"just good enough sequel"
Oh *that* good eh?
Fans of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator will be pleased to learn the Governator puts in a brief appearance in Terminator Salvation - albeit electronically, since the 61-year-old thesp was too busy running California to shoot new footage. According to the BBC, a press screening in LA prior to the McG-helmed film's 21 May US …
Anyone who watched the original Terminator and then T2 knew that any sequels would be shit. T3 proved that. The plot wasn't bad (if you could actually make it to the end of the film), but it was a typical now-era movie -- nothing but explosions. Contrast that with T and T2 which had more well-thought-out plots and much better action scenes.
I had already expected that T4 would continue in the new-Hollywood tradition of superbly bad writing and even worse acting, written specifically for the pre-pubescent "show me boobies and make things go boom!" mentality. Hearing that McG is involved merely confirms this.
"Regarding the film itself, said review (spoiler alert, natch)"
A note to reviewers in general (not that I even bothered to read the one referenced in the article): you are not a primary school child asked to write a story about what you saw in the cinema; do assess the acting, plot, locations, effects, whether these fit together in a way which justifies the ticket price; do *not* tell everyone "and then John Connor did this and then the Terminator did that and then Sarah Connor did this other thing and then blah blah blah, The End."
Not that I'm particularly interested in seeing the film, but film reviewers: does the hiring process select for stupidity?
Actually, the world would probably better off not having to support the flamboyant lifestyles of these self described "actors" I think.
Not to mention having to listen to the pompous opinions of a bunch of numb skulls who think that the fact that they are famous and stuff qualifies them to lecture the rest of us plebs about what's right and wrong in this world.
As an added bonus, the scientologists would be bankrupt within weeks.
I say bring on the CGI actors! Once Hollowood (eventually) gets over the pre-pubescent fascination they have for Teh L33t FX! they might get back to telling good stories. If they don't, somebody else will and without the added expense of paying some coke addled egomaniac a multimillion dollar bribe just for the right to use their Brand Name for marketing purposes because, as we all know, the "Tom Cruise" brand is so hot right now.
I'll take a CGI Paris as well, thanks.
Or rather over use of CGI is the fashon. Rember when the first talking chips came out, everything sounded like Steven Hawkin. Just because you have learned a new trick does not mean you should use it all the time.
Think about the feel of the original Mad Max film compared to the new Mission Impossible.
Some great films of the 70's had a sort of documentry style that built tension because they felt so real rather than simply looking impressive. Vanishing Point for example.
I do love CGI, The Matrix is very good.
This series has gone on too far but it has a horrible echo of the plot inside it...
The first film was good. The second film was also good.
In the films, computers (and robots) start out helping humanity.
The third film was terrible.
The TV show is a lame duck.
In the films, the robots turn against humanity and try to wipe them out.
I'd be surprised if this new film is any good at all.
As soon as I am able, I'm going to send back the robot I am building and ask it to kill off the writers of the first and second films. Not because they're no good, just because of the monster that they've spawned.
I think John Connor would be proud.
Seriously though, why the f**k do these guys keep churning out sequels (or remakes) of things that don't need sequels. Come up with a new plot for one, you moronic buffoons. (and no, an hour of explosions interspersed with a completely 1D love interest doesn't count as a plot)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020