Change Your Image
mlg-t888
Reviews
Firefly (2002)
Um, Yee-haw?
I'm not totally sure why I am reviewing this long dead TV series. I guess, since it is extremely well known (and controversial) even to this day among science fiction fans. So it is my duty to say what I think about it I guess.
Where to begin, where to begin, I guess I would say that the best way to describe this show is an interesting concept gone very very wrong. In an attempt to make something fresh and original Joss Whedon attempts to combine old-style westerns and space operas together. What could have been subtler more gentle marriage of two different genres ended up being clunky and jarring, like two different blood types that can't mix together.
The story opens on a battle-field scenario with panicked soldiers in a losing battle. The scene immediately feels like a weaker version of battle trauma scenarios in well known war-films, though this is excusable as it is a TV show. As the episode progressed the viewers are introduced to the cowboyish (there is reasoning for this) members of the spaceship "Serenity". They are quickly attacked by the "Alliance", the galaxy's ruling power, who look unforgivably like the Empire in Star Wars.
Then came the title sequence, which played music that you would otherwise only hear in westerns. I was so taken aback, I couldn't put these two genres together, it just simply didn't work. Everything about this series screamed space-opera, but the soundtrack screamed western. Throughout the rest of the show, otherwise scholarly sounding characters would throw 'ya'll' or something along those lines into their sentences to sound like cowboys. It was really quite ridiculous.
It's quite sad really, the only thing that defined this series was it's original mix of western and space-opera, but instead the two genres just felt like they were fighting for control of the show. Without this original bit it really just becomes a generic space-voyaging show.
Unfortunately the show died young and never really got the chance to move past it's awkward phase.
So there you have it, I do encourage anybody reading this to go and watch the show yourself since opinions on it seem to vary widely, don't judge it based on my views.
Bibleman (1995)
God have mercy
I am going to be brief about this horrifying series, let me begin by stating I am a Christian, so I hold no kind of vendetta against the morals portrayed.
Let me explain my feelings about this show in one sentence: This is an awfully acted, horrifically directed, terribly written, atrociously misinformed, horrendously uninspired "series" that deserves to have a warning on it to keep unsuspecting families from renting it.
That is my one sentence review, there you have it.
NOTE: This series does not reflect what Christians enjoy to watch, quite the contrary really.
Eragon (2006)
Bad doesn't even begin to describe.......
Instantly infamous, completely inescapable, unrelentlessly unforgivable, let's give it up for Eragon folks! Oh yes, for those of you who are wondering "Is it really all that bad?". Let me stop you right there, THIS MOVIE IS THAT BAD. And the most disturbing thing about it is, it wasn't bad because it was unfaithful to the book! It was simply an absolutely terrible excuse for a film.
The first of the many film-making atrocities so shamelessly committed by this movie, was making an adaption of the book in the first place. Christopher Paolini's uninspired rip-off of Star Wars, but at least relatively endearing novel never needed a film adaption, it didn't deserve one. A film adaption is bad enough in concept, but adding to this is the fact that it was simply a badly made movie.
Every aspect of this movie felt cheap, from the CGI to the armies of what appeared to be around fifty people. Everything from weaponry to sets felt like a downgraded version of previously released fantasy films.
The second most obvious flaw, was the terrible casting. It really was obvious from the get-go, I mean Joss Stone? Really? Are you kidding? Among the blatantly miscast was Ed Speleers, a typical, bland, blonde pretty boy who (surprise, surprise) had never been in a movie before! He was cast after being rejected from "The Chronicles of Narnia" (thank God). There's nothing worse than making an already bland character even more so.
Jeremy Irons just can't seem to get cast in a good fantasy movie can he? He was cast as the old wise jedi... I mean Dragon Rider, Brom, who is consistently fighting the evil Empire led by former Jed... I mean Dragon Rider, Darth Va... I mean Galbatorix (played by John Malcovich). Malcovich's Galbatorix is as generic a bad guy as you can imagine. He's a couch potato who apparently lives in a cave and has his evil Michael Jackson look-alike, Durza (played by Robert Carlyle) carry out his dirty deeds.
The rest of the cast is made up of the elf without pointy ears Arya (Sienna Guillory), the ever-bored looking Murtagh (Garett Hedlund), and The dwarf who is not short, King Hrothgar (Gary Lewis). Djimon Hounsou is also in it, being ticketed as one of the primary actors in the film, he, oddly enough got about 4 minutes of screen time, and absolutely no time to add any of his fantastic acting skills to the story. And finally we have Joss Stone, who is horrendously misplaced as a future-seeing witch, she obviously does not have acting skills and doesn't fit her character at all.
One of the movies only good aspects was a relatively good soundtrack (aside from a utterly misplaced song by Avril Lavigne). But the soundtrack is not even anything close to saving the rest of the film.
For the sake of ending my rant, this movie is just terrible regardless of it's source material and how faithful it was to it.
2/10 stars, may God have mercy on all those who subject themselves to this garbage.
Happy Feet (2006)
Not so Happy Feet
What's not happy about dancing, cuddly little penguins! You may ask, well, a whole lot apparently.
Contrary to what the title suggests, Happy Feet is really anything but. What really should have been a heartwarming and funny film ended up being about as funny as a funeral and as heartwarming as "An Inconvenient Truth".
At the end of the film, myself and the other viewers I was with all came to the same conclusion, this film was really quite depressing. The depression this film inspired really had nothing to do with the overtly "Al Gore-esque" message, it just simply was an upsettingly dreary film. Toward the ending, I started asking myself "what kind of movie is this? While somewhat disturbing images flooded from the screen, as the film's protagonist is caged in a zoo and seeing strange images floating in front of him.
One of the films features that really caused the traumatic end result, was simply the complete unrelatability of any of the characters. Mumble, the would-be lovable protagonist, simply has nothing relatable about him, the character has no passion, no soul, simply a pathetic sounding Elijah Wood voice that adds nothing to the character. Due to this characterization Mumble feels alienating, because you can't relate to him, you can't get inside his head, thus none of his decisions throughout the movie make any sense (eg. randomly dissing his girlfriend).
Among the rest of the unrelatable ensemble is Lovelace, A sex obsessed, narcissistic, gospel preacher who, although somewhat entertaining, is extremely unlikable. There are the hyperactive "amigos" who, while adding some visual entertainment, really serve as goofy stooges who don't fit with the rest of the movie's bleakness. There are the protagonists parents. The mother is simply a background character that doesn't seem to have an effect on anything in the films plot. The father is an obnoxious Elvis caricature who is so shallow it's not possible to take him seriously. The protagonists girlfriend is the typical, uninteresting girlfriend we get used to in any sort of movie. And then there's the Catholic-esquire Elders, the film's primary antagonists. Your typical religious stereotypes, judgmental, power-hungry, and elderly.
The entire bleakness of the movie is capped off with an unrelentlessly happy ending that the word "disjointed" can't even begin to describe. Aside from being ridiculously happy, the ending was also just flat out stupid. It was so random in fact that it felt as if the director had been on the verge of suicide while directing the rest of it, then suddenly started tripping on acid right before the ending.
The ridiculous ending just added to the film's depression, it left me with this empty feeling that took a while to get over. I had been subjected to a movie that felt self-destructive at points, and then had something that felt drug-induced just launched at my face, and then the credits started rolling. I really had almost no clue what to make of it until further reflection (which took place much later), this movie serves no purpose, it had it's human-induced destruction message, but even so, it felt distinctly empty, there was no real heart behind it. All there was was dancing penguins and world destruction, that's about it.
5/10 stars, visually well crafted, otherwise, pointless.
Predator (1987)
On the Hunt
The Ultimate Predator, battles the Ultimate Prey: Man.
This is, in the smallest nutshell physically possible, the plot of the 80's sci-fi, action, horror film "Predator", from "Die Hard" director John Mctiernan. Now wait a second, from the director of "Die Hard"? then how come nobody ever seems to give this film a second thought? Sure everybody knows about the not-so-amazing Alien vs. Predator crossover, but the original Predator? Nah, you'd have to dig pretty deep to find somebody who remembers that.
For somebody who has never seen or even remembers the release of Predator, may be shocked to here that it earned a pretty good box-office and general critical reaction to the film was positive.
To be honest, I think that Predator is an overlooked gem that brings back some of that 80's, action film nostalgia that so many people subconsciously strive to find. Though not on the same level as say "Terminator" or "Aliens", "Predator" is a classic in it's own right, many more recent films have borrowed a lot from this movie. Many images, which have become iconic in modern cinema, actually have roots in Predator.
Predator is also one of those films that improves with age. It's almost refreshing to see an old style action movie that doesn't feel like a cliché, simply because it's one of those movies that has actually created those clichés to begin with.
If you're an action movie fan who loves Terminator, Die Hard, and Aliens then this movie is for you. If you're not really that type of moviegoer, I think Predator works well enough to actually make a space in your heart for this kind of film.
Well crafted action flick
Alien Resurrection (1997)
Like resurrecting a man who died peacefully, only to then stab him to death with a serrated knife
Resurrection? Why, what's the point?, what's the logic? what's the reason?, what's the meaning? Why? These are questions that should have been asked before Fox greenlighted Joss Whedon's piece of work, "Alien Resurrection". This film is a failure on so many levels it's almost unbelievable.
After the troubled production (and obnoxious, studio-meddling) of Alien 3, you would think that someone would just have enough brains to leave it be. Just let it end on a relatively good film (who's only flaw was the studio's editing after Fincher's walkout). But no, they just couldn't leave it alone, the resurrection of this franchise has absolutely no logic behind it. How could this film possibly succeed? Someone should have said.
Let me begin my walkthrough of this horrible injustice. The beginning problem was Joss Whedon's script. Who on earth said "Hey! let's have the buffy the vampire guy write our new Alien movie!", And then the next big question is: Who agreed to it? The funny thing about it is that Joss has apparently escaped all retribution for this movie by stating that they filmed his perfectly good script wrong. But this argument doesn't hold up when you know the contents of the actual script, in fact, the resulting film did the original script justice (maybe even improvement).
The film starts off with no setting, and no background. Where are we now? Why is this ship here? Who are these people? What is the universe's current condition? Are questions that are never fully or satisfactorily answered. In fact the film is so restricted by it's limited scope that it doesn't even seem to know the answers to these questions. It just makes a large amount of excuses to get both weapons and aliens into the picture, and let me tell you their excuses involve, cloning, evil governments and pirates or "mercenaries" or whatever they called them (they seemed like pirates to me). Where these people came from, and why are they pirates are questions that no attempt was ever made to answer.
The biggest of the script's issues are the mind-numbingly wide plot holes that cause the entire film's premise to crumble. The excuses used to drag our battle-weary Ripley out from the grave is so clearly ridiculous they really can't fool even the most unscrutinizing audience.
The foolishly ignorant use of science is used repeatedly throughout the film, most evident in the arrival of the "Newborn" (highly original name, ain't it). Apparently.
(SPOILERS) Since a group of scientists removed an Alien queen out of a cloned Ripley (not like that even makes sense to begin with), the queen apparently takes on human traits, such as a human reproductive system, resulting in the birth of an alien-human hybrid. The hybrid kills the queen and then identifies with Ripley as her mother (which also, doesn't make any sense). The original Whedon-design of the newborn was so ridiculous that it had to be redesigned into a better (but still awful) combination which is somewhere between the hunchback of Notre-dame and Casper the friendly ghost. (NOTE: All this info is thrown at you within a 4 to 5 minute period towards the end of the movie). (SPOILERS END)
So at about this point I was asking, why? what kind of plot device is this. Randomly thrown in, it doesn't help or move the story along just simply makes it more inconceivable than it was to begin with.
So aside from Whedon's completely non-plausible script, the entire air of the story itself was a major problem. It successfully rips all terror and dark intensity from itself, only to replace it with what can best be described as swashbuckling campiness. Scenes with humorous intent were thrown here and there with no particular meaning, although the ending result was not humorous at all. There is no substance, not even one original piece worth noting, the entire film reeks of the staleness of it's own concept.
None of the acting was really worth mentioning, almost all of the performances felt weak and contrived, none of the characters had any depth or soul to them. Even Ripley has been leached of all her relatability, replaced with weird alien-hybrid version of herself that really leaves no character relatabilty in the film at all especially after a disturbing "sex" scene between her and an alien (oh yes, that was in there), they all just seem like disconnected people that we just don't know or care about.
As I wrap up here, I will say this, if you are dying for some alien action, this will not satisfy you no matter HOW desperate you are. In fact you would be better off watching AVP, which, regardless of how weak a film it was, was WAY better than this crap.
3/10 stars
The Matrix (1999)
Welcome, to the Real World
After the death of good science fiction movies (with a few exceptions) in 1994, the genre made a strong comeback with the release of the highly publicized "The Matrix". Since then, the film has become a common cultural reference, and copied in the stylization and use of slow motion.
It was only recently, on a boring Friday, alone in my room with my Xbox, that I finally decided to view "The Matrix". I rented it off of Xbox Live, and immediately became sucked in by action sequences I recognized from more recent films, films which no doubt had used the Matrix as a large source of inspiration.
The films main strength lies in it's visual appeal. consistently switching between the gritty harshness of the real, machine-ruled world, and the slick, sterilized feel inside the Matrix and other computer programs. The film implements visual styles never before seen in any film, and created a world, stretching the limits of the human imagination.
The films second strength, is in it's mind-bending philosophies. What is the true state of existence? Is what you know reality, or simply a veil to a bigger picture. Questions such as these that go wild within the human mind but are never able to be truly communicated with others. The film draws heavily on Christian and Bhuddist philosophies and concepts.
Very few times has such a mix of both action and philosophy been but together in film form. Thus creating such an automatic appeal to the viewers.
But as with most films, "The Matrix" does come with its own flaws. As with many science fiction and action films. These biggest flaws lie in the ending. As with films such as "Terminator 2" or "Iron Man" the film succumbs to typical "Spiderman-ish" corniness toward its ending, that does not seem fitting with the mature vision the rest of the film contained.
Although sequels offer logical reasoning for the over-played sequences toward the end, it still feels as if to little explanation is left to be fully satisfying.
One thing that has to be fully understood with the Matrix, is that it is almost completely dependant on its sequels to be complete. Not all is resolved in the end (in fact, not even the main conflict is resolved). It is truly a three-part saga, and is what it should really be viewed as.
Science fiction lovers will (and have) found this film to put a fresh perspective on the genre and will love this movie for years to come. Non-geek people will probably enjoy most of it, particularly the concepts which are introduced in the movie.
8/10 stars
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Plug in - Reload
A sequel was inevitable after the (partial) cliffhanger ending of the 1999 blockbuster "The Matrix".
The second-part in the the Wachowski brothers groundbreaking vision, "Reloaded" makes sure it has the signature fight-scenes from the first Matrix and then some.
The first part of the film starts out just a bit too fast, lacking a bit of info that could have come across more clearly. After a short amount of time it becomes apparent that many months have past since the first Matrix film, and Neo has fully developed into a savior figure for the 'resistance', the people of Zion.
As the story shifts to allow for the entrance of new characters to the story, a feeling of the magnitude of the entire human/machine battle comes to light. The people of Zion are just waiting out until their impending doom and all of their hopes lay squarely on the shoulders of Neo, the savior that they believe will end the war.
Therein lies the main strength of "Reloaded". The new characters to the story bring a certain human aspect, not as much present in the first installment. When the cool, stylized, slo-mo style is not present, there is a certain sense that these people are only human, preparing to fight a force far beyond them.
The film spends a large amount of time on the now apparent villain, the Morovingian. A french speaking computer-program who spends his time messing with people in his high-class restaurant with his rejected wife Persephone.
And there, lies the movies biggest problem. "Reloaded" is highly publicized as a two-part deal, to get the entire thing, the second part (or third, whatever you want to call it) "Revolutions" must be seen. Why is this a problem? Because the film itself is aware that no matter how many times the characters say "it ends tonight" the audience knows it isn't actually going to end until the next movie. There is a rather large lack of drama to the 'climax', mostly because of the focus on the Morovingian, and not on the machines. Now this would be fine if it weren't for the scripts unwavering insistence on pretending there's a climax when there doesn't need to be one.
Reloaded does regain it's bearings toward the end though, although somewhat depressing it ends with a key revelation to the story and ends with enough left open for the third-installment to be a must-see.
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Everything that has a Beginning, has an End
The stunning conclusion to the Wachowski brothers "Matrix" trilogy comes to life. Highly controversial at it's release, the film has since never quite redeemed itself in eyes of the fans of the series. As a side note, this film might receive better reception as time goes on, much like "Alien 3" although this is simply speculation.
The film begins almost the second its predecessor ended, Neo is unconscious, with the he's-got-to-be-up-to-no-good Bane lying right beside him. The film almost immediately throws itself back into the computer world with the revelation that the Morovingian isn't quite done with our leather-clad heroes yet.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film is the extended focus on the people of Zion. It frequently breaks away from the main characters to focus on the less developed ones which were introduced in the previous movie. While the ominous buzzing of the machines comes ever closer, the people of Zion prepare for what they know will be their final battle. I particularly liked the development of Kid, a character only briefly touched upon in "Reloaded" gets a nice portion of the spotlight while defending Zion.
While humans and machines clash, Morpheus, Niobe and their crew come to aid in the battle at their home. Niobe's character get's some well deserved development during this period, as her and Morpheus's stories come full circle.
One of the films only weaknesses is the lack of focus on Neo and Trinity, who are completely absent for a large portion of the film. Their characters never really undergo any development, with the exception of an extremely powerful sequence toward the end.
The reason that Revolutions, in my mind, was a success was because of the ending. The Wachowski brothers don't waste time showing what occurs afterwards, they simply end the story, telling it the way they wanted to tell it. This is one of the things I really like about the brothers, they don't sell out on their vision and let the film-making norms taking over their story. They tell their story, not the story that the audience EXPECTS or WANTS to see, but the story THEY want to tell, which is what film-making is really about.
If you are a die-hard fan of the Matrix or just a person who has a tendency to like deeply misunderstood movies, watch this.
Terminator Salvation (2009)
Salvation for a franchise that didn't even know it needed it
The terminator is back again! again. As the fourth entry in the franchise this film really packs a punch with it, albeit, in a completely different ways than previous entries.
Whereas the first three films were small cast action films, Salvation is strictly a war movie. Aside from the same story as the it's predecessors TS shares almost no similarities to them. The largest of the differences would be the lack of Arny.
The lack of Governator has actually been one of the main complaints about this movie, many feel it's not the same without him.
Here's where I think many viewers are completely missing the point, keywords: the same. Being the same as the previous films was obviously completely beside the point, get with the program people. We had enough of Arny in T3, adding him in for a fourth time would be flogging a completely decomposed horse.
Actually, I felt that TS really was the saving grace for this franchise. Another movie with the same layout as the first three would simply be a drop on the "been there, done that" bucket. Salvation really brought a series that was dangling over the edge back to firm ground.
Of course, every film has it's not so great bits, this one really has all of them canned in one specific scene, the (already) infamous "campfire scene". For the sake of not spoiling anything I'm not going to say what happens, but as soon as you see something that remotely resembles a campfire just make a run for a bathroom break. Trust me, there's nothing there you didn't want to miss.
Among a few other issues is the fact that this is not the same judgment day as depicted in the first three films. Whether this is a flaw will depend on the viewers connection to the previous films in the series.
Whereas the opening of T2 painted a striking visual of the post-apocalyptic future, nightmarish and always battle-oriented. McG ops for a more realistic, dirty, gritty depiction of the future where it is not always nighttime and they are not consistently battling hordes of killer robots.
In a surprising move for McG he actually does go deeper into the ruined future-world, where the sides are not nearly as black-and-white as would be thought. For a fourth film in a series and especially for the director of "Charlie's Angels", "Salvation" actually does carry much originality and depth to it, for this I give McG credit. I personally loved the interpretation and felt it had more ground than the haunting, yet non-practical version that James Cameron dreamed up (no offense to Cameron whatsoever).
Unfortunately, much of the films bad press has come without a legitimate reason. Almost every detractor of this film that I have seen has essentially said "It isn't the same as T2, this is a bad Terminator movie, it's more like Transformers". To be honest, this is all crap. Terminator Salvation isn't a bad Terminator movie, it's simply different, and it most certainly is not like Transformers.
Many people don't seem to understand this however, they think "if it's not the same, it has to be bad". This evaluation, however, fails to state how the film is actually bad. Instead I suggest going with a basis that respects this film as it's own without outside opinion from over-zealous fans.
7/10 stars. If you haven't seen "Star Trek", watch that first, but make sure to give this a look if your a Terminator fan or not.
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
He's back
As far as action movies go T2:Judgement Day is IT, it's got explosions, shooting, and 'Ahnold shwarshnaygah'! (yes I spelled his name wrong on purpose!)
Sequel to the 1984 low-budget masterpiece "The Terminator", T2 brings everything from T1 to the table and more.
The acting is by far the best thing in the film, every role is played to the point that you have to surrender to the movie's will that these are not just characters, these people are 'REALITY' *. The visual effects are another great for this film, the effects are astounding, well not nowadays, but for back then, these were beyond just a 'breakthrough', and are still believable enough now.
though this movie is not without it's flaws....... Towards the films end, the primary antagonist becomes relatively nonthreatening. He seems to lose he's cunning and his smart thinking, to the point where there seems to be plot holes. Instead of using awesome terminator abilities we know he has, he simply does things the hard way, yet somehow always seems to be able to keep up with the protagonists.
Another thing that might turn off some viewers is that you can't really relate to anybody in this movie. One person's bad boy middle-school kid with rotten foster parents who he's stuck with(some may be able to relate to this, but not most), one's a woman who's trapped in a mental hospital, one's a scientist on the verge of a world-changing discovery and one is a.. uh, robot. As you can see, not much empathy, sympathy, sure, just not empathy. One interesting piece of the movie is the movie's moral statement, about the value of human life. Throughout the film the Terminator is taught about human emotions and about how all life is valuable. This is so prominent that by the end the Terminator has even gained a basic level of human emotions. Leave it to James Cameron to effectively give a trained assassin killing robot emotions.
Well, there you have it, a rough and tough action film with a kind of weak climax, but it doesn't take away from the rest of the story.
9/10 (probably would have been 9.5/10 if it weren't for that ending).
* The exception of this would have been the role of Edward Furlong, though this is somewhat excusable due to him being a child actor, his character is a bit less than believable.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
He's back, AGAIN
Yes the Terminator returns for yet another go-round with the unrelenting machines. He will do some new stuff and a lot of stuff we've already seen, but hey, it's still good stuff.
I personally enjoyed this film a lot, it lacked most of the first and second films depth, but it still respectable, especially considering it's the third film in the franchise. My friend and his dad also enjoyed the film, they agreed it didn't match the first two but that it was still a good film.
This being the first "Terminator" movie I had seen I didn't know what to expect, I believed this helped me. Too many people compared this to the first two films and expected it to be the same, but it wasn't, it was actually a fairly good film, just not quite as good as the first two fantastic films. Because I had not seen the other two, I was able to see this one as a film and not just a stack up to the first two, thus I honestly believe it was a fairly good addition to the franchise.
The T-X (Kristanna Loken) though amazing in concept didn't exactly carry the coldness that T2's T-000 had, the result being, she was not as effective as she should have been. The acting itself wasn't a perfect gem, but it carried the story like it needed too and there was no particularly large flaw in it.
The reason that T3 wasn't as good as the previous movies is because it couldn't bear the emotional heavy lifting that its predecessors did. It didn't contain the emotional passion that Linda Hamilton gave to T2 or the gritty strength of Michael Biehn's Kyle Reese from the original "Terminator".
T3 does redeem itself though, the ending is one of the most powerful endings to a movie I've ever seen (to the point that it felt slightly disjointed from the rest of the movie). Now I'm not going to spoil it for any viewer who hasn't seen this movie, but the ending of this film is a shocker, especially to fans of the series (Then again with Terminator Salvation out already, most people who haven't seen T3 would have figured it out by now).
7.5/10 Very Good action film, see it.
The Terminator (1984)
The Defining Sci-fi
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was the first Terminator movie I saw, and I greatly enjoyed it. When I heard the first two were better, I bought both of them without a second thought, before even watching them. Was I disappointed? NO.
The Terminator is without a doubt the defining Sci-Fi action film of all time. though future films of the same genre may have been better, this one stands alone as the founder of the marriage between Science-Fiction and Action films.
The plot centers around the destruction of the world as we know it, due to computers becoming self-aware and destroying their makers: Humans. After a machine-induced nuclear holocaust, human survivors fight back against the machines, led by a man named John Connor. A computer-soldier called a "Terminator" is sent back in time by the machines, to kill the mother of John Connor, so he can never be born. The human resistance also sends one of their soldiers back in time, to protect the unborn child. Both soldiers are sent back to 1984, to battle over the fate of their future.
Terminator is known as one of the most iconic story lines of all time, and rightfully so. This is one of those classics that has to be watched by any movie fanatic. It is one of the defining films of the 80's and the Sci-Fi genre.
Taking this film simply as another sci-fi film, you may find it to be not much better than others. But the reason this movie deserves the "great movie" merit, is simply the concept behind it, a concept that has inspired many future science-fiction titles.
Great Film 9/10 stars