Side Bar

May 27, 2009

A need for a movie "Terminator"

Jenna Bushnell, Online Features and Humor Editor
It's hard to know where "Terminator Salvation" falls on post-apocalyptic man versus highly-intelligent machines movie spectrum. On one hand (in this case it would be a sturdy metal appendage), this flick capitalizes on the advancements in Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) technology and brilliantly uses them to depict an ominous planet earth that is being terrorized by robots. On the other hand, though, its sloppy plot, pointless characters and melodramatic script drag the movie down to mediocrity.

Terminator Salvation

(released May 22, 2009)
Chips Rating:
1 stars

User Rating:
0.5 stars Votes: 12
A battle has been waged between a series of high-tech robots and the defenders of the human race in "Terminator Salvation" Picture courtesy of Warner Bros.
"Terminator Salvation" is both a prequel and sequel to the three respective "Terminator" movies that precede it. The film mostly takes place in post-apocalyptic California in 2018 and follows a battle between a coalition of super-computers called Skynet and earth's last humans that oppose them who call themselves the resistance. The film's protagonist, John Connor (Christian Bale) has traveled back in time to protect his father from being murdered by the robots that are bent on killing the entire human race. Along for the ride is Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a death row inmate who is resurrected years after being executed because he donated his body to science. As the war ensues, the two, along with others in the cause, have difficulty resisting Skynet's tricks and treachery.

It's a shame that the filmmakers even bothered to include dialogue in this movie because it only worked to overcomplicate the plot. The value of "Terminator Salvation" comes from the exciting action scenes where Bale and others blow up and crush robots in efforts to defend the human race. The talking, unfortunately, detracts from this by adding confusing elements. If viewers think too hard about how John Connor would be able to travel back in time to prevent his father's death or why Marcus Wright came back to life only after an explosion, their brains might blow up as well.

In addition to the shoddy plot, the myriad of corny one-liners drags this dud even further down. While fans of the old movie might expect a Schwarzenegger-like homage to "I'll be back," instead, the film was rife with meager attempts at profundity. That, paired with poor acting, threw the movie off course even more.

Also disappointing was the film's star. Bale was extremely perplexed and dull in his role as Connor. Perhaps exemplary of his one-sided acting abilities, Bale grimaced and touted around in a similar fashion to the way he acted in the "Batman" movies.

If being bombarded by explosions and wild robot attacks were not enough, the film also included biblical allusions. Yes, that's right, "Terminator Salvation" is an allegory. This analogy is based around Marcus Wright and is initially apparent in the opening scene where he is executed while he is standing up and is attached to a cross-like table. Wright is then resurrected and goes on to act even more like a deity as the movie progresses. It continues as the protagonists make their way through the literal "valley of death."

If viewer's heads don't spin by the end of this movie, their resilience should be applauded. This movie fails because it tries too hard to be something it's not. It would have been a much better use of time to create series of montages of robots blowing up for under two hours. Don't bother to see "Terminator" unless "Star Trek" is sold out.
Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon reddit Facebook

Discuss this Article

  • Jeff (View Email) on May 27, 2009 at 1:56 PM
    Star Trek had plot holes the size of jumbo-jets. It was a far poorer movie than Terminator.

    Granted, Terminator's characters were flat, but the plot was consistent and yes, it made sense. It was far better than Terminator 3.

    I think other than special effects glamour, American sci-fi lost its way. Foreign movies, like Chrysalis, are far better films.

  • Frank on May 27, 2009 at 2:00 PM
    I guess you didn't see this movie or know the storyline. "The film's protagonist, John Connor (Christian Bale) has traveled back in time to protect his father from being murdered by the robots that are bent on killing the entire human race." That is wrong the was no time travel of John Connor in this movie. Its apparent that you didn't like the Terminator series in general.
  • Luke (View Email) on May 27, 2009 at 2:09 PM
    Number one; Connor did not travel back in time. Did the author of this drivle even watch the movie. Number two; the plot was pretty simple to follow (unless you were the author of this article) and went along with the other three movies.
    I'm not saying it was a spectacular movie but it was what I expected and it was enternaining. Why must every movie we see move us in some profound way to be considered good? Maybe the writer of this article should come down off of thier lofty pedestal before they write about something and even get the specifics of what they just saw screwed up. Sounds like they just watched all of the Terminator movies at once and got them mixed up. If you don't watch that genre of films and don't care for them maybe you should stick with writing something you know about.
  • Keith (View Email) on May 27, 2009 at 2:10 PM
    In this timeline..this is John Connors present. He doesn't do any time traveling.

    The Film doens't clarify how Marcus Wright went from 2003 to 2018. It is clear, however, that cyberdyne created Marcus in present form before judgement day and that the machines (skynet) adopted this project as their own. THis is explained towards the end of the movie.

  • your kidding me right? on May 27, 2009 at 2:35 PM
    Ok you need to really do your research. How can you even talk about this movie when you obviously have never seen the other movies? First this is a prequel. Second John Connor never went back in time (in this movie or the others). And third biblical allusions? Are you kidding me? You just couldn’t sit back and enjoy yourself could you? Had to find something huh? (Or make it up). The thing is I never leave comments like this but I just had to say something. Maybe Im wasting my time, but since nobody else left a comment. I guess that Im the only person on the internet that has lost valuable time in his life by reading it. So please save yourself some embarrassment and do you research. Oh and remember not everything has an undertone or an agenda.
  • jerks on May 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM
    i definitely did not like this movie, but this was a great review!
  • Jenna Bushnell (View Email) on May 27, 2009 at 4:39 PM
    I watched the movie, wrote the review to my understanding and interpretation of it and I wholeheartedly stand by what I've said. I do appreciate the feedback though, and love all of the enthusiasm on SCO! Trust me, comments of any kind, good or bad, make all the work worthwhile. Thanks so much and please keep reading SCO and commenting!
    • af on May 27, 2009 at 7:17 PM
      wow, this is the first time I've ever heard any feedback from a SCO writer. There should definitely be more people like you :). Thanks for listening
  • af (View Email) on May 27, 2009 at 5:26 PM
    To the above poster who said that this movie was better than Star Trek because Star Trek had plot holes...the original Star Trek was designed to have a sense of escapism/lighter vision of the future, so the plot holes don't matter as much (unless you are a hardcore fan). Terminator was going for a sense of realism (or at least a somewhat apocalyptic vision of what the future would be like), so the plot holes are much more visible. In my opinion, Star Trek was so much better in terms of acting, special effects, plot, and musical score. Terminator was a complete failure.
  • jenna rules on May 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM
    To Luke: you need to chill out. insulting the author of this article with such immature and snide little comments is completely uncalled for. I give her props for even being able to sit through such a stupid movie.

    and to all the haters, jenna rocks so you guys can just deal

    btw Luke, you spelled drivel wrong. Good job!!
  • What? on June 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM
    One sided acting abilities? Christian Bale? Let me remind you of something... The Dark Knight was not one of Bale's best movies. He did a good job in it, but he has had far better roles. He is not a blockbuster guy, though he will be soon. Watch some of his movies. Rescue Dawn? The Machinist? Harsh Times? AMERICAN PSYCHO??? Even the bloody Shaft remake was good because of his role in it. He is one of the best actors of the generation without the Batman franchise on his resume.

    And way to completely miss the plot... time traveling John Connor?
Leave a Comment