The new 'Terminator' could use some salvation
Too many plot holes and bad acting bring down a movie that may have had potential.
Tim Clifford
Issue date: 6/2/09 Section: Arts & Entertainment
To the credit of "Terminator: Salvation," which opened everywhere May 22, there was major hype and expectation surrounding the film. The director McG (yes, McG) was at first heavily criticized by "fanboys" on the web for not being up to snuff to take on the dark and action-heavy Terminator franchise. His former credits -- music videos and the "Charlie's Angels" franchise -- and his cornball name did not help any. But then Christian Bale joined the cast, claiming to have been persuaded by an amazing script, stunning set footage was released, and the director was giving amazing and open interviews about the direction of the film. It seemed like the return of the Terminator franchise was inevitable.
Then it released.
By now, most reviews have been absolutely scathing, but the truth is that this film is a mixed bag. The action sequences are nothing short of amazing. Director McG has mentioned being influenced by the long following camera work of Alfonso Cuaron's "Children of Men" and here usually puts this technique to good use. A chase scene involving a giant Terminator-releasing-motorcycle-Terminators is genuinely thrilling and exciting. A fight sequence at the end involving the return of Arnold Schwarzenegger himself (his head from the 1984 film was digitally placed on the body of young body builder) is a startling and fun surprise. And, while the acting is horrible, the cast itself is a "dream cast" of today's major movie stars (Christian Bale, Bryce Dallas Howard, Anton Yelchin) as well as iconic character actors from cult movies of the past (Jeremy Irons, the "Governator").
Following John Connor's attempt to save his father, Kyle Reese, from Sky Net -- with the help of a man-machine hybrid named Marcus Wright -- the story never seems to really "take off." The plot holes are so varied and numerous that the story eventually becomes burdensome and annoying. If Marcus Wright is such a complex and important machine to Sky Net, why didn't they make more of him and less of the chunky rubber-skinned ones? If everyone accepts that Kyle Reese is John Connor's dad -- because Connor sends him back in time to impregnate his mother after he wins the war for humanity (are you still with me?) -- then why does any character doubt anything he says?
Then it released.
By now, most reviews have been absolutely scathing, but the truth is that this film is a mixed bag. The action sequences are nothing short of amazing. Director McG has mentioned being influenced by the long following camera work of Alfonso Cuaron's "Children of Men" and here usually puts this technique to good use. A chase scene involving a giant Terminator-releasing-motorcycle-Terminators is genuinely thrilling and exciting. A fight sequence at the end involving the return of Arnold Schwarzenegger himself (his head from the 1984 film was digitally placed on the body of young body builder) is a startling and fun surprise. And, while the acting is horrible, the cast itself is a "dream cast" of today's major movie stars (Christian Bale, Bryce Dallas Howard, Anton Yelchin) as well as iconic character actors from cult movies of the past (Jeremy Irons, the "Governator").
Following John Connor's attempt to save his father, Kyle Reese, from Sky Net -- with the help of a man-machine hybrid named Marcus Wright -- the story never seems to really "take off." The plot holes are so varied and numerous that the story eventually becomes burdensome and annoying. If Marcus Wright is such a complex and important machine to Sky Net, why didn't they make more of him and less of the chunky rubber-skinned ones? If everyone accepts that Kyle Reese is John Connor's dad -- because Connor sends him back in time to impregnate his mother after he wins the war for humanity (are you still with me?) -- then why does any character doubt anything he says?
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 6
filmguy
filmguy
posted 6/02/09 @ 5:07 PM PST
I'm so tired of critics nit picking every little plot hole in T4 while totally overlooking the dozens from Star Trek. T4 certainly has many problems but I think it's a much better attempt than Star Trek. (Continued…)
Eliza
posted 6/02/09 @ 5:24 PM PST
Jeremy Irons is not in the film. I hated the movie, too, but you should at least get the facts straight. Michael Ironside the one you're thinking of?
Fred
posted 6/03/09 @ 1:39 AM PST
Jeremy Irons?You'review is null and void as you know fuck all about film,you cock...
Post a Comment