Skip to main content

The devil's hands have been busy. What is it?

Terminator Salvation
- Director's Cut
(2009)

(SPOILERS) I wasn’t one of those (most people, it seems) who threw my hands up in horror at Terminator Salvation. Rise of the Machines had left me decidedly unimpressed, so perhaps I was just grateful for small mercies and in a forgiving mood. I’d never been as down on McG as everyone else (sure, he falls victim attention deficit direction and maybe lacks the gravitas for serious sci-fi, but at least he can assemble a movie with reasonable aptitude), and the picture impressed for the effort that had gone into creating a tangible future world. On that limited basis, Salvation still impresses. I’d take it over Rise of the Machines, but only incrementally. However, revisiting this one also lays bares its pervasive deficiencies in wholly unforgiving fashion.


So I’ll get out of the way what I like about the picture first. The production design is pretty good. The T-600 has a fascinatingly primitive quality, and in some ways is actually more brutally impressive than the T-800 (there’s a definite zombie vibe to McG’s treatment of the terminators). I rather like the variety of terminating machines, from the moto-terminator cycles, to the Matrix-y water tentacles, to the towering transforminator. The doubt over John Connor (is he the key to mankind’s salvation, or a false prophet)? is also the kind of touch suggesting John D Brancato and Michael Ferris (returning from Rise of the Machines) have bothered to thrash out some motivated “what ifs” with regard to the various constraining and tentacular timelines.


The sound design is also fantastic. McG appears to have paid attention to old school Lucas-era sound effects. So the robots, vehicles and weapons are all distinctive and arresting.


And Christian Bale looks like the kind of guy you’d expect John Connor to look like (more than Moses, at any rate). That’s not saying he was right for the part (he is in perma-hoarse, Batman mode, and his onset rant is his most impressive performance relating to the picture), but he’s more believable than Nick Stahl (whose performance in T3 is probably better, but who just isn’t Connor). Anton Yelchin, who reincarnated two SF characters in the same year (Chekov being the other) is physically unimposing but does a grand job getting the general demeanour of Michael Biehn correct. And better Kyle Reese is physically unimposing than built like a brick shithouse (I’m looking at you, Jai Courtney).


Also, I appreciate the desire to at least attempt to grapple with the changing histories of the movies. T2’s biggest problem is it wusses out and opts for just another chase movie (one that both underlines the causal loop of the first movie while attempting to disavow it). The problem is, Salvation doomed to failure. By this point, such an unholy mess has been created, with little clear and agreed set of time travel rules to guide the makers, that confusion reigns.


Yes, as an idea it makes sense for Skynet to kill Kyle Reese for the same reason it makes sense to kill Sarah Connor. But if Skynet knows this information, surely it is also aware of the predestination paradox whereby it comes into being (presumably the inevitability of Rise of the Machines means that whatever Cyberdyne came up with for T2 did get channelled somehow, even if it was delayed; whether or not they’d have come up with the goods in a similar timeframe if there had been no future tech is unclear)? And how exactly do they get this information? From blabbing prisoners (everyone seems aware of JC as saviour, so maybe Kyle Reese is known about too)? From police records? Probably the latter makes most sense.


The problem is, the more this kind of time travel plot is probed, the more unmentionables and problems arise with its very fabric. Wouldn’t it behove Skynet to establish multiple contingencies? Such as sending multiple Terminators with time travel technology (and other technology) back to 2003 when Skynet is first starting out, giving them incrementally improved tech so John doesn’t stand a chance long before it gets round to 2029? What we appear to have in Salvation is the T-800 produced and raring to go (the CGI Arnie seemed a lot better six years ago) nearly a decade before its time, suggesting Skynet’s tech has accelerated through whatever means; it’s only JC blowing the place up that sets it back again (presumably).


Which leads to Sam Worthington’s Marcus Wright. Worthington failed as the next Aussie big thing more spectacularly than Kevin Bana, as he hasn’t really convinced anyone he’s got much in the way of chops. He was fine in Cameron’s Avatar, but woefully miscast as an icon of Greek mythology (in a manner Bana contrastingly was not). As the anti-hero/picture’s “Terminator” there’s an attempt to give Marcus a bit of an edge (on death row, callous lines like “Now I know what death tastes like”, displaying a bit of Mad Max self-first bravado). This soon disperses when he gets sight of a cute moppet he can act as surrogate dad to (she even holds his metal hand right at the end!) Worthington, like Bale, appears unable to find a nuanced line for the character, possibly because they’re so thin on paper there’s nothing to inflate life into.


The problem is as much that the character of Marcus makes very little sense conceptually.  Somehow this advanced cyborg has been fashioned well in advance of all comparable termi-tech. Somehow he has incredible healing abilities (the scenes of Marcus strung up with a hollowed out chest are frankly ludicrous; even Arnie in T2 notes that Terminator’s register what we’d call pain; Marcus doesn’t even flinch) and Skynet can touch him up in minutes. I suppose Skynet might have kept Marcus on ice for a decade before infusing him with metal, but that’s not the way it looks (the Wiki pages suggest enhancements were added when Skynet discovered him, but one would think his main design was in place).


Even excusing the unlikeness, Skynet’s hatched plan for Marcus is baffling. Why even make him a decade ago if he isn’t going to be used (apart from setting up a mystery in the pre-credits sequence, obviously)? Assuming his subprogram as an infiltration prototype, what did they expect to happen? That Marcus would be revived and stumble into Kyle Reese immediately? Which is what he does. He “did what we failed to do for so many years – you killed John Connor”. If he hadn’t bumped into Moon Bloodgood hanging from a tree, Marcus would have followed Kyle to Skynet rather than going after John. The whole thing is ungainly at best and absurdly ineffective at worst. So Skynet is very lucky their shitty scheme comes up trumps as much as it does. It also seems pretty dumb to have someone who can be subconsciously manipulated to a tee but put no effort into placing a control override deep within his brain, one he can’t rip out when he feels like.


Skynet’s deception of the resistance is actually a decent-enough twist, though. We believe gruff militarist Michael Ironside could be sufficiently blinkered that he wouldn’t think things through. Less believable is JC’s slipshod approach to planning a covert attack; just announce the time and place on radio frequencies Skynet can readily pick up. Having the resistance command a sub at sea isn’t a bad concept either (John jumping into the sea to dock with it like an extreme sports enthusiast is pushing things, though).


Marcus’ presence as the real protagonist can’t be disguised by bulking up John’s role, and his demise is particularly egregious in this regard. It just doesn’t bear any interrogation that Marcus’ heart would be successfully transplanted into John’s body at an improvised field hospital (I hope they’ve got a whole lot of anti-rejection drugs about the place!) The scars of the original ending where John’s face is put on Marcus body are writ large here (Marcus then guns down Kyle, Kate, and presumably even the moppet), since what we get is just plain silly. I don’t think the bleak ending would have really impacted how the movie is perceived in a positive way, though; it’s flaws are in its DNA, not just how daft the denouement is.


Bale was all for that ending, and its notable that Connor’s role was beefed up when he came on board. It would have made more sense to keep John on the side-lines. He doesn’t endear as the leader (although he’s pretty much right in his dogmatic vilification of Marcus as it turns out), and he’s given little in terms of backbone other than pouring over his old Sarah tapes and photo. His actions seem frequently barmy (going mano a mano with a T-800) and Bale blunders through sporting his bat-growl to less than commanding effect.


Speaking of fights, as has been pointed out, the T-800 seems more concerned with throwing John about the place than actually killing him. Which has the inglorious precedent of “bad” Arnie at the end of T3, I guess, but its not one you want to recapture if you can help it.  


This is one of just a number of head scratchers in the picture. Like how a dirty great transforminator creeps up behind a tiny building unseen to unleash havoc and mayhem on it. Or how you’ve got a post-nuclear wasteland, with bombs still being dropped by the looks of things, and Moon Bloodgood opts to stop of for a tits-errific shower under the radioactive rain. Erotically charged, that cancer and radiation sickness. I can only assume McG got so sweaty about this that he couldn’t be bothered to segue properly into the next scene (rather inappropriately, the attempted rape of Blair); Marcus has obligingly vanished so a gang of rapists can show up.


Bloodgood is fine, although she is used almost entirely to eye candy effect.  Bryce Dallace Howerd barely registers. Common, well, at least he doesn’t have a sizeable role. Helena Bonham Carter as Skynet was probably a bad idea. Personifying the machine, or giving it some kind of presence, was inevitable as there are otherwise too many unanswered questions about its motivations. Unfortunately the explanations don’t help any (apparently at one point the idea was that Dr Kogan had survived to 2018). Disappointingly, a 75 year old Dr Silverman is nowhere to be seen.


McG’s approach to direction works best in disposable fare where it doesn’t really matter that he has no insight into why he’s shooting the way he is for a particular scene. His bubble-gum pop sensibility is perfect for Charlie’s Angels, or the self-consciously daft actioneering of 3 Days to Kill. Here, while DP Shane Hurlburt lends the movie a rusting, grubby uniformity and editor Conrad Buff IV ensures the set pieces are never less than competent, what’s missing is a mind that encourages the story to lead with a director to support that rather than impose himself on it.


McG’s the kind of guy to suddenly thrown in a chest cam of Christian Bale halfway through a shot because he thinks it’s cool rather than because it serves the scene. The one-shot sequence early on where John gets in a chopper that proceeds to crash was impressive when I first saw it on the big screen. Now, not so much, Maybe he’s not wrong to make random choices to an extent, since the script is so problematic, but while Salvation shows him as infinitely more earnest director than (say) Brett Ratner, it doesn’t actually leave him with any evidence of a deep and probing mind, one that can handle the demands of character and coherent storytelling.


So yeah. I was much too kind to Terminator Salvation first time out. The first half of the picture, up to around the point where Marcus and Connor first meet, is reasonably effective, and the milieu of the future is quite engrossing. It works in reverse to Rise of the Machines in that respect, where the best scene was the last. McG’s movie at least tries to go a different route, divesting itself of the time travel device. Unfortunately it has very little with which to fill the void. The future drama isn’t compelling when it is focussed upon, any more than Battle of the Planet of the Apes made for an arresting conclusion to that saga. I have no idea what they’d have scraped together for a sequel had his been an enormous hit, but I can’t conceive that it would have been any good. Like Jurassic Park, Terminator is a repeatedly plundered franchise no one seems willing to admit is fundamentally resistant to compelling continuation.


Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…