Unfortunately, This is Not Terminator's Salvation Just Yet

Rating: 6/10 (14 July 2009)

It's not always easy to fill in the shoes of a person(s) that practically revolutionized the art of film-making, in one way or another. Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" was quite awesome, but it wasn't nearly as good as to become the beginning of a whole new series. There was Michael Caton-Jones' "Basic Instinct 2," Ken Finkleman's "Airplane II," and Joe Berlinger's "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2," all of which weren't even close to the level of success as their predecessors. Even Jonathan Mostow himself tried with "T3," but despite making profits and getting mostly positive critical reception, it was deemed as disappointing because it wasn't on the same level as the first two.
The exceptions are always there. James Cameron's "Aliens," Nicholas Meyer's "Star Trek II," Sylvester Stallone's "Rocky III," Len Wiseman's "Live Free or Die Hard," etc. And then there is "Terminator Salvation." Could it be one of those exceptions? Unfortunately, it isn't. . . not even close 'cause it wasn't even better than "T3."
PLOT: John Connor, the man fated to be the leader of the Resistance, is trying to find his way to become... well, the leader, of course. The problem is, some people, particularly General Ashdown, doesn't believe in all of the nonsense he's spouting about new T-800s and stuff. Oh, and his wife Kate is with him also, pregnant and just being with him. Meanwhile, Marcus, a former criminal on death row who donated his body to some project by a sick chick, wakes up 15 years in a world filled with much deserts. He's trying to find out what happened and why he's there, while John merely plans and shouts and does nothing interesting.
The main problem with this story is that it's nothing. It's as if the writers slapped it onto the film without any effort. When I heard Paul Haggis, Shawn Ryan, Anthony Zuiker, and Jonathan Nolan were brought in for polishes and rewrites, I literally thought this film would be a hit without a doubt. I mean, with writers like that, how could you make bad film? But trust me, it's bad. For those new to the franchise, the plot doesn't explain and introduce anything. When I watched "Star Trek," I knew nothing about the franchise. That's the beauty of the film; it introduces the franchise to new audiences, while remaining as faithful as possible to its canon. "TS" isn't the same.
Furthermore, there are several plot holes and implausible situations (for which suspension of disbelief can't save you from) that are just downright stupid that it's hard not to ignore. On a lighter note, I'm gonna have to say that the entire third act pretty much saved the movie (except for the very end). Arnold appears (it made the fanboy in me squeal), there's this whole big fight that's entertaining, and it's just awesome. So I'll give the film that.
ACTING PERFORMANCES: Thought Christian Bale was badass in "American Psycho" and "Batman Begins." Well, me too! But not in this film. Bale gives one of his weakest performances in his career. His character is static, which is why he's not needed in the film at all, and he just shouts throughout the film. Get on with it already! Let's see something else!
Sam Worthington, on the other hand, is pretty decent. He's sure the next up and coming actor every studio will be vying for. Other than his accent slipping out of place here and there, his performance is solid and believable. No wonder Cameron hired him for "Avatar!" The other great actor was Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese. I personally wasn't sure about him beforehand, but he was actually great as Kyle. Everyone else, though, was "Meh."
ENJOYMENT: Well, as you can tell from my review so far, I am quite disappointed the way the film has turned out. Before the film was released, I was really hyped for it, from the moment Bale was cast to when the negative reviews came in. I was literally addicted to the franchise, catching up on every bit of news I could find.
Bale was cast, the script was rewritten by skilled people, Arnold gave his best blessing, Linda Hamilton contributed to the film, Cameron recommended Worthington to McG, etc. How could the film seriosuly be any worse? (The rating was the only thing that bothered me.) When the reviews came in, I was, like, "Pshh... I'll judge the film myself." When I actually saw the film, I was disappointed.
It failed to reach my expectations. It wasn't even better than "T3." And I felt it was the weakest of the series, no matter how hard I tried liking it.
REPLAY VALUE: Pending.
OTHER (MUSIC, SPFX, CINEMATOGRAPHY, ETC.): Finally! Here's something to talk about! I liked the music. Danny Elfman did a fine job, at least better than Marco Beltrami. His new theme was good, too. He retained the metallic and emotional themes Brad Fiedel left behind. The special effects are undeniably awesome also. From the complete computer generated Arnold to the amazing explosions, McG sure does know how to film action scenes and use special effects to its full potential. A lot of the credit goes to the late Stan Winston, who did fantastic work.
The cinematography is just as great. Despite the Bale rant, Shane Hurlbut does a nice job. There were no problems with the lighting at all, the long shots were done efficiently, and the film's bleak, post-apocalyptic look fit perfectly. The sets and designs I saw on film were spot on as well.
Verdict: What can I say? As both a stand-alone film and part of the franchise, this film fails at story but achieves in technicality. A near perfect example of style over substance, no? Let's just hope the fifth installment will bring back the credibility this franchise has always been looking for since 1991.