Moviepocalypse 101 - Terminator (1984) Review

Have you ever felt that movies are getting worse? After viewing, you scream, “I could’ve crapped a better movie!” You often say, “Well, there’s two hours of my life I’ll never get back.” You often think, ‘I knew it was going to be bad and I went anyway.’ From this moment on, you will never be a victim of bad movies again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lesson 1: Warning Signs
It’s easy to recognize a bad movie - it’s differentiating a poor quality film from a good one that’s hard. That’s why I’m going to start with the most basic steps first - How to tell when a movie might suck from only the movie previews (or trailers). These signs will protect you from a movie disaster most of the times, but do note, these are indications of merely the possibility of poor movie quality, not solid proof.

#1. The preview reveals no story.
i.e.: Marie Antoinette

#2. The preview reveals no characters.
i.e.: 300

#3. The preview reveals only genre.
i.e.: Primeval

#4. No name actors.
i.e.: Epic Movie

#5. The preview mentions “Academy Award Nominee” or “Academy Award Winner.”
i.e.: The Astronaut Farmer

#6. Same old jokes, explosions, or scares.
i.e.: Norbit

#7. The preview mentions “From Director…”
i.e.: The Wickerman

#8. When there is no mention of the actor’s Oscar nominations or Oscar victories.
i.e.: Breach

#9. There is more than 2 writers on the movie.
i.e.: Superman Returns

#10. The actors in the movie look like other much more famed actors.
i.e.: Cry Wolf

#11. The poster/title design looks a little too much like another movie that was a great B.O. (Box Office) success.
i.e.: Notes On A Scandal

#12. When the director’s less successful movies aren’t mentioned.
i.e.: Lady In The Water

#13. ADD (Attention-Deficit Disorder)/MTV (do I need to explain this one…?) style editing makes you ask, “What the heck’s going on?!”
i.e.: Mission: impossible: III

#14. You didn’t laugh once during the preview… when it’s suppose to be a comedy!
i.e.: Benchwarmers

#15. The “hottie factor” is all that’s being used to attract attention to the movie.
i.e.: Into The Blue

#16. Illogical! Story makes no sense if you take 2 seconds to think about it.
i.e.: Monster In Law

#17. When the preview says, “From Pulitzer prize winning author…” but doesn’t say, “From the Pulitzer prize winning book.”
i.e.: The Lake House

#18. When there is no mention of “From the director of…” when the movie’s helmed by a big name director.
i.e.: The Covenant

#19. Four words: “From the Producer of…”
i.e.: The Hitcher (2007)

#20. It’s another sequel, but the title doesn’t have a Roman numeral in it.
i.e.: Rocky Balboa

#21. You have to suspend not only your disbelief, but also your belief.
i.e.: Wild Hogs

#22. Movieja Vu: You feel like you’ve seen this before…and done better.
i.e.: Annapolis

#23. The preview promotes B-list actors as if they were A-list stars.
i.e.: Flicka

#24. Promotes itself as the greatest thing since the (creation of the) television.
i.e.: Mirror Mask

#25. A musician, wrestler, or supermodel trying to act.
i.e.: The Dukes of Hazzard

#26. The actors aren’t mentioned during the preview.
i.e.: Saw

#27. You have one question after seeing the preview: “Is this a straight-to-video movie?”
i.e.: The Marine

#28. It doesn’t one-up the prequels it sequels.
i.e.: The Grudge 2 (2006 American Adaptation)

#29. It’s obvious the actors are in it for an easy paycheck.
i.e.: Stormbreaker

#30. Trying too hard to get Academy Award attention.
i.e.: The Painted Veil

#31. It’s not better than what’s on Network or Cable TV.
i.e.: Dead Silence

#32. Not only is it a sequel of a remake, it’s a remake of a sequel!
i.e.: The Hills Have Eyes 2

#33. You’re already annoyed by the movie’s catch phrase/tagline.
i.e.: The Lookout

#34. It has only one A-List Star, and it’s not an “art” film.
i.e.: Premonition

#35. A-List supporting actors given starring roles.
i.e.: The Omen (2006)

#36. You’re laughing during the preview for all the wrong reasons.
i.e.: Firehouse Dog

#37. Doesn’t mention that it’s a remake/Pretends to be original.
i.e.: Are We Done Yet?

#38. The movie’s release date has been delayed many times.
i.e.: Slow Burn

#39: Obvious Oscar winner(s)/nominee(s) not giving Oscar worthy performance(s).
i.e.: Perfect Stranger

So, that’s it. Those are the warning signs you ought to watch out when watching movie previews, class. Until next time, choose your movies wisely, because H-wood gives us more of what we pay for. Till then, long live good movies!

~ Flare

Well if you avoid bad movies then maybe you’ll realize there is still a lot of good in movies these days.

Maybe, but everywhere I see nowadays, bad ones are outnumbering the good ones. And this is suppose to be Summer!

~ Flare

I disagree. We’ve seen some quality films already for the Summer, such as Star Trek, Up, Drag Me to Hell, Moon, etc.
Some of them are more well known than others, but sometimes the more subtly released films (Like Moon) will come to catch people by surprise. There’s a lot of films like that that people easily overlook.

Here are two examples of movies that are ruining the summer.

  1. Aliens in the attic aliensintheatticmovie.com/

  2. Shorts en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorts_(film

Star Trek was nice, but compared to the great characterization of Wrath of Khan, it still needs work. The effects, cinematography, and to a lesser extent, the plot, were acceptable.

Up is not premiered internationally, so it’s off my list. :frowning:

Drag Me To Hell was… quite decent, I would say, but if I want to be nitpick about it, I would say its tickets deserve Matinee pricing. Raimi has not risen back up to his old standards, yet.

As for the last one, Moon, I will have to check that out. I love Kevin Spacey, and his voice over as a robot companion is much expected.

Now, for the bad movies. First off, Terminator Salvation. It made Terminator 3 looks like Terminator 2. <_<" Great effects can’t make up for TOTAL lack of character development. EDITED FOR TV.

Transformers 2… can’t make a solid judgment of it, but note this, NO BAY FOR TRANSFORMERS 3. A good thing? A bad thing? He’s claimed to be working on something ‘without explosions,’ so maybe he’s taken up my suggestion to work on a drama film instead. Doubt it, but let’s give him a little credit.

Here’s the link:
totalfilm.com/news/no-transf … &attr=news

X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Was decent, but the characterization failed slightly. Moreover, a sequel was said to be in the works, along with spin-offs from the first Wolverine film . Signs of moviepocalypse? Possibly.

Angels And Demons. Great novel. Poor adaptation. Wasn’t possibly Ron Howard’s fault. After all, film adaptations are awfully tricky, and bringing the same kind of drama onto the big screen is more than a difficult task.

So, that’s four bad movies against four of your listed good ones. Okay. But still, recently, there are a lot of news regarding possible movie disasters, such as:

More horror movie remakes! Is this the end of classic horror films that would scare us out of our seats?
esplatter.com/news.php?id=1331

Spawn remake? What the heck?!
bit.ly/C4z7V

M:i:IV?! OMG
msnbc.msn.com/id/24390588/

Speaking of aliens, check out a news article concerning the remake of the original… you guess it, Alien. Could someone give a Darth Vader ‘No’ scream? Ridley Scott is producing this?!!
bit.ly/qadax

New Scream trilogy?!!
bit.ly/bqhQp

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Now this is scary.
getthebigpicture.net/blog/20 … ilogy.html

The Warriors remake?!!
bit.ly/EOQXX

Flight of the Navigator remake?!!
bit.ly/FIhXW

Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot?!!
bit.ly/B81Im

Effing Tomb Raider reboot?!!
bit.ly/15euW5

Slap Shot remake?!!
bit.ly/keADh

A Candy Land movie?!!
bit.ly/zFon1

A Marmaduke movie?!!
joblo.com/index.php?id=25437

Missing In Action remake!
bit.ly/12ggxp

The Mechanic - remake!
bit.ly/1mVuI

Mother’s Day - remake!
bit.ly/LQQsq

American Gladiators - The movie!
bit.ly/HS6vD

Fright Night - remake!
bit.ly/D4scT

Battleship (yes, the board game!!!) - The effing movie! What the heck?!
bit.ly/pPk9F

Bazooka Joe - The movie!
bit.ly/Wpkf9

This is actually a real movie…
bit.ly/PfRmA

And so on and so forth! The signs are clear. The end is near. Time to prepare ourselves with movie knowledge and ensure a brighter future for the cinema experience of tomorrow.

Let’s say it together now…
LONG LIVE GOOD MOVIES!

~ Flare

That Charlie and the cool mule whatever looks awful. I didn’t even finish the trailer. Plus if the Candy Land movie is written by Ethan Cohen then it would have to be somewhat okay. :wink:

So you’re saying that movies are going from art form to commodity? Scary. But Battleship and American Gladiator movies? Too scary.

Thank you for the list by the way. I’ll gladly print it out and carry it in my bag whenever I’m off to the theatre and rental store.

(I did like 300 though. I’m one of those strange girls who enjoys historical epics too much.)

Seems like you’re trying to start a new movement of anti-crap-films, Flare. For that, I applaud you.

However, I must disagree with you on some movies:

Terminator Salvation was a heck of a lot better than Terminator 3, because it returned to the theme of proactive altering of the future of the first two, instead of the third’s fatalistic “You can’t do anything to change the future because you’re screwed” approach.

I’m looking forward to Transformers 2, and I don’t care if it has a less-than-stellar plot, because we all want to see larger-than-life summer blockbuster action. Yes, it would’ve been better if it did have a thought-provoking storyline of some sort, but that’s not what I paid for, is it?

I’m also stoked for M:I:IV, because M:I:3 was the best in the series, and the last great film Tom Cruise made before he got endlessly mocked for being a Scientologist and jumping on a couch. Why can’t people just forgive him and move on?

Other than that, I’m not really excited for all the upcoming projects you listed until I see the trailers.

I think the proliferation of bad movies is not so much because of audience decisions, but because of the breakdown of the traditional Hollywood system. Whereas once you had to have a big budget and A-list actors to helm a movie two decades ago, now many new actors are coming on to the scene, and you can be an independent filmmaker shooting movies on the cheap. The ratio of Good/Bad Movies back then was probably the same, but because there’s a wider variety of films due to the accessibility of talent and equipment, and globalisation (more foreign movies), it creates the illusion that there’s a lot more lousier movies. That, or Hollywood is just running out of ideas.

I do have to agree, though, your checklist on how to spot a stinker is pretty spot on! There are some exceptions, but more often that not, it ends up the way you expect it, a mediocre, sub-par movie.

TAMATER:
Oh god, I saw those two trailers and I wish I didn’t!

Here’s a couple more stinkers:

The Bracelet of Bordeaux - I don’t know what the heck’s the plot about, and I couldn’t care less.
Trailer

What Goes Up - Besides being released next to a film of a similar title (;)), it also broke the record of being the fastest theatrical to DVD release - 18 Days!
Trailer

Great list! I, myself, don’t watch that many movies unless a good one is on free-to-air TV and I happen to catch it, but if I am taking the time and money to watch one, then I’ll check out Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty much on the money, rather than relying on trailers. I didn’t laugh once during the trailer for The Hangover so maybe I shouldn’t see that one…

When the movie is based on a TV show that is years past its prime, such as The Simpsons Movie. Another common line is… “Produced by Steven Speilberg”, rather than directed. I got shafted by that trick with “Monster House”, “Jurassic Park 3” and “Men in Black 2”. D=

I thoght there were always so many bad movies.

US movies? Very few are good. Spanish movies? Very few are good. And so on.

The thing is that there are a lot more films made nowadays. So a paralell bussiness has been created in front of uality cinema: the money-printing machine-film.

An one of the causes can be people. If people go watch crap, crap will be made. BUT most people aren’t like us, they go to the movies to be entertained and that’s all. So the studios can maintain their money-printing business.

That people usually like actuion films with lots of f/x. But they can’t see many differences between godd f/x and chep-made f/x, so the studios don’t mind.

I wonder if this new wave of science fiction can do something. You know, Moon (when will it be released by the way?), District 9, Avatar, Inception, Interstellar, Star Trek 2, The Forever War…

I think what cinemea needs are NEW FRANCHISES. The sign of this is the contantly remaking.

New franchises can be original or adapted. If new, quality franchises are adapted properly to cinema, there will be room for original ones.

Of course, game-breakers like Avatar will be needed to teach people what they must ask the industry for.

This can be saved, I think. But there will be always bad films.

PS: I like Lady in the Water.

FounderofAzn: Wow, you want to print my list out? Coolios! Thanks, I’m honored. :laughing:

As for 300, it’s a great film that I respect. Remember, those warning signs are only applied to the movie trailers only, not the movies themselves. :wink:

TDIT: I’m guilty of judging without reviewing the context when it comes to Salvation, actually. But, from what I read, ‘proactive altering of the future’ pretty much sounds like they are just running around killing robots. :laughing: If so, at least T3 has some depth, because in the end, John’s final statement was kinda cool, kinda like his mother’s final words in T2, but not as awesome. But, again, this kind of stuff, especially with me not seeing T4 yet (see?! I can’t just say T4 because it is some sort of reboot; I have to type the whole ‘Salvation’ word out <_<"), is up to each’s opinions. Like food. Some like it deep fried, some like it just plain crispy with extra everything.

As for M:i:III, it was okay, but compared to the first one (I didn’t really like the second), my thoughts were,.‘Eh, okay.’ Naturally, a fourth M:i film sounded like trouble, hence my labeling of it as a ‘sign.’ :wink:

As for the H-wood system, I will get to that in another lesson (I’m using a lot of 'As for’s in this post. :stuck_out_tongue:).

rachelcakes1985: The people at Rotten Tomatoes are mostly accurate, but they are only as good as the people of the Academy; they only focuses on Oscar-worthy movies. Shallow but entertaining movies with no story logic = no entertainment value for them.

Monster House was fun. It was actually one of my own little guilty pleasures. :blush:

Luke: lol No, Luke, there were many good movies, too.

Now yell “Noooooooooooooo” like you did in Empire Strikes Back. :stuck_out_tongue:

New franchises, huh? Well, with new franchises, there’s always going to be another badly made sequel, remade, reboot, etc. It’s a whole cycle that just goes on and on until H-wood decides to change. But that kind of thing only happens in the movies. :stuck_out_tongue: I will post more about this cycle in the future.

Even though there are many bad upcoming films (or seemingly so - we don’t know about their quality yet, just the possibility of bad quality), I think that there are still many great filmmakers out there that could still flip the coin on its other side. My money is on the Indies. The great directors of today started as Independent directors back then, too. James Cameron, John Carpenter, Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, The Wachowski Brothers, etc.

Oh, and as I said, they are only warning signs applied to the trailer, not the actual movie itself (in this case, Lady In the Water). The preview didn’t mention M. Night Shyamalan’s less quality works, specifically Signs. But, Lady In the Water was kinda confusing anyway, in my opinion. :stuck_out_tongue: I might do a review on it soon, and even a spoof involving it, too, so be on the lookout. :wink:

Thank you all for the replies, I deeply appreciate it. It’s great to hear your thoughts reflected against mine, even if they do contradict at times.

As for now, let’s begin a new lesson!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lesson 2 - Rating System
Now, you’ve heard of the G, PG, PG-13, NC-17, and the infamous R rating, but those only indicate the appropriate age a patron is to have before viewing a movie.

My ratings, however, indicate the values/aspects of a movie, so that even before you read my reviews, you would know about my indicated quality for the film in accordance with my opinion.

Let’s start with the one I use most oftenly:
b Worthy[/b] - Worthy of big screen viewing, good use of energy and money
You should definitely watch it, whether it’s because of its cool CGI eye-candies, deep, emotional human drama, or great characters that you could simply connect with - or because that it’s just simply a Pixar movie, of which we know that all of them are Worthy! :smiley:
i.e.:UP!!! (exclamation marks not included in the title)

Sub-categories of this rating include:* b Midnight Show

  • (RP) Regular Price
  • (M) Matinee
  • (DT) Discount Ticket[/b]

b Unworthy[/b] - Unworthy Of big screen viewing, waste of time, energy and money
You should definitely avoid watching it in a theater. You would regret spending your money on this cinematic crap if you do.
i.e.: S** & the City

Sub-categories of this rating include:* b Rental Worthy

  • (EDTV) Edited For TV
  • (DG) Drinking game
  • (SM) Save Money[/b]
  • b Sadomasochistic[/b]

b Regular Price[/b] - Worth full price admission at a weekend night on a big screen
“Holy Crap" good! Regular Price movies are must sees on a big screen, with THX sound and a crowd of fellow movie lovers. They’re fresh, unique and exciting. The story ideas and cinematic execution usually revolutionize the art.
i.e.: The Matrix

b Matinee[/b] - Impressive enough to see on a big screen, but not worth full price
Pretty good, but not great, Matinee movies have enough positives to deserve big screen viewing, but not at full price. These stories will have you saying, “Good enough,” instead of, “That’s never been done before.”
i.e.: American Dreamz

b Discount Ticket[/b] - Watch this movie with a discount voucher or coupon
Whether you win contests, passes or just go cause it has a special promotion, this is worth watching but not good enough to pay for anything expensive.
i.e.: Jonas Brothers In 3-D

b Buy Worthy[/b] - Worth watching on DVD for full price
Buy it on DVD. This is a similar rating to b Rental Worthy[/b] but it’s slightly better.
i.e.: High School Musical 3: Senior Year

b Rental Worthy[/b] - Don’t buy, don’t pay full price; rent to return and forget
Average. Rental Worthy movies aren’t special enough to see at the multiplex. They’ve been done before and should be TV movies but are being marketing to the big screen probably because an A-List star or director are involved.
i.e.: The Sentinel

b Edited For TV[/b] - Don’t go to the theater to see it, don’t buy it, don’t rent it; see it free on TV only
Dog crap. EFTV movies explore tired ideas like kidnappings and jail breaks in unoriginal ways. These should be inadvertently experienced on the TV in the background as you do something more productive with you life.
i.e.: Annapolis

b Save Money[/b] - Save your money, don’t be related to this movie in any way
This movie is so bad it doesn’t deserve even a penny from you. Save your money up for your new car.
i.e.: Disaster Movie (no puns intended)

b Popcorn Trick[/b] - Dark, loud, and/or scary - perfect time to try and ‘get some’
Don’t have your own apartment to experience sexy time desires? No car? Bus too crowded? The next best thing is a PT rated movie. You don’t have to pay attention to the story and it’s loud enough to cover up moans. Good Luck!
i.e.: Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

b Drinking Game[/b] - Everytime (insert movie specific terribleness), do a shot
A DG rated movie is so bad that it’s unwatchable if held to basic cinematic standards of quality. But, it becomes highly viewable if shots of alcohol are coordinated with its suckiness. This was referenced in The Incredibles.
i.e.: Catwoman

b Hottie Factor[/b] - Male or female, there are some hot pieces of bods in this one
HF movies don’t have much going for them in terms of cinematic quality, but they do have hot pieces of bodies! Male or female, these people look great on a 70 foot screen. T&A, washboard stomachs, or big biceps, these hotties deliver.
i.e.: Into The Blue

b Ka-Ching[/b] - Just doin’ it for the money
Usually a sequel, sometimes a clone of a profitable original movie that starts a fad, or a movie version of a popular book, KC movies care only about taking from the audience’s pockets instead of contributing to their spirits.
i.e.: The Davinci Code

b Sadomasochistic[/b] - Go to it = You’re a sadist. Sit through it = You’re a masochist
S&M movies (the other type of ‘S&M,’ guys :wink: ) don’t hide the fact that they’re going to be a total waste of lifetime. Therefore, if you go to it, you’re voluntarily punishing yourself; if you sit through it, you’re enjoying that pain and have only yourself to blame.
i.e.: The Shaggy Dog

b Unnecessary Remake[/b] - There is absolutely no reason for this remake’s existence
UR movies have no justification for their existence. The original movies they’re based on are good enough to stand on their own and don’t really need to be updated.
i.e.: Poseidon

b Hallucination[/b] - View film in a semi-hallucinatory state for best effects
I do not support the use of perception altering substances, but let’s get real, when a quirky enough movie is released, people are going to trip out for the added effect.
i.e.: Tommy

b Predictable & Cliche[/b] - You predict what’s going to happen and it exactly happens that way
P&C movies tried tired territory. Usually by-the-book, you know the set-up, conflict and resolution before the preview (otherwise known as ‘trailer’) is half over.
i.e.: Stay Alive

b Get The Heck Outta Here[/b] - Is this really a movie? Did the studio think audiences would pay to see this?
GTHOH movies leave us wondering, “How and why the heck did this get made?” The story ideas are beyond intelligence insulting, the casting obviously decided in a boardroom, and the marketing is condescending.
i.e.: Just My Luck

b Twist After Twist[/b] - You won’t know what the truth is till the end
TAT movies keep you constantly off balance as to what the ultimate truth is. Just when you’re sure of what’s going on, something new is revealed that changes your assumption. This continues until the fade out.
i.e.: Wild Things

b Wants Oscar Nominations)[/b] - Obviously trying to get the attention of the Academy
WON movies are desperately looking for Academy Award attention. Every aspect is too measured: lighting, acting, directing, editing, etc. It’s like a computer spat out a formula for the perfect Oscar winner.
i.e.: The Green Mile

b Same Old Funny[/b] - You’ve laughed at these jokes already
SOF movies have the same jokes you’ve been laughing at since you were old enough to understand reruns of I Love Lucy.
i.e.: Scary Movie 5

b Unofficial Saturday Night Live Movie[/b] - Same SNL players, same SNL ideas, no Lorne Michaels
An USNLM has the all genetic make up of an SNL-style movies. It has the actors, the idea/story and the same jokes. It’s just missing the same producer: Lorne Michaels.
i.e.: Benchwarmers

b Guilty Pleasure[/b] - You publicly dismiss it, but secretly love it
GP movies are unintentionally bad. Usually everyone involved is trying their best but somehow doing their worst. Critical condemnation occurs publicly, audience viewing occurs privately.
i.e.: Showgirls

b Pushes Boundaries[/b] - It dares to go where other movies don’t
PB movies stretch cinematic grammar and audience expectation. Restless with what already exists, they strive to explore and experiment with the artform. Sometimes failing, often times succeeding, always interesting.
i.e.: Memento

b Not Even Trying[/b] - Total lack of inspiration on every possible imaginable levels
NET movies are decent enough ideas for the big screen, but it’s evident that the filmmakers are phoning it in. Instead of breaking new boundaries, these movies stick to the tried and true formulas.
i.e.: Material Girls

b Not That Different[/b] - Inspired by movies that have come before, but not different enough
NTD movies know what other movies in their genre have come before but, unfortunately, don’t fall too far from the tree. They’re kinda new but mostly the same as their predecessors.
i.e.: Hostage

b Kids Nag Parents[/b] - Kids’ nagging forces parents to see this movie again and again
KNP movies wrap kids around their pied piper fingers and puppet them to bother mom and dad to take them to see a movie over and over.
i.e.: Finding Nemo! :smiley:

b You Know What You’re Getting[/b] - You’re gonna get what you paid for
YKWYG movies unabashedly abide by genre formulas and don’t try to hide it. They’re not original or groundbreaking, but safe and reliable and they give you exactly what you want.
i.e.: Hitch

b Too Little Too Late[/b] - Good idea, good effort, but too little too late
TLTL movies are good ideas that have already been made in a good enough way that yet another movie about he same topic/story has little flare or interest left.
i.e.: Infamous

b Original[/b] - It’s an original idea that doesn’t copies other movie ideas
O movies are different, fresh and full of creativity.
i.e.: Be Kind Rewind

b Same Old Crap[/b] - No surprises here; been there, done that
SOC movies have the same actors in the same roles with the same stories doing and saying the same things with the same endings.
i.e.: Torque

b Career Life Support[/b] - Actors try to keep their careers alive by starring in anything
CLS movies star actors whose careers are ‘flatlining.’ In order to stay alive, filmmakers are forced to make any movie that 1) pays them and 2) helps them stay in the public consciousness.
i.e.: The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause

b Cell Phone Action[/b] - Plenty of talking on cell phone(s) in the middle of tense action
CPA movies are filled, wall to wall, with characters answering their cell phones while walking, running, jumping, shooting, scaring and fighting.
i.e.: Cellular

b That’s Gotta Hurt[/b] - You’re gonna feel pain watching people get hurt or going through dangerous obstacles or stunts
TGH movies have the actors/actresses performing dangerous stunts, most often resulting in agonizing suffering that leaves you either squirming in discomfort or laughing your butt off.
i.e.: Jacka**: The Movie

b No Guts[/b] - A great idea that was played safe instead of pushed across boundaries
NG movies have major potential to push boundaries but instead squander the opportunities by playing it safe.
i.e.: What Women Want

b Franchise Rejuvenation Attempt[/b] - Attempts to make dying franchise cash generator again
FRA movies are descendants of once successful franchises made to ignite demand for more sequels from a new generation of movie fans and/or the nostalgic older fans responsible for its original longevity.
i.e.: Superman Returns

b Story Makes No Sense[/b] - The movie’s story logic hurts your brain
SMNS movies can’t hold up to the scrutiny of a 4th grader’s logic. They stretch the audience’s suspension of disbelief too far and try to get away with it by pretending everything is okay.
i.e.: Transformers

b Power To Inspire[/b] - This movie inspires you to believe in your dreams
PTI movies have a message: Believe in you dreams! Getting the dream job, marrying the love of your life, revolutionizing the auto industry. Whatever the dream, have one and go after it cause it can become reality!
i.e.: Dreamgirls

b Stimulates Imagination[/b] - Helps you to think in creative ways
SI movies blow your everyday mind. They take the ordinary and make it extraordinary. They take “what is” and turn it into “what can be” or “what isn’t…yet.”
i.e.: The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain

b Playing Against Type[/b] - Actors are in roles you wouldn’t expect them to play
PAT movies have well know actors in them where they play characters that audiences normally wouldn’t associate them with.
i.e.: Kindergarten Cop

b Family Movie[/b] - Subject matter won’t rob children of their innocence
FM has safe subject matter that won’t shatter the bubble of childhood innocence for the kids who see it. Also, parents won’t have to worry about answers uncomfortable questions they still may not have the answers to.
i.e.: Monsters, Inc.!!! :smiley:

b Holy Fing S That Looks Awesome[/b] - Swearing is the only way to convey your excitement
HFSTLA movies are so different, fresh and big screen worthy that you instinctively swear after watching the preview.
i.e.: Grindhouse

b Iconic Characters[/b] - It will be remembered for years to come because the character(s) are iconic
IC movies have very memorable characters that you would still remember even after 100 to 1000 years.
i.e.: Toy Story

b Big Screen Version Of TV Show[/b] - Your favorite TV show finally gets its big screen due
BSVOTVS movies are popular TV shows brought to the big screen mainly due to fan demand and market research that indicates a profitable return for the production company.
i.e.: Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters

b Moral Value[/b] - You will a lesson or two from the movie because there’s a moral value
MV movies will teach you about morality, justice and all sorts of decent stuff that reflects your conscience, leaving you stuff to think about.
i.e.: Camp Rock

b Socially Relevant[/b] - Deals with a present day social issue
SR movies deal with current social issues. Sometimes fictional, usually documentary, they serve to make viewers aware of various human behavior.
i.e.: Trade

b Asian Roots[/b] - The movie has connection or stays in contact with Asia
AR movies focus on aspects of the Asian countries, be it Japan, China or Singapore, oftenly going back to their historical roots and explore their culture.
i.e.: Dance of the Dragon

b Hopes You’ll Care[/b] - Hopes that you’ll be inspired to make a difference
HYC movies have a message to convey about something important to basic humanity and hope that you’ll care enough to listen to this message and take action to do something about it.
i.e.: An Inconvenient Truth

b Big Screen Episode Of Law & Order[/b] - Story idea usually seen on Law & Order
BSEOL&O movies are story ideas that are the center of Law & Order episodes. Somehow one of them has been made into a feature length movie that has somehow made it to the big screen.
i.e.: Perfect Stranger

b Twist Ending Is Gonna Suck[/b] - Too many twists and turns will lead to a crappy ending
TEIGS movies set themselves up for long term failure in order to have short term gain. They twist and turn to keep the audience guessing until the very end when all the strings of curiosity fail to knot together cohesively.
i.e.: Slow Burn

b So Bad It’s Good[/b] - It’s entertaining to watch a big budget train wreck
SBIG movies are made by major studios, have a big budget and big stars but for some reason they fail to work to such a level that they move beyond the land of terrible and into the realm of good for the wrong reasons.
i.e.: The Wickerman

b Youthified[/b] - An old movie remade to appeal to a younger audience
Y movies are old movies that have been remade or “re-imagined” in a superficial manner: Actors are younger, dialog is hip and technology is up to date. It looks new, but it’s just bloated by market research Botox.
i.e.: Disturbia

b For Kids Only[/b] - This is made for or more suitable for school kids
FKO movies are made for the younger audiences who are still mostly ignorant of the harsh reality of the world, while adults or older audiences might find them to be distasteful.
i.e.: Alvin & the Chipmunks

b Cute[/b] - This movie will make audiences squeal in adoration
While watching most parts of this movie, audiences would go, “Awwwwwww…” due to the cutesy, adorable scenes.
i.e.: Alvin & the Chipmunks

b Something For Everyone[/b] - Young, old, smart and dumb, this movie will entertain everyone in some way
SFE movies are viewable by people of all ages. Typically targeted for children, these movies also entertain at adolescent and adult levels.
i.e.: Toy Story 3!!! Coming soon in a year OMGz! Ahem.

b Sequel Obsessive Compulsive Disorder[/b] - You are compelled to see each installment of a movie franchise
SOCD movies are new installments of a franchise that you feel compelled to see because you only feel okay if you know you’ve, “Seen them all”
i.e.: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End

b Relationship Angst Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies dealing with the strife of relationships
RAL movies bathe in the pleasure and pain of relationship turmoil. The why and how of meeting, getting along and staying together is pondered endlessly with wit, laughs, screams and tears.
i.e.: Annie Hall

b Retro Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies that make the past hip
RL movies take the recent past and make popular things back then hip again in the here and now. They also provide bittersweet nostalgia.
i.e.: Kickin’ It Old Skool

b Heist Movie Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies about characters planning, stealing and getting away with it… or not
HML movies are about characters coming up with a scheme to steal something big, gathering a variety of characters with a certain skills, planning it, stealing it, then trying to get away with it.
i.e.: The Italian Job

b Spy Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies about spying
SL movies have secrets, deception, trust, betrayal, love, manipulation, ulterior motives, tension and a little action here and there.
i.e.: Three Days of the Condor

b Poofy Dress Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it only because you love movies with women wearing poofy dresses
PDL movies are usually period pieces, ranging in time from the 1600’s to the late 1800’s, with the settings being either France or England. Most importantly, the fashion is always the same: Poofy!
i.e.: Shakespeare In Love

b Olden Times Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love the past, no matter how long ago
OTL movies are set in a time long before the age of cars, televisions and cellphones.
i.e.: Gangs of New York

b Cops & Robbers Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies with cops and robbers
C&RL movies deal with cinema’s oldest conflict: Good guys vs. Bad guys. Usually they involve police officers battling various criminals: Bank robbers, drug dealers and or mobsters.
i.e.: Donnie Brasco

b Special Effects Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love special effects
SEL movies have amazing effects. Whether they’re computer generated, stop-motion, animatronics or old fashioned editing trickery, you just want to be visually amazed.
i.e.: Le Voyage dans la lune (A Trip to the Moon)

b Documentary Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love non-fiction movies
DOCL movies are the original Reality TV. But, instead of exploiting, they have integrity, standards and respect for the people profiled and featured.
i.e.: Spellbound (2002)

b Drama Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love watching arguments, silent pauses and crying
DL movies are all about people fighting with words, taking deep breaths, long silent pauses, casting penetrating gazes, and crying a lot.
i.e.: Ordinary People

b Quirky Family Drama Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies about quirky families
QFDL movies deal with family strife in an eccentric manner. Prepare yourself for dysfunctional family members with peculiar habits, hobbies and emotional reactions to dramatic situations.
i.e.: The Royal Tenenbaums

b School Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies that have connections with schools or education
SCHL movies feature students studying, kicking butts, schmoozing teachers, teachers getting tormented and all the neat little stuff that you went through as a kid.
i.e.: Accepted

b Comedy Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies that make you laugh
CL movies make you laugh your butt off. That’s the only reason to see them. Yes, they usually have A-list actors and directors, but most of all they have “The Funny.”
i.e.: Wedding Crashers

b Dramatic Comedy Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love dramatic comedies
DCL movies are dramas that don’t take themselves to seriously. They remember that even though life makes you cry, it can also make you laugh to take some of the sting away.
i.e.: As Good As It Gets

b Romance Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love romance
RML movies deal with characters in mushy-gushy settings of love and romance. Romantic elements such as roses, candle light dinners and running through wheat fields are common.
i.e.: Somewhere In Time

b Romantic Comedy Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love romantic comedies
RCL movies don’t take love so seriously. Characters try to woo each other with romantic gestures that turn embarrassing, awkward and most importantly, funny.
i.e.: When Harry Met Sally…

b Not A Good First Date Movie[/b] - Subject matter way too heavy for a new relationship
NAGFDM movies have subject matter that doesn’t jive with the nature of a first date. While you’re deciding if you’ll let him get to second base while he’s trying for home is not the time to see movies that weigh heavy on the soul.
i.e.: In The Land of Women

b Girls Night Out[/b] - It’s a movie that is suited or more suitable for girls
GNO movies are great for the female movie lovers. Get your nails done and put on your best dress because it’s time to par-tay!
i.e.: Material Girls

b Bromance[/b] - Perfect for a guy’s night out
BRO movies are more suitable for guys as it contains big action sequences, loud explosions or just about anything that guys love to see as they munch off their buttered popcorn.
i.e.: Four Brothers

b Action Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies with kinetic action
AL movies have tons of physical action. Gunfire, explosions, fist fights and chase sequences, it’s all that matters and it’s the reason the audience goes.
i.e.: Die Hard

b Car Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you like speeding, racing cars
CARL movies might not have Carl Fredricksen in them, but they Porsches, NASCARS, Lamborghinis and a lot of tire screeching.
i.e.: The Fast and the Furious

b Sci-Fi Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love science fiction
SFL movies explore the future as it relates to technological advancement and how humanity has been affected by that progress. Above all, audiences want to see gadgets, spaceships and toys of the imagination not yet realized.
i.e.: Total Recall

b Horror Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love horror movies
HL movies scare the crap out of audiences. Usually centering on serial killers with supernatural powers or just twisted imaginations, the characters die gruesome deaths and audiences love to watch them.
i.e.: Saw

b J-Horror Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love Japanese horror movies
JHL movies scare audiences with creepy illogical images, eerie silence, water and pale girls with long black hair. Psychological tension is favored over physical action.
i.e.: Ring

b Remake Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love remakes
RMKL movies rejuvenates old or forgotten movies for the sake of money or to remind everyone of their existence.
i.e.: Yours, Mine and Ours (2005)

b Coming of Age Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies about characters coming of age
COAL movies follow a character’s experience during a life altering change in perspective. Usually dealing with the transition from childhood to adolescence or adolescence to adulthood.
i.e.: Stand By Me

b Urban Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies in urban settings
UL movies set characters undergoing dramatic conflict in a corrupt or gang-ridden big city environment.
i.e.: New Jack City

b Office Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because it is set in an office or in work
OL movies are set in locations where bustling people are getting through the daily paperwork, boss schmoozing and flirting.
i.e.: Employee of the Month

b Sport Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies with sports
Baseball, soccer, tennis or badminton; as long as it’s related to a certain sport, you are gonna watch it.
i.e.: Invincible (2006)

b Festival Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because it has something to do with festivals
FVL movies feature different festivals, holidays and occasions that you know and love, whether it’s Christmas, April’s Fools or even the birthday.
i.e.: Halloween (1978)

b Religion Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love religious films or it’s a film about your religion
Christian, Buddhism, Catholicism; as long it’s about spiritual beliefs and divine intervention, you’ll believe that you would love it.
i.e.: The Passion of the Christ

b World War II Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies about World War II
WWIIL movies focus on characters fighting in World War II. American, German, Japanese or Italian audiences love watching stories about one of the few times in history the world was the prize waiting for the victor.
i.e.: Saving Private Ryan

b Political Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies dealing with politics
PL movies deal with corruption, frame-ups, double crosses, cover-ups, election campaigns, fundraising, spin doctors, media manipulation, lobbyists and assassinations.
i.e.: Wag The Dog

b Musical Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love musicals
Whether it’s singing or dancing, MUSL movies will entertain you with its melody and rhythm.
i.e.: High School Musical 3: Senior Year

b Magic Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies about magic
ML movies are about characters casting spells. It can be wizards. witches or magicians; doesn’t matter. Simply making things change after magic words are spoken and you will be happy.
i.e.: The Chronicles of Narnia film series

b Fantasy Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because your love movies with dragons and stuff
FL movies have the mythological creatures, talking animals, sorta-kinda-human-like beings, royalty, quests, honor and good vs. evil seeking to control kingdoms and all that stuff.
i.e.: The Neverending Story

b Supernatural Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love the supernatural
SUPL movies have creatures of the unknown claimed to be from the spiritual realms, other planets and even within the burning h***.
i.e.: Constantine

b Apocalypse Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love seeing the world coming to an end
APL movies have comets, monsters, infectious diseases that turn you into cannibalistic zombies and other chaotic disasters that would destroy, destroys or would destroy mankind, even the entire planet Earth herself. Whether it’s Pre-Apocalypse, Apocalypse or Post-Apocalypse, you would want to watch it because you love seeing the world gets destroyed.
i.e.: I Am Legend

b Monster Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love monsters
MF movies have huge destructive monsters rampaging through cities, small towns or even a thick rainforest. At other times, they just have monsters. Walking around. Or working.
i.e.: Monsters, Inc.

b Food Lover[/b] You’re gonna see it because there are gonna be food or chefs
FDL movies have delicious food that pleases your eyes and arouses your tastebuds. Stomach unaffected.
i.e.: Bella

b Animation Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love animation
ANML movies are completely animated.
i.e.: An American Tale

b Computer Animation Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love computer animation
CAL movies are completely computer generated.
i.e.: WALL•E!!! <3

b Computer Animated Animal Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love computer animated animals
CAAL movies are completely computer generated starring animals.
i.e.: A Bug’s Life!!! :smiley:

b Animal Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love animals
AML movies feature animals as their stars. Furry, scaly or beastly, you would want to watch it because you love those critters.
i.e.: The Animal

b Insect Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love creepy-crawly insects
IL movies have the creepy insects as their main attraction. Even with their feelers, multiple legs and eyes, you would love these movies.
i.e.: Antz

b Horse Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies about horses
HF movies are all about horses galloping, neighing, pooping and even talking. Set at a racetrack, in the Wild West or on a private ranch where a misunderstood child will befriend it. Doesn’t matter. We just want horses!
i.e.: Seabiscuit

b Scenery Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love the nice sceneries in it
SCL movies have exquisite beautiful sets that look endearing and soothing.
i.e.: Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

b Ocean Water Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you like movies that deals with the ocean
OWL movies are set in, across or upon the wide open oceans filled with treacherous waves and beautiful coral reefs.
i.e.: Into the Blue

b Designer Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love to see the stars wearing glamorous clothing
DESL movies have the stars wearing expensive designers’ outfits that shines under the spotlight, whether it’s fur or leather.
i.e.: S** & the City

b Looks Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love to see good looking celebrities
LL movies have some of the best looking stars all lined up for your viewing pleasure. From Orlando Bloom to Cameron Diaz; as long as they are good looking, you will want to watch it.
i.e.: Stardust (2007)

b Hero Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love heroes
HEL movies have brave and noble protagonists sacrificing their lives trying to save humanity and keeping peace and order at all times… or most of the times.
i.e.: Braveheart

b Villain Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love villains
VL movies have scheming, wretched antagonists that make most people hate them, but not you.
i.e.: The Omen (1976)

b Book Adaptation Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies based on books
You are going to watch this movie because it’s adapted from the good old book/literature medium.
i.e.: Harry Potter film series

b Comic Book Adaptation Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies based on comic books
CBAL movies have been waiting a long time to be realized. Cinema technology has finally caught up to the imaginations of comic book storytellers; these movies finally bring them to life.
i.e.: Spider-Man

b Based On A True Story Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies based on things that actually happened
BOATSL movies cinematize real life happenings. Horror, War, Mafia - whatever the genre, the important thing is that it’s a dramatic representation of something that actually occurred.
i.e.: Amityville Horror (1979)

b Narration Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love narrations
NL movies have people talking to themselves, to a certain individual or even to the audience throughout the movie.
i.e.: The Princess Diaries

b Psychological Thriller Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love movies that scare you with tense thoughts
PTL movies get inside your head and whisper thoughts that disturb you. They make you paranoid, cause you to second guess your logic, making you scared to think.
i.e.: Mulholland Drive

b Cinematography Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love nicely photographed images
CINL movies are beautifully and responsibly photographed. Whatever the genre, they use lighting, camera movement and angles that enhance the storytelling.
i.e.: Zodiac (2007)

b Story Factor[/b] - No big name actors, no big name directors, no CGI; just story
SF is the simplest reason the audience will see a movie. It usually doesn’t have A-list actors, an A-director or even a sizable budget. It just has an interesting story and dedicated filmmakers who want to see it realized.
i.e.: Brick

b Actor Factor[/b] - Who cares what the movie’s about; you like the actor(s)
AF movies feature A-list actors that audiences love. No matter the story, director or genre, people want to see this because of who’s in it.
i.e.: Glengarry Glen Ross

b Old Actor Factor[/b] - Who cares about modern actors, you like the talented actors from the old and aged times
You are going to watch this movie because you love the veteran actors that are starring in it, be it for your trust in his talent or your continuous fondness for his person.
i.e.: The Bucket List

b Favorite Actor Voice Over Lover[/b] - You’re gonna see it because your favorite actors are doing the voice over.
FAVOL movies feature voice over work by well know actors. You go because you like to hear them talk.
i.e.: La Marche de l’empereur (March of the Penguins)

b Oscar Factor[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love to watch a movie that will be receiving Oscar attention
OF movies normally keeps every aspect of the movie calculatingly accurate in accordance with the filmmaker textbooks.
i.e.: The Green Mile

b Hero Factor[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love the hero of the movie
HEF movies have heroes that you particularly love.
i.e.: X-Men

b Villain Factor[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love the villain of the movie
We all love villains for their wickedness and wretched nature, and in VF movies, they have particular foes you love (or love to hate).
i.e.: The Dark Knight

b Director Factor[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love the director
DF movies are viewed because Mr. or Mrs. So and So are behind the camera. It could be a feature length dishwashing liquid commercial and we wouldn’t care; we just want to see the director’s latest creation.
i.e.: Clerks 2

b Writer Factor[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love the screenplay writer
WF movies are viewed because their writers have built up a certain name or rep for themselves.
i.e.: Alvin & the Chipmunks

b Narrator Factor[/b] - You’re gonna see it because you love the narrator, who is a big star with a voice you want to hear
NF movies have your favorite voices playing throughout the entire movie.
i.e.: Ratatouille

Phew. It took me more than a day to type this list out. :laughing: So, class, do remember to memorize them - you will be tested. :stuck_out_tongue:

Until next time, choose your movies wisely, because H-wood gives us more of what we pay for, and as always,

Long Live Good Movies!

~ Flare

But there are so many good movies on that original list! I love Saw! :laughing:

You know, I do think it’s all down to personal preference. I know that sounds obvious, but making a list of how to avoid bad films, although applaudable, isn’t ever going to work for everyone. I’m sure the Scary Movie series is one that most ‘cultured’ movie-goers love to hate, but I love it full-stop. They’re just brilliant. Well, perhaps not the fourth one, but the first three are great. And people can talk all day about how they’re not worthy movies and they make a mockery of all the decent movies out there, blah blah blah, but nothing will stop me finding them funny and strangely inspirational.

I went to the cinema last night and saw Drag Me To Hell. I wasn’t expecting much other than the usual boring horror movie, and I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t been going with my mum who needs a really simple storyline and lots of visuals when she goes to the cinema because she’s deaf, and some really chatty film, even if it’s very good, isn’t much fun for her. But I ended up enjoying it as well, even though it was something that I usually wouldn’t bother with. I found it amazing how I could be jumping out of my seat and screaming one minute, and then laughing the next.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that every movie you hate probably has a massive following to some extent. I mean, I hate the sound of Ice Age 3. It looks stupid. There are dinosaurs? In an ice age? I’m sure the movie explains this somewhat, but I simply do not care. Unfortunately, most of my friends do and they’re desperate to see it. Which is exactly my point. :laughing:

And Dragon of Omnipotency, you must have a lot of spare time on your hands. :laughing:

lizardgirl: I think you might be misinterpreting my point. :wink:

The examples that are listed under ‘bad’ ratings aren’t the ones I hate, nor are the movies, as I have emphasized before in previous posts, I listed side by side with the warning signs. Those ratings are merely what I determine the movies to be - whether it’s having a bad story, or lousy characters. Regardless, just because they have those aspects, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I would hate them. Like Transformers, example.

I made a lot of criticisms about its lack of story logic and shallow characters, yet I too enjoy its cool CGI action eye candies, and that will definitely get me watching Transformers 2.

That’s what being a critic is about. You give judgment that has as much truth to it as you are capable of determining. I might be wrong half of the times I was criticizing, so there isn’t an universal truth to any movie’s quality. Like you said, it’s up to one’s personal taste.

I do encourage people to defend their movies passions - even for movies that I find to be Unworthy of big screen viewing. Whenever I say, “H-wood gives you more of what you pay for,” I meant that H-wood makes movies that you like, not movies that are good or bad. I’m not slashing any movie for its quality. If you like a movie so much, go ahead and watch it, even if I say it’s bad. It’s this kind of movie passion that’s needed in Hollywood, not money passion. :wink:

And yes, I do have a lot of time. It’s my school holiday. :laughing:

Roland Emmerich presents… “Moviepocalypse” :laughing: :laughing: I love that word.

Or, in Roland Emmerich’s case, he is the moviepocalypse. :laughing:

J/k :laugh: 10, 000 BC wasn’t that bad. :wink:

Hm… then maybe you should give T4 a chance before you jump to conclusions… :wink:

Yes, I totally agree with your whole opinion there! As much as I love Oscar films such as Lord of the Rings, Titanic or No Country For Old Men, I also love other films which the critics snubbed, like oh… The Dark Knight and Wall-E perhaps? As well as the 100% action 0% plot flicks by Bay, Bruckheimer and Scott.

Oh yeah! :smiley: Seriously, they’re the last of the great spoof movies, before the annoying ‘(insert genre title)-Movie’ trend started, probably in an effort to repeat the success of the Scary Movies.

Oh, they do, lizardgirl. It’s in the trailer. :wink:

Ok, that’s cool. I appreciate matured comments like that, I thought you were a TF-hater, or something. :smiley:

Yeah, I guess the cause you’re championing is for viewers to be more discerning with their movie viewing, something I can appreciate. I hate it when the general public rushes out to support movies which are mediocre when there are more worthy ones out instead (like Hangover’s recent win over Up at the U.S. box office, I mean seriously people, WTH? :neutral_face:)

But seriously, Flare, you wrote all that out? Don’t you Singaporeans have other things to do over the holidays, like, I dunno, revising for next semester’s exams or attending ‘remedial’ classes or something? :wink: Nah, just jokin’. I was playin’ with Sing stereotypes.

lol I’m studying in an ITE college, dude, and, it’s a Nitec class, so the stress is lower, not to mention that this is my first year. I practically have no responsibility! Well, over my school, that is. :slight_smile:

~ Flare

Terminator: Salvation gives us the story we’ve all been waiting for - the war against the machines! But, is it all flash and no character? Let’s see how we got here by taking a look back at where we’ve been.

The following Moviepocalypse Lesson has been reviewed for All Readers by the Dragon of Omnipotency.

This lesson has been rated:
NB - No Bull - Content saves time, money and prevents emotional distress
It contains common sense, asterisked bad words and good intentions

What’s up good movie lovers? Welcome to another lesson of Moviepocalypse 101. Today, in honor of the recent release of Terminator: Salvation, I wanted to start a little ‘full-length review’ series here of the first three Terminator films. Today, we’ll be taking a look at the first one.from 1984, the one that made Arnold Schwarzenegger the most popular movie star in the planet, launched James Cameron’s career, redefined action science fiction and challenged everyone in the movie industry to do better stories and special effects. Nevertheless, story’s based in character which, supposedly, according to the many reviews for Terminator: Salvation - I haven’t seen it yet; shame on me because I am a huge Terminator 1 and 2 fan - the knock against it is that this fourth installment is all special effects and no character.

So, let’s take a look at this first movie and then we’ll look at Terminator 2. A couple of movies that set the standard or put the challenge down for all science fiction movies - or, really, just all movies in general - should follow this rule: No matter what the genre, you base it in character first, then emotions and finally story. After all that, then you worry about all the decorations and the special effects.

If you’ve read my Transformers 9 Parter review, you would understand the format of this current review except that, this time, there won’t be any breaks. No fragments; just straight forward in one shot, so it’s going to be really long post. Bear with me as it will be worth your time, I promise.

Currently, I still have my Terminator 2 Deluxe Edition on VHS. Yes, Video Home System; a freaking video cassette. lol 2 VHS tapes, in fact. The first tape is the movie and the second one has all the trailers, cut out footage, deleted scenes; all that kind of special features. It was kinda neat, but my Terminator Trilogy: Deluxe Edition DVD still tops the cake.

So, with that, let’s begin the first of the three ultimate reviews of the Terminator series.

Terminator: The Full Length Review

James Cameron got his start in the late 70s or early 80s, probably most famous for getting a start with Roger Corman; he did some effects for one of his movies of which I don’t know the exact title of. James then had his directing debut with Piranha 2, of which, I think, its predecessor, Piranha 1, H-wood is remaking. They’re gonna make it in 3-D. :unamused: Flying piranhas everywhere, so it just shows how far they are stretching for new ideas. James had actually got fired off the set of Piranha 2. But then, he met LanceHendrickson, made some good contacts on that and was able to get some funding. He worked with a woman by the name of Gale Anne Hurd, who later became his wife, I think. She was a producer and funded Terminator.

So, at about 1 minute into the film, we arrive at a scene that just blows you away. It’s very reminiscent, like the opening of Star Wars which obviously redefined science fiction storytelling. But here, it just gets you into the story. I remember watching this when I was probably 10 or 11 in my living room at about '96 or '97. I couldn’t have became conscious enough to remember anything before '96 when I was 6 years of age, so it must have been that. Obviously, it was filled with the bad editing and cutting out the ‘Rated R’ kind of moments and the voice-overs (just getting rid of any vulgarities). Regardless, this moment is just awesome. You have all these human skulls on the ground among these huge machines and laser blasts.

In '84, it was probably still pretty impressive; in '86 even because people really only just had Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi which kinda set up the standards for special effects. Even at that point, with those three movies out, no one really stepped up to the plate to challenge those films in terms of the scope of the story and, obviously, the effects, especially with the little models being used. Of course, if Bay had showed up back then, we know what would had happened.

This opening sequence here is about a minute long but it just totally sets the mood. I remember being really disappointed when that scroll came up and it’s like, “The battle will be fought here in our time,” I was like, “No! Stay over there! I want to see these machines and people fighting them.” As I’ve mentioned in my T4 review, I think that, for anyone who’s a Terminator fan who loves the movies, Terminator: Salvation is really this kind of culmination we have been waiting for. It’s 2009 right now, so it took 25 years for the old fans to see that opening shot of the very first footage of the Terminator franchise. We finally get to live in that world for an entire movie. So, I’ll wait to see the movie to kinda give some opinion about that. I hope that they didn’t mess it up,thatMcG and company didn’t ruin the franchise. It’s just like a volleyball being set hurling perfectly for a spike, and it’s like how can you mess it up?

Let’s talk briefly about the title sequence after the opening scene - and the music. The more I watch movies, the more I listen to soundtracks. Music plays such a huge part in terms of whether the movie is gonna be a success or not. Think about your favorite movies. More than likely, all of them have soundtracks that are memorable, probably scored byJamesHorner , John Williams or someone. A lot of great movies have great scores. This opening sequence has just these big letters, you never see the whole title till the very end. It’s almost like a little metaphor, kind of just a setup for Schwarzenegger who’s this huge force that’s coming to get ya.

Just the music itself is setting the pace very well. It has a very Jaws kind of quality. Dum-dum, dum-dum, dum. And here, in Terminator, it’s like du-du du-du du-du. I really think that it kinda sounds like a Terminator’s heartbeat - obviously, he doesn’t have one - but it’s very much like this robotic kind of a life force, churning out this foreboding noise. You could almost say it’s kinda like thisJasonVoorhees kind of breathing; the chu-chu-chu, kah-kah-kah in kinda another style. A lot of people compared or said that Terminator, in a way, is kinda like a Sci-fi horror film, where you have the Micheal Myer or Freddy Kruger. At this point, I think for Freddy, he just might have come out in theaters and become part of our consciousness.

Next, we have this awesome introduction of the Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, with the camera going low angled. In a lot of horror movies or just any movie in general, if you want to have someone be intimidating, you go for low angled shots so that he’s kinda like hovering over us. Schwarzenegger’s only like, I don’t know, 5"7’ or something. He’s not a super tall guy and, in this film, he’s come off as like being 6"5’ or something.

Again, the music is great. It really sets up immediately what the T-800 is like because you see him with that kind of metallic heartbeat ‘chu-chu-chu-chu’ Jason Voorhees kind of sound that goes, dah-dah-dah-dah, dah-dah-dah-dah. It makes you nervous. It’s a great example of soundtrack enhancing a scene. The soundtrack should just be there to give us cues; it shouldn’t overpower us and control our emotions. The soundtrack really is kinda like a direct route into our feelings. Movies that we really connect with probably have really great soundtracks.

The following scene after this features Bill Paxton, who would later, two years after this, be in Aliens as Hudson, one of my favorite movie characters in general. In this movie, he’s the leader of a group of punks in bad '80s fashion. Looking back now, it’s very laughable. Other than that, most of this movie holds up. It’s a little dated but it just has this quality, this techno Sci-fi horror kind of feel, which to me, still feels a lot creepier than what H-wood could offer nowadays. To note an example, there’s John Carpenter’s Escape From New York, where you get this desolate city and it could be the future, it could be the past; kind of like this ‘nowhere zone.’ Pay attention to Schwarzenegger in this scene here; he just stands up powerful with no emotions.

Then, we get the introduction for the human side of the opposition. One great thing about this movie is that, we’re 6 minutes into the film (excluding the logo and stuff) and we have barely any dialogue, aside from the “Give me your clothes” and the “F U, a-h***” with the punks. So, WALL-E wasn’t the first to engineer this aspect into a movie; it merely blew it up into proportion - but in a very beautiful way. Anyway, as I was saying, everything is visual and that’s really the strength of the movie.

In such a movie with little dialogues, we have to be active participants in the movie to understand anything. Dialogue is the least important thing in a movie. If you go back to when cinema first started at the late 20s with the Jazz singers, there was no sound on-screen, so there had to be a skill of communicating story and information to the audience and they, in turn, had to learn how to watch moving pictures which, when combined, make a story. There are little side-dialogues here and there but there’s really no overall story dialogues going on in terms of telling us about these people’s identities and that’s a great thing about this movie so far, about 8 minutes into the movie, you don’t know what’s really going on. Okay, there’s some dude who just showed up, came through some kindofteleportation device, don’t really talk a lot, and he just punched through the chest, with his fist being at the other side - which is another great visual cue of how strong this thing, Schwarzenegger’s character whose robotic nature we were unaware of at first, is. Maybe he’s just some enhanced human or something. But, he was able to take on these three punks like it was nothing. In 1984, not many movies had any kind of visual like that, which is another challenge of all movies.

A great moment after that with Kyle Reese asking, “What’s the date?” This is a significant point Transformers lacked a lot of; the characters in the moment behaving as they should. They have an objective, they want something. Whenever they talk, everything should be related to getting that objective. In Kyle’s case, he needs to make sure that he has come back to the right time. Now, we didn’t know the whole story about him being sent back from the future and all these yet, but just by asking this question, we get a little piece of the puzzle.

If you watch something like Lost, Fringe (which happen to be both J.J. Abrams show), X-Files, Twilight Zone or just any kind of mystery shows on TV, you don’t get all the pieces right away. It’s very much like you’re making a story puzzle with your mind. You just have to pay attention to how the characters act, what they say and you’ll slowly start to see overall picture. That’s the fun in going to the movies. The best movies make you an active participant. You wouldn’t want to just sit back and have everything spoonfed to you.

10 minutes into the film and we know that both these guys came in from the future naked (even though we don’t know they’re from the future yet). One didn’t say anything (or not much) and didn’t appear to be hurt by the teleportation process, unlike Kyle Reese who came through with sores due to his vulnerability. Hence, you knew that there’s a difference here and gradually, we’re gonna find out that one’s human and the other one’s not.

In terms of pure visuals, you get the sense of power of each of these two characters and that’s just great filmmaking. Visuals are not all about explosions or excellent CGI action; it’s more than that. You don’t need to say anything, you just bring us to that world and you let us pick up on these cues; just visual information. It’s just like what psychologists say, that 90% of communication between humans is non-verbal. Like when someone walks into a room, how does everyone react? That kind of stuff. That’s the power of filmmaking.

Next, we have a nice quick action sequence, nothing too outrageous. Reese comes out with a shotgun, he’s dressed and on the street. We didn’t know if he’s the bad guy yet. He didn’t seem like it. A sense that we are getting from the visuals is that he’s not. The other guy - Arnold - just went up to some people and kill them. This guy, however, just asks the Police officer about the current year and just runs away even though he could had shot him.

Then we have a great little visual setup. Pay attention to each scene, they really moves into the next one, kind of a ‘setup and payoff’ relationship occurring, which is a key of filmmaking where we have to pay attention scene by scene. There’s always a moment when you’re watching a movie where you would stop paying attention and be drawn out of it. Thus, a movie’s job is to keep the pace moving, keep the audience interested and get rid of the attention their brain has for the four walls around them and the people sitting next to them, and thus, make them feel like they are in the movie as if they are sitting there, invisibly, next to the characters.

Finally, we are introduced to the third major character of the film, Sarah Connor. Notice how the music plays out in a fairy tale kind of feeling; a piece of nice and innocent music, while in the meantime, we have the suspenseful rhythm going on at the same time, so it’s a great contrast. So, she punches into work, and in the next scene, the suspenseful music kicks back.

Again, we got the low angled shot, which just visually creates that kind of intimidation. In terms of our ears, with the audio, we were attacked with this kind of foreboding, scary kind of music. Once more, Arnold is just not talking at all and is just looking through the window and you knew there’s something obviously not right about this guy. Of course, in '84, people saw the posters and the previews for this and they knew he’s the robot guy, so that’s not necessarily a big surprise. As I’ve wrote before in my Transformers 9Parter review, setting a story in motion is kinda like setting off horses at a racetrack, once the guns go off, once you set everybody in motion, introducing characters and such, you want to keep track where every horses or characters and every story element that was let loose is at.

So, the movie’s introduced the Terminator, the protector - Kyle Reese - and finally, it have introduced their objective; the mother of the savior of the future of the human race. Hence, the movie naturally cuts back and forth between these characters and it continues on to establish, in us, the perception of these characters.

This movie really just blew Arnold up in terms of popularity. He’s actually 37 when this movie’s made, which is kinda late in terms of a star’s career taking the world by storm. In the late 70s or the early 80s, he starred in the Conan The Barbarian movies (I think there’s two of them) and then, either right before or after these, he was in Red Sonja, which seemingly ties in with the Conan movies somehow. Three of these movies and other ones didn’t get him a lot of attention. He actually also received a lot of criticisms for his heavy accent.

Now, there’s this part I love, when the shopowner says, “You can’t do that, pal,” Arnold just goes, “Wrong” and shoots him. Let’s talk about this real quick. In terms of quotes and memorable lines and dialogues, this really established the whole movement of 80s action becoming really… ‘packaged,’ I guess? This is '84, so action movie hadn’t been figured out totally yet. If you go before this, the most action kind of film are probably, other than Star Wars, you’ll have to go to the war or WWII related films, like The Dirty Dozen. This film really establishes bigger than life heroes and a villain and the very quotable action movie moments the occur when a character turns to the camera and says something that the audience’s gonna remember. But, the important thing, for me anyway, is that it doesn’t try to do with a ‘wink’ to the camera. It’s doing it because the characters are in the moment fighting for what they want and they’re unaware that people are watching them. In contrast to a live show or maybe a magic show, the show is done with the hosts under the knowledge that people are watching it, doing it like an exhibition. But if it’s happening in the moment and it seems true, with the characters acting like there isn’t anyone watching, then it’s something genuine and that’s the illusion movies bring us in comparison with the illusion of a magic act.

Soon, the T-800 comes to his first kill and he’s like, “Sarah Connor?” and it’s boom, kicks the door open, the music is back again, the nice little slow motion with the red dot. We don’t need to see any blood (though in today’s movies, her head would had probably exploded) - we know what happens, we know what it probably looks like. With that kill, we get more information that the Terminator is after Sarah Connor. He didn’t have to radio Skynet on his future walkie talkie or anything. “Skynet , I’m here. I’m looking for Sarah Connor.” No. There was no dialogue, we saw him looking through the phonebook and kill off the first Sarah Connor, and in turn, we get her emotional reaction, which is obviously an important thing. At this point, it’s not established that she should be worried because it’s just another Sarah Connor that was killed, being the first victim so far. But once the second one gets knocked off, then she’s obviously in trouble.

17 minutes in and the movie cuts back to Reese. who’s hotwiring a car so, again, we get to see his skills, which included lockpicking and the handling of firearm shown in previous scenes. He’s a very physical guy, giving us an impression that maybe he has some Navy or Army training. Great shot of the crane after he’s done hotwiring . I love just how the movie shows the image of the machine and its headlights which are gonna trigger something in Reese’s memory. Again, there’s no dialogue throughout this sequence. A second or so later, we see the track of the crane due to the camera panning down - such great filmmaking - and boom, we are into the dream sequence. Then, the music returns, which, again, sets the tone for this other timeframe.

There’s a thing I really hope for Terminator: Salvation to have is that the filmmakers would, at the least, remember that the reason these two movies worked so well is that we have the characters’ perspectives. If Reese wasn’t in this dream sequence, if the dream didn’t come from him, and we’re just seeing some random people running away from these Hunter Killers and all these machines, it’s cool-looking and all, but it’s more powerful on us if the memory is from a character we are getting involved with. 18 minutes into the movie and, again, not a lot of dialogue save those made by mainly Sarah Connor and her friend, and a couple of things said by the Terminator here and there. In 18 or 19 pages of the screenplay of The Terminator, almost everything is description; it’s amazing. The power of movies is always in the visuals. So, ask yourself as you’re watching T1 - or just any movie - are you allowed or are you being allowed to kinda be a co-creator of the story? Are you getting the images? Every scene is another piece of the puzzle, so ask what the Rorschach test is here, what it is coming together as.

The dream sequence action scenes here are really cool. Nice futuristic bombs and explosions - all done with miniatures; obviously, there’s no CGI back then. Despite that, the texture quality is quite decent. What was interesting was that when the female soldier was laser blasted, there was no guts flying out or anything - kind of a very dry sort of an explosion - but it’s all miniatures and the quality is great. Nevertheless, in terms of visuals, I had always liked the first three Star Wars better than the last three because the effects seemed too fake and artificial. Yoda has a good quality but his texture’s a little dull. Overall, this is just a fun little great action sequence, making you go, “I want to see more of this future! Make a movie that look like this!” And then, in the previews for Salvation, it doesn’t look like this, but I guess you can’t blame McG for wanting to create his own signature.

All these scenes here for the future are all set at night; you don’t get a scene of daylight in this movie’s depiction of the future. Obviously, if you’re independently making this movie, not financed by some big studio, you need to keep costs down. So, during the day, when you can see everything, you would need more props to fill the space because our vision is that much further. At night, everything is darker, so there isn’t so much of a need for many things to be made for the set.

When all things seemed to be doomed, Reese wakes up from his nightmare and the movies then cuts back to Sarah Connor. So, these are the three main horses of the movie - a three horse race at the beginning of Act 1 - and the characters are moving towards their objective. This kinda goes back when I was talking about the dawn of cinema in terms of the visuals, this is a classic scenario. It’s like in the old footage of some of the movies with the evil, bad cowboy guy with the whiskers tying the damsel in distress to the railroad tracks before the movie cuts to the evil, huge, metallic train about to run her over and coming down the tracks. Then, the camera cuts to the good cowboy dressed in white racing as fast as he can with his horse towards the girl and try and rescue her. Basically, we have the same scenario. This is one of the oldest setups of movie history here where we have Sarah Connor on the tracks, Reese is the cowboy trying to rescue her and the terminator, literally, is the metallic, evil monster train that’s gonna run her over.

This similar system is also going to be used in Terminator 2 and Part 3, probably in Part 4, too, because it seems to be a signature of the franchise. In the second one, the hero and the villain would be, thus, the T-800 and the T-1000, again, racing after John Connor, the, erm, damsel in distress. Ahem. Similarly, in T3, it has the female Terminator and the T-800, again, racing after John Connor, which is probably one of the reasons that movie doesn’t work - because it’s a little bit too similar to Terminator 2 and it’s not new and fresh enough - whereas Terminator 2 just totally took everything that was good about Part 1 and put a new spin on it, but that’s a discussion for a full-length review of Terminator 2.

Another story area that was set in motion in The Terminator, when the camera is cutting back and forth from Sarah Connor, would involve the Police officers, thus the sequence becomes one of the four different quardrants of the story, in which this one also features Lance Hendrickson, who would soon become Bishop in Aliens - another great character from another awesome movie. So, the officers, alongside with Sarah Connor, Kyle Reese and the T-800 (of whom the latter two are off-screen for quite some time), are established in motion working towards their own objectives as well - which would be to pursue the culprit who murdered the Sarah Connors.

This brings us to another important part of filmmaking where you don’t need to see everythng on-screen… You establish the scenes where we know what the character needs at that moment and you cut away, giving us that setup of what they’re gonna be doing and where they are going while we cut to somewhere else. To put things in perspective, we know that Schwarzenegger, as the Terminator, is knocking off these people named Sarah Connor. So, as he kill one Sarah, you could easily assume that he’s going to the next Sarah Connor. Then, you have Reese searching for Sarah as well. Thus, with each scene where the camera cuts away from them, you can setup the next location they are going or where you expect them to go. Finally, when it cuts back to them, the setup is paid off. The most obvious place to see this is on TV, where you can really get a sense of it because you have to have a really strong setup before commercial break, keeping people there where you want them and when the show comes back, you are paying off the setup that held people away for two minutes of advertisements.

After the officers gained realization of the existence of a pattern serial killer, Sarah listens to her messages and thus, found out that her date was cancelled because some 80s dummy is too busy to hang out with her. So, Sarah heads to her scooter, and that ‘Terminator heartbeat’ soundtrack begins to play again, giving you a little bit of a hint. You don’t know which one of them is there - Reese or the Terminator - thus giving you that foreboding feel again. Another great example of music. Other horror movies have used music very efficiently, too, like Halloween with its slow, eerie score or A Nightmare On Elm Street with the high pitched piano score playing in the background, in which the latter score also could be compared to the Terminator score in that it is almost like Freddy Kruger’s footsteps. Scoring of a movie is so important, it really conveys the genre of the film and the tone of each scene.

So, we find out that Reese is the first to locate Sarah because he had an advantage, of which, later on in the movie, being her photograph we would find out more about. Then it cuts back to the Police once again, whose top priority at that moment changes into finding Sarah Connor, and then after a while, it cuts away from them again with some kind of setup that we expect to pay off for.

I love how they established the characters. Characterization in a movie is really important. Can we get a sense of who the character is without five minutes of exposition or a ‘here’s who I am and here’s what I do’ kind of reality show confessions? The latter, these ‘confessions,’ could also be called Window Character Moments or Audience Connection Moments especially when reality TV has pretty much taken over for these last 10 years. Those moments are important; we need to know what the characters are feeling, but what’s also important are the characters’ feelings about the occurrences around them. These opportunities shouldn’t be used to connect or share backstory information with the audience. Characters are who they are and if we pay close attention enough, we will realize what happened to them to their past by their current actions. A simple example is a man walking by a dog and wants to cross a street. He wants to avoid the dog, maybe because he was bit by a dog or because he just don’t like dogs. That action alone will get our story gears going in our mind and we would pay attention to that man’s actions, waiting for that payoff later where we would learn of the man’s reason for avoiding the dog. As I’ve wrote many times about visual mediums: Don’t tell a story; show us, let us put everything together.

I always had a question when I’m watching this.: Why didn’t they show the second woman getting killed by Schwarzenegger? It would had probably been another great visual moment, showing us the Terminator doing his job. The answer probably is that it wasn’t that different from the first murder, which only consisted of the door being kicked down, the victim being shot in the head and boom, terminated. He’s not gonna be creative with the killings later on, which is a good thing or it would ended up as, well, some magic show. He is not gonna do something for the audience’s pleasure; that’s not the objective he’s supposed to be pursuing. If this was made today, the Terminator would probably set up some kind of elaborate Rube Goldberg murder booby trap inspired by the Saw movies.

Today, producers and studios have to ask about the ideas that have been came up with before, the ideas that would be recognized by the audience and the ideas that would give audiences even more pleasure than the past ones that would lead to easy box office dollars. Doing something original is tough because there’s nothing that proves that original ideas work. There’s no marketing information or market research that can confirm audiences’ interest towards those original ideas. That’s why we are in a battle right now. If something’s original, it probably comes from a place of inspiration which doesn’t necessarily pays. H-wood would have to wait for audiences to respond positively, saying, “Wow, this was great because it is new, fresh and it’s something that we all were sensing and was in the air. We need to see this kind of story.” Once it succeeds and is proven of its worth, H-wood is obviously going to copy the idea, but until then, good luck trying to create something original. Some would then choose to go with what’s come before, hence all those remakes and adaptations. Nevertheless, that’s another unrelated rant. For right now, let’s go back to the movie.

Sarah Connor looks in the phonebook and sees that her name is next. We had the information earlier from the cops and Paul Winfield, who you’ll notice from other 80s movies, that they were gonna him The Phonebook Killer. By the way, that dude that stands by the phonebooth always cracks me up. She’s on the phone and he’s acting like this huge perv staring her up and down. But, that was efficient as it also provides further a little sense of confusion about the killer’s identity, even though it’s rather clear. But Sarah doesn’t know at that moment. She’s looking everywhere as if she’s in danger. So, this is an example of us having information that main character (or one of them) doesn’t, and thus, we feel that fear. It’s awesome, it’s really great filmmaking.

It is also very confident filmmaking that isn’t afraid that the audience is going to get restless. That’s one great thing about older movies, even though they don’t look as crisped and look faded or dated. Those were the days before the Twitter Internet instant communication, ‘press a button and boom, information sent’ that kind of thing, before there’s this notion that you can’t sit in a theater and appreciate a movie that slowly unfolds because nowadays, it has to get to the action right away, especially so for action movies because everyone’s got ADD. Now there’s like a ‘myth (which is just a bunch of crap to me really)’ going on, everyone’s like “Oh, everyone’s got ADD, we can’t pay attention, we need everything right away.” No, go and sit down, watch an old movie and you’ll find that, “Hey, I don’t have ADD. I could just watch this and slowly be brought into the film.” Just like when I meet someone and I want to date or just hang out with this new friend, I’ll still have to learn about her (her name, age, religion, interests, etc.) slowly through a process. A movie’s very much like the same sort of experience. You go and watch it, meet the characters, you experience them in their world and, in terms of the screenplay and movie structure, usually between 15 to 30 minutes, there’s some sort of adventure that’s gonna kick start. There will be an inciting incident or a cause of event where the main character now has to fight, pursue or battle for something.

29 minutes into the movie and Sarah has entered the club where the first battle would take place. The Terminator train and the good guy on the horse gonna meet and, as we know, the good guy’s gonna rescue her from the train tracks. But, this train is not confined to the tracks; the Terminator’s gonna be after her non-stop and that’s the great part of the movie in that we feel that they’re never safe.

So, I just wish films are a little bit more confident and not so afraid of taking their time to let us get to know the characters, get to know people. I think that’s really one of the reasons that a lot of movies today don’t stick with us, they don’t really deal with real characters. They don’t go on journeys, we don’t discover who they are; we just want them getting in the jetstream, just taking off and speeding towards the end. It’s a fun ride, but it’s like taking a cross-country road trip with a stranger or taking a road trip on a bus or a plane and you never talk to anybody there. You’re just sitting there looking out the window. The scenery’s great but it could be a little bit more interesting if you talk to people and go through a journey of your own.

Soon, the music kicks back, Sarah makes a phone call and Schwarzenegger… Kept calling him Schwarzenegger. :laughing: Well, he’s the Terminator in '84 anyway. For 4 or 5 years, until pretty much every movie he was in, from 1984 till 1989, he had to say the line, “I’ll be back.” If you look at Commando, The Running Man and Raw Deal, he’s always saying this line. It’s like it became his tagline. It wasn’t a natural part of the stories he’s in but part of his celebrity style. If he’s in a film, he has to say “I’ll be back.” In some movies, it worked, like The Running Man, but as it goes on, it becomes comedic, this self parodying and the line become a joke. I think it was only in maybe Total Recall at 1990 - another great Sci-Fi movie in general - that he did not say the line.

Then, we have Arnold (I think I’m just gonna call him by his character’s name from now), or the T-800 in a fight with the boyfriend (Matt Buchanan, played by Rick Rossovich) of Sarah’s roomate friend (Ginger Ventura, played by Bess Motta) and, naturally, machine versus man, there’s no chance of winning for the man. While this is going on, the movie cuts back and forth between him and his girlfriend who’s listening to this dated 80s phone on headphones - the original iPod - which were such a big deal when it came out in the late 70s and early 80s. The music playing here in this scene matches the film’s slow motion speed as the T-800 walks his way towards Sarah’s roomate, which is kinda neat. Also, we are given another set of low angled shots here, making the Terminator seems like he’s 7 feet tall again. If you have paid attention, you would notice that all of his shorts till this point were low angled closeups, going from the ground back up to his head, giving us an impression of this intimidating force. Also, no gore was shown; it’s not important, we want the effects. Instead, we see her arm twitching and a close up of her lifeless face, which is a lot more disturbing than a bunch of holes and blood.

The Terminator then turned towards the answering machine, which brings us to a scene that opens up into another payoff of a setup. Initially, when he was going to take out Sarah Connor at her house, we had thought that since he doesn’t know who Sarah was and we do, Sarah would be safe when he killed off the roommate instead because he’s just gonna skip to the next Sarah. Then, boom, Sarah calls into the answering machine, reveals her location and that comfort zone is removed. A nice shot after that as the T-800 crushes the headphones, showing his sheer weight as a robot underneath. It’s just a great non-verbal way to convey this information. The T-800 sees a picture of her, the cameras cuts away to the club and boom, we see that it is the Sarah he was looking for. It cuts to the Police for a while and the race is on once again.

So, now, she has her own little objective here. Before the reports of the second Sarah Connor murder, she was really just going about her life. Now, she has an objective - to become safe. Every character needs to be motivated in each scene and have his own personal objective and growth. We are all people. I love Lost because it respects every character, forcing everyone of them to become real for us the audience. They all have their backstory, they are all flesh and blood people, they are not just props. I love the background of this scene at the club; I love the dances. So, the Terminator comes in and he just crunches the fist of the guy who tried to stop him because he didn’t pay, which is a really great scene here because it is another visual message reminding us of his power. The Terminator doesn’t give a crap and just go on his search in the club while this 80s song is going on. Notice that the ceiling seems to be so low that it gave us that sense of intimidation from the T-800 again, especially with the constant close ups. As the T-800 was just about to pass by her, she ducks down and he coincidentally misses her.

I love how there’s this dynamic going on right at this moment. We the audience that Kyle’s the good guy, but Sarah doesn’t. Just rewatch this movie again, scene by scene and see how that information get the puzzle pieces into our brains. As the Terminator moves through the crowd, everyone’s just dancing away, swinging their arms everywhere in his path. Notice how after Kyle shot the T-800, the environment sound goes out, the intense score comes out, and the focus is on the Terminator or, rather, on Sarah who’s darting away from danger; she wasn’t expecting this guy. Love how the action goes down here, it’s right on her head. It’s so simple, yet it gets your heart pumping, though the neck movement for the Terminator is kinda weird here. Soon, the objective, Sarah Connor, gets trapped and we have the hero and villain fighting over here. It’s a great journey for her, she is but this weak, soft flower and yet, now she has to fight for her life.

Then, one of the most quotable lines in the franchise first appears here, “Come with me if you want to live,” said by Kyle Reese, which is the second line he has said after 36 minutes of this movie. First, he asked the cop what year it was and now, he said that all so famous line. It became popular because of the moment, because it just came off as cool. If this was made today, Reese would probaby look at the camera, position a cool pose and says the line like it’s from some corny parody of Dity Harry. It would be as if he’s trying to be cool - we don’t want that. This scene also marks the first time we get to see through the red tracking vision of the Terminator, thus getting to know the way he sees the world. A couple of years later, this similar process would be used in Predator - another great Schwarzenegger film - where we would see the heat vision. But, here in this movie, we get a vision that reflects more of the robotic aspect of the Terminator’s technology and I can’t really remember a movie before this one that uses this kind of effect. In Star Wars with C-3PO or R2-D2, they never let us see into their vision. So, this is another great way to connect us with the Terminator.

This is a really solid action sequence. What’s really great, in my point of view, is that it’s very real, there’s no green screen or wires used here, of which the latter is used in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and erased from the screen with computers. Many things in The Terminator is really being done, which is something you cannot find a lot of times in movies nowadays. In those old movies, stuntmen put their lives in danger and their bodies in harm’s way just to give us a little bit of entertainment. Harold Lloyd from the '20s or '30s, he was a silent film actor, kind of like Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. You have probably seen a Harold Lloyd image where he’s hanging from a clock high above the building. He actually lost one of his fingers doing something with explosives in one of his films. These people put their lives on the line for our entertaining.

After the abovementioned famous line has been said, Kyle is finally going to start talking a lot. Despite that, notice that the character only speaks when he wants something or has an objective. After 40 minutes into the movie, we finally get the information about Kyle’s objective and understand it much clearer than before, when we only had hints about Kyle’s objective. “You’ve been targeted for termination” is just confirming what we already know; that the Terminator is after her for some reason. Another reminder of a key element of filmmaking is given in this sequence where the backstory information is given but while they are in conflict. In any genre of movie, whether horror, Sci-Fi or action, characters are fighting for what they want, not just there to talk about their favorite sports team or the condition of the weather. To sum up the current objectives in the sequence, Kyle wants Sarah to believe him that he is there to protect her; Sarah just wants to get out of that place, not knowing what’s going on and, apparently from later scenes, not believing what he’s saying. This is a little device that The Terminator tend to use - characters in tension while information is processed - though I believe the third installment might have used it as well.

How do you get the audience’s attention while providing information then? As seen in this sequence, you should do it through dramatic moments with characters fighting for what they want or, otherwise, with characters on the move, not sitting down and being too comfortable. You’ll notice in T2 when John Connor’s on the bike with the T-800, that’s when the T-800 tells him about the T-1000’s liquid metal nature, providing all the information. Here in The Terminator in this chase scene, they are in a race, so it keeps the pace up as well and thus, keep us hooked and paying attention. TV does this a lot. 24’s probably the best example. Any kind of TV show that would use cellphones to communicate most information would be the most boring show ever, but here in 24, they did it with Jack running around with him on the phone. The X-Files also did that with Mulder and Scully in the late 90s when cellphones became popular.

And finally, the vehicle comes to a stop after Kyle Reese loses the Police. The great thing about this moment is that we really want to hear everything he’s got to say because the whole movie has been so quiet and all visual. At this moment, the audience is right at the edge of their seat, listening carefully to his every word and believing him because we know it’s real; we saw him teleported through. Another great thing is that we were with Sarah on this journey from skepticism to belief. Sarah then bites Kyle, yet he expressed little emotions of pain even if he claimed to feel it. He’s been through war, so he doesn’t flinch like most of us would. “Terminators don’t feel pain; I do.” That’s another character-based ‘in the moment’ line.

In terms of a horror movie or any movie with a strong opponent, you make them look stronger by obviously showing us what they do, but when you just start talking about how powerful or scary they are off-screen, it increases the level of fear that we have whenever this opponent’s back on screen.

After this little conversation, the Terminator returns on screen and he seems more robotic than he did before. Just look at the make-up on his face, the texture, it’s very plastic at this moment, not to mention his movements, which seem to reveal his robotic nature more than ever than earlier in the movie and that is alright because now we already have the information that he’s a killer from the future instead of being confused about his human appearance, he doesn’t stop or feel remorse. Hence, in our minds, we connect these descriptions with the how the T-800 acts in the next few scenes. You can imaging Cameron was like, “Okay, Arnold, start making your movements more robotic from now on.”

A little more convincing and Sarah then started trusting Kyle a little bit and believing his story. If anyone really changes in this movie, it’s really both these characters really. Kyle hasn’t been able to experience this kind of peace that still exists in the past. He protects Sarah not just because it’s his job, but also because he has feelings for her, and he would, later on, really fall in love with her. As for Sarah, she started out as a weak, average girl just living her boring life as usual and then becomes a real warrior mother or and life-giver of someone who would save humanity. Even though she believes him now, I love the little twist later on that have Dr. Silberman logically convincing her into believing that Kyle’s crazy.

Any movie in general, the work in creating the characters for each respective universe should be just as thorough as it is in a novel. I kept using Lost as an example, but in just any kind of series that tells a long story, you can tell if a series that didn’t know where it is going before it even started from one that has a clear goal at the beginning, in which the latter, each episode and moment has a purpose. Back then, there were probably some series that were just greenlit once it has a great premise, thus exists from season to season without much of a purpose or goal and the creators kinda make it up as it goes along. If you are doing a story about the Terminator universe, you need to know about Skynet, how it got created and trace all the characters who are involved. So, if you’re an aspiring filmmaker or storyteller, treat every character with respect, figure out the tapestry, the web of relationships and how everyone is involved.

Kyle makes a reference here about the concentration camps that, later, we are gonna see in Terminator: Salvation when he gets kidnapped and taken there where they are making the T-800s. The inspiration here is that the robots are basically like the Nazis in World War II, who were rounding up humans and exterminating them, since the past can actually inspire the future. At this point, it’s roughly about the middle of the movie, about 48 minutes, leaving about another hour to go. By this point, we know what his overall mission is, we know what’s at stake and thanks to his explanation, we get a bigger picture of this universe, something that’s explored through the next three films, whether successfully or not. I really hope that Salvation is up to it. I don’t think anyone here could be expecting a lot more from the movie than me because there are so many significant points that should be explored in this fourth film.

Let’s take this sequence in the carpark here and analyze it a little. We have an action sequence that leads into it and an action sequence that leads out of it. What happened in the middle? What we had there is that sort of ‘reality television confession’ moment filled with character development. We the audience got to know more about Reese, and then Sarah in terms of what she’s gonna do, and we also got a bit more of a connection between the characters. It almost seems like if this movie was made today, that scene would have been cut in half because it was a little bit of an overcranker (it’s a film terminology for slow sequences, though it’s more often used for slow motion effects) and thus, the scene would be undercranked, speeding the scene up. Regardless, even though it might have a slow pace, we need this moment. Movies today don’t bother to do this. You could almost imaging this movie being screened in front of filmmakers today, they come to that scene and go, "It’s moving too slow, cut that scene where Kyle is talking to Sarah about the future in half. Get these basic stuff out and just get on with the car chase. The reason the Terminator is now more imposing is that Kyle explained what this thing is capable of, so the scene is rather necessary.

This is one of the major problems of H-wood right now. Again, it’s like there’s a thought occurring there that everyone has ADD and that they, the audience, can’t sit through this kind of moment when the truth is that those are the moments we all look forward to, those are the moments we need. When we care about the characters, we become more afraid of the opponent. In this case, the Terminator’s more scary to us after the explanatory scene and we start to explore our own humanity. You can’t help but wonder in this kind of movies about, "Oh, what would happen if I was in this kind of situation? What if this actually happens?

The next sequence at the Police station here is a great battle for sanity where Sarah kinda struggles to believe what Reese said while Doctor Silberman is totally sure that he is absolutely crazy. Then, the movie cuts away from the doctor’s interview with Sarah and moves on to the T-800. A question that could be raised here is, “Why wasn’t the interview shown?” Because the interview wasn’t that important. For one, we just got that information. Silberman is just going to get the same information Kyle gave Sarah in the car, so we don’t need to see it twice. You never need to have the same info presented twice in a movie. What we need, however, is a new perspective through Sarah’s point of view, which is what the movie has already done here with the doctor taking the story we have all just heard and telling her that it’s all just nonsense. If we haven’t seen the whole movie before, then a part of us would have probably bought that, that Kyle is crazy and his story was just nonsense.

As I mentioned, the movie cuts away to the Terminator for a while so that we could get an idea of his current activity, so that we know he didn’t just disappear and is just sitting around somewhere, relaxing. Here, the T-800 have to put on a pair of shades because his eyeball has been damaged, thus probably causing his vision to blur out or something. Hence, this leads up to the use of sunglasses in the following installments. Always, right at the beginning of the two follow up films, the T-800 always have to get a pair of sunglasses. Here in this movie, however, the sunglasses become part of the movie because it’s a natural part of the story. They are really important because they help to conceal the damage that have been done to the eye, to make him seem more human. In the second movie, however, it moves towards parody. It’s a whole genre life cycle, really.

Step 1: An inspiring, original movie comes out.
Step 2: Everyone copies it.
Step 3: The franchise fades out because everyone’s not interested in it anymore, they’ve seen all these copies.
Step 4: Either the genre/that type of story dies or it reinvents itself, usually through parody that makes fun of itself.

Terminator 2, which came out in 1991 after 7 years of action movies since the first installment, in a lot of ways, takes itself seriously but also plays on a lot of expectations of others towards the Terminator franchise, especially with Arnold Schwarzenegger being this bigger than life action hero with these catchphrases. He kinda gets the glasses right away at the beginning of the film, so if you are to go into the story, you would ask why someone would program T-800s to grab glasses. It’s almost like James told Arnold, “In the first movie, you have sunglasses, so in the second movie, other than human clothes, you must also have sunglasses.” Hence, there are really no practical reasons to do that other than to give a nod to the first film. But, more on that in the next review.

When you first watched The Terminator, you didn’t know what the exoskeleton looks like, so, piece by piece, we slowly saw how the Terminator looks so that in the end, it’s a huge payoff; we learned this big secret. In the second movie, it’s the T-1000 being liquid metal of which its nature is slowly revealed to us. That’s probably why T3 doesn’t really work because the T-X (I just like to call her the T-Hotty) isn’t that different, especially when she has powers similar to the T-800 and the T-1000. We have seen so many Terminator robots by then, we were expecting to be blown away even more. So, part of the problem with Terminator: Salvation might be that they are using robots with new and fresh designs to get us interested and drag us into the theater, not with character development.

As I was writing before I digress, the Terminator repairs himself and there are some quite gory but nice close ups here that just looks amazing; obviously the great work of Stan Winston who’s doing the effects for the movie. That shot just gets your imagination going, making you wonder about what the rest of the Terminator would look like under those pieces of flesh and skin. Notice again that the movie cuts back to Sarah and Kyle again, keeping all the horses in motion, so you know that, even though this scene is going on, the Terminator has continued his pursuit on Sarah, even if it’s off-screen. The T-800 might be the ultimate example for filmmakers to follow, in terms of him not being able to stop and consistently pursuing its objective. The best description of a movie I’ve ever heard might be that it should be a simple story with complex characters. In terms of The Terminator, the story here is quite simple, if you think about it: One woman who’s gonna give birth to the savior of humanity is targeted for termination by a robot while a human is sent to protect her. It’s a classic scenario - villain chasing after girl who’s protected by good guy hero.

I really love the interrogation moment because the doctor has his own clear objective, which involves proving Kyle to be insane, and just his tone and actions expresses a cocky attitude behind him. Every question he asks Kyle could almost be accompanied with the remark, “You’re crazy, you know that?” You could understand why he’s doing what he’s doing but you really hate him because we the audience know what Kyle said is true. There’s just this awesome dynamic going on where we, the audience, know what is really going on and see the characters growing and learning information. We know more than they do and part of us are, thus, kinda frustrated and desire for them to figure it out fast. Just to see the process of them getting to where we’re at is great, but, on the other hand, there’s also information we don’t have.

The digging of his eye was… disgusting at best. I still get the chills down my back as I watch this scene, it’s just totally creepy, yet, it’s also such a memorable moment. It comes off so naturally because it’s part of the story, because of who the Terminator is and what he needs to do - to look human and blend in but, at the same time, repair himself as well - so it’s not just a CGI light show done to just amaze us with these money shots. Early '80s were a big time when horror movies have a large usage of gore; you have A Nightmare On Elm Street with Freddy slashing and tearing everyone’s heart out and all and My Bloody Valentine with the miner. These movies just really push the boundaries of the amount of blood and gore the audience was expecting. Nevertheless, his skin still looks really fake in today’s times, the whole Terminator torso looks very rubbery. On the one hand, you could say it helps him to look more like a robot, but on the other, we already know that he is a robot from the scenes here. Regardless, the whole aspect for me is very endearing. The machine guns under the bed are awesome, though, of course, since he’s a Terminator, he’s not gonna sleep even during night times, so his assassination continues. He’ll find her; that’s what he does, that’s all he does.

Then, we return to the Police station, where we see the interrogation from where it ended just now, but now on a recorded video shown to the officers and Sarah. The doctor’s fascinated by Kyle and we get his point of view here. “I could make a career out of this guy.” Here, the movie takes itself very seriously instead of having all that self-referential jokes. The whole '90s Generation X sort of movement with the referencing of other movies and media-related items hasn’t happened yet at this point. One of the reasons this is so is because The Terminator is a very new idea, but maybe not the newest of ideas.

If you look at the credits, you’ll see there’s credit being paid to Harlan Ellison, who actually sued James Cameron (or whoever that is that owns the rights to the Terminator movies in the late '90s or early 2000) due to certain copyrights issues. James said that the Terminator idea was inspired by some of The Outer Limits episodes which Harlan Ellison had written, which are amazing episodes, they are really great. One is about a soldier from a future that comes back, trying to kill someone. I haven’t seen it in a bunch of years, so I don’t really remember the exact story. But, I think it’s like these two soldiers who are from the future fighting each other (I think they are both human, not sure if one of them is a robot), and then they kinda learn their lessons later on. It’s kind of goofy because they go into some kind of Leave It to Beaver house and then they kinda fight amongst the families. Then, there’s another episode called “Demon with a Glass Hand” about this guy from the future who is the savior of the human race. See those two episodes of The Outer Limits, “Demon with a Glass Hand” especially. So, as you can see, this movie could be easily considered as an inspiration from Harlan Ellison. Maybe the later installments didn’t credit him or something.

Finally, the classic dialogue moment of the movie arrives. Schwarzenegger says, “I’ll be back.” I guess the original line was “I’ll be right back.” “I’ll BRB!” :laughing: This line was not done for show and to make us turn to each other in the theater and say, “Oh my god! That’s the line I’m gonna remember!” It just organically happened, having him said it simply because he’s gonna come back. Despite that, as soon as that was said, everyone’s saying “I’ll be back” for everything. Just as a movie could be created by inspiration and out of the occurrences around people, this line came out of an organic process. The character is a robot, so he’s gonna say lines that are very straightforward and not look like they were intended for the audience. However, one could argue about the reason the Terminator talks like he’s from Austria. So, if you’re writing out there, please, just please, don’t pay attention to us, the audience, give us the complete world; let us choose the lines and dialogues that are going to be remembered.

So, before the Terminator stormed the station, what happened? Kyle told the good doctor that the Terminator’s gonna come back, waste everyone in here and, eventually, get her. Hence, this is a payoff of that setup, not to mention that Reese had been talking about his power throughout a lot of scenes before this sequence, thus building up the tension that would all lead to this big payoff. So, if you want to create a villain that’s powerful, create one that will always be talked about in the movie; Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader, the Wicked Witch of the West, all of whom have been talked about while they are off-screen. This sequence is like the ultimate test for the Terminator to show us how strong this guy is; he takes the whole Police station without being significantly damaged. He is unstoppable. How does one protect Sarah if the whole station, even with their machines guns and body armor, could not do the job? Again, you got the great music playing here, the great usage of low angled shots and also the leather jacket, which is such a great outfit for the Terminator.

There was this movie with Orson Welles called The Third Man, probably created in the late '40s or '50s. He plays a character named Harry Lime and, in the entire movie (I don’t want to give away anything but), this Harry Lime character was talked about for like an hour and a half. So, if you want to create memorable or a larger than life character, have everyone talk about him for the entire movie and have him only be in a few scenes.

As Kyle helps Sarah escapes, there’s this kind of a synthesizer-new wave type of music (just born from the disco and punk age of music) playing here, which is kinda symbolic and doesn’t seem dated, but instead having that whole Skynet futuristic feel. It’s so well put together because it incorporates this modern day kind of tone, yet it also has this future robotic gears kind of feel, so this music really works.

After both characters escape and after another intense action sequence has ended, the movie has another window character, reality TV confession moment that would connect to the audience. Here, we learn about Kyle’s feelings about the future, about Sarah, what John told him about her, etc. In return, she’s in the process of imagining this future because she’s a complete believer now, absolutely believing that this future, as told to her by Kyle, could actually happen and that she’s the mother of this savior.

I know I’m jumping on a lot of different areas here and there but, hopefully, in this conversation, ideas are kept track of. Just like the characters, I cut away from one topic, making a setup that I’m gonna pay off when I come back. If, at the end of this, I missed talking about something, please post it in this thread and maybe I could talk about them in my Terminator 2 review.

Just to finish up talking about Schwarzenegger. This movie totally catapults him into superstardom and establishes his Hollywood legend. The original idea, however, was not for Arnold to be the Terminator. Kyle Reese was played by Michael Biehn, a great, awesome actor who I kinda wish that had a bigger career than he has. He just plays his characters very well, whether it’s in Aliens or The Abyss, of which both were directed by, you guess it, James Cameron. And Cameron had initially wanted to have Kyle as the Terminator as the idea was that Skynet wouldn’t make their (I can’t believe I’m using this phrase, but…) ‘robots in disguise’ stand out.

The T-800 was supposed to be an infiltrator and the logical thing would be that he would look like everybody else, that he would be skinny and quiet, practically a being that you couldn’t pick out from a crowd. However, this comes back into play in Terminator 2 where the T-1000 is skinnier, looking kinda like what the original idea would have made the T-800 look like.

In the late '70s and early '80s, even though Schwarzenegger had to work to become a huge star, he was really well-known as the ‘Mr. Universe’ of that time, being this huge body builder. In the '80s, there’s this whole culture of body perfection where everyone needed to look great. To compare, in the '60s or '70s, long hair is celebrated, especially for guys in terms of beard. No one’s really expected to be these 'sculpted manigans. It’s really like a rebellion against the corporate culture and conformity of the '50s. Anyway, Schwarzenegger was in this battle with Sylvester Stallone. Both represented the buffed bodies and big muscles of men and that kinda got popular during the '80s. Hence, Schwarzenegger was the perfect person at that time to represent what the people valued at that time. From this, we could see that James Cameron knew what he was doing when casting him. James even drew drawings of Schwarzenegger’s face meshed up with the Terminator to get an impression - he’s a really good artist, by the way. I think you could find them online if you do a little search with the keywords, “Schwarzenegger” and “Terminator.” It probably would have made more sense to have a skinnier Terminator, but when you’re talking about what works on-screen, Schwarzenegger was the right choice. You can’t imagine how it could work any other way.

However, Arnold was, naturally, reluctant to play the bad guy, just like the stars of today. No big name actors in the present would want to play a bad guy. But, there were cases where such huge actors playing such a role would work, like Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecter, for example. Another tragic example would be Health Ledger, who would have had a major superstar career from playing The Joker. Speaking of whom, The Joker’s another good example of an intimidating character that, when not appearing on-screen, was talked about a lot by the other characters, be them Batman or Gordon, making him stronger and bigger than life.

As Kyle explains to her the image of Sarah Connor he had in mind, we are brought into a changing moment for her character. She fully believes Kyle’s words now, yet she’s battling against it. "Do I look I’m tough? Do I look like I can do it?"They are really fighting, which is what is suppose to happen. These window character moments are not about characters always being nice to each other. Here, these two characters are locked in a battle of convincing each other. She believes him, but doesn’t want this responsibility nor does she thinks that she could fight against this Terminator or even be a leader in the future.

Then, the flashback of Kyle is triggered. Notice the dogs here as I’ll be talking more about it later on. It’s kinda great that they are the test, the way to detect the presence of a Terminator without anyone saying anything. Again, in this dream sequence, there’s no dialogue here, just kids playing ‘Human Rebels Vs Skynet’ or whatever games they could adapt into entertainment. There are no TVs, just a little broken one which they used as a fireplace to keep themselves warm. This scene really just gives us a sense of the despair the rebel camps had in this kind of warzone.

Going back to that fireplace TV, I had heard a story about tribes, obviously existing hundreds or thousands of years ago, listening to these stories while gathering around a bonfire in a cave. There was no TV back then, so they have these chiefs lighting up the cave paintings on the wall with the fire, hence the gathered people around this glow of fire. In comparison to today’s world, we gather in these caves of theaters again, watching the fire, which is the light that comes from the back of the theater lighting up the ‘walls’ or the movie screens, where the stories were ‘drawn’ or screened upon.

While everything seems to be safe - grim, but safe - a Terminator infiltrates into the camp, starts killing people (yet there’s no blood or gore involved) and, soon, he moves on to the dogs. That’s probably the cheapest and fastest way to get us hate anyone on-screen; just get him to do something horrible to an animal and we immediately label him as a villain in our minds. Note that this sequence, similar to the previous dream sequence, doesn’t really end in a way we could see how Kyle would survive. I love this moment here when Sarah’s photo ended up burning, and then dissolves away with her real face replacing the head in the photo. This will have a great payoff later on when Sarah buys off that very same photo from the boy in the end. Also, now that we see it is her dream instead of it being Kyle’s, we would get a sense that it may or may not happen since we were seeing it from the point of view of a person who hasn’t been to the future yet, contrary to when that dream was set in. Regardless, we then gained some confirmation of her comment about the dogs being true from Kyle’s reply. This is something Terminator: Salvation needs to have; the PoVs of different characters as we go on journeys with them. If we can’t identify with someone, we are just simply riding on a rollercoaster where the scenery goes by. We won’t be experiencing the movie emotionally.

With Kyle and Sarah hiding out in the canal all night, the Terminator, naturally, had some difficulties locating his target. Again, nothing’s stopping him, not even flies that landed on his face, of which he doesn’t care to slap them, shoo them away or something. Then, the moment you see this guy knocking on the door, you immediately know what kind of janitor he is. The Terminator’s a learning robot, so he’s picked out the appropriate response - another memorable moment. By now, we are seeing the Terminator really flowing in his operations, creating some humorous moments along the way. This kind of comedy within the action could be seen within certain Spielberg films as well. One of them would be War of the Worlds, where the camera would often cuts away to the reactions of people whenever those robots are attacking, thus giving us a bit of a laugh. The most recent example is probably 2007’s Transformers, which he had also produced, during the scene in which Optimus battles with Bonecrusher (had to do up a little search before I remember his name) on the highway, a kid in the car that sees the fight going past him repetitively shouts for his mum, which generated some laughs there. Another example of a much more tasteful nature would be The Dark Knight, when Batman pursued The Joker who was pursuing Harvey Dent. Two kids in their car were pretending that they were shooting at another car and, moments later, it blew up for real. Boom, laughter. It isn’t absolutely necessary, but that little bit of comedy is always great.

So, Kyle and Sarah got off their ride and arrived at this motel called Tiki Hotel where Kyle would begin training her to be the warrior mother she needs to become. But, she makes the fatal mistake of calling her mother. It helps to move the story forward, letting us know how the Terminator’s going to continue and find her, and therefore, at least in terms of storywriting, this action is quite necessary. However, it’s not forced; it’s still quite natural. Sarah as a person would be worried about her mum and, thus, she would call her to tell her about her status. I love the visuals used here in her mum’s house. We don’t need to see the Terminator killing off her mother; just the broken door, the hole on it and the smoke already tell us that something is wrong because we know what he’s capable of, including imitating human voices. With that, he uses the number Sarah gave him (or who she assumed to be her mum) to call up the hotel, he gets the address and another ticking clock has been set. Even though he won’t find her for a good couple of hours due to the long drive, we are on the edge with each second passed, wondering about the moment this train, back on the track and speeding at top speed, would meet the other train and create the horrifying collision. It’s like the classic Alfred Hitchcock thing where he shows us a bomb underneath a seat or a table and we get nervous because we know it is going to go off soon, so we usher the characters to think of an idea fast. Again, it’s a setup that leads to a payoff and we can’t stop watching, constantly wondering what the payoff is and when it would occur. If we are watching an EDTV version of the movie and there is, suddenly, a commercial break, we would still stay glued to our seats because we want to know what happens when the Terminator arrives there in the motel.

As always in this movie, one action sequence leads to another window character confession moment. Immediately after the Terminator sets off in pursuit of Sarah, we are given such a lovely '80s style love-making scene. However, once again, this is created out of the connection between both characters. She feels his pain and learns that he hasn’t ever been in any kind of relationship with a woman, which makes sense because it is a time of war. I am hoping that in Terminator: Salvation, this element of the story isn’t forgotten either. Sure, if this first Terminator feature does not have the exoskeleton and all the awesome effects, we probably wouldn’t remember it, and it would probably be a one-time film about some woman who fell in love with some some crazy guy who told her he’s from the future. It wouldn’t stand out, but if you make it all filled with special effects, it really loses some of its meaning. Do you really want to watch a reel of boundary-pushing effects? Or, would you prefer watching people going and battling through an obstacle? We only have one life and can’t possibly explore all these possibilities of life that are out there, that’s why we keep going to movies or reading stories about different experiences and explore humanity through fiction.

You could say that Terminator: Salvation is one huge payoff to the 6 hours, three movies setup consisting of John Connor finally being the savior of humanity. So, Christian Bale better had enough characterization to work with. Let’s hope that the writers involved with Salvation had paid attention to not only what worked in terms of the effects in the first three movies but also what worked in terms of the people. This is John Connor’s Return of the Jedi, if you will. Luke struggled to be a Jedi in the first two movies, going on all these journeys. Then, in the third movie, we wanted to see someone who everyone always told us he would be and all we got is John Connor this, John Connor that, he’s gonna be awesome, he’s gonna save us from everything. So, I hope the fourth installment really ‘delivers.’

This love scene is a nice moment there. Any kind of moment with characters, it’s always just the tip of the iceberg. Below the surface, there could be miles of ice; this huge landmass is underneath. The more the characters struggle with each other, the more the surface beneath is revealed. It’s just like in life when you passes by someone you know. You greet them and ask about their day. But if you forced to have a confrontation with your friends, you would discover more things about them, you would have to go into your own reserves. You might be pleasant during normal conversations, but what does it take for you to blow up or get angry? And if you do get angry, what kind of way are you fighting with someone? Every character’s much deeper than meets the eye. It’s the filmmakers and writers’ job to make them capable of being dug down deeper, to make sure there’s something more beneath the surface of the iceberg.

Now that little soft porn moment is over, we cut back to… dum dum dum dum, dum dum dum dum. As mentioned before, the dogs seen earlier in the dream sequence and, a little later, by the tenant of the motel are setups for a payoff, which is seen in this follow up scene, where the dog outside the motel detects the presence of the Terminator, thus alerting Kyle and Sarah. There’s this great awesome quote from Leonard Nimoy who played Spock in Star Trek. He said that when you watched Star Trek (the series) when you were 12, you were only amazed by these great special effects and cool visuals going on, but when you watch it again when you are aged 25 or older, you start to pick on other themes of the story. It’s just like this movie. When I watched at 11 or 12, I love the effects, the T-800, how it behaves, its intimidating movements, the great action and the explosions. But then, watching it 10 or 15 years later, I realized that there’s these themes like the apocalypse, humans creating technology, our awareness of the meaning of that, our level of control over it, the possibility of us stepping over some greater entities of evolution, etc. There’s just all these great ideas there. As you grow, you just start to pick up on these different levels. Let’s just hope that all these levels are always consciously being incorporated into films because the audience doesn’t have ADD and we are smarter than 5th Graders, so don’t treat us that way, please.

So, as Kyle and Sarah escapes the Terminator that’s found them, we get the payoff of the setup when the couple was making bombs. Just like what the playwright, Chekhov said, that if something is introduced in the first act, it would have to go off somewhere by the third act. Of course, they don’t escape - which adds to the reality of it, so it’s great - and notice how when the Terminator slides, sparks are coming from by bike. It’s these little details that further convinces us of the reality of the story. Obviously, you can’t stop the Terminator, the unstoppable force. He gets up and… gets run over by a truck. Another memorable line is said here, “Get out,” but it’s another example of line not being said because of us watching the movie, it’s just what the Terminator would normally say. There’s a great visual cue here, too, when he limbs slowly to the truck and allow us to see that one of his legs is slightly damaged instead of him just saying “My leg is injured” as that would’ve been silly. Also, more of his robotic skull is revealed here as much of the flesh was torn away when he was ran over.

I never really noticed this until now, but the structure of Terminator 2 is very similar to T1 here. Obviously, both openings were similar with the savior or protector and the assassin or the enemy Terminator both racing towards their target, but here the ending of Terminator 1 is quite similar to the ending of Terminator 2, too, where you have the chase on the road and the Terminator on the truck. In the second one, we have the T-1000 driving a truck carrying the liquid nitrogen, and here you have the T-800 driving one containing fuel which would, later on, explode and burn all the skin off his body. This is just a good example of a structure of two movies being the same but the details differ, which is kinda like life; the structure of life is all the same, having a beginning, a middle and an end, but it’s the details the create the variations between each life.

So, as his skin is burned off his metallic robot body, you think it’s all over but it’s evidently not. This is classic horror movie 101 where the good guys think that they’ve killed the bad guy, but of course, they haven’t, the villain always have that last burst of energy and he will go after them again. Here in The Terminator, there are actually two times, with the first one being when the truck explodes here and the other one being when the Terminator is blown in half later on. This is something that’s done even in T3, actually. There are a lot of homages and references just going on, and that really deters away from the possibility of originality those movies could have had. Here, in T1, it’s being done for the first time so it’s all new. I guess it sets the blueprint or groundwork, but it doesn’t need to be copied or followed. I guess you could ask, “Well, then, why did James Cameron copy the structure and just put different people and types of effects in its place?”

This is also something James Cameron did to Aliens where he went back to Alien, took that same kind of basic structure and just put different stuff in it. I remember watching Aliens a little before I got to watch Alien and, while watching the latter, I was thinking about how similar the two movies were (Ripley’s the survivor, she’s got to fight this alien, she’s got to blow it up before, in the end, goes into a pod, hibernates again and, in the next movie, gets picked up again by another group of people). Regardless, Alien is a great example of Sci-Fi horror that has a lot of inspirations going on for James Cameron. I guess it’s like the human body. We all have the same structures, the same type of skin, organs, etc. but, thankfully, we are all different, kinda a metaphor for life, where, though many things are the same, we can all make it more interesting by adding variety to it. Maybe you haven’t seen either Alien or Aliens yet, but James was quoted of saying that his inspiration for making movies in the first place was watching Star Wars. The amount of special effects and the great storytelling in that film just really woke him up. From that point on, he knew that making great movies is what he really want to do in his life.

So, to close up this area of topic, similarity between movies is fine. You can call it copying or whatever, but it’s more like inspirations. If you want to do something similar, it’s alright, but try and do it better and, hopefully, tell it in a new and fresh way.

15 minutes left before the movie’s over and one of the final chases sequences starts on. I like how the music cues on quite nicely. 90 minutes into the movie and it feels complete, the Terminator is seemingly killed, but James Cameron, being as great a filmmaker as he is, knew that the audience needs to see more. There’s a big build up or setup on this machine, so there needs to be a big payoff for it. In '84, sure, we have Star Wars with R2-D2, but here, with The Terminator, it’s a real skeleton, there’s no where to hide an actor inside; it’s not a suit. It’s one of those old school '50s monster animatronics that’s been used for a long time, something like in Clash of the Titans. I’ll admit that the T-800 in this movie does look a little cheesy in some moments, but you just have to appreciate the ingenuity.

Love how the scene comes into fruition after that with Kyle just turning everything on, creating an irony of machines helping them out to stop another machine in detecting their exact locations. Then, another great line comes along, “On your feet, soldier!” showing her transformation into a stronger female and her willingness to accept this fate. James Cameron tends to write strong female characters. In Alien, you could look at Sigourney Weaver whose character also doesn’t have that much to do, then in the second movie, she just goes through such a excellent character journey and becomes a much more powerful woman. Because of that, she was nominated for an Oscar Academy award. Other examples include Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio in The Abyss, Jamie Lee Curtis in True Lies and, of course, Rose from Titanic - all director by James Cameron who definitely recognizes the women are often disrespected in movies with the constant T&A exposure.

This second final chase scene is just great, like when Micheal Myers was chasing his sister, Laurie Strode or Freddy Kruger chasing Nancy through the house, but at the same time, it’s a nice hybrid of action and horror. Consistently, the camera only focuses on the Terminator’s head, but by hearing his foot dragging, we were reminded that his foot is damaged - a great example of how sound effects could fill in the blanks for us. Of course, it also requires the audience to think outside the box to understand these hints and clues. Finally, the final confrontation we’ve been waiting for arrives - man vs machine. I guess the effects are good enough, but who knows? Maybe in 5 or 6 years, we would have the remastered version of The Terminator. “Remastered with new effects: The Terminator! Release in theaters near you!” Obviously, with human strength going against that of a machine, the human’s going to lose, so Kyle had to use an explosive to blow the T-800 up, which led us to think that it is finally destroyed, completely. Notice how slowly Sarah reveals that a shrapnel has hit her leg. Even though this moment focuses on her, I was like, “Show me the Terminator again. I’ll bet it’s not dead.” Despite it being sorrow, I like that, when Sarah crawls over to a dead Kyle, he wasn’t still (barely) alive and whispers to Sarah, “Sarah, I just want to say that I love you and that you should continue to fight and train John…” No, he’s dead for sure. He’s not the Terminator. They didn’t get to say their goodbyes. Life is cruel, this war with the machine is cold and there isn’t anytime to talk to each other before they die.

For us, the audience, we really got to know Kyle and then, when we are experiencing this moment, the music suddenly interrupts as the T-800 jumps back up again. Again, the score’s kinda fitting, it almost resembles the Terminator’s metallic body scraping against another metal surface. Again, another contrast is used here; Sarah’s using these old-style technology to get away from a piece of more advanced technology. It’s a little convenient for Sarah to be able to find this compression machine and finally stops the Terminator, but that’s just what a movie is about, suspending our disbelief to accept this grand design made for our entertainment. As long it seems that it could happen that way, we are fine with it. Looking at the other movies that come after this, T2 takes a lot of things from the first movie and use them in its structure but with a nice variety and new details. Now, T3, however, really does nothing new with those copied items and that’s really the reason it failed. I definitely have a lot to talk about during its review.

A little dialogue show is given here when Sarah goes, “You are terminated, f***er.” That mifhr be the one line in the movie that feels out of character. With Kyle and the Terminator, they said their lines because it’s what they would naturally say. But, overall, the ending here is really good, with the camera cutting from her to the Terminator to the buttons. It’s a classic Hitchcock kind of tension here. If she doesn’t hit the buttons right away, his approaching hand would grab her throat and kill her. On the other hand, she’s getting closer to the button, too. Back and forth, back and forth, the music keeps playing, making us feel like she’s not going to do it in time, and then when she does, the crimson optical bulb, the symbol of the Terminator’s life, goes off. That’s what the camera focuses on. How do we know that a Terminator is completely destroyed if he can’t bleed, indicate to us about his agony, feel any pain or say any final line of death upon feeling life’s cruelty? The eye, the light fades away. Great visual messages. This move based many messages on the visuals instead of the dialogues.

Finally, the movie comes to a closure and we get the payoff with the kid taking Sarah’s picture. In terms of logic and the Grandfather Paradox, a story factor here is affected with Sarah’s pregnancy. How can John Connor’s father be Kyle Reese if he belongs to a future that hasn’t happened yet? It’s the classic ‘chicken or the egg’ question. Despite this one illogical factor, it made a great story, so we would go along with it. On the DVD, there’s an uncut footage, a deleted scene involving Sarah being put into the ambulance. The original ending had a wider shot of her being put into the ambulance in front of Cyberdyne Systems. So, when you watch T2, when Sarah, John, the T-800 and Miles Dyson come and destroy this building, you could look back to this deleted scene and say that James Cameron had a vision of having this building being the location the final battle would take place.

This movie ends at an emotional note. Unlike movies today, where most movies would end at that profane scene, the film ends with a foreboding future. It all comes down to this where Sarah’s the only person in the world who knows about this apocalypse. Another great final line here, “A storm’s coming,” and she replies with, “I know.” Also, there’s another version of the theme song here, and it’s just so great that each fits the respective scene they appear in. We have the foreboding T-1000 version, we have a version that represents her emotions, we have the typical action theme, and now, right here, we have this version with a bittersweet kind of tone. As she drives away, what I believe to be one of the greatest visual message is relayed using the approaching gray clouds, shrouding over the sky, telling us about the incoming war and acknowledging to the work of Harlan Ellison (I believe they had replaced the ending titles with a set of new ones that credits his name). That’s just such a great visual. You leave feeling that there’s going to be more to this universe and wanting more of this and explore more of this world again.

Even the sequel had never been made, within itself, you get the sense that it is a complete story, the humans will win and a cycle is complete. Now, John will be born because the Terminator didn’t accomplish his mission and a lot of suffering and pain will surface but, in the end, Skynet will fall. So, on its own, it works fine, but there are also pieces of logic put in place, such as the remains of the T-800 being found by Cyberdyne Systems. From there, you could see a sequel happening.

Why do we still remember this movie 25 years later? For one, it was new and different. In 1984, the movie that had kinda challenged the special effects and science fiction storytelling boundaries was definitely the Star Wars trilogy. It was deemed that nobody was willing to step up. Go back to the time period between 1977 and 1983 when Star Wars and Return of the Jedi appears, respectively. See if you could find any Sci-Fi movies from then that tried to step up to the plate and put the challenge out to create even more imaginative storytelling on-screen while pushing the boundaries of special effects and basing it on character, making sure the characters each have their own journey. The people here in The Terminator don’t have a journey that’s as strong as Luke - that’s definite. ]i]Star Wars[/i], especially The Empire Strikes Back is probably the ultimate example of the blending of classical cinematic storytelling, where you have characters that are in pursuit of their objectives while being an emotional experience with technological advances to bring these images to life. If you can get the meshing of these two elements to do well in a movie, you can have something that’s going to survive forever and make it into the top 100 list for the next 100 or even 1000 years.

Another classical Sci-Fi example would be 2001: A Space Odyssey. In that movie, however, no one really remembers about the hour and a half of it, only the final stage with Hal. Hal is the character that goes through an emotional journey, a character that we remember the most. The effects in that movie were pushed so far that the audience really thought that they were in space, assuming that there was no way it could have been faked, wondering if there’s a real space station up there.

These movies are the landmarks, towering mountains or skyscrapers of the movie world. They dare you to build a bigger and better skyscraper. The Terminator, while it didn’t have as many special effects and didn’t bring you all these alien creatures, it created a complete universe and a totally memorable screen image in terms of the exoskeleton of this metallic assassin and the effects made us believe that. Stan Winston would go on to work with Terminator 2 with the liquid metal using the CGI (thus, ushering the CGI age) which he later perfected in Jurassic Park and becomes the top supervisor of his company for the last 30 years. Nevertheless, it was The Terminator that raised the bar. The story was great and the movie shoots Schwarzenegger into superstardom and kicks offs James Cameron’s career. Even with Linda Hamilton, her career turned great after this, too, with the Beauty and the Beast TV series (1987). It was kinda a cheesy series, but she also had other prosperous roles in result to this.

Terminator 1 did a lot of things in a new and fresh way and is imaginative. That’s why we love it and remember it even up till today and is on our list of ‘Best Movies’ overall, ever. Again, the main attraction here is the villain - the Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger. If you have such a bigger than life character, he’s going to be remembered. If you go over the most memorable villains over the last 25 years, I would say they are the Terminator, then Hannibal Lecter and then The Joker in 2008. Any battle is only as good as the opponent. If I’m forgetting someone, post it in the thread.

That’s it for now. Terminator 2 would be next. There are a lot of stuff to talk about on that one. I will be commenting on the Special Edition of that, so you might wanna rent the DVD to follow my views. It has all the deleted scenes, and if you add them to the theatrical version of the movie, it’s like an extra 10 minutes or so. It’s not really important if you don’t have it, it only has a little bit of these unique touches here and there. The movie itself is about 2 and a half hours.

With that, thanks for hanging out. Let me know what you think by posting your thoughts or drop a PM. Let’s continue the journey through the universe of Terminator in another time and see how it took a turn for the worse in Part 3. T3’s not the worse movie ever, but it didn’t do all that it could had and, from what I’m hearing, it didn’t improve with Salvation.

Thanks for reading. As always, choose your movies wisely because we are going to get more of what we pay for and, as always,

LONG LIVE GOOD TERMINATOR MOVIES!

~ Flare