Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Apr 23, 2024 3:31 pm



Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 The Terminator 

What grade would you give this film?
A 78%  78%  [ 7 ]
B 22%  22%  [ 2 ]
C 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
D 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
F 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 9

 The Terminator 
Author Message
Jordan Mugen-Honda
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 13400
Post 
Shack wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Shack wrote:
A-


My biggest issue with the film is the ending with Reese being the father, other than the fact that it's the most predictable plot twist everrrrr, it also creates a huge unneccesary mindfuck. Reese being sent back created John Conners, but for John to send him back he needed to be alive in the first place, in present day he could not have been born because originally there was no Reese, for Reese to be sent back John needed to be alive, but there's no way that John was born in the first place because he was never alive in the first place to send Reese back. Indeed, yes that made no sense to me as well.



I think it makes sense.

Reese dies at an adult age. That doesn't mean a "child" Reese won't be born. He will be born and then will be sent back by John as an adult and he will die. Reese died, yet he will be born, grow up and be sent back. It is twisted, but not illogical.


No no, I think you missed my point. For Reese to be sent back, John needed to be born, but John should never have been born because originally there was no Reese in the present day, because John was never originally born. Thinking about it now, it's not so much of a mindfuck as a plothole, though I can easily ignore it. If it was real events, originally Sarah would live her life, never encountering Reese or any other strange occurences, she would just grow up and then die. John would never be born as Reese would never be sent back, because John was never born. She would never encounter Reese because for that to happen would require her son being born, but that cannot have happened, as originally there is noone there to impregnate her! Lol, yeah.

;)


Its called a time paradox Shack. Human minds are to small to understand :sweat:

I remember reading a theoretical science paper once which said that time travel my be possible but it would be impssible to change anything even though you occupy the same space-time, in a certain dimension level you don't :wacko:


As for the movie, Its one of Arnies best. And the coda at the end is haunting to watch, I'd imagine its impact was even greater in the nuclear standoff days of the 1980s

A+

_________________
Rosberg was reminded of the fuel regulations by his wheel's ceasing to turn. The hollow noise from the fuel tank and needle reading zero had failed to convay this message


Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:37 pm
Profile
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post 
Shack wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Shack wrote:
A-


My biggest issue with the film is the ending with Reese being the father, other than the fact that it's the most predictable plot twist everrrrr, it also creates a huge unneccesary mindfuck. Reese being sent back created John Conners, but for John to send him back he needed to be alive in the first place, in present day he could not have been born because originally there was no Reese, for Reese to be sent back John needed to be alive, but there's no way that John was born in the first place because he was never alive in the first place to send Reese back. Indeed, yes that made no sense to me as well.



I think it makes sense.

Reese dies at an adult age. That doesn't mean a "child" Reese won't be born. He will be born and then will be sent back by John as an adult and he will die. Reese died, yet he will be born, grow up and be sent back. It is twisted, but not illogical.


No no, I think you missed my point. For Reese to be sent back, John needed to be born, but John should never have been born because originally there was no Reese in the present day, because John was never originally born. Thinking about it now, it's not so much of a mindfuck as a plothole, though I can easily ignore it. If it was real events, originally Sarah would live her life, never encountering Reese or any other strange occurences, she would just grow up and then die. John would never be born as Reese would never be sent back, because John was never born. She would never encounter Reese because for that to happen would require her son being born, but that cannot have happened, as originally there is noone there to impregnate her! Lol, yeah.

;)


Nono, Reese ALWAYS was in the present day. It was inevitable that he would have been sent back eventually. Call it destiny or whatever. Reese was always meant to be sent back, it was predestined long before the war and all. It all comes full circle in T3. I don't know whether you have seen the other two films, so I don't want to spil them to you...

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:06 pm
Profile WWW
loyalfromlondon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm
Posts: 19697
Location: ville-marie
Post 
One of the best science fiction films of all time. A perfect blend of action thrills and sci-fi intrigue, with a fair dose of horror elements throw in. The story borrows from a ton of sources, but still manages to be mostly original, and actually all makes sense in the end. Time travel stuff can get pretty dodgy sometimes, but this manages to all work out with a predestination paradox explaining everything. The sequels kind of ruin this part of the story, but this film executes it perfectly. It's also got some great acting, from Arnold's iconic role to Michael Biehn's underappreciated performance to Linda Hamilton's surprisingly good turn, and some terrific effects, considering how low-budget it was. The action sequences are perfectly staged, and the exciting climax is both terrifying and exhilarating. Though I like T2 better, I can appreciate how influential this film was.

_________________
Magic Mike wrote:
zwackerm wrote:
If John Wick 2 even makes 30 million I will eat 1,000 shoes.


Same.


Algren wrote:
I don't think. I predict. ;)


Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:11 pm
Profile
 

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:48 am
Posts: 6245
Post Re: The Terminator
The performances all across the board are great. Some of the sci-fi ideas communicated and the rather complicated plot-line meld perfectly with the action sequences, preventing the film from being either an all out action flick, or a deeply thoughtful science fiction story, but rather a beautiful and disturbing mix of the two. The film is utterly gritty and remarkably frightening. The weak effects as a result to the low budget are noticable and obnoxious at the flash-forward scenes where you see the post apocolyptic world, but outside of that it is not really a problem and the budget is used incredibly well by Cameron.
By the thing that surprised me most about the film was how much emotion the whole film had, and how perfectly this contrasted with Arnorld's total and utter lack of any emotion.
A great action/sci-fi flick that soars above and beyond the bounds of either genre.

5/5 (its not "perfect 10" material, but it is a magnificent film.)

_________________
Mr. R wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
You seem to think threatening violence against people is perfectly okay because you feel offended by their words, so that's kind of telling in itself.

Exactly. If they don't know how to behave, and feel OK offending others, they get their ass kicked, so they'll think next time before opening their rotten mouths.


Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:07 am
Profile
loyalfromlondon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm
Posts: 19697
Location: ville-marie
Post Re: The Terminator
Try telling Bradley that.

_________________
Magic Mike wrote:
zwackerm wrote:
If John Wick 2 even makes 30 million I will eat 1,000 shoes.


Same.


Algren wrote:
I don't think. I predict. ;)


Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:03 pm
Profile
He didn't look busy?!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:59 pm
Posts: 4308
Post Re: The Terminator
it's very good, but i think it was bad that I saw T2 first. This was obviously lower-budget, smaller in scale, etc., and as a result, I guess I was a bit disappointed by it. Linda Hamilton was a pretty boring lead, especially in contrast with Arnold's awesome performance, and a lot of the FX are laughably (even if understandably) outdated. All that said, it's a very entertaining handling of an interesting concept, and a great start to an up-and-down franchise.

B+

_________________
Image
Retroviral Videos
A film-based project created for the purpose of helping raise awareness about HIV/AIDS, specifically in South Africa.


Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:33 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.