Terminator Salvation
posted May 18, 2009 8:54 AM
Pushing dynasty, not revolution
With blogs betraying its original ending, fan outrage over director McG and publicized onset meltdowns, Terminator Salvation had as much against it as for it. If this story about freedom fighters battling robots in 2018 had been the first in the franchise, it'd be heralded as a decent-enough summer blockbuster. But with two impossibly great films to be measured against, after Salvation packs them in opening weekend (as it surely—and justly—will), it will stay alive in fan consciousness only long enough for Warner to crank out another sequel or two—a fate better than Terminator 3, but much paler than the James Cameron originals.
Fourteen years ago, Skynet sprinkled the world with atom bombs and sicced robots to pick off the survivors. Kids, like teenage Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) and the mute Benetton child he babysits (Jadagrace), have spent most or all of their lives post-Apocalypse. They're like sewer rats—or at least, we'd like them to be—but besides having Yelchin give props to local culinary faves like two day old coyote ("Better than three day old coyote," he grins), there's the sense that no one involved with the movie has really thought through its basic tenets. Though they've been through a decade and a half of hell, everyone has white teeth, smooth skin and all limbs. The radiation poisoning that's sucked the youth from the residents of Chernobyl isn't a factor. In the compounds of The Resistance, the freedom fighters have all dredged up snappy camo pants and military vests. Outside, people live in suspicious Mad Max tribes. Though communication seems to have broken down, save for John Connor's radio broadcasts, English grammar is thriving—everyone speaks in full sentences with the pomp of a 1950s Biblical blockbuster. And though we're curious how the very old, the very young and the very ignorant have survived the last fourteen years of machine-on-man genocide, there's no real sense that they have. People don't seem toughened; they seem transplanted into a devastated world.
John Connor (Christian Bale, acting like Batman without the rasp) is prepared. Less so is Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), an ex-con time traveler from the small window when Alice in Chains was popular. When an amnesiac Wright pops up in 2018, he's blindsided by the Terminators. "What year is it?!" he thinks to ask his rescuer, Kyle Reese. (In one of many moments of inanity, Reese doesn't clue in that he's not from around here or think to ask him what year he last remembers.) The entire film suffers from myopia; it speaks only in immediacies ("Hand me that gun!") and abstracts ("Do you believe in second chances?"). What it doesn't speak is human—the people have ascribed emotions that exist only to propel the plot. By contrast (and by illogical oversight), sometimes the machines seem more human than human—instead of Arnold or Robert Patrick's calm efficiency, when their prey fights back these machines lash out like playground bullies afraid of humiliation. The two—machines and men—are locked in an evolutionary race in which the machines are determined to advance faster than The Resistance can learn to outwit them.
Terminator 2: Judgement Day is an impossible film to follow. (Yes, I'm refusing to acknowledge T3.) But I wish Salvation would have tried. In this doomsday scenario, my BS meter sounded off as often as a Geiger Counter in Salvation’s high radiation environment. Minutes after Yelchin and Worthington pull up to a desolate, desert, gas station hideout, where tumbleweeds and burnt cars stretch to the horizon, they're surprised by a giant people-harvesting machine. I was shocked, too. The bipedal robot is skyscraper tall and slow as molasses—if it was headed your way you'd see it in time to pack a lunch. Even more ridiculously, the ground shudders under its feet. What, was it tiptoeing?
The sound is better designed than the story. The primitive T-600s look tall and deadly, but their obsolescence squeaks through their whining joints. Their movements sound as painful as Oz's arthritic Tin Man. Even the earth itself registers its pain: trees groan, wind cries, buildings heave. In room after room, we hear the buckling agony of the Titanic's last minutes afloat.
But McG is looking to the wrong James Cameron blockbuster for inspiration. Where T2 was grim, unsparing and logical, T4 is packed with harmless punches and bullets. After the first few fights leave our heroes unscathed (only the nameless get killed) we're never that afraid for anyone's safety. Time travel franchises get increasingly mired in their mythos and, now that we're in the future we've waited for, legacy has constrained McG and credited screenwriters John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris (whose actual contribution is debatable—McG has said he hails The Dark Knight's Jonathan Nolan as the script's true architect). Every Terminator has reset the future. The most interesting course the film could have taken is to ask if after three Terminator time travel scrambles John Connor is still fated to be humanity's savior. Here, the old guard Resistance fighters don't accept he's the messiah, but why should everyone else? They're taking his word for it. For that matter, the film needs to convince us Connor hasn't already served his purpose. His immortal swagger isn't a glimpse of the future but a recall of the past, when kings and pharaohs told their followers that it was the rulers’ lives that mattered most. The film preaches dynasty, not revolution. When Connor insists that everyone stop attacking Skynet long enough for him to infiltrate and rescue Kyle Reese I almost wished they'd refused just so we could see what would happen if he lost his future father. Would he vanish? Flicker? Wince in pain and reach for a guitar to play “Johnny B. Goode?”
Last summer, blogs committed a crime: They leaked the original ending of Salvation. McG's intention was to upend the franchise with a subversive twist that acknowledged these questions and added new ones. And it was great. But because this ending was both too bleak and too well known, Warner Bros. changed it to a milquetoast crowd pleaser that feels like a cheat. It's an ending so terrible it spoils the moderate popcorn pleasures of all the nonsense before it. If the spoiler police weren't on red alert, I'd love to dig into it, but all I can say is if you live in LA, call me up after you see it and lets shout about it over beers. I'll need several rounds to calm down.
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Cast: Christian Bale, Sam Worthington, Anton Yelchin, Moon Bloodgood, Bryce Dallas Howard, Common, Jane Alexander, Helena Bonham Carter
Director: McG
Screenwriters: John D. Brancato, Michael Ferris
Producers: Derek Anderson, Moritz Borman, Victor Kubicek, Jeffrey Silver
Genre: Action
Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language.
Running time: 115 min
Release date: May 21, 2009
48 Comments
Leave a comment
Uncle Bob said:
No fan could have liked the leaked ending. It was a spit in the face.
May 18, 2009 11:14 AM
Nivek said:
White teeth, are you kidding me?
May 18, 2009 11:34 AM
Tighe said:
I think you nit-picked this movie WAY too much. You thought about it WAY too hard. Stop being such a critic for one and ENJOY a movie.
I think it's funny that you critique the hell out of this movie for having people speak full sentences in english when almost EVERY apocalyptic movie has done the same! Why bash this movie for it?? Would you watch an entire movie of people who sounded like idiots and couldn't construct a single sentence? I think not! I'm all for being realistic, but there become a point where you have to change it to make a more palatable and watchable movie.
May 18, 2009 11:37 AM
Anonymous said:
Right on Tighe!
May 18, 2009 11:49 AM
Karl Hungus said:
Why would everyone speak like uneducated morons when it's only set 9 years in the future?
I don't know if I'll like this movie or not, but I agree with the person above who said you're doing a little bit of nitpicking.
May 18, 2009 11:58 AM
Grandfather Bob said:
Wow. this review is full of ****. i hate ****ing movie critics like these who nitpick at every little detail. what this reviewer is asking for is realism. ITS A ****ING POST APOCALYPTIC THRILLER WITH MACHINES TAKING OVER. all we want is entertainment.
May 18, 2009 2:12 PM
ImThatGuy said:
After reading the above article, I have to say that I'm a little skeptical about T4. However, I have been a fan of the Terminator movies since I was a kid and an even BIGGER fan of action movies so I am definitely going to see it. I agree with Tighe, sometimes you gotta just watch a movie for entertainment and not always harsh critiquing.
May 18, 2009 2:18 PM
Brad said:
I hate all the people here for insisting that we must turn off our brains and just enjoy something because it is only supposed to be entertainment. It isn't nitpicking to ask for consistency and vision in a movie. You people are the reason that most action movies are mindless drivel these days. They don't have to be. Action, Fantasy and Sci-Fi shouldn't be the filmmaking ghetto of idiotic garbage - they should be held to the standards of quality film, like they used to be. Once upon a time we got movies the quality of Die Hard, Robocop, Terminator and Raiders of The Lost Ark. Today we get endless sequels, remakes and idiotic tripe. Demand better and you will get better. Accept crap, and you will continue to get crap.
May 18, 2009 4:03 PM
Joe Galm said:
3/5? What a crucifying!
*sigh*
Well written, Amy.
May 18, 2009 4:14 PM
Pit_Master said:
Terminator 2: Judgement Day is an impossible film to follow.
This is where you lost any credibility.
May 18, 2009 4:48 PM
Ruzkin said:
Pit_Master - are you serious? Following T2 is a monumental task. The movie was pretty much perfect and any sequel will inevitably be overshadowed by the pitch-perfect performances of Linda Hamilton, Ed Furlong and good old Arnie.
May 18, 2009 5:01 PM
Anonymous said:
umm in all the films it has been shown that they werent effected by the radiation! what do you expect different from this movie?
May 18, 2009 6:23 PM
Koza said:
This is why I hate critics...Tighe hit the nail on the head with this article.
May 18, 2009 8:36 PM
Liquid-O said:
McG is a horrible director so i'm not surprised. And Christian Bale is boring and wooden.
May 18, 2009 8:37 PM
CRUZ said:
I'll watch the movie and meet you for beers Amy. Any time. I enjoy a thoughtful review and I don't like being spoon fed feces in glossy packages. I will see the movie, they will get my $12 bucks -- i love franchise too much to NOT see it. But I refuse to switch off my brain and suck down a dumb action movie sequel to one of the smartest action movie franchises -- not without a fight anyway.
May 18, 2009 9:17 PM
Huh? said:
Funny how Tighe is being so nit-picky about the review. He picks on one point...
May 18, 2009 9:37 PM
Eva Fay said:
If you hate critics why are you CRITICIZING SOMEONE'S CRITICAL REVIEW OF SOMETHING?! Orange County is trapped in a WORMHOLE of LOGIC!
May 18, 2009 10:15 PM
JWAdvocate said:
Cosign, Tighe. The reviewer tries to put a snarky fine-toothed comb over McG's vision of the future but only makes herself look terribly near-sighted.
White teeth, oh man, awful. Because audiences love their actors all bearing fake bad teeth, for the sake of continuity. Would you give Mad Max the same criticism? Or Waterworld? Wait, nevermind on that last one.
They speak good English? Its NINE years in the future. Oh man, the world has gone to ****, time to forget how to use propositions! (What?)
Everyone has smooth skin and all of their limbs. Guess what, it has been NINE years. You know what happened to the people with not-so-nice skin and less than all of their limbs? They're DEAD, idiot! And they've BEEN dead for...probably around NINE years.
If the new ending is as bad as you claim it is, I'll eat my own shoe in acknowledging your judgment. That said, it seems like you went into this film practically ASKING for campiness. There's not enough humor! Waah! Everyone speaks too well despite it only being NINE years since judgment day! They should talk like they're cavemen! Not enough four-eyed three legged mutates!
May 19, 2009 12:26 AM
Sharpe said:
T2 really is too hard to top or equal, so she's right there.
As for all the brainiacs shouting over her point about English? Why don't you nitwits try living for YEARS without radio, TV or anywhere safe to chitchat?
People that spend 3 years in "high school" come out talking more ignorantly, for Pete's sake, so give her a break for figuring "9 years" of Hell would seriously devolve the Queen's English and also make it harder to outfit people with military uniforms and tooth-whitener!
The friggin' trailer shows MOTORCYCLE-bots coming out of a giant Go-bot! This movie must be awesome...
May 19, 2009 8:33 AM
Grafty said:
God, I hate it when people whine about "nitpicking" in film reviews.
She's a critic. This is a review. What, exactly, do you *expect* her to do? The less effort a critic puts into analysis, and into *why* a film did or did not meet their expectations and hopes, the less good they are at their job.
This is a good review, and doesn't go into all that much detail anyway. Shh.
May 19, 2009 10:03 AM
Grafty said:
Incidentally, quite a few commenters have been pretty rude about this. That's a lot of bile for a three star review.
May 19, 2009 10:18 AM
CRUZ said:
I love how people want to tear apart a review for a movie they haven't even seen yet... jesus people, you MIGHT actually agree with her when you see it. Hold your freak'n horses.
May 19, 2009 11:36 AM
Kevin said:
Yeah stop being such a critic, man! I don't care if it's your job, your job should just be to watch a movie and freaking enjoy it.
May 19, 2009 12:24 PM
Grafty said:
It's a good thing a person's enjoyment of a movie has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's good or bad.
Oh, wait.
For all the people currently passing their own kidneys with fury, take a look at the other reviews this movie is getting. It's early days, but it's looking lopsidedly negative. Three stars just keeps looking better and better.
May 19, 2009 2:33 PM
ExtinctionEvent said:
I've read a few reviews by now and this is the one I liked the most so far. Some elements of the review made me laugh, some made me nod in agreement.
"Though they've been through a decade and a half of hell, everyone has white teeth, smooth skin and all limbs."
I hate that too, you can sacrifice realism if you need to convey a message or add dramatic effect, but I don't think wouldbe freedom figthers would be overly concerned with their appearance. In contrast, I'm reminded of the scene in Terminator where Kyle Reece walks through an underground resistance checkpoint, the children he passes by are watching a tv that functions as a small fireplace(totally 1980 fatalism at its best!)
"People don't seem toughened; they seem transplanted into a devastated world."
I'm just waiting for the L'Oreal commercial to kick in, "Freedom figther fragance, because you're worth it!"
"Terminator 2: Judgement Day is an impossible film to follow. (Yes, I'm refusing to acknowledge T3)."
Yes to both. T2 set the benchmark and yes I'm even more in denial than you as I don't have the sligthest idea of this T3 you keep tlaking about,lol ;-)
"Even more ridiculously, the ground shudders under its feet. What, was it tiptoeing?"
Rofl.
"The film preaches dynasty, not revolution."
Perhaps one of the most concise and fitting observations neatly packed in a short sentence. My old English Lit professor would've been proud, hehe.
"...I almost wished they'd refused just so we could see what would happen if he lost his future father. Would he vanish? Flicker? Wince in pain and reach for a guitar to play “Johnny B. Goode?"
Heh, yea, with all the power sources in them terminators we'll crack up that ol' DeLorean up to 1.2 GigaHertz in no time. I've set the date for 24 hrs prior to the premiere of T2 ;-)
May 19, 2009 3:35 PM
Sara Schieron said:
Amy, you're totally right.
I saw T4 last night and thought of two things the whole film:
1. The soundtrack is constantly more interesting than the story
and
2. "Hey Baby, wanna kill all humans?" (Futurama is eternally brilliant)
The ending destroyed all the gorgeously interwoven action and plot. It was like they imported all the bad, soap-opera logic from the 80's and transplanted it into the rough and tumble, fake future.
The machines are fabulous and Sam Worthington does some really good work (tho that one scene when Bale and Worthington are having it out should be referred to as "the duel of the fake yank accents").
You totally hit the mark.
xo
Sara
May 19, 2009 5:05 PM
Mark said:
Or, to be even nitpickier, what about the logistics? they're flying A-10s. Fuel for that doesn't grow in desolate wastelands. Most of it gets shipped across an ocean in unprotected cargo ships. Neither do spare parts, qualified pilots, mechanics, etc. Connor wastes Hueys (yes, the helicopters in the movie were Hueys) like they are going out of style...which, since they were built in the 70s, indeed they are. All the bullets they use for all the weapons...none of it really makes sense. For all this equipment to exist there must be a (large) industrial base...
If the world's a wasteland who's growing the food? Eliminating flocks of sheep, cattle, or whatnot would be very easy for machines, who can literally poison the entire earth b/c they don't need what we need. Who's the orthodontist? If it was so freaking easy for Worthington to get out of the "secure" resistance compound, you're kidding me that machines can't get in.
May 19, 2009 8:17 PM
Sharpe said:
The future that T1 and T2 allude to should always be left up to the imagination. Movies like this one, no matter how creative they might be, will never be able to live up to what they should be. So this movie was fated to disappoint anyone interested in a great story.
In the Terminator movies, they make several references to future tech the Resistance has, giving you the idea that weapons have been created which manage to even the playing field somewhat between man and machine.
The Terminator movies "should" have the Judgment Day problem solved in "the past" or should always have the Apocalypse pushed farther into the future by time-traveling Resistance fighters.
T2 wrapped up everything perfectly pretty much anyway.
May 20, 2009 4:42 AM
jahangir said:
best movie of the yeat t4
May 21, 2009 9:17 AM
ClassATransportation said:
I saw T4 first showing at 11am western time at a local Regency.
I really enjoyed it and will go great with parts 1,2,3 as a box set.
To all the basement dwelling nerds nit picking just STFU already.
May 21, 2009 2:42 PM
Mitchell Vasallo said:
You have to understand that dollars dictate the movies success. Not critics. I myself enjoyed the movie. There was a lot of action. A few surprises, and I love the cast. The only thing I would have liked to have seen is the ending showing them sending Kyle Reese and the Arnold stand in to the past. Saying that it was 10 to 20yrs later. That would've been so cool showing what they had said to complete both of their missions.
May 21, 2009 10:57 PM
A.C. said:
Your review was spot on. Everything you've pointed out were my thoughts exactly. This movie left me wanting to pop a bottle of Advil because my head was killing me from the motion sickness and over-the-top fighting scenes that dragged on and on.
WTH was up with the "token hot chick" who fell from the sky... literally... with teeth so white that they were distracting the entire time? And where was she hiding all of her gadgets that popped out of nowhere when she needed them?
Bale sounded like Batman with rocks in his mouth.
I truly wanted to like this movie. *disappointed*
Yeah, I'm nitpicking. I want to be entertained, not distracted by things that shouldn't have mattered.
May 23, 2009 12:45 AM
giddi said:
very stupid review that just doesn't get the movie.
the movie was AWESOME. Perfect.I loved it.
(1) yes it's only been 9 years. teeth, limbs, all ok.
(2) the future will be much worse. death camps, that sort of stuff you saw and alluded to before. this will be probably in the sequels.
(3) movie was freakin' awesome.
May 24, 2009 11:50 PM
Paul said:
I saw "Terminator Salvation" this afternoon. I think there are ways to explain away the points about white teeth and good grammar. For instance, the people of Los Angeles might have a strong cultural attachment to attractive teeth, and might have stockpiled tooth care products. As for the grammar, most of the characters might have been well-educated, or might have had to be on their best behavior because a lady (Jane Alexander's character) was in the room.
The only thing that bothered me was the *reason* why the scientists rebuil Marcus. However, I can't say what that reason was because it would be a spoiler for those who haven't seen the gilm yet. But you'll understand my point when you do see it.
May 25, 2009 2:56 PM
alex said:
First let me say Terminator 2 was great. So let's give it a rest. There will never be another T2, that's why its called Terminator 3 and Salvation. I liked every movie they did so far, T 1, 3 and salvation got more into the story than T2 ever did it was all ACTION. Don't want to see another T2. If you do look at T2 and stop wishing that the others were.
May 25, 2009 8:28 PM
dyerboy said:
Well people I personaly thought the movies was very enjoyable and hope that they continue a couple more Terminators of the future as they did sending them into the past I think it would be a great final to all the seguals to this Terminator series 3 of the past and 3 in future it was a kick ass movie and prey they make more.
May 30, 2009 11:09 AM
dita said:
I haven't seen the film yet and I regret reading this review.I have to say that I agree at some points with all you who commented on the film's review.
But please give me a break. what bothers you is the white teeth and full sentensed dialogues???of course there needs to exist some kind of realism but if people were affected by radiation there wouldn't be anyone left to fight back at the machines.not to mention that from t1 the future was pre-told;people fighting whith real guns and bullets and having the tecnology to time-travel.if you liked that then why judge t4 for having all the army equipment?I don't want to say that the film is perfect but I wouldn't nitpick at those specific details because we knew already about the future even from t1 film.what i would critisize after seeing the film would be the performances of the actors, the direction and technical details about the way it was presented.I will watch it knowing that is a film about robots taking over the world.where is the realism in that?it's fiction(hopefully) and they better have been carefull with all those fisual effects.
May 31, 2009 8:14 AM
john connor said:
whatever.
May 31, 2009 10:14 PM
sarah conner said:
it is okay without me
June 4, 2009 11:41 AM
MetalForever!! said:
Nonsense!!
This movie was good as it can be!!
June 12, 2009 5:23 PM
John Connor said:
Just enjoy the movie. Its nice
June 17, 2009 6:35 PM
John Connor said:
Its me the other john connor who posted the comment at 6:35 PM :)
June 17, 2009 6:36 PM
Scott said:
Everyone keeps bashing t3 but it still so far, has managed to gross more than terminator salvation.
June 30, 2009 12:06 PM
ahmed madkour said:
we all love u cheristian u r the best in world
July 5, 2009 4:09 AM
boss said:
coolio
July 5, 2009 9:38 AM
Arth_Vader said:
Sadly, the reviewer just misses the boat by not suspending her sense of reality. She got so mired in the details, she actually missed the movie. A movie has two criteria; do well so it can perpetuate itself and be an enjoyable 80-120 minutes for the audience.
That's it.
Expecting anymore is absurd and NO MOVIE stands up to this kind of scrutiny. I feel Amy has grown up and missed the magic and wonder of engaging her imagination. A movie merely asks that you get on board for a short time and try to enjoy the ride. This kind of review ruins the trip. Sorry, Amy. Maybe documentaries & date movies are more your thing. Perhaps we should leave the sci-fi and imagination-engaging film reviews to those who more earnestly enjoy them.
Even in something as simple as a movie review, context matters.
July 6, 2009 11:47 PM
Anonymous said:
I hate you movie critic the movie was so fricking awesome just enjoy the movie and dont bring up crap like they talk well well of course they do because maybe nine years befor they had some dam education
September 22, 2009 3:35 PM
Anonymous said:
So many foolish people commenting on this thread! Clearly teenagers or younger... No respect for the franchise.
And folks saying, "Omg, give McG a break!! It was only NINE YEARS!" should have a conversation with families of Hiroshima's survivors.
Rock on, reviewer. Thank you for telling it like it is.
October 3, 2009 9:39 PM