ROFLWAFFLE: I heard the character, Marcus Wright, is actually a robot!

Well duh, it was in the trailer :P

Who would have thought that the directer of Charlie's Angels would ruin the new Terminator movie

Um, everyone thought this, didn't they?

It's PG13

Lame

Won't bother.

Rotten Tomatoes hates everything, so if I was to base my viewing of movies on what that site recommends I probably wouldn't see any movies at all.

jaldor: Who would have thought that the directer of Charlie's Angels would ruin the new Terminator movie

Um, everyone thought this, didn't they?

You should invest in a new sarcasm detector.

tlchwi02: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Again, I think the issue is that many of the 50% who don't seem to like it are either WAY overrating the old films or are just pissed off that the silly show got canned.

i call it "Star Wars Derangement Disorder" jokingly, but its actually somewhat rooted in truth. People over time tend to gloss over the weak points of things they overall enjoyed and only focus on the good points. So suddenly T2 had some of the best dialogue ever recorded? i loved T2 (one of those fun father/son bonding movie experiences) but it was a fantastic action movie- not a intelligent discourse on time travel paradox and the deep question of what exactly makes someone human!

EXACTLY. Really, between Furlong's (the kid) acting, the hyper-melodramatic Hamilton voice overs, and the cutesy neutering of Arnie's character (from a badass killing machine to some kind of amateurish philosophical message on fatherhood)...it's just cheese. GOOD cheese, mind you...it's a solid action flick. But people act like it was "The Godfather II" or something.

Your Star Wars comparison is spot on.

funmonger: Tenth_Muse: My husband STILL hasn't seen the first one. WTF?

And he calls himself a man?

He never saw Return of the Jedi, either. Obviously I need to put him through education camp. I just don't know how he can feel... complete.

FlyingJellyAttackConfectionary: I don't think many of the actors that have played the batman have gone on to bigger and better things...perhaps it's a curse?

Last time I checked, George Clooney was still doing pretty well for himself.

tlchwi02: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Again, I think the issue is that many of the 50% who don't seem to like it are either WAY overrating the old films or are just pissed off that the silly show got canned.

i call it "Star Wars Derangement Disorder" jokingly, but its actually somewhat rooted in truth. People over time tend to gloss over the weak points of things they overall enjoyed and only focus on the good points. So suddenly T2 had some of the best dialogue ever recorded? i loved T2 (one of those fun father/son bonding movie experiences) but it was a fantastic action movie- not a intelligent discourse on time travel paradox and the deep question of what exactly makes someone human!

Great points, all. I may or may not be flamed for saying this, but T:SCC has been the only thing Terminator-related since the first movie that dealt intelligently and thoughtfully with the issues you mentioned. It was trying to, anyway. That's why I liked it. And why I will miss it.

Seriously, remember in Highlander 2 when they shiat all over the mythology...

I've never seen any Highlander iteration except for the first movie, which was a perfect film in its own silly way. And it had a final ending that begged to be left alone.

Who would give a grown white man named McG 150 million dollars for any reason whatsoever, let alone continue a billion dollar movie franchise?

Rotten Tomatoes hates everything so I'm keeping a semi-open mind.

radioman_: Seriously, remember in Highlander 2 when they shiat all over the mythology...

I've never seen any Highlander iteration except for the first movie, which was a perfect film in its own silly way. And it had a final ending that begged to be left alone.

Who would give a grown white man named McG 150 million dollars for any reason whatsoever, let alone continue a billion dollar movie franchise?

Rotten Tomatoes hates everything so I'm keeping a semi-open mind.

The "HE HAS A STOOPID NAME!!!111" argument is getting tiresome. I'm sure he's a bad director, but Christ, eventually you have to stop obsessing over his name and actually critique his movies.

/never seen any of his movies, FWIW

brigid_fitch: It's a Terminator movie. Machines are going to kill people, people will try to shoot at machines, stuff is going to blow up. That's about as much expectation as I'm going in with.

Oh, and to look at Christian Bale for a couple of hours.

/Wolverine was saved ONLY by a naked Hugh Jackman.
//I'm easily entertained.

See, that's the problem. With Cameron's editions, you got everything you described in your comment, but it still managed to be an entertaining and even iconic movie. Why can't we expect the same things now?

kunibob: WhileAmericaBurns: I'll have to see it on DVD some day just for Bale and Bryce.


Yum.

Glad to see another Bryce fan around these parts.

She's definitely. And a good actress too.

//Didn't know that her great g-ma and g-pa were in the biz.
//Ron's getting old though.

I'll never understand the mentality of Farkers. We biatch because movies like Paul Blart make >$100m, but Terminator gets negative reviews and everyone's like "Who gives a fark about the critics?"

WoodyHayes: Christ, you see what I get for not checking again before posting pics? I get me posting repeat pics, that is what.

I'd say they were worth repeating.

Remember the petition to get Uwe Boll to stop making movies that got a million signatures in just a couple of days? We should extend that to all directors we hate, and have it be legally binding. Kinda like a blacklist.

I saw it and came out impressed by the well done action sequences, but annoyed by the trailer-spoiled story and horribly flawed ending.


BTW, most of the real reviews (see metacritic.com) have been more mediocre than negative. This will not be the worst action flick of the summer...

NoxNoctus: Critics. If I listened to critics, I never would've seen 3/4ths of the movies that would become some of my favorites.

The Dark Knight had something in the realm of a 94% approval rating from critics.

People don't like to admit it, but the folks who are paid to do this typically have good taste.

WFern: NoxNoctus: Critics. If I listened to critics, I never would've seen 3/4ths of the movies that would become some of my favorites.

The Dark Knight had something in the realm of a 94% approval rating from critics.

People don't like to admit it, but the folks who are paid to do this typically have good taste.

TDK got way more love from critics than Batman Begins, even though the latter is the superior movie. So, no, I don't put much stock in what critics have to say.

WhileAmericaBurns: even though the latter is the superior movie

No, it really isn't. Much of the dialogue in Batman Begins is cliched and awful (see - anything Liam Neeson's character says), and the pacing is off in the second act. It's still a good movie, but nowhere near as good as Dark Knight.

brigid_fitch: jake3988: Here's what Roger Ebert has to say: Anyway, most of the running time is occupied by action sequences, chase sequences, motorcycle sequences, plow-truck sequences, helicopter sequences, fighter-plane sequences, towering android sequences and fistfights. It gives you all the pleasure of a video game without the bother of having to play it.

And this is bad because...?

His argument is that it lacks any form of story. Terminator 2 had a lot of great action with an even better story behind it.

Salvation is mindless, meaning it may be cheap fun, but it's not a good film.

Gunther: WhileAmericaBurns: even though the latter is the superior movie

No, it really isn't. Much of the dialogue in Batman Begins is cliched and awful (see - anything Liam Neeson's character says), and the pacing is off in the second act. It's still a good movie, but nowhere near as good as Dark Knight.

I beg to differ. For one thing, I loved Neeson's dialogue. More importantly, the film showed Batman as a kick-ass, take-charge hero. TDK, however, neutered him, made him impotent in standing up to the Joker, and relegated him almost to the status of supporting character.

tlchwi02: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Again, I think the issue is that many of the 50% who don't seem to like it are either WAY overrating the old films or are just pissed off that the silly show got canned.

i call it "Star Wars Derangement Disorder" jokingly, but its actually somewhat rooted in truth. People over time tend to gloss over the weak points of things they overall enjoyed and only focus on the good points. So suddenly T2 had some of the best dialogue ever recorded? i loved T2 (one of those fun father/son bonding movie experiences) but it was a fantastic action movie- not a intelligent discourse on time travel paradox and the deep question of what exactly makes someone human!

That wasn't the point. It was everything from the bonding between John and machine to Sarah's moral conflict and determination to prevent the future. Was it Citizen Kane? Of course not, but at least there was a substance in there.

I'll still be seeing Salvation, but it sounds to have more in common with Rise of the Machines than anything. An action film that is enjoyable, but ultimately hollow on the inside.

Terminator 1 is full of black humor. Almost all of the minor characters have great moments where we get to see every single person is a twisted sick fark or at least an oddball. Bill Paxton as the punk taunting the Terminator, the bum whose pants are stolen, Sarah having a huge lizard as a pet, the gun shop guy selling an arsenal as "ideal home defense", Sarah's roommate's boyfriend's obscene phone call, the cashier at the disco who makes Sarah pay the cover charge to use the pay phone, Lance Henriksen and Paul Winfield as the cops, Dr. Silberman's giddiness at having a patient with a completely original delusion for change, the janitor trying to get in to clean the Terminator's room and the "got damn!" neighbor... I could go on. Point is, shiat like this is what makes an action movie into a great movie period. Too bad if Terminator Salvation didn't figure that out.

mandingueiro
great, i hated the charlie angel movies. If I had known it was the same director i wouldn't have been so excited to see it. Now my expectations for it are so low.

What was your expectation of Charlie's Angels 2, if you hated the first one?

How was the T1000 able to travel back in time if it wasn't covered in living tissue?

/Every Terminator movie has flaws, but damn are they entertaining

Say what you want about the character of Marcus Wright, at least he put his heart into it.

Tenth_Muse: funmonger: Tenth_Muse: My husband STILL hasn't seen the first one. WTF?

And he calls himself a man?

He never saw Return of the Jedi, either. Obviously I need to put him through education camp. I just don't know how he can feel... complete.

Maybe he never claimed to be a man. Can't fault someone for that. I know that if a task requires a real man to take care of I step aside.

ROFLWAFFLE: How was the T1000 able to travel back in time if it wasn't covered in living tissue?

This always bugged me as well.

Cndn Bacon: Hmmm....typically RT and Metacritic are fairly close together but Metacritic has T:S at 53%.

Link (new window)

The Tomato meter is merely the Fresh to Rotten ratio, whereas, the Metacritic percentage is the average of the actual scores of the reviews.

The RT shows the average review score is actually 5.4... which is close to Metacritic's.

One the one hand I wouldn't have seen several movies because a critic panned the film, but on the other hand I still want my money back from Sony for making a fake film critic and recommending "Hollow Man"

funmonger: The spin in the industry rags was that the two sequels were planned all along. I believed that until I saw the 2nd sequel and played the video game... nobody planned nothin'. I know a patchwork of masturbatory self-reference when I see one.

I read somewhere that the Wachowskis originally wanted one sequel and one prequel, but the studio wanted two sequels. Supposedly, the plot for the one sequel was stretched out over two and a lot of the stuff for the prequel ended up in The Animatrix.

/Or so the legend goes...

WhileAmericaBurns: I beg to differ. For one thing, I loved Neeson's dialogue. More importantly, the film showed Batman as a kick-ass, take-charge hero. TDK, however, neutered him, made him impotent in standing up to the Joker, and relegated him almost to the status of supporting character.

Eh? Didn't he save two ferries full of people and arrest him at the end? The challenge of it while still remaining moral made it more exciting.

Nem Wan: Terminator 1 is full of black humor. Almost all of the minor characters have great moments where we get to see every single person is a twisted sick fark or at least an oddball. Bill Paxton as the punk taunting the Terminator, the bum whose pants are stolen, Sarah having a huge lizard as a pet, the gun shop guy selling an arsenal as "ideal home defense", Sarah's roommate's boyfriend's obscene phone call, the cashier at the disco who makes Sarah pay the cover charge to use the pay phone, Lance Henriksen and Paul Winfield as the cops, Dr. Silberman's giddiness at having a patient with a completely original delusion for change, the janitor trying to get in to clean the Terminator's room and the "got damn!" neighbor... I could go on. Point is, shiat like this is what makes an action movie into a great movie period. Too bad if Terminator Salvation didn't figure that out.

"F--k you, asshole" still makes me cackle like you wouldn't believe.

ROFLWAFFLE: How was the T1000 able to travel back in time if it wasn't covered in living tissue?

/Every Terminator movie has flaws, but damn are they entertaining

Maybe the human appearance he takes replicates or resembles tissue on the surface.

/Grasping at straws

It doesn't matter what the reviews say, or how crappy the movie is, legions of dullards, who only have expectations of seeing CGI
asplosions, CGI robots, CGI everything else and a plot a 7 year could write, will line up and fork over their money to see it. It will turn a profit, then they'll make another, which will be even worse. And they'll keep making them as long as they make money, which is guaranteed since there seems to be no limit to the number of retards who want nothing more than to turn off their brains and watch flashing lights for 2 hours.

/morans
//try actually expecting something for your $12, you might get it

Psumek: His name is McG. He's one step below McLovin for a fake name.

/that and he's a horrable directer

That is why I thought this movie could suck

WFern: WhileAmericaBurns: I beg to differ. For one thing, I loved Neeson's dialogue. More importantly, the film showed Batman as a kick-ass, take-charge hero. TDK, however, neutered him, made him impotent in standing up to the Joker, and relegated him almost to the status of supporting character.

Eh? Didn't he save two ferries full of people and arrest him at the end? The challenge of it while still remaining moral made it more exciting.

That's the key: it was Batman whose morality was constantly called into question, not the Joker's. Oh sure, the Joker was seen as a psychopath, but it was always Batman who was morally obliged to second-guess himself and avoid going overboard. So while he triumphed existentially, spiritually he was defeated. He ended up the villain in the eyes of the people of Gotham.

It would have been satisfying if, instead of feeling guilty about his vigilante ways, Batman essentially told the public to go fark itself by refusing to back down. Instead, when the people of Gotham called for his capture, he was prepared to turn himself in. So the film basically moralized that even if you're the one saving everyone's sorry asses, you have no right to expect that they'll praise you or respect you. If they call for your head on a stick after everything you've done for them, you should gladly provide it. That's not a very inspiring or uplifting message.

Mister Peejay: ROFLWAFFLE: How was the T1000 able to travel back in time if it wasn't covered in living tissue?

Who says it wasn't?

Maybe it had a disposable layer of flesh that it cast off after successful transport. IIRC we never saw the T-1000 until it runs up behind Austin and kills him.

Or maybe Skynet figured out how to generate the "field generated by living tissue".

Either way... a wizard did it.

No way. The T-1000 simulated living tissue to travel through time.

Why they didn't send back 10, 20, or 1000 terminators at the same time bugged me.

brigid_fitch 2009-05-20 04:35:28 PM jake3988: Here's what Roger Ebert has to say: Anyway, most of the running time is occupied by action sequences, chase sequences, motorcycle sequences, plow-truck sequences, helicopter sequences, fighter-plane sequences, towering android sequences and fistfights. It gives you all the pleasure of a video game without the bother of having to play it. And this is bad because...?
============================================

I didn't say it was bad. I was just pointing it out.

/Personally I just thought it was hilarious :)

According to the last episode of TSCC, the T-1000 series replicate human skin closely enough that they are able to travel through time just like a person.

I'm not sure what is up with their clothes, though. In the last episode of the series, the Weaver T-1001 jumps forward in time but winds up naked in the future, which means her clothes were burned off in the jump. Thing is, her clothes are just extruded bits of herself, so it must mean that the parts of her not simulating skin were destroyed in the jump, which is a little odd. Maybe they were going to delve into it more if there was a season 3.

T.rex: mandingueiro
great, i hated the charlie angel movies. If I had known it was the same director i wouldn't have been so excited to see it. Now my expectations for it are so low.

What was your expectation of Charlie's Angels 2, if you hated the first one?

what have YOU watched to please a chick?