Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

[ekent]

I saw an extended new trailer for this movie before Matrix Reloaded and I have to admit that this looks pretty damn good. There is a scene where Arnold has his shirt off (no doubt right after the time travel) and he looks as buff as he did for T2. I know a lot of folks on the net knock this movie, but the more I see if it, the better it looks. A lot of folks complain that Cameron isn't involved, I couldn't care less but I could see how someone would be bummed by that. What do you guys think about this upcoming flick?

Also, did you see the new trailer?

[Shannafey]

The first trailers were ridiculous and laughable. This new one is amazing!! I can't wait to see it now!!

[rhett]

My thoughts exactly Shannafey. The new trailer makes the film look so much better. The whole stuff about Arnold being converted into an evil robot looks just great, and the new effects look just as good. I was affraid T3 would be just another action film going by the first trailers, but this new one has rekindled my hope and anticipation for this movie.

"She'll be back"!!!!!

[hell ya!]

I love the first 2 and can't wait for the 3rd, Arnold rocks!:banana:

[Agent Z]

The whole stuff about Arnold being converted into an evil robot...


*shakes his head at the futility of it all..............*

[moogong]

I have no doubt that this movie is gonna kick ass. The new trailer is amazing and Arnold is in great shape. I can't wait 'till July.

[Dave]

Originally posted by rhett
"She'll be back"!!!!!

That's my main concern. Female terminator? I dunno...

I'm looking more forward to The Hulk, actually. I'm just not excited about T3, and I loved the first two.

[aoiookami]

the international trailer had me convinced the first time I saw it, and I'm very excited to see this as well. I havnt seen the trailer before the Matrix tho, hopefully tonight when I go see it. Im also psyched for the Hulk dave, I wish a really nice trailer would come out tho.

[John]

This is certainly shaping up to be a great film. The new trailer is excellent (can't remember what I was watching when I saw it). Certainly another 'must see' this summer.

[MapleBob]

Originally posted by Dave
That's my main concern. Female terminator? I dunno...

I'm looking more forward to The Hulk, actually. I'm just not excited about T3, and I loved the first two.

When I was stationed in Huntsville Alabama either in the mid or late eighties (I was stationed there twice), I remember paging through a film magazine of some sort with pictures of Arnold and a female terminator. So, they're just going back to their original idea for a sequel.

T3 looks good to me. There's a lot that look to be good movies coming out this year.

But really, I can't wait for Matrix Revelations to come out now!!!!

[Trout]

The trailer I saw said the film was not yet rated. Has it got one yet? I hope the studio doesn't opt for the pg-13. I was watching Robocop the other day and I really miss the old days of the "hard" R rating.

[chrishicks]

I can't wait to see this as well.

[rxfiend]

seen the new trailer tonight. thought it was much better than the other two i've seen, but it still didn't get me excited about the movie. but i will still go see it in the theater regardless.

on a side note, the FvJ trailer on the big screen looked badass! that's the movie i can't wait to see this summer!!! :D

[rhett]

For all those that haven't seen it yet, the new extended trailer can be downloaded here:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/t3/domestictrailer/

This movie looks amazing, this has to be one of the best trailers ever. A was really starting to fear that this movie would be a let down, but this trailer certainly indicates otherwise.

As for the girl, I think Kristina Loken is going to do a great job as the T-X. She has the same menacing look that Robert Patrick had in T2, and she looks just as tough. And the best part is, that thanks to time travel we will get to see her sans clothing. I like how WB chose an unknown for this key role, because it gives it a further aura of mystery. We've never really seen this actress before, so we won't know what to expect.

I can't wait to see this on the big screen. I remember really wanting to see T2 in theatres when it came out, but I was too young. I won't let that happen again. :D

[Trout]

I didn't know Clair Daines was in it. Good use of Dead Can Dance at the beginning btw.

[mcchrist]

I'm not a big fan of the series to begin with, and alot of that has to do with James Cameron (who is one of the zits on Hollywood's fat ass) and his style, etc. I can't stand it. Cameron's absence can only help this movie.

James Cameron hasn't done a good movie since Piranha 2.

[Daniel B]

Hope it's a damn good movie. Sequel always risk the previous movies in my opinion. But I suppose it'll be great!

[ekent]

Very enjoyable film, and did not drop the ball at all.
Acting was good, TX was cool, good ending, no gaping plot holes, and guess what....

...GOOD DIRECTION!

Cameron not being involved did not hurt this film one bit (as if it wasn't powered by Arnold anyway).

Any Terminator fan should like this one. I can't say that it is better than part 2 or 1, but it is right up there with them. Of course the movie didn't have the same effect as the first two on me, but hell, its been 20 and 10 years, and I'm not a kid anymore.

Anyway, great film, really enjoyed it.

[Cujo108]

Excellent! I'll be seeing it tomorrow. Can't wait to see Kristanna Loken in action, as she is beyond stunning!

[puddytay]

yeah I cant wait for part 4. Its gonna be awsome seeing all the robots in action. I'm still pissed they didnt get furlong for the part. But I can understand why they didnt considering he still looks like hes 12.

[rhett]

I just got back from a sneak peek of T3, and I thought it was good. It isn't even in the same league as the first two classics, but as a summer action film it more than holds its own. There are of course some problems, the main being the overabundance of comedy, but overall the movie delivers.

Arnie does another solid job at reprising the machine, but many of his lines are directed merely to get laughs. Now, all the jokes do work, and many of which are quite funny (the opening nude scene is particularily comical), but with the past two films in light, it just seems kind of out of place. The other two films had a much more serious and dramatic tone, and the added bits of summer laughs just doesn't quite mesh.

Kristanna Loken is also somewhat of a disappointment. She does the best with what she is given, but really, the script gives her nothing to work with. She utters a total of two lines, both right at the start, and is basically a special effect for the rest of the film. She is menacing though, and thankfully she is one part of the film that is always taken seriously.

As far as the stunts go, this film blows up more things than any movie I have seen in a lonnnnnnng time. While it doesn't equal the magnificent trucker/motorbike chase from T2, the elaborate fire truck chase is a marvel of stunt and effects work. T3 is basically one very long chase film, and thankfully all the setups are quite good, and the action never lets up. It is an entertaining ride from start to finish.

What has set the TERMINATOR films apart from others though, has always been the heart at its moral core, and Mostow injects just enough emotional backing in this film to make it seem more than just the typical summer blockbuster. This film is bookended by two splendid scenes that really focus on the human struggle of existence, and they are both quite beautiful. The backstory on Arnie's new mission, and the ones that may follow, is quite intruiging, and held together very well. The final revelation during the climax was a gutsy move by the writers, but it pays off and feels true to the other two films in logic.

I liked this movie, but I think its main flaw is the brilliance of Cameron's previous two machine epics. As far as sci-fi goes, those two films are masterpieces, so anything less than a five star movie would be a major disappointment. No matter how good or different this film is from is predecessors, it will always remain in their shadows. Its unfair, but that's the nature of the beast.

Compared to T2, Mostow's film seems much shorter and quicker paced, albeit more slight. It is not a classic, but it is a fun action ride through and through, and it is a reminder at how good Arnold Schwarzenegger can be when he's in a good blockbuster film.

[mcchrist]

the brilliance of Cameron's previous two machine epics

I'm sorry you feel that way, rhett :D

:fire: James Cameron

[ekent]

I thought the direction was perfect. I think the first two were powered by Arnold anyway, and its good to see him in a good movie again. I think that the fact that we are all 10 and 20 years older from when the first two came out, lessen the impact of this otherwise awesome movie.

[rhett]

Originally posted by mcchrist
I'm sorry you feel that way, rhett :D

:fire: James Cameron

;) Whats with the hatred for mack daddy Cameron? I think he has been the most consistent director in the business, and definitely one of the best when it comes to action. I can't wait to see how you argue that Piranha 2 is better than T2. :D

[X-human]

I enjoyed it, and that's good enough for me. :D

The chase sequence it very good, I hadn't see a chase like that since the tank in Goldeneye.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally posted by mcchrist


James Cameron hasn't done a good movie since Piranha 2.

You actually like P2?
O.K., I kinda enjoyed it just cuz it was so laughable, but to call it a good movie.....:nervous:

[mcchrist]

think he has been the most consistent director in the business

That's an understatement, completely consistant crap. He's like the David Lean of sci-fi auteurs, and that isn't a compliment. There are a bunch of things wrong with Terminator 2, first start with annoying kid (seriously, this alone is enough for me to never watch the movie again), liquid terminator isn't menacing in anyway, arnold is no longer the terminator (just arnold), Cameron finds an excuse to fit "I'll be back" into the picture... Good god man, the first movie was great but the second was absolutely pointless. Then take Cameron directing something for a theme park based on the movie (Spielberg did similar shit and look at him too, both in the same boat) That's why I'm looking forward to Part 3, its very existence renders Part 2 even more pointless...

OK, now take all the flaws of T2 (that's another one), and they can be applied to Aliens, The Abyss (my god make it stop), and on and on and on and on...

At least Piranha 2, hehehehehe, come on! Its great!

[jeffschmidt]

Anyone know why they didn't get Furlong for this?

I'll see T3, but I just watched T2 the other night on cable & good lord that has some lame dialogue. That whole "no fate" crap is so bad that I feel uncomfortable watching the actors go through those lines.

But I loves me some robot fights, so the movies still work for me.

[MapleBob]

Originally posted by jeffschmidt
Anyone know why they didn't get Furlong for this?

I'll see T3, but I just watched T2 the other night on cable & good lord that has some lame dialogue. That whole "no fate" crap is so bad that I feel uncomfortable watching the actors go through those lines.

But I loves me some robot fights, so the movies still work for me.

I remember seeing the second one in theaters and it was lame.

Still, I saw it on Sci-Fi a few years ago, and it seemed better when the insipied dialogue was interspersed with insipid commercials.

I think this third one looks kind of cool, but it would have been better if it had been made right after the first one, in the eighties, 'cause then there'd be some nudity and love doll jokes.

[ekent]

For whatever reason, Furlong looks about 2 years older than he did then. No way would someone looking like him now would be very convincing as a current or future leader. I think Stahl did a hell of a job. Honestly though, can you see a romantic interest between Furlong and Danes and have it come off even somewhat convincing?

[rhett]

Good point, ekent. I thought both Stahl and Danes were excellent in their roles. Danes really has some major emotional scenes, and she really gets to show off her acting chops convincingly. Stahl is good at being both timid and a deep down leader at heart. When I heard about casting Stahl instead of Furlong I was kind of disappointed, because I like Furlong and couldn't really imagine the role without him, but in retrospect, Stahl is the better choice.

[deadsy]

this was a good movie. lots of action, funny lines and good acting all around.

you can certainly tell its not directed by james cameron though.

anyways, cameron is a good director. anybody who says he isn't is just naive. he's not my favorite director, but he is still a great director. i like his stuff better than most of spielbergs.

how can you not like Aliens? and arnold says "i'll be back" in many other of his films, not just the ones cameron directs. its his trademark for gods sake.

even if you don't like him or his style, to say that he is a bad director makes you look like a moron.

[puddytay]

GOOD ACTING? WFT? Thats what almost runed the movie for me. Other than the acting it was awsome. I thought danes was horrible even tho I really like here. Even arnolds performance seems wrong. Nothing seemed natural.

[dwatts]

--anyways, cameron is a good director. anybody who says he isn't is just naive. he's not my favorite director, but he is still a great director. i like his stuff better than most of spielbergs.—

Well, we all have opinions. For me, Cameron sucks – he’s certainly no draw. He’s a mainstream Director who makes generic action films. It’s like he makes them for the academy. Better or worse, I don’t see him as being very different from Spielberg myself. He makes action films for everyone – and I tend to like things a bit different. Frankly, I'd rather not have to type the names of either of these mainstreamers.

Aliens is easily the worst film in the Alien series. It’s “Die Hard with an Alien”. Take out the Aliens, put in terrorists, and you’d have the same film. I own all four films, and Aliens is by far the least watched.

Honestly, he’s just a sticky sweet candy maker for the masses. Add a robot, blow up a building – and I’m supposed to get excited. It ain’t happening. If there were more Directors like him, the movie business would quickly stagnate.

Of course, he didn’t do this one. Might be good, might not be, but I don’t consider Cameron a great Director (he’s POPULAR, but that’s not the same thing). He’s so formulaic – he’ll be doing General Hospital next.

[rhett]

Originally posted by dwatts
Aliens is easily the worst film in the Alien series. It’s “Die Hard with an Alien”. Take out the Aliens, put in terrorists, and you’d have the same film. You do realize that Aliens came out well before Die Hard, right?

[dwatts]

I was making an analogy of the type of action film, big picture concepts - not meaning to compare those films directly. I could have named any number of action films in its place. Aliens is not much of an alien film, it's a shoot-em-up (which is why, for me, it does not stad up to repeat viewings). No-one is saying Cameron invented action films are they?

For me, Aliens loses the spirit of the series. When watching it, I expected General Custer to be the last one standing.....

[mcchrist]

For me, Aliens loses the spirit of the series. When watching it, I expected General Custer to be the last one standing.....

Agreed.

[scarychick]

The first two Terminator movies are probably in my "top 20 favorite movies of all time". I'm quite curious about T3 and most likely will see it. Even though James Cameron isn't directing this installmant and Linda Hamiltion isn't in it {I loved how she kicked ass in T2! :cool:} the trailers are pretty cool and they definitely hold my interest.

...."hasta la vista, baby!" :lol:

~M :)

[deadsy]

so basically, since he makes action movies, he can't be a good director? titanic was not an action movie, it grossed over a billion dollars.

you might not like his "generic" action stories, but you have to admit that he pulls the action off greatly. True Lies had amazing action sequences.

and your claim that he is just a mainstream director is off the mark. he hasn't done anything "mainstream" since Titanic. if he was so mainstream, he would have done the new terminator movie and made a boatload of cash.

i think that you guys don't like cameron just because you don't like his movies, but you still have to admit that he is talented as a director. his movies are solid. i would rather watch a cameron action flick than a fast and furious flick anyday.

[dwatts]

--so basically, since he makes action movies, he can't be a good director? titanic was not an action movie, it grossed over a billion dollars.--

No. I don't think much of HIS movies. I hve nothing against action films. I even like some dumb ones - but I don't think they make anyone "great" or "one of the best". They're formula. They're Coca Cola.

As for Titanic - are you saying the gross on a film somehow equates to it's artistic worth? I hope not - that's a seriously flawed argument. Popularity has nothing to do with greatness, it has everything to do with being popular.

-- he hasn't done anything "mainstream" since Titanic.--

As far as I can tell - he ain't done shit since Titanic. Apparently he wrote some for the Dark Angel TV series. What's that, high culture? He's been in TV.....

-- if he was so mainstream, he would have done the new terminator movie and made a boatload of cash.--

I don't think you've understood what I said at all. I said he was mainstream - but being mainstream does not mean he'd have done T3. He get's a chunk of T3 money anyway. since he owns the characters. He's done nothing outside of T3 to change my opinion.

--i think that you guys don't like cameron just because you don't like his movies, but you still have to admit that he is talented as a director. his movies are solid. i would rather watch a cameron action flick than a fast and furious flick anyday.

--LOL-- They are FORMULA. They take NO RISKS. That's why they feel "solid". They don't veer off the path. It's why they get boring. And please - "fast and furious" is yet another movie made for a mainstream audience - starring todays current "hip" and supposedly radical young muscle bound actor. Just like many before and that will come after.

You need a trip out of hollywood.

Honestly, I'm not sure why I'm arguing about it. Cameron and Speilberg are cut from the same cloth. The make bazillions of $'s - millions of people go watch their films (frankly, when my parents tell me THEY want to see a film, I start to get worried.) But that's up to them and you. Is it really so important that I believe he a great Director? Give me Fulci any day.

[rhett]

Originally posted by dwatts
I don't think much of HIS movies. I hve nothing against action films. I even like some dumb ones - but I don't think they make anyone "great" or "one of the best". They're formula. They're Coca Cola. I don't see how you can compare Cameron's films with the rest of the action yarn that comes out every day. Every single one of his films has a strong human core, and that is what sets him apart from most directors. He is never content with just a simple action film, he merely uses the action formulae to give his love stories context. Sure, The Abyss, The Terminator, True Lies and Titanic are all full of action, but ultimately they are all love stories.

I am not talking about a little sex scene and then a little speech by the protagonist either. Cameron often veers way off path in order to satisfy the human quotient of his films. The Abyss stops being an action film for well over 30 minutes, as Ed Harris discovers the boundaries of his existence and his love.

I'd hardly call T2 "Coca Cola" either. Cameron could have easily delivered an action film of the same ilk as T3, but instead he uses the film and the idea of these machines to frame his commentary on our status as humans. What makes us so different from machines anyway? Linda Hamilton in T2 is devoid of any of the emotion she had in the first, she is a shell of her fromer self. She is hardly any different than Arnold, and that analogy of man and machine is ever as prophetic today as it was back then. Tell me another action film about machines that has as much drama as T2.

Aliens is also a very challenging work by Cameron, and although I think it is his weakest film, it is still far from mainstream fluff. If you read any books on feminist film theory dating past 1986, you will be bound to discover lengthy space devoted to dissecting Aliens and its story as the saviour to feminism in the movies. For almost all of the first film Sigourney was a weak subsidiary character, it wasn't until Cameron reinvented her role with Aliens that she became renouned as the strong feminist character she is today.

In fact, look at all of Cameron's work. He consistantly presents a strong feminist lead, one that can always hold her own against her male counterparts. Now if Cameron were "Coca Cola", why wouldn't he just relegate his female characters to supporting roles devoted to flaunting off their looks?

Yes, Cameron's films appeal to the mainstream, but that is hardly something that one can use to criticize him. Stanley Kubrick's films were almost all mainstream hits, but he still remains one of the most respected and most renouned directors in film history.

Originally posted by dwatts
As for Titanic - are you saying the gross on a film somehow equates to it's artistic worth?
How about the fact that it won 11 Oscars?

Originally posted by dwatts
As far as I can tell - he ain't done shit since Titanic. Apparently he wrote some for the Dark Angel TV series. What's that, high culture? He's been in TV.....
Actually, he just directed the excellent IMAX feature, Ghosts of the Abyss, and it received uniformly glowing reviews. It was a tender recollection of the Titanic, and it pushed the limits of 3D technology as well as the way IMAX films are presented. Hardly "shit".

Originally posted by dwatts
You need a trip out of hollywood.
You need a trip out of your own ego. There are plenty of people who enjoy James Cameron films above just their mainstream appeal. To allege that because someone enjoys Cameron they have no appreciation for independent or foreign films is a shallow and inconsiderate statement.

[ekent]

I was hoping we could get throught this thread without mentioning Titanic but it's been mentioned so here goes.

Titanic is such a waste of a film. The events surrounding the Titanic were enough to make a film that would have been extremely solid. For some reason, the decision was made to incorporate a completely bullshit love story, when I feel like the historical facts alone would have made an extremely solid movie. I know that the movie had to follow something, so why not the captain, and key members of the crew and passengers? It's as if the story wasn't worth telling without the addition of a fabricated love story.

Now I thought that the recreation of the ship was incredible, and I commend Cameron for pulling it off in that aspect, but damn it, who cares about the stupid love story? So now we are supposed to accept that the lookouts were peeping in on some smooching, and thus they didn't see the iceberg (which was easily the worst effect in the movie, and stank of miniturization)?

Bottom line, critics bought the love story, but I didn't, and thought that it was a wasted effort, and I cannot consider it a good movie.

[dwatts]

Sorry Rhett. It might surprise you to hear I DO read plenty of books on film theory. Most of them are full of shit, but I read them. Actually, the last one I read was on Hammer films that was laughable. But if you want to believe the Reptile spoke of woman's aggression to men, so be it. I think it’s a fun film with an okay make-up job made on sets that already existed for other titles.

Camerons “love stories” are right off any soap opera. They’re not deep (to me anyway). They are totally predictable, and play out as you expect from a Coca Cola movie. They’re plugged in as they are to many other films. I just don’t see his treatments to be anything special. Actually, taking love out of his films would show far more balls.

--For almost all of the first film Sigourney was a weak subsidiary character, it wasn't until Cameron reinvented her role with Aliens that she became renounced as the strong feminist character she is today.—

See – this is an example where the mouths start running to fill in lines. I guess it gets some books filled with text – but it’s really not very accurate. In the original film – she IS the star. She’s the only one who survives. The male leads all die. Now – the film never centered on her – because as a first film, it largely established the universe we were in. Her empowerment was slow, gradual, done with grace. In Aliens – they gave her a bunch of blokes (and one lesbian type) with big guns. And you want me to buy some feminist theory built around that? Sorry, not buying it.

Anyway, recent reads would be Gender, Genre and Narrative Pleasure by Derek Longhurst; Between Feminism and Pscychoanalysis edited by Teresa Brennan; Idols of Perversity (fantasies of feminine evil in fin-de-siecle culture) by Bram Dijkstra and I'm currently on Love and Kisses, which is not a feminist title. They're all worth reading, but that does not mean I believe all they say (or rather, that I agree with their assertions or opinions.) Love and Kisses has sections on Henry: Portrait of a Serial killer, Dressed to Kill, Blue Velvet, Henry and June, Wild Bunch and on. f you ahve not read it - it's a fun buy.

--In fact, look at all of Cameron's work. He consistantly presents a strong feminist lead, one that can always hold her own against her male counterparts. Now if Cameron were "Coca Cola", why wouldn't he just relegate his female characters to supporting roles devoted to flaunting off their looks?—

Because your view of what constitutes a “Coca Cola” movie is not the same as mine. It is not enough to have the same old film with a different wrapper, and to give the role to a woman. You really think that makes his films more interesting? I don’t.

--Yes, Cameron's films appeal to the mainstream, but that is hardly something that one can use to criticize him.—

Erm, of course it is. He AIMS them at that audience. And he compromises based on that. Which is why there are no real surprises in his films.

--Stanley Kubrick's films were almost all mainstream hits, but he still remains one of the most respected and most renouned directors in film history.—

Ha! There is simply no way I would compare these two. Kubrick was his own man – with strange and wonderful stories to tell. You think he’d have made Titanic?

--How about the fact that it won 11 Oscars?—

Does not mean a damn thing. It equates to box office, influence of those involved in Hollywood, and genre. When a real horror film wins an Oscar, we’ll talk. A film winning Oscars does not make it a good film. It is nice marketing though – and it guarantees the sheep will hand over cash to see it just because it has an award.

--Actually, he just directed the excellent IMAX feature, Ghosts of the Abyss, and it received uniformly glowing reviews. It was a tender recollection of the Titanic, and it pushed the limits of 3D technology as well as the way IMAX films are presented. Hardly "shit".—

Come on Rhett – you’re just spoiling for a fight. I never said what he made was shit. In the context I used the term, it was to say he had not done much. If you think a worthy follow up to Titanic was an Imax feature – well so be it. Actually, “a tender recollection of the Titanic” sounds like a remake of Titanic –LOL-- On the surface (sic) that hardly appears to constitutes a great leap forward… But I have not seen it. I don't know. Titanic was six years ago - given the space of time, I still say he ain't done shit. It's the longest period he's gone without another blockbuster (or ballbuster, depending on your view:))

--You need a trip out of your own ego. There are plenty of people who enjoy James Cameron films above just their mainstream appeal. To allege that because someone enjoys Cameron they have no appreciation for independent or foreign films is a shallow and inconsiderate statement.—

Oh please. Having an opinion about something does not mean there’s an ego problem. And you know it. If you read the posts from deadsy he has only mentioned mainstream cinema. I can’t know if he has seen other films or not. If he (might even be a she, I suppose) then I’d be glad to hear about it.

Actually – if what you’re saying is true – I guess YOU have an ego problem, by stating “If you read any books on feminist film theory dating past 1986, you will be bound to discover lengthy space devoted to dissecting Aliens and its story as the saviour to feminism in the movies.” as you are then you are making the same kind of assumptions about me. How about taking a trip out of your ego with me?

[dwatts]

-- For some reason, the decision was made to incorporate a completely bullshit love story--

Nah - he was empowering the women on the boat before drowning them :D Giving the film a "strong human core" - since hundreds of people drowning on a boat is, apparently, not human enough :)

Seriously, this element was Coca Cola at it's best - and the whole film played out that way, imho.

[mcchrist]

I don't see how you can compare Cameron's films with the rest of the action yarn that comes out every day. Every single one of his films has a strong human core, and that is what sets him apart from most directors. He is never content with just a simple action film, he merely uses the action formulae to give his love stories context. Sure, The Abyss, The Terminator, True Lies and Titanic are all full of action, but ultimately they are all love stories.

I am not talking about a little sex scene and then a little speech by the protagonist either. Cameron often veers way off path in order to satisfy the human quotient of his films. The Abyss stops being an action film for well over 30 minutes, as Ed Harris discovers the boundaries of his existence and his love.

I'd hardly call T2 "Coca Cola" either. Cameron could have easily delivered an action film of the same ilk as T3, but instead he uses the film and the idea of these machines to frame his commentary on our status as humans. What makes us so different from machines anyway? Linda Hamilton in T2 is devoid of any of the emotion she had in the first, she is a shell of her fromer self. She is hardly any different than Arnold, and that analogy of man and machine is ever as prophetic today as it was back then. Tell me another action film about machines that has as much drama as T2.

Aliens is also a very challenging work by Cameron, and although I think it is his weakest film, it is still far from mainstream fluff. If you read any books on feminist film theory dating past 1986, you will be bound to discover lengthy space devoted to dissecting Aliens and its story as the saviour to feminism in the movies. For almost all of the first film Sigourney was a weak subsidiary character, it wasn't until Cameron reinvented her role with Aliens that she became renouned as the strong feminist character she is today.

In fact, look at all of Cameron's work. He consistantly presents a strong feminist lead, one that can always hold her own against her male counterparts. Now if Cameron were "Coca Cola", why wouldn't he just relegate his female characters to supporting roles devoted to flaunting off their looks?

Yes, Cameron's films appeal to the mainstream, but that is hardly something that one can use to criticize him. Stanley Kubrick's films were almost all mainstream hits, but he still remains one of the most respected and most renouned directors in film history.

Fuck rhett, I'm going to cry... You know, you can analyze anything in this manner you know. One could make Alien Prey look like the most important film in British Horror History, or the world for that matter...

[dwatts]

--One could make Alien Prey look like the most important film in British Horror History--

Hey!! You spoiling for a fight?!?!?! Alien Prey is a huge feminist statement with TWO - count them - TWO female leads. AND.... AND...AND.... an alien. So it out feminists Aliens by one female.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Man - I'm going on the road tomorrow for ten days (Going to Amsterdam, Paris and London) - otherwise I'd start an "analysis" thread in the Readers Reviews section where we could disect our own films in this way. Should be a laugh-riot.

[dwatts]

McChrist – you might enjoy “Hammer and Beyond, The British Horror Film”

In it you’ll learn that “horror addresses the fascinations and anxieties of sexual difference, particularly as they register for the male spectator.”

Or this chestnut: “Horror films have often explored familial tensions. …. Use family dramas to address in a variety of ways and from a number of different positions, a widespread sense of social fragmentation.” What films are we talking about? TCM, Hills Have Eyes and It’s Alive :)

On Frankenstein we get: “The film discovers a dilemma for the constitution of female subjectivity which has more recently been theorized by Luce Iriaray: “The masculine can partly look at itself, speculate upon itself, represent itself ad describe itself for what it is, whilst the feminine can try to speak to itself through a new language, but cannot describe itself from outside or in formal terms, except by identifying itself with the masculine, thus losing itself.”

Got that? :)

What I do like is this statement : “The relationship between criticism and film production needs to be seen as a two-way process. It is not just a question of films being made and then critically appraised. It is much more interactive than this, with critical attitudes being defined and redefined in relation to trends in film production and, at the same time, filmmakers responding to those attitudes, sometimes reacting against them…”

This is so true, and it renders much analysis part of its time. In modern terms, less valid. Not all mind you, but we must step carefully, imho. Otherwise we ban Charlie Chan out of Hand :)

[rhett]

Originally posted by dwatts
Actually – if what you’re saying is true – I guess YOU have an ego problem, by stating “If you read any books on feminist film theory dating past 1986, you will be bound to discover lengthy space devoted to dissecting Aliens and its story as the saviour to feminism in the movies.” as you are then you are making the same kind of assumptions about me. How about taking a trip out of your ego with me?
Nowhere in that quote did I allege that you do not read books on film theory. I was simply stating that if you, or anyone for that matter, picked up a book on feminist film theory, Aliens would be there, front and center. I would hardly regard my comments as egotistical.

Your "you need a trip out of hollywood" comment was an unfair blow. James Cameron may not be respected by you, but he certainly appeals to high brow just as much as he does the low. And when I made my post, it was based on your original post, not the padded down one that exists there now.

I enjoy constructive debates, nobody is right or wrong, we are just speaking opinions. I just don't feel we have the right to comment on other peoples' tastes in film.


Now, to veer this thread back to topic, has anyone else seen T3 yet? It took in a moderately good 12 million yesterday, but tomorrows take will tell better whether or not it will become the bona fide hit that T2 was.

[dwatts]

Well - in the same light, I never said he had not seen films outside of Hollywood either, you merely interpreted it that way. I simply stated that he needed to take a trip outside of mainstream American cinema to gain a different viewpoint. Honestly, it's all in what you choose to read into the words (since it's difficult to take every eventual interpretation into account when crafting these off-the-cuff comments.)

Of course, for the regulars, you get to know them, and the types of things they like. With this person (sorry, don't know gender) I just don't have anything to go but the comments here. In that frame of reference, stepping outside of mainstream US cinema is good advice (I take it onboard myself, for goodness sakes.)

--And when I made my post, it was based on your original post, not the padded down one that exists there now. --

Talk about low blows. I have deleted nothing from my posts. All the original text is there. I added "He gets a chunk of T3 money anyway. Since he owns the characters. He's done nothing outside of T3 to change my opinion." Before anyone had replied to it.

I have a simple rule for edits - never change the content AFTER someone has replied. Edits for a post that HAS been replied to - can only include spelling and/or grammatical changes - not the deletion or addition of text. Sadly, the line that discusses the last edit does not differentiate between additions, deletions or grammatical edits. If you are insinuating that I toned down my text in some way, or took something out, then you're way off base.

Enough on that. It goes without saying, T3 is a minor film for me and I might rent it at some point - or even buy it if it hits the $10 rack. I have T2 on DVD, and I have not even watched it all the way through. I get bored by the predictability of the whole thing (and the classic rock soundtrack ain’t helping either, Bad to the Bone as Arnold beats on some bikers…. Wow, original!)

From what I am reading here, the film holds up okay. Surprising since one of the sci-fi magazines I read (sorry, didn’t buy it, just reading while waiting for a coffee) spoke at length at the problems on set – jealousies, Arnold being too old and overweight etc. If they pulled it off, then that’s certainly an achievement. The British tabloids published a picture of Arnold at a beach recently, and let me tell you, it’s sagging buddy :)

So, for me, this is a minor film for a series that lives on state of the art SFX and little else, mixing genres into a palatable concoction (add some robots for the youngsters/sci-fi crowd, some explosions for the action crowd, a little love for the women…….) and guess what – you have an attempt to hit mainstream interests. It is not a major film for me.

[The Chaostar]

1)
James Cameron is an auteur of blockbusters. His films are (except Piranha of course - and True Lies which is a great movie) ALWAYS thought provoking. The director's cut of ABYSS , ALIENS & T2 are really wonderful movies. Cameron always choses the films HE (not the producers) wants to make - just like Tim Burton used to.

2)
T3 was crap. Just saw it and didn't liked it at all. Too much "bang" & "boom" for nothing. Do you remember the chase between the bike and the truck in the beginning of T2? There wasn't any explosion during it but you could feel the tension right inside your guts. A feeling I never felt watching T3. Performances were good though, I have to admit that.

[Nasty Nate]

Just got back from seeing this and I thought it was very well done. There were a few forgivable quirky things- the whole remote control car thing made absolutely no fucking sense at all but all in all it was a good movie. Very good pacing and direction. The cheezy parts were actually pretty funny and the amount of destruction in it was awesome. I'm real glad they didn't cop out with the ending too. Well worth seeing again.

[Erg0n]

Just saw this and wasn't impressed. They tried to give the Terminator some personallty but failed. he should have kept his same robotic persona a la Terminator 2.

[rhett]

"Talk to the hand"

[dwatts]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[legnadibrom]

hey when arnold actually talks into that ***'s hand it was funny!
this is a fun movie, like said before, not on the same level as the first two, but still a good flick,
i don't know if this is rated R or not, but i was really disappointed that more of kristanna loken was not shown when she arrives nude, i mean had i directed this, with the first female terminator introduced into this franchise i would give a lil' sumpin' sumpin' for the young boys waiting in line for this flick, i know when i rented the first terminator as a small child i was like totally in love with linda hamilton's tits, but whatever,
the music by marco beltrami is good, not as memorable as the theme from the second, but appropriate,
obviously setting itself up for at least one sequel i am looking forward to it, especially more nuclear explosion and obliteration of all living things footage,
acting-wise i liked both stahl and danes, danes looks a bit more chiseled or womanly than she used to<--- weird comment, but she still has gorgeous hair!
by the way, the argument between rhett and dwatts is really interesting

[Agent Z]

by the way, the argument between rhett and dwatts is really interesting

I concur. It's a shame that they have to take breaks from posting to eat, sleep, work, shower, etc......

[Cydeous]

I just saw T3 and I liked it. Sure, it wasn't a classic but I don't think that the first two were either... but I did enjoy them. As for James Cameron, I was glad that he didn't do T3 because I grew to dislike him.

[ArrowBeach]

Originally posted by rhett


I like how WB chose an unknown for this key role, because it gives it a further aura of mystery. We've never really seen this actress before, so we won't know what to expect.


Sorry to break it to you, but she is NOT an unknown. She wa sa regular on TWO WB shows (makes you wonder why WB hired her!) UNHAPPILY EVER AFTER and DC, also a regular on PENSICOLA and the show MORTAL KOMBAT so she does have a following amoung Mortal Kombat and WB fans

[ekent]

UNHAPPILY EVER AFTER and DC, also a regular on PENSICOLA and the show MORTAL KOMBAT so she does have a following amoung Mortal Kombat and WB fans

Oh wow dude, she is famous as hell! Talk about a household name. I can definately see how a blockbuster starring role would be her next step :rolleyes:

Face it, she is UNKNOWN.

I thought she was awesome though, and very nice to look at.

[rxfiend]

yesterday, i was extremely pumped to see T3. i couldn't wait and i wanted this movie to kick ass. unfortunately, i was disappointed. the 2 things that killed it for me was:
1) the comedy! WTF!?!? the movie headed into cheese / self parody territory. i don't mind comedy, but come on, this movie didn't seem to take itself at all serious until the very last few minutes.
2) the whole movie, except for the ending, seemed like a rehash of T2. almost exactly the same. they should have started this movie half way through, then continued on after the "ending" and showed us what every T fan wants the war with the machines.

i'm not sure if i'd want to see a T4. if it gets written by the same folks who did T3, i think i'll stay away. if some new writers come in, then i'll give it a chance.

[Cydeous]

The TX was definitely my favourite character in T3. To me, she was an unknown... and extremely hot! :sperm:

[ArrowBeach]

Originally posted by ekent
Oh wow dude, she is famous as hell! Talk about a household name. I can definately see how a blockbuster starring role would be her next step :rolleyes:

Face it, she is UNKNOWN.

I thought she was awesome though, and very nice to look at.

WEll she wasnt a box office name, but the original poster thought she was a nobody without any credits, just pointing out nshe did 2 shows for WB, which might be the reason she got the part over the others like Chynna or that she might be chummy with a executive at WB?

[deadsy]

show of hands please...

would you rather watch Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor or Camerons T2?

---

what kind of "risk" exactly, should Cameron be doing? He makes the movies that he wants to make.

it seems there is some incredible backlash against him as a director because almost everything he has ever done has been hugely succesful/popular. just because something is popular doesn't mean it sucks ass.

Titanic isn't anywhere on my list of top movies, but it was a very good film. I can't believe that the Oscars apparently mean absolutely nothing. If you want, i'll list you a hundred incredible movies that have won Oscars. yeah, they don't get every damn movie correct, but if you say that the Oscars have no meaning and are just to get more cash for the movies, then i feel very sorry for your lack of intellect.

apparently all directors must "veer" from the path to be considered good directors? give me a break. You claim Spielberg is one of the "coca cola" directors...i think Schindlers List proves that spielberg can direct something "off the path".

its really silly, this argument, because its blatantly obvious to anybody who watches movies that Cameron is a good director. News flash, more goes into a movie than just whining about how every movie has a strong female lead.

like i said, you can hate the movies he makes all you want, but to say the man sucks as a director is ludicrous.

if oscars/awards, financial success, esteem by peers, and critics praise doesn't count for anything, then what does?

[DrJOnes666]

I duf the film.
It worked quite well... and I thought it would sink. But I was quite surprised.

Good job Arnie!

:-)

DrJOnes666

[hell ya!]

I just saw it and i'm pretty disappointed. It was great to see another Terminator flick on the big screen but the movie went knowhere. I thought it had way too many shitty jokes(talk to the hand, thoes fruity glasses, "She'll Be Back", "I'm Back" etc..)and the plot was........oh wait what plot! This movie had no plot to it, it was just a bunch of stuff that happened. The movie had no feeling to it and doesn't even stand on the same level as the first 2, not even close. Don't get me wrong, i had a blast watching it and i think its a great action flick but a true Terminator movie it isn't. :mad:

[mcchrist]

would you rather watch Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor or Camerons T2?

That's a choice? They're on par with each other. Both are utter crap.

it seems there is some incredible backlash against him as a director because almost everything he has ever done has been hugely succesful/popular. just because something is popular doesn't mean it sucks ass.

No, he's just hugely generic. You can be mainstream and have some style, look at Ridley Scott.

[dwatts]

--but if you say that the Oscars have no meaning and are just to get more cash for the movies, then i feel very sorry for your lack of intellect.--

Really - that is your definition of "intellect"? If someone does not allow themselves to be bought by a stupid award show, to hail movies as being great because the industry has decided to lay an award at its feet - that brings that persons inellect into question?

:lol: :D :lol:

You and I clearly have a very different view of movies, and the worth of award shows that are 90% incestuous. The Oscars are largely an opportunity to make some cash - and to get it, plenty of people bend over.

--if oscars/awards, financial success, esteem by peers, and critics praise doesn't count for anything, then what does?--

Views expressed here are personal. I don't speak for a generation, I don't speak for anyone but myself. I like what I like. hang out ona board like this for a while and you'll get to know the people here - and get a feeling for what they want and do want from a film. I do however entirely divorce my own feelings for a film from the awards it has been given. I'm very interested in what *I* like - that's about it.

To that end - Spiderman sucked. I have not seen either of the LOTR films, and Harry Potter has not seen the inside of my house. That's just me. You can watch it all you want.

Rhett jumped to your defense in this thread. This last post from you, with blatant insults, shows my initial instincts about you were correct.

[moogong]

Originally posted by dwatts
now. --
From what I am reading here, the film holds up okay. Surprising since one of the sci-fi magazines I read (sorry, didn’t buy it, just reading while waiting for a coffee) spoke at length at the problems on set – jealousies, Arnold being too old and overweight etc. If they pulled it off, then that’s certainly an achievement. The British tabloids published a picture of Arnold at a beach recently, and let me tell you, it’s sagging buddy :)




Dwatts, I can promise you Arnold isnt sagging anywhere. I recently met him at the Arnold Fitness Expo/Battle of Columbus in Columbus Ohio and I can attest to the fact that he is in prime shape. He is not the size he used to be but he is way more defined then ever.
If you can find that tabloid picture, can you please post it?

[dwatts]

--If you can find that tabloid picture, can you please post it?--

Problem number 1: I am on a business trip - using computers at a conference center. They have a stupid filter in place, and half this board is censored. Ain't life grand :)

The picture was in the Daily Mirror - which is a british tabloid about a month ago. Tabloids wouldn't lie - would they? :)

Maybe when I get back, I can look for it. After Arnolds heart problems, and hip work, he's getting more like the Terminator every day :) Glad to hear he's doing good though.

[Cydeous]

Just curious: why would a tabloid picture be taken seriously? I saw one with Saddam Hussein lying on bin Laden's lap and the caption stated that they are lovers... okay, that could be true.

[wago70]

I'm probably in the minority - I liked the film, but it seemed like:
- a remake of the second film in the first 3/4 before it's own ideas took hold.
- the T X looked very "USA Network/Sci-Fi Channel" and not very threatening. The actress moved well but her looks weren't very "fierce". I could see Famke Jannsen really working that role well.
- Linda Hamilton's character was sorely missed and I didn't care for how she was written off.
- the new John Connor was an attactive lad, but a little too "Dawson's Creek" looking - not that it's bad, but he didn't look as though he were living on the edge of society. I really appreciated Furlong's take on the character (he just looks the part) and would have liked some continuation in that regard.

The film ended GREAT and I was ready for more.

[moogong]

Originally posted by wago70
- the new John Connor was an attactive lad, but a little too "Dawson's Creek" looking - not that it's bad, but he didn't look as though he were living on the edge of society. I really appreciated Furlong's take on the character (he just looks the part) and would have liked some continuation in that regard.

The film ended GREAT and I was ready for more.

Furlong was gonna reprise his role but right before pre-production began, he was busted on drug charges.

[ArrowBeach]

I havent seen the film yet, but is there a explanation on how Cyberdine is still after John Connor? In the end of T2, by destroying the T1000, as well as Arnold himself, and having the scientist who was responsible for creating cyberdine and the cyborg die, the end of T2 clearly stated they have now changed the future so cyberdine wount exist, nor will the day androids take over mankind.

So how did terminatrix even exist? If cyberdine sent her to kill Connor, how did they survive, when they been "erased" from the future?

[dwatts]

--Just curious: why would a tabloid picture be taken seriously? --

Well, I'm not aware of any tabloid being sued for doing a CGI job on a picture. Plus, no lawsuits or complaints. Plus, well, I'm an idiot :)

[rxfiend]

Originally posted by ArrowBeach
I havent seen the film yet, but is there a explanation on how Cyberdine is still after John Connor? In the end of T2, by destroying the T1000, as well as Arnold himself, and having the scientist who was responsible for creating cyberdine and the cyborg die, the end of T2 clearly stated they have now changed the future so cyberdine wount exist, nor will the day androids take over mankind.

So how did terminatrix even exist? If cyberdine sent her to kill Connor, how did they survive, when they been "erased" from the future?

while it doesn't state this in T3, there is an easy way to explain this. in T2, not everything got destroyed. the T-800 had to rip his arm off in that one machine, and that part of the arm, never got destroyed. so, one (i don't think cyberdine exists anymore as i think it's skynet or some other company, not too sure as i'm not a T-fanatic) could have found that and.... thus, everything just got "delayed."

[SEANVALEN]

And what did Cameron think of TERMINATOR 3, Jonathan Mostow's follow-up to T2? "In one word : Great. There was a small part of me that hoped it wasn't good - but another part of me hope'd it succeeded. And it did."

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=39079

[mcchrist]

while it doesn't state this in T3, there is an easy way to explain this. in T2, not everything got destroyed. the T-800 had to rip his arm off in that one machine, and that part of the arm, never got destroyed. so, one (i don't think cyberdine exists anymore as i think it's skynet or some other company, not too sure as i'm not a T-fanatic) could have found that and.... thus, everything just got "delayed."

It was pretty vague, but remember the dialogue at the end Skynet was software, existed on the net and such. The project was supposedly destroyed, but some of the software was probably recovered.

In the end, who cares.

[maybrick]

The Apocalypse had to happen. If it didn't, then John Connor would never had existed in the first place. So the fact that he didn't mysteriously disappear at the end of T2 should be enough evidence that Skynet would take over eventually, even if they did manage to destroy all trace of terminator technology. It was only a question of when it would happen.

[mcchrist]

When does a franchise become self-aware?

With the summer blockbusters running full-steam, Warner Bros. toss in their July 4th offering of popcorn bliss. Terminator 3. Certain success at the box office, but unfortunatly it seems that many audience members are exiting the cinemas with ho-hum results.

When the movie was announced, it never came as a shock to anyone. The words uttered by audiences as articles, rumors, and trailers began trickling by were "Of course!"

- Is it necessary? "Unlikely."
- Will it be good? "Probably not."
- Will you see it? "Of course!"

Thus audiences come full circle as another studio attempts to revive the dead.

T3 takes place about ten years or so after the "conclusion" of the second film. John Connor, the man who thought Judgement Day was behind him and no longer needed to worry about leading mankind against the angry hoards of soulless metal beasts. A surprise is in store for him when a sexy Terminatrix shows up from the future to hunt Mr. Connor down and "terminate" him. Only an aging, ex-steroid user and future politician can flex his way against this new threat.

And this is where this synopsis will stop. The author apologizes for the short video-box narrative, but you shouldn't be reading what you already know. What you are probably wondering is if it is any good, like you wouldn't buy a ticket anyway (or catch it on DVD).

Let's just say the author enjoyed it, quite a bit in fact. And so if you wish to stop reading, the author encourages you to do so... Why read the author wax poetically, at length, over something you already know. It was good.

You're still here aren't you? So with that behind us, T3 succeeds because it doesn't deviate from the formula. But there is more to it than that, what can you do in a third film that hasn't been done earlier in the franchise? So James Cameron wasn't the helmer and many complained, but in this case I think it only helps this picture. Surely he would have added a bunch of drama and complex details, creating a film that is pretending to be something else... High-brow? Respectable? Good heavens! If you go into a grand cathedral or a national monument you may sit in awe and admire the sculptures on the wall or the pillars, never taking into consideration that they are nothing more than clever ways of hiding the hinges abd bolts holding the building up. Terminator 3 is actually Terminator (From Concentrate). The bullshit has been shovelled away, allowing the film to accomplish what it would have done anyway without the "intellectual" garbage. Robots show up, robots fight, good robot saves chosen one, evil robot on the chase, car chases, car crashes, guns, violence, explosions, need new car, need new weapons, metal skeletons, metal skeletons showing throw fleshy coating, guns, new improved robots, TX, guns, threat to world, Arnold Schwartzenegger... There's only so many ways you can beat a dead horse, you might as well have fun with it! And the film follows the checklist so accuratly, for this reason alone makes this the most successful sequel in the franchise. (The second film isn't as good as many would have you to believe)

Many critics, well Ebert anyway, spoke of this being a throw back to sci-fi camp, typical of pulp magazines of the 50's and 60's. The author would agree, but as a film I am also reminded of the pre-code period in Hollywood during the 20's and early 30's where virtually any length would be taken to deliver as much SPECTACLE as possible. Combine this with the philosophies of exploiteers, the drive-in masters, and sci-fi camp in general. "Give the audience what it wants." And T3 does so in spades. If you watch Star Trek, you expect aliens to have weird foreheads and people flinging themselves across bad sets while sparks fly. Godzilla keeps destroying Tokyo. Dracula isn't a tea-totaller. Teenagers still get killed by masked madmen (of course we take this sort of thing to space now, and the teenagers have more clothes... ;) ).

Anyway, T3 follows this line of thinking. As much as times change, some things remain constant. In this way, T3 throws away the post-modern bullshit and gives what is the closest thing to a PURE genre film. It can be seen as an action film, but this is unmistakably sci-fi. In this day and age when "originality" consists of borrowing elements from everything else, you can't honestly say: "Terminator 3 is like a cross between _______ and ______". In my mind it is refreshing to return to simplicity.

One final note in regards to the ending...

"Of course!" it is a set-up for a sequel, but even so in my mind it remains a bit unconventional compared to the kind of cliffhangers you get from movies like The Matrix and what not. It is a return to the classics:

- "Ah-Nold" doesn't save the day.
- The world still goes to pot.

And yet it still remains a happy ending because we know who the hero is, and even though he hasn't saved mankind or got the girl (yet), this movie is about destiny and we'll all be, at least should be, eager to see it play out in T4.

M.

[legnadibrom]

great review, mcchrist(i usually don't read anything longer than one paragraph)

[DVD Connoisseur]

Great work, mcchrist. I had real reservations about T3 but I'm very pleased that my spider sense was well and truly wrong. This is a great action movie and very probably a better movie than T2 (which took itself a little too seriously for its own good). This new Terminator movie managed to surprise me throughout. While it is thankfully faithful to its predecessors, it doesn't always follow a predictable path.

Thankfully, John Connor isn't a whining Edward Furlong anymore. (There's no way he would have been believable in this movie. Wetter than a big girl's blouse....)

Great movie. Best surprise I've had in ages.

[hell ya!]

Originally posted by DVD Connoisseur
This is a great action movie and very probably a better movie than T2

:eek:

T3 was the diet coke of the Terminator series. ;) I thought it was crap!:glasses:

[Jeffrey Dahmer]

Originally posted by hell ya!
:eek:

T3 was the diet coke of the Terminator series. ;) I thought it was crap!:glasses:

I only drink diet coke;)

For what it is, T3 is not all that bad.

[wizzer]

this movie sucked so bad. i would only own it if it came in a box with the other two movies. maybe.