CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1992)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1992) - Page 2

post #51 of 225
He's spectacularly wooden in American History X. I haven't seen Pecker yet. But then, after suffering through Cecil B. Demented, I may be done with John Waters until further notice.
post #52 of 225
Thread Starter 
It's an action movie. It has good action, a well-placed sense of humor, a fun story, interesting characters, a good villain, and a FANTASTIC first act. No one said it was a "remarkable" film (it's certainly no Die Hard, Predator, or Lethal Weapon) but it's one that I thought I hated, and was surprised to find I rather enjoy. It's certainly bloated and has a lot of cheesy moments ("We're not gonna make it, are we?...people, I mean.") that fall flat, but that doesn't make it a bad movie.

I'm certainly not basing it off childhood memories, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean anyone who does is. Give me a little more credit than that. I'm not exactly known for my nostalgia.

And that swede is by far my favorite swede I've found. It strikes the perfect balance between parody and homage, and it's (ironically) really well paced.
post #53 of 225
I've always bought him playing fucked up teenagers. I guess that's just me.
post #54 of 225
Thread Starter 
I get that he's supposed to be a little prick (his first scene in the movie sets that much up pretty clearly) for the first act, but the scenes where he's supposed to be upset, crying, contemplative, freaked out, or whatever pretty much reveal Furlong to be a shitty actor.
post #55 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke fleed View Post
Terminator 2: Judgement Day is a fantastic film, and it is too bad that James Cameron never capped off the trilogy himself.
He did. It was called T2: 3-D - Battle Across Time.

As for the effects, they still hold up. I don't see anything that looks dated. This is a true piece of work and Cameron's second best next to Aliens.
post #56 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
It's an action movie. It has good action, a well-placed sense of humor, a fun story, interesting characters, a good villain, and a FANTASTIC first act. No one said it was a "remarkable" film (it's certainly no Die Hard, Predator, or Lethal Weapon) but it's one that I thought I hated, and was surprised to find I rather enjoy. It's certainly bloated and has a lot of cheesy moments ("We're not gonna make it, are we?...people, I mean.") that fall flat, but that doesn't make it a bad movie.

I'm certainly not basing it off childhood memories, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean anyone who does is. Give me a little more credit than that. I'm not exactly known for my nostalgia.
And you'd be immune to the nostalgia comment anyway, since you've come back around from not liking it.

I do find the comment that it has interesting characters mildly mind-blowing. For me, it's the characters that are the main failing of the screenplay. Sarah is so far removed from where we left her that I cannot build a mental bridge between the two. And frankly, I just plain dislike the whole idea of the good guy Terminator that grows as a person, and Arnold has never been enough of an actor to bring me around on a character I inherently dislike. And I've already been over John Connor. Even leaving Furlong's performance aside, his dialogue is just bad. It's a middle-aged filmmaker's idea of what a teenager should sound like. It's forced and inauthentic, and Furlong doesn't do it any favors. The standout performance, oddly, is Robert Patrick, who I think actually does the intimidating automaton thing better than Arnold did in the first film.

My favorite character is Joe Morton's Dyson. A film that devoted more screen time to his moral quandary would have worked much better for me than the examination of whether a robot could make a good daddy.
post #57 of 225
Thread Starter 
John Connor was raised by a fanatical mother to believe that he was going to be the savior of all mankind. Then, when he was like 7 or 8 or whatever (someone else fact-check, I don't really give a shit) she was locked up and he realized that she was out of her fucking mind. Now he's stuck with these foster parents who can't control him. All of a sudden, he's thrust into this situation where he has to forgive his mom, reconcile what he thought was true (once again) and he's revealed to be a desperately lonely kid who isn't ready for this responsibility. He's hungry for love and affection and all that, but he's stuck with these two cold, uncaring parental types. That he gives up on his mom and instead tries to get his affection is really interesting.

Sarah Connor was a waitress(?) until a robot from the future tried to kill her. Then she realized that humanity's only hope was for her to train her son to be a warlord. So she had to turn herself into a drill instructor, cold and unforgiving. The knowledge of the mass death, the responsibility she takes on for it, has completely fucked her up as a person. She is a bitch to her son because she's got bigger things on her mind. But in watching him reach out for affection with a machine (a machine that brought on the events that has ruined her life), it makes her realize what she's become. She tries to be some kind of mother or something.

That all being said, this is only the potential the story brings to the characters. Very little of it is actually on-screen. The performances aren't nuanced enough and the writing isn't sharp enough to reveal all those potential layers. So to say that the movie has interesting characters was actually wrong, now that I think about it. I should have said that where James Cameron brought the story, and how it grew out of the last one, is great. If you are going to do a sequel, this is the way to do it. It's a very creative and startlingly (especially for James Cameron) personal way to approach a sequel like this, and I respect that.
post #58 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
I get that he's supposed to be a little prick (his first scene in the movie sets that much up pretty clearly) for the first act, but the scenes where he's supposed to be upset, crying, contemplative, freaked out, or whatever pretty much reveal Furlong to be a shitty actor.
That's because he wasn't an actor. Cameron literally plucked him off the street. He had no training what-so-ever going into the film.
post #59 of 225
Thread Starter 
Well that explains it. He must have thought "If it worked for Newt...".
post #60 of 225
Honestly, I never had a problem with Furlong in this movie. I can't explain why, he just never bothered me.
post #61 of 225
Edward Furlong is a big part of what works with T2. Don't get the hate. His Connor's a screeching, irritating, preadolescent loser who believes his entire destiny is a lie, and his mother is insane. Since he's been on the run since childhood, and bounced from foster home to foster home, he's desperate to connect but doesn't know how. Arrogant, confused, lonely and scared-he's kind of a dick.

The catch-phrases he teaches Arnold are outdated pop culture references or expressions he picked up along the way. They aren't supposed to be cool because he doesn't know how to be. It's almost heartbreaking how desperately he clings to the Terminator as a father figure and tries to connect with his mother who as Patrick said, as a drill instructor is completely cold to him. The "freaking out" and hysterics that he goes into show how mentally unbalanced and damaged he is. Once he finds out that he truly is the savior of mankind, it is a heavy crown to wear.

The fact that he overcomes all this is what makes the arc so fascinating. If they had picked a smooth charismatic actor who exudes self-assurance to play the young Connor it would have been completely boring. Cameron knew what he was doing.

(Edited for clarification-and to add he was great in ANIMAL FACTORY)
post #62 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva View Post
That's because he wasn't an actor. Cameron literally plucked him off the street. He had no training what-so-ever going into the film.
That doesn't make it okay. All it does is shift the blame to Cameron. Carrie Henn was awful too.

I've never understood the whole appeal of casting non-actors. A director who would never think of handing the camera to some guy on the street will hand a major role to some guy on the street. It works for something like Elephant, where you have a low-key, verite style going on. But a big, loud action movie needs someone who can emote well.
post #63 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva View Post
I haven't seen Furlong in many movies, but I love him in Pecker.
Whatever you do, don't see Crow 4. It's horrendously awful. I know that goes without saying but watching Furlong is hilarious.
post #64 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cordo View Post
Honestly, I never had a problem with Furlong in this movie. I can't explain why, he just never bothered me.
Same here, and I generally hate kid actors. I think it must go back to me being the right age when T2 came out, because I can certainly see what people complain about, but it doesn't bother me(a few particularly whiny line readings aside).
post #65 of 225
Dakota Fanning is no exception? Or that Sixth Sense kid?
post #66 of 225
I said generally. Dakota Fanning and Haley Joel Osment are great but it's almost like they are(or were, in Osment's case) adults in kids bodies. They seldom act like real kids. It's almost creepy.

I think Natalie Portman(Leon) and Kirsten Dunst(Interview with the Vampire) were great too. The little girl in Kill Bill was spectacular, and felt natural as hell, and I'm probably the only person who felt the kid from The Shining did a great job.

Most child actors are simply awful though. Somehow School of Rock got an entire cast of them that worked.
post #67 of 225
Furlong kills this movie for me. Sure the character is suppose to be this lonely, confused, dick. I am sure deep down we are suppose to care about him, that when he reaches out we are suppose to see someone hurting. Instead he comes across as an asshat and an idiot. The writing is not great, but Furlong has the presence of a piece of shit. He projects douche bag at all times. Its written like he is that kid you get into a fight with in high school, but when you are stuck in detention together you begin to see the person behind the dick. With furlong's performance that second part never happens, instead you just want to keep hitting him after detention. If the second was Cameron's actual intent (and I do not believe it was), then he screwed up big (the character is unlikable on all fronts and as annoying as it gets).
post #68 of 225
Well he's at least better than the kid with the red mullet.
post #69 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-7 View Post
I said generally. Dakota Fanning and Haley Joel Osment are great but it's almost like they are(or were, in Osment's case) adults in kids bodies. They seldom act like real kids. It's almost creepy.

I think Natalie Portman(Leon) and Kirsten Dunst(Interview with the Vampire) were great too. The little girl in Kill Bill was spectacular, and felt natural as hell, and I'm probably the only person who felt the kid from The Shining did a great job.

Most child actors are simply awful though. Somehow School of Rock got an entire cast of them that worked.
I think Anna Paquin also turned out okay. Its been a long time since I saw The Piano but she did a decent job in X-Men.

I never had a problem with Furlong. He is whiny, but his character is a kid after all so thats not exactly unexpected.
post #70 of 225
Agreed on Paquin.

To steer back to T2...
in the opening "future war" sequence, which I absolutely adore... people sure do have a lot of skulls in the future. Like seriously, the ground is fucking skull city. Where are the rest of the damn bones?
post #71 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-7 View Post
...and I'm probably the only person who felt the kid from The Shining did a great job.
Depends on which one you mean. I really liked the kid in Kubrick's film. The one in the miniseries made Jake Lloyd look like Marlon Brando.

By the way, the kids in School of Rock were another case of non-actors working out. They cast musicians first, with acting as a secondary consideration. I think a lot of it is just having a director who knows how to work with kids. Spielberg certainly can (I submit Cary Guffey from Close Encounters as an addition to the list). Cameron really can't.

Quote:
To steer back to T2...
in the opening "future war" sequence, which I absolutely adore... people sure do have a lot of skulls in the future. Like seriously, the ground is fucking skull city. Where are the rest of the damn bones?
That is kind of strange. Maybe the machines just collect all the skulls and scatter them about like gravel on the driveway.
post #72 of 225
The movie all the way.
I never saw the miniseries, but I admit to being morbidly curious about it. I really do enjoy the book, although not as much as Kubrick's film, but they are very different animals.
post #73 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-7 View Post
I never saw the miniseries, but I admit to being morbidly curious about it. I really do enjoy the book, although not as much as Kubrick's film, but they are very different animals.
I wouldn't bother. It is more faithful to the book (until it inexplicably lifts the ending of Return of the Jedi...I'm still reeling from that choice), but I really think that Kubrick's changes make the characters much more interesting.
post #74 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
That is kind of strange. Maybe the machines just collect all the skulls and scatter them about like gravel on the driveway.
It has been done in the past...the bones like pavement stuff. BTW the skull and femur and "hip" are the most resistant bones in our body. You will never find most of the other ones.

I liked the kids from School, Paquin and Portman too.

I still enjoy T2 a lot. I never saw the long cut. But I hate the GnR tracks.
post #75 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
I wouldn't bother. It is more faithful to the book (until it inexplicably lifts the ending of Return of the Jedi...I'm still reeling from that choice), but I really think that Kubrick's changes make the characters much more interesting.
Now I've read the book, seen Kubrick's version and seen Jedi, but I have no fucking clue how to envision this happening.
post #76 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
That doesn't make it okay. All it does is shift the blame to Cameron. Carrie Henn was awful too.

I've never understood the whole appeal of casting non-actors. A director who would never think of handing the camera to some guy on the street will hand a major role to some guy on the street. It works for something like Elephant, where you have a low-key, verite style going on. But a big, loud action movie needs someone who can emote well.
I didn't say that makes his performance ok. However you can't fault Furlong for being a shitty actor when he's not even an actor. It's clear Furlong's out of his league, but the movie works despite that.
post #77 of 225
My problem with T2 is that it completely sells out on the adult tone of the original film. I respect Cameron's responsibility and ingenuity in revising the Schwarzenegger character to be a more appropriate role model for children, but... Bad to the Bone? Really?
post #78 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva View Post
I didn't say that makes his performance ok. However you can't fault Furlong for being a shitty actor when he's not even an actor. It's clear Furlong's out of his league, but the movie works despite that.
Why does it matter whether it's his fault? How does fault enter into this? I don't believe that I ever advocated a public whipping or anything. I'm stating the fact that he's a bad actor. Fault doesn't enter into it.
post #79 of 225
Patrick called Furlong a shitty actor. I responded thats because he wasn't an actor. You said that doesn't excuse his performance. I think it does to a degree.
post #80 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
That doesn't make it okay. All it does is shift the blame to Cameron. Carrie Henn was awful too.

I've never understood the whole appeal of casting non-actors. A director who would never think of handing the camera to some guy on the street will hand a major role to some guy on the street. It works for something like Elephant, where you have a low-key, verite style going on. But a big, loud action movie needs someone who can emote well.
Are you telling me you were watching ALIENS for the first time and Carrie Henn took you out of it? You failed to be convinced she was a traumatized, shattered and scared child who needed a mother?
Is her, "Affirmitive!" line reading not a high mark?)
post #81 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
My problem with T2 is that it completely sells out on the adult tone of the original film. I respect Cameron's responsibility and ingenuity in revising the Schwarzenegger character to be a more appropriate role model for children, but... Bad to the Bone? Really?
See, this is the problem I've long had with T2. Loved it when I was a teenager, but over the years have come to realize its working on such a kid's movie level. The original may have been a melodramatic silly time travel piece, but it worked on a basic human level that never pandered to the lowest common denominator like the sequel does.

Last night, though, I threw in the DVD that I've had forever, but never watched. It came in a two pack with Total Recall, and I've never bothered to watch it, even knowing that I've never seen the special edition. This is a long way of saying that the 'Bad to the Bone' moment, something I've long despised, is really Cameron's way of saying "This is not the first movie, assholes, this is something else entirely. Arnold will smile in this one. Arnold might chaperone John Connor to the prom in this one."

So, I still think it's a lesser flick than the original, but I do believe that Cameron tells us pretty early on what kind of movie we're watching. I still fault him for the way he decided to carry it out, but at least he's never pretending that it's something more than it is.

I don't even want to get into that special edition stuff. I've long known about the scenes with Reese, etc, but my God was that stuff heavy handed. No wonder I loved this movie when I was in high school, that's the level it works best on, it's written by a guy who has this sixteen year old's emotional view of the world.
post #82 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-7 View Post
Well he's at least better than the kid with the red mullet.
Hey! As president of The Official Danny Cooksey Fan Club (Scandinavian chapter), I take extreme offence to your comments.

post #83 of 225
The Bret Ratner thread got me thinking.

Terminator 2 vs. X-Men 3

Which is the better film? I say T2 easily, although I agree it's heavy-handed and has some bad acting. X-Men 3 is a mess and ruined the series for me, but has some good parts and good performances.

Greg, I'm particularly interested to know your opinion on this. I know you're not defending Ratner in the other thread, but did he get lucky on this one?
post #84 of 225
T2 vs X3? What? Tell me that isn't actually a contest for anyone.
post #85 of 225
Seriously, they aren't even in the same league.
post #86 of 225
Renn Brown, Diva, You are right, T2 and X3 arent in the same league...X-Men The Last Stand is a better than T2. As much as I like James Cameron's films...I like The X-Men just a little more. Wolverine vs Juggernaut, and The X-Men Vs the Brotherhood is quite...Epic in the action department.
post #87 of 225
I think you forgot "pile of shit" between "better" and "than."
post #88 of 225
Neoolong, Nope...I did not forget about anything like you suggested. The X-Men films make up my favorite superhero trilogy. I also enjoy most of Blade, and Spider-Man trilogy's with the exception of the Ok Blade Trinity and equally ok Spider-Man 2. Of course...Wolverine if successful could be the next great X-Men Franchise at Fox. Maybe someone will eventually be comparing the potential trilogy's of McG's Terminator and Gavin Hood's Wolverine.
post #89 of 225
Spider-Man 2 is equal to Blade: Trinity?

How can this be, Fleed? How can this be?
post #90 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
"Do you have any money?"
"I have a couple hundred...I'll give you half."
*Sarah grabs the cash*
"MOOOOM!"
Vintage Furlong!

Also like his response after Sarah does a long-winded flip out at the Dysons:

(paraphrasing) "Mom, we need to be a little constructive here."

(Cracks me up everytime)
post #91 of 225

New guy chimes in

Yeah, so I'm new and my opinion should count for nothing. I am offering it anyway. I saw this as a kid as well. It just couldn't hold a candle to the Hong Kong stuff I was discovering at the time. I thought the inclusion of John Connor was decidedly lame, which may have been a reaction to Furlong not the character (but, damn, wasn't he just awesome in that new Crow movie? No?). I found a dubbed copy of The Killer at my local library and that thing still blows this out of the water in my book. I definitely see the craft here, and give it lots of love on that tip. However, the original scared me as a kid and this one just did not. There never really seems to be too much threat, y'know? No way is an $80 million flick gonna toast a kid (remember when that was a lot of money for a movie's budget?) in the early 1990s. But don't get me wrong: it's okay. Just not my favorite thing. Now The Abyss....
post #92 of 225
Renn Brown, Sure...The train sequence alone in Spider-Man 2 is better than all the action in Blade Trinity, but when Peter Parker gave up being Spider-Man, that dropped it to my third favorite of the Spider-Man films. I am very disappointed in Blade Trinity as well, with the exception of the very aBIELing Jessica, as Whistler's daughter.

Some people like to read superhero comics for the characters...I enjoy them for the fights, the heroic rescues, Superhero team ups and the relationships between the characters.
post #93 of 225
Few Action movies can stand up to THE KILLER. Different animal though.

T2's definitely more kid-friendly, nobody's disputing that, but as Moltisanti said, Robert Patrick is a pretty great villain (arguably superior).

Only moment that feels like a misstep to me is post-Arnie rampage, where we see 0.0 kills pop up on his inner-computer screen . Admittedly, 90's Cameron hokum at its worst.
post #94 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
Only moment that feels like a misstep to me is post-Arnie rampage, where we see 0.0 kills pop up on his inner-computer screen . Admittedly, 90's Cameron hokum at its worst.
All those kneecaps and concussions should have added up to at least 0.9 kills.
post #95 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
Few Action movies can stand up to THE KILLER. Different animal though.

T2's definitely more kid-friendly, nobody's disputing that, but as Moltisanti said, Robert Patrick is a pretty great villain (arguably superior).

Only moment that feels like a misstep to me is post-Arnie rampage, where we see 0.0 kills pop up on his inner-computer screen . Admittedly, 90's Cameron hokum at its worst.
It's more kid-friendly, but still has some brutal stuff in it. Milk carton kill, stabbing eye kill, Dyson getting shot up. I don't think that Arnie not killing people is so bad, since it's not like Kyle did in T1 did he?

Arnie still screws up the bikers in the bar and everything, and I'd reckon that he was at least told not to go around killing people flippantly before he was sent back in time. Yeah, John tells him not kill people, but it isn't really a problem since presumably we'd have a problem if he killed all the cops at Cyberdyne who were just doing their jobs, and who may or may not have been one day from retirement.
post #96 of 225
By the time T2 rolled around, the Terminator (and Arnold, for that matter) was a big pop culture icon and everyone imitated him. To not add humor would have been ignoring the pink elephant in the room.
post #97 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva View Post
Patrick called Furlong a shitty actor. I responded thats because he wasn't an actor. You said that doesn't excuse his performance. I think it does to a degree.
I'm really not interested in whether he can be excused. At all. His performance hurts the film. The end. Why would I care whose fault it is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill View Post
Greg, I'm particularly interested to know your opinion on this. I know you're not defending Ratner in the other thread, but did he get lucky on this one?
I do give T2 the edge, but it's closer than most people around here would be comfortable with. That's because I not only dislike T2 far more than they do, but I also think that X3 is not nearly as bad as these boards would have it. It's simply aggressively mediocre. While X3 has nothing as good as Robert Patrick in it, neither does it have anything as eye-rollingly bad as the Furlong/Arnold slang conversation. And don't bother quoting examples to me, anybody, because you're wrong.
post #98 of 225
I was about to say "T2 is better, obviously," but then I remembered I hate X3 so much I haven't even seen it.
post #99 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
And don't bother quoting examples to me, anybody, because you're wrong.
Well I guess we should just close up shop then guys. Conversation done.
post #100 of 225
That conversation is, no shit, one of the most cringe-inducing things I have ever had to sit through in my history with film. It's Battlefield Earth bad. I really cannot believe it made it past the editing stage. It makes me question Cameron's sanity. That one scene removes a full star from the movie's rating.

Yes, I really hate it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1992)