Review of Terminator Salvation (2009) by Liam C — 09 Jul 2015

I've had this DVD for many years but never got around to seeing it, and now that I have, I'm just left with questions. This film did have a reason to exist as it is a film set entirely in the future war but right at the start there is a bit of a worrying sign that the weapons weren't laser-based, was it was shown in the previous films; that isn't necessarily a problem on its own but there was something very off about the future setting in this film. The setting for the war felt very barren, but not the good kind, the action at the start was great as there were things going on all over the place, but before long everything was quite sparse and there was nothing going on in most of the landscape. I think having the sky being daytime was a problem, for a world filled with never-ending war, the sky should have just been dark the whole time as it just adds to the feeling of desperation. Now, I don't mean to sound like I am comparing the film to the previous films, but it is saying something that showing us the future for war a few minutes had more of a tense, dark feel, than the entirety of this film. There is almost no real atmosphere and how did nobody notice that huge Terminator that ended up destroying that house. I will say that McG knows how to film action and doesn't just litter the film with shaky-cam; he knows how to set up and action scene and leave the camera there long enough to make it satisfying. Bale questioned if McG could do the film properly.

The film, despite oddly showing the title twice, does have some intrigue and leaves you wondering for a while who a certain character, they respect the timeline and there are some twist and turns along the way. The film has variations on the classic lines, which brought a smile, whilst having the iconic moments like crushing the skull, even if it didn't have the shot of a motto on a car. Although I did think Worthington's character would have made a joke when that character told him to take that coat off, by saying he was cold, not saying their names as to not spoil it. The film starts off in 2003, which I thought was supposed to tie it in to the end of 'Rise of the Machines' but that took place in 2004 but Sam Worthington's character, in the end, seems like it wasn't needed. His character does bring some tension and does add something new to the universe, and while I said it respects the timeline, when he is revealed it seems to just bring up more questions and overall it probably isn't as involving as it should be. The cast for this film is good, but perhaps too good, seeing the opening credits filled with all these big names was certainly something quite amazing but I feel like it distracts. Besides the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger was always a big name, the cast for this film is much bigger than the previous films and it just seemed to end up being a game of, 'spot the actor'.

Christian Bale is a great actor but I can't help but feel it was studio decision to put him in this film, as he didn't really seem to fit the part or really bring anything to it, and that feels the same way for everybody. The voice he uses here borderlines on his Batman voice but he really should have used this one in those films. Bale was originally offered to play Marcus and the focus would be on Marcus and Kyle Reese with John Connor only showing up in a few scenes at the end. Another reason why it seems like a studio decision is because if he wanted to play John Connor, why didn't they just leave it? Of course they have to re-write it to have Bale on screen more, but maybe it is a good thing to have more of John on screen. Perhaps if he accepted the Marcus role maybe we wouldn't have our infamous rant. There's a character that appears in the first scene for a short time and you know that they will come back in some way later on, just because no way would someone like that be in the film for a few minutes. The most fitting piece of casting was Anton Yelchin, and despite being a good actor anyway, like pretty much everyone in this film, he actually looked like a younger version of Michael Biehn's Kyle Reese. There is a little Easter egg in here with Kyle Reese eating a Twinkie which was a nice touch. Poor Terry Crews though, he was in the film for about 3 seconds.

In the end, though, I don't think the idea of the future war setting was fully capitalised on, and the ending really has no sense of closure. The film should have taken place in the last days of the war as opposed to the start as when the film ends; it doesn't really, at all, and seems rather anticlimactic. It spends too much time on Worthington's character and leaves the other characters mostly without any development, hell, John Connor felt like he was hardly in it, at times. The film hardly even has the theme song in there, it is there for the right moments and I guess that is at least something, but it wasn't there for the credits or anything.

It does feel wrong to make a 'Terminator' film and not have Arnold in it as a main character, but besides being busy with politics, I doubt he would have been in it more than the admittedly good CGI model was here. Its release was the shortest to another film that was released in the series but it suffered from modern marketing and the trailers and even the DVD case pretty much ruined all the twists of a certain character. I remember once when the poster for 'Rise of the Machines' was on the 'Salvation' page instead, and thinking of it, I'm sure those who didn't like that film at first are now looking back on it more favourably. I'm not getting angry at the film as I'm sure people would want or expect me to but I think it's just because I just don't feel the need and I'm sure many others have already explained the shortcomings of the film. For what it is, it was made well, but as a 'Terminator' film, it really lacks a lot of what made the original films what they are.