Den of Geek

In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines

Daniel Powell


Daniel argues that a revisit to the third Terminator instalment, away from the fanboy furore of 2003, could be a pleasant surprise...

Published on Jun 2, 2009

With the release of the fourth in the Terminator franchise finally upon us, I thought I'd take a look at the often maligned third instalment. Viewed by most (and rightly so) as the weakest in the series, Terminator 3 does have a hell of a lot more going for it than a lot of fans realise.

Jonathan Mostow's heavy handed treatment of the plot, along with some poor performances on the acting front, don't help its case, nor does the fact that, well, it's all just a little too safe. The violence is surprisingly brutal given the rating, but it's missing the feeling of dread that permeated the original or the sustained threat of the follow up. However, the ending was a belter, bravely subverting conventions to deliver a sucker-punch in the dying minutes, but more on that later.

Firstly, its one saving grace is that franchise mainstay Schwarzenegger was actually a part of it. His cheesy introduction might have been a piss-poor riff on Terminator 2, but otherwise the performance was almost pitch perfect, slipping seamlessly back into the role, albeit looking slightly rougher round the edges, but still fantastic for his age. There were some concerns about his comedic, lilting delivery that, at times, can be grating, but it was necessary to lighten the tone at times, given the apocalyptic subject matter and the desire for a more family-friendly rating.

Further criticism involved the casting of Nick Stahl in the role of John Connor, a decision which incurred the wrath of the devoted upon release. Edward Furlong's portrayal in T2 was definitive, and the decision to recast the role was due, in part, to the fact that Furlong was having some well-publicised personal issues.

Stahl's interpretation, whilst not exactly groundbreaking, was exactly what it needed to be: functional. In James Cameron's skillful hands, T2 managed to construct an arc for each of its protagonists, giving the titular machine its shape-shifting nemesis and both John and Sarah Connor seemingly a whole movie to themselves, perfectly fleshing out each character and allowing them to carve their own path.

For Mostow (who I'm sure everyone will agree is not, and will never be on a par with James Cameron), the key to the movie was the action, with the Connor character nothing more than a Macguffin, a role that Nick Stahl takes on admirably. The action is where the movie really spreads its wings, with a cemetery shootout amongst the highlights, and, of course, the crane chase in particular still stands out as one of the movie's strongest set pieces.

Elsewhere on the casting front, the last-minute addition of Claire Danes as Connor's future wife (and second in command) Kate Brewster created further problems, but again turned out for the better. Brought on board after Sophia Bush was deemed too young to play Stahl's love interest, Danes gives a spirited performance, given that she had only a day or so to prepare for the role. Much like Stahl, she was given very little to do other than look helpless until it mattered, some might say an interesting parallel to Sarah Connor's transformation over the course of Terminator and T2.

My biggest pet peeve with this movie (and yes, I know I'm supposed to be writing in defence, but I have to say this) is the villain. Kristanna Loken as the Terminatrix, or TX, is nothing but a sub par caricature of Robert Patrick and a failed attempt at raising the bar from the last movie. Sure, she is supposed to be robotic, but compared to the subtle, nuanced performance of Patrick, Loken simply appears cheap, amateurish, and not fit to share the screen with the Governator.

Lucky, then, that the plot is strong enough to hold our attention. The notion that, after failing twice to terminate John Connor, the machines would change tack and go after his lieutenants is inspired, as is the much talked-about ending. Having the Terminator intentionally deceive the humans, allowing judgement day to happen after leading them to the safety of a fallout shelter, is a pretty ballsy move, one that Mostow was luckily allowed to keep. Given the studio's desire to broaden the movie's appeal as much as possible, such a downbeat ending is a revelation, and one that makes a welcome break from the norm.

Re-watching the film after 6 years, having not seen it since it was released theatrically, I believe it has been treated somewhat unfairly. The film I remember seeing is certainly not the one I saw today, my initial judgement most likely clouded by my massive expectation, given my love for the previous films.

No, the film I watched today is flawed, yet worthy, occasionally corny, yet often brilliant, and above all, entertaining throughout. It doesn't hold a candle to The Terminator, nor is it as spectacular as T2 in the action stakes, but few films can claim either. What it is, though, is a thoroughly enjoyable movie and a worthy addition to anyone's collection, but you might want to hide it behind something cooler on the shelf.

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By simonbrew 1 June 2, 2009 10:12:15 AM

The whole film singularly justifies itself by that superb ending. Just about the last thing I was expecting from it, too.

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By blindfold11 1 June 2, 2009 11:19:44 AM

Up to this point the series was very akin to the Godfather trilogy. A fine a beloved first, an arguably improved and bolder second. And then a thirds that was nowhere near the heights of the first two, but it had its moments and its heart in the right place.

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By blindfold11 1 June 2, 2009 11:20:47 AM

Up to this point the series was very akin to the Godfather trilogy. A fine a beloved first, an arguably improved and bolder second. And then a thirds that was nowhere near the heights of the first two, but it had its moments and its heart in the right place.

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By roncook 1 June 2, 2009 12:40:22 PM

T1 was a great sci-fi/horror movie lifted from the ordinary by Biehn and Hamilton's performance, and lets not forget Lance Henrikson and Paul Winfield were in there as well. T2 was a blockbuster with some incredible set pieces and Edward Furlong's performance was just right, while Arnie found the part her was born to play! T3 is a flaming bag of dog-poo by comparison - despite its effects. The TX came across as a bit of a joke; in fact the whole movie, to me at least, seemed to have its tongue firmly in its cheek - except for the last few seconds which were genuinely clever. But without T3, the latest movie would have been impossible so I will take my cap off to it for that - if not a lot else.

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By ants97 1 June 2, 2009 02:02:17 PM

Spot on article. Its a fairly decent action film and although not on a par with the first 2 films or for that matter the sarah connor chronicles the ending elevates it above most of the junk being churned out.

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By twosheds 1 June 2, 2009 02:09:26 PM

Too dark for many, but that's what makes it the first of the trilogy that I turn to for a quick shot of Terminator.

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By benheck 1 June 2, 2009 04:13:01 PM

Yeah, finally some T3 love! Believe me, I would have been the first person to hate it (and was ready to from the crappy trailers) but the final product was a lot of fun, didn't piss on canon, and had a super-ballsy un-Hollywood-like ending. The female terminator was fine, it was cool how she basically has no dialog after the first 15 minutes or so. Also since she had an endoskeleton which used liquid metal over it for "mimicing" it actually made sense that her default form was female (smaller) Worth the price of admission for the bathroom fight alone! Also it's SHORT, a quality sorely lacking in modern films.

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By Eurytus 1 June 2, 2009 04:30:57 PM

That is one of the worst "defences" of a film I have ever seen. Lets take the points one by one. Firstly Swartzenegger was a tired retread of his performance in the previous film. We had already seen a "good" terminator. We had no need to see another one. Arnie was already looking too old for the role and simply produced a tired retread. Not to mention that each time we see a new identikit Arnie terminator it makes the fact that these are supposedly infiltration machines more and more laughable. Secondly the fact that Stahl was "functional" is a good thing now?? There was me thinking that an actor should produce a good performance. We're supposed to care about John Conner and we're supposed to believe he could lead a war against the machines. Stahl had me believing neither. As for those action pieces? Well the cementary fight was a tired retread of Arnie fending off the police from the Cyberdyne building in T2 and the crane chase contained little excitement. An industructable personage handing off a crane is not very exciting because you know they face no risk. It just gave them the excuse to smash lots of stuff up. Danes was as bland as Stahl. Nothing to say about her really. And the less said about the TX the better. The constant ramping up of the evil terminator makes each film look a bit silly and after being told that the T1000 could not turn itself into a gun now we have to introduce a terminator that can. Just how many "experimental prototype" terminators did Skynet have ready to send in the last hours of the future war? As for the plot, well one thing about it was good. Seeing the start of the nuclear holocaust. The rest was as already said, a tired retread of previous films. And no, the Terminator did not "allow" the war to happen. It had no choice, it knew it was inevitable. So it merely made sure that Conner survived it. Terminator 3 is one of the few films I have seen where you could literally watch the last 5 minutes and not miss a single second of quality.

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By RebelDog 1 June 2, 2009 07:36:06 PM

Nah sorry, T3 is a pile of stinks. It was the absolute dumbing-down of what was, in T1 and T2, one of the most brilliant sci-fi franchises around. The originals were so character and story led that they deserve deeper respect, T3 was just an excuse to flog action figures at best.

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By daevouk 1 June 2, 2009 08:13:11 PM

The movies biggest crime is that its story ends where it should have started i.e. the so called Rise of the machines after Judgment Day.

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By DavidFullam 1 June 3, 2009 10:01:36 PM

The casting of Claire Danes turned out for the better? Did we see the same film? I'm glad I failed to see T3 during it's original run, I would have walked out and asked for my money back after only five minutes of her obnoxious screeching. My Mom told me "Seriously, I did see her give a good performance once." I think Kristanna Loken was one of the few (very few) bright spots for the film. This was the same girl who was so awful in that Mortal Kombat TV series? Amazing what a boob job, change of hair color and acting lessons can do. I'm with most everyone else. If it had been as good as the last 10 minutes, it would have been really something.

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By dblr80 1 June 4, 2009 03:55:39 AM

The only reason T3 was not that bad a movie was because it was a Terminator movie. It is the brilliance of the first two movies that carried this one. First off, not one actor in this movie was impressive. While much of the blame can be placed on the actors, in thier defense the script of this movie did not give them much of a chance. None of us were exactly convinced of Nick Stahl's portrayel as the future leader of the human resistance, but think about it... The future leader of mankind, hiding in a dog cage, and cant even figure out what pill to take to get high? Or Arnold... this tough athorative T-800 figure, saying "talk to the hand"? The TX was a poor and corny attempt to top the T-1000. And the story until the end was a cheap version of T2 all over again. There was however some brilliance in this movie, it's just to bad the writers could not figure out how to put it together to make this film worth remembering.

Re: In defence of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines
Posted By ruinawish 1 June 4, 2009 06:31:50 AM

Rather weak defence. Poor film is poor.
Post a Comment
 
Kristanna Loken as the Terminatrix in Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines (2003)

Kristanna Loken as the Terminatrix in Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines (2003)

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Broadband

Mobile Broadband

Compare over 100 mobile broadband & broadband deals online!

Mobile Phones

LG ArenaHTC Magic

Compare over 250 mobile phones &
52,000 deals!