency to prevent or at least slow down the creation of the T-800's? Also, would doing so prevent the events of Terminator 2 as well? Time travel is still the trickiest business in storytelling.

McG more or less sacrifices anything in the way of the strong plot, storytelling, and character development that James Cameron mastered to try and dazzle the audience with a nonstop barrage of action sequences every five minutes. And make no mistake. The action scenes are impressive. The fully in-power and dominant Skynet is cool to see in action, but ultimately appeared much cooler left to the imagination in the earlier movies.

There are two romantic love interests for the main leads: Kate Connor (recast from Claire Danes in T3) and resistance pilot, Blair Williams (Bloodgood). Blair makes cow-eyes with Marcus and wants to jump his bones after Marcus saves her from getting violated by a bunch of backwoods redneck hillbillies who still exist in post-Apocalyptic 2018. The one dimensional Blair, in seemingly about five minutes, is ready to put her life on the line for Marcus in hopes for some third act celebratory or anguished nookie ala Terminator. Blair disappointingly lacks the power, independence, and intensity that Sarah Connor gave to female action heroes in the 1990's. Blair is the cover model cliche antithesis of Sarah Connor. Kate really does not serve much significance at all aside from some brief expository knowledge about Terminator mechanics.

Unfortunately, Danny Elfman's score underscores how much of the classic composers of yesterday have lost their touch and that their best work is behind them. Elfman's score while at times fittingly mechanical, sacrifices the strong themes that Brad Fiedel created in exchange for lame guitar riffs and generic, Hans Zimmer style muzak. The only remnants of the classic theme are that loud drumming part which you've heard in the trailers, "DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN!" These all too brief parts are more like a consolation to desperately try and win over fans much the same way McG tried and failed.


The 411: All critiques and complaints aside, Terminator Salvation does have some fun, action-packed, and whiz-bang elements, but ultimately it lacks in re-creating the greatness of classic Terminator. Not everyone can be James Cameron, but this franchise would've been better off in the long run if Terminator 2 3D was the last sort of sequel we got out of it. McG totally misses why Terminator 2 is such a great film. Its a great action film, but the action is not all there is to it. Meanwhile, McG, so desperate to escape the persona he has amongst fans as the "boy band music video/Charlie's Angels guy," well McG its still there. You still call yourself McG as well.
Final Score: 6.0 [ Average ] legend
 
It was a good decision for the people who will profit from it.

Whether the movie's good or not, it will make some quick cash. Warner Bros., right? Just be happy they haven't done this with the Batman franc...oh wait.

I doubt this movie, or hell any Terminator movie could ever be as bad as 'Batman & Robin' or even 'Batman Forever'.
 
Just barely. This movie is really silly. Whoever came up with the idea to make all the different model robots we haven't seen from the previous movies should be shot. The motorcycles were OK, but terminator fish? Biggest WTF moment in the movie for me.
The "Hydrobots"?
 
No disrespect to mcg but it seems like this franchise is getting the wrong directors superhero franchise attracted these type of directors before they smartened up.Guys like Mark Steven Johnson/Brett Ratner/Gavin Hoode/etc. were messing up our movies.Then we got more intelligent film makers like Nolan/Singer/Favreau/Raimi who brought respect and heart to our comic heroes.This needs to happen to this franchise we need to get intelligent directors for Terminator.Directors like Juan Antonio Bayona /Luc Besson/Robert Rodriguez/etc need to get on board with this franchise.
 
No disrespect to mcg but it seems like this franchise is getting the wrong directors superhero franchise attracted these type of directors before they smartened up.Guys like Mark Steven Johnson/Brett Ratner/Gavin Hoode/etc. were messing up our movies.Then we got more intelligent film makers like Nolan/Singer/Favreau/Raimi who brought respect and heart to our comic heroes.This needs to happen to this franchise we need to get intelligent directors for Terminator.Directors like Juan Antonio Bayona /Luc Besson/Robert Rodriguez/etc need to get on board with this franchise.
I could be wrong, but I believe Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer made superhero movies BEFORE Mark Steven Johnson/Brett Ratner/Gavin Hood
 
I think it makes more sense to state that McG is to this franchise what Ratner, Hood, and Johnson are to bad comic book movies.
 
I think you are right that he was trying too hard to get away from charlies angels stigma to show he is mr macho and can do action.It seems he was more worried about what people thought of him than making a quality film.
 
I think you are right that he was trying too hard to get away from charlies angels stigma to show he is mr macho and can do action.It seems he was more worried about what people thought of him than making a quality film.

And yet he took the silly stupid elements from Charlie's Angels and put them into this film.

And for goodness sakes, who casts Michael Ironside? Of all the actors in the world why choose the biggest B-film hack out there.

Who looks at a guys resume and says....

"hmm let's see.... Highlander the Quckening, wow! Ah, Starship Troopers, impressive! Oh, and I see you were in Major Payne too! Gosh this is very, very impressive. You know what? You've got the job!"
 
This movie sounds decent, no where near Ratner's pile of dog s***.
 
Michael Ironside WAS the villain in Total Recall which was a big hit in 1990.
 
I think it makes more sense to state that McG is to this franchise what Ratner, Hood, and Johnson are to bad comic book movies.


Interesting article. I don't know if I would call it a review, because I think you have all year done nothing but have an unhealthy obsession with hating McG. Like he killed your family or something. Even with me in the end its a movie. And your review was quite lopsided for the score you gave it. 95% of it seemed about how you hated McG and he should almost end his life.

While you said very little on what you liked about it.

I understand my friend that you do not like it, and I'm sure I will find it mildly entertaining and no where near the greatness of what Cameron made, I can admit that with ego aside. Some of us got false hope and were wrong. I can admit that.

But dude, your obsession of hating McG is just over the top, I think every post of yours had something to do with it.

So what I'm saying you had a good review to a point, I liked hearing your opinions, but there seemed to be too much "personal hate" on McG that just made it seem over the top. And for the score you gave it, I figured you talk about what you liked enough to give it a 6/10 which seems to be a fair score for what it lacked.

EDIT: And BTW I do respect your opinion even though we have had differeing views, I have read many other of your posts you have great things to say, your stuff on the flaws of the movie was very interesting and nail on head type of view. I just thought some seemed unprofessional on this bringing up McG every other word. But hey if you felt that is what you needed to do, then by so means do it. I just thought it was odd being part of the review to the extent it was.

On another note, its kinda sad this was Stan's final movie. To bad it could not have been a bigger one. But none the less his greatness will live on.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ebert gives T:S 2 stars.

Christian Bale plays the role of Connor, in a movie that raises many questions about the lines between man and machine. Raises them, and then leaves them levitating. However, it has many fights between a humanoid cyborg and robotic Skynet men made of steel. How do these antagonists fight? Why, with their fists, of course, which remains a wonderfully cinematic device. They also shoot at each other, to little effect. In fact, one metal man is covered in molten ore and then flash-frozen, and keeps on tickin'. And listen, Skynet buddies, what Bale thought about that cameraman is only the tip of the iceberg compared to what he thinks about you.

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 (then) future, to prevent the nuclear holocaust of 1997. You remember that. It was about something. In it, Edward Furlong was infinitely more human as John Connor than Christian Bale is in this film.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090519/REVIEWS/905199991
 

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,388
Messages
22,095,878
Members
45,891
Latest member
Purplehazesus
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"