T-2 is one of the early 90's greatest action films. It's look in terms of production values and with the SFX is kinda the apotheosis of where cutting edge film making was going in the previous decade of the 80's. With probably the premiere action/sci fi director at the head of it all bringing a truly dazzling visual panache to the proceedings and of course showing the world what CGI visual effects could do, a full two years before Spielberg's Jurassic Park. Cameron returns us to the story of 1984's THE TERMINATOR. And in doing so relies on that film's appeal and the audience's attachment to that movie's protagonists and of course it makes sure to leverage the way Arnold had sprung up to Olympian super stardom in the years since the original film. Cameron's style in prevalent throughout, both in terms of how the story plays out and in the filming. Cameron's heroes, no matter how badass are usually outclassed and on the run from the villains and here it's no different. The T-1000, played in human form by Robert Patrick to such incredible effect, is an insanely powerful and unstoppable opponent. And despite Sarah Connor's turn to militancy she, her son John and the T-800 sent to protect them is outgunned. Truly the action is first rate, propulsive and always engaging and you expect from Cameron. By this point he was a master in his prime.
However... I've always had issues with this movie. Always, and I was 15 when it came out and a huge fan of the first film... But despite as well as everything is done, despite how amazing the action is... There really are some issues with the story, Hell, the whole premise behind the film and certain parts of the execution of the story. Arnold returns and it just feels very forced in terms of the film. We never really get a reason that makes sense as to why a copy of the version sent in the first film is used here, but the film and Cameron had to justify the budget so Arnold was back in leathers. And... Honestly he didn't need to be. In fact looking back on it now, as fun as the call backs and as great as the action is... yeah alot just feels forced, from John's characterization and yes, the casting of Furlong in the first place, to how the Arnold Terminator "Learns humanity" to the way the story swerves into a change the fate of the world thing... Forced keeps coming to mind. But as I already stated, it is forced as a premise after the first film to keep Arnold in play in the story from the giddyup. Revisiting the Terminator world did not really have to mean bringing back Arnold. And I think personally this is born out in the ways that he keeps getting shoe horned into new Terminator films always feels, again, forced. Dealing with Sarah's life after the revelation of her and her child's destiny is inherently interesting given how the first film ends. And I think the way Sarah is such a tough but borderline crazed character in T-2 totally tracks. Hamilton does some really great work in the role that goes way beyond just getting big biceps in the lead up to filming. But the story feels more run of the mill even with incredible sequences throughout. Now, imagine a T-2 without the need to bring in Arnold. One where the T-1000 was the sole enemy and way more time could have been spent on say, the relationship between Sarah and John? I think it would have forced the story into a deeper place, character and emotion wise than what we got, which of course was a cracker jack action film.
Another aspect I think is missing is frankly that this is thoroughly a big budget action film aiming for the fences as a thrill ride. Nothing wrong with that I suppose. Except... The first film is a sci fi HORROR film. The dread of the specter of nuclear war, the assembly line manner the "machines" are going to end the race of man, the unstoppable, nigh unkillable and single minded hunted that is sent back to retroactively win the war for the cybernetic intelligence behind the fall of man... The tone has a lot more in line with something like ALIEN or THE THING than it does with it's own sequel. Seriously... Do a back to back one night of the first Terminator and either Alien or The Thing. Do the same with T-2 and you'll see what I mean. That's not trashing T-2 completely as JUST a dumb action film. It's indeed one of the absolute greatest action films of all time. But I would argue that with the horror elements taken away a layer of emotional involvement or overall binding sentiment was lost from the original film and what Cameron tried to fill it with doesn't quite impact the same way, say, again, the evolution of the good guy Terminator or turning the last third into a mission our ragtag band must undertake to avoid the future all together.
All in all, from the start I was always much more enamored by THE TERMINATOR than I was of T-2, and I suppose it's luster has gotten less and less as years have gone by, despite it looking and feeling like much more of an accomplished and modern film in comparison to the original which was done within the budgetary and aesthetic constraints of a film from 1984.
Now... The Matrix... Once more... Lotta complicated feelings about this film. Again... Another milestone in movies and you can't really take that away from it. The Wachowskis were the right minds at the right time to bring together, in a way much as George Lucas before, a stew of varying influences from their kid and teen years and slather on a coating of heartfelt if somewhat sophomoric philosophizing about the nature of existence, the meaning of choice in life and as always, the hero's journey towards finding both a boon for his people as well as learning some lesson on self actualization. Oh... And of course drawing on the "cool" new cultural crazes of the day like Anime' and Hong Kong wire fu martial arts films, comic book/graphic novel styled mythologizing and of course fully utilizing the CGI SFX revolution which James Cameron kinda spearheaded himself in his own projects like The Abyss and T-2. And... The Wachowskis mostly hit a grand slam with all those elements. Well cast, amazing to look at, with endless repeat viewing value, and yes despite how it gets **** on because of the wide swath of it's fans that overpraised it's depth... It also does have some depth in it's questions about human nature, what we consider reality and how people shouldn't allow the limits the world places on us all to define us and grind us down into subservience to unjust systems without some resistance.
But like with T-2 there are still issues, though less so with the film perhaps I would say, and more with how the culture at large reacted to it, which unfortunately does tend to reflect back onto the film itself no matter how objective one tries to be about it. Again, the overpraising is a start. Much like the fans of The Dark Knight... Guys, it's got some depth to it but ya'll lost your ****ing minds for a bit. Some literally since we saw how there were those who took the film too literally and they started seeing "the Matrix" everywhere and acted on this belief, sometimes to violent ends. But even ignoring those incidents, what ever depth the story does have, it loses some points in that if you start to think about the world created, and it's a cool and interesting world, but it's not all that logical really. Why are the machines using people as batteries? Because the solar energy that powered them is no longer viable? Well... Nuclear power is still a thing. In fact... The machines aren't really tethered to Earth at all. Why even have a fight? Why not after we nuclear winter the globe up didn't the machines just go, "Welp... Thanks for killing yourselves. We'll just take up residence on the moon or Mars now since we don't need and atmosphere and sunlight's free wherever you go, so... Goodbye and thanks for all the fish"? So... There's some leaps they don't want you to think about which... Fine. I'm getting super kung fu action. But I'm not going to pretend that stuff like the super Kung Fu action isn't employed as a way to make me NOT question aspects of the story or the ways it kind of does tell the audience that belief alone can justify any action. It's almost like the pitch from a cult in a way. "We want you to question everything you knew about reality and your old life. And understanding that is all a lie, well... It's okay to blow away all those people that don't believe as we do (As Trinity and Neo do during their rescue of Morpheous) because they are still under the delusions of how the world is but don't under stand how it should be or truly is... Just believe what you know NOW. Just don't question any of your new beliefs. That would be bad." (I will grant this... That aspect? The turning the mythology on it's head that happens in the second film is not given it's due by the fans. I think that is a remarkable and brave act for the film makers to have followed through on the way they did. But again... That is in a sequel. In the first one the cult pitchness of it all still hangs around.)
Then there are the characters. While the performers are all quite good (Let's remember how Keanu's career at this point was... It wasn't what we think of NOW let's say...) and do what needs to be done in a mostly quality manner, however if I'm being brutally honest they are all either in performance or the writing of the characters not all that well defined or super engaging, and NO, I will not accept that because it's supposedly a world made by the machines or that so much takes place in the Matrix that excuses sometimes clunky dialog or line readings. Keanu I've always felt just has a charisma on screen. He's always a pleasant presence. But he's not exactly mister ball of energy, especially at this point in time. In fact I would say it's only in the last maybe nine years or so that he's begun to really master a performance style that relies less on his easygoing manner and can actually tap into some more visceral emotional levels. Now on some level what he does in The Matrix is proper for the character and story. Neo is in a hero's journey tale and to a degree, especially in Hollywood movies, the protagonists of such tales tend to be cipher like. But let's not pretend Neo isn't a cipher. In fact let's not pretend that to a degree the three main good guys couldn't literally walk around with their descriptions tattooed on their heads and that alone tells us all we need to know. Maybe half of their dialog could boil down to: "I'm saying this because I'm The Hero/The Mentor/The Love Interest".
And yeah... let's get into that love interest. Carrie Anne Moss has always been an interesting actress. She can be a powerhouse performer. And she has an aesthetic appeal that isn't in line with a lot of the usual from the factory Hollywood beauties. But she's very compelling for some reason, based on looks alone, and on top of that she can really act. Which is a problem... Trinity is a truly nothing character. Sorry, but, she is. She exists solely as the love interest and you never understand her "love" for Neo beyond of course Hollywood convention that if you are two hot people on screen together of the opposite sex you will flatter the audience who projects themselves onto the character by getting those two together sexually/romantically in the story. Trinity is compelling or interesting based upon Moss' charisma because in the hands of probably most other actresses she would likely have not registered much at all outside of the acrobatic combat. But there's really no there there, as I unfortunately often say. I get I'm in the minority here, but no... She's not some ideal female "kickass" heroine that breaks the mold and shows how it should be done. We learn nothing of import of her backstory, we learn no real reason for her affection for Neo, anything done with the story is because, well, the story has to have this kind of moment in it, not because the character choices make sense given what we are shown. Trinity ticks off a bunch of boxes on a checklist but a super compelling character engaging me emotionally? Sorry... I don't see it.
Now... Mini Gun to my head, or a choice between a red and blue pill between the two?
...
...
...
Call it a betrayal of my 80's kids roots but... Gotta go with the Matrix on this one. T-2 is one of the best sequels ever made and it's one of the all time great action films and I will say, I think that in terms of "bad ass" female heroes that Linda Hamilton is given a far better character to work with than what Moss had to do with her Trinity material, on balance, and factoring in the influences of the two films as well... Yeah, Matrix takes it. Matrix, surprisingly in my estimation, really does have more depth and more to say than the entirety of T-2 philosophizing about "fate". That all feels so... tacked on to the story. As though Cameron was forced to come up with something. So again... "forced" comes to mind when I think of the film. In the Matrix, it all comes together, again, even the bat guano crazy rationale for it all. The pieces all fit and while I might complain about some of the writing or how the actors are hampered by the way the characters have been conceived... All the parts really do fit together. And it all clicks to make for a film that is just a bit more rewatchable and engaging than T-2. Again... T-2 is indeed one of the best action films of all time... But so is the Matrix and the Wachowski's film has an even wider array of thrills and experiences for the audience.
Ironically I think that in all likelihood that if both were released today that T-2 would come out on top. Much more in tune with the four quadrant ascendancy in theaters and with more humorous moments, T-2 would still get praised where as I think the Matrix would likely get **** on for it's pretensions at depth (perhaps to a degree rightly so) but especially it's earnestness and seriousness in dealing with it's story without winks to the audience or injections of humor, it would get tarred and feathered online.
Still for me... In a battle between two movies about the rise of cyber intelligences out to destroy or control mankind... I'm going with the MATRIX over T-2.
