Terminator Salvation (McG, 2009)

"I knew it. I knew it was coming. But this is not the future my mother warned me about. And in this future, I don't know if we can win this war."

Introduction

So, finally, a short plan to watch all the Terminator films has finally drawn to a close. And it really has petered out - nothing special to finish. I think its fair to say that Terminator Salvation is the weakest of the four films. They really tried to make it special but I think the desire to create a family-friendly big-ass blockbuster sci-fi action film is the problem - where are the darker themes of industrialism and capitalism? Gone, replaced with clear and obvious themes of 'who am I'. An identity crisis - you would think John Connor would've dealt with than in T2.

You Would Think The Revival of Batman was a Good Choice...

Christian Bale is John Connor. I think it is fair to say that, at this point in the franchise, the role of John Connor has to go to someone everyone is excited about seeing. Discussions about Chris Nolans The Dark Knight and Batman Begins often veer into the terriotory of Christian Bale: Is he a good Batman? I think most people feel that he is not flawless - there are issues. A lack of expression and emotion - a sinister charm that could be sweeter? Nevertheless, the gritty John Connor seemed ideal for Bale but I think the biggest problem is the script - and it reckon Bale, therefore, phoned it in. No real effort in the role methinks. His lame gravelly voice - Nick Stahl and Edward Furlong didn't have a destroyed voicebox - whilst delivering lines from the franchise that have simply been squeezed in for no clear reason: Kate Connor asking "What should I tell your men when they find out you're gone?" and John Connor replies - "I'll be back". Eugh. Then there is Kyle Reeses opening line - "Come with me if you want to live". Its non-sensical and doesn't help the film in any respect. Nobody is sitting in the cinema waiting for these lines to be re-delivered. Think McG, Think.

Time-Travel

There is none! A franchise rooted in 'turning-the-clocks' back - regret and remorse about our capitalist actions. One of the best aspects to the weak-Terminator 3 was seeing Skynet and their resources build the first terminators. Deleted scenes on the DVD too show a very strange clip as the actual Arnie speaks with a deep-south accent as a military-man states "we'll change the voice". The first two films utilise time-travel to save any depth shown of the future. I think this is a staple of the series. We want to see the smaller-scale story as the bigger-scale story continues in the background. We didn't even see Kyle Reese go back in time - now that would've been cool.

Considering how simple the original stories were, this film is that much more complex. How can this be?  It can be as we follow the story of Kyle (Anton Yelchin) himself and his 'LA' resistance, then we have the pseudo-complexity of Marcus: a murderer placed on death-row, only to be resurrected again as a robotic-human ... but alas, he has a 'strong heart' (Worthington? Strong Heart?...). Finally we also have the huge-scale resistance John Connor is setting up. All of these issues at play ... remember when it was a simple terminator-is-trying-to-kill-sarah-connor. Easy. Everything else was secondary in The Terminator. (I think there is much more depth in The Terminator but, one the surface, it can be seen as a simplistic story ... I think you ca lose your way with Terminator Salvation)

Identity

As previously mentioned, the film is less focussed on Capitalism and Industrialism and, instead, focusses its attention on identity. Who makes us who we are? Is John Connor only who he is through who his Mother was? Is Marcus human or not? Is his heart in the right place? And what decides who we truly are? Can we give murderers a second chance?

Ironically, identity is something the film lacks. We have alot of nods to the previous films - much like Terminator 3 - a similar look to The Terminator: industrial settings and boiling molten-metal that is used - the steam lit up by red light whilst we cut to huge chase sequences in (take a guess), the Nevada desert. I felt that the use of a CGI Arnie was appropriate and was a highlight - it reallt was effective and only rang false because we all know Arnie is not that young and will not star in a film for a long time yet. The classic theme is used briefly but is not overbearing - but I missed it a little bit if i'm honest.

Back to the identity issue - all the other films had a consistency regarding the anti-capitalist theme (I would say anti-technology - but in T2 and Terminator 3 - the technology that is Arnie, is what saves the day), but this is not explored in Terminator Salvation. Ironically, with such an epic-scale - end of the world, post-judgment day destruction - the themes are quite small: what makes us who we are? In contrast, The Terminator was actually quite a small-scale story: bad robot tries to kill innocent woman, but with an epic-theme: the progress of technology and the lack of foresight of these companies - ignoring the knock-on effects of their actions. McG brings to the table some nice continuous tracking shots - but its just not good enough. That perfect example of the bad script with a hard-working cast and crew.

John Connor tells us that this is not the future his Mother, Sarah Connor, warned him about - I don't think Terminator Salvation was the future James Cameron predicted either. Hence, Cameron has disassociated himself from the franchise. Forever.

Though, in a very capitalist way, I'm pretty sure he takes royalties from anything made associated with the franchise - going a little bit against the morals established in his two films... And like the franchise, the Terminator-world has turned to shit. Where do they go now? I reckon they will go back in time and reboot the franchise... its only a matter of time.

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com

We are also on Twitter  and Facebook.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (James Cameron, 1991)

"On August 29th, 1997, it's gonna feel pretty fucking real to you too. Anybody not wearing 2 million sunblock is gonna have a real bad day. Get it?"

Introduction

Randomly, I bought this before watching The Terminator. Reason being that I was going through the early-DVD phase of my life and, in a tin box ... with loads of special features ... a 'classic' film I hadn't seen ... I had to buy it. Ironically, I am sure that this film marked the end of my watch-the-film-and-special-features-all-in-one-go phase ... so many special features, many of which are relentlessly dull, simply stalled me pretty soon and I decided I'd bail on the special features, content that I'd watched a 'classic' film. Then I watched it again when Sarah's Mum visited. Lets see what we can pull from the 'flames' of Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Future before Modern Day

So, in the same way as its predecessor, the opening delivers the background to 'The Terminator' whilst also setting the scene for entire film itself. As if the previous film did not exist, this film sets Sarah Connor up, now as narrator explaining the nuclear war that killed the vast majority of humans. The nuclear war still happens, the future is still set - and this film is about stopping the nuclear war from happening - opposed to the previous film whereby the focus is Sarah Connors survival to give birth to John Connor, the leader of the resistance. Cameron explands the universe and, as if in a dreamlike-state, we are walked through this nuclear attack: childrens play on swings, the laughter and fun drowned out by the intense light and heat destroying all human kind. This is Sarah Connor's fear - and, the storm clouds that approached at the end of The Terminator has clearly hit home as she is currently in an asylum, whilst her son - John Connor - is a rebellious youth.

Rehash and Renew

In the same way as in The Terminator, he returns in the same way - his point-of-view tinted in red whith details highlighthing his actions. The clock-like 'tick-tock' soundtrack beating as he makes his move. He even finds his 'look' very quick -finding leather and sunglasses to update his style. This is within 10 minutes. I heard the following information from Andy and john on The Hollywood Saloon. If you can imagine watching  Terminator 2: Judgement Day up until he confronts John Connor, you are - again - unsure about his motives. You are supposed to think he is the same terminator, with the same motives - on a rampage and killing John Connor... but things have changed. The terminator has a new motive - he has, in fact, been sent to protect. This is lost on so many people now because the terminator is seen as the protector - the same role played in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Hope and Humanism

I believe this film has a primary focus on how humans and their personal perspectives is what needs to be valued. There is 'no fate' - no inevitable options. Humans "have feelings" and are "afraid". It is these emotions that stop hope from blooming. But then again, it is these emotions that make people reflect on their actions. T2 builds on the argument set-up in T1 ...captialism and a lack-of-foresight into the effects industrialism. The SKYNET company is given more depth - that one hand being the reason for the quick evolution of technology. We know Cameron's very pro-nature attitude and this is clear in this film too - but it is our ignorance of the bigger-issues that is the concern. We are all responsible.

Miles Dyson - the scientist directly involved in the development of the technology that will, in turn, create the war on Judgement Day - is a good guy. He has a family. He has children. He could be anyone who simply wants to be successful - who doesn't want to be successful?

When Sarah Connor finishes the film, narrating over the ongoing road ahead - she ends on a message of hope - "If a machine, a terminator, can learn the value of life, maybe we can too". The question is - who is she talking to? The Terminator himself? Or the clueless development of military machinery and nuclear power - are they not terminators themselves? Putting the cogs together for someone, with less good intentions, to use. Is that too much depth? Who supplies the armies in the middle-east with their weapons? Technology can be a dengerous thing in the wrong hands ...

The Terminator (James Cameron, 1984)

"You still don't get it, do you? He'll find her! That's what he does! It's ALL he does! You can't stop him! He'll wade through you! He'll reach down her throat and tear her fuckin' heart out!"

Introduction

Alongside Robocop, in Primary School, The Terminator was the film everyone had seen ...  except me. I was the one with Catholic parents who would never in a million years be allowed to watch an '18' rated film in Primary School. On my 12th birthday, Dumb and Dumber was out of bounds due to the 'toilet' humour my Mum and Dad were not prepared to let me watch. So, Unfortunately I only managed to watch this fairly recently - having watched Terminator 2: Judgement Day multiple times already. I am always the one who demands others to watch films in their original, canonical order - so this was an epic fail on my part.

Visual Start

Whenever we think of silent openings, everyone references 2001: A Space Odyssey and then, only recently, Wall-E and There Will Be Blood. The Terminator, though nowhere near as epic, begins with virtually no speaking – you have to work out what is going on. Both Kyle Reece (Michael Beihn) and The Terminator (Schwarzenegger) both look in the phone book for Sarah Connor (Hamilton). We only realise the true meaning of their intentions when they meet her - the fact that the film is called The Terminator means that, to some extent, you are expected to guess which one is the machine. I think with Schwarzenegger's definitive role being the machine itself, means that this tension is lost on modern audeiences - much like the first hour of T2 is lost, due to the trailers and post-release knowledge ... but thats a different argument.

The Future?

Considering the film begins, set in the future, only to flash back to the modern day, it is interesting to see how this "future story" has very little "future" shown. It shows the destroyed world people live in - with their [small-set] underground houses with very little to live off. This brings to mind other 'future' films with very little future in - The Matrix would be one, whilst even 2001 shows lots of space but very little urban-life [quote from Sarah].

Having just watched Back to the Future it is additionally interesting as to how the film links back round as the child John Connor is, in fact, Kyle's child - sent by John Connor to meet Sarah Connor. I am sure there is a timeline inconsistency here and the time-travel element of The Terminator films are flawed as soon as we find this information out.

Horrific Night

Another apsect which could place this sci-fi film into an almost horror-genre (thoug Cameron does not direct the film in this way at all) is the unstoppable nature of The Terminator - akin to serial killers and mad-men, anyone gets in the way and he will kill them. We see two additional Sarah Connors killed off early on and, due to the nightime setting of the film, this merely adds to the fear of someone knocking at your door, late at night, and - just on such a trivial fator such as your name - you are killed. The finale, is industrial - the metal bangs and clunky machinery a reminder of the industrial world we live in - and the destructive future it may create. Is the real terminator captialism and industrialism - the dependency on such models for a society to survive, it eventually will walk over anything and 'terminate' anything to keep society functioning in its model?

The Terminator may be dated, but the root-issues are still relevant - potentially even moreso. The irony may be a discussion on the business model Avatar has created. A film made with huge technological advances in 3D and, finanically, a huge success within Hollywood - Avatar proves that there are films everyone will make sure they watch, importantly, at the cinema. But ironically, this has changed the goal-posts within filmmaking. Now any film that can be retro-fitted into 3D is made - and you only have to look as far as Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender to see that, although they made their money back (Clash with a sequel in the pipeline whilst Airbender was made to be part of a trilogy ... but we shall see if that happens...) I think everyone is well aware that these are not good examples of the future of cinema. The focus on new-techonology to help cinema make money detracts us from what is really neccessary - an investement in unique story and interesting characters. Will these things make money? Inception proves this is true ... but then again, with a plot ripped off from Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves, Avatar is still the model to imitate, whilst Inception is seen as a fluke.

What do you think? Is The Terminator a representation of our future? Could Avatar's techonological advancements eanr money in the short-term - but potentially destroy cinema in the long-term?

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com

We are also on Twitter (simonandjoshow) and Facebook.