Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
She'll be back....
Termiator 3: Rise of the machines has hit the cinemas. There have been surprisengly low expectations of this film, but what do you think?
You can read my opinion in this SPOILER FREE REVIEW
What would you like to see happen in future Terminator films, what sort of adversary is worthy of him after the T1000 and TX?
(Edited by Chambler 31/07/2003 20:57)
You can read my opinion in this SPOILER FREE REVIEW
What would you like to see happen in future Terminator films, what sort of adversary is worthy of him after the T1000 and TX?
(Edited by Chambler 31/07/2003 20:57)
21 Replies and 6472 Views in Total. [ 1 2 ]
Fixed, thx for spotting that, also it's has been posted at the top of the Film forum as the adeptorial
by Jola
The link isn't working for me
Posted: 20:57 Jul 31 2003
saw this last night (sorry DM pimpdaddy brought round a copy) and although it was okay it wasnt anywhere near the quality of the previous two (but that might just be the copy 
) and i can see why linda hamilton wouldnt touch it. its badly written (the storyline not the plot) and it's filled with hammy lines that i just couldnt help laughing out loud at from disbelief.
i did enjoy the chase scenes though they were plentiful so that kept me quiet for a little while.
arnie looks good for how many years its been since the first film and the new terminator is a hottie she looks like a blonde Lady Deathstrike.
Have no future hopes for the films shouldve left it as it was but then you can't please everyone.
enjoy it anyway if you can.
(Edited by bipolar 02/08/2003 10:11)
) and i can see why linda hamilton wouldnt touch it. its badly written (the storyline not the plot) and it's filled with hammy lines that i just couldnt help laughing out loud at from disbelief.i did enjoy the chase scenes though they were plentiful so that kept me quiet for a little while.
arnie looks good for how many years its been since the first film and the new terminator is a hottie she looks like a blonde Lady Deathstrike.
Have no future hopes for the films shouldve left it as it was but then you can't please everyone.
enjoy it anyway if you can.
(Edited by bipolar 02/08/2003 10:11)
Posted: 10:00 Aug 02 2003 
I plan on seeing it this afternoon although my expectations are low so at least I won't be disappointed and maybe I'll even be pleasantly surprised.
And, yeah, it just won't be the same without Linda Hamilton although I think the producers were spinning the line that she didn't see how much different the character of Sarah Connor would be in this film. Having a brief look at some of the trailers, it would appear Clare Danes character is meant to represent the same Sarah Connor type person from the first film.
Ho hum, guess I'll have a better idea after this afternoon.
And, yeah, it just won't be the same without Linda Hamilton although I think the producers were spinning the line that she didn't see how much different the character of Sarah Connor would be in this film. Having a brief look at some of the trailers, it would appear Clare Danes character is meant to represent the same Sarah Connor type person from the first film.
Ho hum, guess I'll have a better idea after this afternoon.
Posted: 12:01 Aug 02 2003
Went to see this last night. Overall, I enjoyed it, it was certainly better than I expected (then again, I was expecting it to suck) but the first film remains by far and away my favourite of the trilogy - it srikes me as a much darker, tighter story. The succeeding films have been far bigger, louder and spectacular to the extent of starting to just wash over me ("Oh yes, an even bigger explosion than last time...".
The ending was, I agree, very un-Hollywood and effective but I felt it was telegraphed a mile off, almost as much as the resolution of the final confrontation between the T-101 and TX. Maybe I've been in my line of work too long and spent too much time around people trying to get you to reach false conclusions without overtly lying but the ending was blindingly obvious.
Taken in isolation, it'd be a more than acceptable no-brainer action movie. My problem with it is in how it relates to the other two films, the film seems to me to be based on a major shift in philosophy about whether or not the future is set or inevitable. This shift does seem to make the first two films rather pointless. Then again, the notion of thinking about the overall philosophy behind the Terminator films does seem rather silly!
.The ending was, I agree, very un-Hollywood and effective but I felt it was telegraphed a mile off, almost as much as the resolution of the final confrontation between the T-101 and TX. Maybe I've been in my line of work too long and spent too much time around people trying to get you to reach false conclusions without overtly lying but the ending was blindingly obvious.
Taken in isolation, it'd be a more than acceptable no-brainer action movie. My problem with it is in how it relates to the other two films, the film seems to me to be based on a major shift in philosophy about whether or not the future is set or inevitable. This shift does seem to make the first two films rather pointless. Then again, the notion of thinking about the overall philosophy behind the Terminator films does seem rather silly!
Posted: 09:35 Aug 03 2003 
My dad managed to acquire a copy, and to be honest i'm quite glad because I definatly would not pay to see this movie. There is only one thing I liked and it was Nick Stahl's performance as John Connor, as i've not seen him in a movie in a while.
I found the movie pretty bland, the ending okish, and a movie I won't be buying on dvd.
I found the movie pretty bland, the ending okish, and a movie I won't be buying on dvd.
Posted: 11:04 Aug 03 2003
Well, I did get round to seeing it and my views are the same as Ming. An enjoyable film which doesn't fit in with the first two films in a lot of places. In his voiceover at the beginning, John Connor says he was targeted for termination when he was 13 when, in fact, he was 10.
And Arnie was never a T-101. He was a CSM-101 cyborg designated a T-800 by Skynet. It's those little things that niggle at me. I can't believe that if you are making a film in a pretty big franchise they couldn't have been a bit more diligent when it came to the continuity.
However, it was nice to see the cameo of a certain character in one particular scene. Made me smile although I suspect most of the teenage audience that saw the film with me appreciated these in-jokes. It's ironic that most of the cinema audience were just being born at the time of the last film and certainly weren't old enough to see T1 and T2.
Which brings me to on to my last point. Is it me or did T3 have no less violence or swearing than the first two films. Or is this a sign of how society's values is shifting that, over the course of 19 years, the classification for this sort of film can dropped from 18, to 15, to 12a?
So, yeah, good film but it just ain't right without Cameron and Hamilton on board. And T2 was meant to be the conclusion to the story. Part of me is glad I saw T3 but another part, perhaps the romantic in me, maintains there will only ever be two Terminator films portarying an open-ended, optismistic future.
(Edited by Whistler 03/08/2003 12:20)
And Arnie was never a T-101. He was a CSM-101 cyborg designated a T-800 by Skynet. It's those little things that niggle at me. I can't believe that if you are making a film in a pretty big franchise they couldn't have been a bit more diligent when it came to the continuity.
However, it was nice to see the cameo of a certain character in one particular scene. Made me smile although I suspect most of the teenage audience that saw the film with me appreciated these in-jokes. It's ironic that most of the cinema audience were just being born at the time of the last film and certainly weren't old enough to see T1 and T2.
Which brings me to on to my last point. Is it me or did T3 have no less violence or swearing than the first two films. Or is this a sign of how society's values is shifting that, over the course of 19 years, the classification for this sort of film can dropped from 18, to 15, to 12a?
So, yeah, good film but it just ain't right without Cameron and Hamilton on board. And T2 was meant to be the conclusion to the story. Part of me is glad I saw T3 but another part, perhaps the romantic in me, maintains there will only ever be two Terminator films portarying an open-ended, optismistic future.
(Edited by Whistler 03/08/2003 12:20)
Posted: 12:18 Aug 03 2003
Occurs to me I haven't answered Wo's original question: What would I like to see happen in future Terminator films?
First up, enough already with Terminators being sent back to kill/protect John Connor et al. It's starting to get real old. The only thing that occurs to me is the story of Connor rallying the human resistance to Skynet and the Terminators ie a future war film. Otherwise, draw the story to an end!
First up, enough already with Terminators being sent back to kill/protect John Connor et al. It's starting to get real old. The only thing that occurs to me is the story of Connor rallying the human resistance to Skynet and the Terminators ie a future war film. Otherwise, draw the story to an end!
Posted: 14:56 Aug 03 2003 
Id like to see the flipside of the story in T3 ie, Arnie being sent to do his evil task, and being captured and reprogramed, with the aim being to access the time travel tech to send him back, all while avoiding armies of primitive Vin Diesel Terminators
Oh and as for the violence, yes I actually thought there was much less graphic violence, certainly no 'impailing by stabing through the throat', stabbing someone through the eye, and twisting spike in someones shoulder...
The violence between the two Ts probably doesnt count as its clear its not by a person, or commited on a person.
The only really violent bit was when the general got shot, and that wasnt at all graphic.
Oh and as for the violence, yes I actually thought there was much less graphic violence, certainly no 'impailing by stabing through the throat', stabbing someone through the eye, and twisting spike in someones shoulder...
The violence between the two Ts probably doesnt count as its clear its not by a person, or commited on a person.
The only really violent bit was when the general got shot, and that wasnt at all graphic.
Posted: 18:27 Aug 03 2003 So you don't count the T-X steering the car through someone's chest a tad graphic for a 12a certificate then?
by Wobag
The only really violent bit was when the general got shot, and that wasnt at all graphic.
Posted: 21:51 Aug 03 2003
I've seen some stupid movies in my time, but boy this one takes some beating.
From the quite unbelievable string of coincidences that kick start the action through to the moment where Claire Danes says 'We can take that plane. I learnt how to fly it as a kid', there is almost no point where something unutterably dumb is not happening on screen.
In the fact, the only thing dumber than this movie, is me for paying to see it.
Some of the special effects are jarringly awful, inexcusable when you consider that T-2 still looks fantastic today.
The acting, such as is required, is woeful and any dialogue that isn't meant as a joke is leaden.
The film is the Itchy and Scratchy, knock about comic violence version of the Terminator, with much of it played for laughs which undermines somewhat the idea that the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE is supposed to be at stake.
In fact, I am stunned that this got a 12a certificate. In less than two hours there are a string of executions, a particularly unpleasant chest bursting moment and a huge amount of terminator versus terminator scrapping. And yes, I know that they are both robots... but they look exactly like people, getting their heads pounded repeatedly against the nearest heavy object.
And so my only option is denial.
I already live in a universe where there have only ever been three Star Wars movies (and Return of the Jedi only just scrapes in), one Jaws film and two Batman movies. As far as I am concerned, the Terminator mythology ends at the end of Terminator 2. T3 never happened, it's my story and I'm sticking to it.
From the quite unbelievable string of coincidences that kick start the action through to the moment where Claire Danes says 'We can take that plane. I learnt how to fly it as a kid', there is almost no point where something unutterably dumb is not happening on screen.
In the fact, the only thing dumber than this movie, is me for paying to see it.
Some of the special effects are jarringly awful, inexcusable when you consider that T-2 still looks fantastic today.
The acting, such as is required, is woeful and any dialogue that isn't meant as a joke is leaden.
The film is the Itchy and Scratchy, knock about comic violence version of the Terminator, with much of it played for laughs which undermines somewhat the idea that the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE is supposed to be at stake.
In fact, I am stunned that this got a 12a certificate. In less than two hours there are a string of executions, a particularly unpleasant chest bursting moment and a huge amount of terminator versus terminator scrapping. And yes, I know that they are both robots... but they look exactly like people, getting their heads pounded repeatedly against the nearest heavy object.
And so my only option is denial.
I already live in a universe where there have only ever been three Star Wars movies (and Return of the Jedi only just scrapes in), one Jaws film and two Batman movies. As far as I am concerned, the Terminator mythology ends at the end of Terminator 2. T3 never happened, it's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Posted: 22:41 Aug 03 2003 To be fair i know it doesnt make it right but Edward Furlong was 13 while it was being made and to be honest in T2 looks older than 10.
by Whistler
In his voiceover at the beginning, John Connor says he was targeted for termination when he was 13 when, in fact, he was 10.
And Arnie was never a T-101. He was a CSM-101 cyborg designated a T-800 by Skynet.
Arnie may well be a T-101 as he would no longer be a Cyberdyne Systems Model any longer, the company being destroyed in the second film.
(Edited by JtB 04/08/2003 00:00)
Posted: 23:50 Aug 03 2003 John Connor was conceived in 1984, T2 was set in 1994. Therefore John Connor (no matter how old EF was, or looked, in 1991. I know he was 13) was 10.
by JtB
(quotes)
To be fair i know it doesnt make it right but Edward Furlong was 13 while it was being made and to be honest in T2 looks older than 10.
It's sloppy continuity.
Posted: 08:59 Aug 04 2003
Can't get too excited by the T101 thing but Whistler is absolutely right about the continuity on John Conor and it's sloppy to say the least but hardly the only problem.
For example, if those power cells are so damn explosive, how come they didn't blow up when crushed in a hydraulic press or lowered into molten metal.
How come in T-1 no inorganic material can be sent back in time...
How come the fully mimetic T-1000 is somehow less advanced than the T-x with a solid skeleton (and how come the T-x can change shape and size when it has that solid skeleton anyway?)
When did cars come with remote control receivers attached to their steering wheels and accelerators as standard?
How can you steer something you can't see?
How can Kate Brewster be a Vet when she'd have to be at least 24?
When did she learn to fire automatic weapons?
Where does the T-x keep the fuel for that flame-thrower of hers?
Why does everything blow up? Buildings, police cars, parked cars near a crash, giant cranes... all seem packed with explosives that will go off at the slightest provocation.
John and Kate run into one another at 5 in the morning on the exact day that a terminator (who doesn't know where John is) comes looking for Kate... give me a break.
Very very weak.
For example, if those power cells are so damn explosive, how come they didn't blow up when crushed in a hydraulic press or lowered into molten metal.
How come in T-1 no inorganic material can be sent back in time...
How come the fully mimetic T-1000 is somehow less advanced than the T-x with a solid skeleton (and how come the T-x can change shape and size when it has that solid skeleton anyway?)
When did cars come with remote control receivers attached to their steering wheels and accelerators as standard?
How can you steer something you can't see?
How can Kate Brewster be a Vet when she'd have to be at least 24?
When did she learn to fire automatic weapons?
Where does the T-x keep the fuel for that flame-thrower of hers?
Why does everything blow up? Buildings, police cars, parked cars near a crash, giant cranes... all seem packed with explosives that will go off at the slightest provocation.
John and Kate run into one another at 5 in the morning on the exact day that a terminator (who doesn't know where John is) comes looking for Kate... give me a break.
Very very weak.
Posted: 13:05 Aug 04 2003 
Maybe because the timeline was changed and the Terminators weren't designed by the same person so the designs were different. The first Terminators power cells could have been totally different.
by Incandenza
For example, if those power cells are so damn explosive, how come they didn't blow up when crushed in a hydraulic press or lowered into molten metal.
I got the impression that she didn't necessarily change shape, her skeleton stayed the same, but the liquid metal stuff around her changed. She's more advanced in the fact that she's tougher, stronger, faster and she can produce complex weapons from her endo-skeleton.
by Incandenza
How come the fully mimetic T-1000 is somehow less advanced than the T-x with a solid skeleton (and how come the T-x can change shape and size when it has that solid skeleton anyway?)
Because she sent nano-bots into the car to interface with it, and she would be able to communicate with them as they were part of her.
by Incandenza
When did cars come with remote control receivers attached to their steering wheels and accelerators as standard?
It didn't say she was a Vet. I got the impression she was an on-call nurse. She said the doctor would come if it was serious enough.
by Incandenza
How can Kate Brewster be a Vet when she'd have to be at least 24?
Is it not plausible that at some point in their journey either John or the T-101 took the time to show her?
by Incandenza
When did she learn to fire automatic weapons?
Somewhere in here endoskeleton perhaps... it's a cybernetic killing machine from the future. Have some suspension of disbelief
by Incandenza
Where does the T-x keep the fuel for that flame-thrower of hers?
Cars contain fuel... fuel gets hit by bullets and other fast moving metal objects. Fuel blows up.
by Incandenza
Why does everything blow up? Buildings, police cars, parked cars near a crash, giant cranes... all seem packed with explosives that will go off at the slightest provocation.
The film was about fate, if you accept that the events were destined to happen (as the film obviously did) then it is perfectly plausible.
by Incandenza
John and Kate run into one another at 5 in the morning on the exact day that a terminator (who doesn't know where John is) comes looking for Kate... give me a break.
Posted: 14:51 Aug 04 2003 it was said that the terminator was sent back to get the next line of important people as they couldn't locate John Conner. Kate was gonna be his right hand gal and wife she shouldve been first one the list really.
by Incandenza
John and Kate run into one another at 5 in the morning on the exact day that a terminator (who doesn't know where John is) comes looking for Kate... give me a break.
Very very weak.
i wonder if each film is based on the new future/path they create each time they put off judgement day now that the terminator killed half his best guys (in the future) everything will have a different path as to how he helps bring down the machines or starts it all off anyway ... when a film is pants i think too much about other things
(Edited by bipolar 04/08/2003 16:20)
Posted: 16:20 Aug 04 2003
I really liked it. Some cheesy moments, and the action got a bit much at times, but generally felt it was much better than I expected. Especially liked the way the ending tied things up.
I suppose it now leads the way for a generation of post-judgement day films. I doubt Arnie would be in them though, he's getting on a bit now.
And one last thing... T-X in a military uniform! Hot damn! That alone made the film worth watching.
I suppose it now leads the way for a generation of post-judgement day films. I doubt Arnie would be in them though, he's getting on a bit now.
And one last thing... T-X in a military uniform! Hot damn! That alone made the film worth watching.
Posted: 10:36 Aug 06 2003
It was ok , just ok IMO.. far to many scenes stolen from T2 I think, to be honest I thought T2 was brilliant and it was going to take something fantastic to knock that and this just wasn't up to scratch.
Posted: 12:06 Aug 06 2003 Damn good point there! It has to be said, Carter in uniforms of various sorts is one of the major reasons I'm a moderate watcher of SG-1.
by Funky Monkey
And one last thing... T-X in a military uniform! Hot damn! That alone made the film worth watching.
Posted: 20:07 Aug 06 2003 [ 1 2 ]