I'm probably going to be swimming against the tide here but, I actually enjoyed this film.



When it comes to Kermodian reviews, there consistently seems to be a double standard applied, depending on which genre it is - as genres are equal but some genres are more equal than others, in the eyes of Dr. K. it seems.



Given that you are a self-proclaimed champion of genre films (specifically horror, but even extending to the 'tween-concert movie' sub-genre!), I think you have a tendency to treat action/effects-heavy movies with undue harshness.



What we have here is essentially a B-Movie on a Hollywood budget (I mean, Michael Ironside is in the cast for goodness sake! Is there anything more B-movie than that?). Indeed, it fulfils many or all of the obligations of a genre film of its type: the noise, the visceral visual spectacle, the tension and excitment, not to mention the superb visualisation of the post-apocalyptic world.



Okay there were numerous plotholes ("as-if" moments as my partner and I would call them) and a large proportion of the dialogue was decidedly hokey, but then didn't Romero's "Dead" films, or even the more recent "Cloverfield" suffer similarly? At least it didn't take itself anywhere nearly as seriously as the Matrix films.



As you are someone who often extholls the virtues of genre cinema (specifically "Hanna Montana: the Movie" et al), I find it deeply hypocritical for you to then attack films such as Terminator (and even Transformers) for essentially doing the same thing: namely fulfilling genre expectations.



Qualitatively, what is the difference between going to see a trashy, low budget B-Movie and an expensive, lavishly produced B-Movie? The ticket price at the box office is ultimately the same, afterall...

Too true



It's very apt he's called McG Because, like the other famous 'Mc' (the fast food one), he serves up bad quality, badly prepared junk.



But Mark, McG's reign of terror doesn't end there. Did you see that McG was going to go ahead with an American remake of Simon Pegg's UK TV sitcom 'Spaced'.



McG kept pressing ahead despite massive hostile reaction, and no intention to consult the original creators. Only several high profile statements from Pegg and Herculanean rants Spaced fans finally got him to change his mind.

''Qualitatively, what is the difference between going to see a trashy, low budget B-Movie and an expensive, lavishly produced B-Movie?''



When you go and see 'Chicken Park' or 'Troll 2' or even the dutch B-movie masterpiece 'Intensive Care', you know its gonna be a total piece of poop. Thats the difference.



When someone takes a succesfull franchise be it Terminator or X-men and makes a film so utterly stupid as Salvation or Origins, you can complain because it isnt what you are used to.



If Coca-Cola started putting appele juice in the cans, you would complain.

''you can complain because it isnt what you are used to.''



i meant the quality. I'm all for suprised and twists.

if this "film" is the depth and quality of fertilizer the mould of culture should be rather good this year! At least we can only hope that this is the worst of the summer blockbusters but i doubt it.

I haven't seen T-S, but I thought Charlie's Angels was feelgood fluff with explosions. It's like the song says:



"You know feeling good was good enough for me

Good enough for me and Bloody McG."

MCG (who should go by the name Joseph McGinty, because that's his name) always said that the inspiration for Terminator Salvation was to show the fans the future war which the the previous films on teased. Having now seen the 4th installment to a series that should have ended with T2, I have to agree that it was pants.



Like T3 this film should not exist. I got more from James Cameron's teases of Judgment Day in T1 & 2 than I did throughout the whole of T4. The machines were as intimidating as Kristanna Loken in T3 who was needless to say, not very intimidating. The film should be an all night film and should also be...well...good!



"You stay down by day, but at night you can move around. But you still have to be careful because the HK's use infrared."

Kyle Reese describing the future war in 'The Terminator'



Please for the love of god stop making Terminator Films. I would rather 'MCG' make Charlies Angels 3 (even though he kind of already has) than see him or anyone else make Terminator 5!

Joseph Nichol it's not because you're so McG, it's because you're rubbish.

The director's one thing, but what really puts me off seeing this is Christian Bale and his insistence on using that ridiculous Jason Statham voice.

"When someone takes a succesfull franchise be it Terminator or X-men and makes a film so utterly stupid as Salvation or Origins, you can complain because it isnt what you are used to."



I would take your point if you were talking about something seminal like 'Bladerunner' or '2001: A Space Odyssey' (indeed, 2010 is utterly superficial in comparison).



However...*deep breath*... The Terminator series as a whole is as daft and superficial as the next dumb action film series and *yes* I DO include both the original and "Judgement Day" in that assertion. Neither features particularly good writing, scripting or acting. However, like "Salvation", they don't really *need* to, because they are simply genre SF/Action B-Movies (again, with better budgets).



The point I try to make above is that "Salvation" is nothing more and nothing less than a reasonable, slightly unremarkable example of a genre film and thus, by Dr. K's standards ("Hanna Montana", "Drag Me To Hell" et al), ought to be judged accordingly.

Sequels, prequels remakes. That's prettu much the movie industry today...

pretty

There is however one person to blame in all this who aided McG in making this CGI crap fest of 'Titanic' proportions, none other than James Cameron. After all, as Cameron's creation it was him who gave his permission to McG to make this film. So if you want to blame anyone in this whole cinematic debacle it's James Cameron

"Joseph Nichol it's not because you're so McG, it's because you're rubbish."



HAHA you beat me to it.



Yeah I watched the film last night and it is terrible (but I did have a good laugh at it mind).

So many coincidences and flaws in the film, I lost count within the first ten minutes.

My fav bit is at the beginning, when John Conner is screaming (as you do) into the radio, to some poor bloke.

They should have hired Michael Winner for that scene to top it off.



Calm down dear its only a Terminator film

@william chadwick - I don't think Cameron had much say in anything after T2, I seem to remember him being pretty upset about T3. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the studio held the rights to the franchise and Cameron had no say in the matter. He was offered to direct T3 but declined, saying that he felt he'd finished the story with T2, which of course he had.



The comment referred to above about how McG wanted to show the war that was merely 'teased' in the first two says a lot. The whole point of only seeing glimpses of the war in the first two is surely because they are about the threat of it happening, and their goal is to try and make sure it never does happen (in the second one at least), so it surely makes more sense only to get a rough sense of it if it either hasn't happened or never will happen.



What frustrates me is that this is apparently the first in a new series of films, which is an alarming trend with movies at the moment. There is no need to 'revive the franchise' here, the story told in the first two stands by itself, there is nothing more to add to it. I can only hope that Terminal Salivation does so badly that it kills the franchise off.

Portable Toilet? You have become such a phenomenon in your own right that it's a

very long time since I made that association, so thanks for reminding us! ;-)



If you set your unrecognizable dystopian future just 9 years from now it says to me that you really think that the film you are making is going to have a very short shelf life. You will probably be able to do a university thesis on the Terminator film timeline(s), especially as they are inconsistent between themselves. I just cant bring myself to care any more. Especially as you know that if anything apparently defining happens (good or bad), it can be undone in a subsequent film by sending a character from the future/past into the past/future. From a likable 10 year-old in T2 John Connor turns out to be an obnoxious t*rd, just like his mother, Sarah. They do try to bring in an interesting character in this film with the help of a little madcap bio-engineering from Helena Bonham Carter but it is not enough to save the film. The crash-bang-codswallop special effects are faintly interesting but not enhanced by the very loud, low-frequency sound effects. The action sequences don't come close to those of T2 and a digital Arnie is a poor substitute for the real Arnie.



At the end of the screening I went to it seemed like people couldn't leave their seats fast enough. Not a good sign but at least there wasn't the audible dissatisfaction including one very loud "B***S***!" that I experienced after being dragged to hell [I think the ending of DMTH was weaker than the rest of it and any of the jokes and references to the evil dead films were lost on me. A demon that has to do circular motions with his legs (like a bloke being dangled on a wire)

doesn't really convince you he is levitating. The sequences with the old crone were the best. Just not my genre, I suppose].

The biggest problem with T-S is thats its possible along with Wolverine one of the most boring action films ever made. Ill pretty much watch any rubbish but I struggled to keep my eyes open throughout T-S. There was also to much pandering to Fanboy stuff, like Connor getting the scar seen at the start of T2 and the CGI Arnie. As for the T-600s they are less realistic than than T-800 from the original film with is over 20 years ago

I think we can all agree amidst the cinematic carnage that is Terminator Salvation; Christian Bale trying to pull of "I'll be back" was as stomach churningly painful experience.

Kermode's rants becoming more and more high production, high quality Christian Bale rants, without Bale but the good Dr.



And on that note: ridiculous, how everybody went nuts on Christian Bale. An actor on the set is either dynamite or not worth his money.



BTW my full last name is: Alex Trpkovic - please don't hate me for it.



Twitter: @buckybit

Dr. K, it wasn't a lighting man/camera-man Bale went ape at, it was the cinematographer Shane Hurlbut.

Also, don't mean to critisize you further, but your quiff is looking particularly floppy. You should be able to stand right next to an operating helicopter and it should stand in place.

Hi Dr K



I was asked by a friend if I fancied watching Terminator-Salvation. I hadn't read any reviews or seen any trailers; the only thing I was aware of was the Christian Bale rant. So I went along last Saturday.



I'm trying to remember at which point I really started to hate this film. Was it when Bale started shouting "CONNOR!" in his American GI accent? Was it when we were introduced to a black kid who can't speak? Was it the point when we realise that Sam Worthington's character is actually a machine and we, the audience, are meant to be surprised? Or was it the stomach churning, sickly ending? Although the positive thing about the ending is that it is the end.



I listened to your review this morning, Tuesday 9th, and found your comments amusing, especially about Bale's rant; I had said something very similar on Saturday after the film that Bale's rant was brought on by a realisation that he was in an awful movie.



There were also many movie rip-off moments, many on which people highlighted in Friday's programme. Maybe that's what the film is about. Like others, I did spend a great deal of time picking out scenes taken from other movies; I would like to add The Great Escape to the list.



Very importantly, regardless of all the action, TS is boring. Although I don't expect action movies to be deeply profound, they still requite substance to be truly entertaining. When are film makers of today going to realise this. It's not enough to have explosions, crashes, gun fire, etc....or is it? Is mediocrity the new standard in action films? Is this now what action movies are about, with characters and plot being a thing of the past. I hope not!!!

Why do I hate McG? Well, he fits into my very special club of 'Hollywood's most shallow and inept directors' along with: Roland Emmerick and Michael Bay. All of them only seem to care about how good stuff looks on screen and care little about narrative and characters (and in most cases, even acting for goodness sake).



Seriously Mark, it's the 4th in the series and the third sequel - did anyone really expect it to be as good as 1 or 2? Hasn't the story gone as far as it can? T2 was the last one, in my eyes.



Stop milking franchises dry until Hollywood, until the well of ideas has dried up long ago *cough* Shrek The Turd *cough*



Give me an example Mark and the rest of the posters here of great 4th installments in franchises that surpass the outstanding first or maybe second films? *crickets sound*



Overall, no one could pay me to see T-S or that terrible Jurassic Park-esque Land of the Lost coming up.



I swear, about 80%+ of Hollywood films are complete rubbish IMO. The remaining percentage are maybe mediocre to 'good but not a classic', then a few would be excellent.



As long as Hollywood keep sticking to cliched filmmaking, things will get tedious.

I take umbrage to your pronunciation of 'McG'. It's actually pronounced 'McGee I Wish I Hadn't Seen That Film.'

Dr. K, I agree entirely.

McG is just awful.

His filmography is as good as none.



Why do people keep defending these terrible filmmakers? Bully them until they don't want involvement in the film industry, then we can have some peace.

fantasy_escapist wrote:Give me an example Mark and the rest of the posters here of great 4th installments in franchises that surpass the outstanding first or maybe second films? *crickets sound*







I'll give you something similar:Who needs another batman movie?the franchise is sucked dry!that's a statement from guys like you before batman begins was released.Then Dark knight.Well?Tim Burton did a great job with the first two,used the best vilains,and jack became an icon as the joker.Well,all that is gone now isn't it?

Just because something is a sequel doesn't mean it will suck.The majority of them suck,i'll give you that,but personally i sacrifice all that for a godfather 2,x-men 2,dark knight,shrek 2,T2 and so on..







If you guys thing TS is a rubbish,cheap ripoff movie then obviously you haven't seen many movies.

I would expect the good doctor to be more fair to this movie-as he treats other movies rather soft like star trek,drag me to hell-but he wasn't.





Why Star trek got better review than TS?Both have huge plot holes,cheap action,and Spock's lines were even worse than Connor's.Both are equally entertaining though.So why pick on TS?





Drag me to hell??seriously? because its a horror movie it gets fair treatment by the doctor?The point is how does it look AS a MOVIE.And the answer is...not so good.

Favoring genres is not a good idea and i would agree with the first post:



"When it comes to Kermodian reviews, there consistently seems to be a double standard applied, depending on which genre it is - as genres are equal but some genres are more equal than others, in the eyes of Dr. K. it seems. "







I like comic book movies but there's no way i would favor fantastic four(both of them),Hellboy(both),Ghost rider,Daredevil,X-men 3 and so on...

If a movie is GOOD then its GOOD no matter what the genre is.

Good doctor i love your reviews but you fell short on this one..it wasn't actually a review,just a rant against McG.

Next i believe you'll do better.chears

The tendency of fights to break out on his sets suggests a lack of authority on the part of McG and his inability to oversee a satifying creative environment for actors. Please see Bill Murray, Lucy Liu and Chritian Bale.



When Christain Bale exploded and ranted vicously at the cinematographer, where was McG in all of this? Nowhere, he just stood back meekly and let his star go on a ridiculous tirade unchecked.



This also suggests another fault with the production of the movie, namely that Christian Bale had too much control over it, and also reaffirms the suspicion that McG exercised insufficient authority, which this is something i'll return to later



Coupled with this is his incapacity to undertand overall story and characters. Mark, you often talk of the death of narrative cinema, and McG is one of the prime perpetrators of this. At best his films amount to the odd visually glossy cinematic moment, but which ultimately leaves the viewer feeling that a little something has died deep inside.



Returning to the point that Christian Bale had too much control over production. Rumour has it that originally the screenply was mainly focused on sam worthington's character, but because Bale was insistent on playing John Connor, he demanded that his character was expanded. Thus resulting in a confused, messy and unbalanced screenplay that didn't know whose story to tell.



This is another indictment of McG as a director. Surely a competent director whould have been able to spot this problem and rectify it. But no, not McG, he wanted to keep everyone happy, Bale, the studio and the producers all at the expense of delivering a fully statisying and cohesive terminator movie.



His lack of authority, his lack of an overall vision, his tendency to compromise at the expense of story and character all contributed to this shoddy terminator film. McGee thanks!

That's funny, love the sunglasses thing at the end. I definitely think subjectivity creeps into Mark's reviews so I'm glad we have the opportunity to have a pop at him about it on this blog. Once bitten by StarTrek Troopers is twice shy. This thing about McG though...naff though it may be (Dr K anyone?) and despite being excellent comedy fodder, you could still just refer to him as Joseph Nichol if it winds you up so much :) Personally I think we should all call Mark MK (emphasis on the M) or even McK in revenge for things like dissing O Brother Where Art Thou, one of the best films ever made.... :)

Actually if you lengthened the M and put the emphasis on the K in MK it would sound like the mmmmmkay catchphrase of the Mr Mackey character in South Park. That might be even more annoying. Hey mmmmKay... :)

Well I'm still getting nightmares after seeing Terminator.



I keep dreaming of a third Charlie's Angels film directed by Orson Welles.

To top it off is stars William Shatner as Batman.

Listening to Christian Bale's furious rant on the set of 'Terminator Abomination' is more enjoyable and fulfilling than this film will ever be. Besides, 'Terminator' did not deserve 3 sequels, nor a silly TV series; and the original 'Terminator' is and will always be the best. So I wish the stupid Hollywood execs would put this franchise to rest once and for all. Incidentally, I realised Hollywood had become a parody of itself when I saw a sight-gag in 'Airplane 2' featuring an old man with boxing gloves starring in 'Rocky 30'...and then Sly Stallone comes along as does another Rocky AND Rambo film! Enough said.

Everything said by Mark Kermode about this film is true



Poor Direction

Poor Script

Poor Acting



Why did I go see it after MK review. Its Mark's fault I listen to his review and saw all the signs to avoid it and then he said it was comparable to transformers. I liked transformers and thought it may simply be a case of different tastes with regard to Terminator Slaveration



Sadly not



Odeon made money out of a Turkey

It's one thing to make a bad film, it's another to make a boring one. McG's one of a long, dull host of film-makers that, no matter what the subject matter happens to be or the money on hand, can't seem to make even simple ideas interesting. I suppose it's the telling of stories they don't understand, and without that all else seems to count for very little.

When I first saw a film directed by McG I thought Mark was talking about a famous cricket ground in Melbourne, Australia. Could a cricket ground also direct a movie as badly??

defeis -



"I'll give you something similar:Who needs another batman movie?the franchise is sucked dry!that's a statement from guys like you before batman begins was released.Then Dark knight.Well?Tim Burton did a great job with the first two,used the best vilains,and jack became an icon as the joker.Well,all that is gone now isn't it?

Just because something is a sequel doesn't mean it will suck.The majority of them suck,i'll give you that,but personally i sacrifice all that for a godfather 2,x-men 2,dark knight,shrek 2,T2 and so on.."



I didn't mean or say that sequels are crap. What I said is the THIRD sequel in a franchise in usually disappointing or complete rubbish.



Of course, I've enjoyed the majority of those sequels you mentioned, my point was that they should've ended it on a high instead of bad 3rd or 4th installments. I like to think of it as leaving a party of your own accord when spirits are high rather than being given very dirty looks and being shown the door :D



As for Batman Begins - well, that was a reboot, not a sequel, so it doesn't have much to do with my 3rd sequel rant at all, really. If they choose to discard previous continuity and start afresh, that's their perogative. Usually, it could be a good thing ... that however is another story, to be told another time :)

fantasy_escapist wrote:

"I didn't mean or say that sequels are crap. What I said is the THIRD sequel in a franchise in usually disappointing or complete rubbish."



Agreed there.Nobody can deny it.



"they should've ended it on a high instead of bad 3rd or 4th installments."



Again,its easy to say when they should end a franchise AFTER the movie is released and viewed.If the number of the movie is 2,3 or 4 it doesn't really make a difference.If it's a good movie it will stand up for itself.





You made a very good analogy with the party right there.Some times you really need to leave the party when spirits are high,but then again how do you know?The party might get even better if you stick around a little while.In the end you might get the girl that stayed too :)



The chances of a 1st sequel to suck are the same as the chances of the 2nd.and the 3rd...and so on..i mean there are not many examples of more than 4 sequels that we can use to prove that point,but...even rocky balboa was ten times better than rocky 5.The franchise died with a bad 5th movie but it was resurrected with the 6th only to bring closure despite everyone warning Sly not to do it.



Lord of the rings is the 3rd part of the franchise and it did pretty damn good.and so on..



So my point once again is simply this:If a movie is GOOD,it doesn't matter if it's a sequel,its GOOD.





"As for Batman Begins - well, that was a reboot, not a sequel, so it doesn't have much to do with my 3rd sequel rant at all, really. If they choose to discard previous continuity and start afresh, that's their perogative. Usually, it could be a good thing ... that however is another story, to be told another time :)"





Again i think you are slightly missing the point here.

The word "reboot" doesn't really change much.Because its a "reboot" and not a "sequel" doesn't reassure that the movie will be good.You can call it anyway you want,but there were 4 batman movies before that and that makes batman begins a kind of sequel.

I guess you would say batman forever is a sequel to batman returns.Well its not...because it didn't pick up where batman returns left of.

In the same way batman and robin was a sequel to batman forever.Again its not...only it is! you get my point.All these batman movies choose to ignore the previous installments but they are still sequels.Same as batman begins.





The new Batman is coming.Its the 7nth on the franchise and the 3rd on the "reboot" series.I think it will do fine.If it never comes out...we will never know.If it does,and sucks...well then we'll know :) chears

This was a review of Terminator Salvation?! I thought was it more trying to trash the director?



Sounds like your dislike of the director, has directed you away from actually reviewing the film.

On ABC (Australia) Radio National's Movie Time last week, the day you kept uttering "McG" in a squeaky voice, Julie Rigg said (on air!) what sounded to me like "I've always thought McG was a bit of a w*nk*r myself for adopting that pseudonym." (audio available at https://www.abc.net.au/rn/movietime/%29

You think you're harsh about him?

I like Kermod passion and intensity of each of his blogs but he seems to analyse more what makes a movie and the surrounding of it and judge from those instead of making a real review of the movie. looking forward to that.

Where do I get a Comsat Angels shirt?



and for the record Joy Division are much better in every way but thank you for turning me on to the Comsat Angels.

I agree with tom_c_100 and firewalkwithme.



M. Night Shyamalan is an equally "ridiculous" name as McG,and the guy made sixth sense.Who cares about names.



Doctor K,people are still waiting for a real review.

I'm with Mark on this one. I went to see T-S last night, as I'd enjoyed the first Charlies Angels film by McG and I must admit, I thought T3 by Mostow was entertaining.



However T-S turned out to be a real dud, it was sooo worthy and above all, so boring. Not even the great cast could save this film. And it was so derivative, it reminded me of what Terry Gilliam said about Roland Emmerich:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjcqOkc6UUw

And yet despite the almost universal panning, I am willing to bet that Terminator Stagnation will be number one at the box office tomorrow. Why does everyone insist on going to see films that we all know are going to be awful? This is why we have to put up with Hollywood churning out such awful films; people go and see them anyway.

I thought this was really good. A million times better than the rubbish T3. The lack of humour (for the most part) is crucial in the Terminator world. Christian Bale and Sam Worthington were decent, the dystopian feel worked perfectly. I cannot really fault it. And I too was seriously worried about the choice of director. It's a well made B-Movie Action flick.



I agree with the previous poster, when it comes to Kermode's double standards. If it's B-Movie Horror he usually loves it but B-Movie Action, it's tosh.



Horror in particular is given a very easy ride.



p.s - How come last Fridays review was so short though?

I thought T-S was a decent sci-fi movie which it has to be taken as it is! Forget about the director's name and what he has done before. This is a 4th of a 'franchise' that spanned over 2 decades.

Ok there are flaws on the scenario which i think it is weak. There is a big difference between the future world described by John Cameron (very dark, post-apocalyptic, with a lot of craniums all on the floors destroyed by the Ts). Here the people seemed to live as long as the Ts are not hunting them. Also i didn't quite get the story of the Ts wanting to capture reese to unable to get connor, why don't killing him st8 away! and also there was no climax whatsoever. so that is for the scenario.

what i liked about McG, is his directing. i think it is quite daring to start a movie with 2 characters talking (!) and showing emotions. also there are a few sequence shots that give credibility and realism to the action which represent the world in war, against the machine.

my rating 3/5

Mark, there is a great article on the Daily Beast about overly complicated plots and villains who make up pointless rules as a plot device for lazy scriptwriters. I think you'll enjoy it:



https://tinyurl.com/m4r3vb

McG the cyborg- Part (digital editing) machine part Michael Winner

Lol and other such internet jargon. Nice call on debunking the 'they don't like me cos I've directed ads' thing. Back in the day that was the bread and butter, Mike Leigh's McDonald's ads were particularly classic!

I think about the only bit of Mark's rant I can't agree with is over Charlies Angels as I rather liked it! Terminator Salvation on the other hand...I don't think I've ever watched a film featuring so many explosions that I actually found dull! Seriously possible the most boring film of the year, I watched it this afternoon and I had to come home and watch T2 to make myself feel better!

Mike Leigh directed adverts?

I tried to watch Mike Leigh's Happy-Go-Lucky and gave up after about 25 minutes. I thought it was a kind of romanticised and maudlin depiction of 1960s working class London set in the present day.....watching it was like having my face grated...

Mark Kermode you are crazy , this movie is great, had all the lines, good action , funny parts, had the amazing cgi , you need to relax and learn to enjoy. T3 is a disgrace, if anything you should still be going on about how bad that was!!



get out!

The major issue is that all three previous movies (whether you like the third installment or not) adhere to what is the single most important aspect of these films which is: it's a chase movie!



Terminator 1 & 2 held true to this and tackled all the philosophy and themes in and around this structure. Salvation really does not have a clue what or where it fits into Terminator lore aside from - "well we haven't seen the older John Connor in action yet have we?"



Sam Worthington is clearly going to be an important action icon in the near future and this is merely a taster for him. Bale on the other hand (and I do agree with Mark) seems to have realised a little too late that he is in the worst Terminator film to date and he has NOTHING to do except do his grizzly intense thing and, well get beaten up by machines (who are the real stars of this movie).



McG is not the right choice to helm (obviously) and rather than wasting all his time making Brad Pitt into a midget Grandad - I think Finscher should have got behind this movie as he would have at least been able to make an attempt to take the Terminator story further.



The one saving moment was the scene when the CGI Arnie made his grand entrance to the old score and it reminded you just for a second what we loved and yearn for in the new generation of movies.