Teminator Salvation by Jake

Terminator Salvation, Rated PG-13; Starring: Christian Bale and Sam Worthington.

Directed by: McG

Written by: John D. Brancato, and Michael Ferris

Rating: Movie Quality: 9.5, Entertainment: 10, Overall 10

I'm a huge fan of the Terminator franchise and was ecstatic when I first saw this movie was going to be made. Months of waiting and anticipation led up to me sitting in the theater next to my compadre, Chris, and we weren't disappointed at all. This movie was amazing, despite all the critics and halfwits that say that this movie "destroyed" the Terminator franchise. The writers are pure genius and should receive awards for what they did here. They tied all the Terminator movies together to help the overall Terminator story make sense. Using lines from previous movies and eluding to things that happen in the past/future. This is probably why people didn't like it. I had a Terminator marathon a week before the movie came out, and that helped so much. If you haven't seen the other movies in a while then all the nuances of the writing won't make much sense to you. I suspect all the negative critics didn't pick up much on the old lines and the foreshadowing. I was worried how they were going to incorporate the classic Terminator lines of "I'll be back." and "Come with me if you want to live." into the movie without being cliche or tacky, but they did not disappoint there either. I was impressed with the way the roles of Kyle Reese and Marcus Wright were played. The movie had great acting and the action scenes were superb. Sam Worthington, in his first major role, proved to be a great action hero and has a big future in this genre. The action was great and kept everyone in the theater on the edge of their seats. Watching the two terminators fight each other was especially awesome. This movie had some of the greatest cinematography I've seen in a movie to date, the scene when Bale is piloting a crashing helicopter and there is one camera angle for the entire scene is one example. I am usually not a fan of having a "shaky" camera, a la The Bourne Supremacy, but if it is done correctly it can be very effective. The "shaky" camera was very effective in making you feel you were a part of the action without making you "sea-sick." The scene progression made the story easy to follow. McG is a highly controversial director, he doesn't have much talent and tries to be taken seriously. In this case, though, he did an amazing job. The directing in the movie was good and fit well for an action thriller. The only stains on this film are those left by Helena Bonham Carter and Moon Bloodgood. Two of the worst actresses to ruin a movie screen. I did not like the little psychic girl, it was just kind of random and didn't do much for the story. I hate when there are characters that are not needed but are forced into the movie. I was disappointed when I got the DVD and saw that they showed Moon Bloodgood topless in it as well. If there are two things that ruin a movie for me it is excessive swearing, and nudity. Those two things are examples of lazy ways to either fill seats in a theater or to fill time in a movie, I'd rather it be 30 minutes shorter than have to sit through your depraved mind (that was to the director). The movie ended with the crowd cheering and I still give the movie two thumbs way way up. Overall this is one of the greatest films of 2009.

Movie Quality: Great acting, cinematography, storyline (especially), and the action made the movie incredible. The female actors of the cast took half a point away from the movie. It is a solid 9.5

Entertainment: WOW! That is all I really can say about how entertaining this movie is. Prefect 10

Overall: If it weren't for Ms. Carter and Bloodgood this movie would be a sloid 10. I am going to give a 10 anyways, any more detailed than a .5 is going to far.

Inglorious Basterds or No Country for Old Men: Which movie was worse

Jake: No Country for Old Men

Neither of these movies were great, but No Country for Old Men was much worse. It had the hardest story to follow, disconnected characters, horrid cinematography/scene progression, and most of all it was BORING!!! The scene progression is what bothered me the most about the movie, it is what made the story difficult to follow. It reminded me a lot of the movie Flags of our Fathers, there is no logical progression that made the story flow. Kinda like random bits put together, to make confusing fodder (I finally used fodder in a sentence and it made sense :). There is no established "good" guy and "bad" guy, which is interesting, but it adds to the confusion. When the main character dies it is very anti-climatic. It gives no background on the people that kill him, or how they found his wife. I never got connected to any character, I couldn't care less if any of them were killed or if they lived. This is all a sign of poor film making. I have been told how awesome the creepy guys silenced shotgun and air-gun were, but him an his weapons both let me down. Overall this movie was a snoozer. It is a great example of a bad movie that got far more praise than it was worth, and it is a black mark on the Academy that it won any awards at all.

Chris: Inglorious basterds

Now this is what were all about. Two critically acclaimed movies, that neither of us thought was very good. Now this topic right here is based off of an actual conversation that Jake and I had were we compared to two filmed and got into a heated argument of which movie SUCKED more! I picked Inglorious Basterds, and here is my reason why. Now i am not some action movie junkie who is easily pleased by explosions, hot women, and slow motion sequences ( that was a stab at you Michael bay you loser!) but when i had saw the previews for inglorious basterds i was expecting a fun fast paced movie. But as we all know by now its not anywhere near that description. the dialogue in this film is lengthy, monotonous, and down right unnecessary. I will never get the time back in my life when i had to watch a Nazi party and drinking games. that took FORTY FIVE MINUTES!! only to have them all die. The action is few and far between. and the characters are all unlikeable. Even the movies strong point, the very well played villain Col. Hans Lander portrayed by Christoph Waltz. In an almost Hannibal Lecter like fashion. Ends up betraying his own Nazi's for money. Now lets a look back at the great villains in cinema history, All are very dedicated to there cause, and develop and almost intimate relationship with the movies protagonist. This movie did not have that. I wish i had four hands so i could give this movie 4 thumbs down!