What is there to be said about McG’s Terminator Salvation? That it proves that it is possible to make a worse movie than Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)? At least Terminator 3 was mildly amusing, and while amusement wasn’t the point, it made the proceedings far more entertaining than this essay in cinematic drabness. Yes, Terminator Salvation is one of those post-apocalyptic concoctions where the whole world looks like a rave that went wrong while taking place in a disused foundry. The color scheme is muddy gray-brown to a point where you wonder why everyone isn’t so eaten up with malaise that they don’t just sit down and forget about the whole thing.
This is the movie where Christian Bale was so deeply immersed in his character that he went bananas on a member of the crew. Why? Had he gone after his agent or McG, I could understand that. Then again, I suspect Bale—doing his patented Clint Eastwood/Batman impression—has as much to answer for as anyone in this case. I’m not saying that he has accomplished nothing with his portrayal of John Connor. He’s just as believable as a robot as Schwarzenegger ever was—oh, wait, Connor’s one of the human characters. Well, it’s an accomplishment of some kind.
The story this time around has Connor and a small army trying to defeat the evil forces of Skynet that are still out to obliterate humankind for reasons that are only as clear as the explanatory title, which is simply to say the machines perceive humankind as a threat. This guarantees a lot of shooting and explosions—not to mention oodles of CGI effects. There’s also a new terminator: a half-human model made from executed murderer Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington). Clever writing teams Marcus up with Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), who, presumably, needs to go back in time in order to father John Connor. (There are Web sites devoted to making this make sense. Have at them.)
It’s all very silly and mildly tedious. Guest “stars” like Michael Ironside and an embarrassed-looking Jane Alexander (this is her reward for heading up the National Endowment for the Arts?) wander into the film. We get the much-promised “guest appearance” from a digitized naked Arnold, whose nether regions are kept obscure either from the desire to make a PG-13 Terminator movie, or out of deference to the idea that the depiction of the gubernatorial willy might be bad form. Skynet proves to be a grubby ironworks that photogenically belches fire, and it all ends with a laugh-out-loud contrivance that suggests the writers’ notions of medical science began and ended with Frankenstein. Your call as to whether or not this is essential viewing. Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language.
or out of deference to the idea that the depiction of the gubernatorial willy might be bad form.
Well, that’s a sentence I didn’t think I would ever see. I actually thought that ‘gubernatorial’ was just some sort of funny, made up Schwarzenegger lingo, until I looked it up and found that it was a real word. It comes from the Latin word ‘gubernator’ – how fitting.
I think the worst thing about the movie was the giant “Transformer” looking robot that crushed the gas station and kidnapped humans. What a let down half way through the movie! When will Hollywood ever come up with anything original? Although the motorcycle dudes that shot out of the giants legs were pretty cool.
If your a T fan, the story line answered a lot of questions like how a Terminator became a Terminator and how John Conner got that scar on his face. But it didn’t answer the time travel question. I guess that’s for T5.
I saw a hint of the new Battlestar Gallactica photography in this picture. Did anybody else?
Bales performance was like he never got out of the Batman character. He sucked. I would have used someone like Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis as John Conner. An older tough guy with a bit of crazy in him after all the years of dealing with his mom, fighting Terminators, and being a prophet, all while military command will not believe you.
I also would have not made this a family film.
I would have went to the roots of the 1984 Terminator. This film would have been rated R, dark, and scary as hell.
I’m a huge fan of the Terminator series and I enjoyed this film much more than the passable-but-mediocre “Rise of the Machines”. Christian Bale said he wouldn’t do the film unless the script was in good enough shape that it could be read on stage without the special effects and still be a compelling story. I think there must be some truth to that, because the story is compelling and it raises philosophical questions about what it means to be human (an aspect Mr. Hanke seems to have missed). This is supposed to be part one of a new trilogy and I, for one, hope to see the other two parts.
Well, that’s a sentence I didn’t think I would ever see. I actually thought that ‘gubernatorial’ was just some sort of funny, made up Schwarzenegger lingo, until I looked it up and found that it was a real word. It comes from the Latin word ‘gubernator’ – how fitting.
I strive to be educational on occasion.
Christian Bale said he wouldn’t do the film unless the script was in good enough shape that it could be read on stage without the special effects and still be a compelling story.
Oh, is that what made him agree to the bit where he drops out of a helicopter into a raging tempest tossed ocean and the film just cuts to him toweling off in the submarine he was looking for?
and it raises philosophical questions about what it means to be human (an aspect Mr. Hanke seems to have missed).
Oh, I didn’t miss it, I just saw nothing new or remakable or particularly perceptive in its use here.
“Oh, is that what made him agree to the bit where he drops out of a helicopter into a raging tempest tossed ocean and the film just cuts to him toweling off in the submarine he was looking for?”
Burn.
I can’t believe it. Cranky and I agree on something. I’m making an appointment with Mumpower. I must be loosing it! LOL.
Good write up Hanke.
I really have to hand it to everyone for not mocking the ESL graduates around here.
I really have to hand it to everyone for not mocking the ESL graduates around here.
If I knew what they were, I might mock them for you. I’ll say that the idea that Chad’s “loosing it” alarms me.
“If I knew what they were, I might mock them for you.”
I believe that refers to English as a Second Language.
I believe that refers to English as a Second Language.
In which case, I suppose I just did what Mr. Yuck was applauding us for not doing.
<>I’ll say that the idea that Chad’s “loosing it” alarms me.<>
Glad you care about me Hanke. Dude I knew you weren’t a Terminator. LOL.
I think the worst thing about the movie was the giant “Transformer” looking robot that crushed the gas station and kidnapped humans. … When will Hollywood ever come up with anything original?
I hate to break it to you Chad, but Transformers weren’t really all that original to begin with.
Summer popcorn action flicks are not a source of great wealth of original material.
Well, happy day to you to bobaloo.
You Terminator you! Ha.
I happen to agree with your review’s assessment of the quality of the movie, but the “lowdown” comment of, “It’s dreary. It takes itself way too seriously,” is something I keep hearing from you and many other reviewers.
Can a genre picture not approach its subject matter without singing and dancing and constant winks to the camera? To even step into the theater to see a movie titled “Terminator” or “Star Wars” implies that the audiences is prepared to be complicit in both the genre and universe the film exists in; the audience, by dint of their presence, is willing to play by the movie’s rules. Likewise, if the audiences is willing to grant the movie its alternate universe, serious stories should, by my estimation be taken seriously, without having to “camp it up” just because the protagonist happens to wear a cape, or fly a spaceship or fight robots.
Just a few questions about a couple comments that keep appearing in your reviews, and the reviews of your contemporaries.
Rogers, I agree that a film’s subject matter shouldn’t limit its capacity for drama, but I don’t think Mr. Hanke objects to dark atmosphere in and of itself. (His top ten lists for years past have included Pan’s Labyrinth, Sunshine, and Let the Right One In, all of which are very grim treatments of fantastic material.)
But even the darkest situations in real life are interspersed with moments of tenderness and humor. Movies that forgo that balance in favor of unrelieved darkness are seeking a shortcut to dramatic impact — a shortcut that actually compromises realism. It’s the cinematic equivalent of the macho-man who insists that he’s too tough to cry.
Just a few questions about a couple comments that keep appearing in your reviews, and the reviews of your contemporaries.
And they are perfectly reasonable questions. For the most part, I think Sean answered them pretty much as I would have. I would add that I am not a fan of the downbeat for its own sake — and that’s an affliction that doesn’t begin and end with the fantasticated. There is a tendency — there has always been a tendency — to buy into the notion that a thing is more important if it is grim. That seems false to me — as false as the art film mindset that assumes that two solid hours of ugly imagery and relentless depression is even more important if it’s in Romanian in the bargain.
To take another angle, I can recall TV shows that were generally intended as mere entertainment, but that would occasionally throw in a very serious episode (Cagney and Lacey was good at this). By the 10 minute mark you knew what you were in for — utter grimness. No one would crack a smile for the entire episode. That’s not life. That’s a kind of fear of cultural inferiority, striving to prove itself by being oh-so-serious.
There’s also the whole separate issue of the current trend of fobbing off a kind “life is a bottomless pit filled with snake turds” level of existentialism as profound. That’s what seems to be at work in Terminator. And since it doesn’t ever offer you the chance to laugh with it, it’s all too easy to end up laughing at it. When you include things like the submarine business in Terminator, you might almost think they’re asking for it.
Go back a very few years to X2, which probably gets my vote for the best of the 21st century comic book movies. It tackles some fairly weighty issues, but it also includes humor and humanity — without winking at the audience or going for camp.
Thanks for the replies, both from Sean and Ken. I’m beginning to see where you’re coming from a lot clearer now and mostly agree with everything you’ve said, if differing on the exact details.
Nesbit complaining about a scene involving a Giant robot?
What is this world coming to?
What is this world coming to?
If you find out, let me know — if you think I can stand it.
I can recall TV shows that were generally intended as mere entertainment, but that would occasionally throw in a very serious episode
Ah, yes, those Very Special Episodes: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VerySpecialEpisode
I confess that I have passing little interest in the Terminator franchise. It is my impression that each film takes place largely within the confines of metalworking factories with steel girders, grate floors, and conveniently-placed flame jets.
This seems like a textbook case of an actor collecting a huge paycheck for a poor film, and a poor film “milking” a big name actor to support a bad product. Both parties are laughing all the way to the bank. Is this the equivalent of a “bailout” for the movie industry?
Ah, yes, those Very Special Episodes
Those boys have a lot more patience for TV than I do!
Both parties are laughing all the way to the bank. Is this the equivalent of a “bailout” for the movie industry?
The actor perhaps. The studio, not so far. With a reported $200 million pricetag, this movie needs to gross about $400 million before it hits the black.
Is this the equivalent of a “bailout” for the movie industry?
Yes. In this case a “Bale” out.