From: tsbrueni@dcn.davis.ca.us
On Thursday, July 10, 2003 3:01:02 AM UTC-7, Ken wrote:
> "Mark Leeper" wrote in message
> news:3F0C8B11.2090602@optonline.net...
> > TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINE
> > (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
>
>
>
> >
> > The centerpiece of the film is a chase early on using unusual
> > vehicles and calculated to do the greatest possible collateral
> > damage without killing any bystanders. John D. Brancato and
> > Michael Ferris, who wrote the script, and director Jonathan Mostow
> > of BREAKDOWN and U-571 seem to go out of their way to make sure
> > the good guys are not responsible for any deaths, in spite of all
> > the action. Our heroes do, however, steal a lot of motor
> > vehic4les. That seems to be more acceptable.
>
> What's auto theft in the face of nuclear global thermonuclear war?
>
> > The filmmakers feel the need to rub our noses in at least one
> > product placement. Mostow manages to get the ad painted on the
> > side of a truck across most of the screen for several seconds.
> > The product, incidentally, is a diet drug. I would guess it
> > couldn't be a very effective one if it has to be shipped in such
> > huge quantities. This large and annoying product placement--the
> > largest I remember seeing in any film--is some producer's
> > statement that he is willing to mortgage the artistic quality of
> > his film and distract the audience in return for cold hard cash.
> >
> > TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINE reminds me of sequels like
> > REVENGE OF THE CREATURE and RETURN OF THE FLY. It uses a previous
> > film, extends the story, but adds nothing new of value. I rate it
> > a 5 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high 0 on the -4 to +4 scale.
> >
> >
> > Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler...
> >
> > I should note what I thought were problems with the script.
> >
> > TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY was not a favorite with me, but the
> > writing was more intelligent than in this film. In this film the
> > technology is inconsistent. I notice that both future factions
> > know how to send back in time whatever sort of ticky-tacky these
> > robots are made of, but they cannot get the hang of sending back
> > cloth so both robots arrive looking just like naked humans. At
> > least guys get equal time since this is the first time a female
> > robot is sent.
>
> The time bubble can only send back something covered with living tissue.
>
> > We are told that the T-X is more advanced technically and much
> > smarter than the previous model, but we are expected to take it on
> > faith. Words are cheap. The problem is that the T-X appears to
> > be a giant step backward from the shape-shifting robot of the
> > previous film. Where the last robot could morph into a silent
> > sword, this one unimaginatively pulls out a gun and starts
> > blasting. She can morph to look like another human, but just when
> > it is about to do her some good, she stupidly morphs back to give
> > herself away. This is just poor writing. By the way, who is
> > doing all the computer science so that there are more advanced
> > Terminators coming off the assembly line?
>
> Yeah, at least in T2, the terminator waited until AFTER the kills before
> morphing back.
>
> However what's so superior about a sword? Someone gets shot in L.A. ... how
> much attention is that going to receive versus someone carrying a sword?
>
> Once you have AI, the computer itself can continue the computer science.
> After all, Skynet had the resource of half, ir not all of the planet.
How did Skynet survive the nuclear war? Wouldn't the nuclear war have wiped
out the computers (via EMP) the Skynet software resides in, and the power
plants that supply electricity to the computers? (At the end, John Connor
says that Skynet was in all
the computers).
With most humans dead, how is Skynet's infrastructure maintained?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
