RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000

RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (Full Version)

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

Message

CORLEONE -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (11/6/2009 8:39:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Felix Some scenes are very good, the early explosion while Connor is in the helicopter being a stand out for me. Yeah, that was brilliantly filmed. Felt like I was in the chopper with Connor!

Andybee76 -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (11/6/2009 9:40:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Felix Well, I enjoyed it. Yeah some parts are ludicrous and it does seem to be trying to win the award for Most Improbable Coincidences, but who cares. Its got shit being blown up and frankly, what more can you ask for in a Terminator film. Its a gazillion times better than I thought it would be when McG was announced. Some scenes are very good, the early explosion while Connor is in the helicopter being a stand out for me. Here, here!! I thoroughly enjoyed it!! I loved the first two Terminator films they are both in my list of all time faves and I thought this was a worthy addition to the series. I know people have complained about certain scenes like there not being many terminators in the factory at the end, but if there were then it would have been difficult to have that fight which reminded me in parts of Sarah Connor, Kyle and Arnie in the factory at the end of the first film!!!

Tech_Noir -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (11/6/2009 12:26:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CORLEONE quote: ORIGINAL: Mr Thunderwing The situaltion that the Terminator franchise finds itself now is similar to that of the Alien series: first movie great, second movie ups the stakes and does even better, third movie, a noble attempt, close in spirit to the orginals, but ultimately a failure and then finally a fourth film where something completely new is tried, in both cases with fairly disasterous results. Terminator Salvation pisses all over Alien: Resurrection! That's not hard to do.

Mojo -> RE: Terrible (11/6/2009 12:40:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HIM I kind of agree with Steve Irwin in that it did feel like a rather pointless film at the end. In the same way that many prequels add nothing new to a franchise, this felt the same. Also, I don't know if this has been mentioned (I haven't read the whole thread) but is this a continuation of the timeline established in Terminator? i.e. will John still send back Kyle in 11 years or have the events of past movies and this one changed what Kyle told Sarah back in 1984? The reason I ask is that Kyle made no mention of the Marcus Wright Terminator at all. Also, he says: "The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new.* They look human... sweat, bad breath, everything."* The new ones are of course the Arnie ones, but as Salvation takes place in 2018 and Kyle is sent back in 2029 why does he refer to them as 'new' when they've been around for 11 years? I would expect that Kyle will be sent back before 2029, as in the original film isn't he supposed to be around 20 and he isn't far off that in Salvation. The timeline has changed - "this isn't the future my mother warned me about" - and so thinks will be slightly different. Kyle will be sent back though, I think that is one of the few things which will definitely happen.

gunstar -> RE: Terrible (11/6/2009 12:50:35 PM)
It's nice to see that althought the planet's been ravaged by nuclear armageddon and the remaining survivors are scratching an existence whilst fighting off crazed killer robots, everyone has really nice, shiny teeth. I tried to enjoy it but I couldn't. For me, the biggest problem was comparisons. The first three terminator films (yep, even 3) treat the audience with a modicum of intelligence. This one treats them like they are fucking idiots who have to be told everything that is happening through the character's winsomely inane dialogue. Still, picked up in the last third though. But still pants.

waltham1979 -> RE: Terrible (11/6/2009 1:06:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gunstar I tried to enjoy it but I couldn't. For me, the biggest problem was comparisons. The first three terminator films (yep, even 3) treat the audience with a modicum of intelligence. This one treats them like they are fucking idiots who have to be told everything that is happening through the character's winsomely inane dialogue. . I really think we are falling into the trap of looking at the first Terminator films through rose tinted glasses here. I love the films, they are classics but they are not perfect and I don't think they - especially the first one - require any modicum of intelligence to follow in the slightest. They are great films, but they ain't Shakespear by any stretch of the imagination!

gunstar -> RE: Terrible (11/6/2009 1:12:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: waltham1979 quote: ORIGINAL: gunstar I tried to enjoy it but I couldn't. For me, the biggest problem was comparisons. The first three terminator films (yep, even 3) treat the audience with a modicum of intelligence. This one treats them like they are fucking idiots who have to be told everything that is happening through the character's winsomely inane dialogue. . I really think we are falling into the trap of looking at the first Terminator films through rose tinted glasses here. I love the films, they are classics but they are not perfect and I don't think they - especially the first one - require any modicum of intelligence to follow in the slightest. They are great films, but they ain't Shakespear by any stretch of the imagination! No, certainly not. But Salvation makes the first three seem like Shakespeare due to the inherent awfulness of the script. Which is awful.

waltham1979 -> RE: Terrible (11/6/2009 1:49:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gunstar quote: ORIGINAL: waltham1979 quote: ORIGINAL: gunstar I tried to enjoy it but I couldn't. For me, the biggest problem was comparisons. The first three terminator films (yep, even 3) treat the audience with a modicum of intelligence. This one treats them like they are fucking idiots who have to be told everything that is happening through the character's winsomely inane dialogue. . I really think we are falling into the trap of looking at the first Terminator films through rose tinted glasses here. I love the films, they are classics but they are not perfect and I don't think they - especially the first one - require any modicum of intelligence to follow in the slightest. They are great films, but they ain't Shakespear by any stretch of the imagination! No, certainly not. But Salvation makes the first three seem like Shakespeare due to the inherent awfulness of the script. Which is awful. No granted the script is never going to win an Oscar which was a little disappointing (especially given the brother Nolans involvement in it). I really enjoyed the film to be honest but I think the problem stems from the desire to get the new Terminator franchise (fucking hate that word) to a generation of people that probably havent seen the original films or cannot appreciate them. For example; my wife is a teacher and rescently sat a load of teenagers in front of Jaws for a media lesson and they said is was shit because the special effects were crap and they additionally thought that Aliens Vs Predator was better than the other Aliens films because there was more action and violence in it. THATS the generation that this film is going for because without it the film will flop at the box office. I grew up on films like Terminator 2 but this was essentially a relaunch of the films in a way so it was always going to want to pander to a new audience of people who, with the greatest respect, want there blockbuster films young and dumb. I mean for gods sake they are advertising Terminator Salvation toys on the Cartoon Network channels at the moment!! [:@] If they were to turn the film into something almost identical to the originals it will come under the same criticism as that of Superman Returns. Less of a film in its own right, more if a homage to the first two films. I think this film is doing both, its pandering to a new audience and trying to create a new series of Terminator films that does not completely alienate hardcore fans of the first two films (and arguably the third) and I think on the whole its done a pretty good job.

gunstar -> RE: Terrible (11/6/2009 2:04:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: waltham1979 quote: ORIGINAL: gunstar quote: ORIGINAL: waltham1979 quote: ORIGINAL: gunstar I tried to enjoy it but I couldn't. For me, the biggest problem was comparisons. The first three terminator films (yep, even 3) treat the audience with a modicum of intelligence. This one treats them like they are fucking idiots who have to be told everything that is happening through the character's winsomely inane dialogue. . I really think we are falling into the trap of looking at the first Terminator films through rose tinted glasses here. I love the films, they are classics but they are not perfect and I don't think they - especially the first one - require any modicum of intelligence to follow in the slightest. They are great films, but they ain't Shakespear by any stretch of the imagination! No, certainly not. But Salvation makes the first three seem like Shakespeare due to the inherent awfulness of the script. Which is awful. No granted the script is never going to win an Oscar which was a little disappointing (especially given the brother Nolans involvement in it). I really enjoyed the film to be honest but I think the problem stems from the desire to get the new Terminator franchise (fucking hate that word) to a generation of people that probably havent seen the original films or cannot appreciate them. For example; my wife is a teacher and rescently sat a load of teenagers in front of Jaws for a media lesson and they said is was shit because the special effects were crap and they additionally thought that Aliens Vs Predator was better than the other Aliens films because there was more action and violence in it. THATS the generation that this film is going for because without it the film will flop at the box office. I grew up on films like Terminator 2 but this was essentially a relaunch of the films in a way so it was always going to want to pander to a new audience of people who, with the greatest respect, want there blockbuster films young and dumb. I mean for gods sake they are advertising Terminator Salvation toys on the Cartoon Network channels at the moment!! [:@] If they were to turn the film into something almost identical to the originals it will come under the same criticism as that of Superman Returns. Less of a film in its own right, more if a homage to the first two films. I think this film is doing both, its pandering to a new audience and trying to create a new series of Terminator films that does not completely alienate hardcore fans of the first two films (and arguably the third) and I think on the whole its done a pretty good job. It's a really interesting point. However, I'm not putting forward the argument that the film should be the same as what has gone before I'm simply stating that it should be good. It may be true that a younger audience is less disconcerting, but does that mean that studios should not even try to create something of quality in areas aside from special effects? You can have a balls-out kick-ass action extravaganza that has a decent script. The two aren't mutually exclusive, surely?

waltham1979 -> RE: Terrible (11/6/2009 2:42:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gunstar quote: ORIGINAL: waltham1979 quote: ORIGINAL: gunstar quote: ORIGINAL: waltham1979 quote: ORIGINAL: gunstar I tried to enjoy it but I couldn't. For me, the biggest problem was comparisons. The first three terminator films (yep, even 3) treat the audience with a modicum of intelligence. This one treats them like they are fucking idiots who have to be told everything that is happening through the character's winsomely inane dialogue. . I really think we are falling into the trap of looking at the first Terminator films through rose tinted glasses here. I love the films, they are classics but they are not perfect and I don't think they - especially the first one - require any modicum of intelligence to follow in the slightest. They are great films, but they ain't Shakespear by any stretch of the imagination! No, certainly not. But Salvation makes the first three seem like Shakespeare due to the inherent awfulness of the script. Which is awful. No granted the script is never going to win an Oscar which was a little disappointing (especially given the brother Nolans involvement in it). I really enjoyed the film to be honest but I think the problem stems from the desire to get the new Terminator franchise (fucking hate that word) to a generation of people that probably havent seen the original films or cannot appreciate them. For example; my wife is a teacher and rescently sat a load of teenagers in front of Jaws for a media lesson and they said is was shit because the special effects were crap and they additionally thought that Aliens Vs Predator was better than the other Aliens films because there was more action and violence in it. THATS the generation that this film is going for because without it the film will flop at the box office. I grew up on films like Terminator 2 but this was essentially a relaunch of the films in a way so it was always going to want to pander to a new audience of people who, with the greatest respect, want there blockbuster films young and dumb. I mean for gods sake they are advertising Terminator Salvation toys on the Cartoon Network channels at the moment!! [:@] If they were to turn the film into something almost identical to the originals it will come under the same criticism as that of Superman Returns. Less of a film in its own right, more if a homage to the first two films. I think this film is doing both, its pandering to a new audience and trying to create a new series of Terminator films that does not completely alienate hardcore fans of the first two films (and arguably the third) and I think on the whole its done a pretty good job. It's a really interesting point. However, I'm not putting forward the argument that the film should be the same as what has gone before I'm simply stating that it should be good. It may be true that a younger audience is less disconcerting, but does that mean that studios should not even try to create something of quality in areas aside from special effects? You can have a balls-out kick-ass action extravaganza that has a decent script. The two aren't mutually exclusive, surely? Oh no definately not. I think you only need to look at a film like The Dark Knight to see that the two can go brilliantly hand in hand and, whilst Terminator Salvation is by no stretch of imagination even in the same league as that film, I think it does deliver on the promise of the trailer that it is an action film - nothing more, nothing less. I am actually really interested in seeing the full cut which from what I have gathered will be released on DVD. I suspect the film is actually a lot longer with a lot more dialogue in making it possibly better. A good example of this is DareDevil where the directors cut made for a better film (and it went up a rating as well as a result which is what a lot of people seem to be griping about?!).

mattdavies86 -> My verdict (11/6/2009 3:13:48 PM)
Spoilers! I saw this on Saturday afternoon and have yet to post my thoughts on the film, as it has taken me so long to reflect and get them together in my head! Spoilers Firstly, it�s not a disaster by any means. When I left the cinema, I felt pretty much as I did after watching T3 - entertaining in places, disappointing in others, just pretty bog standard. The main gripes I had with it were the dodgy dialogue, cheesy ending (that felt tacked on) and bloody plot holes. McG certainly can do action. The mototerminator and harvester sequences were pretty impressive, although at the time I was thinking it was very Tranformers-esque. Now I don�t have anything against the use of CGI, but at least James Cameron knew how to blend this with model work (as he did on T2) to give it a more authentic look � I�m referring to the rather Mordor looking Skynet in Terminator Salvation! I was pretty disappointed with Bale�s performance. When he signed on to the film I felt he would be giving it a certain mark of quality. He takes his gruff Batman voice (which I have no problem with when he is playing that character) and uses it for this character. If they had the medicine and tools to perform heart surgery, surely there would have been a few strepsils floating around?! His performance is just very phoned in, although many can argue that this is for lack of enough character development in the script � I wonder which scene it was when he lost his cool with the lighting chap? On the bright side, performance wise, I found the early sequences with Yelchin and Worthington to be the most entertaining. However, I think more of an effort should have been made to keep Worthington�s identity under wraps � too much was revealed in the trailers, and the reveal in the scene between Wright and Connor just had no impact. Also, a shame we didn�t get a scene-stealing performance from Moon Bloodgood�s assets! Maybe on a director�s cut/extended edition DVD�. Is it generally expected that there will be director�s cut on the DVD? I have tried getting my head around the plot holes and all the contradictions revolving around the time-travel element of the Terminator series. It truly is a mind fuck. One explanation for something will no doubt contradict something else that has happened in the series, for example, the argument over John Connor�s father. Some say that had Kyle not been sent back through time, Sarah would have met John�s original father. However, in the original timeline, John told Kyle his father died before the war, and gave him a picture of Sarah (the one taken at the end of T1), which, as Kyle said, �you looked sad. I always wondered what you were thinking at that moment�. Kyle was therefore always John�s father. However, that doesn�t make a whole lot of sense because John had to exist first to send Kyle back! Now I�m giving myself a whopping great headache. The main plot hole in Terminator Salvation revolved around Skynet�s plan/scheme of using Kyle as bait to bring Connor in. If Skynet knew about all previous attempts (which McG claims the T-X uploaded this information to Skynet in T3) and knew that Kyle was important to John Connor, surely they must have known he was his father? Therefore, why not just kill Kyle and be done with it? Emry has provided a case for this, claiming Skynet has a real sadistic element to it, almost an emotional experience (supported by certain mannerisms of the T-1000), and therefore really wanted to fuck with its arch nemesis Connor by killing his father in front of him and then himself. As great as this all sounds, I don�t seriously think the writers are that intelligent � we are talking about the two guys who wrote Catwoman aren�t we? All in all I hope they finish this new trilogy they�ve started, although box office takings seriously need to improve (cynical I know, but that�s the way the studios work). As good as the action sequences were, McG can�t do emotion for shit, so bring in a new director who can handle both � James Cameron anyone? Very wishful thinking. If they do this proposed story where the resistance goes back in time (as McG has hinted at) they can fuck right off. We�ve waited for a story about the war, and I think that�s what the fans want. Not the same, repetitive going back in time to change things, resulting in full mental breakdown of fans trying to comprehend what the fuck is going on, please!

Titanm21 -> RE: My verdict (11/6/2009 4:32:36 PM)
Hi Peeps, I have a question about Terminator Salvation (Spoiler Warning). In the scene when Marcus is talking to Skynet and she says something along the lines of �you have done what we have failed to do in the past� bring this target to us� or something like that. Well it sounds to me like Skynet is making reference to the other Terminators from the previous films (T800, T1000 and the TX). If that�s so isn�t this meant to be set BEFORE the whole time travel thing starts? So how can skynet know they fail before she sends her first one back? I�m I getting this wrong or did I miss something? P.S I know Skynet is not a female, I�m just saying it cause it used the doctors face.[:D]

Titanm21 -> RE: My verdict (11/6/2009 4:35:33 PM)
Duplicate

Titanm21 -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (11/6/2009 4:36:50 PM)
Duplicate

Titanm21 -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (11/6/2009 4:37:24 PM)
Duplicate

ky -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (11/6/2009 6:10:44 PM)
quote: However, I think more of an effort should have been made to keep Worthington�s identity under wraps � too much was revealed in the trailers, and the reveal in the scene between Wright and Connor just had no impact. Also, a shame we didn�t get a scene-stealing performance from Moon Bloodgood�s assets! Maybe on a director�s cut/extended edition DVD�. Is it generally expected that there will be director�s cut on the DVD? Agreed. Trailers show way too much now - only Nolan seems to understand this; going in to watch both his Batman films without much idea of what wa going to happen was a lovely experience. And Cloverfield managed to be similar, too. quote: In the scene when Marcus is talking to Skynet and she says something along the lines of �you have done what we have failed to do in the past� bring this target to us� or something like that. Well it sounds to me like Skynet is making reference to the other Terminators from the previous films (T800, T1000 and the TX). If that�s so isn�t this meant to be set BEFORE the whole time travel thing starts? So how can skynet know they fail before she sends her first one back? I�m I getting this wrong or did I miss something? P.S I know Skynet is not a female, I�m just saying it cause it used the doctors face.[:D] Yeah, that is quite confusing. Though, when she said they'd failed to kill him for so many years, I thought she/it meant since Judgement Day. Also, as people have pointed out, SkyNet may have found records of Reese's police interrogation, and of Sarah Connor's psychiatric interviews, in which case they'll know that they will create time dislpacement and that John Connor is the leader of the resistance. Like John only coming into existence by sending his dad back in time, maybe SkyNet only discovers time travel by learning that they will do in the future ... so it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hope that makes sense. I've managed to convince myself, anyway [:)]

Tech_Noir -> RE: Terrible (12/6/2009 1:17:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gunstar It's nice to see that althought the planet's been ravaged by nuclear armageddon and the remaining survivors are scratching an existence whilst fighting off crazed killer robots, everyone has�really nice, shiny teeth. Glad I wasn't the only one to notice that, it really pulled me out of the film. I still don't understand why people don't "get" the first film. Kyle Reese was always John's father, it has nothing to do with "Oh, there was another guy who was really John's father and Reese going back changed the timeline, blah blah" - it's not that complicated people, Reese is John's father and everything is linked by a loop. It's perfect. It's really Cameron's fault for introducing the "No Fate" idea in T2 and having the future changed to suit a happier ending, goes against the first film completely and as a result we have this mess of alternate realities, delayed judgement days, etc.

CORLEONE -> RE: Terrible (12/6/2009 1:34:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir quote: ORIGINAL: gunstar It's nice to see that althought the planet's been ravaged by nuclear armageddon and the remaining survivors are scratching an existence whilst fighting off crazed killer robots, everyone has really nice, shiny teeth. Glad I wasn't the only one to notice that, it really pulled me out of the film. I didn't notice their teeth, and don't give a fuck about their teeth. The only time I even knew about their teeth was when some pedant mentioned it on one of the earlier pages of this thread. It's only 2018. Is it really inconceivable that all the world's toothpaste is gone after 9 years? Not forgetting that 99% of humanity has been wiped out so it's not being consumed anywhere nearly as fast as it is now. In a world about a future war with machines, some choose to focus on character's teeth. This nitty picky horseshit pisses me off, in case you hadn't noticed [:D]

Tech_Noir -> RE: Terrible (12/6/2009 1:37:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CORLEONE In a world about a future war with machines, some choose to focus on character's teeth. This�nitty picky horseshit pisses me off, in case you hadn't noticed [:D] If we have a future war movie with killer robots and audiences are distracted by the characters teeth, we know there's something not right. [;)]

Rgirvan44 -> RE: Terrible (12/6/2009 1:41:49 PM)
My problem with the Future we see is that I have watched Threads, the great BBC movie about what would happen after a nuclear war. Terrifying. While we see ruined buildings and it isn't a really pleasent place - people seem to be getting on. No radiation sickness, no death at every step. So it was a bit tame to some of the visons I have seen.

CORLEONE -> RE: Terrible (12/6/2009 1:42:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir quote: ORIGINAL: CORLEONE In a world about a future war with machines, some choose to focus on character's teeth. This nitty picky horseshit pisses me off, in case you hadn't noticed [:D] If we have a future war movie with killer robots and people distracted by the characters teeth, we know there's something not right. [;)] I prefer to think of them as "pedants" rather than "people".

filmburner30 -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (12/6/2009 2:38:52 PM)
The best review of this film was by Mark Kermode on radio 5 . He was toatlly right about Bales gravel voiced delivery and McG not being a very good director. After i saw it i realised he was right ,i should have known the director of the Charlies Angels films was a busted flush 5/10 A big big flop

CORLEONE -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (12/6/2009 2:41:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: filmburner30 The best review of this film was by Mark Kermode on radio 5 . [:@]

filmburner30 -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (12/6/2009 3:12:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CORLEONE quote: ORIGINAL: filmburner30 The best review of this film was by Mark Kermode on radio 5 . [:@] Sorry mate he is right though about McG The guy couldnt direct traffic ,and in a film like this that can be fatal . Good Visuals and loud bangs cant make up for afilm which is ultimatly boring . Roll on Transformers Revenge of The fallen at least with Bayhem you have some fun

Tech_Noir -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (12/6/2009 3:20:11 PM)
There was nothing wrong with McG's direction, it was all down to the script and the compromises made in the edit.

porntrooper -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (12/6/2009 3:27:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir There was nothing wrong with McG's direction, it was all down to the script and the compromises made in the edit. Fuckin A. McG has to take accountability in some respects..... but his direction of scenes and action was not the problem. There are no particularly bad performances in the movie so I say it's fair to assume he worked well with his actors and he knows how to handle action better than most. He couldn't get around some serious plot holes and coincidences driving the story and he certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Warners requesting cuts to meet run times/ratings. Not many directors can prevent that kinda thing. What is for certain though, his direction of what is on screen is pretty damn good. Far better than I expected.

CORLEONE -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (12/6/2009 3:57:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: filmburner30 quote: ORIGINAL: CORLEONE quote: ORIGINAL: filmburner30 The best review of this film was by Mark Kermode on radio 5 . [:@] Roll on Transformers Revenge of The fallen at least with Bayhem you have some fun You expected Terminator Salvation to be fun? A post apocalyptic world of humans scrambling around for survival against a much stronger enemy and you wanted fun? Better stick to Transformers then (which I am looking forward too).

Tech_Noir -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (12/6/2009 4:54:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CORLEONE You expected Terminator Salvation to be fun? A post apocalyptic world of humans scrambling around for survival against a much stronger enemy and you wanted fun? Better stick to Transformers then (which I am looking forward too). Well it failed to be moving or frightening so fun is the least you can ask for - and by fun I'm sure that means "entertaining". [:D]

Lex Romero -> RE: McG = Ed Wood + $150, 000, 000 (12/6/2009 6:38:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porntrooper quote: ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir There was nothing wrong with McG's direction, it was all down to the script and the compromises made in the edit. Fuckin A. McG has to take accountability in some respects..... but his direction of scenes and action was not the problem. There are no particularly bad performances in the movie so I say it's fair to assume he worked well with his actors and he knows how to handle action better than most. He couldn't get around some serious plot holes and coincidences driving the story and he certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Warners requesting cuts to meet run times/ratings. Not many directors can prevent that kinda thing. What is for certain though, his direction of what is on screen is pretty damn good. Far better than I expected. Quoted for truth. Of course you could say that a better director would have held out for a better script or not let Bale demand a bigger role for John Connor, but the actual direction of action scenes and the cinematography are all excellent. The faults are entirely with the script and it's a shame so many people are simply going with "oh blah blah I knew McG would be shit lolz" reviews of it.

gunstar -> RE: I am sorry but... (13/6/2009 9:46:52 PM)
quote: In a world about a future war with machines, some choose to focus on character's teeth. This nitty picky horseshit pisses me off, in case you hadn't noticed Come on now, that's not very fair. I was only focusing on the teeth in an effort not to doze off.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.046875