Story story story story story story story story story story story story story.



That's what you need in a film or book or whatever to make it worth watching, reading or whatevering. That's what's entertaining the spectacle of these films just isn't enough to give it any longevity. Let's face it, it's not even enough to get you through an hour and a half most of the time.



I have often thought they should have a screen devoted to running a non-stop series of unrelated computer effects for those who want that sort of thing. They could arrive when they liked and wander out again two hours later or however long their attention span lasts. And the effects people could just have a laugh without the bother of it meaning anything. You could call it an installation if you liked, even art, just don't call it a film.

Technically it's a prequel and like Wolverine we know what happens, or the story of the future just isn't that interesting, plus it's a 12 (TWELVE) A which says it all.

When was the last really harsh 18 certificate film that 15 year old boys were all talking about? I finally saw Martyrs the other week but shouldn't have got my hopes up. More dull dungeon rubbish. At least the Crank people are trying.

On the subject of the Good Doctor's pro-horror / anti-action bias, I do not agree. Lots of horror films and action films get a slating, but then lots of horror films and action films deserve it.



However, when it comes to comedy films I do think Dr Kermode can be unusually harsh in some cases. True, there are lots and LOTS of really bad comedy films released on a regular basis, but I'm struggling to recall any out-and-out comedies in recent years that have been strongly recommended.



In the Loop, for example, is a very smart satire and well received, but not an out-and-out comedy.

While we're all attacking the Good Doctor for his bias towards and against certain genres, can I point out his disatisfaction and blatant prejudice against American comedy. Christopher Guest aside, I have a feeling that Mr Kermode will already have a formed opinion in his mind upon seeing an American comedy, even if he doesn't realise this.



My point is following from his review of 'The Hangover' a solid, breezy 'bromance' comedy, complete with a mixture of the clever and the crude and a thread of heart without having sentimentality shoe horned into the last act. Not a classic, but it's a welcome comedic gem.



Back to 'Terminator: Salvation' though... it was awful. But I have to admit, it didn't offend me as much as Transformers.

I was watching some children's TV with my 4yr old son the other day and was stunned to see an advert for Terminator: Salvation action figures!



If anyone wonders why films such as this are rubbish they need look no further than this:



It's because they have been filled with non-violent action to appeal to the young children who then pester their parents for the latest piece of over priced plastic crap that they can break and get bored with really quickly.



The marketing people are to blame, the summer blockbuster season is turning into a television commercial for action figures and cheap toys and we the mighty consumer are lapping it up.



Until we realise that they won't stop unless we stop going to the cinema and buying their spin off crap then we will have to suffer this garbage!



Rant over. Thanks

LyleFox - it works both ways my friend, as demostrated by Mark's tirade against Transformers 2 these 'tenpole' movies designed to garner maxium possible box office are in their efforts to enocourage all sections of society into the cinema so broad in focus that they cannot help but be jacks of all trades and masters of none.



The orignial Terminator was an uncompromisingly violent 18(?) certificate, as the franchise progessed it became more comercial (I'm pretty sure there were T2 toys actually) to the point at which T-S is a 'kiddy friendly' 12A. Conversely Transformers started as a U cert childrens cartoon series designed to sell toys with often moralistic tales of good versus evil and has now become a morally corrupt action movie franchise full of product placement, brash sexual inuendo and semi naked valley gils drapped over muscle cars. Both franchises have been compromised from their original intent in order to attract bigger audiences and as a result there purpose has been so muddied they are no longer recognisable as what they once were.

Mark,

You criticized Hot Fuzz as too long. This is my evidence that you sometimes fail to understand or enjoy the simple pleasures of action movies. The entire movie built up to this magnificent climax through story and character. The climax beautifully sent up every convention of action movie set-piece blowouts. For you it read like something closer to the pointless, contextless action of Terminator: Salvation, but for me the climax of Hot Fuzz was hugely enjoyable and managed to be kinetic and winking at the same time.



In conclusion you are correct about T:S being terrible, but I don't think that means it's unfair to say you have a small blind spot when it comes to fully enjoying action-oriented movies.

Sleeeves comment is spot on. Personally, I thought T:S was okay. Not a patch on T1,2 & 3, but okay. Perfectly passable. It could've been worse.

"Redemption"...yes definitely this video explains a whole lot more than the previous "review".I can see now his points...



This blog keeps on winning credits.Keep up the good work Doc.

Having now seen the blog, good points well made (totally agree about the Hostel films, by the way). I still thought T:S was okay though.



So what is more important - great ideas or great execution?

Firstly, i've not seen Terminator Salvation yet, not sure when or if I will. But isn't the "it shouldn't have been an action film" defence on the Good Doctors part a little juvenile?, it's a bit like saying your not going to comment on how good or bad the chinese food was because you'd expected pizza!



Perhaps he'd try having a third go at it pretending he doesn't know anything about the director or about the previous 3 films. Obviously if he still thinks the film stinks, then fair enough, but film reviews with less baggage really do help the audience to gauge if its something they themselves would enjoy.

I haven't seen the film and don't intend to, however this has been going around the internet and I think it sums it up really,



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcaNZ4iHSMw

lesingesavant



Firstly, Hot Fuzz is *far* too long.



Secondly, I think the issue here is the bloody-minded brainlessness of the action genre. Regardless of how perfectly the first two thirds of Hot Fuzz set up the final third, the final third was still eye-wateringly boring as a piece of cinema.



When what is on screen - and what is making up the majority of the film - is pure, metallic, robot-thumping action, the result is simply boring. If a film is produced to push the envelope in terms of special effects, then it should be kept short, and done in a way where the effects are beneficial to story - Cloverfield's boundary pushing hand-held shaky cam sfx is a good example. 300 minutes of tedious robot thumping is not.



Action is form, not content. Strip the action and sfx away from Wolverine or Transformers and you have, literally, nothing. The days of classic action sci fi, such as Escape From New York, seem depressingly far away.

hardy 24



What Mark was getting at with the "shouldn't have been an action film" comment is that making Terminator as an action film is simply lazy. The first and second *were* action films, sure, but just goes to highlight the difference between modern and classic action flicks.



The classics, like the first Terminator, are plot and ideas driven, with special effects brought in because of the sci fi nature of the story. Now, there is no initial story - a film is put into production on the premise that it is going to be loud, violent and effects heavy. And *then* the story is written, in all its wafer-thin glory.

Let's forget this Terminator debate, Transformers is STAGGERINGLY bad, and needs genuine attention.



While Terminator may not be anything memorable, it has reasonable intentions compared to Transformers, which is so IRRESPONSIBLE id depressed me. Now a film as childish and single-minded as it is isn't a bad thing, but the problem is Bay's irresponsible nature; I'm not going to assume that he is as chauvinistic and neanderthal as the film makes him seem - he may be filming Megan Fox slathered over a bike with a postmodern eye.



HOWEVER, with this comes a responsiblity - the responsibility of his audience, which is meant to be families. I'm unsure as to whether children soaking the film up will think twice about ogling the women/cars/explosions etc or whether it instead just promotes the ideals of six-pinter-blokes-on-a-Friday-curry-bender.



This relates in some way to Crank 2, which I thought was decent; most of the film is so clearly self-aware that it's a videogame that it's disappointing to see the stripper-massacre, which IS a misogynistic sequence. However because of the rest being so self-aware, I don't feel that the filmmakers are that hate-fuelled. Bay doesn't have any self-awareness like this, which makes me question his morals and if he should be in charge of something so popular.



But then this is just censorship for the left, so it's a difficult/impossible topic.



It's policing your audience. Also goes for Bruno/Last House On The Left/Borat/Scream....etc.



I had a genuine urge to follow in the footsteps of anti Last House On The Left protesters and storm the projection booth to slash the celluloid. While the actions would do nothing on a big scale, they'd get some vague attention, and I'd feel briefly purged.



But IMAX reels are about 15ft across, it would've taken days.



That rambled a bit.



PS - On the subject of Crank's stripper-massacre, Andrew Collins is UNFORGIVABLE for walking out and still thinking he can review the film.



Well, not unforgivable. I'm not THAT aggravated. It's immature.

Crank 2 was okay to a point - and then I just lost it. It became SO tongue in cheek, ironic, self-aware, post-modern etc that it just disappeared up itself. Not boring, but certainly brain scrambling.



T:S wasn't that out-there, was it? It was okay, could've done with some humour actually - T2 & T3 did that well, to act as a good counterpoint to the end of the world stuff.



The only film I've come close to walking out of was The Cell (my wife's choice!)- total, utter drivel. Otherwise, if I've paid my money, I'll endure it, no matter what. (I did walk out of The Matrix Reloaded, but that was because of having a very uncomfortably pregnant wife at the time, so I don't count that!)

Indeed I havent seen this video but I did think Kermode's original rant about T:S was a little unfair. I found it to be a reasonably well executed action movie, it lacked a lot of the spark and Cameron flavoured genius of T1 and 2 but it was certainly head and shoulders above the made for TV blandness of Rise of the Machines. Bale's acting wasnt his best, there were plot holes you could drive a flaming semi through, and it did fall appart a bit during the 3rd act but there were saving graces. I really enjoyed the character of Marcus Wright (as predicable as the OMG! Im a robot! bit was), The guy playing Kyle Reese was great casting, the action sequences were often collosal but unlike those of Transformers uncluttered and smooth, the CGI Arnie actually looked pretty good!



It wasn't the best Terminator movie, it wasn't even the second best but it certainly wasn't the worst. If I had my way they would have stopped at T2 but they didn't, so at least this went some way to rescueing the franchise from ending on the bum note that was ROTM. Personally my opinon is as average as T:S is its still a better movie than Star Trek and (althuogh I have not see it, I suspect) Transformers 2.

Life's too short to argue about franchise milking, but I must say...



FANTASTIC T-SHIRT!

people WILL go and see transformers 2 and terminator salvation and the box office WILL be good and quite likely take enough money to spawn another film, but i wonder how many people come out of the cinema hating the films.



I wonder what would happen if people started asking for there money back if they disliked a film? i don't know what industry policy is for refunds or even if they are legally bound to offer refunds? We may find out that many of these films are a case of "the emperors new clothes" and is in fact entirely propped up on exagerated popularity (the cinematic equivalent of sub-prime mortgages).



It's starting to worry me that these type of films are money orientated to a massively exagerated degree over and above anything else, what would happen if it failed? (beyond the massive silver lining that they would stop making them) i wonder how much of the studios profit margins are dependent on these films and if they collapsed what would happen to an industry where funding for film makers who have good ideas and love film find it so hard to find funding?



yes many of the summer blockbusters are fine and you don't expect them to be great but there is a limit and i think transformers 2 is perhaps the first film that has crossed it.

You may well be right armadilloslim but in order to be sure I'd have to go see Transformers 2 and by doing so give it my finanical blessing. No wonder people download so many movies illegally which is ironically one of the main reasons these 'Tentpole' movies get made! It's a catch 22 situation isn't it. If only there was a legitimate 'try before you buy' or refund policy. I have no idea how that would work tho but it can't work any worse than churring out 4 or 5 generic, show boating, effects ladden, absolute stinkers a year.

Go easy on that laptop, it's not a double bass.



@armodilloslim: The only summer blockbuster that I have seen that has been 'fine' is "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3". Star Trek was no better (or worse) than A&D. Terminator Salvation was dreadful and Night at The Museum 2 was just about OK. I am not even going to bother with Transformers 2 even though I am a big John Turturro fan.



I am looking forward to hear Mark slaughter "Year One". If it is anything like the scene where Cane slaughters Able we will be wincing in our seats [at the screening I went to people were audibly uncomfortable. Bad, bad scene]

I believe the box office hits are a knife that cuts both ways.

People will always go and watch them,supporting the Michael Bayish film making,which can be both good and bad.In case its bad you get transformers,fantastic four,hellboy ect....but if its good you get Lord of the rings and Matrix.

Occasionally directors can operate through the Hollywood system and deliver wonderful films with small budgets that sticks into people's minds more than any transformers(see The Wrestler).

So i would prefer to support Hollywood by paying for my cinema ticket rather than downloading the movie,for the sake of the next Wrestler.

Sleeeeves: I kind of agree with what your saying, but essentailly its the same point that I was making in the first place. The blockbusters have all levelled out and compromised to the point where they are all pointless action filled, plotless garbage (I haven't seen Tranformers yet, but I guarantee its the case there too.)



I enjoy being proved wrong on this, and indeed some high budget summer fare has done so, but the industry needs a shake up again (as per the 80s and the origins of the blockbuster) and McGeeeee and Michael Bay need to be rested. They are getting far too excited with the freedom they are being given to blow stuff up and shake the camera.

LyleFox: I think that was a typo. I think you meant to type:



... McGeeeee and Michael Bay need to be arrested.

Or perhaps, laid to rest?

Am i the only one who thought Hostel was a disappointment because of how tame it was. All this hype about it being a milestone in cinematic gore and violence, yet it was so badly made that what violence there was to be portrayed was shabbily done and affectless, and of what gore there was ot be thrown at me was minimal. Gore movies 'like that' dismiss any talent, or any raw care for such things, and simply concentrate on crowd pleasing in the form of excessive blood and gore. I wouldn't be so frustrated by it all if Eli Roth didn't aid in the press' rave reviews of its horrific levels of violence... I CAN'T be the only one who was disappointed with Hostel, rather than bothered by its being a terrible film that degraded horror cinema... Surely i can't!

.. Oh yeah Terminator Salvation was abysmal. Judging by how the film left me once it had finished it should of been called Terminator Prostration.

OK finally got to watch the video and yeah Mark has a valid point, Yeah Salvation was story light and and what story was left didn't make a whole lot of sense, and yeah Terminator is more about a Sci-fi idea than it is about action. However story removed everything else about T:S somehow managed to keep me interested unlike T3 and the oddly popular Star Trek which I would argue had no story other than that engineered to wipe the slate clean so the franchise can be rebooted. For me I think it came down to watch ability, I wasn't bored watching T:S, I was entertained which I guess is what these movies are all about these days. So in hindsight maybe I was suckered.



I still think Salvation is a better movie than T3 mostly because although it had a story it was mostly the same story as T2 tweaked to include less violence, swearing and talented actors.

Thanks for reading out my comment, always get a buzz out of that :) But...science fiction movies with ideas....Star Trek? For the love of God K-mode :) Unless you address this is issue, Star Trek will forever sit like an unseen Giant Space Amoeba in your film critical room :) I don't think I posted something before but the critique of the Michael Bay canon was hilarious. Great pod from Edinburgh too, cheers....

I have to say, I don't buy this argument. It seems perfectly legitimate for a sequel to switch genre from that of its predecessor. In fact, one of the best examples of that comes from James Cameron himself. Alien was a horror movie set in space, Aliens is all-out action and both are classics in their own rights.



If you want another example, look at Evil Dead. The first one's fairly straight-up horror, then the second perfects a particular type of slapstick horror comedy. And then there's Army of Darkness, a pastiche of action adventures with horror elements.



It's entirely reasonable for a sequel to change the rules of engagement, as long as it makes the new rules clear. And, say what you like about Terminator: Salvation, there's no question from the very get-go exactly what sort of film you're going to get. So take it on its own merits.



After all, there's plenty to dislike about it without worrying which genre it -should- have been.

Crank 2 was ace... a complete riot.

The good doctor is right that T4 shouldn't have been an out and out action movie. The template T1 (and T2 was a very clever remake) was a chase movie with suspense. (How can the T800/1000 be destroyed?)

T4 completely lacked suspense; the ending was never in doubt. As for plot it has two, and never really meshes them together; it just collides them clumsily together.

The idea of a man realising that he is no longer fully human and is considered untrustworthy by both sides should have been the main story; in fact T4 could have done with no John Connor at all and would have been better for it; but that's star power for you.

All the guff at the end about the heart making one human is so ludicrous its cringe worthy come on its the mind that makes us human.

The problem I found with the action parts were that at times even the 'real' footage was shot so it looked like CGI, otherwise it felt like I was watching a 2 hour trailer for the game and boy, were those terminators disposed of easily, even in hand-to-hand combat. The sense of threat was missing too.

Like a lot of series everything good that could be done was in the first two movies. From then on its downhill, not least in the ideas department. S different director wouldn't have made much difference; Hating McG isn't the solution.

How many splosions are in this one? Need to make sure I stay on top in terms of splosions per second. Anyone got a number?

The good doctor is correct and I know why some are complaining about Marks subjectivity. You really wanted T4 to be good, I know how you all feel I wanted it to be good too and I thought Bale was the one to reinvogorate things.

Ah well maybe no McG and T5 could be so good it will have all hailing terminator as the ultimate quintiligy.

I'm certain Kermode is absolutely right that the Terminator is a blandly bad action film--I'm not going to see it--but I would violently argue with him that the first one was an ideas based Sci-fi film. Actually it was a clever marriage of the then hot slasher type film and the action flick, using a pretty standard sci-fi set up, rather like the first Alien. The result really was good eighties hokum, no philosphy involved (Alien, on the other hand, had a cool, charged, atmospheric lyricism). And on the other topic, you definitely are softer on Horror than almost any other genre. For instance I finally got around to watching the loose remake of Friday the Thirteenth, and there's just no excuse for the wishy-washy it's-all-right-for-what-it-is-but-why-bother review you gave the thing. It's was a stupid, incoherent waste of time and money. At 96 minutes the movie still managed to seem stale, at least ten minutes too long. The acting, while a good deal better than in the original series, made the schlock types they played somehow even more annoying, so that when they got killed it wasn't such a great loss, hence not scary. Even the extensive eighties style nudity simply seemed quaint. And though it had a fair amount of gore it came off as bad in the same taste-free way all those dull Japanese remakes do, and you should have warned your audience about this. Your review of Last House on the Left, which you played down the middle, is probably more likely to send younger audiences to the movie than not, because you have led them to believe it will be an effective test of their horror mettle, violent and nasty all the way. They're not going to care if the movie's point, approach, or theme is out of the historical context of the original--why does that matter? The message you gave us was that it was an effective horror movie that got to you. You need to point out that these films are dorky and unscary and that if audiences can't get their bare breasts and blood letting needs from more fulfilling sources than these then by all means see the things, but be prepared to nod off. I tune in weekly for your wonderfully hilarious rants, but you're not always as vigilant as you should be. There's so much you could have gone off about these terrible horror remakes!

Hey folks. Glad to get a mention on this esteemed blog!

'The Terminator' should have started and finished with the first film. It didn't need 3 sequels, and certainly didn't deserve a lame TV series. One of the justifications for the sequels - especially T2 - was for the development of the Sarah Connor character, but in the first film we already see her go from being a timid young woman to a warrior (in the factory we see her dragging Reece yelling "On your feet, soldier!"; or the way in which she gives Reece a field dressing when they stop to rest under a bridge). She goes from from being a frightened, anonymous young woman to the saviour of mankind in the space of 2 hours, and we see the changes during the course of the film. No sequel is needed. In addition, the film ends with her driving down a desert road toward a storm, both metaphorical and real; yet at the beginning of 'Terminator 2: Judgement Day' she is locked up in a mental hospital, presumably for being crazy after telling the authorities about her ordeal. This is a complete non-sequiteur, as in no way at the end of 'The Terminator' do we get any indication that she is considered insane (the police psychologist only thinks Reece is a "loon"). Frankly, 'The Terminator' needed sequels about as much as a fish needs a bicycle, so for me a 4th film is just plain ridiculous, and merely indicates that once again Hollywood has utterly destroyed what was an original and thought-provoking idea for the sake of a quick buck. If you don't agree, then look at the downright cynical way in which the film's certificates came down with each sequel - 18,15, 12, 12a. I rest my case, m'lud.

Dr. Doctor K,

It's great to see someone sticking up for Terminator 3. This was the first Terminator film I saw, and while in hindsight it isn't as good as the other two, it was the reason I got into the Terminator franchise. While much of the film was a recycling of Terminator 2, it serves as a useful companion to the other two films, contains many sequences and dialogue which are engaging (unlike McG's recent offering), and since it's only a 12 certificate film, it's a good way to get children interested in what is, like you said, at heart a science fiction trilogy.



P.S. Claire Danes was great in Stardust, as you probably already know.

Dr. Doctor (again, sorry),

During my finals a friend of mine lent me the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD. I watched them in between revision sessions and found them to be less enjoyable than when I was a teenager - and not just because Return of the Jedi, the best of the original three, has been ruined by the presence of His Royal Plankness, Hayden Christiansen.



From reading your review of Sunshine back in 2007 (which I have yet to see, to my great shame), I now see your point about Star Wars being an "infantilisation" of early-1970s stuff like Silent Running and 2001. The films are still enjoyable but they are not as deep as I once thought.



One thing I would like to ask, however, and this relates to the 'success' of Transformers and Terminator. Star Wars is often grouped with Jaws as being the birth of the high concept movie. Is the problem with Transformers and Terminator rooted in the fact that they are extreme forms of high concept movie? And if so, do all high-concept films suck?

I totally agree with Mark Kermode's review of Terminator 4 and have some of my own comments below : -



The first 2 movies in the franchise are classics - and while the third movie wasn't brilliant it still had some interesting and valid elements in it.



Terminator Salvation fails on a number of levels - firstly is the fact that there is no Arnold Schwarzennegger in the whole movie (the ridiculous constructed Arnold T800 special effects at the climax of the movie are crap.) - I was laughing at how terrible the movie got when that scene started. The special effects in this movie dont even come close to the beautifuly designed visual effects of the first 3 Terminator movies.



Also all the previous Terminator movies have powerful actors in them such as Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton and some great performances from newcomers - You only have to check out the successful performances of Edward Furlong and Robert Patrick in T2 and of course the younger Arnold in the original Terminator movie(although he wasnt a complete newcomer when he made the first movie).



Unfortunately Salvation has a very wooden performance by Christian Bale (The worst actor to ever play John Connor!)- he completely ruins the movie and is almost completely overshadowed by the supporting cast, and doesnt even compare to the hi-lites of that film Sam Worthington, Anton Yelchin and Moon Bloodgood who seemed to carry the film better with their performances.



The plot of the movie is not terrible - its just the bad execution of it - there is nothing in here to indicate that its a valid sequel - The future battle story isnt a bad idea - but you need to be able to pull it off - There are so many great directors out there doing some really smart stuff with science fiction - yet this movie shows what can happen when a good idea is executed badly without any care or respect for the previous storylines and characters.

1. Get rid of McG or at least send him to film school or something? In the meantime, try to tempt a director like David Finscher to jump in as soon as McG gets fired (inevitably).



2. Get new pens on the script and stick to the CHASE MOVIE structure.



3. Like with Batman Begins - use Bale (for what we know he is capable of) and build the story around him showing the new world from his perspective. We have yet to get close enough to the older John Connor (thanks to Salvation favouring Wothington).



4. I'm all for changes and surprises but they need to be better than what we have been given. Skynet and Connor are both aware of the past events and so this is where these two sides should really tackle each other head on.



5. Get Weta in to work on some new concept machines - I think we need a fresher perspective on things.



6. Get a new sound designer who is not deaf?



7. Skynet needs a strong representative to follow on from Arnie and Robert Patrick. Salvation had nobody and I mean NOBODY!



8. Bring back the old score or at least get Hans Zimmer to give us a new one?



9. John Connor would have a signature motorbike modified to his own specification.



10. Find out if James Cameron wants to be involved... somehow?