In a nutshell – I thought it was much better than the mediocre or even negative reviews led me to expect.
I read enjoy and respect Big Hollywood. John Nolte was not kind to “Terminator Salvation”.
What a crushing and noisy disappointment this is. For whatever reason, Director McG’s
fourth chapter in the “Terminator” franchise tosses aside the simple but successful plot template that made its predecessors so memorable and goes all “Bourne” with a hyper-complicated plot, narcissistic “hero” and a big fat wide blur between the concept of good battling evil. Yes, welcome to Hollywood’s post-Bush “Terminator,” where a militaristic Resistance demands we “Stay the course,” Terminators work through their feelings, and John Connor runs off to find himself only to end up in a numbingly dull third act that plays like a direct-to-DVD toss off.
Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.
I still respect Nolte of course. But I enjoyed the film. I did not think it was as sullen and dull and lacking-in-warmth as many critics (not just Nolte) argued. My daughter rather pithily commented, “If people want warmth they should watch a chick flick”. (Hey um Big Hollywood? Got an opening for a twelve year old?) I thought the story was engaging. The pacing tense. Some of the acting genuinely touching.
Let me offer a couple quick and mild criticisms centering on the character of Marcus Wright.
{WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD! AWOOGA! AWOOGA!}
He is indeed a sympathetic character. But believable? This person was sentenced to death for the murder of his brother and two police officers. How then does this person come off as so noble and selfless? Is it programming?
And the movie never quite explains just how that whole “Marcus gives his body to science [read Cyberdyne] and ends up working for Skynet” thing works. Is the doctor sent back in time by Skynet? Is she human? If so – what does she think she is doing? Was it an experiment in making benign cyborgs that gets coopted by Skynet? This part of the plot is just too full of holes to ignore.
Now – I understand why more conservative reviewers think there is a post-Bush dig on the war against terror. “They are the machines. We are human. We are supposed to behave like humans”. Fair enough.
But is it that obvious? And is there a counterargument? Do conservatives wish to argue that… argue what exactly? Do we not often argue that one of the problems with liberalism is that too often liberalism assumes the end justifies the means? That results do not matter only motives? (“Well we are trying to help the poor. Does not matter if the result is generations of broken families enmeshed in poverty”.)
Moreover – does not the movie imply that we are defined by our decisions more than our nature? Do we not often argue that liberals emphasize too much “this is what you are” – as if background and ethnicity and orientation determine destiny? Is it not conservatives who tend to argue “yeah sure that is who you are and where you are from – but you have a choice“? And that is precisely the point of Marcus Wright.
Marcus breaks free from his destiny. He chooses against his programming. “There is no fate but what you make”. Surely conservatives can celebrate that!
Anton Yelchin (as Kyle Reese) is much better here than in “Star Trek” (where the Russian navigator Chekhov cannot pronounce the phoneme v). I admit that Kate Connor’s pregnancy is completely and strangely ignored.
I think the movie deserves better than the 33% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. If you enjoy the “Terminator” movies – see it! You do not have to wait for the DVD.
