IMDb > Terminator Salvation (2009) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Terminator Salvation
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Terminator Salvation More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 98:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 980 reviews in total 

455 out of 647 people found the following review useful:

Competently made, but also self-defeating.

Author: MovieAddict2016 from UK
19 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Considering that he's part of the dreaded "MTV Generation" of filmmakers, McG is surprisingly old-school when it comes to his framing: no jumpy Michael Bay antics or hypercutting Paul Greengrass mimicries. He is a far more organic director, letting the action sequences play out naturally. It's his execution that's at fault: the action itself. He piles explosions on top of other explosions and machines slamming into other machines, backed by the deafening cues of Danny Elfman's score, and I'm pretty sure Christian Bale had a yelling stipulation written into his contract. Everything's loud, intense, bombastic. You can't accuse McG of copying Jim Cameron's first two flicks — or even Jonathan Mostow's goofy third — but you're left wishing he'd perfected his own style before tackling such an ambitious project and producing, as a result, a frustratingly passable action-thriller.

McG cites Cormac McCarthy's The Road as an influence on his movie, and it shows. The world is bleak and starved and seems to have a post-fallout hue cast over it. Yet somehow the female lead, Moon Bloodgood, always looks like she's just gotten done applying makeup and iron curling her hair. (Not to mention, based on her outfits, she must have found the only mall outlet that hadn't yet been raided by pillagers.)

Bloodgood is a great example of the movie's ill tendencies — sad to say, she personifies them. I've seen her interviewed and she's as likable as could be, but she's an awful actress, and her entire role could have been excluded from Terminator Salvation leaving in its absence a tightened film and less predictable subplot, which is this: the cyborg-who-doesn't-know-he's-a-cyborg, Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), falls for her. And she falls for him. And like Sarah Connor at the end of T2, she is forced to confront the spiritual conundrum of what truly separates man from machine.

But here's the thing: isn't that such a cliché? If done well, it could be as touching as T2 was; if done poorly, it can be a disastrous reminder of Short Circuit 2. Unfortunately, McG hasn't a clue how to handle his characters' interactions, and so we get very heavy-handed intermissions featuring Worthington saying some pretty cringe-worthy stuff. One campfire sequence is so unintentionally funny that I truly felt sorry for McG, in the same way you'd feel compassion for a young boy naively attempting to, I don't know, shave or something. At first it's cute, like, Oh, look, he doesn't realize that he's too young to shave. Then it's like, Oh, crap, he just cut his neck.

But I'm under-selling the movie's positive attributes, which are the action sequences. Too loud, maybe, but a whole lot of fun. The special effects on the Terminators are solid, and McG throws in plenty of nods to the older films without all of them seeing too forced (we even find out how the adult Connor from T2 got his scar — a level of detail proving that McG really is a fanboy himself), and Anton Yelchin, who I despised as a precocious kid shrink in 2007's Charlie Bartlett, is fantastic in the role of Kyle Reese, effectively channeling Michael Biehn from the first movie.

Audiences will connect with Marcus because he represents the viewers. We're thrust into this new world just as suddenly as he is, and in his bewilderment and confusion, we find our parallel. With Avatar's release later this year, Worthington will most likely be the Next Big Thing, and is essentially - in this film, anyway - what Heath Ledger was to Christian Bale in The Dark Knight.

And so we arrive at Bale: he plays John Connor. But here's the thing about John Connor: he's really not that interesting. That's an obvious flaw, perhaps: if you woke up every morning knowing you were the saviour of the human species, would you be a fun guy to hang around with? Probably not. In that regard, Bale nails Connor: intense, passionate and dry without an ounce of self-reference or levity. He never steps back and winks at us, and even his brief dialogue retread ("I'll be back") feels legitimate, spared of Arnie's corny delivery from T3. This guy means business. That's what you're left with, but without a compelling enough story, who really cares? Bale will be massacred by overzealous blog culture critics who've been waiting for months to crack jokes about his leaked on-set rant, but he extracts every ounce of potential from the character and - to that extent - gives a fantastic performance. The bottom line is that John Connor as a religious figure in the Terminator universe has no room for expansion, and unless McG were to fundamentally change the dynamics of the character, a post-Judgment Day Connor is not going to connect with audiences. That's precisely why Cameron never envisioned taking the series this far: the impending doom of Judgment Day in the original series always felt far more intimidating than the reality of it. The brief glimpse of nuclear holocaust in the first two movies was eerie and scary because of its fleeting nature; keeping in tune with his religious allegories, Judgment Day was to the Terminator universe what Revelations is to fundamentalists: that big, frightening end for humanity that we must all live in awareness of. Seeing it unfold kind of takes away the charm, you know? So although Terminator Salvation is somewhat competently made and an entertaining enough action spectacle, giving this much away just feels a bit self-defeating. What if the End of Days occurred tomorrow, Jesus revealed himself unto us all and the remaining human beings left on earth were forced into resistance camps? Would anyone still be reading the Bible?

Was the above review useful to you?

375 out of 552 people found the following review useful:


Author: The Inquisitor from Canada
23 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

WARNING! I will ruin this movie for you

I've seen all of the Terminator movies (all in their respective days) have read most of the comic book adaptions and have snored my way through the recent T.V series. And yes. Some incarnations were obviously better than others (to me) But, this turd of a film could not be further from the mark. And when I actually bothered to look up "McG"s body of work I can't say that I'm surprised. Gap commercials, music videos, Charlie's Angels... At what point did the financiers of this movie say "wow, we have to get this guy to direct the movie" But, I can't put all of the blame on one person. The entire creative staff has obviously gone to the Michael Bay school of film making...and failed. I only have 1000 word to work with...sooo...I shall list my gripes in point form.

1. Within 10 minutes of the title shot, this movie fired off one of THE BIGGEST Clichés IN WESTERN FILM. "It's too quiet in here (dramatic pause) It's like they're waiting for us" Seriously now! Is this the best writing that Hollywood can come up with? If this was an attempt at failed...just like the rest of this movie.

2. Giant Robots!!! Loud noises!!! Almost all of the battle sequences in this movie played out like a stylized ripoff of Transformers. There were big walking robots, big robot sound effects, big robot guns and aircraft, big robots riding the robot aircraft, motorcycle robots... They even had little stabby robots that swam around in the water. And they all looked like something out of a cheesy mecha flick. All glossy and pointy looking. These are not the cold, machined gun metal designs that set this series apart from all the others.

3. Chase scenes....followed by more chase scenes. #&#$ off with this already! How much time did these people fill with these blown out, CG'ed chase scenes? Foot chases, car chases and even air chases. "How do we transition from our crappy battle scene to our feeble attempt at character development?" Oh! I know!" guessed it...

4. Even more clichés... Yep...Just about all of them. I'll have to make sub-points for this.

- The irrelevant love interest cliché.

- The conflicted double agent cliché.

- The antagonist's fatal flaw cliché. "Let's just leave all of our nuclear power cells laying on a big table. They'll be OK"

- The incompetent villain cliché. No, a hydraulically powered mechanical assassin would not simply shoot/crush/eviscerate it's victims. But, would merely toss them around, fire it's weapons erratically and then stand underneath precariously placed heavy objects, blast furnaces etc...

- The (pathetically mangled) hero's sacrifice cliché. "Oh no! John Connor has been impaled through the chest with a ragged piece of metal! And, his heart is just about to fail! Here, take my perfectly good cyborg heart...that has just been crushed repeatedly with a giant metal casting....and then nearly punched out of my chest by another cyborg"

Need I go on?

This movie is big budget Hollywood hackery at it's best. And I still can't believe that it made it off of the script. I hope that the persons responsible for this mockery are ripped apart by wild dogs.

Thank you and good day

Was the above review useful to you?

359 out of 529 people found the following review useful:

Some nice action but where's the tone? Where's the mood? Where's the atmosphere?

Author: enjoiskaterguy from United States
31 May 2009

The atmosphere that James Cameron and Stan Winston had created for the first 2 films in the franchise is what really hit me and still does to this day. I think that was the key component along with consistency and approach that gave the Terminator film it's unique style and attractiveness. It's metallic-blue overlay, infused with creepy whines of music and heart pounding edge of your seat suspense was what really created this secondary reality if not for only an hour long. It made us have a connection to these characters. A sense of believability in what was really going on. But it was those elements that were able to harness the inner workings of this dark dreamland. In essence the first two Terminators were projected nightmares in a sense, as if you were running and running, but no how fast you ran, the shadowy figure on your toes just keeps closing in. THAT is what made those films so captivating.

Now these elements in one way or another were tried in this newest installment of the franchise. I see it as I've heard before as a "hit and miss" movie in which it got some key features to play out in the film, but lacked that essential tone T1 and T2 romantically portrayed.

I have talked in lengths with individuals on why this film didn't quite hit all of it's projected(we hope) targets and I haven't really heard a clear and analyzed answer. Some say it was the amount of sub-plots that were involved, the lack of plot, the empty character development, the slight cheesy factor, and or the overall weak story and unnecessary additions to the Terminator franchise. Although these all valid arguments to say the least and I would agree on them full heartily, I don't see it as the culprit of the problem here of why this film did not life up to it's expectations.

I think, like I said above in the first paragraph, that it was the direction the film was taken in perspective to it's overall tone and mood. God bless his soul, Stan Winston. For if he were alive I think we would have seen a more polished version of what we have now witnessed. I also think it was a bad part on McG for giving the O.K on the revised Terminator theme by veteran composer Danny Elfman. I don't know why in the hell the screened audiences gave the thumbs up on that one. Another issue of course is that most of the scenes were in broad day-light. I understand that McG wanted to get a different take on the war, but I don't think this was pulled off in any respects to what James Cameron had in mind for the war.(Shouldn't the sky be filled with pollution and dark particle manner from the nuclear explosions creating an ever-dark wasteland?) This was CRUCIAL and they blew it. I don't see why they didn't go with more night scenes. It is one of the strongest representative thematic elements portrayed in the Terminator 1 & 2.(I am not even going to mention T3 because of the ridiculous amount of mistakes made)

The Rating: A main point that needs to be addressed for sure is the film's PG-13 rating. Of course they did this to appeal to a larger demographic of movie-goers, but they did it in expense of the true grit and bones that T1 and T2 had. I don't see why a Terminator film should be even considered for a PG-13 rating. Anything lower than an "R" rating does not do the title justice. The series is called Terminator for a reason...They are killing machines. THAT'S IT. I think that this is one of the biggest insults to the die-hard community of Terminator fans everywhere.

There is no room for Mediocrity in trying to follow up after T2: Judgment Day. Lets hope and pray that us as an online community hold the next bunch of crazies accountable for their creative actions for the next installment of the franchise.

Was the above review useful to you?

425 out of 705 people found the following review useful:

Not understanding the bad press at all.

Author: roarrestored89 from United States
21 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I just got back from seeing a midnight screening of the newest installment in The Terminator franchise, going into it with an open mind after witnessing the debacle that was T3 several years ago. Having said this, I honestly felt at though this movie did a fantastic job of translating the visions of the future that were set up in the original Terminator and T2 and fleshing out a feature-length film of them. While there indeed a few "what in the hell were they thinking" moments in the chase scenes, I felt that on the whole, the movie was a wonderful success, gripping me in a way that T3 never came close to. I truly hope prospective viewers give this film the shot that it rightly deserves and go into it with an open mind, and are able to just sit back and enjoy the ride...its a terrific one, trust me. Leaving the theater, I honestly felt as though this one gave the first two a run for their money as a film, as much as it pained me to say it. Truly a magnificent job breathing life into a series that could have very easy been done in once and for all with another terrible installment.

Was the above review useful to you?

330 out of 538 people found the following review useful:

Enjoyable ride, not quite there but lots of fun...

Author: jora_dyn from United States
21 May 2009

I was actually rather surprised that this film was as enjoyable as it was. After reading several scathing reviews I was very worried going into this film. Overall I had a good time watching it.

Now I should preface this with the fact that I am a huge fan of the Terminator films/franchise. I think that overall the look was amazing, the action and CG were great and the acting was mostly good. I think the film suffered from not enough character development and I think that McG was on the right track, but needed a tighter script and story to work with. You can tell in the film that he is a fan of the first films... I definitely got a kick out of all the throw backs to the films. Not just the obvious ones like the music choices or one liners, but also subtle things like single handed shotgun cocking or single handed pipe blows, or the choice of settings and shots.

I have to say that Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese did a fantastic job. He was probably my biggest worry in the film as Michael Biehn's, Kyle Reese is probably my favorite character in anything ever, so basically he had big shoes to fill. Well I didn't think it possible, but he actually made me love that character even more. So mad props to him. Again I think this was a very valiant effort by McG, he needs to work out a couple kinks for the next films, which I really he gets the green light on.

Basically there are a few of loopholes and inconsistencies which could bring you down if you linger too long on them, but if you are able to get past that it is definitely worth watching. But those are in all the films, even the second has some. (I'm not saying it's better than, so don't stone me!) In short I had a lot of fun at Terminator Salvation.

Was the above review useful to you?

210 out of 319 people found the following review useful:

Definitely nothing worth yelling at Shane Hurlbut over.

Author: Critomaton from United States
25 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Alternate titles for this review:

1) A great sequel... to some other movie franchise.

2) The new terminator has a heart. The movie doesn't.

3) Go in expecting to be disappointed. You'll still be disappointed.

Wow, was this bad.

I stopped caring about anything that happened in this movie about 1 hour and 10 minutes in. I guess it was the second Huey helicopter crash with John Connor as both pilot and sole passenger that did it for me (it seems the U.S. army hasn't surplused any twin-engined Hueys yet, because Hollywood is still flying leftovers from "Apocalypse Now", even in the future).

I also zoned out during the drawn-out battle with the Schwarzenator near the end, because I really didn't care about John Connor (or his cute, perky wife, though she was never in danger the entire movie - another dramatic mistake).

This movie fails miserably in both aspects where the new Star Trek film shines: staying true to the original while making the new characterizations and situations compelling on their own merit.

Even Sarah Connor's recorded voice didn't sound right. I'm pretty sure it was neither Linda Hamilton nor Lena Headey - either one would have been better. And while this movie needed to have a big-name celebrity like Christian Bale to have a chance at success without Ah-nold in the main role, it couldn't have been any worse if Nick Stahl and Claire Danes had been brought back. In fact, Thomas Dekker would have been more interesting to watch.

I cared more about the people who got snatched up by the Martians in Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" than I did about anybody in this flick. There was zero character development. The girl who's a combination of Newt from "Aliens" and the Feral Kid from "The Road Warrior" managed to be annoying without saying a word but, like Jaden Smith in "The Day the Earth Stood Still", you can't blame her for it, only the script non-writers.

This film is practically shot in monochrome, except for the flames. We get it. To quote George Costanza: "When you're bleak, you're bleak".

This movie reminded me of lots of other movies: "The Road Warrior", "Aliens", "Transformers", and even "Resident Evil: Extinction". Just not "The Terminator".

Yeah, maybe it doesn't seem fair to give Star Trek's time-travel pretzel plot a pass and nitpick "Terminator Salvation" but I mean, there were two huge plot holes in this one that just plain insulted the whole series storyline:

1) SkyNet went through this complicated plot to lure John Connor in with its infiltrator, instead of just killing him with the infiltrator. Ditto with Kyle Reese. It made absolutely no sense, and that's even *without* any time travel.

2) For some reason, John Connor was (a) unable to trust a terminator even though he found out in part 2 that they can be trusted if programmed correctly and (b) totally stunned to find out that a terminator had flesh and blood and organs, even though that's the first type he ever encountered. What's that all about? Oh, was it supposed to be a big deal that the terminator didn't know it was a terminator? Like that's really hard to program... (and can you say "Total Recall"?).

Then there's the whole confusion/inconsistency about exactly what type of damage will or won't stop a terminator.

The movie tries really hard to create a sense of urgency with the rescue of the prisoners from SkyNet headquarters. It just doesn't work.

OK, so Sam Worthington's and Anton Yelchin's performances aren't as wooden (or metallic) as those of the other actors. This minor fact alone does not a summer blockbuster (or a worthy sequel) make.

I kept looking for some big, intense, dramatic scene that could have possibly made Christian Bale go ballistic on the director of photography. I must have missed it, and I won't be watching this turkey again to try and find it.

"Terminator Salvation" fails miserably as a Terminator sequel. As a standalone, post-apocalyptic sci-fi vision it doesn't really fare much better.

Was the above review useful to you?

229 out of 372 people found the following review useful:


Author: markfunston from United States
22 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really have a hard time believing that ANYONE enjoyed this movie. This movie could have been so great. It could have been amazing. It could have been the best Terminator yet. But it wasn't. It wasn't even close. The story was terrible. There wasn't enough action. This was supposed to be a war, but there were no full scale war scenes. Christian Bale was just as stiff as John Conner as he was as Batman (cheesy voice, no personality).

The movie did start okay. I thought it might go in a good direction, but then stupid things started happening. First of all they spent the first hour of the movie acting like Marcus is a person just to have the major revelation that he is actually a machine - but wait, we already knew that from all of the trailers out there, so we just spend the first hour of the movie saying to ourselves "why are they still acting like he's human"???? Then we do actually have a good action scene with the large terminators and the motorcycle terminators, but then another stupid thing happens. When Marcus is captured and Blair breaks him out, the entire resistance can't even catch him or kill him in their own home base!!! How could they possibly win a war against the machines when they can't even kill one in their own home???? It keeps going down from there. John conner sneaks in to the Skynet home base (very easily). Then there is a terribly boring fight scene that I swear they copied directly from the first two films. Then John plants a detonator on the pile of nuclear power cells that just happened to be sitting around and on his way out he blows the whole place up. If it were really that easy to walk in to Skynet and blow up a pile of power cells, why didn't they do that years ago. TERRIBLE.

And just when I thought the movie couldn't possibly get any worse... it does. John injured his heart reenacting the fight scene from the first Terminator movie, so Marcus (the machine with a heart) gives John his heart. Awwww, what a sacrifice. I guess Marcus really was human. TERRIBLE.

And then they had the nerve to end the stupid movie with John giving one of his terrible speeches leading right into the next movie. I really really really hope that if they do make another movie that someone else writes it, stars in it, produces it, and directs it.

If this weren't a Terminator movie, I would have given it 3 stars for being so bad, but since it destroyed so much potential I couldn't give it any more that 1 star. TERRIBLE. I'm totally disappointed.

Was the above review useful to you?

440 out of 799 people found the following review useful:

A sad casualty of what's mistakenly deemed bankable today.

Author: Flagrant-Baronessa from Sweden
12 June 2009

Yikes. This is definitely not the future my mother warned me about. This future is populated by cute kids, blood-free deaths, supermodels with perfect teeth and goofball terminators that shoot themselves in the foot. It is set in a sun-kissed Michael Bay desert landscape with high-tech military equipment and not the dirty sewers we saw in T1. Either Kyle Reese was laying it on real thick to get in Sarah Connor's pants, or McG et al were simply incapable of delivering the dark, post-apocalyptic future setting that they kept harping on about honoring before release.

This is no doubt a casualty of the scarlet letter that is the PG-13 rating, oft denied by the production while they dropped subtle hints along the way such as toy deals, Pizza Hut endorsements and McG noting how the PG-13 The Dark Knight was "made without compromise". In reality the rating was a fait accompli the moment they green-lit a $200M production. The implications of the rating are not just sacrifices to language, blood & gore or in the inclusion of a sidekick kid to instill the family friend image. It's worse. Now the Transformers audience is a major demographic for TS, and it translates in the light-hearted, gadgety nature of the movie, and obviously in its Harvester design (who deploys mototerminators from its kneecaps).

But quite honestly, massive mythology discrepancies aside, there is simply far too many wrist-slashingly bad/expository lines and heavy-handed metaphors in the script for this to even work as a standalone movie (thanks, Haggis). To its credit, much of the action is kinetically captured in a timely shaky-cam fashion. Lord knows I'm no McG fan (he's a snake-oil salesman) but I feel the major culprit truly is the script which spells everything out for the viewer with voiceovers and facepalm exposition. I'm sorry the writers were not able to give McG, at the very least, the kind of mindless action flick he was surely able to direct in a competent if forgettable manner.

Whereas acting is concerned Christian Bale shows up for 35-40 minutes looking real angry at the world and at being involved in this project, it is in fact Sam Worthington who is a breakout star, and such an effortless tough guy that you can feel the bass reverberate in your body when he throws a punch. Think of how hardass he could be in the right R-rated setting. I'm getting chills just thinking about it. Everything else reeks of an empty cash-in sequel with neither knowledge nor respect for the source material, vaguely "justified" by tagging on "this isn't the future my mother warned me about". No, McG, it most certainly is not.

Whatever. Pages could be spent arriving at the conclusion that this movie is, quite simply, abysmal. I'm giving it a 3 out of 10 based on Yelchin, Worthington and effort on the action side of things.

Was the above review useful to you?

375 out of 676 people found the following review useful:

Effin' Fun

Author: Jesse Kellestine from Ontario, Canada
19 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me start this off by saying that TS is very but not entirely different from the previous installments. T1 was thrilling and fun, T2 elaborated and twisted the original's plot and themes, and the unnecessary T3 is almost entirely ignored (aside from the Kate Connor character).

Now TS takes to the beginnings of the battles and war between Skynet and humanity. If you know anything at all of Fallout series of games, the atmosphere and landscape of those games is almost identical to that of TS'.

I'm sick of reading the same review (ie. Plot sum up etc.) we are all familiar, so let me say this simply with Pros and COns

Pros ----

-Solidly continues the legacy without repeating the same idea (send a terminator back in time to kill one of the Connors) - Characters are likable (although kinda wooden here and there) - Action is fantastic - Score is actually engaging (i love the old school synth soundtrack, but i prefer Danny Elfman's live strings more) - Visually fantastic (direction, cinematography)

Cons ----

- Stated above, while the characters are likable they are wooden-ish - Script is a little rushed (a few moments of cheese :P)

There you have it.

Not THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!!! but a damn fine film and WORTHY film to be included with T1 and T2.

Was the above review useful to you?

136 out of 203 people found the following review useful:

I am completely let down . . .

Author: giftofgodoflove from United States
23 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

James Camerson made the Terminator franchise something special. As you were watching, you knew you were watching classics. You just have that feeling . . .

I've forgotten T3. Will TS resurrect the franchise? Nope.

First, who the heck is McG? No one knows. He directs TV series, and one other movie. For God's sake, give this movie to a talented director, someone with experience!!! Why was this given to McG? Why?

Second, the Script was awful. "We may have won the battle, but we still have to win the war." I think I heard that line from Power Rangers or Thunder Cats. Christian Bale must have called himself John Connor 30 times. Okay, he's John Connor. Got it! Bale must have called his army The Resistance 50 times. His inspiring speech over the radio was lackluster. People hover around the radio 'feeling' inspired because of that? I felt like I was watching Independence Day.

Third, I don't blame Bale for his performance. He did the best with what he had. His voice was annoying again. He had brief passion during some 'yelling parts'. That's it. But his whole personality had zero charisma.

Fourth, the NUMBER 1 rule for sequels is that they have to stand on their own: T2, Godfather 2, Empire Strikes Back, Aliens. You can't put a part in the sequel that 'hints' at the 1st movie - at least, overtly. Exp: In T3, after Arnold gets the clothes from the gay guy, he puts on 'star sunglasses', which 'hints' at T2, when he put on regular classes. No! No! No! Dumb! Stupid! Examples in TS: In T2, girl slaps Arnold in face, face cocks to the right, glasses break, and he looks back at her slowly. That scene was re-played 3 or 4 times in TS. Why!?!?! Further, Bale says, "I'll be back." Why?!!?! It's so self-conscious! It screams, "Remember how Arnold is famous for saying this. Okay, let's make Bale say it too!". Yuck! Kyle Reece says, "Come with me if you want to live." Why? Let's move on! It's 2009. Let's evolve. Stop with the T1/2 allusions already!

Fifth, Cameron's brief vision of 2029 in T2 was on to something. T-800's w/ guns on battlefield fighting soldiers on ground, gun battles, your occasional flying craft, etc . . . TS had 2 T-600's that I could count, flying crafts, and 1 huge T-1,000,000. Where's the freaking battles!?!? Something along the lines of the gun battles of "Heat", or the beach landings in "Saving Private Ryan". Something! Where's a There Will be Blood-like self-brooding or introspection by John Connor? It's like I was watching a video-game-turned-movie kind of movie, like Doom or Resident Evil. Awful!!!!!

Sixth, zero character development. I don't care about any characters. The movie doesn't develop them. They're wooden, cardboard cut-outs. In T1/2, we cared; that was part of why they're classics. TS is an action movie; that's it, with some name-dropping. What a shame. When you add 'no-character-development' w/ 'bad-script', you get 'lame-movie'. I felt like I was watching a movie made for TV on Spike or TnT.

Seventh, the movie was self-consciously PC, the independent-self-sufficient female character, not needing help from white male, pearlly white teeth, beautiful-clean-fluffy hair, breasts partially exposed, blah blah blah. It's like McG thought, "What can I put in the movie that young mindless idiots will like, so it can make more money?" It had a couple good action sequences. That's it. And that does not a good movie make. The set-design was also horrible. We had a couple cool 'waste-land' scenes, a couple cool 'abandoned city' shots that reminded me of 'I Am Legend', but some scenes looked like they were put together in my back yard with spray-painted card-board boxes, and a fake background.

Eighth, this movie should be R, not PG-13, period. It's a dark, in-your-face, gritty, bloody, graphic, adult-oriented, movie. Imagine Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, and other classics if they were toned down to PG-13. Exactly. Unbelievable, that Hollywood is filled with such dunces or greed, just wanting to make a cash-cow.

The only character I was drawn to was Marcus. The CGI Arnold is gratuitous, and poorly executed. It just looks like a laughable cartoon. McG made this for 10-17 year olds.

Bottom line: I'm furious. The franchise has been gutted by amateur directing, producing, and writing.

It's a shame.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 98:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history