Sci-Fi Terminator 1, 2, & 3: Review and Discussion Thread

T3 isn't bad. Sure it's essentially another "Terminators chase John Connor" movie, but the ending was awesome.
 
T3 isnt as bad as many say. Aside from franchise errors, its the overuse of humor and self-parody approach that kills it for many. I might even agree with Rotten Tomatoes' general consesus - not nearly as good as the first two, but a welcomed addition

________________

The Largest James Cameron site online - www.JamesCameronOnline.com
 
As I said in another thread, the James Cameron films will never be topped. They're masterpieces.

Salvation was a summer blockbuster film. And as a summer blockbuster, it was perfect. The only way to top the first two movies, is by having James Cameron on board directing it, which will most likely never, ever happen. And the sooner people realize that, the better.
 
hippie_hunter said:
As I said in another thread, the James Cameron films will never be topped. They're masterpieces.

Salvation was a summer blockbuster film. And as a summer blockbuster, it was perfect. The only way to top the first two movies, is by having James Cameron on board directing it, which will most likely never, ever happen. And the sooner people realize that, the better.
Click to expand...

Amen

Also, T3 was WAY too similar to T2 storywise - http://www.jamescamerononline.com/T3special.htm
________________

The Largest James Cameron site online - www.JamesCameronOnline.com
 
Last edited:
hippie_hunter said:
As I said in another thread, the James Cameron films will never be topped. They're masterpieces.

Salvation was a summer blockbuster film. And as a summer blockbuster, it was perfect. The only way to top the first two movies, is by having James Cameron on board directing it, which will most likely never, ever happen. And the sooner people realize that, the better.
Click to expand...

word UP.

exactly
 
hippie_hunter said:
T3 suffered because they made John Connor into a little crybaby ***** :o

Excellent ending though, which really saved it.
Click to expand...

agree. he was so annoying and such a naggin crybaby all the time that he was unbearable. Not only that, he was a useless bum. A VETERINIARIAN was much smarter and kept it together well. She grabbed the gun and blasted miniHK while crybaby John was doing what he was doing throughout the movie - hiding and whining. terrible portrayal, terrible portrayal
________________

The Largest James Cameron site online - www.JamesCameronOnline.com
 
Terminator - 8.0.. It's a badass movie with a clever concept.

T2 - 10.. It's usually the only perfect movie I can think of. I've never been bored by it, and almost every scene still gets me.

T3 - 6.0.. It's COMPLETELY unnecessary, but I am the guy who laughs at all the stupid jokes. It was good to watch once for some of the action, and the ending did give me a spine-job (where it feels like little HJs going up and down your spine.)
 
Terminator- 8/10
T2-10/10
T3-8/10

Ive enjoyed everyone of them and I feel like this Salvation is unnecessary, but well see, im gonna give it a shot.
 
'The Terminator' Movie Review:

Simply put, this is one of the best chase movies of all-time; hell, it may even be the best.

'The Terminator' is one of those films that modern-day filmmakers (and anyone studying films, in general) should definitely take notice of to realize what makes it such a great movie.

First and for most, this is an action film before anything. This film's pretty much one giant chase-sequence, that works extremely well with it's running time. But, it's also a time-travel film. At the same time, it's a horror film. And at the same time, it's a love story. (And I guess you could call this film part "dark-comedy", as well.) And incredibly, it works on every single level.

The action sequences in this film are just great. One of my favourite action sequences in the movie has to be the tunnel chase. The cinematography was just fantastic. Some of my favourite shots would have to consist of the first-person views of the vehicle headed up the tunnel. Still put me into the chase 'til this very day. There are obvious moments in the film where they certainly sped up the action in some of the chase sequences, but it works, all the while.

The love story in this film is great. This could've easily been a factor that the filmmakers and Cameron could've overlooked, but no. They create such subtle traits between the characters that it really helps better the love story itself. It's not a damsel in distress falling for her lone hero kind of love story. It's simply a unique story of a man and a woman from two different times falling in love. It's not easy to try and explain to people what works about it, it's just something that does work, yet it's again so subtle that you may not even notice it. And maybe that's what makes it work out so well.

Performances in this are great. From Schwarzenegger, Biehn, Hamilton, hell, even Bill Paxton. Everyone portrays their characters spot-on and leave the audience convinced. My favourite performance, however, has to belong to Michael Biehn as Kyle Reese. Everyone's great in their roles, but Biehn really does bring a nice element to his character. I like how he's not necessarily played as "the good guy". He brings this utter realism to the character who had to endure (ever since his childhood) the horrors of the nuclear Holocaust, only known as Judgement Day. Quite definitely the stand-out performance, in my book.

However, you can't deny that a guy like Arnold Schwarzenegger would be anyhing but destined to portray a character like The Terminator. His voice is perfect, his physic is perfect, and his emotionless face seals the deal in making you believe that he is The Terminator (bad or good).

Linda Hamilton is also great as Sarah Connor. You can really get a sense of how the character evolves over the course of the film's noted-events and she really does give you the sense and image, through that last act of the film, of who John Connor may be or become in the future.

The make-up effects by Stan Winston and his team are incredible, the music is thrillingly fantastic, the supporting performances are also great, the action, the chases, everything... This is a true cinema classic.

Rating: 97% ~ Shear cinema-artistry and a definite milestone of the genre and the franchise to which it begun.
 
It occurred to me this afternoon that I had never actually seen THE TERMINATOR. I thought I had as a child, but was apparently watching T2. So I watched it.

Fairly average action movie except for the effects, which are indeed horribly, horribly dated in some spots. Decent action by 80's standards, nice cinematography, especially the gunplay. A flat out terrible 80's score, though, and pretty forgettable performances. And what's with the Terminator's suddenly appearing leather jacket?

There's clearly a time paradox at work here to a point, and John Conner has clearly always known Reese is his father. The paradox is how the hell, if Reese went back in time to be John's father, that he is still alive in the future for John to know he's his father.

I get where Para is coming from, but this loop A, B and C stuff is needlessly complicated and misses the entire point set up in THE TERMINATOR, which is to provide the slightest bit of drama and weight that the movie has.

Looking for scientific logic in a film that clearly treats time travel as a plot device and didn't even develop its characters seems a bit silly to me.
 
Forgetfull acting?

But Biehn... was... so... awesome....
 
The Guard said:
It occurred to me this afternoon that I had never actually seen THE TERMINATOR. I thought I had as a child, but was apparently watching T2. So I watched it.

Fairly average action movie except for the effects, which are indeed horribly, horribly dated in some spots. Decent action by 80's standards, nice cinematography, especially the gunplay. A flat out terrible 80's score, though, and pretty forgettable performances. And what's with the Terminator's suddenly appearing leather jacket?

There's clearly a time paradox at work here to a point, and John Conner has clearly always known Reese is his father. The paradox is how the hell, if Reese went back in time to be John's father, that he is still alive in the future for John to know he's his father.

I get where Para is coming from, but this loop A, B and C stuff is needlessly complicated and misses the entire point set up in THE TERMINATOR, which is to provide the slightest bit of drama and weight that the movie has.

Looking for scientific logic in a film that clearly treats time travel as a plot device and didn't even develop its characters seems a bit silly to me.
Click to expand...

Since nobody on this planet knows about the way time/space works, we have to go by what a certain film or franchise establishes. We can't go watch Back to the Future and suddenly believe that that is the way time travel has to work in other films dealing with time travel. That is the problem with some people. They don't understand that there is no universally accepted way of the function of time and space. Hell, today's top physicists and scientists are all split among a ton of different theories.

Anyways, in these films, time works as a closed loop that always in motion. It is non-linear. Time and space in this franchise is non-linear, so there is no such thing as something occurring or happening "first." John Connor is always Kyle Reese's son. Kyle Reese always goes back in time. John always knows because Sarah Connor tells him that. That is just how it is. There is no "first" John Connor. He always knows Reese is his father because Sarah Connor always tells him.

Notice how in this whole post, I used present tense instead of past tense to describe the events. It is because it is constantly occurring in the time/space continuum of the Terminator franchise. That is just how it is.
 
I would rate them

Terminator: 7.5/10
T2: 9/10
T3: 6/10

Personaly I've never really like The Terminator, I mean I like it but I just can't bring myself to say you know thats a great movie. I belive this is because when I was little I couldn't stand the fact that Arnold was the bad guy. Even though T2 has some corny moments(like hoping on one leg) I will agree that it's the best out of the three. I would also agree with those that say T3 isn't as bad as it's made out to be. I will also agree that Nick Stahl wasn't the best choice for John Conner. And I also like the TX(I think thats the right model) and to me kinda shows that Skynet keeps imporving their Terminator design. And as far as the Terminator time line goes I agree with Warhammer. I don't know how many people know this but a season 4 episode of Smallville uses the footage from the end of T3 during a Lex Luthor montage.
 
hippie_hunter said:
As I said in another thread, the James Cameron films will never be topped. They're masterpieces.

Salvation was a summer blockbuster film. And as a summer blockbuster, it was perfect. The only way to top the first two movies, is by having James Cameron on board directing it, which will most likely never, ever happen. And the sooner people realize that, the better.
Click to expand...

Dont squash our hopes man!:woot:

I still pray one day that Cameron, the master of sci-fi, will jump back onto a Terminator movie, T2 is a TRUE masterpiece of the genre with the T1000 being one of the most scary villains ever in cinema the way he can blend into a human conversation ("thats a cute kid") will always scare me silly.

The way he just doesnt stop trying to kill John is epic stuff.
 
Warhammer said:
Since nobody on this planet knows about the way time/space works, we have to go by what a certain film or franchise establishes. We can't go watch Back to the Future and suddenly believe that that is the way time travel has to work in other films dealing with time travel. That is the problem with some people. They don't understand that there is no universally accepted way of the function of time and space. Hell, today's top physicists and scientists are all split among a ton of different theories.

Anyways, in these films, time works as a closed loop that always in motion. It is non-linear. Time and space in this franchise is non-linear, so there is no such thing as something occurring or happening "first." John Connor is always Kyle Reese's son. Kyle Reese always goes back in time. John always knows because Sarah Connor tells him that. That is just how it is. There is no "first" John Connor. He always knows Reese is his father because Sarah Connor always tells him.

Notice how in this whole post, I used present tense instead of past tense to describe the events. It is because it is constantly occurring in the time/space continuum of the Terminator franchise. That is just how it is.
Click to expand...

well-said.
 
Paradoxium said:
If you try to debunk the open loop theory it means:

1. Reese is the father in a close loop paradox, therefore violating the law of causality. But since by self evidence it is not violated, time is a non-linear construct. Have fun defending this and getting into the science of it.

2. Occam's razor: Sarah was pregnant all along to another man, that is done offscreen and for whatever reason mistakenly attributes John to Reese. This works with Novikov's self-consistency principle.

3. Cameron ****ed up or ****ing around with people, who cares

If you consider Terminator 3 as cannon, than the second paradox of Cyberdyne created Skynet which created itself (dropped hand) is not a paradox at all. If this is true, than it supports the open feedback loop theory, including a Connor Prime (unknown father,or Stan Morski), and Connor-2 (Kyle Reese).

The T1 deleted scenes means nothing, because, it was deleted, and even if it wasn't, all it suggests is there is an acceleration of the original time line and skynet was inevitable, which again supports the open loop theory.

In essence Terminator 3 and T1 delete scene supports the open feedback theory and violates a non-inclusive closed loop theory.
Click to expand...

But the proof is in the pudding, Cameron has even said on numerous occasions the movie is about fate, the T1 deleted scene's werent deleted because they were bad, Cameron WANTED them in the movie, but left them out to explore the love story and chase aspect more. Its made abundently clear in T1 that Kyle was always his father. Why would he give a picture of his mother to some random soldier otherwise? If Kyle wasnt his father, Connor would have no interest in him to give him the picture. Not to mention, why else would Sarah train John before the war if she didnt know it was coming? You cite these articles all day, but i'll believe James Cameron over them, as I said, the proof is in the pudding.

Not to mention T3 is cannon.
 
Last edited:
Since nobody on this planet knows about the way time/space works, we have to go by what a certain film or franchise establishes.
Click to expand...

The film and franchise establishes that Kyle Reese is John Connor's father, and thus, must always have been his father, since John does clearly exist.

Anyways, in these films, time works as a closed loop that always in motion. It is non-linear. Time and space in this franchise is non-linear, so there is no such thing as something occurring or happening "first." John Connor is always Kyle Reese's son. Kyle Reese always goes back in time. John always knows because Sarah Connor tells him that. That is just how it is. There is no "first" John Connor. He always knows Reese is his father because Sarah Connor always tells him.
Click to expand...

That's fine. The paradox is this. How can Reese always have been Connor's father? How, in the future, can Reese exist, somehow not knowing what he is fated to do, but in the past, always having already done it?

Yes, that's just how it is, but how it is makes no sense, and is a paradox.
 
The Guard said:
The film and franchise establishes that Kyle Reese is John Connor's father, and thus, must always have been his father, since John does clearly exist.
Click to expand...

Yes.

That's fine. The paradox is this. How can Reese always have been Connor's father? How, in the future, can Reese exist, somehow not knowing what he is fated to do, but in the past, always having already done it?

Yes, that's just how it is, but how it is makes no sense, and is a paradox.
Click to expand...

Because time/space in the franchise is non-linear. Nothing happens "first" in time/space's circular motion. I wish there was some metaphor I could use to further explain it, but I can't. Hopefully, somebody can explain this better than I can. It is all just one long recurring chain of events like a domino effect, except it is an everlasting domino effect.

Trust me, I prefer Back to the Future's way of explaining time travel because it is so simple and straight forward.
 
Hey, James Cameron, Gale Ann Hurd, and William Wisher Jr. created the story. Don't shoot the messenger.
 
The Guard said:
The film and franchise establishes that Kyle Reese is John Connor's father, and thus, must always have been his father, since John does clearly exist.



That's fine. The paradox is this. How can Reese always have been Connor's father? How, in the future, can Reese exist, somehow not knowing what he is fated to do, but in the past, always having already done it?

Yes, that's just how it is, but how it is makes no sense, and is a paradox.
Click to expand...

Reese is born in the future ... Grows up and meets John Conner ... Gets sent back in time and dies in the past ...

Reese is born in the future ................... and so on and on ......

Reese will always be reborn .... his death in 1984 will not stop this.
 
The Guard said:
That's fine. The paradox is this. How can Reese always have been Connor's father? How, in the future, can Reese exist, somehow not knowing what he is fated to do, but in the past, always having already done it?

Yes, that's just how it is, but how it is makes no sense, and is a paradox.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense. And its very simple really. And this is not a paradox.

Let's say (for arguments sake) Reese is 25 when he goes back in time and meets Sarah. That would mean he was born around 2004. Kyle grows up, meets John Conner at some point, who gives him the photo. I am going to assume John never tells Kyle that he is his father.

In 2029 Kyle goes on a mission for John and dies. Just because he dies in the past has no bearing on him meeting John, since Kyle met him before his mission. There is no paradox.

So to further simplify things heres a timeline. Dates are theoretical.

1984- John Conner is born.
1997-Judgement Day
2004-Kyle Reese is born
2020-Kyle meets John and is given the photograph. Kyle falls in love with the woman in the photo.
2029-John sends Kyle back in time where he impregnates Sarah and then dies.

No paradox here.

As for your opinion on the movie i could not disagree more (especially concerning character). Its too bad you are either too young (or saw the movie far too late) to put it in its proper context. Nearly everything about it was groundbreaking for its time and i think the movie has aged incredibly well. Then again i was a science fiction nut before it came out and was lucky enough to see it before it got ripped off a thousand times.(shrugs)

I guess I shouldn't be suprised. You have some impossibly high standards and seem to be much less forgiving of other writers work than of your own.
 
Last edited:
The Guard said:
Well, then. That's just stupid.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Your inabilty to understand does not make it stupid. You just dont get it.

And its much simpler than Warhammer is making it seem. Linear or non linear time changes nothing in relation to Kyle. See my super simple time line above. If that doesnt help then may i suggest you read more science fiction. Maybe some Clarke or Bradbury?
 
'Terminator 2: Judgement Day' Movie Review:

How do you top a great movie? By making a terrific sequel.

Simply put, this is one of the best films ever made. Director James Cameron stacks the bar for what he brought with the first-installment and adds a whole-new layer with this installment. More fun, more action, more characters, more subplots, pretty much more of everything.

The only real thing that fans of the original may want to cry about when viewing this one is that it's not quite a "horror film". The last one viewed the villain as being somewhat of a horror figure. Although the villain we have in this one is fantastic, it's hard to call him a "horror villain" as Arnold played the role back in '84.

However, if you're able to look beyond that one simple factor. You've got yourself some cinema-treasure here.

What I love so dearly about this one is that it has a simular structure to the first-installment of the franchise. We open with a glimpse of the future (post Judgement Day). In a simular encounter to the first, John encounters both Terminators inside the mall; with the villain wielding a pistol (T-1000) and the hero wielding a shotgun (T-800). Ala the first, the odds are obviously stacked against the heroes as the villain is far more advanced than they are. Skip to the end where we find the hero and the villain have their final encounter, where the villain obviously has the upper-hand, where the battle itself once again takes place at an industrial factory. You could make references between both films pretty much sequence-by-sequence, and normally people bashing the film first leap to that truth. But those people tend to forget that the best sequels to anything expand what the original brought to the table, and 'T2' certainly does just that.

Another thing that haters of this film may also "hate" about this film is that there are a lot of (so-called) "cheesy" moments added in the mix. And to that, I say that it's there to provide comedy-relief. If you really can't stand comedy-relief in this movie, go look at movies closely simular to it (eg. 'The Dark Knight').

I honestly don't know why people tend to complain about things like this in movies, where the majority of movies obviously take place in "fantasy" worlds. If not, they take place in our own world with their own "fantasy" elements. Once again, the people who aren't fans of this kind of stuff in movies need to quit being so damn jaded.

Away from all that, saying great things about this film is all I can do. I love every single bit of this film. From opening-to-end, from performances-to-effects, from action-to-characters. This film is simply magnificent.

However, one thing that always fascinates me about this particular film is the message it sends. I always considered this film to be the "R-Rated Film For Everyone". Why? Well, because the message is for everyone. What is that message?... How 'bout a Terminator not killing anyone? How 'bout the questions it leaves in our heads? From "Why do we need machines?" to "What's our future?"

According to this film, the future is simply what we make for ourselves.

In closing, this movie is simply terrific. But, at the same time, is something more.

Rating: 100% ~ Cinema-perfection at it's finest hour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Movies205
Let's talk Terminator 3...
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
6K
bullets
bullets
Moviefan2k4
"Terminator 1-3": The Good, Bad, & Ugly...
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
Majik1387
Majik1387
matrix_ghost
Sci-Fi Battle Angel
47 48 49
Replies
1K
Views
112K
AVEITWITHJAMON
AVEITWITHJAMON
M
The Official 2012 SHH! Movie Awards Discussion Thread
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
DDS
D
M
The Official SHH! Movie Awards Discussion Thread
2 3
Replies
71
Views
2K
Mrs. Sawyer
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

Total: 2,785 (members: 7, guests: 2,778)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,265
Messages
22,075,970
Members
45,876
Latest member
Pducklila

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"