Monday, June 8, 2009

Oh Yeah! That Terminator Movie

I realized with sudden horror today that I have completely neglected to post a post-watch review of Terminator Salvation.

Humph.

When a movie gets 25% on Rotten Tomatoes, I necessarily go into it with low expectations. It was hugely disappointing to discover, one week early, that the film was getting such bad reviews. My worst fears, it seemed, were actualizing themselves in the most anti-climactic way.

Still, finding out the film won't be much good before actually going to see it is better than the bitter agony I was sure to sustain without the warning.

Conclusion? Well...I guess it wasn't that bad.

Crap! What was the point? It was supposed to be GREAT. What does it matter if it wasn't "that bad," which, incidentally, is about the language this film evoked from the most positive of its many reviews. What a complete waste.

I gave McG a chance. Sure, the only memorable thing he had directed before this project was Charlie's Angels (and Full Throttle...yep), but give the guy a break, right? I mean, Hollywood is tough stuff. It's hard to get good material as a commercial director.

He even said this to Bale. [I paraphrase] "This is my big break. C'mon, let me prove myself, Christian. I can DO this! Trust me..."

Well, he did. And since Christian Bale trusted him, so did a gaggle of other talented actors and filmmakers. Jonathan Nolan wrote a script that could have been made to sing, I believe, in better hands. But it was in McG's talentless hands that it was given life. And so people say it was poorly written. It wasn't. Sure, the writing could have been better, but it could have been much, MUCH worse. (See: Wolverine)

So how do I know? You can know that a film was directed poorly when the following things are true: The cinematography was beautiful; the cast was enormously talented; the writing was good enough to keep the audience from laughing at the wrong places; there was no shortage of cash (never once you cross that magical $100M mark); the movie still sort of sucked.

The thing that was so wrong with this film was the same thing that was so incredibly, brilliantly right with Star Trek. Pacing. The highs, lows, and emotional tone of each scene need to fit together in a somewhat mystical way to make the whole machine of the film...work. In the new Trek film, the audience was never lost. The emotional and kinetic tone and speed of the film was pretty much perfect all the way through. It worked as the ideal thrill-ride.

But Terminator loses its audience over and over again. The emotional tone almost never seems quite right. Why is he yelling so loud right now? Why do they seem like they're not sure what's going on? Wait, she loves him?

Everything is arbitrary. One scene tacked on right after the other. By the end, I noticed something very tragic: I didn't care at all. That, my good friends, is the kiss of death for any film.

As for McG, I think I've got him pegged. He's the poor man's Michael Bay. As for the magnitude of that insult...well, you either get it or you don't, I suppose.

Anyway, if any of YOU saw it, let me know what you thought.

5 comments:

  1. I'm sadly not looking forward to Transformers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. jordan, it was that bad. and the script was horrible. jonathan nolan didn't write it, he just rewrote some scenes to give christian bale a bigger part. it probably would have been worse without him, but it was still bad bad bad.
    in my opinion, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sort of glad you hit the nail on the head for one of the things I didn't like about the film but couldn't put my finger on. The pacing was all off. I kept finding myself bored at times. A film shouldn't do that to you, even with an emotional lull you shouldn't be wondering how much longer it's going to take to get over with.
    Plus the logic of the film sort of pissed me off. I do not think that machines, who are clearly superior to humans since they took out most of the human race, would decide that they NEEDED a half-human to get close enough to John Conner to kill him. It's completely illogical for something that is 'superior' to 'dumb itself down' in order to reach it's goal. Especially since adding a human half to the equation leaves it open for human fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I didn't "saw it", but I wanted to. And then Rotten Tomatoes ruined me. RUINED ME. However, Wolverine wasn't nearly as bad you made it out to be (for me anyway). So, maybe I could end up going and thinking, "Oh McG. The OC, Charley's Angels and now THIS. Such an auteur." Which, as you know, I WOULD say and DO say, everytime I talk to McG on our weekly videochats.

    ReplyDelete
  5. McG didn't do a good job with this, but Chuck is actually a pretty good TV show.

    ReplyDelete