
As the summer grinds through one installment of franchise entertainment after another it’s probably a good thing for critics and fans to reflect on what make those films different from each other rather than moan endlessly about why they think they are all basically the same. Number one all summer blockbuster movies are basically the same in that they promise bang for the buck. I’m not being metaphorical. We go to these things to watch stuff blow up real good. Anything else we get is icing on the cake. In Wolverine stuff did not blow up real good and the rest of the movie was entirely forgettable. Those are mortal sins for any summer film.
T4 blows up lots of stuff real real good. It’s well worth seeing on the big screen. And it inverts the thing that made T2 a less than perfect film to, I think and felt, better effect. But before I expound on that let me lay some groundwork. Some sequels are far more respectful of what has built their mythos than others (much less what has made that myth commercially viable). And even more importantly some sequels know how to take what has gone before and do something slightly different with it.
Terminator? It hasn’t aged all that well. It’s a good film but it barely hints at what T2 will be. But since when has the Terminator franchise ever offered a story that was more than a fairly thin backdrop for updating our concept of the sci fi action film form? Have you watched T2 lately? It’s a brilliantly mounted, well acted film, by far the best of the series (including T4) but it does rest it’s shiny metallic shoulders back against an ending that anybody can see coming a mile away. T2 is far and away a technical achievement before it is a dramatic achievement. Cameron is smart enough to hide the science rather than explain the T-800’s development of emotion and choice of self sacrifice at the end. He knows we need that moment and while we go along with him I’ve never met anybody who, on reflection, really bought it. They go back to T2 because it hints that men are more than machines, we are in fact better than machines at things that are more important than what machines are good at doing.
Take Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. It’s a near parody of the first two (especially the second) installments but it has fun being just that and you know right away going in not to expect anything else. I contend you even get a little more than that. In any case Some critics thought it was too much fun. I say that’s their problem. Terminator Salvation? It is respectful of what’s come before, manages to be a lot of fun in spots, has, in my opinion, compelling characters and very good, sometimes outstanding, action sequences. In short TS or T4 or however you abbreviate it, is a summer tentpole movie that stops short of being much of anything else but it’s a darn site better that Wolverine and one critic whom I overheard say differently is just plain wrong. Fox made Wolverine without one lick of respect for the fans, or even the energy of the last three films in its series. Even X3 is tons better than Wolverine. Terminator Salvation is at least if not more enjoyable than T3.
And that is because it doesn’t betray the central notion that makes us able to invest anything in the series at all. If John Connor is an after thought in this film he is an after thought to a more compelling reworking of the terminator character story arc. Let’s face it the Terminator has always been a more interestin g character than Connor anyway. And here we get Marcus Wright. A human being at the end of a failed life, the best possible argument for why man is secondary to machines. A convicted murderer he signs away his body on death row only to be given a second chance at ....what exactly? Now a T-600 prototype he wakes up into an apocalyptic landscape to discover for himself if he is redeemable, if he is even alive in any human sense of the term. While nobody really buys Arnold’s T-800 as a human being, or truly sentient being at the end of T2 I think any person who can let go of their cynicism or frustrations with this films bombast should be able to connect with the character of Marcus and even John Connors bewilderment at having to lay down his survival instincts long enough to trust again.
Notice I haven’t talked about the film much in it’s specifics of plot. If that is why you want to go see this film you might be better off catching Star Trek again (a film whose plot is about as simple as this one). Or maybe you should re-watch episodes of the generally good TV show based on the Terminator series. In the end the plot isn’t what you’re likely to remember here anyway. The fight on the bridge, at the gas station or the helicopter sequence are take home. And if you have heart enough, the character of Marcus Wright, a man in need of a second chance, not deserving of it, just in need.
That is the story of the human race after all. We aren’t owed anything. Whether you believe in a loving God or an indifferent cosmos man finds himself always in the need of a second chance. Its our ability to love, forgive, render compassion, and nurture that make us more than machines. Without a second chance the whole human race might just as well rust in whatever apocalyptic landscape that awaits.
More from Terminator Salvation
- Reviews: Terminator Salvation review
- Reviews: Terminator Salvation review


Well stated.
great review, I'm really at a loss with all the genre critic hatred. hopefully the real fans will go out in droves to support it so we can see Kyle jump in that damn time machine!
Nicely done review. Kinda states plainly what I wish so many of the nerds would get over themselves and realize; that John Connor isn't that interesting as a character. He's much better for the storyline as just a mythos. Ed Furlong pretty much took the character as far as it needed to go. I can only imagine how much better T3 could have been if they had just written Connor to the side and used his character as a stepping stone. And I mean that, we needed to follow him for just a few minutes to know the fate of Sarah, how the beginning of the end starts, and how he just fell into a position of leadership without so much direction as a falling pachinko ball.
The fact that you, as a reviewer, can focus on the REAL story in this, thus uncovering a better movie than most other reviewers seem to be able to, is why I'll probably be seeing this on the big silver, instead of at home.
So, nicely done.
also - the fact McG "directed" this really doesn't play that much into the equation. the FX and continuity supervisors at ILM probably had as much to do with how well this plays as McG does.
Good review. Looking forward to catching this when it hits the UK in a couple of weeks.
Sorry but what the hell? Terminator doesn´t aged well? T2 is a less than perfect film. It´s ridiculous to make a lackluster, cash-in, poor scripted and acted piece of nowadays Hollywood-Entertainment look better than it is by deconstructing and trashing it´s far superior (in a technical and yes, even dramatic way) first two movies. Terminator after all was a low-budget B-movie (at least to the multimillion dollar-flics nowadays). But it was smartly written, tightly directed, well acted, visually impressive, romantic and damn atmospheric and last but not least it had a story to tell.
T2, well T2 is still on of the best or maybe THE best action-movie since the last 28 years. Yep, IMO nothing came close to this since then but please give a movie to compare to T2 if I´m wrong. It´s technically flawless and it´s telling everything Terminator:Salvation is just touching on the surface. The willingness to choose your own destiny, the question what makes humans human and what makes them different to the machines. Schwarzenegger´s path from killing machine to guardian angel, willing too sacrifice himself to save the child and therefore mankind, may not always be believable but it´s damn sure satisfying. Terminator:Salvation therefore has nothing to say and nothing to show (than some fine and expensive FX), that you haven´t seen before or even better. So, dear reviewer, maybe you should do your homework and look at the first two parts again, before you compare these cinematic masterpieces to the latest mouthful of cool aid.
Harry Knowles has lost his mind. His reviews have always been garbage imho - he's like a man trapped with the mind and vocabulary of a 13 year old - but his rant about this movie begs some questions. Even if you have very specific expectations or are a rabid fan of the franchise, you have to give the flick some credit - the fx are clean, the action impressive and worthington and yelchin are excellent; the first hour really clicks. I was struck that the NYT and WSJ liked it, but Harry Knowles felt the need to go on a really vulgar tirade. If you check out nukethefridge.com - one of AICN's old writers (a guy who apparently wrote for the site for 11 years and never got paid or even a thank you) has an interesting perspective on Knowles in their forum for this movie. I personally think he just didn't get paid off to his satisfaction by the studio. I suspect the studios will begin to turn away from him and his endorsements at some point after a few more stunts like this.
Also, chud.com has a good piece on what went wrong with this movie. They too didn't hate the final product in their review, but they have an interesting analysis of the original script (which sounded at least more ambitious than what we ended up with here) and bale's grandstanding.
One other thing - I've never liked McG, but I don't think you can blame the failures of this movie on the direction; I actually think he did a pretty solid job given the hand he was dealt.
and this
Skynet is Helena Bonham Carter.
That single noxious piece of offense invalidates the merit of this entire review, and forever discredits this latest tentpole turd.
Thank you.
Actually within the internal logic of the film series Skynet (which is far more intelligent than you or I) can be anyone it wants. Helenas character isn't even necesarily human when she visits Marcus on Death Row. In any event I dare say very few people have invested much emotionally or even in a narrative sense in learning the "identity" of Skynet. Skynet really only ever existed for people when it was personified by the individual Terminator cybernetic characters.
Well ... I liked the movie. yes, Marcus was the most interesting character in the movie. And, I liked that about the movie. John Connor's character is set in stone. His resolve as to he is and will be was set in stone by Sarah. Bale did a very good job in playing this character. As did the young fellow who played Marcus Wright (yes. i walked out of the theater totally smitten with him.)
Anyway, I liked T4 but felt it lacked two-to-three scenes that would have made it a damn good or great movie. I felt that there should have been a minimum of two more scenes between John and Marcus, before John thought someone other than himself might be the savior of humanity.
I must say, I was sadden (not disappointed) by the ending.
funny Dennis', the technical aspects you praise about Cameron's filmmakings are done justice with T4. It is the script/concept/plotting/characters/narrative that kills the experience (Admittedly Cameron does that very well too, but this T4 compromised ('write pages as we shoot' script is an epic fail.)
Kurt that's interesting RE T4 and like you say, I guess T2 works so well because all those memorable details are hung on such a solid, lean narrative. Be interesting if they are any technical aspects/little touches of T4 that are so memorable in nearly 20 years time... I doubt it (?).
So, Finally got round to seeing T4, great fx, but weak storyline, it just felt like it aimed at the lowest common denominator of teenage viewing mentality. For a film supposedly describing humanities fight for survival against the machines, it felt so mechanical at times, by the numbers, autopilotesque...
Plus points: Sam Worthington, the actor playing Kyle Reese, great fx.
Negative points: extremely weak script, storyline... oooh! it was a trick all along, who'd have guessed? 2 main leads just halved the impact and jostled for dominance. As much as I like Christian Bale, he phoned in the performance, and indeed the much publicised rant was far more passionate than what he put on screen!
Now I hear that Fox are insisting Ridley Scott directs the Alien "Reboot" finally the studios wake up?