2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > May > 21 > Entry
Not enough Salvation for new Terminator movie
Terminator Salvation just isn’t quite … human enough.
That may seem like a strange criticism for a movie with a lot of robots in it, but in the previous Terminator movies, I rooted for the humans - or the robots when they were on the right side. I wanted them to win, even when that seemed impossible.
Watching Terminator Salvation, I only cared about the humans sporadically. Most of them simply aren’t that interesting - not even John Connor. And in a Terminator movie with Christian Bale playing the lead, that’s a problem.
Set in 2018, the film shows the war against the machines is in full swing. Connor is close to finding a way to defeat the enemy Skynet, only to be faced with two problems - people in the resistance who doubt his authority, and the emergence of a mysterious new character, an ex-con named Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), who harbors a secret even he does not know.
To its great credit, Terminator Salvation is a much better movie than I feared it would be. I never thought I would type these words, but here goes: it’s well-directed by McG.
McG’s gimmicky name cast fear into my heart when I heard he was helming this movie. I still feel the painful aftershocks of one of the worst sequels ever made, Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, almost six years after seeing it. But I will give credit where it’s due. McG has redeemed himself.
Not only could I tell what was going on most of the time, but I found most of the action scenes exciting and even imaginative sometimes. Hiring editor Conrad Buff, who also worked on Terminator 2, was a very wise move. As an action movie, Terminator Salvation works well, if not spectacularly.
If only it had a script to match its camerawork, this film might have measured up to the earlier ones. The screenplay was written by John Brancato and Michael Ferris, who also penned Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. (Jonathan Nolan, who co-wrote The Dark Knight with brother Christopher, reportedly did an uncredited polish.) Unfortunately, their story focuses too heavily on hardware and not enough on heart. For all of McG’s efforts, Terminator Salvation is mostly soulless.
That’s a shame considering some of the talent involved. Bale does what he can with his role, but John Connor in this movie is the sort of sullen and intense hero he could play in his sleep. Bryce Dallas Howard, a gifted actress, is absolutely wasted in the nothing role of John Connor’s wife, played by Claire Danes last time around. I found myself most intrigued by Worthington’s character and wished he were front and center instead. He almost made me care about the movie, but not quite. (And yes, for the record, I missed Arnold.)
I never imagined that Terminator Salvation would have a lot in common with Angels & Demons, which I reviewed last week, but the films are of a piece. Both are decent action movies I sometimes enjoyed, but ultimately rejected. Unfortunately for Terminator Salvation, the devil in me is on a winning streak.
GRADE: C+
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Comments
By Janna R.
May 28, 2009 10:59 AM | Link to this
I agree completely with Eric, it really could have been a great movie. Much like that abominable movie Cloverfield, the effects were great but the characters were all cardboard. Besides returning characters I couldn’t remember the names of any of other characters. All in all its a very forgetable and unsatisfying movie.By Dan
May 21, 2009 8:10 PM | Link to this
Well I saw the movie tonight, and really enjoyed it. Without giving away any details about it, I would say it pays a lot of respect to the first two movies. I felt that it followed the time line and events really well that are explained in the first two movies well. The movie was pretty predictable, but that makes me feel good when I can figure things out in the movie a scene or two ahead of time. Go see it, I give it at least a B+, if not an A. It’s no T2, but beats T3 by a long shot. Any action fan will enjoy it.By Allie D.
May 21, 2009 12:37 PM | Link to this
I think you all are selling Eric way short here. I can tell you he is one of the most open-minded, enthusiastic movie lovers out there. He wants to like a movie. If it struck the wrong chord with him, it was likely for a good reason. People tend to think film critics are elitists simply for having opinions. Give me a break. He’s not telling you not to see it. He’s telling you why he had a problem with it. Agree or disagree. It doesn’t have to turn into some attack fest on film critics in general. In spite of Eric’s review, I still plan on seeing this movie. And you know what? That’s exactly what he’d want you to do.By R J..Miamisburg, Oh
May 21, 2009 10:07 AM | Link to this
I always wait to hear what others say about a movie, then I will go or not. I will say many times I have seen a movie that Critics say are bombs, only to find a really good movie. Looking back, one that comes to mind is Tom Selleck’s Her Alibi.. Critics didn’t like this movie at all. It turned out for me to be a nice date movie. Or at least one I could take my then young son’s to see. SO I take what critics say with a grian of salt. They are right about the same amount as Weathermen. 30%..The real critic’s are the ones that come out of the movie telling us not to watch it. When I see those who paid good movie for a ticket walking by me saying SAVE your money this movie sucks, then I will stay away from it.By Dan
May 21, 2009 9:41 AM | Link to this
I’ll be seeing this movie this evening. No offense to your review or anything, but I still see whatever movie I have been anticipating for a long time, regardless of how bad a review rates it. C+? Was it really that bad? Sometimes I feel film critics are too critical of elements of a movie that would only matter to them. An everyday person might think its the best movie they’ve seen in years. Still can’t wait to see it tonight.