Movie Lovers Only

News flash:  Terminator is an action franchise.

Apparently, this is news to some people.  I keep hearing about “James Cameron’s sci-fi classics” and whether or not the new movie will “measure up.”  People also made those kinds of comments about Star Wars and Indiana Jones, and they’re well-deserved; the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogies are the kind of high quality that surpass measly four-star reviews.  They defined their respective genres, and filmmakers are still heavily influenced by them today.  People were right to wonder if that kind of greatness could be continued in the present.

With all due respect, the Terminator franchise does not belong to that same category.

Don’t get me wrong; that’s hardly an insult.  Saying a movie isn’t as good as the original Star Wars is like saying you don’t play tennis as well as Roger Federer.  Being mentioned in the same breath is praise enough.  And if my previous post wasn’t indication enough, I like the Terminator films.  They’re fun, well-made films, driven by creative and compelling action sequences.  But they’re also melodramatic, often thin, and not as original as many seem to remember.  So when I compare Terminator Salvation to its predecessors, I’m not judging it against sci-fi masterpieces; I’m judging it against a series of above-average action films.

And the new Terminator Salvation continues that tradition effectively.

From the first scene, the film establishes exactly what it is: the beginning of a new story set in the Terminator universe.  The style of the opening, which features lots of continuous takes, smooth camera movements, a grey color palette, and no music, immediately sets the tone as more akin to Children of Men or War of the Worlds than previous Terminator films.  The story also turns the focus from a constant threat to John Connor to the way the apocalypse has affected the pockets of survivors.  These are represented in different groups reacting to their circumstances in different ways, bringing a scope and emotional touch to a potentially bland story.

That’s not to say that it throws all convention out the window.  There are numerous subtle and not-so-subtle references to earlier films, from the customary “I’ll be back” line to creative cocking of a shotgun, but Salvation isn’t weighed down by them.  And even though the usual run-from-the-big-killing-machine overall plot no longer applies, by the action-packed climax of the film, I felt very much like I was watching a Terminator movie.  And that’s a good thing.

Unfortunately, the film’s greatest strengths are also its greatest weaknesses.  The story’s broader focus on the evil SkyNet’s master plan and how it affects humanity as a whole is personified by Marcus Wright.  The story arc belongs to him, and actor Sam Worthington nails it.  He’s believable and sympathetic, not to mention very watchable in action scenes, every step of the way.  However, this demotes Christian Bale’s John Connor to a supporting role, which has a decent story of its own, but Connor just doesn’t have enough to do.  His individual scenes work just fine, but a central theme of the film is his struggle with the other military leaders over his “savior” status and moral agenda, and this aspect of the story just doesn’t get enough screen time to have much punch.  Thankfully, when Connor and Wright finally cross paths, both of their stories get an extra boost that carries to the end of the film.

Similarly, but less significantly, the refocused story doesn’t allow for a central villain, which was the main point of tension in the earlier films.  There is an organized threat behind SkyNet, but the details don’t come into focus until later in the film, and by then it serves a somewhat different purpose.  Still, I view this change as a good thing; tall people with machine guns and a single facial expression only have so many dramatic possibilities, especially given current moviegoers’ preference for more character-driven stories.  We’ve seen the good guy vs. bad guy formula in three separate films already, and by the third one, it was starting to feel a bit tired.  It’s time to explore more stories in this post-apocalyptic world set up by James Cameron and Co.

Salvation delivers just what we want froma Terminator film: powerful action sequences, and there are plenty of them.  Thankfully, it doesn’t pretend to be any more complex or important than it is, lending to the enjoyment of what’s actually on the screen.  And hopefully, we can continue the explosions and gunplay again in a few years.

Terminators from 1984 to 2009

It took me awhile to realize that, as much as I’m looking forward to seeing Terminator Salvation, this might not be nearly as interesting to people who haven’t seen all three previous films.  The first two installments were highly successful in their time, but the third was not as well-received, and much of the target population of such movies nowadays grew up on The Matrix, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Transformers, and haven’t even seen this sci-fi action saga.

This being the case, I thought I’d do what I can to help mankind and offer a quick rundown of the original trilogy, so if you haven’t seen all three movies, or if you’ve just forgotten the major plot points, you can absorb the important details and go into the new film and enjoy it instead of trying to figure out what you’re missing.

If you’d rather start from the beginning and just not see the new film until you’ve caught up, more power to you; don’t read any more.  That said, I’ll try not to overindulge in my descriptions so that you can still watch the older movies and enjoy them as they are.

*****SPOILERS BELOW*****

The Terminator (1984)

The premise is actually similar to The Matrix, if less complicated:  In the year 2029, machines controlled by a central computer called SkyNet have decided to take over the world and crush humanity.  A small but fierce human resistance led by a man named John Connor refuses to be quashed, so the machines send a Terminator T-800 cyborg (a humanoid machine disguised with human flesh) back in time to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor, John’s mother, destroying the resistance before it starts.  However, the humans send their own man, Kyle Reese, back as well to stop the Terminator and save Sarah.

The entire film is a battle royale between the soldier Reese and the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger), with the human Reese no match for the larger, indestructible killing machine.  Sarah, who is neither married nor pregnant, slowly learns to trust Kyle as the film progresses toward the final showdown.  In the end, the Terminator is finally crushed in a factory, and it turns out that Kyle is the one who impregnates Sarah with the future John Connor.  If that sounds like a time paradox, that’s because it is.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Taking place eleven years after the events of the first film, T2 finds Sarah Connor institutionalized for her perceived schizophrenia based on her belief in what Kyle Reese told her about the future.  John, whom she had begun raising to lead the eventual resistance movement, is now a problem kid in foster care, believing that his mom is crazy.  As before, two visitors from the future appear: another T-800 (Arnold again), this time reprogrammed by the human resistance to protect John Connor from the bad guy, a T-1000.  This new threat is simply a hunk of liquid metal that can take any form, impersonating police officers and creating metal blades out of its body, designed specifically to kill John Connor.

For its long runtime and much more involved plot than its predecessor, there’s very little to know about this film.  It really only brings one thing to the table, and that’s the concept of “Judgment Day,” a date in 1997 when an automated defense computer system created by the US military called “SkyNet” would gain sentience and trigger a nuclear holocaust in an attempt to wipe out humanity, starting the war.  Using intelligence provided to them by the T-800, the Connors manage to destroy SkyNet and the T-1000, supposedly preventing Judgment Day from ever occurring and saving the future of humanity.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2004)

As it turns out, victory is short-lived.  Now an adult, John Connor lives in constant paranoia that Judgment Day has not been averted, only postponed.  His fears are confirmed when a T-X, a female terminator that carries an arsenal of futuristic weapons, arrives not to kill John Connor, but to kill all future leaders of the human resistance, hoping to weaken the movement before it can gain momentum.  However, in the course of carrying out its assassinations, it gets wind of John Connor and his future wife, Katherine Brewster, and sets off after them.  Of course, yet another T-800 (Arnold is back, as promised), sent by the resistance, arrives to protect them from the much more advanced threat.

A chain of events reveals that SkyNet wasn’t destroyed, but absorbed by the US government.  When activated, as predicted all along, it locks out all human interface and sends nuclear missiles all over the globe to wipe out humanity.  Meanwhile, the battle of the terminators ends at a fallout shelter where both machines are destroyed.  John and Kate (minus eight) are among the very few protected from the nuclear holocaust and begin to make contact with any survivors in order to explain what’s happening and what to do about it.

History of the Future

The timeline of future events is hazy at best and obviously complicated by the paradoxes that make up each film.  Kyle Reese recounts his days as a soldier when the machines had begun making more and more realistic-looking terminators in order to infiltrate the human resistance’s bases.  Reese also claims that the first T-800 was sent back to kill Sarah Connor in 2029 because the human resistance had destroyed the machines’ command center, effectively turning the tide of the war.  However, this would appear to be premature celebration, as the machines not only survived to send two more terminators back, but made significant technological advances between them.  We know that the war continued at least to 2032, when a T-800 killed John Connor.  Ironically, this same T-800 was immediately captured, reprogrammed, and sent after the T-X to protect John and Kate.  All other details are either superfulous or speculative.

Terminator Salvation

I must admit, after seeing T3, I had very little interest in seeing any more sequels.  I felt that the story had ended in a good place and that the war of the future was useful as a backdrop but not really worth exploring.  As I followed production of Terminator Salvation, I found myself more and more engrossed in the story possibilities and the world that the filmmakers were creating for this post-apocalyptic story.  Set 14 years after Judgment Day but 11 years prior to the first T-800 being sent back, it tells the story of the advent of cyborgs designed to eliminate the human resistance and the complications thereof, personified by the first truly sympathic terminator.  The director has plans for a fifth and sixth installment, meaning he intends to fill in a lot spaces on this virtually empty canvas.  We’ll just have to see if it brings anything to the table that actually enhances the existing mythology or if it’s merely content to connect the dots.

Before I start, let’s get a bit of semantics out of the way:  A prequel is a story set in the same continuity as what’s come before it, just taking place before the events we’ve seen instead of after (X-Men Origins: Wolverine; Star Wars Episodes I, II, III).  A prequel sets up the events that are already known to happen, so because Obi-Wan Kenobi was alive in the first Star Wars, he can’t die in any of the prequels to it.  In contrast, a reboot takes characters and possibly events that we’ve seen before and makes a brand new story out of them, ignoring what’s come before and establishing a completely new continuity (Batman Begins, Casino Royale).  A reboot, by definition, is not attached to any previous stories, which is why Heath Ledger could play the Joker on the rise in The Dark Knight as a completely different character than Jack Nicholson in 1989’s Batman.  Now that we’ve cleared that up, I’m going to confuse you completely: the new Star Trek is a prequel that functions as a reboot.

Make sense?  No?  Good, that means I explained it right.  Go see the movie.

Seriously, getting any more information than that is only going to detract from the experience of seeing the film in theaters.  Star Trek is designed with the notion that the viewers’ only exposure to its universe so far has been pop-culture references and a few iconic visuals.  The characters, their worlds, and the concepts behind them are introduced as though you’ve never seen them, which includes trailers and articles about this particular movie.  If you need proof that it’s worth seeing, check out the stellar Rotten Tomatoes rating.  Just don’t read the reviews.

If you insist on staying and reading the rest, I’m going to blow sunshine at you about how much fun this movie is.

It’s no secret that the filmmakers are walking a fine line of keeping the old fans happy while trying to appeal to newcomers and a young crowd.  But by and large, we Trekkers are easy to please at this point.  Our latest TV show died with a whimper in 2005, the film series collapsed on itself a few years before that, and the last time anyone not wearing rubber ears enjoyed a Trek movie was in 1996 (Star Trek: First Contact).  We’re dying here.  Put the Enterprise back on the big screen and throw in a few lines like, “I’m givin’ ‘er all she’s got, Cap’n!” and “Highly illogical,” and we’re like giddy school children.  Fortunately, J.J. Abrams and Co. know that doing justice to the franchise means a lot more than that.

By making a film that appeals to film goers at large, the filmmakers are actually doing Trekkers a favor.  For a long time, Star Trek has been an indulgence of sci-fi nerds and people with too much spare time (I include myself in that demographic).  It’s a real joy to sit in a crowded theater with my peers, enjoying the very same things I’ve enjoyed for more than half my life, and seeing other people enjoy it with me.  Needless to say, the team accomplishes this with flashy visuals, plenty of action, lots of humor, and a lot of winking at the audience.  Plus, being an Abrams film, the story centers on characters rather than clunky, political plots (I’m looking at you, Star Trek I, VI and IX).  Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with some political drama, but it’s not the way to introduce newcomers to the universe, and when not bolstered by a character-driven narrative (a la The Bourne Supremacy), the film can tire of itself quickly.

There’s nothing I can say about the movie itself that hasn’t already been said by hundreds of reviewers.  It’s a solid, fast-paced movie that anybody would love.  I must point out that, as enjoyable as it is, it doesn’t quite reach the level of the best blockbusters.  Obviously, it doesn’t tackle those tough, moral questions with the heavy-handedness of it predecessors, but that sort of leaves it feeling a tad flat in the end when compared to more emotional and cerebral films like The Dark Knight.  However, some people have said that it ignores the spirit of Gene Roddenberry’s original work, and I have to disagree.  The current trend in cinema is to have darker, more violent, and more disturbing subject matter in mass entertainment than before; the aforementioned films are primary examples.  Star Trek exists among them in stark contrast, refusing to accept hopelessness, encouraging humanity to strive for greatness and accept nothing less than peace and prosperity.  Naive?  Maybe.  True to the original?  You bet.

Star Trek is the most fun I’ve ever had in a movie theater.  There, I said it.