Slashdot Mirror
Review of T3: Rise of the Machines
Let me first draw your attention to CNN's review. The CNN reviewer tells you this "darker and slicker" sequel is "worth the wait," gives you the long-form plot setup, shows you the sexy look of the "babe-a-licious" babe, and promises you "emotional weight" with "wit" and a "stunning and thought-provoking" climax. What he doesn't mention is that CNN and the movie's producer/distributor are both owned by AOL Time Warner.
It's been ten years since I watched the first Terminator and maybe I'm remembering it better than it was. But it had an emotional depth, a heart that neither of its sequels matched. T3 is slicker, yes, but darker!? It's light fluff. The nightmare of nuclear destruction in the original was rendered without CG effects, but I'll remember the skeleton clutching the chain-link fence long after I've forgotten this week's pixel-perfect explosions. And the "storm is coming" ending of the original was genuinely thought-provoking, with a chilling resolve that just embarrasses this week's Hollywood ending. Claire Danes is no Linda Hamilton.
The effects are what you'd expect from a modern zillion-dollar action movie, but not groundbreaking the way that T2's were at the time.
I found nothing about it witty. I chuckled through the chase scenes -- it's mostly chase scenes -- because they were so over-the-top and the plot holes were so glaring. Apart from that, there was only one funny line. (I assume everyone else is as bored as I am with the "dry cool wit like that" dialogue.)
Best unintentionally funny line: "I've got enough C-4 to blow up ten supercomputers!"
Best unintentionally funny visual: tie between fumble for the car keys, and offscreen killing sprays blood across photo.
Dumbest joke: gratuitous mocking of effeminate guy.
Best absurd effect: missile blows apart the wall in a small office ten feet from our heroes, they avoid injury by diving to floor. Duck and cover!
Best plot hole: Terminatrix's chronic failure to remember that she can run fast.
Heavy on the exposition, light on brains and heart, forgettable. See it if you really jones for big trucks smashing stuff. If you just have to see a movie, see "28 Days Later" instead. Rated R, not recommended for anyone whose mental age matches their valid ID.
- The Terminator was sent into the past just before the big mainframe was to be destroyed by the rebels. John Connor had just about won the war.
- The materials from the Terminator sent into the past created Skynet. This plot line was addressed in T2.
- A la Hawkins, the Terminator could never succeed. If it did, it would cease to exist. Skynet would not have been created, and thus, it could never have existed. Ergo, no Terminator.
T2 took some of this plot, but conveniently forgot that the humans were about to win, and created the second movie.Problem: it's a time causality loop. You cannot stop it! Why? Because if you do stop the war, you stop the Terminators, and you then never get them sent into the past. Without them in the past, you cannot have Skynet. Get it?!!?!
T3 is thus the real stumper to me. By this time, all info about the cyborg chips was to be destroyed (remember going back to the office building and performing a bit of good "Office Space"-ish reconstruction). AAMOF, with the destruction of the Terminator in T2, there are to be no systems left. Recall Linda's final dialog . . . (paraphrase)I look to the future with hope...
And now, there's to be a T4 in discussions? Why would the Terminator be molded after an old man? Arnold looks great, but he's not the glistening Austrian god he was in T1. Oh well, I hear money calling...
...tizzyd
Now see thats the way you should be thinking, people seem to forget that the way they are using time in the terminator movies is how they use time in say, Orson Scott Cards "Pastwatch: Redemption of Christopher Columbus"
Each time the machines send back a terminator they create a small paradox, IE things stop happening the way that they happened the previous time.
The first skynet could have been created in a different manner the first time, but by sending back the first terminator also facilitated his existance at an earlier date.
When they destroyed the hands and such of the first terminator in Terminator 2, they merely destroyed the timeline that involved skynet coming to exist in 1997.
In fact, they boldly say that is the case in the movie, when he is talking about the chick and how he met her, and he said "if you had never been sent back that time, I would have hooked up with her then"
The original part of the series "could" happen, simply because UNTIL the first terminator was sent back, things DID happen where skynet was created, and almost created its own causal loop in creating john connor, who might not even have had the same father in the original timeline (ie some guy other than the future guy).
Then when he came back he becames the father, thus destroying some of the time line, etc..
it gets complicated but if you think of time is completely mutable from any instant to the intstants ahead of it, then the plot can work out just fine.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
T1: In the future machines send back a Terminator to the past to kill John Connor's mother, because they are losing the war. The Terminator gets destroyed BUT a chip remains (the half arm in T2). The chip in the arm changes the timeline completely and accelerates the coming of Skynet.
T2: Despite Skynet beeing built earlier, humans still win in the future. Another Terminator is sent back (T-1000). Rebels from future manage once again to save their leader AND this time Sarah and John manage to destroy everything related to this new revolutionary CPU. This only delays the coming of Skynet, again, timeline is changed.
T3: There is no new CPU, but, there is near infinite computing power in the Internet. Skynet is born.
Skynet is inevitable, whatever takes form in a super CPU from the future or on the vast porcessing power of the Internet, it's inevitable.
IMHO, T3 plugged the hole of the paradox in T2. Ok story, nice movie, nothing to write home about.
Actually it's not as bad as you think and that's thanks to a massive plot hole in T2. If Skynet were truly destroyed in T2 and the war averted, then John Connor would have ceased to exist since his whole being was centered around the fact that he became the leader of the resistance and sent his father back to save his mother. So if you're going to harp on these details you're gonna have to jump on T2 as well.
Personally I liked T3. As shown, the continuity between the other two films wasn't bulletproof and you ALWAYS have to give the writers the benefit of the doubt on time travel stories because they always tend to be paradoxical on some level. T3 is for old school action fans who can appreciate REAL stuntwork and REAL explosions as opposed to the 3D Studio MAX fests that we see all the time now. This is how action was before people started trying to base their freaking worldviews on it and I, for one, welcome it.
I also liked the ending...
spoilers - though they'e probably been said 100 times before this post
A lot of people seem the miss the fact that the major Terminator theme is one of fate and destiny. The question is whether these can actually be changed. The ending of the 3rd film finishes an arc that gives their idea. Apparently the reason that Connor didn't disappear at the end of the second film was because the WAR STILL HAPPENS.
The first film was about preserving the humans' chance against the machines by making sure that John Connor is born. The second one was about keeping the war from ever happening. The third is the same but the reality of the situation becomes apparent, like the Terminator said, "Judgement Day is Inevitable."
I think it's cool that they took the darker path. While people say that it begs for a sequel, I think that it is the perfect ending to the story. John Connor is a classic literary JC character, which means that he CAN'T avoid his destiny. A destiny that becomes even more fitting to his type of character as you learn in T3.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
Seems like the T-universe supports determinism after all which makes sense and resolves some of the paradoxes; alas it invalidates Cameron's big "The Future Is Not Set" argument as it clearly is in a single universe set-up.
There are two arguments for time travel which strangely enough mirror the Matrix Reloaded's arguments about free will versus determinism:
The first theory is based on determinism: for time travel to remain consistent the past cannot be altered. In other words, the time traveller from the future always existed within the past so whatever changes he attempts to make cannot and *do not* occur in such a way to alter a future timeline. In other words the entire past is set in stone for the present to exist, and as the present is the future's past, the events of tomorrow are similarly predetermined to ensure continuity of the timeline. There is no free will, and the grandfather paradox does not occur: it will be impossible to murder your grandparents and any changes to the timeline you made in the past *always* happened in the past relative to your present.
The second theory is free will and relies on parallel universes. In this case the grandfather paradox is also fixed because each time traveller ends up in a similar but not equal universe to the one they left. If they change the timeline it does not effect the timeline of the universe they left, only the one they arrived in. Alas, this also means the chances of returning to the exact universe you left are remotely slim. You can never go home again.
Finally, a time traveller travels along a closed time-like curve that is created when the first time machine is created. In other words they would not be able to travel back to a point previous to the first time machine existing, and would only be able to travel along the 4th dimension on the fixed xyz co-ordinate of the time machine in question. This essentially invalidates all the Terminator films anyway as there is no evidence of time travel equipment present in the 1984 film.
Ronald Mallett is currently working on a light-based time machine (using the concepts of spacetime frame dragging) so we'll know what is right (if anything) when he turns it on.
Some poeple in the US tend to be a little to uptight about this.
I mean, there is nudity in reality, so why shun it from a movie? A bit of realism in movies doesn't hurt, it's not like you'd want to remove the blood and noise from Saving Private Ryan and show it to your children.
I always find it hilarious when movies obviously avoid nudity at all cost, which is no problem for a movie that was meant to be hilarious in the first place, but would really destroy the experience of most movies for me.
As far as I know, most nude-scenes are cut out anyway for the US-versions.
Actually, in europe, we regard violence in movies as more harmful to young people than nudity, so even without a single nude scene, it wouldn't ever be rated what we call equivalent to PG.
Remove the violence, leave the nudes, and it would be a perfect PG over here. (this may not apply to all of Europe, but at least significant parts)
You have your opinion about nudes, however many (or most?) people don't mind, and movies are not produced for you alone. Live with it.