Terminator Salvation

Terminator Salvation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews

Message

Empire Admin -> Terminator Salvation (20/5/2009 9:55:01 PM)
Post your comments on this article

Rgirvan44 -> RE: T4 (21/5/2009 7:50:17 AM)
You've got Devin doing reviews now? Thats pretty darn cool. Hope it will be an ongoing thing.

CORLEONE -> RE: Can't wait! (21/5/2009 9:04:22 AM)
Just when I thought I couldn't get more excited, I do.

Youshouldberunning -> Oh... (21/5/2009 11:16:02 AM)
...and I agree with the majority here, a very good review. Enthusiastic without gushing.

jmebaby25 -> RE: Man alive! (21/5/2009 11:36:27 AM)
@losthighway John Connor has grown up. Judgement day has happened. He has met his "Teenage Father" because he IS older than him. Remember that Kyle was in the first film because he travelled back in time and knocked up Connor's mom. Terminator Salvation is set before John Connor has sent Kyle back in time. That's why he's only a teenager. This film occurs after the events of T1 but before John Conner sends the grown up Kyle back in time. Anyways... I'm happy that the film got a 4 star review because i hope it's good. However, Empire do have a habit of hyping a film up so much that they feel obliged to give it a high score. Remember Hulk - 4 stars. Hell, they gave the Phantom Menance & Spiderman 3 both 3 stars (they were definitely deserving of 2 stars). I hope that this is a legitimate review because I desperately want the film to be good - but the 35% on Rotten Tomatoes is worrying

KingBigkerb -> That AICN review (21/5/2009 5:04:30 PM)
out of 89 reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes, T4 is getting an average of 36%. Is Devin sure he saw the right film?!? It was a good review but I just don't buy the 4 out of 5 rating. I suppose I'm going to have to watch it and make my own mind up... what an inconvenience! At this very moment, I'm officially more excited about The Asylum's 'The Terminators'. I actually like Harry Knowles quite a bit, he runs a great site and just because he lets his nerdpassion get the better of him at times it doesn't mean he's a chump. I agree with his reviews more often than not and I think the fact that he got so pissed about this film just goes to show how much he gives a shit about the franchise, which going by several reviews (not just his) isn't something that the makers of T4 seem to share. Also, if you go to the reviews page on AICN, he does have a disclaimer up about why their reviews are different. fightclubber, you seem to have a lot of pent up rage about horrible, smelly chubbers. Have you tried fucking your dvd player as a form of release? The only thing is, I heard somewhere that you might never cum...

Gazdance -> RE: good/bad (21/5/2009 6:08:33 PM)
I'm pleased, no - hopeful, having seen the four stars given here. I'm betting this will generate as much forum dross as the Indy IV review last year ("so what you're saying is that it's better than/worse than insert perceived better/worse film"). What's all this about 'proper critical journalism'? The Star Trek review was heavily criticised for being overly wordy and clever (it was) so here is a straightforward, easy to understand review and that's still wrong? I'm looking forward to this film a bit more now that I've seen some positive reviews. So far there has been little in the way of hype that I have noticed compared to previous years summer blockbusters so I'm hoping that my expectation levels have been set about right. Now, can Transformers 2 be better than it's predecessor please?

losthighway -> RE: Man alive! (21/5/2009 7:58:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmebaby25 @losthighway John Connor has grown up. Judgement day has happened. He has met his "Teenage Father" because he IS older than him. Remember that Kyle was in the first film because he travelled back in time and knocked up Connor's mom. Terminator Salvation is set before John Connor has sent Kyle back in time. That's why he's only a teenager. This film occurs after the events of T1 but before John Conner sends the grown up Kyle back in time. Anyways... I'm happy that the film got a 4 star review because i hope it's good. However, Empire do have a habit of hyping a film up so much that they feel obliged to give it a high score. Remember Hulk - 4 stars. Hell, they gave the Phantom Menance & Spiderman 3 both 3 stars (they were definitely deserving of 2 stars). I hope that this is a legitimate review because I desperately want the film to be good - but the 35% on Rotten Tomatoes is worrying That makes absolutely no sense... how can Salvation be after the events of T1 but before Connor sends Kyle back to 1984? John Connor shouldn't exist in 2018 if Kyle has yet to go back in time, because he's not been created yet!! [&:] Now i'm really confused!!! [&o]

Rgirvan44 -> RE: Have I missed something? (21/5/2009 11:21:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stillwater Couple of points really 1. If you are going to publish a review in a magazine that we pay money for, I expect to see a high standard of writing, NOT I might add a review that I necessarily agree with, but one which is well written none-the-less. This certainly was not one of those reviews. 2. My negativity of the review has nothing to do with whether the movie is good or not. I happen to be a fan of summer blockbuster movies and would more often than not watch one where 'stuff gets blown up' than some deep, existential guff. I read the review because I was looking forward to the movie, what I got was something that read like it had been written by a 13 year old boy. You paid to read the review?

Stillwater -> RE: Have I missed something? (21/5/2009 11:27:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 quote: ORIGINAL: Stillwater Couple of points really 1. If you are going to publish a review in a magazine that we pay money for, I expect to see a high standard of writing, NOT I might add a review that I necessarily agree with, but one which is well written none-the-less. This certainly was not one of those reviews. 2. My negativity of the review has nothing to do with whether the movie is good or not. I happen to be a fan of summer blockbuster movies and would more often than not watch one where 'stuff gets blown up' than some deep, existential guff. I read the review because I was looking forward to the movie, what I got was something that read like it had been written by a 13 year old boy. You paid to read the review? It will be appearing in the magazine will it not?

Rgirvan44 -> RE: Have I missed something? (21/5/2009 11:30:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stillwater quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 quote: ORIGINAL: Stillwater Couple of points really 1. If you are going to publish a review in a magazine that we pay money for, I expect to see a high standard of writing, NOT I might add a review that I necessarily agree with, but one which is well written none-the-less. This certainly was not one of those reviews. 2. My negativity of the review has nothing to do with whether the movie is good or not. I happen to be a fan of summer blockbuster movies and would more often than not watch one where 'stuff gets blown up' than some deep, existential guff. I read the review because I was looking forward to the movie, what I got was something that read like it had been written by a 13 year old boy. You paid to read the review? It will be appearing in the magazine will it not? Sure, but if you don't like the writing for this review you can either a)buy the magazine and skip those pages or b) don't buy the magazine. But the review itself is free content on site that can be accessed for free. Personally I had no problems with the review but it can come down to personal taste.

CORLEONE -> RE: That AICN review (21/5/2009 11:35:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KingBigkerb out of 89 reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes, T4 is getting an average of 36%. Is Devin sure he saw the right film?!? It was a good review but I just don't buy the 4 out of 5 rating. I actually like Harry Knowles quite a bit, You don't "buy" 4 stars, yet you haven't seen it. Good one. He's a childish prick.

Tank Boy -> RE: That AICN review (21/5/2009 11:54:40 PM)
I just over skirted that article, but Harry seems to have really laid into it....wow. Hey, my 100th post!

grucl -> RE: good/bad (22/5/2009 7:01:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gazdance The Star Trek review was heavily criticised for being overly wordy and clever (it was) so here is a straightforward, easy to understand review and that's still wrong? Maybe like this: T4: made of win&awesome (4 stars) Saves a lot of space on the printed page, too!

Aticus -> RE: good/bad (22/5/2009 8:03:06 AM)
Bets are closed that T2 - ROTF will recieve, yes youve guessed it, four stars!

grucl -> RE: Cynicism (22/5/2009 11:08:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 The general rule of thumb is 4-5 stars = Empire sold out 3 Stars = Emprie isn't willing to say the film sucked 2 Stars = Empire are idots for not seeing how good the film was and OMG look at what it gave better marks to! 1 Star = Acully, not many people complain about that. You forgot: 2-3 stars = why did Empire bother to "hype" that movie via on-set reports and preview "buzz" when they think it's crap?

Gazdance -> RE: Cynicism (22/5/2009 11:42:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 I'm hoping Devin doesn't take some of the "this review stinks" comments to heart. Its a blockbuster review thread on the Empire forums. This always happens before a film is released over here because there is nothing else to talk about. The general rule of thumb is 4-5 stars = Empire sold out 3 Stars = Emprie isn't willing to say the film sucked 2 Stars = Empire are idots for not seeing how good the film was and OMG look at what it gave better marks to! 1 Star = Acully, not many people complain about that. Hear, hear!

waltham1979 -> RE: Cynicism (22/5/2009 11:58:16 AM)
why do you lot read Empire? I mean seriously you apparently all fucking hate it and slate it so much I do in all honesty wonder why you bother!

Rgirvan44 -> RE: Cynicism (22/5/2009 12:06:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: waltham1979 why do you lot read Empire? I mean seriously you apparently all fucking hate it and slate it so much I do in all honesty wonder why you bother! Is that directed at myself and Gazdance? Cause I don't think either of us are slating Empire.

waltham1979 -> RE: Cynicism (22/5/2009 12:43:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 quote: ORIGINAL: waltham1979 why do you lot read Empire? I mean seriously you apparently all fucking hate it and slate it so much I do in all honesty wonder why you bother! Is that directed at myself and Gazdance? Cause I don't think either of us are slating Empire. no not you guys (c'mover ere and gimme a hug!). Just venting my spleen a bit. Whilst I admit I did post about how baffled I was by the review of Star Trek, their seems to be this growing trend of going onto the Empire website and criticisng not the movie, but the review itself and the reviewer, which I find just incredibly arrogant. My point being that if people dislike the Empire reviews so much, why are these people still reading them you know? Thats all...I possibly should have made that a little clearer?! [:)]

JRockwell -> RE: Cynicism (22/5/2009 2:18:44 PM)
It's hard to be objective when you're talking about reviews. Because Empire is a lot of different people with a lot of different opinions. Even if you got all your mates together to review a film you'd probably find differing opinions. For instance when Empire (bravely) gave Hulk four stars I thought it was a true reflection of the film. By contrast, everytime I read anything positive about Messsers Lucas and Spielberg's recent works it makes me want to set fire to the reviewers' shoes. But I have to accept that if I want opinions, sometimes they're not going to agree with mine. I think we should celebrate all opinions and not criticise Empire for providing us with theirs, by all means criticise the opinon, just leave out all the shite about why people bother reading the articles, because it's obvious why they do. I have not seen the film but my opinion of Devin Faraci's review (in the words of one of my University Professors after having read one of my essays I'd written drunk): "This is not good work - 14%" I hope you were drunk or similarly incapacitated Signor Faraci as your review was difficult to read. And not diffiulct as in 'I cannot understand your cutting witicisms' but difficult like descovering a rambling note written by a chimp and finding it almost entirely illegible.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: Cynicism (22/5/2009 2:33:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JRockwell I hope you were drunk or similarly incapacitated Signor Faraci as your review was difficult to read. And not diffiulct as in 'I cannot understand your cutting witicisms' but difficult like descovering a rambling note written by a chimp and finding it almost entirely illegible. Tee hee. Sorry - its like seeing an open goal. Can't resist![:D] And can people explain why this is a crushingly awful piece of writing? Or is it just about Devin and people not liking his attitude? I'm failing to see the problem here.

waltham1979 -> RE: Cynicism (22/5/2009 2:43:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JRockwell It's hard to be objective when you're talking about reviews. Because Empire is a lot of different people with a lot of different opinions. Even if you got all your mates together to review a film you'd probably find differing opinions. For instance when Empire (bravely) gave Hulk four stars I thought it was a true reflection of the film. By contrast, everytime I read anything positive about Messsers Lucas and Spielberg's recent works it makes me want to set fire to the reviewers' shoes. But I have to accept that if I want opinions, sometimes they're not going to agree with mine. I think we should celebrate all opinions and not criticise Empire for providing us with theirs, by all means criticise the opinon, just leave out all the shite about why people bother reading the articles, because it's obvious why they do. I have not seen the film but my opinion of Devin Faraci's review (in the words of one of my University Professors after having read one of my essays I'd written drunk): "This is not good work - 14%" I hope you were drunk or similarly incapacitated Signor Faraci as your review was difficult to read. And not diffiulct as in 'I cannot understand your cutting witicisms' but difficult like descovering a rambling note written by a chimp and finding it almost entirely illegible. I can see your point and I do agree with it to a certain point. I do in no way criticise people for having differant opinions to my own, especially when it comes to films. However I do not find it painfull and it irritates when people post stuff like "before I opened the review page I just knew Empire would give it 4 stars...", constantly bang on about Indy 4 then go on about how Empire always highly rates films that they give coverage on because it just isn't true (Wolverine anyone?!). That is when I ask why people even bother reading the articles. I am never going to get my head round why someone would, in my opinion, smugly and arrogantly open a review online with that negative attitude of 'well I know what its going to be 'cos its Empire' which I think is becoming the trend at the moment. It, as my classy friend so elogantly put it earlier, grips my shit. Personally I like the review. I think its a simple, basic review for what is - trust me - on every level a simple and basic film. It does make me personally cringe when reviews insist on trying to find subplots and methods in a film when their aren't any, but then criticise the film makers as if its there fault that they (the reviewer) wasted there time. Its a big, loud action film and I think the review simply reflects that, if you follow? If you don't like the review by all means say so but can we leave the comments about Empire's integrity, Indy4 etc at the door perhaps? Now its Friday afternoon so I am going to leave you with a smile (cos I've just had a pint so I am in fact writing this, like your essay not copus mentos) [:)]

Mr Terrific -> RE: Cynicism (22/5/2009 3:01:36 PM)
Latinoreview...review here. Sounds good/average summer blockbuster fare.

simassey -> RE: Cynicism (22/5/2009 11:28:52 PM)
Just got back from seeing the film I thoroughly enjoyed it and am surprised by the negativity of many reviews. My main gripe is that some of the editing is awful in this film - it is one of those films where you can almost see where they have ripped out whole scenes for some future extended version. Most of those jarring edits are during quiet moments in the film (in other words the "character" moments). Unless those scenes prove to be awful I think this hurts the film considerably. That said, even without these scenes, the film worked for me. For one thing this is the first Terminator film thats not simple a chase movie, rather a war movie and it is better for it. The action sequences and special effects are spot on. I missed the Terminator music though. Bale is pretty good but the focus is more on Sam Worthington and I thought he was really good. The so-called twist is obvious within 5 minutes though. Overall I would give it 3 1/2 out of 5

JRockwell -> RE: Cynicism (23/5/2009 1:06:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 quote: ORIGINAL: JRockwell I hope you were drunk or similarly incapacitated Signor Faraci as your review was difficult to read. And not diffiulct as in 'I cannot understand your cutting witicisms' but difficult like descovering a rambling note written by a chimp and finding it almost entirely illegible. Tee hee. Sorry - its like seeing an open goal. Can't resist![:D] And can people explain why this is a crushingly awful piece of writing? Or is it just about Devin and people not liking his attitude? I'm failing to see the problem here. [:@] - nice work mate. Fortunately for me I'm not getting paid to write my drivel and took no time checking it while doing something else at work. The point below is just one of the issues with the review. Devin will be in the Editor's office hopefully, expalining his 14%. quote: ORIGINAL: BenjaminLinus777 I registered just to comment here. Am I alone in thinking that this is a terrible review? Poorly written and even at times gramatically incorrect. For example, this isnt a sentence "McG�s movie doesn�t just serve up a monotonous series of humans vs. endoskeleton scenes." Surely, a writer reviewing for such a high profile magazine could do better than this? As a regular subscriber and reader of reviews and movie articles, I am shocked and disappointed. Faraci, do better.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: Cynicism (23/5/2009 1:25:01 PM)
As elab in the post above you pointed out - that is a sentence.

JRockwell -> RE: Cynicism (23/5/2009 1:38:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 As elab in the post above you pointed out - that is a sentence. It's awful though.

droo_face -> RE: Cynicism (23/5/2009 7:28:57 PM)
Oh dear, just a few points from me here.... I do agree with the realisation that his review is pretty poorly written, I know people on my course here at Uni who have written first class reviews to the standards of O'Hara and Hewitt, so I have absolutely no idea why this guy was given the mammoth task of reviewing one of the igniters to the Blockbuster season... I'm a film student and I'm sorry but those dashes were not needed at every given point, and possibly even a proof read to avoid the double repeat sentence right at the start of the review...? OK FINE I am nitpicking about grammar, but considering the mixed reviews the film already has; this wont deter anyone from seeing it, least of all avid Terminator fans such as myself. I personally cannot wait to see this film, am gutted its not getting a London Premiere, which is odd for a Warner Bros film as London is always 2nd/3rd after the Los Angeles premiere ( oh wait, just remembered they didn't distribute it; Columbia did ) ANYWAY im getting sidetracked. In a nutshell, can't wait for this, yes it won't be T1...It won't be T2...but I can already preconceieve the notion that its gonna be significantly better than T3.

Spengler -> RE: Cynicism (23/5/2009 8:28:55 PM)
You know what? Everyone who has slated this review, when the film comes out - go and write a better one, post it on here, and the rest of us can rip it apart. Until then, just shut the fuck up.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.0703125