The Unsentimental Bloke, An Aussie Adventurer in the world of film

Australia's Replica Tumbler

2010-03-05T16:25:00.006+11:00

Australia's "A Current Affair" aired a story last night about 2 Aussie blokes (Grant Hodgson and Gordon Hayes) who have custom built their own Batman Tumbler. And yes, you can actually drive it!

So FREAKIN COOL!

Watch the segment below:

http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/australia-s-own-batmobile/xas9cg3

Law Abiding Citizen- That's no how you make revenge

2010-03-03T19:31:00.017+11:00

The “revenge” genre is such a classic one. It is fair to say that films throughout the decades, from the quasi-exploitation Death Wishes of the 70’s and 80’s, to more recent big-star thrillers like The Brave One, have explored the genre to death.

What I loved about Law Abiding Citizen was, for the first half of the film at least, it looked like the revenge genre was going to go bigger and further than any of it's peers.

Where Death Wish pitted Charles Bronson against thugs and criminals in his local community and The Brave One's Jodie Foster opening up cans of the proverbial "whoop-ass" on the criminals of New York City, Law Abiding Citizen pits Gerard Butler's character (Clyde Shelton) up against the whole justice system. And let’s be honest, who hasn’t watched the news and seen weak sentences handed down to criminals and thought the justice system could do with a biblical break down and rebuild at some point?

And that’s what I found really appealing and captivating about Butler’s character. Like Bronson and Foster, Butler is introduced as your typical American family man, only to be tormented by a brutal home invasion that results in the death of his wife and daughter. The film wastes no time cutting right to the chase. Disatissified with the district attorney’s plea deal to reduce one killer’s sentence for testifying against the other, Shelton takes it upon himself 10 years later, to enact revenge on his family's murderer and all those involved in the morally questionable legal events following that crime, from the lawyer's to the judges and everybody in between.

It’s when Law Abiding Citizen raises the stakes in this matter that I really got into the film.

I love a good revenge film and Butler’s transformation from simple family man, to avenger is believable and relatabale. It's not difficult to see the justice system fails him and you really do want to see him get revenge as a result. We understand his violent torture methods are a reflection of his hatred towards the sleezy and downright evil man who murdered his family. I for one couldn’t stop smiling and giggling with satisfaction as Butler went about his delightful and gory torture.

High class cinema Law Abiding Citizen is not. Bloody, graphic and violent revenge cinema this definitely is. But like any genre film, there is a roadmap that really should be followed. For the revenge film, it goes something like this:

(a) introduce average Joe-Citizen;

(b) kill off Joe’s loved one;

(d) minus a mask and cape, Joe goes all vigilante and decides to clean up the town;

(e) Joe gets his own justice in bloody, satisifactory style;

(f) audience cheers, curtains.

Law Abiding Citizen follows this map perfectly for 2/3 of its duration. However there is a certain point in the film that the story takes a detour, undermining everything its built up so far and ultimately deviates too far from this roadmap.

To put it simply, you don’t turn the good guy, into the bad guy. You don’t spend an hour or so of what is obviously a revenge film, building up a character who you can relate to (and are obviously meant to relate to being a “typical law abiding citizen”), who you empathise with, who you’re cheering for the whole time, only to kill him off and ultimately fail in his revenge. You want to see him win, you don’t want the bad guys (in this case the “system”) to win!

It’s almost like this film is travelling along nicely for a while and then it suddenly discovers some kind of moral compass, that questions itself and perhaps the audiences belief that we don’t want to see some blood thirsty psychopath killing a whole bunch of people in his family’s name.

But that’s just it, in a revenge film, we DO want to see him achieve his goals! How goddamn cool and un-Hollywood would it have been if this film had ended with Butler’s character, succeeding in his plot to kill the heads of the justice system?! What if the closing shot was one of him walking free from jail, hinting a possible sequel where Shelton is on the run from the authorities, living outside the law and delivering his own kind of justice. A whole new franchise could have been spawned! The new millennium's version of the Death Wish series! No-one would have expected it!

But no, instead we get some, “see the system works”, morally righteous, bullshit ending. That's not how you end a revenge film.

And you know, I get it, the film makers were trying to show that while Butler’s character’s intentions for vengeance where warranted, he ultimately crosses a line. But it’s the crossing of these morally questionable lines that make a revenge film so cool. These characters of the genre exist to enact the kind of justice that some people would only fantasize about.

And isn’t fantasy what we want from a film?

Mad Max & The Australian Film Festival 2010

2010-02-26T07:06:00.008+11:00

I was lucky enough to attend a 35mm screening of George Miller's original, kick-arse, ozploitation classic Mad Max on Wednesday night, followed by a Q&A with some of the actors and none other than legendary stunt man Grant Page!

As promised, I wanted to share this incredible experience so let's start with the film itself.

There's something about watching a film in 35mm, especially one as old as Mad Max. I'm talking about the artifacts or for want of a better word, 'scratchy' nature of the film. To me, I almost enjoy watching a movie more when it's in such a state as this- well love and un-remastered. It's less a novelty for me, that is, a throwaway to a nostalgic era in cinema, before digital film making meant everything was so cleaned and over-produced. It's something more earnest and tangible. And I loved every single, jumpy, scratchy second.

Mad Max as a film definitely still stands the test of time....well in terms of the car chases anyway. These are some of the best you'll ever see. With legendary Grant Page involved why would you expect anything else?! Some of the dialogue and campy acting has definitely dated but that's half of the charm of this seminal 1979 film. It's probably the only Australian comic book film you'll ever see and one of only a couple of films where Hollywood 'pillar of the community' Mr Mel Gibson speaks in an Australian accent.

Mad Max did a lot to put Australian film on the world stage (especially the New Wave films of the 70's and 80's), shooting both Mel Gibson and George Miller into their respective super stardom. It showed the Americans we could it just as good, if not better and to quote Mr Page himself, "kick 'em in the guts".

In some ways, Mad Max is to Australian audiences, what Star Wars and Star Trek was to the American audiences. By this I mean, the hardcore fans. No other Aussie movie, has managed to capture the imaginations of bikers, motorheads, film geeks, comic book geeks and action movie fans more than Mad Max. What other Aussie film has compelled fans to convert their own Ford Falcons into customised police Intereceptors from the film?!

What I love about the film is a lot of the real impact violence occurs off screen (which is why I'm somewhat perplexed as to the films still current R18+ classification here in Australia). For example, when Max's wife and son are mowed down on the highway, we don't actually see the hit. We see the biker gang inches away, we cut away to the speedometer, then the babies shoe and ball as it falls to the ground and the gang screams away up the highway. It's an incredibly violent moment right? But so masterfully done and works so much better, not seeing the gruesome collision itself. The same goes for the incredible closing set piece when Max cuffs Johnny the Boy to the leaking wreck, leaving him with only a hack saw to decide his fate. We see the ensuing explosion and are left to wonder...did he die?

Tim Burns who played Johnny the Boy seems to think so, which leads me to the awesome Q&A that followed the screening of the film with none other than Steve Bisley (The Goose), Joanne Samuel (Jessie), Hugh Keays-Byrne (The Toecutter), Roger Ward (Fifi), Paul Johnstone (Cundalini) and of course the greatest stuntman alive, Grant Page.

The Q&A revelaed a lot of quirky behind the scenes anecdotes about the making of the film. Steve Bisley told us about the scene where he is pursuing the Nightrider at the start of the film on his motorbike, crashes and delivers that hilarious line "I don't know mate I just got here myself!" Bisley informed us that he wanted to deliver that line with laughter so asked Mel Gibson to sit on the bonnet of the car off-screen and pull funny faces at him. Gibson apparently did one better and pulled his dick out of his pants. Needless to say, Bisley delivered the line in laughter.

Another interesting point also came from Bisley involving the "get out of jail free" card which he hands to a couple on a tandem motorbike midway through the film. Apparently while filming in and around Melbourne, the cast and crew of the film, while fanging around on motorbikes were given actual "get out of jail" cards if ever questioned by Police. The card itself had words to the effect of "this vehicle is being used in a major American motion picture, any assistance would be appreciated". So in that scene when he's chatting up the couple on the tandem bike and pulls out the card, it was actually in his pocket at the time. It wasn't a prop, as most of the cast and crew had one for the whole of the shoot.

There were other gems that had to be heard to be believed such as Grant Page accidentally crashing his bike on the way to set, injuring both himself and a prospective actress, real bikers messing around with the cast on set and the fact that much of the finished film was cut to reduce the original 2.5 hour running time to appease Hollywood producers.

A brilliant night that I will not forget any time soon. A big thank you to Popcorn Taxi for making it happen!

Comics and Reel Life

2010-02-15T10:00:00.023+11:00

Remember the day when "comic book movies" were few and far between?

The story of comic book movies begins in the 1970's with Hollywood's first respectable effort to bring a costumed hero to life on the big screen. Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie (1978), is a classic of the genre and audiences were dazzled with the revolutionary (at the time) visual effects, ultimately buying into the movie's tag line "that a man can fly".

The 1980's is pretty much DC's decade with sequels to Donner's film (including the spin off Supergirl in 1984) coming along every couple of years, while Marvel is essentially nowhere to be seen. It tries to get in on the action with Howard the Duck which vomits into cinemas in 1986 (and the less said about that the better).

The next serious landmark comic book film has to be Tim Burton's Batman (1989), which showed you could take a classic character (one that people had previously only seen as campy, colourful, children's character) and make it a serious, angst-ridden (and here comes that buzz word kids) dark story, about a masked vigilante, cleaning up the city one thug at a time (and this time, it was personal....)

Cut to the 90's, and comic book movies still only come along once in a blue moon. Marvel characters Captain America goes direct to video in 1990 and a Fantastic Four movie gets made but is never released.

On the back of Burton's Batman, the independent gem Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990) rakes in the bucks as does Dick Tracy (1990), while flops such as New World's The Punisher (1989), go relatively unnoticed.

In the mid-90's, the occasional comic book movie crops up, the animated Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993), essentially flops at the box office but kills it on video and Judge Dredd (1995) and Blade (1998), both rear their ugly head, however audiences aren't really being saturated with comic book characters just yet. It isn't until we get to the new millennium that things really begin to change in a big way.

Come the year 2000 and cometh the flood. Brian Singer's brilliant X-Men (2000), did a lot to convince pretty much the entire movie industry and audiences alike, that the time had come to kick the comic book genre into overdrive.

The makers of X-Men showed that certain creative licenses could be taken with the traditional conventions of the comic book genre (such as ignoring bright colourful costumes, cheesy dialogue and outrageous situations) and a more grounded/realistic approach was possible. Coupled with huge advances in CG technology, it suddenly wasn't difficult to convince anybody, that comic book characters could be brought to life, more realistically, authentically and entertaining than ever before. And people would begin to flock in droves.

Marvel finally finds it feet in the naughties, releasing Spider-Man in 2002, X-Men 2 and Hulk in 2003 and continues to release three films a year in 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008. That's right! Three films a year! Between 1986 and 1998 (a period of 12 years if you're counting), Marvel released a total of 2 films. The numbers alone (ie the sheer number of films being pumped out) show that at this point, the game had changed and it was indeed....game on.

With an abundance of colourful comic book movies now gracing movie theaters, some studios and directors begin to target more 'adult' material. Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez's Sin City (2005), Zack Synder's 300 (2007) and Watchmen (2009) satisfy the hordes.

Around this time DC's core characters receive their obligatory face lift with Batman Begins (2005) and Superman Returns (2006). In 2008, everybody loses their minds with The Dark Knight and the internet is suddenly flooding with stories that Hollywood producers want their next comic book film to be "dark" and "edgy" and suddenly reboot is everybody's favourite word.

It's now the year 2010 and audiences obsession with comic book movies is still running unabated and the Hollywood machine isn't slowing down to feed that hunger. Already in the works is the reboot of Spider-Man, rumours about a live action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, a Superman reboot and expect Warner Bros. to absolutely dominate the box office when Batman 3 is eventually released.

I'm willing to guess that the idea of "realism" will be a common one in the comic book movies of the next decade.

Will movie going audiences soon tire of the comic book movie genre or is it here to stay? Already films such as Kick Ass and Defendor (two of my must see films of 2010) are beginning to 'parody' the genre.

I can't help but think back to the staple action-movie genre of the 80's and 90's, that are now virtually a rarity and wonder if the same will happen to the comic book genre eventually. Like all trends, they are are circular by nature and like all resources, comic books are a finite commodity and surely at some point filmmakers will have said all they have to say about costumed superheroes? Will there be a trough period like we had between the 80's and the 2000's? I think a lull needs to happen to preserve the genre long term. Let us forget about men and women in crazy costumes for a while and then BAM! hit us again with a new approach in a decade or so.

I for one am not necessarily 'bored' with the comic book genre, I'm just not necessarily excited about every new film that comes from the pages of DC, Marvel etc. I think if the genre is to survive deep into the decade, more obscure material needs to be considered to keep audiences on their toes, or (and this will upset the comic book fan boys) filmmakers need to take more creative licence with classic characters (like Singer and Nolan have shown is possible) to surpass movie goer's expectations.

Geek Meet- Peter Berg

2010-02-14T16:29:00.003+11:00

Met director Peter Berg for the briefest of moments today.

Told him I was a fan of The Kingdom and he seemed genuinely stoked, shaking my hand!

A super cool geek moment in an otherwise crappy day!

Italia a Mano Armata

2010-02-11T19:23:00.005+11:00

Tarantino's Death Proof would have to be one of the best car chase films I've ever seen.

My favourite scene is where our 3 soul sisters are chasing after Kurt Russell with that awesome piece of music by Franco Micalizzi blaring in the background.

That particular piece of music is titled "Italia a mano armata"and comes from the 1976 film of the same name, directed by Marino Girolami.

The original scene in which it appears is below:

In the coming weeks my current obsession for gut wrenching, adrenaline fueled celluloid car chases will continue as I'll be attending a special Mad Max screening + Q&A with the filmmakers (courtesy of Popcorn Taxi) very soon and I'll try and produce a cool write up!

I'm also working on a little editorial piece combining some of the coolest car chase scenes in history.

In the meantime, enjoy this:

ACMI Museum Melbourne

2010-02-05T11:57:00.005+11:00

It's been a while between drinks (motivation is a funny thing) so I thought I'd post some pictures I took of a recent visit to Melbourne's brilliant ACMI (Australian Centre for the Moving Image).

I cannot recommend this place enough. Whenever you're in Melbourne, you must check it out. Entry is free and they also have regular feature exhibitions (which aren't free).

Enjoy the pics.

Black Dynamite

2009-07-08T10:58:00.013+10:00

As a child of the 80's growing up in Australia, my experience with American 1970's drive-in, Grindhouse and Exploitation cinema (or in this case its sister genre, Blaxploitation), is fairly limited.

My interest in the genre has been sparked from numerous sources. I've seen Not Quite Hollywood, the brilliant documentary by Mark Hartley and thanks to it, I'm slowly in the process of tracking some of the gems of 70's and 80's Ozploitation cinema (Razorback, Roadgames check!) Being a huge Tarantino fan has also helped, who has managed to inject a little bit of 70's blaxploitation into many of his films (Jackie Brown being the best example), to good effect. The closest I've come to living the authentic grindhouse cinema experience came with Robert Rodriguez and Tarantino's Grindhouse. The Chauvel Cinema in Sydney hosted the original uncut double bill a year or so ago, complete with fake trailers, intermissions and advertisements for non-existent neighbouring restaurants. It wasn't just going to the movies, it was a unique experience that will probably never come along again.

But my own adventure with actual Blaxploitation films of the 70's started while browsing the shelves (well actually, it was the bargan bin, you knows those crates full of DVD's for like, $10?) of JB Hi Fi only a couple of months ago. There I was digging through and what did I find turkeys? None other than Rudy Ray Moore's Dolemite. The DVD cover said it all: "Bone-Crushing Skull-Splitting Brain-Blasting ACTION!" Throw in a blurb about Dolemite's all girl army of "Kung Fu Killers" and I was sold.

After watching Dolemite I remembered a quote by Tarantino about posters of the old 70's exploitation movies and how they would always look really cool (in an effort to attract audiences) and then you'd watch the movie and the film wouldn't live up to the expectations set by those posters. In fact, it would be kinda lame. That's how I felt after watching Dolemite. Sure it had that retro-cool element that is popular these days and the dialogue, costumes, themes and action scenes, while camp and badly acted, were good for a laugh. But after a while those jokes wore off and what I was left with, was actually a fairly boring movie. Rudy Ray Moore's patterns of rhyming speech just got a little much for me after a while, as did his terrible acting. The weak, slow plot put me to sleep. Pretty much everything I was laughing at in the first 10 minutes, started to become the same reasons that detracted from the film.

Who said retro wasn't always cool FOOL?!

Planet Terror and Death Proof which both have that deliberate, worn and scratchy "lo-fi" production values but also entertaining stories, Dolemite has that same cool look, but doesn't cut it story wise. It stops being entertaining after a while, so much so, I was forced to watch it in two sittings, forcing myself to finish the film!

Having said that, I must say I'm happy having watched Dolemite because after seeing Black Dynamite as part of the Sydney Film Festival, I realised just how much the latter relies heavily on Moore's 1975 film, right down to the rhyming dialogue, character names and kung fu action.

I'd seen the trailers to Black Dynamite months previously and was looking forward to the revisiting of this somewhat "lost" genre. The trailer definitely sells the blaxploitation line:

Black Dynamite Red Band Trailer - Trailer Addict - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

Unlike Dolemite, Black Dynamite wasn't nearly as painful an experience to sit through. But that's not saying parts of the film didn't wear thin quickly. The plot is deliberately as non existent/outrageous and the characters sometimes just as annoying. At times, the plot does feel like one drawn-out punch line (ok we get it, Blaxploitation films were pretty cheesy and cheap).

Now I love the send up parody genre as much as the next guy (Hot Shots, Austin Powers and the original Scary Movie are some of my favourites of the genre). Black Dynamite is much like every other parody you've seen and assumes you understand all the in joke references to the films they're sending up (in this case 70's blaxploitation films). In the case of Black Dynamite its everything from the boom mike in frame, to the funky wah-guitar and horns soundtrack, the character rip offs (some names almost identical to those in Dolemite), the dialogue, choice of camera shots etc.

Black Dynamite, played by Michael Jai White is perfect as the kick ass protagonist. Like the Austin Powers' and Ron Burgundy's, he has some brilliant one liners, sure to become common vernacular around the pubs or wherever the lads get together, "Shhh mama, you gonna wake up the rest of the bitches" springs to mind! (check out the Black Dynamite Talkin' Jive Soundboard).

I was a little disappointed with the film in that there was the potential for these guys to create less of a parody (Black Dynamite is to old blaxploitation films what Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery is to James Bond films) and more of an authentic modern day take on the blaxploitation genre (like Grindhouse or even Hell Ride). With 7 black belts in different martial arts, White's kung fu credentials are too good for a parody! I would have love to have seen him playing it more straight in an ultra-violent comedy/action, less spoofy more bloody, modern day blaxploitation film. It needed to walk the line between piss take and serious homage more carefully (which I think Grindhouse did perfectly) and I was disappointed it fell too much to the former.

At the end of the day, Black Dynamite is what it is and is fun. It does both to remind us of what was so good and bad about those cheap blaxploitation films of yester-year.

It's definitely a film I want to see again on DVD, especially the bonus features. I'm interested to see behind the scenes and how the film was made (a lot of effort was made to make the costumes, set design and photography mirror the 70's for which the creators deserve a lot of credit).

Will Black Dynamite sink into obscurity like the 'actual' blaxploitation films of the 70's it sends up or will it sit alongside the such classics as Austin Powers and Hot Shots? Ask me again in a few years when I'm browsing the $10 bargain bin....

Terminator: Salvation- How the Tin Man lost his heart.....and balls.

2009-06-10T09:41:00.049+10:00

No fate. No fate but what we make....

Or in this case, no fate but what McG makes. And what McG has made, is a disappointing Terminator film.

The Terminator (1984) and Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) hold a special place not only in the hearts of sci-fi geeks everywhere, but also in cinematic history. James Cameron, writer and director of both films, captured lightning in a bottle with the original Terminator film (personally, my favourite of the two original films). Well before his international stardom, Arnie is perfectly cast as the killing machine of the future, devoid of any of the "nice guy" cheese that permeates his character in the sequel. The story at the time was revolutionary- an apocalyptic future where sentient robots roam a scarred landscape, battling pockets of human resistance. Their mission: to exterminate the human race. But we soon learn the battle against man and machine, will not be fought in the future, but here now, in present day (1984) Los Angeles...

Cue the opening credits and that brilliant Brad Fiedel score....

Like most Terminator fans I followed most of the internet buzz surrounding McG's addition to the Terminator franchise. Admittedly, like most, I had my doubts as to McG's ability to pull it off. This was Terminator for Christ's sake! To me, Terminator is up there with the original Star Wars trilogy. There are certain universes that are sacred and to step into that universe not only takes nuts of steel but the ability to pull it off.

In the lead up to the films release, I watched as McG boasted on the Comic Con stage how much of a fan of the Terminator films he was and how he, the crew and the actors were all working hard to create something worthy of Cameron's landmark films. I listened as he touted his "no bullshit" approach to Terminator: Salvation (T4). I took it all with a grain of salt. McG talked the talked. But with a body of a work as a director that left much to be desired, and despite proclaiming himself to be a Terminator fan, he needed to walk the walk.

For some reason First Thug's "Los Angeles by Night Tours" never got off the ground

Now the film is out and despite all the speeches and all his best intentions to make a film "for the fans", McG is unable to salvage the franchise from the ruins of what was Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

I was lucky to see Salvation the day of its release in Australia, before most of my work mates and friends. When someone asked me my opinion, they would inevitably ask, "Is it at least better than the third one?!"

Now to compare Salvation to Rise of the Machines, is like comparing one pile of Woofy's dog shit to another. What's wrong with Woofy? I can hear him barking? Is he ok? Well, Woofy ain't fine. He ain't fine at all. He's just seen T4. And while just as well formed a stool as T3, Salvation only manages to stink just that little bit less.

Unfortunately, Woofy didn't get a call back for T4 (some mute kid got the job instead)

For me, the real litmus test for Terminator: Salvation was always going to be Cameron's original T1 and T2. While set in the future, Salvation is essentially meant to be a prequel to these films (but also a sequel...god a person could go crazy thinking about this). While I recognise and admit my own emotional connection with T1 and T2 meant my expectations were very high, I was still willing to give this film, the benefit of the doubt. While nothing could top the original, maybe, just maybe, Salvation would at the very least, live to be a good action movie...

To quote Sarah Connor herself, "It failed". McG has failed to create a film that has anything interesting to say nor has he made an entertaining war movie (let alone a worthy addition to the Terminator mythology).

While the original T1 and T2 films did have a strong science fiction premise, what makes them such great films are the characters and story. Characters that are fully formed. They have a believable and tangible arc. They have back-stories that don't rely on lazy pre-credit scenes (so that's what death tastes like). Characters whose actions are logical and drive (in very much a literal and narrative sense) the direction of the story. And then there was this underlying theme that technology was amoral and its capacity for good or evil depended solely on those operating it. These were popcorn blockbuster movies but like the T-800 itself, had something more underneath.

What I love about The Terminator, is that it's essentially a thriller/horror/love story all in one. In a direct parallel to his own Titanic, Cameron's love story involves two people from two different worlds. Sarah Connor, the average white American woman, working her day job whilst studying at University and Kyle Reese, a solider from the future, who has not only seen war from a child's perspective (growing up in the ruins, starving) but also from the front line, as an active member of the Resistance. Through Reese we get the impression life is genuinely a shitty experience in the future, where civilisation as we know it today, is non existent. Gone, just gone.

So, do you like, work out in the future?

In Salvation, things don't nearly appear as bad. Sure it's only 2018 and a while before the time-line matches up exactly with the future date of 2029 of the original films. But would it have killed them to visually acknowledge what we'd seen in the previous films? Even use it as a template perhaps? It seems McG et al fail to understand that to a certain extent the post apocalyptic setting of the future (as it exists in the Terminator mythology) had already been created for them, within which to base their story. While I recognise that they were going for something different with this film, I felt they deviated too much from what that world we glimpsed in T1 and T2. Too much Children of Men and not enough T2 (come on, how cool is that first 5 minutes!).

I can't help feel that the film makers were aware at some point that they were on a crash course with failure and decided to re-watch the original films for material to use as "throw backs" to appease the growing discontent amongst fans and internet followers. Through much of the film I felt that was all I was witnessing, a series of homages, pieced together in a vein attempt to mimic the original films. From the opening credit sequence (which is meant to be an updated version of the title sequence of the first film), to the prologue text, to the predictable "I'll be back" line, to the end fight in the factory, I was quite honestly bored through much of the film, even during the action scenes which unlike the original films, were far from visceral, or envelope pushing. T1 had the balls with its dark, grimy LA setting and quick pacing that is as relentless as Arnie's kill ratio, and T2 had the heart (the T-800 Tin Man effectively learns the value of human life). In essence, with Salvation, there was hardly any "Cameron" in this Cameron universe.

Even for a war movie, which McG proclaimed this to be, Salvation was far from a compelling one. For me it was hard to feel like a war was even taking place. Sure we get a skirmish in the first 10 minutes between the Resistance and a few Terminators. But where were the iconic images from the first two films of humans running around ruined buildings at night, hiding from HK's, cruising around in battle damaged cars? Where were those cool lasers?! Where was the future Reese told us about, where they stay down by day, but roam around at night? Where was the world that things are so desperate that humans are forced to scavenge for rats for food? Even in those few short scenes of the future in T1 and T2, you get the feeling every day is filled with desperation and a sadness for what the human race has become. There's a dare-not-breathe-too-loudly, lest we be discovered by an infiltration unit atmosphere in the air. Those moments of depression, peril and danger (albeit brief) are simply absent from the post apocalyptic future presented in Salvation. And that's disappointing.

I like your gun...

I also have to question Elfman and McG's direction with the music. Where were Fiedel's perfect Terminator themes and cues? Fiedel, like John Williams for the Star Wars films, is a genius at creating musical themes and cues for each character as well as for each emotional and action scene. Salvation is missing many moments of tension, emotion and action, heightened by unforgettable musical cues. I only recall one attempt to revisit the original "duh duh duh duh duh" motif which came at the end of the opening credits and its never to be heard again. Elfman's score is largely forgettable but I blame McG for deliberately avoiding the musical cues of the original Terminator films, which I believe is a huge mistake. While Elfman and McG have tried to capture the essence of what made Fiedel's score so great, with the new notes, comes only a disappointing and almost generic soundtrack.

Similarly to Lucas' prequels, which in many ways rewrote what fans had come to accept as canon (based on earlier films), Salvation is full of plot holes and contradictions that bothered me as a fan. [Warning, warning. Fan boy rant] Why send a T-800 back in time and not a borg like Marcus, who is clearly able to infiltrate human circles better than Arnie is? Or, why not install a secondary program in Marcus to have him kill Connor if they ever crossed paths? How does Skynet know the importance of Kyle Reese when it did not exist in 1984? And to get completely superficial, why is Terminator vision (and Terminator technology in general), more advanced in 2018 than in 2029?

Ultimately I think the ingredients for a decent Terminator sequel/prequel were all there (Bale, Elfman, Stan Winston, Nolan). However I felt the Salvation plot suffers from having too many creative fingers in its pie (Bale's insistence on being present during editing and encouraging Jonah Nolan rewrites of an already bad John Brancato and Michael Ferris script for example). But unlike Arnie's character in T2, whose CPU is a neural-net processor, a learning computer, those involved with Salvation have not learned from their failings with T3 nor have they learned to honour (or at least emulate) the "spirit" of Cameron's films. It appears too many people, with their own agendas (from Bale's desire for more screen time, to the studio's demands) ultimately killed this film (and for fans such as myself, the whole franchise).

While my McG vs Cameron and Salvation vs The Terminator/Terminator 2: Judgment Day comparisons may be a little unfair (how do you live up to two of the greatest films in history and one of the most pioneering directors of our time?), I like to think of the characters, themes and events of Terminator, as valuable collectable toys and if you want to play with them, you don't break them.

The Halcyon Company (who now unfortunately own the rights to Terminator) are indeed their own worst enemy. They are the Skynet of their Terminator universe. Their mission? To exterminate the credibility of a franchise that was once the hallmark of modern science fiction film.

Enuff with da analogies! Carm arn!

Now the unknown future rolls towards us. I face it with a sense of hope that Halcyon come to learn the value of what they have and with their next Terminator film (which like Judgment Day, you know will happen), do the mythology justice.