Did any other
Stargate SG-1 fans have a little squee moment when we saw a brief glimpse of the Cheyenne Mountain Complex?
Nick Stahl is the worst John Connor ever.
He seemed like a logical continuation of what Edward Furlong portrayed. He just wasn't given the best material to work with.
Personally, I think Clarke is the worst Connor, and that's not because he's a bad actor or anything, but just because he's incredibly miscast, like several in this movie.
I just rewatched
T3 yesterday and I agree. I really like Nick Stahl's performance and it does logically follow from Furlong's in
T2.
But I actually liked Jason Clarke as John Connor in this movie. His scenes with Kyle Reese at the beginning are probably my favorite John Connor scenes from the entire franchise. I was less impressed with Clarke as the evil robot version of Connor during the rest of the film.
IMO, the worst John Connor was Christian Bale. He just phoned in his entire performance. (And his character was so unnecessary because the entire movie should have just been about Marcus Wright anyway.)
Heck, unless Kyle Reese bangs Sarah at exactly the same time he jumps back, and exactly the same sperm impregnates the exact same egg, it's not even the same John Connor we see each time it happens.
Is this the real reason why John Connor keeps getting recast in every single movie? Each time jump slightly jostles Reese's testicles, resulting in a different John Connor?
(The same egg would be less of an issue so long as Reese & Sarah mate within the same cycle.)
That said, there's a reason Matt Smith was cast for the role as Skynet, even if more as a joke than a legitimate reason.
I just think it's funny that Matt Smith was a bad guy in this movie while Alan Taylor's last movie,
Thor: The Dark World, cast Christopher Eccleston as the bad guy. I nominate David Tennant as the villain for Taylor's next film!
I don't believe Cameron likes this film.. I believe they paid him in a publicity stunt to save the film. I seem to recall saying he liked T3 (only he didn't make a video)
I too thought Cameron said back in 2003 he liked T3 there a few weeks back after he first stared endorsing this one by calling it "the real third movie."
I remember hearing that too. And I remember it was considered to be a BIG DEAL in 2003 because Cameron often isn't shy about his opinions on other people's sequels to his own movies. (He wasn't at all shy about how much he disliked
Alien 3.)
That's like koshing Oswald in the library, and then killing Kennedy yourself.
SEE
Red Dwarf ep7x01 "Tikka to Ride."
Also, why the hell was Matt Smith so heavily promoted in the lead up to the movie when he's in it for all of two minutes?!?!?!
Because he was a very popular incarnation of The Doctor in Doctor Who. I have a feeling if his role wasn't played by such a high profile actor, they probably would have been quieter about it.
I wonder if a lot of Smith's scenes ended up on the cutting room floor? Perhaps there was even a problem with some test audiences having a hard time taking Smith's character seriously considering how strongly identified he is with the 11th Doctor? (IIRC, that once happened to George Reeves. He was supposed to have a small supporting role in
From Here to Eternity but was cut because test audiences kept thinking of Superman whenever they saw him.)
davejames I completely agree with your post, especially as a unabashed fan of the franchise (I think it's the true fans that will have the biggest headaches walking out of this film. The edge that the first movie once had would be dulled after watching this)
But the part that grabbed my eye was this:
somehow found time in the apocalypse to hit the gym and become bigger and buffer than most of the Terminators they were fighting (as opposed to the lean and haunted and half-starving Kyle of the original movie that really did look like a survivor from a future apocalypse).
Couldn't have said it better. Beihn was perfect for that part. He looked like a seasoned warrior who was a bit skinny and had to possibly eek out his survival living on rats. He had a gravity to his presence that is evident when he first stands up in 1984 and Cameron as a closeup of his face. And his love for Sarah is deep and intimate, even from a photo.. an aspect of the mythos the new film pays lip service to only to mock.
I wish they got their other choice,
this guy, to play Reese. Even as I've probably never seen him act before, he really looks like Beihn, and he also isn't all that big. Reese is one of my favorite male movie characters
ever.
I saw Boyd Holbrook, the actor that you mentioned, in
Run All Night. He was OK. He certainly looks more the part than Jai Courtney. I also would have nominated Shawn Reaves (Harrison from
Tru Calling), although he might have been too short.
Agreed that Michael Biehn's Kyle Reese is one of my all-time favorite movie characters.
The Terminator is one of the few absolutely perfect movies ever made and Biehn's haunted, wild-eyed performance is a huge part of what makes it work.
That said, as much as I hated Jai Courtney in
A Good Day to Die Hard and barely tolerated him in
Divergent, I thought he gave a solid performance in
Terminator Genisys. While Michael Biehn & Linda Hamilton will always be the definitive Kyle Reese & Sarah Connor, Courtney & Clarke were sufficiently suitable substitutes who made the roles their own as best they could.
So cool that two actresses from Game of Thrones have played Sarah Connor.
So when does Linda Hamilton get a cameo on
Game of Thrones?!
I will say I would have loved to see Joe Morton reprise the Dyson role, especially since when the character appears he'd be Morton's age now, anyway. Somehow including Lance Henriksen in the 2017 scenes as like a deputy chief would also have been great, as Lance makes everything better. Both characters survived in the altered timeline, btw. Also, they should have CGIed young Bill Paxton into the Observatory scene.
Agreed. They should have worked in cameos for Joe Morton as Miles Dyson, Lance Henriksen as Det. Vukavitch, & Earl Boen as Dr. Silberman. A CGIed young Bill Paxton would have been fun. But really, they should have just figured out a way to make a deal with MGM to use the footage from
The Terminator.
And while we're talking about characters from the original film, was anyone else disappointed by the wino that Kyle Reese first meets when he arrives in 1984 this time? He didn't seem drunk enough. I wouldn't mention it except that the original wino from
The Terminator is probably the best movie drunk ever! "That son of a bitch took my pants!"
A day wasn't enough time to destroy an industry, but if they junk continuity for the next 33 years (Sarah gets cancer and doesn't live that long.), the game pieces might be in impossibly the wrong places when they get there to there future and have no ability to deliver their killing blow.
I was wondering that myself.
Did you notice the actor MATTHEW Smith?
Reminds me of when
Red Dwarf's Chris Barrie played the butler in the
Tomb Raider movies and was billed as "Christopher Barrie."
Overall,
Terminator Genisys was OK. It's certainly not the worst modern attempt to reinvigorate a beloved 1980s action franchise. (It's a lot more fun than, say,
A Good Day to Die Hard or
Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.) A lot of the actors were better than I expected.
However, I find a lot of the movie to be extremely confusing. Who sent Pops back to protect Sarah Connor in 1973? For that matter, who sent the T-1000 back to kill her? If Skynet (or Timenet or whatever) had converted John Connor to its side, then why bother to try to kill him retroactively?
Its ironic that
The Terminator, one of cinema's best ever examples of a predestination paradox, has given rise to a movie that's all about altered timelines.
I suppose it's because of that that
Terminator Genisys is my least favorite of the 5 films.
The Terminator is a great predestination paradox.
T2 doesn't actually do anything to contradict it. They act like they saved the day by destroying Cyberdine Systems but we don't really know for sure.
T3 fudges things a little bit by delaying Judgment Day from 1997 to 2004 but keeps everything intact otherwise. (In a way, I blame James Cameron for that wobble. Had he not set a date for Judgment Day in
T2, T3 wouldn't have felt the need to contradict it at all.)
Terminator Salvation is all in the future and doesn't involve any time travel at all. (
Terminator Salvation is also kindly agnostic by not giving an exact date for Judgment Day. It just says, "In the early 21st century." So that works for a Judgment Day in 2004, 2011, or even 2017.)
I suppose my ranking for the films goes:
1. The Terminator. Practically perfect in every way.
2. Terminator 2. It's one of the best sci-fi action movies ever. James Cameron's direction is unparalleled. The 1991 production values still hold up today. The only things keeping it out of the #1 spot are the lack of Kyle Reese and a slight reduction in realism from the 1st one.
3. Terminator 3. There's a pretty big drop in quality from #2 to #3. True,
T3 is mostly just a cynical rehash of
T2 but with a darker ending. But really, that's about the best that we could expect in 2003. Schwarzenegger is always a blast to watch and gets some real kick-ass fights & car chases here. And, honestly, the supporting cast is pretty underrated, especially Claire Danes as Katherine Brewster.
4. Terminator Salvation. It's not very well made and isn't as scary as it should be. Also, it's got a pretty weak cast. Christian Bale is phoning it in. Sam Worthington is just OK. Bryce Dallas Howard is good but not as good as Claire Danes. On the plus side, Anton Yelchin, Moon Bloodgood, Michael Ironside, & Helena Bonham Carter all turn in solid performances that prop the film up as best they can. And I applaud the film for not involving time travel or rehashing the first 3.
5. Terminator Genisys. Much better than I was expecting but makes the time travel much more confusing than it ever was before. And all the stuff about how Alex is actually from a parallel universe is just stupid!
