Reviews

8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
compact, exciting, perfectly executed
1 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines is a rare occurrence. It's a third entry to a universally revered and critically acclaimed blockbuster action film series. And yet, it's far more taut and far less ambitious than its prequels. Too many big-budget sequels try to outdo the masterpiece(s) that preceded them by being bigger, badder, longer. In the end, such sequels often underwhelm or fail. Star Wars, the Matrix, the list continues (Lord of the Rings is an exception; ALL THREE films comprising the series are huge and ambitious).

Terminator 2: Judgment Day was a huge, ambitious, ground-breaking sequel to a small, well done, highly-successful production. But in its ambition and scale it succeeded brilliantly, making probably the greatest action film of all time.

T3 doesn't try to be another T2. Its running time is about 90 minutes (compare that with 2.5 hours for the previous entry). Much of the cast is gone, and James Cameron is replaced by some outside screenwriters and Jonathan Mostow directing. Thoughtful ruminations on the nature of man are cut down to some intense, less sweeping in scope, much more personal conversations. The action is almost non-stop, and the sense of urgency is there in every single frame. The result is quite a sight to behold, for any action fan. It's as if the makers of T3 decided to take what made T2 so unusual and throw it away, somehow making this fact a strength. T2 was a great film, but it could be slow in parts (especially the director's cut) and was tough to digest. T3 isn't a great film, but it is excellent, nonetheless, and the pacing is its greatest strength.

T3 is set "today." John Connor (now played by Nick Stahl) is in his early 20s, and the date that was to be Judgment Day (nuclear World War III) has passed. His mother is now dead from natural causes, but to her dying day she knew that the machines must not get to her son. The usual time-travel paradox rears its ugly head here, but we'll ignore that. John, who never wanted to be savior of mankind, nevertheless "lives off the grid" so that there is no computerized way to get to him.

Ostensibly, there is no Judgment Day, there is no SkyNet, and there should be no machine menace. And yet, a female-looking terminator (the T-X) is sent through time. She starts methodically clipping teenagers (for what reason, we don't know).

The trusty T800 (Arnold, again) also reappears. Clearly he's there to protect John, but his other motives aren't quite known. In any case, soon John Connor, T800, and a seemingly random female veterinarian (Claire Danes) are on the run from from T-X, the law, and who knows what else.

I don't want to give away any more of the strong plot, which is revealed primarily through terse conversations with the good terminator. I'll just say that the plot is well done -- especially considering the hole the T2 ending put the writers into -- and the ending is outstanding.

The plot's fine, but it's the pacing and action that are the true strength of the film. You see (this isn't much of a spoiler, since it was all over the trailers), Judgment Day is *today*. That means our friends have 2-3 hours to do something about it, or else.... The action starts immediately and doesn't really stop. (Case in point: Watch for the VERY FIRST TIME T800 and T-X meet in a scene. The directness of the T800's approach is quite amusing.) There are multiple car chases and many fights. In particular, one of each stands out. First, there's a scene where a mobile crane, with T800 on top, is driven THROUGH several city blocks. It's really something to behold. That is, it's impressive until the finishing stunt, which is simply staggering (even if it could, in principle, be CGI). The other standout action sequence is the T800-T-X hand-to-hand combat scene. You'll see T-X (an attractive, slender female) throw T800 (a hulking body-builder) through several walls in ONE throw. Then you'll see said bodybuilder break a urinal on said model's head. Of course, it wouldn't be a Terminator movie without a SWAT team trying to stop Arnold with bullets, which is always fun due to its futility.

The actionless moments, while few, carry plenty of dramatic weight. John is a reluctant hero, played to perfection by Stahl. Danes is amusing as an action heroine, but her good moments are while she's still just a vet. Arnold is perfect as the Terminator -- in fact, better than ever (and, while he's got a few lines on his face, he's perfectly buff, just like in 1992). He delivers his lines, whether serious or humorous (and there is lot of, perhaps too much, humor) in a perfect dead-pan style. The script, thankfully, doesn't give him anything sentimental (human) to say (correcting one of T2's greatest weaknesses), so he doesn't struggle at any point. The emotional connection between John (or whoever) and T800 is never really explored in depth, avoiding that aspect of the previous film (again, a good move).

The rating I give to this film is 8/10. Anything under 7 would be ridiculous, as anyone claiming this isn't at least a GOOD action film (it is sure as hell better than all the comic movies that get high scores) needs their head examined. I give it another point because what it does attempt to do it accomplishes so easily and perfectly. (For reference, I gave T2 a ten.) Any true weakness it has is simply that it's just an action movie, and that's it. It's hard to say anything bad (other than nitpicks) about the film itself.

P.S. Some of the later comments on this movie really leave me speechless. You'll get no argument from me: T3 is certainly not T2. But it's not trying to be T2. I know, you don't care what it's trying to be, you just want to be entertained. Well, that's what the film delivers. Any serious comparison (where one wishes T3 was more like T2) to the 2nd Cameron opus is misguided, and only serves to confuse oneself. I wish I could recommend you not to watch T2 before watching this film, to give you a clean slate. But I cannot, since T3 clearly assumes knowledge of both of its two prequels, at least plotwise.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
just, no
27 June 2004
Normally I'd be inclined to go into some detail about the film's plot, technical qualities, etc. The film did have all these elements, and wasn't JUST a sick "fantasy."

But I won't do that. I'll simply tell you that whatever interest I may have had in it was completely washed away by a scene of (real) torture on an animal (a giant turtle). Don't get me wrong; I don't mean that it's OK to kill people (lots of which is done in this film, in most brutal detail) but not animals. I'm just saying that anything to do with animals, in this film, looked and felt much more grotesque than anything else. It was impossible to watch, and any sign of quality that may have peeked through before that was gone, just like that. 2/10
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
24 (2001–2010)
9/10
seasons 1 and 2: intoxicating
10 June 2004
This review isn't too stressful for me since I don't have to give a numerical rating, so I can just rant freely without having to justify myself.

This is a great show (based on seasons 1 and 2, as I have not season 3). And this comes from someone that thinks most TV shows suck unbelievably. I watched both seasons on DVD, which is probably a lot better than doing so by tuning in every week.

The gimmick: Each episode represents exactly one real-time hour (I suppose unimportant stuff like going to the bathroom happens during the commercial breaks). There are 24 episodes.

The main character is Jack Bauer, government operative / hardass. The other main character is David Palmer -- a black candidate for President. The two don't meet much, but, once they get to know each other, they respect one another and work together. The first season presents a credible attack on Palmer's life -- all while Jack's family is kidnapped by fearsome terrorists. The second season goes all out and puts a nuclear bomb smack in the middle of L.A.

The plot twists early and often, and the pace really doesn't let up much. The first few hours of day 1 are probably some of the best TV of all time. The viewer really has no idea what's going on, and the direction and writing mine this potential beautifully. You can almost feel the deserted Los Angeles night, as Jack tries to untangle the mysteries that pop up from behind every corner of his investigation. The show also has a high-tech feel to it, as CTU (Jack's government organization) is full of all kinds of gadgets to try to make his job easier (or, at turns, more difficult).

The strengths of the show are many. Kiefer Sutherland does a wonderful job as Jack, and Dennis Haysbert as Palmer. Sarah Clarke, as Kiefer's ambiguously aligned coworker Nina Myers, is probably the best actor here, other than Sutherland. She just seems innately _real_. Xander Berkeley and company provide good support. However, I must say that a couple of the major characters are either bad actors or bad characters. Notably, Marie Warner from day 2 is the worst actor on the show, whose only adequate work comes during the times when she is being tortured. Penny Johnson may not be a bad actress, but her character (Palmer's wife) is so annoying that I'm forced to turn away from the speakers whenever she speaks. In general, though, the acting is top-notch. The show is cleverly edited, using lots of frames with several things going on in a split screen; the lighting is expertly done at night and otherwise. The music is absolutely outstanding.

The show has some problems, which will be hard to overlook -- but you'll still be glued to the screen. Firstly, season 1 is so intense at first, that when things slow down a bit you start gasping for more. At times like this, the dialogue turns decidedly melodramatic -- sometimes over the top. The solution of the season 1 mystery is adequate, but the final plot twist (end of hour 23) makes absolute NO sense. However, the ending is top notch. Day 2 is much more consistent (and, IMO, the better season of the two). The pacing is insane all throughout day 2, until a certain key event occurs; but the pace picks up quickly, again. But, day 2 has its own Achilles' heel: Jack's daughter Kim (a sexy Elisha Cuthbert) goes through contrived adventures with a wife-beater, the law, Kevin Dillon, and ...a cougar. Yes, a cougar. The reviewer that noted this as "just giving the character something to do" is absolutely right. I guess the tension is supposed to come from the fact that Kim Bauer is trying to get out of L.A. because she knows a nuclear strike is coming, but, really -- JACK is trying to find the bomb PERSONALLY, so he's in more immediate danger, and caring about the daughter just seems superfluous.

Nevertheless, this is TV to die for. Don't miss it.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Platoon (1986)
9/10
within Vietnam and beyond
8 May 2004
Platoon is generally regarded as one of the strongest anti-war films of all time. While this is certainly true, what's often overlooked -- at least after only one run through the film -- is that it's chiefly a tale of God vs. Satan, and the war is there to set a perilous backdrop. No doubt, Platoon shows the Vietnam War was a big mistake, but being a fictional documentary on Vietnam is far from its purpose.

The story is told from the point of view of Chris Taylor (solidly played by Charlie Sheen), a middle class kid who goes to Vietnam to do what he thinks is his patriotic duty. In the first ten minutes, Chris is shown in the uncomfortable jungle, struggling just to survive in the natural environment, let alone do any actual damage to the enemy. Quickly we're introduced to the well-known facets of the Vietnam War: The lack of sense of purpose, the wraith-like enemies, the obvious prevalence of the uneducated and poor among the fighting grunts -- and, soon, we see how these factors combine to cause widespread low morale and some actions of more than questionable ethical value.

Chris sees his platoon fragmented into two halves, each aligned with one of two men -- Sgt. Elias (Willem Dafoe) and Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger). These two really are the driving force behind the film. They both have nominally the same enemy (the Viet Cong), but, really, it doesn't take long to realize that Elias is Good, and Barnes is Evil (the "enemy" does not enter into the moral equation of this film, at all -- it's an outside threat, same as malaria-carrying mosquitoes or even friendly fire). I won't deny it is a very black-vesus-white relationship, but this polarity does not feel contrived. Elias feels the futility of the war and has respect for life; Barnes fights the war doggedly and has no compassion, period. Both are efficient soldiers fighting the same enemy, but really -- as is at one point aptly put by Chris Taylor himself -- they are fighting for the souls of the platoon members, as the outcome of the war is never really in doubt.

Elias/Barnes' hold on the platoon, and the viewer, is developed through several war sequences. A chilling scene takes place in a village, where our soldiers find no VC, but they do find a cache of VC weapons. The inhumanity of certain soldiers, including of Sgt. Barnes, is unflinchingly shown here. It leaves the viewer with an empty feeling that is hard to shake, reminding of the similarly empty look on a woman's face after she sees her son killed in front her.

Elias doesn't take kindly to this kind of behavior. Elias and Barnes come closer and closer to open conflict, as Taylor becomes a veteran, obviously siding with Elias. Meanwhile, the fate of the platoon comes closer and closer to them, culminating in an explosively shot action conclusion. The end is dark, but morally satisfying.

Don't watch this movie for the action. That's not to say it's not well shot, or unrealistic. On the contrary. It's quite convincing. But it doesn't show war as a fun sport, and it's never a question of good guys versus bad guys. There will be no cheering for the "good guys" or anyone else in this one. Stone succeeds brilliantly at putting the viewer into the middle of it all, and it's not a pretty sigh (and definitely not for the squeamish, either).

On the other hand, if you want great acting, it's here. Dafoe and Berenger do incredibly well, with the incredibly good (and seemingly authentically sounding) script. Barnes is horrific as he challenges three men to kill him, drinking hard liquor out of the bottle. They don't make a move, and neither will you, though you'll hate him just as much as them. Dafoe is a ray of light in the dark as Elias. The cast is rounded out with many characters, all well played, and adding another dimension to the film.

The technical aspects of the film are superb, though one never thinks about them much, as the movie is completely engrossing. The production values seem quite good, as well. The most stunning peripheral aspect of this film, however, is the music. It's emotional and draining, and used to great effect -- listen for the main theme as you watch the village burn.

Watch this one a few times, and you'll likely be quite moved each time. I'll be surprised if you give it less than what I gave it: 9/10
242 out of 294 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
great acting from the lead, uninspired plot exposition
20 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
If you like serial killer films that like to tax your brain, you should probably give this movie a look (exactly the reasoning I was following when I picked this up at a video store). Chances are, you'll be entertained by what you see. Just don't expect this one to be a nailbiter like Silence of the Lambs or Se7en. This one comes across as more than a little forced, at times, something that can't be levelled against those two superior films.

The plot setup is as follows. A forensic psychologist (whom we get to see in action in an unrelated case, as an introduction), Dr. Alex Cross (played by Morgan Freeman), is placed in a personal position when his niece disappears, among 8 other women -- two of which are soon found dead in a forest, clearly brutally raped earlier. Cross, a clever guy, soon determines that the other six are probably alive out there somewhere, including his niece. Meanwhile, a young doctor named Kate (Ashley Judd) is herself captured by the rapist/murder/etc. (we see the events unfolding from her perspective). She, however, manages to escape. Dr. Cross and she then try to solve the case, so that Cross's niece may be rescued.

From here on, we get standard cop thriller fare -- and I'm not saying that as a bad thing, as such stories, when well crafted, are inherently interesting -- with a clear bond (not a romantic one) forming between Cross and Kate. Of course, plot twists abound (you get plenty of surprises about who the killer might be), until the inevitable (and a bit predictable) violent conclusion. Of course, the serial killer seems to be pretty kinky (an important element for a film like this); his depravity is, unfortunately (or fortunately?) never fully fleshed out.

Through it all, Morgan Freeman does an admirable job. You feel the weight of his intellect and emotion, as he goes about this personal case, even when the script doesn't project this weight itself. It's fascinating to see a professional transcend this material so easily. Freeman makes this film, 100% -- he's not only realistic but also heavily charismatic (without seeming forced, as Al Pacino on late-career-autopilot seems to be). Ashley Judd does a good job, as does the supporting cast (well... the serial killer isn't that great...), though a certain scene where she emotionally tells her story to Cross is way forced.

There are times, however, when great acting just can't make up for a mechanical script. It's not that the plot is bad itself, it's that it's exposed somewhat mundanely. It seems as though whenever a plot point is determined by the characters, they dwell on it for a bit, until it becomes uninteresting, and then the next plot point is delivered to us. The method of delivery never seems to flow out of the film's preceding movement, and often defies common sense (why would a psychologist be able to pick up a medical reference and easily pick out the drug used on a victim, when the actual medical doctors could not? it's possible but seems a bit too convenient).

The film's handling of the script is good. It looks good, and sounds good (in 5.1 surround). I still couldn't help but notice that all the tricks one normally sees that are supposed to increase tension and drama are used in this film, too, even when the script just doesn't provide the same tension and drama. (For instance, when Freeman makes a solemn pronouncement about some trait of the killer he randomly decided on, because he's so good.) When this happens, it feels like the movie is going through the motions (no matter how hard it tries, it's just not as hard-hitting or dark as, say, Se7en). Often enough, though, the cinematographer's and director's work fits the screenplay perfectly, especially during the action at the end. The experienced movie goer, however, will probably detect a moment of randomness (watch the camera work during the bar scene with the three detectives, after Jeremy Piven asks Ashley Judd to stay still) -- I'm probably nitpicking here.

Well, there you go. It's a good movie, but quite cliched, and too often it just doesn't feel right. But if you use it to admire Morgan Freeman's work, you will be entertained. 6/10
67 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
a movie that works hard to annoy me
13 April 2004
I like Quentin. I really do. I respect his love for the genres that influenced him, and I completely support his desire to actively pay homage to these genres through his movies. All three of his movies before Kill Bill did that, and I loved them. But I didn't love them because of some in-jokes they were making that cinephiles were all over. And I didn't love them because of the almost-casual way violence and depravity are shown in them. His first 3 movies are good because of characters that are interesting and human (even if they inhabit some kind of alternate fantasy reality), dialogue that's snappy and amusing, and plots intricate and well edited. That, and his raw ability as a director, of course.

Well, Kill Bill 1 has no shortage of the latter, and the in-jokes and cartoonish (and cartoon) gore fly in your face non-stop. But this movie has no heart. This movie's characters have no heart. The dialogue sure as hell has no heart. And, frankly -- though I'm sure this is on purpose -- the acting is equally lifeless. This film has action galore, all of which is well done though not particularly memorable, and that's the only thing it really has going for it.

The story is dead simple (not a bad thing in itself): The Bride (an expressionless Uma Thurman) is gunned down with her entire party during her wedding, even though she's pregnant. The culprits are the other 5 members of the assassination squad she was formerly a part of, headed by Bill himself (whom we hear but don't see in Vol. 1). Bill shoots the Bride in the head, but she survives and later wakes up from a coma. Understandably p***ed off, she decides to kill those that wronged her (and anyone else to come in her way).

The rest of the movie is about the Bride killing 2 of the 5 assassins: The barely-present Vivica A. Fox and O'Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu), who's given an extensive backstory, both through anime and normal exposition.

So, Uma: (1) gets shot, (2) wakes up, (3) goes to Japan to build a sword, (4) fights O'Ren and helpers, (5) fights ... uh, Vivica. Granted, this is told a bit out of sequence (for NO discernible reason, unlike, say, Pulp Fiction), but this really is the gist. Oh, and O'Ren's backstory is shown in very gory anime form. The rest is reserved for Volume 2.

With a story like that, there'd better be something to keep us entertained, yes? Well, the dialogue is atypically empty (for some reason Quentin's usual profanity sounds ridiculously fake in the Vivica/Uma confrontation). The characters are all ruthless, evil bastards, even the Bride, really. (O'Ren would be cool, but read on.) And there's a LOT of sword-fighting. The thing that you'll notice right away is that gallons of blood spurt everywhere from open wounds. People are split every which way. Most of this is so over-the-top, you won't be grossed out or particularly moved by it. Some of the violence, however, goes into serious-slasher-movie territory, while in a few others moments the serious tone of the movie is combined with a ridiculous moment of gore to make one feel quite uneasy about enjoying it. That kind of thing did nothing for ME other than make feel uncomfortable. And if a film is supposed to be light-hearted fun, as you'd think about this one, at times, feeling annoyed should not be part of the deal. Kill Bill never decides what it wants to be when it comes to violence, and perhaps that's the director's intention, but the mood of the action is uneven enough to make me feel ambivalent about the action itself. To see what I mean, note the anime segment; the end of the O'Ren fight; and the end of the Gogo fight. At one point, the top of a character's head is chopped off, in graphic detail, on screen, at an extremely, extremely inappropriate moment emotionally. This sort of fate should be reserved for expendable drones, maybe, but not a principal character.

The action is solid enough that I might give this one a 6 or a 7. But all the annoying stuff is enough to rate it down to: 5/10.

NOTE: I don't care if Vol. 2 is better. This movie came out on its own, and it feels kind of like the first episode of a TV mini-series. And that's fine! It's not that it feels incomplete, as many say; it's just a weak episode.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hard Boiled (1992)
8/10
the gunplay fanatic's dream, and that's enough
9 April 2004
If you're the average IMDB reader, you probably enjoy a good action movie every now and then, but you approach action films with a certain caution and skepticism (I can't blame you, even though I am an action junkie myself). If you're that kind of viewer, the score I would give (for you) for Hard-boiled is a 6.5. To you, this is a prototypical "good" action movie -- intense, perfectly executed, original action, shown to the tune of a forgettable and occasionally insulting story.

To action junkies, this movie is an easy 9, because the only thing that really matters is that the action is superb and the other elements, if not stellar, don't detract enough from the action to really make a difference.

Splitting the difference, we get an 8/10 -- an outstanding score.

Hard-boiled is the ultimate John Woo / Chow-Yun Fat collaboration. Chow plays an uncompromising Hong-Kong cop who "works" together with an undercover cop (an EXCELLENT Tony Leung) in the triad gun-running organization. Now, when I say "works," I mean "launches thousands of bullets, slugs, and explosive projectiles into HUNDREDS of mafioso baddies." This film has a RIDICULOUS amount of gunplay. Pretty much everyone you see on screen dies at some point. Those that don't die often come perilously close to dying, before getting up and moving on as if nothing had happened. The gunmen in this film have magical powers that enable them to fire about 100 rounds from a Beretta clip without having to reload. And the top good guys seem only vaguely concerned about the loss of innocent life -- at a teahouse, or a large hospital -- except for tiny baby life, of course -- as long as they get to kill the top triad guy. And the story... well... not incoherent, but completely implausible at many points.

Realistic? NO. Is the story good? NO. Is this relevant? Not particularly. You see, one watches a John Woo movie for two things: Strong lead characters; strong lead characters shooting their way to success in surreally choreographed gunplay scenes. "But what if I don't want to watch a movie just for that?" Well, this one forces you to! If you can stand action at all, you'll be glued to the screen the entire time. Chow is a good actor, and Tony Leung is probably even better here -- they make the obligatory story sequences compelling, and when they start firing their weapons, you can't take your eyes away. Slow-motion highlights bullets, explosions, and plaster and sparks flying every which way, even as the actors and stunt men acrobatically move through the air while evading enemy fire. It's a little hard to describe how great this really is, so you just have to take my word for it. Suffice it to say that no one does gunplay like Woo, although everyone and their mother tries. (James Cameron's technique with heavy weapons and muscular guys is the other way to do gunplay, and is great in its own, more limited right.) If you're a fan of Face/Off, an American John Woo movie that actually does not suck, you know what to expect -- but multiply that by 100.

The story and realism are not good, but this makes no difference. Suspend disbelief, and go with the flow, and you're treated to prime-quality action. There ARE however, elements of this film that drag it down quite a bit. Most of them, to me, concern Woo's depictions of violence. It's obvious the man revels in blood. Several times, you see blood spurt copiously and unnaturally -- onto a wall, a desk, even a man's or baby's face. While the action is generally frantic and quick, these shots are slow, deliberate, and in-your-face. Why? To cater to our basest instincts, like a cheap slasher film. With action scenes and character acting done so well, it's embarrassing to watch such gratuitous gore added into the mix. But that's not all! The script's "good" characters are not morally corrupt: You can see them actively trying to avoid other cops or innocent bystanders. This is superficial. The characters aren't corrupt; the final script is. At least 50 innocent people, including patients at a hospital, die violently. The film doesn't display this as a horrific event, but rather as part of the scenery, cannon fodder; the film even gets pretty despicable amusement from this, particularly in one scene involving a baby (don't worry! the baby is not hurt).

Technically speaking, the movie is perfect. Aesthetically speaking, the same is true, with the exception of the music, which is extremely cheesy at times (the sax that suddenly kicks in during "emotional" moments is unbearable -- is that some kind of HK movie thing, or what?).

Such negatives are distracting. Your ability to ignore such distractions will ultimately determine if you give this a 5 or a 9. Were it a little more humane, I'd give it a 9. As it stands, I give it: 8/10.
79 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
the best action film of all time, and NOT due to the CGI
23 February 2004
Disclaimer: If you are a viewer that mainly prefers arthouse-type movies, then you might as well ignore this review. In addition, if you're not able to take a few sci-fi leaps of faith, ignore this review, as well. We'll both be better off.

This is the finest action movie of all time. And, yet, believe it or not, it's not the action in the film itself that makes this be the case. This is especially odd in a movie with a $100 million budget (in 1991!), with multiple huge explosions, with thousands of bullets fired, and scores of stuntmen used.

This movie is what it is, a perfect 10, because it takes the vision of one of the most imaginative directors on Earth, and realizes them almost perfectly with all the tools that fit the task -- actors, stunts, puppetry, models, and CG. Without the vision, this film would be nothing. Without the tools, this film would be nothing.

But, a little bit of background is due. This is the sequel to the Terminator (1984), whose premise was that a near-indestructible cyborg is sent by evil self-aware machines from the near future to destroy the mother-to-be of the military commander who would lead the humans to a victory over the machines. Oh, and this terminator machine would come from a time of war between men and machines which followed a nuclear exchange that left billions of people dead, first. In Terminator 2, John Connor (the commander-to-be) is about 12 years old, and his mother (Sarah) is feverishly trying to prepare him for his fate, even as she tries to stop the factors that will lead to the nuclear war and the entire terrible future that made all this necessary. The machines now send a superior, more intelligent, shape-shifting cyborg (T1000) into the past, to kill John himself. Meanwhile, future-John reprograms the ex-evil Terminator (T101) from the original film, and sends him into the past to PROTECT John against the T1000.

That's your basic plot. It does involve travel into the past, so it immediately presents a time-travel paradox which can't really be resolved. In order to even try watching this movie, you MUST LOOK PAST THE PARADOX. If you don't, this movie has zero credibility, and is not worth your time.

What happens after the two terminators appear in the past is a wild ride rife with macho action, dark reflection on the nature of man, and a few rays of hope, here and there. Schwarzenegger (the good terminator) and Patrick (the bad one) make for such effective foes that the times they meet on-screen are completely breathtaking (and odd, given that you repeatedly see the relatively slim T1000 through Arnie through a wall or two). Hamilton, as Sarah Connor, is a wonderful character -- tough beyond all belief and completely focussed on preventing the nuclear war and ensuring John's safety, yet clearly a little out of her mind with paranoia and anger; amazingly, you see actual character development (specifically, when John and T101 arrive at Dyson's house to prevent her from doing what she wants to) in her otherwise 2-dimensional character. And Furlong, as John, is not bad himself as the extroverted kid who's confused by the fact that everyone except his mom tell him his entire upbringing was based on a lie. The bit players all do their jobs well, particularly Earl Boen who plays the semi-sadistic mental hospital warden that stands between Sarah Connor and her son (until the T1000 makes a chilling entrance).

With these players set in motion, it's up to the script to deliver the real substance of the movie. (One often sees great performances in mediocre films... here the story transcends the performances -- an impressive feat.) The script delivers. The film is absolutely filled with great, classic moments (I counted TEN all-star ones during my last viewing), and they're evenly spaced through the movie. I mean, who doesn't cheer (at least inside) when Arnold steps out of the biker bar, fully clad in leather when "Bad to the Bone" music starts to blast? The guy absolutely bleeds coolness. And the T1000 absolutely bleeds evil. But, with so many great moments, you'd think the pacing would be a little uneven... not really! The film shifts from place to place with an ease that makes perfect sense, never giving you the time to start being a little nitpicking jerk, always driving forward, but always doing so thoughtfully and with attention to detail.

Of course, this wouldn't be an action movie without some action. There's plenty of it, and it's perfectly done. The CG effects for the shape-shifting T1000 were cutting-edge for the time, and still look great (whoever said differently below is simply incorrect) -- even if they're completely commonplace today. The stunts are completely insane in scale (at one point, a helicopter flies under a highway overpass; at another, a motorcycle jumps from the 2nd floor of a building into a flying chopper). (Probably, only the Matrix and the Lord of the Rings movies compare in terms of the level of stunt insanity.) And the gunplay is delivered in perfect Cameron-Schwarzenegger style (as opposed to the slo-mo John Woo-style) -- you'll see lots of heavy automatic and explosive weapons, and you'll see them used well. The film is violent, and somewhat bloody, but ALL of the mean-spirited violence is dealt by the evil characters, not the ones you root for (Quentin Tarantino fans: sorry). And then the truly amazing scenes that bypass acting are shocking and memorable -- just wait until the nuclear detonation sequence.

I'm not sure what else you would want in a movie. Probably moral content, and the movie has a very clear pro-human, anti-war message. The message is a bit stale, and the delivery IS, at times, a little heavy-handed (and some moments with the T101 seem just a bit unrealistic, towards the end), but the movie has heart, and that you cannot deny. Plus, it simply rocks. 10/10
830 out of 970 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed