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.


Hmm...Hmm...Hmm...ho hum dee. Terminator- 1984, we see a ground-breaking film with never before seen special effects and a story that was 10 years ahead of its time, Judgement Day- 1992, We see more groundbreaking film-making, a stellar cast, and one of the most iconic performances ever (GO ARNIE!!!), Rise of the Machines- 2003, not bad, especially considering that after T-2, that was it for Cameron, he was done, moving on to new things, new writers, new director, great rewritten history of Skynet reemerging after we all thought it was TERMINATED. And the return of Arnie. So...after about a year of hype (for myself especially, I am as the equivalent of a Trekkie in the Terminator universe), 2009, Terminator Salvation...Not groundbreaking, but with Christian Bale, Sam Worthington, Moon Bloodgood, McG, Seems like a damn good collection of actors and up and coming director right?? Well...here we go...

First off, the film kicks off in the right gear, I seriously felt like I was watching a live action version of Fallout 3, post apocalyptic world depicted with great detail, some very good action scenes (and acting) early on, All seems to go well, Marcus Wright (Worthington) is introduced very well, so is Kyle Reese (Yelchin, Star Trek), and the Terminator world we saw so little of in T1 & T2 was all there.

Buuuuut then what happens I can't even begin to try to figure it out. I swear there were 3 or 4 great ideas put into play by McG, but, when you start an idea, develop it, that just didn't happen, the whole film felt like it was jumping from one thing to another with very little explanation.

Character development: where was it??? John Connor was the focal point in T2 & T3, staying alive, fighting...Well, even Christian Bale (amazing actor, by far one of today's best) couldn't deliver, but it wasn't his fault, He has what barely constituted as a supporting role, the whole film was revolved around who Marcus Wright was, but even that wasn't covered very well. Honestly, it got old hearing Bale scream and Worthington howl toward the sky. And even Bloodgood and Bryce Dallas Howard who played Kate Connor had little screen time and no development what so ever.

Action: chock full of it, any thought or creativity put in it? NO, N-O. There were a totally of maybe 3 exciting moments in the whole film, I will not spoil them, because honestly, if this was just a post apocalypse action yarn, it was awesome, but its TERMINATOR, not at one point was there any new ideas put in any of the scenes, it felt like McG cheaply ripped off the previous 3 films (but with way more NOTICEABLE CGI), the major problem with Hollywood today, TOO MUCH CGI, NO PLOT DEVELOPMENT, and this film is no different.

I and the theater cheered with one scene...the entrance of...well, no need to guess here. Was also about the only other homage to the originals (the truck chase from the trailer is excellent as well).

ACTION FILM 6/10

TERMINATOR FILM 3/10, If there is going to be another one, Cameron needs to intervene and tell HIS look on the future war, and bring that someone back into the franchise (he won't be Governor forever!)

This may be a discouraging review, but remember, its all in what you like. i love action movies, but with Terminator, you need plot too. Go see it and make your own assumptions, this is just mine, I'm sure some will love it, but it took Terminator in the direction Attack of the Clones took Star Wars


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.


TS is a film that will wow your eyes and ears. It will be a standard for demonstrating the latest high-end home theater systems for several years. Do not, however, go to this film to stimulate the imagination. The plot has many holes patched with barely-there plot devices. I'm reminded of the film Thank You For Smoking when the character Jeff Mengall spoke of Hollywood plot holes getting filled with lines like "Thank God we invented the... you know, whatever device." In previous Terminator films, you could always assume that sending anything back in time took a lot of energy and resources - that's why you could accept that there was only one Terminator instead of 2+ working together. In this film, we are made to believe that fighting Skynet is like out-maneuvering a herd of angry elephants with laser beams on their heads.

In all, I gave this film a 7 because it does what a good futuristic action film should do: wows the eyes and ears. Just don't forget to check your disbelief at the door.


This is one of the worst movies of all time. Not bad in a Plan Nine from Outerspace kind of way. No much worse. I have only once before ever felt so cheated and that was watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull last year. Cheated because of all the talent that could have made a GREAT movies and instead just cashed in big paychecks.

What makes this so bad is the destruction of a franchise through lazy writing and directing. Does anyone put effort into a script anymore or care about logic???? If the studio had enlisted any movie fan and given them a chance to read the script before this turkey was made, plot holes as large as a Mack truck could have been closed. Instead the Studio and Director relied totally on special effects to move this dog along.

Wher can I start? Well, here are a couple of the biggest problems:

1) Why does Skynet not just kill Kyle Reese????? He is their number one target, they capture him and instead of killing him, they just imprison him???? If they kill him then John Connor dies. Spock would throw up from this lack of logic. 2)What is Helena Bonham Carter's motivation in the beginning of the movie? She does not know at this time in history that Skynet will become self aware. How can she be involved in creating an infiltration machine without pre-knowledge of what will happen in the future? 3) The movie barely advances in the Terminator story. It is just a long television episode, the plot does not move along whatsoever. Perhaps they can just re-start the franchise and call this whole movie a bad dream like the ending of Dallas? 4) The acting is terrible, especially Christian Bale. He has one emotion and it is the same as he exhibited in that leaked internet tape earlier this year. Arnold's CGI performance is Oscar worthy in comparison. 5) Yes this is just a movie but in Sci-fi, it is important to follow the continuity and rules created in each films particular universe. A movie cannot take the lazy route and just makes things up when boxed into a corner. Here, there is a huge exposition scene near the end on a giant video screen with Helena Bonham Carter. Why does Skynet have a big video room to begin with? Ugh.

Studio's exist to make money, and I suppose this movie will turn a profit. However, from a long term perspective this movie has diminished the value of the overall franchise and potential of any future films.


TERMINATER: SALVATION is truly an abomination to the franchise - and don't for one second suspect otherwise.

I read one thing in the paper yesterday that suggested "the critics liked it" -(?) -- it garnered an astonishing Two And A Half stars in our local rag - - (!!) -- with a caveat that "it has no heart" -- well there's a shocker for ya -- I do not need to be told that a piece of fecal matter has no cardiovascular system -- its a redundancy I can do without, thank you very much -- here is a movie that deserves not one whit more than a ZERO STAR rating.

How on earth anyone - a professional critic or otherwise -- could even possibly give this movie more than ZERO STARS is beyond me. This sorry excuse for a movie is firing on ALL chambers when it comes to MISSING the mark: *SPOILERS* No shred of a plot with any grounded sense of coherence whatsoever, folks. The director "McG"'s notion of a plot can be summed up in one name, "John Connor." Oh wait, I forgot - there is a twist. (Don't worry about spoilers - - I couldn't possibly spoil this for you, and I don't mean that in a cheeky way. I literally mean that it is a physical impossibility for something without a plot to be spoiled. So read on. The twist is "Kyle Reese." Just throw in another iconic sounding character name with which an awestruck silence is generated every time its mentioned, and there you have it: the totality of this movie's "plot". (Don't ask me for an explanation: the movie offers none.)

And just as bad as "no plot" is the excruciatingly unfortunate realization that the setting - nearly a decade in the future (2018) - has zero visionary qualities, and I have to point out here that it ain't for any potentially noble reason as having accurately predicted that not much will change in 9 years. No. It's because they filmed this with what must have been McG's and crew's own jeeps and equipment - throw some military cameo netting and things bought for cheap at your local army surplus store, and you have "Terminator: Salvation". When all the dust settles - - you sit there blinking in astonishment that there really wasn't one damn worthy thing about this movie - no awesome future setting and no fully realized "terminator army"; just a few badly strewn together props with stale cheesy dialog thrown in.

But the movie did have some thought put into it, I guess. There is the token ragamuffin 9 year old girl with the nappy hair (check); her charming teenage companion with the mystery persona (check); and their god -given ability to pop out of nowhere with a convenient remote mine-trigger device to blow up titanic renegade Terminaters at a moment's notice (check).

This movie is far less than the sum of it's assembled parts - assembled entirely from every genre movie that came before it. I kid you not: if you were to painstakingly eliminate each and every scene and reference to a previous movie (Mad Max, Road Warrior, Terminators, etc) you would be left with NOTHING. It is that unoriginal.

So here's the deal. I've warned you not to waste your time and money and consciousness seeing this, and I meant it from the bottom of my heart. Seeing as how I happen to know that this is a "special" installment or continuation of a franchise that means a lot to us - I don't expect you to take my word for it. I know how it is. You want to find out for yourself; hell, you need to. So let's make a deal.

Halfway through the movie, the only thought running through my head was "I should lead a revolt of audience members to the box office demanding our money back". God do I ever wish I had at least tried. To do so - I would naturally have had to begin hurling obscenities at the screen, and I didn't because, well I didn't want to ruin the possibility that others might be, cough, enjoying themselves *wince*. Do I ever regret it, now.

When the ultimate slap to the face arrives (the end credits) -- you too will wish YOU had been the leader of such a noble revolt. So NOW you have the opportunity handed to you on a silver platter. I beseech thee all -- someone must take the responsibility to just yell out midway through this cinematic turd "THIS SUX!" with their fist in the air, and I can't imagine no one else in the theater agreeing or muttering their sympathetic consent. TAKE the opportunity to leap to your feet and look wildly around you. FIND the people frozen in their seats with eyes glazed over - decent people like you and me who have obviously INVESTED their hope, high expectations, valuable time, and hard-earned money - SNAP them awake to the realization that WE DON'T DESERVE THIS CRAP from Hollywood! Shout out dramatically "LET'S GO GET OUR MONEY BACK, PEOPLE!" and lead their way out of that theater and to the front lobby.

I want to read about it in the papers, how good people in several mid-western states ROSE UP and DEMANDED their money back. Because if we all just sit there like sheep stunned into submission - then we deserve yet another installment of prefabricated plasticity shoved down our throats. Let this be a lesson to all who would blunder into a theater to see a movie by someone named "McG". If its zero nutrition fast food fake movie franchise that you want - then you know where to line up.

TERMINATER: SALVATION opened in theaters nationwide Thursday, May 21st.


I was stunned at how bad this movie is. I don't think I've ever seen a performance where Bale mails it in but I don't blame him. The story is beyond remedial. There's no suspense, no emotion, no plot and no point. The only reason this movie seems to have for being is that it looks cool. If you like mindless action then I guess you'll like this but what made the first 2 films great was the story (let's not kid ourselves, that's what makes any film great). It had suspense, characters that you cared about and most of all INTELLIGENCE and HEART. This one is so freaking obvious it's astonishing. To have these resources available to you and screw it up so monumentally...

Maybe I should take a crack at writing a screenplay. I couldn't do any worse than this.


Wow, where do we start with a franchise film so rich in history...and so riddled with continuity errors? The time line problems began with the very first sequel, directed by Cameron himself, and perpetuated with T3. why then, is everyone so freaked by time line errors in T4? Depending on which line to which you subscribe, T4 still deviates vastly from BOTH sequels and begins a new alternative reality spin all its own.

And then there was the highly publicized expletive-filled Bale rant broadcast over and over and over ad nauseum. Upon seeing the film, I can better understand why that happened...this is a GRITTY film, full of angst and dancing testosterone. As "worked up" as Bale must have had to have been in order to pull off these angst-filled scenes (one after the other after the next), he exhibited amazing control in not HITTING the guy who blew the scene for him. I'm no longer upset or offended by his diatribe.

That brings us to the movie. Well, yes, there are problems with it, and many state that this film brings little to the franchise history and instead contributes to the growing list of errors and problems with the franchise, but I have to disagree.

This work, for me, demonstrates an intent to give us millions of machines marching en masse on human survivors in the attempt to quell a birthrate upsurge of the pestilence which has somehow managed to take control of its world...Mankind. The promise for something better is not only present due to how little this movie actually contributes, but by the actions and deeds therein.

There are several contrivances, and truthfully they were rewriting the script as it was being filmed due to Bale's demands, but all in all (and all things considered), this is an enjoyable film that not only is better on second viewing, but manages to ingratiate itself into the library of Terminator franchise films (or will when it's out on DVD in an unrated, extended director's cut edition, that is).

I liked it better than I expected, and was far less disappointed in comparison than I was with the Star Trek reboot.

It rates a 7.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.


As a terminator fan who was hoping for a revival of the franchise, what a letdown this movie was. Before going in depth about the movie, let's take a look at how this mess was made:

Mistake #1) Newbie producers Derek Anderson and Victor Kubicek acquire the rights to the Terminator franchise. These two goons only have experience producing a low budget flick called "Cook-Off" to their credit and are absolute newcomers to the industry.

Mistake #2) Derek Anderson and Victor Kubicek, not surprisingly as newbies, choose McG as the director. LOL, McG, the director of Charlies Angels! FFS, you can see where the movie is going now ...

Mistake #3) The script is written and McG tries to cast Christian Bale as Marcus. Christian Bale says he wants to play John Connor and not Marcus. Unfortunately, John Connor has a 3 minute appearance in the original script and is not a significant character. At this point, the producers and McG have two viable options:

- Ditch the original script with Marcus and write a new one from scratch that explores John Connor's character in depth, if time allows.

- Say NO to Christian Bale, and stick with the original script if they are on a deadline. Memo to Derek Anderson, Victor Kubicek, and McG: THE TERMINATOR FRANCHISE CAN SELL ITSELF WITHOUT Christian BALE - STAR TREK PROVES THAT A BUNCH OF NO NAMES CAN SELL A MOVIE IF IT IS MADE WELL.

Mistake #4) Oh my gosh! They decide to cast Christian Bale as John Connor and then go on to mangle the script to give John Connor a larger role. The script goes through various hands, and even Jonathan Nolan is brought in to save the script but there is little he can do. They are even trying to rewrite the script on set. FFS, you know a movie is in trouble if they are doing major rewrites of the script on set.

Now that we know how the movie was made, here is my review: This movie has great special effects and action sequences. The problem is, it has no character development, the viewers could give a sh*t about the characters, and the story is garbage. In other words, it's the polar opposite of T2. T3 had lots of plot holes, but while T3 was letdown from T2, at least T3 attempted to give more attention to the characters.

If all you want is mindless action and special effects, this could be a passable movie for you. If you are a true Terminator fan and wanted a movie that would delve into characters, where action is secondary to the story (ie. T2), this is not the movie for you.

Since this movie cost $200 million to produce and so far, the box office receipts are $90 million, there are two possibilities: a) The Terminator Franchise has ended on the big screen. That would be sad but what can you expect with Derek Anderson, Victor Kubicek, and McG at the helm? b) Derek Anderson and Victor Kubicek never find the funding for T5 and are forced to sell it to a studio that is capable of making good decisions to make T5 (ie. start by picking a better director other than McG and find good writers).

I surely hope it's the latter.


I've always been a fan of the Terminator series, T2 was one of the first films I can actually remember watching as a kid and comprehending the plot. As I grew older both Terminator films stayed a staple of my sci-fi cinema diet and both are landmark films in their own right.

Like a lot of people I was kinda bummed by T3, it was an okay film but a FAR cry from the first two so I was psyched for Salvation when I first heard about it, but as each successive trailer was released and the PG-13 locked into place I found myself worried that it would be a let down...

As it turns out its not as bad as I thought it would be, the action sequences are thrilling and gripping, the plot isn't all that bad and there's enough violence to make it R-Rated-ish... The acting also turned out surprisingly well with Sam Worthington (playing Marcus) and Anton Yelchin (playing Kyle Reese) being the two stand out performers. I swear there were times I Anton looked and sounded exactly like Michael Biehn who played Kyle in the original film and it was that fact (as well as a few other homages) that kept the hardcore Terminator fan in me placated...

But placation isn't the same as satisfaction, the film has its flaws, the bad language you'd expect in a post-apocalyptic world is suppressed by the PG-13 rating and Bale delivers an overly dramatic performance to a character we learn far too little about other than what we know happened to him as a kid... My other major complaint is the CGI used for the Terminators themselves, it really didn't look good and I found myself praying for them to go back to Practical Effects where things look solid and real...

Remember how relentless the Terminator was in the first film?? Well that is carried over here, these guys won't stop until their processor is dead, but since they're CGI for the most part it lessens the feel of real danger... Somewhere deep inside the Terminator fan in me was wishing to return to that dark skull covered gritty landscape we saw glimpses of in the first Terminator (this definitely isn't the future Connor's Mother warned him about)

Hardcore terminator fans might want to avoid this, it was better than T3 but still pretty far off the quality of the first two, still, if its a Summer Blockbuster you want then go see Terminator Salvation, you could do a lot worse...


Sad to say that Terminator Salvation failed to resurrect the franchise with the same quality that Batman Begins resuscitated the Batman or Star Trek resurrected that franchise. TS is the huge misfire that it appeared to be from reading all the critics bash it. It may not be the exact unsatisfying continuation of the T3 dud but it's a new type of unsatisfying mess. Just like Poseidon and Pink Panther, it's clear Hollywood just wanted to cash in on nostalgia instead of creating quality, original concepts. Bad film on nearly every level.

Disappointing to say the least. The movie is a one note bore until John Conner's one man raid to end the film. The dialogue is atrocious. Slipping in the "I'll be back" line was as forced a line as I've ever seen. In fact, it drew an audible groan from the crowd I saw it with. Leaps in logic and rather mundane action drop this film to the bottom of the barrel in terms of summer blockbuster material. I honestly can't think of one thing the director did right. Shooting this one note crapfest through panty-hose to give it a grainy feel may have seemed like an artistic touch but all it did was add to the unsavory feel and genuine disappointment this movie will generate.


Christian Bale has proved that he is a fantastic actor. For me, this was just a paycheck movie for him. A very mechanical performance, in some scenes it seemed he never lets go of his Batman character. The movie itself was entertaining for the most part, but lacked the suspense that the first two Terminator films had. A quality that James Cameron possesses as a director that has been lost in the last two films. The screenwriters for Salvation can't decide who the main character is and what the main plot of the film is. Hoping that Salvation would revive the Terminator franchise, I was left with a bad taste in my mouth once again. It was a loud action film with no substance. Better luck next time.


Well, if somebody asked me how did i like the movie I'd tell them I got disappointed because none of the "revelations" proved to be really moving (neither the history of Marcus, nor new facts on Skynet's creation) but on the other hand it's a nice contribution to the Terminator realm. Still, in its exquisiteness its closer to part 3 than 2 or 1. The main value that this movie presents lays mainly in the presentation of the postnuclear world. Obviously, Skynet's new gadgets have been introduced and they're rather interesting, though gaudy in some respects. The moment we learn Marcus is one of them our appetite increases immensely. Unfortunately, it only starts good to become really cheesy later on.


Many complaints that have piled up so far are about this installment of Terminator not feeling like a "Terminator" movie. It is indeed very different. But this is a sort of reboot for the franchise. I almost wish they would have done this kind of movie for Star Wars. The picture is moving on (and ironically in the same sense, moving back because of the whole "sending robots to the past" thing). This is one of the best movies that I've seen in a long time. As a fan of the franchise, I was very scared that it would be disappointing and lack any content. But the story is pretty good and the action is top notch. I also appreciated the fact that they picked actors that could actually act. This really is a good piece of film making that is expanding on the Terminator universe. The action is so relentless and constant that I starting feeling tired and welcomed the dramatic scenes to calm down. Christian Bale was intense, Sam Worthington was extremely cool, and the rest of the cast performed decent or better. I look forward to seeing the sequel.


I keep hearing about the loss of what made the other films great. Well to me T3 was recycled garbage with no style and no excitement. And my fondest moments of T2 are the best action sequences in film history, the heart pounding suspense of the action scenes are what made that film great along with good humor. It was never really the story telling that made it classic even though it was good. If you believe it was you are lieing to your self. MCG does mess up somethings like the intro, but not the action. This is the best pure action movie in awhile. Many better action movies but not as dazzling in action sequences as this. Iron man on pure action left more to be desired and Dark knight is magnificent but still a little to grounded.

This movie is the first since Transformers in which the action had me stunned. Not to mention the style is back. From the wasteland to Skynet the production is magnificent. Especially the last fight scene in Skynet with the T-800 (the colors and look are beautifully reminiscent of the steel mill from T2). Bottom line is that I critique movies very tough. But with all the great reminiscent moments and dazzling effects I don't see how this movie is being torn apart by reviews like it is. X-men Orgings was a mess and was a disgrace to X2. How is this movie in that same league I don't get it. There have been worse movies than how this is getting attacked. Bottom line is I love T2 and am proud to say this was a good movie of which I had a great time viewing and look forward to the sequels. Other than what I think the critiques can all go to hell. Right!!!


I loved Terminator one and two, I was disappointed in three but it still did not ruin the series. Now we are on the fourth movie Terminator Salvation, I've been hearing a lot of bad on this movie but being a terminator fan, I was going to go anyway. It begins and we see Marcus in the present and that begins his story. Then we move ahead a few years and we see John Conner, he's in a battle and it's loud and a lot of explosions. We get to see a hint at the old model and it reveals that John is not the leader in fact he is not even aloud to know what is fully going on. After that Marcus appears and finds the city in ruins, he is confused and by this we get to hear the characters talk about what happened.

From here we get to see the T-600 and Kyle Reese, Marcus is rather cold towards him at first but he is pretty confused about what is going on. The T-600 being a terminator it can't fail to empress. They are a lot like the T-800 but ratty and big. Eventually John gets to talk to the commanders and the plot gets set up from here. It follows the pattern of the Terminator movies, a big battle or fight then to some peace and then a big fight and then another peace. All leading to the big fight and some surprise that are shocking, Christian Bale does well as a colder John Conner than I would like but Sam Worthington steals the show with Marcus. We get to see some of the old terminators from the first movie and all kinds of new non-humanoid Terminators but sometimes I feel that the T-600, the new endo-skeleton deserved a bit more of action than motorcycle terminators.

I hear there is too many explosions and not enough plot but for a war based movie it works, like the old terminators a plot point, a battle a plot point a battle. I think John and his wife Kate should have spoken more and you have to look close to notice she's pregnant. The new ending since they changed it works well with what they set up and it flows well. I wish it had ended otherwise but that's just me. It's true these movies could have been more plot and less explosions but it has as much plot as the first. This is a good movie maybe one of my favorites but to even say it's close or not as good as three is a lie. This is a good movie and while I'd more skeletons matching at the humans gunning each other down and then a bit more plot on Conner but what this movie does right is Marcus, not to say Bale did a bad job but Marcus is the show. 4/5


I was really excited to see this. I have never heard of McG and I have never seen any of his work until now. They said he was a bad director and they weren't kidding.

Here are a few things I have a problem with:

1. Where was the war that we get clips of from the first three Terminator films? The wars looked awesome. There was a HUGE battle going on. People dying, terminators everywhere, etc. It was intense! Here? Nothing! We only have around maybe 5 or 10 different terminators.

2. Why was there a 9 foot tall terminator? Why couldn't the John Conner and the others hear it coming? Something that huge would probably make the ground shake signifying that something is wrong.

3. Why didn't Skynet terminate Kyle Reese once they got their hands on him? I remember in the first Terminator, the terminator was merciless. He ripped that one gangster's heart clean out of his chest. Why didn't he do that to Kyle?

4. Why does Skynet have prison cells that hold humans? Why are they capturing them? Why not kill them? Isn't that the whole point of their decision that they decided in a microsecond as stated by Kyle Reese in The Terminator?

5. Why are there keypads on the cell doors? Skynet is one giant computer right? Why not have Skynet be in control of the doors? They don't need keypads!

6. What was the whole point of Marcus? He was useless throughout the entire film! I didn't give a damn about his character in the slightest! He only becomes useful in the end when he gives John his heart. That was the ONLY reason he was there? You have got to be kidding me!

7. Why did McG direct this? This guy is a moron and has NO talent! The movie has nothing to do with the others except for having the machines from the other films. The HK's, T-800s, etc. That was it. McG obviously didn't see ANY of the Terminator films.

8. Why was this given a PG-13 rating? I think the movie would have been so much better if it was given a different director and a different rating. They thought they would make more money if they gave it a PG-13 rating? They were dead wrong!

9. In the factory toward the end, you see Terminators being built! Why aren't these Terminators being deployed to kill John and the Resistance? It looks like they're being built in the factory but Skynet is not activating them! Isn't Skynet's primary objective to wipe out the Resistance and their leader John Conner? Why aren't they accomplishing this?

10. Why was Arnold only added at the end? I guess since Arnold ran for Governor he couldn't do movies. Obviously he can't but they did a CGI version of him fighting John. I guess if Arnold wasn't Governor, they wouldn't need Marcus. They could have Arnold instead. Also, when Arnold fights John, why doesn't he just pull his heart out? Instead, he just tosses him around for about five or ten minutes. It's stupid.

Those are the 10 reasons why I think this movie is garbage.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Please don't make Terminator 5 unless you intend to make it good.


The new action-thriller, Terminator Salvation is not great, but if it proves one thing: an action film can be mindless and moodless and still be good. Terminator 3 was terrible, yet a lot of people still liked it. Terminator Salvation is good, but people seem to hate it. This is a sign that more and more people these days have to see sophisticated films in the theater, even if it means seeing mostly bad films. Yes, there are a lot of good sophisticated films, but when something as brainless and moodless as this comes around, I'm still able to enjoy it. This movie nicely follows two stories mashed into one: John Connor (Christian Bale) waking up and discovering a whole new world, and then meeting Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), and Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) fighting war on the other side of the new world. I respect, and quite like what they're trying to do here: telling us what we might of missed in the other Terminator movies. The film is nothing new or special, but just a good old recommendable fun time at the movies. PS, anyone looking forward to the Arnold Schwarzenegger cameo will not be let down.


I went to watch this in cinema the other night, its been out two or 3 weeks. So I've read and heard all of the hype about the story.

Firstly the positives should be the ever so consistent Christian bale, who once again is the pick of the cast, Moon Bloodgood, and the other female in this were impressive. Although Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese does steal the show, also Marcus rights character and the way he s portrayed soon becomes a positive in the film. Overall the casting was top notch without getting too many stars.

The other positives were let down by a poor publicity attempt by releasing the few good parts and twists that were in the script. Such things as telling us Arnold Schwarzenegger is in it, although only a CGI. Also releasing that th main cyborg, Marcus right, has a human heart, and is in fact half human half machine, when if they had kept that quiet, it could of become a massive although guessable twist in the script. This is also shows MC G either didn't care too much about the film, or just was poor in the ironing out of the script as he left many loopholes. For example in T3 Schwarzenegger says he terminated John Connor, in this he almost does, but doesn't succeed, so unless he adds this into the other films, which i doubt as he wont want to keep putting a CGI Schwarzenegger, then bale wasn't killed by him. This is OK because Connor says its a different future, but then MC G used a lot of history form the others, such as kyle Reese being Connor's dad, and the photograph, this is OK also, but MC G should of chose to base it on the whole history, or non at all, leaving many loopholes because he doesn't decide.

One huge loophole is that john Connor says he and Marcus wright (the cyborg) have been fighting for centuries, but there was never any mention of him in the other 3 films, and Connor doesn't know about him until now, So they haven't been fighting for years. Unless he means hypothetically as a machine, but then surely the machine would know? its just a bit unclear, something MC G should of ironed it again at the script phase, before making bale put a performance on a half completed story, and characters.

The negatives are simple, the direction. all decisions a director makes have big impacts, and although I believe MC G will become a talented director, I think the amount of potential and the scale of a terminator film is too big for his abilities, he still hasn't learnt his own directing strengths and weaknesses, he isn't ready for film this big. Because of that he uses way too many explosions, and action that completely overshadows the storyline, a storyline that wasn't overall too bad if plots had been kept quiet and filmed appropriately, for example, there's a scene where Christian Bale gets emotional trying to appeal to human emotions, and the scene gets you caring,....for 3 seconds then its over, it should of been dragged out, and really got you into the film before the final battle. Even the moments of cheese, such as where bale says "il be back" are done very tastefully, this particular one should be credited to Jonothan Nolan who helped write the dark knight with his very talented brother Christopher Nolan.

This poor direction to release too much and cut out too much story and replace it with action leaves you with still a good film, as the acting and script are pretty good. Just the directors choices and techniques lowered its overall rating.

Its understandable to see why Christian bale did his rant, after caring about a script and doing so well in his own performance, and being let down by the director and some dodgy lighting ;)

4 the next one i suggest any talented story director, Michael bay and jerry bruckheimer maybe? or the ever growing Chris Nolan


OMG! Why you not understand its absolutely new film? Its Fallout! FALLOUT! Not T1 or T2... Duhh... I hate people who put too low rating for this film. I'm sorry Are You DumbAss?

Great action,great playing(I mean Sam Warrington not Christian Bale). Yeah story line is not good, but it no so bad to hate it! I'm not even a Terminator fan. I think its great start of new Termintor trilogy. In short, I had a fantastic time watching it, and definitely would be going back to see it again when it opens. Most of the Terminator fans would definitely NOT be disappointed with this installment, as it is chock-full of action, heavy on heroics, and breathtaking in scope. It will definitely have a long run at the movies, and will give Michael Bay a run for his money. Visual Effect 9/10 Story Line 8/10 Action 10/10


McG and team have managed to rejuvenate my interest in the Terminator series, well done, a great movie. I just hope that you have kept enough back for the next two movies! I had some reservations about this movie after seeing the initial IMDb ratings and director McG's efforts on Charlie's Angels, admittedly an altogether different movie, but it left me with the impression McG was a bit of a goofy idiot. Maybe he just got caught up in a moment of goofy bliss while working with Cameron & Drew.

I've heard that some people can't get into this movie, and maybe the difference in opinion is somehow linked to ties with the first three movies. Some may have only seen the third (poor) movie and the TV series (good 1st season) which wouldn't really help you here. It's not essential, but it would help to see the 1st and 2nd movies so you can appreciate the threads McG has wound into this movie.

Knowing that Christian Bale was in the lead role certainly helped maintain my interest, serious actors help bring weight to a movie, and I have to say Sam Worthington was excellent too, he was the perfect match for Bale, and I'm sure he's going to be big in years to come.

I'm very happy I went along to see it now, and afterword's I even felt that movie buzz that I haven't had since Dark Knight. 8/10.


This goes closer to the original Terminator than any of the others do which is only a good thing. It has a kind of darker Mad Max feel to it by showing how pockets of people around the world survived judgement day and are now facing the struggle of survival against nature and most importantly SkyNet.

The contemporary sharp cinematography is in the direction of Transformers and War of The Worlds with a bit of matrix in there for boot. Christian Bale brings a lot of credibility to the role of John Conner but surprisingly isn't the main focal point of the film. I would've liked to have seen him more in it. The rest of casting was pretty good with some good performances.

It contains a lot of nods to the other Terminator films (except perhaps T3 but the less said about that the better), but keeps it's own individual identity as a brilliant Action Film following in great footsteps. Watch it!


Family relations? Favours among friends? Blackmail? Insanity? Whatever it is, there has to be an explanation up those alleys for someone letting McG (Joseph McWhatever) direct and having the masterminds of Catwoman write the story of a movie of these proportions, people who hardly have written anything else in their lives, except the most ridiculed and trashed movie throughout human existence. If you watch this movie the way you watch a parody of a horribly bad movie making style of the past (i.e. porn movie plots and porn movie realism in human behavior/dialog), then you can get through this movie and enjoy it. That's how I did it.

Example: Marcus awakes, gets attacked by a Terminator, asks Kyle Reese: - "What was that?". Kyle answers: - "A Terminator". Marcus ponders no more. No questions like "what's going on, what am I doing here, why do my arms feel like robot arms, where is what, who is who, how did everything happen, who made the robots, why do they want to kill us". No questions. No amazement. No reaction. Just a stupid look and business as usual. "I'm going North", he says. Of course. That's where any Mad Max/Resident Evil 4/text-adventure game from the 80s player would go. North. For no reason.

And so it goes on, until the end: John Connor gets operated on in sandy desert wind, instead of inside a tent or a building. That's the lowest point throughout the movie. It's not cheesy and stupid, it's something worse. Marcus is like "I'm a bad-ass, murderer, a human terminator who should survive on a Terminator power cell (another dumb "plot before attention to realism" mistake), I'm your greatest asset this time around, but sure I'll die, here's my heart. Everyone deserves a second chance, but I deserve to die now. Yes. Have a nice day, good bye".

The special effects earned it a rating of 5, though they were ruined in day light shots by cheap-looking filters reducing color saturation, common in B-series on TV ever since Saving Private Ryan set the standard for the phenomena of filter-credibility, to be abused ever since. 'B-series' is the keyword to describe the atmosphere in the movie if you disregard the special effects. Only in a B-series do you expect a Terminator to survive rifle fire in one scene, die from it in the next, taking several grenade launcher hits standing up in one scene and getting blown 100 feet backwards from a single shot 5 seconds later. McG (or Zorro, as he'd probably prefer to be called if that name wasn't taken, despite his fear of flying making him drop out of Superman 4 due to filming in Australia) compared the making of the movie with Apocalypse Now, in the sense of the gritty, explosive realism. The only valid comparison is that both movies where in Development Hell at one time, but Apocalypse pulled through. Terminator: Salvation is still there, but was, for some strange reason, released to the public anyway.


This movie is pitched so low it insults the intelligence of all mankind. How stupid do the makers of this movie think we are. I get pitching a movie like a graphic novel, but why would you pitch a movie like a cartoon unless your audience was kids, and lets face it this movie series is about machines that kill humans, its given away in the title. Why would you do this to such an important and well represented franchise. once again there is a clue in the director. He made some adverts and charlies angels. The people who put their money behind this piece of very expensive garbage deserve to lose it. the dialogue is something else though. 3 people in a speeding truck being chase, The driver shouts "hang on", not once but 3 times over the course of the chase. Gee, that's a good idea i wouldn't have thought of if it was me clutching to the vehicle. I would have been scratching my nose or something. insulting wasteful and shameful.

Skynet is computers and robots yet they have a sophisticated laboratory with tables? Skynet develop sophisticated flying machines yet they also build motorbikes utilising the combustion engine?

A guy who has been a sleeper for 20 years who was a simple murderer before comes back to life and is a skilled fighter, who proceeds to treat a seasoned female rebel like she is some sissy amateur (are you OK,get down, do as I say etc)

The resistance made up of survivors all talk in American military speak in one scene and in the next are huddled round a fire being unskilled.

The resistance seems to have limitless access to ammunition, fuel, arms etc, yet they have no factories to produce them?


In 2003, in the Longview State Correctional Facility, the criminal Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) that is in the death row is convinced by the cancerous Dr. Serena Kogan (Helena Bonham Carter) to donate his body to her research and he accepts. In 2018, after an unsuccessful attack to a Skynet facility, only John Connor (Christian Bale) survives, but he discovers that Skynet is developing the powerful new model T-800. Out of the blue, Marcus appears naked and with amnesia in the location. Marcus befriends the teenager Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) and the girl Star (Jadagrace Berry) that help him to survive to lethal machines and they travel together in a Jeep. Meanwhile the resistance discovers a signal that might turn-off the machines and John offers to test it. When Kyle is captured by a machine and brought to the Skynet headquarter, Marcus decides to help the youngster and heads to Skynet; on the way, he saves Blair Williams (Moon Bloodgood) that suggests him to meet John Connor first. But Marcus steps on a mine and is submitted to a surgery, when a secret about his origins is disclosed.

"Terminator Salvation" is another great movie of this franchise. The story is full of action, and supported by a good story, great acting and excellent special effects. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Exterminador do Futuro  A Salvação" ("The Terminator from the Future  The Salvation")


I gave this movie 1/10, although I have to say I watched it right the way through simply because it made me laugh so much. After I realized how silly and badly put together it was, I started watching out for all the things that didn't make sense - which was basically the whole movie. The acting, the photography, the script, the plot, the taking-off other movies - the whole effort was a joke. How could someone sit back after making it and think 'Yeah, this is a good movie, I'm pleased with it'? Anyway, it did make me laugh, but only because it was so bad.


The number of goofs in this movie almost had me laughing.

The fantastic doomsday device is "Tesla's Death Ray." In this movie, the device consists of some electrical apparatus and a set of headphones, which is crammed into a wooden box that can fit under an airline seat. After Tesla journeyed to a remote part of Siberia in 1908, to test his death ray, he found its destructive potential is so great that Tesla never spoke of it again, so say the characters in this movie.

Despite a wealth of information available about Tesla's inventions and his notes, the makers of this movie plod onward with this fantastic device and numerous goofs. A geiger counter is used to track down Tesla's electrical device, earphones are used to control and direct its destructive force, Tesla installed a self-destruct mechanism but hid the device in a cave, and Tesla tested the device on "the 13th day of June in the year of our Lord, 1908."

Unfortunately, the Tunguska explosion occurred on June 30th, 1908, (not the 13th). Anyone expecting any facts about Tesla, his death ray, or the Tunguska explosion should look elsewhere. This hodge-podge doomsday device is the only excuse for what follows, and with the exception of "Bongo the Bear," I must rate this movie a pointless zero, (no stars).


i work as a translator for a local TV station. since it's local, it's criminally underfunded. but it has a program to run. translated, that means it's buying a lot of cheap B-movies. so in my "line of duty", i'm forced to watch a lot of crap. and i mean A LOT. more than anyone who has a choice ever had to. "crash point zero" was one such example. and oh my god, where do you begin? the other reviewers broke it down pretty accurately: from borrowing unused and differently textured shots from other movies (ed wood would've been proud!), to characters driving three (THREE!) distinct cars (one of them blue, two of them red) within a single scene, to the laughable and meaningless dialog, HORRENDOUS acting, and an all-around stench of amateur pointlessness. the list of examples of sheer stupidity in this flick would be higher than burj dubai! i guess 99% of what little budget they had went into the last-scene explosion (the only semi-decent thing in this abomination of a movie) to the detriment of everything else. really, some of this stuff is simply beyond words and has to be seen to be believed. what's astonishing is a feeling that the crew (well, at least most of them - some "actors" have that "what the f*ck am i doing here? hope nobody i know sees this" look on their face) labor under the illusion that they're creating a serious and suspenseful thriller, and obviously take it all very seriously, which is just amazing. i mean, there's nothing wrong in a B-flick that's aware of its "B-ness" and shamelessly flaunts it, but a deluded B-flick that thinks it's something more than it is is just pathetic. granted there are even worse, cheaper and misguidedly serious movies than this ("hyper sonic", for example), this still pretty much redefines the term "a B-movie". if you're done watching your paint dry, rent this and be amazed. really, it's quite a feat.


Renting this video, I obviously didn't think it was going to be on my top-ten-list, but all the comments on the cover fooled me a little (as so many times before). Most of the budget for this movie must have been emphasized on buying clips from other movies, such as "Cliffhanger" and "Long Kiss Goodnight". After watching these movies (among others) the directors/scriptwriters probably used some of the best scenes and built a story around it... which would later result in a totally crap-movie, with Treat Williams trying to come up with one-liners all the time. It's very clear which are the clips from other films, since both the quality of the film and the actors change between scenes. However, my friend and I laughed our lungs out while watching. How can a film actually let be rented if on the cover it doesn't say that it's mostly a mixture of other films? Maybe we laughed o much because it was a shock.. that we weren't prepared, so maybe you won't laugh as much once you've read this.. but seriously, once you've seen this film you must look back and laugh at the crappy "bear-klls-human"-scene.


Just wanted to add to the comment by Bailey-21(Alabama)...

who said "the entire climax of this... is nearly an exact copy of that film (Long Kiss). Frame for frame, it's a pitiful ripoff."

If you look at this scene 'Frame by frame', you can actually SEE Geena Davis standing by the truck! this is the SAME FOOTAGE!

I wonder if both films were made by the same studio, and they ran out of money on this one, or if this is even legal!

I felt Ripped Off!


i was shocked by the this very very very bad movie, i can't believe fox video was not ashamed to release it. people complain that Christian films like Time Changer have bad acting (which it didn't), but this, this was just bad! a group of second graders could do a better job at acting. not to mention the horrible dialogs, who ever wrote the script should be fired. i was rolling on the floor laughing till my sides hurt because it was that bad. the directors obviously had a very low budget since half the scenes, which were suppose to be all different where all in the same location and they didn't try to hide that. oh, and did i mention how bad the acting was? so, in conclusion, if you want to laugh at hell-y-wood for making cheesy films, this is the one! i promise you your sides will hurt because you'll be laughing soooooo hard!

ps. the acting was bad


1st watched 4/20/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Jay Andrews): Bizarre, idiotic story-line is the first problem with this movie. I hate it when the box description on a video is totally wrong. It states that a chemical is being carried on a plane that crashes into a mountain and causes havoc, the Blockbuster description says it's carrying the world's deadliest explosives. Guess what, both are wrong. What is being carried on the plane is a scientific devise invented back in the early 1900's that basically takes a person's thoughts to create atomic-like destruction. Now beginning with that, can you really make a good movie?? Treat Williams tries to add humor to an otherwise way too serious treatment of a silly story. We get to see some old time TV stars make a little money, but other than that what a waste of my time & money(if you paid to rent this film - mine happened to be a freebie, but what a waste of a freebie). Oh well, the next one has got to be better than this loser.


In ending this movie, they used the exact ending of Long Kiss Goodnight! It's not even a copy--it's just an edited version of the same thing!! How cheap. What's up with that? If you watch closely you can actually see a truck disappear that they used in Long Kiss Goodnight that wasn't supposed to be there in Extreme Limits or Crash Point Zero whatever you want to call it. Not worth the $1.99 to rent, unless you want a good laugh at the copy cat ending! YUCK


Extreme Limits AKA Crash Point Zero is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Treat Williams, Hannes Jaenicke, Gary Hudson, John Beck, Julie St. Claire, Ava Fabian, Steve Franken, Susan Blakely, Lorissa McComas, J. Patrick McCormack, Bridget Butler, John Putch, Allan Kolman, Richard Riehle, Sean Kanan, William Monroe, and Jack Shearer.The acting by all of these actors is very good. Lowe is really excellent in this film. I thought that he performed good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Treat Williams, Hannes Jaenicke, Gary Hudson, John Beck, Julie St. Claire, Ava Fabian, Steve Franken, Susan Blakely, Lorissa McComas, J. Patrick McCormack, the rest of the cast in the film, Action, Adventure, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!


I saw this movie when it first debuted and I have never forgotten the vivid performances and how I cried. I was watching at someone else's house and couldn't hold back the tears. We kept saying "Emmys all around" at each commercial break!

Mare Winningham is a phenomenal actress. The writing was superb. The scene with her mother, beautifully played by Phyllis Frelich, when her mother calls her selfish is one of the best scenes, bar NONE, that I have ever seen in my life. I cry just thinking about it.

If you have an opportunity to see this film, don't miss it. You won't be sorry.


This truly is one of the most beautifully made films of the 80's. The directing was picture perfect and the performances by the actors was magnificent. Their work was extraordinary it is puzzling to me why none of them ever got any awards for their performances. Everyone was perfect right down to the extras. This movie is truly worth paying five dollars.


I watched this in my ASL class. I'm Deaf and fluent in ASL, but taking the class because I didn't want to take Spanish. This was such a wonderful movie, and it made me cry like a baby at the end... and I never cry at movies! I've seen about five thousand films, and the only other one to make me cry was Exorcist, but this is much more sad.

Though my situation is the exact opposite of the girl in this movie (I'm Deaf child of Hearing parents) it was still very profound. It also wasn't offending to the Hearing people in my class, so that is a plus for any Hearing person looking at this movie.

If it comes on TV, tape it. You will not regret it.


Mare Winningham is really one of the great unsung American actresses of our generation. She is exceptionally talented whether she is playing the daughter of a deaf couple who must sign language to communicate with her parents. She is the their ears to the world and often must translate between her parents and the hearing world. One memorable scene is her at the funeral home translating for her parents and the undertaker as a child for her brother's unfortunate death. Winningham's performance is award-winning as is the mother played by deaf actress, Phyllis Frelich. Her character seeks to be independent and hopes that her parents can adjust to the hearing world.


I saw this film in the late eighties and it made me cry. Both my parents were deaf so I saw many things that reminded me of my own life.I wasn't unhappy but I had to make some decisions that my parents didn't understand and some of them weren't understood by the hearing people. The scene with the undertaker who tries to sell a very expensive coffin made me angry. The question of the father when he asks his daughter to describe what sound the sun makes.

She signs that the sun doesn't make any sound and he answers: But they say that the sunbeam falls on the street. So it has to make a sound. Those things made me sad. But still I think it's the best movie I've ever seen. I hope to see it once again and I'm sure that my emotions will be the same as 18 years ago.And who doesn't want to have a friend like Mr. Petrakis. What a wonderful man he was. So friendly, so patient, so very wise. A very, very, moving and beautiful movie.


Buñuel's "That Obscure Object of Desire" dripped with substance and stunned me throughout the entire film. The masterful working of the two women into the role of Conchita was wonderful. I do not believe Buñuel for a second when he claims that he intended to use one actress, but she quit unexpectedly after shooting several critical scenes. If it is true, it is one of the more miraculous accidents in film right up there with Casablanca and The Third Man. I can be certain that he consciously gave the different Conchita's different personalities and modes of behavior. That comes across as being the focal point of the movie, turning a mediocre "one actress" film into an engaging event. If I had to put my money on something, I'd say that Buñuel is pulling some Andy Kaufman trickery here... the film worked too well with the so-called "change of plans." Or... if you have enough monkeys on typewriters, you'll get the Great American Novel. I don't believe this was chance at all. 10/10.


Well, Bunuel certainly made a strong exit, here. This is probably one of his most beguiling movies, one that is foundationally built on characters that are contradictions of themselves.

Mathieu is sleezy and exploitative... and yet he really does love, or thinks he loves, Conchita, and makes an exuberant fool out of himself doing so. Conchita is likewise attracted to Mathieu... except it's not clear if she's just using him and leading him along, or if she honestly just wants assurance that his feelings are pure. In other words, Mathieu is the loving abuser and Conchita is literally the emphasis on the prude/slut dichotomy. AAAnd so you get to watch them, for two hours, nearly destroy each other in basically one of the best dysfunctional relationships ever put on screen.

Lots has been said about the two actresses playing Conchita. It gets to become pretty obvious after a while, but at first it is wonderfully surreal, the sort of subtle gesture that Bunuel is an expert at doing. However, I think it was more daring having only one person, then, play Mathieu--and especially narrate it. Mathieu's duplicitous nature is such that he is the token untrustworthy narrator, and yet it's quite clear throughout the movie that he's talking nothing but the absolute truth. This adds another layer of questions to the proceedings: is it possible that objectivity and subjectivity have finally merged? Is Conchita's double-nature only what he sees in her, or does she actually change face? And then, of course, there's the sack. It's always nice when something is pointed out on-screen that leads to mystery, but that mystery is never stated. It seems, in the end, that the sack is really the only object that gives meaning to the narrative.

--PolarisDiB


Carole Bouquet is the thinner Conchita who is somewhat severe. Angela Molina is the one who dances and seems more natural.

Jean-Claude Carriere wrote the script. He may be the greatest screenwriter of all time. He has over a hundred credits and some of them are among the best movies ever made. Here's a brief list from those that I have seen: The Ogre (1996), Valmont (1989), The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988), The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972), Diary of a Chambermaid (1964). There's some symbolism in Cet obscur objet du desir. Sometimes Mathieu (Fernando Rey) carries around an old gunny sack. We find out what's in it in the final scene. It represents Conchita's virginity. The terrorists in the background seem rather contemporary although this movie is from 1977. Mathieu is rich and therefore represents the established European society. Conchita and her friends represent the underclass. Both Mathieu and Conchita are really character types. He is the masher, the rake who is always working on a new conquest, although he is somewhat naive. She is the tease who uses her wiles to get what she can from him. Bunuel plays this ancient theme as a burlesque, exaggerating her coyness and his foolishness. The ending may suggest that in some way he has won, or more likely that they are still at a standoff, even while the terrorists escalate the bombings.

The question of why there are two actresses playing Conchita has more to do with Maria Schneider, who originally was cast in the role, but left because of the nudity or because Conchita's character was too contrary, than it has to do with any plot or symbolic necessity. On the other hand, since she is that "obscure object of desire" (which really should be that "unobtainable object of desire"), and because Bunuel wanted to emphasize that Mathieu's desire for her had nothing to do with her personally, he used two actresses and made it clear that Mathieu didn't notice the difference! A bit of absurdity here, but Bunuel is comfortable with absurdity.

All in all an interesting treatment of an ancient theme, but not one of Bunuel's best, even though it was his last at age 77.


We as people in love tend to go after the unavailable, that which tempts us but manages to remain maddeningly out of reach, or just within the spectrum of possibility but vanishing at the last crucial moment. Love is strange, yet we pursue it like the blind leading the blind, moving around in circles, no beginning, no end, and with an increasing sense of futility.

Mathieu is one of those men. He's been sent over the edge by the promise of love and has publicly humiliated a young woman at a train station with a bucket of water as she attempts to board the train he's on. Passengers sharing his booth react in horror, but he has his own story to tell. The more he delves into it the less it seems to be about love and the more it looks like an obsession-fixation with the impossible: a woman, the very same one he's splashed with the bucket of water, named Conchita, arresting and bewitching, but one who would make a tease seem innocent by comparison.

Conchita is a horror -- a woman ugly on the inside as she is alluring on the outside. She brings only misery to Mathieu, but he can't seem to get rid of her, and she inexplicably returns to him over and over again to repeat a cycle of love-hate that slowly eats away at him. One moment she's kittenish, the next, cold. Every time they're about to reach the moment of sexual communion something happens, or she announces she's a virgin as she wears an impenetrable chastity corset to which she has the key. She's not above gifts... or using her male companions to also rob Mathieu of specific amounts of money. And on top of that, a soothsayer has the nerve to tell him that he is the one who treats a young woman badly and as an offrend for her services, has him give some coins to a young mother who is carrying a tiny pig in her arms like it were a baby.

Still, the question remains, what does she want with Mathieu? She could be a latter-day Mildred Rogers, leeching away at the man she despises while manipulating him into a frenzy. She obviously knows her own sexual power: at one moment she lays on top of Mathieu, naked, teasing him with words and promises as he can only caress her and wish that one day she will relent and literally, let him in.

Peppered throughout the story are allusions to terrorist attacks on the city where Mathieu lives. While it may just seem a little extra seasoning added to color the story, with Bunuel there is no casualty, and inexorably, like in THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE, violence comes and literally invades the domestic war that both Conchita and Mathieu are engaged in.

Bunuel's last film is one of the least Surrealistic in nature as well as one of the most. It's a contradiction, like Conchita herself is a contradiction of personalities contained within one woman. Somehow people who saw this movie were under the assumption, before entering the story, that this would be a more Hitchcockian story like VERTIGO, but in having both Carole Bouquet and Angela Molina swap entrances and exits, he manages to convey the most cerebral of his incursions into Surrealism. A woman who is really two who is the embodiment of repulsion and desire even when she herself is a prisoner of her own need for teasing -- what better way to have two woman play one? While the cool, reserved, and near frigid Bouquet balances one side of the woman, the more emotional and girlish Molina pirouettes on the other, and in the middle, poor Mathieu (for once, a very sympathetic Fernando Rey), caught in his own struggle, telling his story, unable to go even when he (justifiably) beats her at the height of his rage. A more conventional ending would have had the two parting ways after their physical exchange, but Bunuel had other plans, and his last sequence is one that only he could envision for a story about the polarities of love and hate, desire and repulsion.


even though it was made many years ago, it stands up as a great film, wonderfully acted and directed. The previous reviewer says everything so I will just add that if you can find the uncut version, there is a scene with Conchita (Angela Molina) dancing flamenco in the nude that lasts a good few minutes and is not cut like in the Criterion DVD... this full scene adds weight and more strength to the film and brings home the main character's jealousy more. It is the turning point of the film and it is a shame that it was cut, not even keeping the uncut version for adults to see.

This is the only scene that was cut from the film and when you consider what is in other films it is difficult to understand why, I think the main reason was to obtain a younger certificate for the film. If you are a fan of Angela Molina then check out 'The Eyes The Mouth' to see more of her. It was also good to see Carole Bouquet in 'That Obscure..' in her pre James Bond days. All three main characters are superb actors. Oh how I wish I could find the uncut version!..lol If you know where I can obtain a copy of the uncut (107 min duration) please email me at paul22@paul22.freeserve.co.uk ..enjoy!


Buñuel's fascinating masterpiece is a landmark of the erotic genre. A subtle drama with hints of burlesque comedy, it plays with an upper-class middle-aged man with too much money and time in his hands, and his sexual obsession for the elusive Conchita. She decides to remain virgin throughout the whole movie, however she uses her sex to manipulate Mathieu who's too blind to understand she'll never be his to possess.

This is a frustrating movie to watch too - many times it seems Mathieu will be able to get Conchita to bet, only for her to change ideas in the last minute, however whetting Mathieu's attention through some glimpses of her naked body. I dare say she actually enjoys torturing poor Mathieu and his expectations. And I'm not sure we're meant to identify with his hang-ups, after all he seems just a bit too innocent to be tricked by Conchita so many times, however he's lust-driven.

It's not Buñuel's best movie, but the dialogue is outstanding - which European movies usually lack - and I really felt something for these characters, especially Mathieu, brilliantly played by Fernando Rey. This is a great place for Buñuel newbies, it's got his personal touch of the surreal, but it's still linear and coherent enough like a normal Hollywood movie to be enjoyed by the average movie-goer.

10 out of 10.


Having watched Bunuel's first film: Un Chien Andalou, I was expecting a film of a pretentious, pointless, and angering nature. I couldn't have been more wrong. This a brilliant narrative film, which grips you from the beginning. Throughout the film you will be questioning your own eyes, laughing at events before you and at the same time relaxing, and letting Bunuel's techniques entertain you. Give this film a chance, and you will be rewarded. Having watched it, I am sure you will be thinking about it for months afterwards. The themes and issues it raises are still very much relevant; sexual desire and frustration, the nature of desire, terrorism, the conventions within society that we accept. Bunuel has you questioning what you want in life, and challenges the decisions and feelings that you thought were reliable. Fernando Rey proves to be a reliable and likable protagonist, who guides you through events as he experienced them with the mysterious girl; Conchita.


I am not a huge Bunuel fan, and this isn't his best work. Nevertheless though this is great stuff, for some inexplicable reason we have two different actresses playing the lead role of Conchita. Why is that exactly? My theory is that Bunuel sat down and thought I wonder what would happen if I did this, so he did it.

I won't go too thoroughly into the plot, but a man is basically tormented in different ways by a woman with shifting personalities (thus the two actresses).

I liked this movie because it was so strange, the seventies were an interesting period.


Buñuel weaves his tale of a jilted (attempted) lover quite effectively until the conclusion which was a little far-fetched despite complimenting the theme.

What starts of fairly slow and uninteresting soon naturally evolves into a suspenseful and psychologically taxing study into the obsessiveness behind relationships and how that plays out between the two sexes.

Much has been made out of Buñuel's use of two different females to interchange with the lead character, although anyone who has researched the film knows that this was unintentional and has no greater meaning then necessity despite wild fan theories.


I watched this a second time after seeing it first some years ago. The first time it almost frustrated me too much for an immediate response, even though I did like certain parts. Perhaps I found that Bunuel was almost making me take sides, and whatever side had me in a perpetual loop of 'what the hell' kind of logic. But then again, isn't that what Bunuel is best at? In a sense, one could look at his 'swan song', That Obscure Object of Desire, as his ultimate feminist tome, or rather critique. It's really a woman's right to choose who she wants to give herself too, and who's to say if Conchita (Carole Bouquet and Angela Molina) really does want to have sex with Matthieu (Fernando Rey) or not? I'm thinking pretty strongly after a second viewing that that's part of the point. Maybe it's because Matthieu sees her as an object- and not as a complete and total human being- that he'll never possess her, and more importantly that he'll never understand completely why until perhaps the end. But even then it's never really clear. The audience is almost given the most fractured romantic tale in modern cinema, where you do (or at least I did, if not more on the first viewing then both times) feel for Matthieu who is not really as flawed a bourgeois character as in 'Discreet Charm', and is actually a rather nice and easy-going fellow. But then Conchita has her point of view, which everyone *should* accept, but then the tables are turned, more than once, leading to why that bucket of water was poured on her at the train station before it took off.

But that's part of Bunuel's genius, I think, and why That Obscure Object of Desire works as a kind of penultimate take of the battle of the sexes. It deals with little hints of societal madness (terrorism is everywhere, but our two main characters- even Conchita who's real lover may be one himself- seem to neglect in their misplaced passions), but more than anything each other's unwillingness to go further with themselves. Rey particularly is brilliant in the role of Matthieu, where he can play exquisite, charming, despondent, yearning, rage, and complacency all in great measure. While up against not one but two actresses, he holds his own very well with his character, however much his character's logic might skew. And on a first viewing- and perhaps this shows how strong a feminist tale it is considering as a guy I got almost too subjectively involved- one might not understand why Mattieu keeps on going after Conchita, even after her intentions are made. It's almost like the most uncomfortable satire of 'blue-balls' ever made. Conchita- played by two actresses- is sometimes (particularly on a first viewing) indistinguishable from one another, and it adds to the maddeningly seductive power she has over her old, aged rich follower.

What ended up making me like 'Obscure Object' maybe even more than I should have is how well Bunuel manages the mind games- on both sides- with the cunning satire. It's really quick and hilarious in spots, and couple of moments had me rolling with laughter, like the random moment as the one rich man (not Matthieu, of course) is about to leave for the bank, but when his driver starts the car it explodes! Or when Matthieu comes to find another piece of Conchita's seemingly precious demeanor stripped away when he finds out how she 'really' makes her money in the small town, which is actually funnier not even because of her in the scene but for who she's dancing for. If anything the ending is most frustrating, as after all that's happened and been told, and even after the seeming break-up, they're still together. It's like a cruel, vicious prank, with the symbolism of a sewing needle thrown in for good measure. But because it's Bunuel, and by the age of 77 he for sure knows what he's doing, and it's more worthwhile than a lesser filmmaker would have gone for. His actual movement of the camera as well- which is often sort of intricate and precise and seamless and actually really powerful even in quiet scenes- shows how someone on his last film can still have the great sweep of his prime running through. In fact, there are a couple of camera moves that are on par with the best that come up in his masterpiece, Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie.

Filled with uncomfortably funny, sad and jarring moments, and enough notes on what it means to hold on to one's sexual parts (or not) with one's partner to ignite an entire women's studies course for a semester at a college, it's a work from Bunuel I was glad to see again, to see more into the layers he places in it and to find that even when it's not meaning to it's quite the funny affair- and quite the way to make a final bow on an extraordinary career. The final shot, by the way, is like one last wink to the audience- if not a totally spectacular one- that still is in my mind after the film has ended. Grade: A


Sorry to disappoint all those who were trying to find some deep, intentional meaning in the choice of two actresses for the same role, but if Fernando Rey is to be believed, here's what he told me when I bumped into him at a party in the early 90's: he said that he and Buñuel liked both actresses for the part, couldn't decide which one to use, so they used them both.

Now, perhaps there was something working on the unconscious level about the dual nature of Conchita, but Rey maintained there was no grand decision they made regarding the specific scenes assigned to one or the other.

Of course, artistic choices can be obscure, especially even to the artist, but Rey insisted it was just a whimsical idea, one which I thought worked brilliantly.


Belle D' Jour introduced me to Luis Bunuel. Now TOOOD continues this dark exploration of the European psyche. The women are innocent and vixen at once. Perhaps that is why Bunuel used two women to play the same part. I must say he almost got away with it seamlessly for my "lovely one" swore it was the same woman, but I got it by the time the flamingo nude scene appears. We were also shocked by the caresses of the chest scene, which in commercial film is rare today although in the late sixties, seventies, and part of the eighties, the obligatory nude love scene on American screens were mandatory. That's gone. Now we just have blood splattering gratuitous violence.

My only objection to this film is the insertion of cheesy terrorist scenes. I don't know if these silly explosions, the unrealistic destruction of automobiles was limited by budget constraints, or if this was a campy outing of those funny terrorists we have come to know so well over the last forty years.

The desperate Fernando Rey, the older, richer, still amorous over-the-hill desires his eighteen-year-old Conchita and the game begins. An old story is stroked for the amusement of the audience.


A movie about the fundamental theme of male sexual obsession with a woman. The wealthy old bachelor Mathieu is intrigued by beautiful young Conchita, who lives in poor conditions with her mother. He becomes more and more sexually obsessed with her as she keeps turning down all his attempts to have sex with her and varies between feelings of love, indifference and hate towards him. He keeps following her around Europe and is increasingly obsessed and violent.

Buñuel lets two women play the same character, symbolizing the conflictual sides of her personality. This is a brilliantly outrageous idea, no matter whether Buñuel intended it or not, as the other commenters have discussed at length.

This brings me to the fatal flaw of the movie. I was disturbed by the sexism, violence, and repulsiveness of the main character because the movie never makes it completely clear where it stands towards him. The movie puts us on the side of the man trying to understand him as he becomes more and more obsessed with her, tries to buy her from her mother, has her deported, tries to rape her, and brutally beats her. His obsession never drives him to the tragedy that would be morally logical outcome, but the movie ends symbolically without conclusion.


While I thought this was a fairly good movie, I keep asking myself WHY so many films by Luis Buñuel are so highly praised? Maybe it's just that his films don't appeal to everyone and I am just one of the ones who "doesn't get it". This is possible. All I know is that I've seen most of his most famous films and didn't love any of them. In general, they were decent, but that's really about it.

This film has some excellent aspects, though. I like the general kinky story line--a seemingly innocent woman about to be seduced by a dirty old man--and, then, the tables are turned and you find out that the "innocent woman" is one sick woman--and, then, you see that the man is actually a good match for her because they are BOTH sick puppies! Their sado-masochistic relationship is certainly entertaining. I also liked the style of the film as the older man (Rey) recounts his tale to enthralled train riders. I even liked the bizarre touch of having two rather different looking women DELIBERATELY play the same woman interchangeably throughout the movie--some real weird but fun stuff here.

However, the odd touches and constant references to terrorist groups was stupid. I know this was a reference to the director's political leanings but it just seemed irrelevant. Either he should have, in my opinion, followed up and hashed this out more or it should have been excised from the movie. As it is, it just didn't fit but wasn't really weird enough to make the movie surrealistic.

Oh, and by the way, this movie is a lot like his other film THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISE, as in that case people always were looking for dinner but never got fed--in this case, Rey was looking to score but somehow, despite coming VERY close, he never actually did!

PS--to the parents, this movie features a lot of explicit nudity and implied sado-masochism, so it would be appropriate for younger audiences.


Pretty much everyone knows the story of Beowulf - man fights monster, monster's mum and then a dragon - but this ancient story has inspired generations of writers and academics, now it gets a shiny makeover courtesy of Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary.

Beowulf (the man) could have been written as a cookie-cutter hero, but fortunately he's something else - fallible and not yet the hero he must become later in the movie. But (and this is really hard without spoiling the movie), the battle that turns him into a hero also leads inexorably to his undoing. That's something the two writers have brought to the millennia old text and it works perfectly to help fill in some of the gaps in the original poem and provide a back story to events.

A special mention also to Crispin Glover's Grendel. I wasn't particularly struck with the physical realisation of the monster, but the performance is knock out. Instead of just being a rampaging beast, Grendel is almost something to be pitied - a misshapen outcast with noisy neighbours, and his final scene is remarkably touching. Oh and if you don't understand Grendel, you clearly haven't been keeping up with your Old English classes!

But let's be honest, everyone watches a movie about Vikings for the action. And Beowulf delivers this in spades. Here comes my first proviso - Beowulf in the UK is getting a 12A rating, but there is no way I would take a 12 year old to see this film in all its eye-ball spearing, spine-snapping, ligament-tearing glory. This movie would get a higher rating had it been shot in real-life and it's worth considering this before packing the kids into the car. Mostly the violence is justified, but it is there and it's NOT cartoony.

The animation is the talking point of this movie, and its a real step on from the zombified performance of 'Polar Express'. The impression of living, breathing flesh is almost complete with the exception of strangely dead eyes - this movie is a landmark in computer imagery. The majority of the characters are stunningly rendered (Beowulf in particular) in close up, but they somehow look less convincing at a distance. Generally the men are better done than the women, with Queen Wealthow the spitting image of Julie Andrew's queen in Shrek 2.

So, its a violent special effects triumph - could anything be wrong?

Actually yes.

Two things. One - the accents. Oh dear god in heaven above what were they thinking - this is a treasure house of appalling voices, Irish(ish), Scottish(ish), Welsh(ish) are all thrown into the mix, but the standout horrors are Jon Malkovich's take on Danish which might have been inspired by the Muppets and Angelina Jolie dusting off her accent from 'Alexander'.

The second is the 3D projection. For reasons best known to studio executives we're all meant to get very excited by 3D all over again. Beowulf is one of the first movies to be released in the UK using REALD - a system familiar to anyone who has been to a Disney park in the last 20 years. The animators of Beowulf clearly had great fun working out new ways of making things jump out of the screen at the audience, but the effect becomes slightly wearisome after a minute or two. Fortunately things settle down later in the movie and the makers stop trying to show off their new technology.

More disappointing, the poor quality of the Polaroid glasses you have to wear make the image slightly blurry and spoilt by reflections. After years waiting for the crystal clarity of digital projection, the whole thing has been undone by a gimmick. If you have a choice, you might be better off seeing a regular 2D version.

A final comment, Beowulf spends part of the movie naked, bet you can't watch it and not think of Austin Powers.


Just this minute got back from seeing a free preview of Beowulf and OH MY GOD! This is a cracking film and I highly recommend everyone goes to the cinema to see it (it's a cinema experience for sure!). Not only that, but it's 3D (which I wasn't aware of) or rather the all new 3D (no more red/green glasses). Everyone in the audience was given what looked like cheap-ass shades, but they did the job wonderfully and fitted snugly over my regular specs.

As for the movie, the plot was tight and well scripted, the voice acting was great (Ray Winstone rocks), the action was breathtaking, some of the CGI was unbelievably gorgeous and the music and incidental sound was great! The only downside for me was some of the CGI. It seemed apparent that given an unlimited budget, this movie would have looked phenomenal in every scene, but unfortunately the budget wasn't unlimited and it shows in a number of places. Nothing looks horrible, but you can tell that they had to pick and choose where to go for high detail. The movie also suffers from the age old, it's creepy because it's almost perfect.

As for the 3D, apart from an awesome intro, nothing seems to be done just to exploit 3D, it's all very natural and adds an amazing level of detail to the movie. The depth of vision you get is truly breathtaking in parts.

Quite honestly I wasn't expecting much from this movie having seen the trailer, but I was blown away. I've not been this excited leaving the cinema in a long long time!


This movie is a lot of fun. In 3D. I suspect its impact will be considerably diminished in 2D, so I urge anyone who wants to see it to seek out the 3D version. There are lots of beautifully constructed tracking shots where the camera glides and swirls forward, back up and down, and trees, rocks, arrows, dragons or whatever slip past the edges of the frame, and this effect is stunning in 3D. In fact, all the action scenes are stunning in 3D, particularly the climactic battle with a top-notch, fire belching monster of a dragon.

The plot isn't much to write home about (although there's just a hint of a theological debate about the way Christianity has displaced the old mythic religions, which made me think for about 5 seconds). The acting is variable - Robin Wright-Penn is fine, but about as sexy as a paper cup, Hopkins is his usual reliable self, Ray Winstone is suitably heroic as the heroic, self-aggrandising Beowulf, and Crispin Glover is just brilliant as Grendel. Grendel is a lovely creation, oozing slime and blood, and wracked with pain.

But who cares about all that. This is not a scholarly work, it's entertainment. And my wife and I were as royally entertained as the kids surrounding us in the cinema (and we're both 40-somethings). Leave your serious head (and any timid youngsters) at home, and go and have fun.


When going into the theatre to see this I in two minds - it was my first 3D movie and I had heard good things, however I wasn't particularly taken by the concept or the trailers. I was unsure what to expect, however I ended up leaving the cinema extremely satisfied with the film, and tellingly, unable to stop discussing it long after the ride home.

Visually it is an absolute treat, Zemeckis uses 3D superbly, some of the camera angles and sequences are as great an art as the photo-realistic animation. Occasionally the odd shot appears where the impression is that it was set up solely to emphasise the 3D (e.g. starting at the end of a branch and panning out) and whilst this doesn't add to the film it is actually a pleasant reminder of the novelty of 3D.

There are only two areas that let Beowulf down aesthetically: the eyes and the mouth. The eyes were static throughout and it is the little details that make the difference when trying to make something as uber-realistic as this, such as the fact that the pupils didn't react to light. As for the lips - they're just not quite there yet - sometimes the speech didn't seem to be quite right.

The characters are expertly introduced and developed, most notably Anthony Hopkins character, Hrothgar and the tension between his wife. Grendell and his mother are wonderfully creepy and seductive, and bizarrely enough almost encourage sympathy.

For me the most disappointing part of the film was actually Ray Winstone as the titular character - he was fantastic when talking in a low growl, however the film really suffers when he shouts in full cockney accent. "I will kill your monstah!". I half expected Grendell's head to be smashed between a car and it's door. John Malkovitch is a saving grace with his none-more-sinister voice and interesting faith sub-plot.

The rating for this film has been hotly discussed and in my opinion I do not think it is suitable for children under the age of 12. Grendell would have truly terrified me as a child. The violence, as well as bawdiness, does not make it a family film for young children although having said that the lewd references do provide good humour and balances out the movie.

So, overall, this was worthy of an 8. Breathtaking animation, incredible action (especially the finale featuring an excellent dragon) and a generally brilliant cast. Beowulf throws down the gauntlet to film-makers to show what can be done with 3D and is an indication of the potential. It's not all the way there yet, but it's a damn good start.


This film has impressive special effects and would be okay as an adventure fantasy but it should not be marketed as the epic poem.Also it has been given the wrong rating and should be an R. Why all the changes? Grendel's mother was not a gold painted,nude,Barbie doll in stiletto heels.Grendel was not Hrothgar's son. Beowulf killed the witch he did not have sex with her.The dragon was not Beowulf's son and had no connection with the witch.Beowulf was not made Hrothgar's heir,nor did he marry his widow and become king of the Danes.In the poem Beowulf returned to Geatland after slaying Grendel. He remained the Geat king's best warrior,supporting him and the son who succeeded him. Only after the new king died did Beowulf become king of the Geats until his own death in later years.Also, why all the nudity in this film? This was Scandinavian northern Europe in the Dark Ages - folk would have Bean in furs and heavy woollens most of the time.The cartoon-like actors didn't help either with bland faces and expressionless eyes.

A far better movie 'Beowulf and Grendel' was made in 2004,filmed on location in Iceland,with an excellent cast of real actors and no CGI. The Iceland born Canadian director,Sturla Gunnarson,tried to get back to what could have been the original story that evolved over the centuries into the legend.It was gritty,made on a shoestring and had only limited cinema release,but thankfully it is available on DVD and is well worth a look.There is also an excellent companion DVD documentary called 'Wrath of Gods'which tells the incredible story of the filming of the movie, and the struggle to complete it with financial problems and the absolute hell of shooting it at the start of the Icelandic winter.

The new 'Beowulf' has also tried to ride on the coattails of '300', but again it suffers by not having real actors showing their courage and emotions.'300' scenes were like paintings come to life and the Spartans' impressive physiques and fighting skills were real,after hard training,with no computer enhancement.

An interesting point is the actor who links these three films - charismatic Gerard Butler.He was fiery yet also sensitive as King Leonidas and the earlier Beowulf and made the roles his own.

This 2007 film is a missed opportunity to bring the epic poem to life.