I saw some dissent in the last post and decided to give this topic its own post since the Terminator movies are just really great.
The second one is great anyways.
Honestly, I thought the first one was boring. I was not caught up in any of theaction. I really found no character so sympathetic. While I like the fact that John's friend was fighting against the odds, it was really too low budget an unconvincing.
With the second Terminator, you have a real hero with Arnold. It is touching to see Arnold fight a vastly superior enemy while becoming ever so human itself. If more humans were like the Terminator, our world would NOT be so terrible. Plus the graphics were better and NOTHING can beat the nucular blast in Sarah's dream.
T2 started out all right but got progressively worse until it finally ended. I just did not care about John Conner, the Bart Simpson wannabe, or his neglectful, domineering b***h of a mother.
T1 was the better movie to me. It is just about as close to a perfect movie as you can get for my money.
T2, just for the story.
Call me old fashoned, but TERMINATOR 1 was-and still is in my opinion-better than the overrated TERMINATOR 2. The first had one hell of an interesting story, great performances, effective special effects, and some fast-paced action. The second lost what the first one had.
Arnold was great as the bad guy in TERMINATOR 1. When he plays a good guy, like he did in TERMINATOR 2, I find him more hard to believe. Arnold is so much better when he is a menacing force. In TERMINATOR 1, Arnold was tearing out hearts and literally shooting at people in every part of their body. As I can remember in TERMINATOR 2, the bad guy only shoots people in the leg, wounding his victims rather than massacring them! Talk about abandoning the menacing violent streak; it works better in TERMINATOR 1 and is more convincing. And I have to agree with Leonard Maltin when he says that in TERMINATOR 2, Linda Hamilton's frail character becomes a tough-as-nails b***h that is quite annoying. Character change is a good thing, mind you. But Jesus, Hamilton's character in TERMINATOR 2 was just a pain in the ass. She was better in TERMINATOR 1.
As for the effects work, I admit that it was better in TERMINATOR 2. Yet, the special effects became so wrapped up in the film that the story seemed to have disappeared and relied on effects work instead. With TERMINATOR 1, the effects work only served as part of the story and came into grand display at the near end, rather than throughout the entire film. The story and performers were the "special effect" in TERMINATOR 1: the story and performers did such a convincing job that it all played well.
Sure TERMINATOR 2 had more money and high-tech effects, but the story was just so-so and the pacing was too long to keep my attention. Good action though, just needed some more substance and style.
And personally, I though Bruno Mattei's TERMINATOR rip-off SHOCKING DARK (1989; a.k.a. TERMINATOR II) was way beter than Cameron's "offical" sequel. There, I said it and that is all their is too it.
I'll second that the first one was better. I saw it first run in the theater and was completely caught off guard. It was tense, scary, and relentless; that attack on the police station was brilliant (at the time something like that had never been done before). The second movie is a brilliant big budget movie, but it lacked the relentless nature of the first one and was, at heart, a retread. I expect the next movie to be a leaner version of Terminator 2, as T2 had some pacing problems in the middle act.
Besides, the first one had Dick Miller in it.
I like T1 slightly more than T2 but T2 is great a well.
-the first rule of fat club-
I agree that T2 was pretty much a retread, but I enjoyed the hell out of Robert Patrick's emotionlessly efficient T1000. True the special fx crowded the house, but what the hell, and when was the last time you saw a semi giving chase to a motorbike through a viaduct? The bad Arnie was more intense than the good, and Linda Hamilton was too damned b***hy in T2, but given the knowledge bestowed upon her and plopped into an asylum, who could fault her?
I actually saw T2 a few years before I caught T1.
I was suprised as hell. I thought T2 was just "ok", nothing great, but the original blew me away.
I think the grittyness of the original is what does it for me. It all looks so dirty, and you feel almost dirty watching it.
The Terminator was low budget SF cinema at it's best. The low budget was actually a big part of why this film is so affecting, due to the fact that it gives the film that dirty look as mentioned above.
Terminator 1-9/10
Terminator 2-5/10
Terminator 3? Waiting until it's on DVD. Saving my money for LXG. :o)
I agree with all about T1 being better. My 2 pennies: where else do you see The Big Star Action Hero playing the bad guy?
I did like Terminator 2, don't get me wrong, but the first one to me came out of left field, with the second I sort of expected it.
I also agree that T1 is better.
The close up special effects of Arnold performing surgery on his face were kind of cheesy.
But him looking through a list of insults and then saying, "f**k you a***ole!" was the best!
haha!
wasnt a list of insults, wa sa list of replies :P
I'd say T1 as well. you had a more interesting cast of characters.
T2 had some great effects( but over used gas related explosions) and some good characters...
But the terminator was th eonly one who got the real development as a character, Sarah got a little bit and so did John. I LOVED sarahs character change, but felt she got a little too emotionless ina few scenes.
T1 will always be just a little a head of T2( mostly due to T2's pacing in the middle, it lagged on :( ) but both are quite good.
Chris K. wrote:
> Arnold was great as the bad guy in TERMINATOR 1. When he plays
> a good guy, like he did in TERMINATOR 2, I find him more hard
> to believe. Arnold is so much better when he is a menacing
> force. In TERMINATOR 1, Arnold was tearing out hearts and
> literally shooting at people in every part of their body.
Jet Li is a much better bad guy than good guy (see the One and Lethal Weapon 4 for proof of this). However, I liked it better that the Terminator just fought against its nature in order to protect a kid. It grew emotions.
As I can remember in TERMINATOR 2, the bad guy only shoots people in
> the leg, wounding his victims rather than massacring them!
No way, the T-1000 was evil, he stabbed John's father through his milk carton, killed the one police officer after cloning him and staring at him. Made one guy jump out of a helicopter. Killed some guy and stole his truck. ANd what a menace he is.
Talk
Linda Hamilton's frail character becomes a tough-as-nails b***h that
> is quite annoying. Character change is a good thing, mind you.
> But Jesus, Hamilton's character in TERMINATOR 2 was just a pain
> in the ass. She was better in TERMINATOR 1.
> As for the effects work, I admit that it was better in
> TERMINATOR 2. Yet, the special effects became so wrapped up in
> the film that the story seemed to have disappeared and relied
> on effects work instead.
Bull s**t
>
> Sure TERMINATOR 2 had more money and high-tech effects, but the
> story was just so-so and the pacing was too long to keep my
> attention. Good action though, just needed some more substance
> and style.
>
> And personally, I though Bruno Mattei's TERMINATOR rip-off
> SHOCKING DARK (1989; a.k.a. TERMINATOR II) was way beter than
> Cameron's "offical" sequel. There, I said it and that is all
> their is too it.
Sorry Evan3, I still have to disagree. Jet Li is a pretty good bad guy, yet Arnold still steals the show. Arnold has a more domineering, menacing and sinister looking than Li is. James Cameron saw this in Arnold when he cast him in TERMINATOR 1, and I have to agree with Cameron on that one. And Arnold's character did so many gruesome moments from heart tearing to full gunfight shootouts. He made a better menace than the one in TERMINATOR 2. As for Linda Hamilton, I still felt her character was better in TERMINATOR 1.
And I still felt that TERMINATOR 2's story was too wraped up in the special effects. When you try to tell a good story with special effects, the effects work should not be the big showcase all the time. In TERMINATOR 2, the special effects take over the whole film that the story becomes unimportant to the point the the film doesn't need it. And that is not a good sign. Take a look at XXX: here's an action film that basically has a lot of great effects, yet all the effects cloud over the story and thus the film's plot becomes useless. Looking at XXX, it's nothing but an effects film. And the same goes to TERMINATOR 2. Don't get me wrong, the effects in TERMINATOR 2 were quite good. But the film could have benefitted more if it just didn't go way overboard with the effects and just stuck with story and characters.
With TERMINATOR 1, the effects work was just part of the backstory. Hell, if the effects work were removed the film still would have not lost it's power. It's the story and the performers that made the film work (i.e., The performers were the "special effect": they made the situations and the story look very believable.), as well as the superhuman enthusiasim of Cameron's direction. Hell, most of the "money shot" effects work don't turn up until the last moments of the film. And it was all appropriate.
But then, I could be in the minority about all this. TERMINATOR 2 seems to be the popular one in the series, yet I feel, and some others might feel as well, that TERMINATOR 1 is still the best. Yet I will say, without TERMINATOR 1 we wouldn't have TERMINATOR 2, or TERMINATOR 3 for that matter.
Sorry for the disagreement. To each is own.
T1 reminded me of slasher flick, it was good but T2 was like real a sci-fi adventure because of the all out war you have with T1000 and Arnold.
I suppose I'd have to rate the first one as the better of the two movies, but I do like T2 a lot also.
It's funny, I read an article about The terminator long before it came out and it sounded like the kind of cheesy SF movie I'd expect to show up on HBO at 2am. I certainly never expected it to be as big as it was.
T1 is better, T2 was created to appeal to the young teens - hence the obnoxious kid actor and metal soundtrack. It was lighter, lots of goofball humor - admittedly the effects are nice but I'm faithful to the original which presents a darker story with an uncertain ending that has one thinking about time travel, and whether or not any choice we make is predestined or our own. T2 and T3 he is more of a caricature of himself. I know it's the "cool" movie guys love, lots of stuff blowin up. I liked the character development of Sarah, but too many nuclear bomb dreams and someone really needed to beat the crap out of that kid. I bought the original on DVD and it's nothing like the way I've seen it on television - worth the buy.