‘Terminator Salvation’: an unrecognised masterpiece full of signs/symbols that points towards a new way for cinema?
No, I don’t think so. ‘Salvation’ is a film we both roundly denounced on the podcast, (Gareth arguably less so), but the vehemence with which ‘kbm’ puts forwards his comments in this post:
Three Questions about ‘Terminator Salvation’
at first gave me pause.
Was I missing something? Did we, as kbm put it “have no idea what this film is and what it is referencing.”? Should we “stop underestimating McG and go in again with a clean slate and really look at it. this is a bleak, very developed idea that has copious, instructive signals, codes and shot relations that Cameron never imagined.”
I admire kbm’s online work and so felt the need to think again about this McG pic. And…well…this leads to my question. What value bad films? Because I saw ‘Terminator Salvation’ again and it is awful. Half-baked, nonsensical – the kind of film in which good actors, in fact every actor in the film, comes across as bad. Hackneyed dialogue that was stale decades ago, “it’s too quiet in here – could be a trap”, astonishes.
But. There are things there.
Who knows how many people worked on the script. As Higgins points out in the podcast there were more producers on that show then there were Apostles. So there’s stuff there. What creature do they test the ‘death/rebirth’ signal on? A robotic snake – so symbols/signs – archetypes are there. Sort of. None of it comes together. It’s not cohesive and remains, without a doubt, a dull film.
So. Is it of value? Can a film that fails on every level in terms of conventional film-making craft, (fails at what it tries to do – the action is devoid of excitement and suspense, the characterisations laughable etc. etc. etc.), still be worth viewing?
Thoughts?























