The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews Terminator: Salvation

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

MovieBob Reviews Terminator: Salvation

MovieBob reviews the latest in the long running Terminator franchise.

Watch Video

Good review MovieBob. I must admit i had my doubts, but after seeing your review I might go out and see it. Keep up the good work.

Great review, keep it up!

Wow writers from the Halle Barry Catwoman? My god what did they have to do to get this gig? Dr.Wily as the human leader of skynet? That would be so full of awesome and yet oddly predictable. Shocking review for this film but I've never been huge on the terminator franchise once they made T3.

Tenmar:
Wow writers from the Halle Barry Catwoman? My god what did they have to do to get this gig?

In fairness, they ALSO did "Terminator 3," though I'm not looking to credit them with any of the really good parts of that one. Unless one of them is ALSO Kristanna Loken's personal trainer...

MovieBob:

Tenmar:
Wow writers from the Halle Barry Catwoman? My god what did they have to do to get this gig?

In fairness, they ALSO did "Terminator 3," though I'm not looking to credit them with any of the really good parts of that one. Unless one of them is ALSO Kristanna Loken's personal trainer...

Which would explain my failure to enjoy T3! It all makes sense now! Thanks Moviebob.

Whats wrong with Pearl Harbor?....I liked it.

I'm pretty sure the movies writiers have very LITTLE control over how the final product turns out, they are SO bitch smacked around by the Directors/Producers that I'm pretty sure they just write what people tell them to.

Funny, I actually like it when doom-mongering is proved wrong, possibly not very, but if it's a film I can watch without screaming 'continuity' repeatedly, I'll nip along to see it. :)

Sipher107:
Whats wrong with Pearl Harbor?....I liked it.

It was so EPIC without being very good. Over-hyped, over-acted, etc. That and the whole last section could have been chopped out and not messed up anything.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Funny, I actually like it when doom-mongering is proved wrong, possibly not very, but if it's a film I can watch without screaming 'continuity' repeatedly, I'll nip along to see it. :)

But the Terminator series is constructed in such a way that you can do whatever you want with the story and not have to care about continuity, because pretty much anything that happens can be explained away by the time-travel theme.

And I like it.

I had a feeling it would be alright. Now lets wait for the huge turd of Transformers 2. I did kinda like the first one but it did not call for a sequel.

vdgmprgrmr:
the Terminator series is constructed in such a way that you can do whatever you want with the story and not have to care about continuity, because pretty much anything that happens can be explained away by the time-travel theme.

But boy does it make it a brain pretzel sometimes when thinking about how it explains itself."Skynet was created from future Skynet parts, thanks to being destroyed by a guy from the future sent back to stop skynet, but nearly foiled by a skynet robot from the future sent to stop the rebellion that was to cause the death of skynet, which then sends back a robot to protect the son of the guy sent back to stop skynet, from assault by a skynet robot, which then cleans up the timeline so another skynet robot and rebellion skynet robot can duke it out for chicken/egg pole position, all the while skynet is activating". You could get a headache if you think about it too much. ;)

Instead just sit back and enjoy the explosions.

I heard that this was supposed to be a quite poor film in general. I'll be waiting to see it on DVD I think.

My favourite of the series will remain the first. The second was good, but had declined a bit in quality, and the third was not very good. I quite liked the first series of the sarah connor chronicles though, but apparently series 2 isn't quite as good.

Cracked: 5 reasons the terminator series makes no sense

Guardian film review: Terminator Salvation

Hm. I have to thank you MovieBob: as a hardcore Terminator Fanboy (I snuck in to see the first one in the theater when I was 14), I was ultraconcerned that this was going to be complete dross; I'm perfectly fine in going to see a Terminator movie that is big on spectacle and not necessarily on story, as long as it actually gets the spectacle right. Hopefully, there will be an 'unrated director's cut' of T:S coming out some day that addresses the shortcomings you mentioned-- or at least restores the Moon Bloodgood nude scene!

As a side note, I don't think we'll see many huge-budget highly complex action movie anymore: Hollywood is convinced that the money should be spent on big bangs, bright flashes, and loud noises...

...and the sad thing is, they're probably right. You think the movie-going public today really wants to strain their brains considering time travel and causality loops?

EDIT: I realized something just now-- the reasoning behind the PG-13 rating is probably so they can cultivate a younger fanbase. I guess they're getting tired of us 30-somethings and our money.

It's good to have you MovieBob... I have stop counting the days I have been waiting for someone to speak out against those nasty holywood productions. With you around, I doubt those "Up to no good rascals who wants our money without making the extra effort to actually entertain us for what we payed for but don't really care because they know we're going to go see their movies anyway since we loved the other movies from that particular franchise" are going to be able to keep doing what they do.

Allâhu Akbar!

good review. better than a lot of the "professional" reviewers on rotten tomatoes. they can go piss off, no sense of a good movie with them. 33% my ass. anyway, yeah the writing blew chunks, but the story was actually impressive. redo this movie with some decent writers and you got a movie on par with the originals. i was particularly impressed with the acting. shame they wasted the actors on those shitty lines. i couldnt believe that night scene with marcus and the pilot. i actually laughed when she said " im cold" as she sits next to a campfire. "keep me warm, the body heat", was equally disgusting. oh well. good movie all in all, but i was hoping for a stronger climax and a better script.

The terminator franchise has never made any sense to me. I don't even get how T2 with his "liquid metalness" could get through the time machine to begin with.

I guess my point is that I won't be seeing this for the story, despite how I think it's kinda dumb that there is now a hive mind controlling the bots.

Moviebob pretty much hit the nail on the head with this one. The Dialogue was mind numbing at points. Then again, I wasn't watching a terminator movie for the dialogue.

I can agree 100% with feeling like it stole ideas...

...and the sad thing is, they're probably right. You think the movie-going public today really wants to strain their brains considering time travel and causality loops?

Cough cough, the new Star Trek Movie, cough cough.

Looks like another rental that will go nicely with a 6 pack.

On a side note, I gotta admit, I rented Equilibrium on your advice in some other video a while back and was pleasantly surprised. It's one of the few movies I flicked off and immediately wished they would make it into a video game.

Laughing Man:
Cough cough, the new Star Trek Movie, cough cough.

Hardly brain straining to think about that one. More like "hey no causality at all, cause we rebooted the timeline". It's almost as bad as the "and then I woke up, and it was all a dream". Terminator has time-mobius-strip going on...

This is one of his first actual full on reviews, and not just rant-opinion piece's. I like 'em both, but I'll admit this caught me off guard.

So is it really actually ok? Then I might see it, thanks.

Eh?
The Island was a good movie. Nice to see an original scifi tale that *didn't* feature giant robots or was a graphic novel first.

Oh, yeah, just saw Salvation. Better than the 3rd (I just really disliked Nick Stahl's Connor), just not quite as good as #1 and #2.

Sipher107:
Whats wrong with Pearl Harbor?....I liked it.

To sum up: The Japanese Bomb an American Love Triangle.

The attack itself it awesome(even if lacking a little in historical accuracy) but the love triangle stuff is pretty boring and forgettable(which is unofortunatly the other 2/3's of the movie).

Salvation was....okay.

My issues with it:

-The whole "New guy is a terminator without knowing it" would be a lot cooler if it hadn't been given away in the trailer.

-The Human heart symbolism was incredibly heavy handed. And no....I didn't see every plot "twist" invovling that coming a mile away....particulary the one at the end.

My major gripe:

-I know they changed the past from all the time travel shenaginans in the previous movies, but throughout most of the movie, I kept thinking of Kyle Reece saying

Kyle Reese:.... Most of us were rounded up, put in camps for orderly disposal.
[Pulls up his right sleeve, exposing a mark]
Kyle Reese: This is burned in by laser scan. Some of us were kept alive... to work... loading bodies into dumpsters and incinerators. The disposal units ran night and day. We were that close to going out forever. But there was one man who taught us to fight, to storm the wire of the camps, to smash those metal motherfuckers into junk. He turned it around. He brought us back from the brink. His name is Connor. John Connor. Your son, Sarah, your unborn son.

That coupled with the few snippets of the future gives a much different picture of what I expected from this movie.

The original and even the 2nd shows a rather desperate humanity, hopelessly outclassed, living in tunnels, herded into concentration camps, paranoid of terminator infiltration, tired and hungary. John Conner ends up inspiring them to rise up and make a desperate fight, eventually, through long, hard struggle, finally winning and prompting all the time traveling. You know, a really epic, from nothing to finally victorious struggle.

The new movie....well, humanity doesn't really seem that desperate. I mean, they've got at least one airbase with transports, A-10's, a small fleet of helicopters, not to mention all the infrastruture, supplies and technical support to maintain them. Oh, and electricity and computer screens.
THat's a far cry from living in shitty tunnels and dodging giant tanks all the time. Hell, the fact Skynet can't even locate a friggen airbase(despite the fact skynet probably has satellites available) implies it's kinda stupid. Hell, after all those flares and explosions at their base, skynet apparently never bothered to send a couple HK's to investigate.

And instead of John being the leader? Well, he's just the head of a local base.....after his officer in charge gets blown up and playing second fiddle to a group of douchbags on a sub(who are apparently really surprised that skynet figures out where they are despite their continued broadcasting).

It's not a good sign when I'm watching the movie and having nostalgia for the first two before the movies even over.

On the bright side, I was rather pleased that the T-800 takes at least as much punishment, if not more, then the terminator in the original before going down. I was beginning to wonder when the terminators in most of the movie went down with just a dozen assualt rifle bullets.

Moviebob, I'm going to make a singular request:

Return to the on screen format you used with the Oscars thing. Your facial expressions and gesticulations gave your words weight. At present, I'm remaining convinced that i'm justified in looking forward to this movie but i'm wondering about the comments coming from someone who's screen video presentation lacks punch to the point where there is a definate hint of irony in you criticising Micheal Bay.

I'm not trying to be harsh, the other format really suited your talking style better.

The story didn't kick in until the resistance finally realized that Marcus was a cyborg, and that was at least half the movie spent waiting for something I wasn't expecting to happen. I didn't like Salvation because they felt compelled to explain his character and in turn make him something dull and boring. Marcus would've been infinitely better if they cut out his death row back story and let the character retain some mystery.

They also dropped the ball with Kate Brewster (or Kate Connor). She's the pregnant sweetheart of a prophesized resistance leader. Surely that must mean something? John Connor himself was also startlingly one dimensional and unlikable. All he does is snarl, bark orders, and slaughter machines with nary a ponderous moment to be found.

In summary, weak story, crappy dialogue, and characterization somewhere between completely botched and utterly terrible really killed the movie for me. It's certainly fun to watch, but I just hated that the franchise has simply been reduced to brainless explosive filler.

Moviebob, just a friendly suggestion:

maybe review the movie for the movie. Please stop prejudicing a movie by its cast. I mean, it's ok to say that this movie has bad acting or scripting or w/e, but starting a review by prejudicing a movie to be bad because of other movies is like saying "Why let David Jaffe direct God of War, when he's made games like Micky Mania?"

Get it? Just because a director has made a game that you didn't enjoy, doesn't mean that this particular movie will suffer for it.

For those of you who have not seen equilibrium, God directed it, Thats all im gonna say

ThisNewGuy:
Moviebob, just a friendly suggestion:

maybe review the movie for the movie. Please stop prejudicing a movie by its cast. I mean, it's ok to say that this movie has bad acting or scripting or w/e, but starting a review by prejudicing a movie to be bad because of other movies is like saying "Why let David Jaffe direct God of War, when he's made games like Micky Mania?"

Get it? Just because a director has made a game that you didn't enjoy, doesn't mean that this particular movie will suffer for it.

This is a fair point. Permit me to answer as best I am able.

When it comes to critiquing a film, my #1 main rule is that the movie itself matters more than anything else, and I endeavor to always keep the majority of the focus fixed on that.

I do, however, recognize that this is an idealistic "rule" that must have some "give" to deal with the realities of both moviegoing in the 21st Century and journalism in the age of the Internet. The fact is, almost NO ONE - and definately no web-based critics - go into movies "cold" anymore. This is especially true regarding big-budget "genre" Blockbusters, where a great number of us are to varying degrees aware of their development and production several years in advance (longer if it's based on an older property) and in the lead-up are potentially exposed to everything from multiple-trailers to extended-clips to "webisodes" fleshing out the backstory to direct-to-DVD "prequels" before we even get to go see it.

The above-mentioned "media saturation" I speak of frequently extends to the cast and crew of the film, who's presence is more often than not a major part of the "pre-selling" of the film whether they intend to be or not. For example, the tragic death of Heath Ledger is not "part" of the actual film in "The Dark Knight," but it was unavoidably on EVERYONE'S mind in the lead-up to seeing it. See also: The (in my view wholly justified) claims by Jewish groups of anti-semitism being present in "The Passion of The Christ," or Anne Heche's then-recent "outing" as the female romantic partner of Ellen Degeneres prior to the release of her (heterosexually-inclined) rom-com "Six Days, Seven Nights."

I'm of the opinion that, while I make a conscious effort to regard a movie only as itself as much as possible (I'd ask that you please note that I make no mention of Christian Bale's famous on-set meltdown, because I did not find it especially relevant)... reality is reality, and in reality external forces CAN affect the "energy" surrounding a film. As such, the (potential) audience for my reviews deserves that I be honest and upfront about things that might be on my mind and that they might wish to take into consideration along with the rest of the review. The fact is, the question of "Can McG direct serious action, given his prior examples?" WAS very much on my mind while watching this. I wound up thinking the action was surprisingly good... MAYBE my lowered expectations led me to be more impressed than I otherwise might've been? I don't think so, but maybe thats a consideration you want to make.

EDIT:

ALSO, sometimes you have to veer off the main course in order to tell a joke. I refer to this as "The Roger Rabbit Defense" ;)

That's exactly what I expected it to be. Which enough to get me in the theater. Great review.

I can't tell if this is a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down from the review. It's either a very hesitant recommendation or an ecumenical rejection, but I can't tell for sure

Just saw it. Personally I thought it did to the original what Matrix Reloaded did to Matrix, or, dare I say it, what the Star Wars prequels did to the original series. Yes I thought it was THAT bad. It stepped all over the mythology to churn out action drivel geared for focus groups.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here