I knew five minutes into McG’s cumbersome, misguided, lifeless “Terminator Salvation” that I would be writing a short take rather than a full review. The film sucks inspiration out of the viewer in a staggering fashion. It disavows intriguing ideas explored in the franchise to date and renders a potentially exciting re-launch of the material impotent and meaningless. It is frankly difficult to give the film a whole lot of thought.
This glossy new installment is splintered with the shrapnel of smart and at times visionary ideas, both narratively and visually. But it has no idea which way is up. It is a video game, not a piece of cinema. It is the accomplishment of a filmmaker smitten with the work of people far more talented and far more dedicated to realizing something that endures, rather than something that capitalizes on pre-existing framework. And it is a nightmare to anyone who cherished James Cameron’s now 25-year-old creation.
And that might be a key statement. Not everyone holds that creation dear. And for them, a compelling film might be in store. But I wanted more. I certainly wiped my brow with relief in the summer of 2003 when Jonathan Mostow’s largely misunderstood “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” managed to bridge two philosophies under the same umbrella, but I knew something bigger and more thematically powerful was needed to recharge the dimming light on the “Terminator” series. Something with a particular blend of creative ingenuity and allegiance was necessary. “Terminator Salvation” substitutes confused storytelling for the former and eye-rolling winks and nudges for the latter.
There are countless marks against the intelligence of this screenplay, not least of which being a plot device that hinges on computers inexplicably making a decision that has no calculable outcome. And a line of dialog representing said decision as necessarily “radical” doesn’t cut it. Meanwhile, the film is exhausting below the line. Shane Hurlbut’s photography has an obvious single-take hard-on for “Children of Men” in a few early instances and has no understanding of composition or visual storytelling for the remainder, while the sound design throughout is both intrusive and, less forgivable, unmotivated. Video game.
All of those grievances aired, there are one or two moments. A tow-truck pursuit in particular stands out as effective, though it takes obvious cues from a similar chase in Mostow’s film. Actor Anton Yelchin was also something of a pleasant surprise as a key character from the franchise and he might have been given a little more room to breathe, rather than be relegated to something of a McGuffin. But I couldn’t possibly offer the film much more slack than that.
In the pivotal role of John Connor, Christian Bale brings none of the personality we know to percolate inside this character. He makes decisions no one would expect an actor of his intelligence to make. He resembles one of his robotic foes, hard-wired rather than driven by passion. Small but telling: this Connor refuses to look a man in the eye to tell him his brother has been killed serving the resistance. I don’t know who this character is.
Sam Worthington, meanwhile, shows promise as a performer with presence. But there is little to be done with a hollowed role such as this, even if it is one with the potential to speak volumes for the “second chance” theme that McG and writers John Brancato and Michael Ferris (shockingly the same team from “Terminator 3”) obviously want to hammer home. And Worthington was unfortunately directed to unleash that blood-curdling scream so often as to become humorous.
McG has stated he has a trilogy in mind for this new vision of the “Terminator” mythos. There was a time that such a prospect might have aroused some interest. Now it merely elicits trepidation. The heart breaks.
Comments
49 responses to “SHORT TAKE: “Terminator Salvation” (*1/2)”
So where was Jonathan Nolan in all this madness?
Yelchin always delights, it seems. He just needs his big starring role and he’ll be as big as Shia.
Ouch. That’s disappointing. I can’t say that I’m surprised, though. Chalk it up as another Summer dud.
ugh. this was rated worse than even wolverine.
fuck. as a lifelong terminator fan, i was so anxiously awaiting the experience of finally seeing a terminator movie in the theater (i was way too young to see the first two and the third one held no interest). i’m still going to see it this weekend, but my expectations are dropping w/ every early review i read.
Helena Bonham Carter?
Wow, that sucks, but I guess we should have seen this coming from the guy who brought us Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle and an actor who thought Equilibrium would be a good movie. Serves us right for getting all worked up over a snazzy trailer.
Oh yeah, that’s right mofos, I AM BACK baby! Well, not really. I’m in Panama right now, checking in on y’all from an internet cafe. How are things going? I haven’t had time to see any new films but I have been catching up on some classics (you wouldn’t believe the amount of great movies stocked on my ship). I’ve heard great things about Star Trek.
I’m exactly where aaron is right now. I f’ing love the Terminator series. The first film was a sizzling starter and the third was 2003’s finest summer blockbuster, but the second is way ahead of the others and is one of the best science fiction extravaganzas ever. This movie looked good and I’m hoping to see it Friday, but man, my hopes have been shot. Not even Ebert liked it. EBERT. Today’s Ebert no less. Things are not looking good.
Equilibrium WAS a good movie. If Wimmer had gotten a bigger budget it would’ve been even better.
Not to bring up the obvious, but were many people expecting something special from McG?
I’ve been burned by a questionable director twice on WB films this year. So perhaps “fool me twice” is applicable.
When Stanley Kubrick breathed life into 2001: A Space Oddysey so many years ago, he capitalized on our fears. Computers were new, mysterious, and an unknown variable. What if they outgrew us? This was, in the 1960s, a pertinent question.
Today, this archetype is no longer relevent. No one is afraid of their laptop of DVD player. Unoriginal or uninspired Hollywood hacks like McG can keep milking this lame premise for more than it’s worth, but its effect on the audience will be virtually nonexistent.
Bill: I think that’s a shallow view of what Cameron has done with this material. And Kubrick simply skimmed the surface, to be quite honest, and his film wasn’t really, at its center, about the encroachment of technology.
Neither, really, is Cameron’s work. It is more about hope and will, human condition, and the danger of losing that in the face of an overly technological world (built within a smart, action-packed, entertaining piece of cinema). That is very much a relevant issue.
Well, Kris, you would at least say that the fear of advanced technology was certainly a major element of Kubrick and Cameron’s films, even if they weren’t, as you say, “the center” of them.
What about a review of Up?
red_wine: Tomorrow or Friday.
Robert: Certainly, but Bill seems to be indicating that the existence of that theme in 2001 renders any further exploration moot.
The director of Charlie’s Angels and the writers of Catwoman. *1/2 is the biggest non-surprise of all time. I just don’t understand people who would think this would have depth.
The new film is too mechanical. Too oriented on the machines themselves (which have become the basis for the series, among other things, but the fact that they are robot-types is a large part) that they lost the point of the original films. When the terminator showed up, it was heart-racing. On teh few occasions they showed their true colors–which happen to be a shiny silver–we become anxious as to what happens next. The new film throws that entertainment right out the windows and gives us shit in return. McG should be ashamed. He has potential to make a ‘good’ film, but lacks any passion. It seems he’s trying to break new ground, but comes out looking like he’s acting like he wants to break new ground but really just looking for a paycheck.
Any bashing McG as “the director of ‘Charlie’s Angels” doesn’t compute for me. Those films served a purpose and accomplished what they set out to do. And I, for one, quite liked the second one.
I also think he has ability, but too often succumbs to his music video/commercial instincts. It’ll take a stiff fiscal punch in the face to ween him off that, much like Snyder sustained this year.
So please spare me the “how could you not see it coming” shite. Facile.
chad:
i was skeptical when i first heard about the movie, but when bale was cast, my skepticism abated a bit. sure, he’s been in some lame movies in the past, but ever since batman begins, he’s chosen solid roles. then when jonah nolan came on to make some rewrites i was sold; imo, he’s one of the best writers in the industry right now. i’ve actually never seen a McG movie, so i have a completely neutral opinion of him. lastly, as a terminator fan, i just *want* this to be good. i’m still going to see it and hope that it’s at least decent. but damn, if McG really is as bad as everyone says he is, i will burn an effigy of his ginger ass. to think: bale, nolan, terminator–how can you fuck that up?
The Charlie’s Angels films may have accomplished something, but it’s worlds away from what needed to be accomplished for this film. And putting stock in someone doing a rewrite is definitely a stretch. Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor did a polish on Jurassic Park III let’s not forget.
Kris: I didn’t say that Kubrick involvement in the techno-apocolypse subgenre rendered any further exploration useless. What I did say, and what I would contend, is that Kubrick’s work was topical in the 1960s whereas it is anachronistic to the techno-sensibilities of 2009. It’s not that a great director did all we should ever see in regard to the topic, but rather that a great director happened to touch upon the topic while it was prudent to do so. The problem concerns the history of technology and society rather than it concerns the history of cinema.
I’ve noticed that you’ve been arguing with me a lot lately. I don’t mind, I enjoy the discussion.
Not arguing for its own sake, of course, just seeing things from a different perspective than you. And disagreeing, in this instance, that the topic being explored in the Terminator franchise is not topical.
I agree some directorial prowess was shown in the ‘Charlie’s Angels’ films, and they were fun to a degree, but you can definately see the commercial aspect of his skills. But what was up with Bale? Talk about a comatose performance.
Kris, from watching the film, do you think Sam Worthington is the next big thing?
Considering he has “Avatar” and “Clash of the Titans” coming up, does he live up to the hype in terms of his performance, regardless of the quality of the film?
Thinking about the Sunday LA Times article on McG and reading this review makes me laugh. According to the article, this film was supposed to garner McG some respect. Oh well, better luck next time. I know I’m the hunderdth person to say this, but I’m not surprised seeing how this is the product of the director of Charlie’s Angels Full Throttle.
Well, at least I won’t be expecting much when I see it this weekend. Public Enemies can’t come soon enough.
Worthington can be the next big thing, just given the nature of marketing in a business like this. Terminator, Avatar, Clash of the Titans — clearly studios see his square-jawed, dreamy-rough look as something that could have mass appeal. Is he a great actor? That is still to be seen. This is his first film I’ve seen (though I’d like to check out Somersault), but there are flickers of talent to be sure.
I was thinking about avoiding reviews of this, and just going in blindly. But thankfully I read this and saved myself $ and time….
Wow, worse rating than Wolverine, I thought that was vile but was looking forward to this one and hope it will be better than Wolverine. At least i know the effects will be…
chad –
i’m not particularly keen on payne, but like i said, i think nolan is one of the best writers in film today. to put it another way, i’m not fond of sofia coppola, but if charlie kaufman rewrote her “stephen dorff comeback” tale, i’d be a hell of a lot more interested in it than otherwise. i am completely unfamiliar w/ McG’s work, so it wasn’t like i was all “grumble, grumble McG sucks peen,” only to be all, “zomg this is going to pwn” after bale and nolan got involved. i was skeptical at first, my skepticism waned after i heard of the talent involved, and now i’m wary.
I’m sorta with you, Aaron. When McG was announced I was very skeptical, but then when Bale and Nolan came on board I thought maybe it’ll be decent afterall. Should have known better. A great actor does not a good movie make, especially when said actor is being directed by a hack. And Nolan? Many respected writers have been brought on to do polishes for would-be blockbusters that turn out to be rubbish…Payne on Jurassic Park 3, Alvin Sargent on Spider-man 3, Seth Rogen on Drillbit Taylor, Judd Apatow on Fun with Dick and Jane. Polish means nothing but a paycheck.
The X-Men franchise isn’t nearly as influential as Terminator 1&2. Wolverine was fun in places, but I can’t imagine this to be fun (as in humorous)too given the nature of the material.
The creator of the Terminator James Cameron has told the story he wanted to tell in two films. A low-budget horror-thriller and a mega-budget epic that won’t ever be topped by anyone including everyone’s current crop of captain save-a-ho’s David Fincher, Michael Bay and Christopher Nolan.
Cross out Michael Bay and replace him with Peter Berg or Peter Jackson.
I met Peter Berg. He doesn’t seem like anything special to me.
“Somersault” is a must. Also handily explains the fuss over Abbie Cornish for anyone who hasn’t got it these past few years. She’s sensational in it.
Im glad that you acknowledge the fact that T3 has merit. I don’t get some of the fanboy hate. Its not T1 or T2 but its a solid film that I like.
chuck
People seem really divided on this movie. I’m going to see it anyway, I’ll just turn off my brain before I go in and expect it to be a mindless summer action blockbuster. I’ll enjoy it on those circumstances. I’m waiting for Public Enemies to come out to actually see an intelligent summer movie.
Kris,
What did you think was misunderstood about Terminator 3? Not that I necessarily disagree with you (I rather enjoyed it myself)
But that then leads me to wonder what the heck went wrong if the same writers from T3 carried over into this new film…?
[…] InContention: “The film sucks inspiration out of the viewer in a staggering fashion. It disavows intriguing ideas explored in the franchise to date and renders a potentially exciting re-launch of the material impotent and meaningless. It is frankly difficult to give the film a whole lot of thought. […]
Just got from the midnight show. I was suprised. I enjoyed it. I liked a lot more than T3. Of course, it will never come close to the first two, but I don’t know, this movie worked for me.
I actually really enjoyed this film and I think if nothing else it was a widly entertaining summer blockbuster. I myself am looking forward to further installments. Kris, I’m sorry, but the more I read from you, the more I realize just how much a cynical buzz-killer you really are. That’s not to say you never have valid things to say, it’s just that you have unfortunately hopped on the negativity bandwagon that almost every film buff seems to have boarded and that makes me sad.
The fact is, these days practically every film buff in the world has gotten on board with the idea that it’s hip, cool, and makes you look sophisticated or smart to trash a film you didn’t enjoy. This is most prevalent in things like your one-man crusade against Inglorious Basterds, and pretty much any film you didn’t enjoy. When you didn’t like Watchmen, you made a point of linking almost every negative article, interview, or piece of media related to it and how much it “sucked”. I imagine the same thing will happen with Inglorious Basterds when you decide that no matter what anyone else thinks, that the film sucks.
Again, this is not to say you are completely without validity sometimes, it;s just that you seem to make it you mission to kill any kind of buzz or enjoyment people could possible have watchign a film that you yourself didn’t enjoy. Let other people make their own opinions for once, and lighten up please. Cynicism is not becoming, it’s just toxic.
[…] InContention: “O filme suga a inspiração da audiência de um forma assombrosa. Este nega ideias intrigantes e exploradas em filmes anteriores, e apresenta uma série de novos elementos sem significado. É dificil dar muita importância a este filme.” […]
Kevin: Bit of a strange thing to say about someone who named “Star Trek” the best film of the year, no?
What Guy said. A thousand times, what Guy said.
And I wrote about Watchmen once. If I linked to anything around release, it was the good and the bad.
By the way, with this logic, Kevin, I should have just kept my mouth shut regarding my opinion of T4. Disliking something isn’t cynicism, it’s simply opinion. If you let someone else’s opinion affect how you make up your mind, that’s on you. I’m happy you liked the film. But why frequent an opinionated website if you don’t want to read, you know, opinions?
It’s not that I don’t want to read opinions. It’s that your opinions are constantly (even though there are exceptions such as the case with Star Trek) negative 90% of the time. All I’m saying is that sometimes it seems like you can’t just enjoy a film for what it is. Maybe I’m looking too much into your pre-release hate for Inglorious Basterds, but it just seems that your writings have become more and more negative. Maybe it’s just me, but that just what I observe.
Perhaps its just a growing trend. I notice more and more that it’s like a great deal of film buffs think that any film made in the past decade is rubbish. I’m sorry if I offended you Kris, I was just making an observation, which may or may not have been accurate.
90% is an obvious stretch, Kevin. See the recently published Up review.
Also, if you really think I believe films made in the past decade are “rubbish,” take a look at the debate raging in the recent edition of The Lists. I am as populist in my opinions as the next guy so I kind of take umbrage with this classification of me as some snobby film buff. It says to me you haven’t been reading closely.
This site is an intriguing place for me because it has been fashioned into a place where readers interested in both high brow filmmaking and populist cinema come to engage with one another. The former comes as a result of In Contention’s obvious bend toward the awards season, while the latter comes as a result of our insistence on keeping it moving year round and not necessarily focused on the upcoming Oscar flurry during the off-season. I’m happy to have both, but often it seems (and I’m not including you in this, necessarily) there are those who want it one way.
Finally watched all of T3 last night to get ready for Salvation… I now know why I haven’t watched the whole previously, i thought it was pretty bad.
I hope (and think) Salvation has to be better than T3 even from the trailers, but I guess I am a sucker for post-apocalyptic wars, etc. It looks like it will be fun at least…
For the record, I completely agree with you on this film, Kris. Piece of shit, almost all of it. Worst movie I’ve seen thus far this year. God, that cinematography was awful. Worthington and the action finale (which was admittedly pretty neat) were all that it had going for it. Sad.
“…it is a nightmare to anyone who cherished James Cameron’s now 25-year-old creation.”
Absolutely spot-on. Almost scarily spot-on, since this is the exact thought I had.
[…] InContention: “The film sucks inspiration out of the viewer in a staggering fashion. It disavows intriguing ideas explored in the franchise to date and renders a potentially exciting re-launch of the material impotent and meaningless. It is frankly difficult to give the film a whole lot of thought. […]