Terminator (5 Stars)

Sometimes I'm proud of German cinema audiences. Today "Terminator" was shown in my cinema as part of the monthly "Best Of Cinema" series. The theatre was almost sold out, with only a few empty seats left at the front.

James Cameron's "Terminator" remains one of the greatest films ever made because it blends two distinct genres. On the surface it's science fiction, with time travel and killer robots from the future. In reality it's also one of the most effective horror films ever made, with Arnold Schwarzenegger's unstoppable Terminator playing the role of a relentless monster hunting an ordinary young woman.

The premise is unforgettable: a cyborg assassin travels back in time to murder Sarah Connor before she can give birth to the future leader of the human resistance. From that point onwards the film barely pauses for breath. Schwarzenegger gives the defining performance of his career, creating a villain who's frightening not because of emotion, but because he has none. Linda Hamilton is equally convincing as Sarah, transforming from an unsuspecting waitress into a determined survivor, while Michael Biehn brings unexpected depth to Kyle Reese.

What makes "Terminator" so enduring is its atmosphere. Made on a modest budget, Cameron relies on suspense rather than spectacle, creating a dark, gritty nightmare that still feels more believable than many modern blockbusters. The action is relentless, the pacing is flawless and the film never loses sight of its horror roots, even as it explores one of cinema's most fascinating time travel paradoxes.

More than forty years later, "Terminator" still feels fresh. It isn't simply a great science fiction film or a great horror film. It's one of the rare classics that succeeds brilliantly as both.

Success Rate:  + 10.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Terminator 2 (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #6

Yesterday someone messaged me in Facebook and asked me why this list is called Dancer's top films. It came from a person who should have known me better. I am Dancer. Mike Hood is Dancer. My blog is called Dansator, which is the Romanian word for Dancer. I picked Dansator because Dancer was already taken, but the choice of Romanian wasn't completely random. I've been fascinated by vampires (especially female vampires) for more than 30 years. I'd already watched the old Dracula films as a child, but the turning point was when I saw "Vamp" on television in the late 1980's. That was the film that first showed me how sexy vampires can be.

I am Dancer. Click here if you want to know more about me.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's acting abilities were a standing joke in the 1980's. It was inconceivable why this Austrian bodybuilder should be given so many film roles. "Terminator" (1984) was a change. Playing a robot from the future excused his wooden, emotionless acting, even if it didn't explain his strong Austro-German accent. After that he went back to poor acting in other films like "Total Recall", "Twins" and "Kindergarten Cop". Finally, in 1991 he was given another chance with a new Terminator film. Once more he fell naked from the sky, but this time he played the good guy. He's still a Terminator, but he's been reprogrammed. His mission is now to protect the 10-year-old John Connor from another Terminator sent to kill him.

There are arguments about which of the first two Terminator films is better. The critics prefer the first film, while cinema audiences prefer the second. For years I've been unsure which I prefer, but I've finally decided on "Terminator 2". It's not because of the improved special effects in the 1990's. I prefer it because it contains more of the mind-bending temporal paradoxes that I enjoy so much. It's now revealed that the artificial intelligence of the future has been made possible by researching the computer chip from the first Terminator's brain. i.e. the Terminator could only be built by modelling it on itself. 

Part of the Terminator's appeal is that he looks so cool. In the first film he wore dark glasses to conceal the injury to his eye. In this film the dark glasses are merely a fashion statement.

Even though Arnold's Terminator is the good guy in "Terminator 2", we're constantly reminded that he's a killing machine. He protects John Connor by killing others.

John Connor is played by Edward Furlong. It was his first film. Since then he's appeared in more than 50 other films, as well as various television series.

Sarah Connor is played by Linda Hamilton once more, but she's barely recognisable. Gone is the air-headed waitress who couldn't even balance her cheque book. Now she's a muscular warrior woman. Over the last seven years she's been fighting to protect her son and train him to be humanity's leader.

Don't mess with Sarah Connor!

I find her more attractive in this film, but that shouldn't surprise my regular readers. You know that I like strong women.

"Terminator 2" is one of the best films ever made. In my opinion, the sixth best film ever made. So what are the top five films in my list? I'll keep you in suspense for the next eleven days.

Success Rate:  + 3.5

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Terminator (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #7

My thanks to everyone who's been patient with me since 17th January this year. I'm finally reaching the end of my Top 100 films list. I never intended to do it straight through. I always intended to interrupt it with other films, but I've still been slower than I expected. Initially I planned to be finished by the end of June. Then I pushed it back to the end of August. My current plan is to watch my top film on 14th September. That's the (eleventh) anniversary of the day I started writing my blog.

I have some plans of what I want to watch after that. I was thinking of watching a month of true films in September, but now I've decided to delay this marathon until December, or maybe next year. At the moment I'm intending to concentrate on German erotic films from the 1970's in September and October. I might even start before 15th September, alternating the erotic films with the top places in my Top Films list. In past years I've watched horror films in October, but I shan't do it this year. Maybe one or two. I don't know.

But that's enough rambling on. Let's say a few words about "Terminator" itself. It was directed in 1984 by James Cameron. That's almost 40 years ago, but it's not at all dated. The story was revolutionary at the time, and it's influenced many science fiction films made since then. It's one of the rare films that's equally popular with cinema audiences and critics. It has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Is there anyone who doesn't know the story yet? In the near future (1997) machines will take over the world. They come close to annihilating all of mankind, but a man called John Connor forms a resistance movement that is close to defeating the machines. The machines send a robot, a Terminator, back in time to kill John Connor's mother before he's born. John Connor sends a soldier back in time to protect his mother.

I forget how many times I've watched "Terminator". Today is the sixth time since I started writing my blog. I probably watched it another six times before then. I have a skill when I watch a film repeatedly. I put myself in the state of mind of not having seen the film before. As the film began, I persuaded myself that I didn't know the two men who appeared out of nowhere. I recommend that my readers attempt to do this as well.

Believe it or not, Arnold Schwarzenegger auditioned to play the part of the soldier, Kyle Reese. That would have been awful. He was born to play the Terminator, and nobody would deny that it's his signature role.

Michael Biehn has appeared in many films over the last 40 years, mostly in small roles. Despite his critically acclaimed role in "Aliens", he'll always be remembered as Kyle Reese.

Linda Hamilton will always be remembered for playing Sarah Connor in three of the Terminator films. Three films so far. Despite being declared dead in the third film, she still returned in the fifth film. James Cameron had everything under control, but the later writers and directors didn't bother about continuity. I suppose their excuse is that in a series of time travel films anything is allowed. That's a weak argument.

Compared with the later flms, "Terminator" has a minimalist feeling to it. It's not a complex plot. It's all about a merciless killing machine chasing Sarah Connor, not letting anything distract it from its goal. The later films all have more complex plots. "Terminator" is more of a horror film than a science fiction film.

The action in "Terminator" is breath-taking. There are two mass slaughter scenes in which the Terminator kills everyone in sight to get to Sarah Connor, first in a nightclub, then in a police station. There's a thrilling car chase, although I admit that the car chases are bigger and better as the film series continues.

Do you think that "Terminator" deserves to be so high in my list? Please leave a comment.

Success Rate:  + 10.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Terminator: Dark Fate (4½ Stars)

"Terminator: Dark Fate" (2019) is a film that begins shortly after the events of "Terminator 2" (1991). But "Terminator 3" (2003) was also a sequel to "Terminator 2", and the two films contradict one another. "Terminator: Genisys" (2015) is also a sequel to "Terminator 2", but it doesn't necessarily contradict "Terminator 3". There's also the television series "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" (2008-2009), which takes place after the events of "Terminator 2", contradicting the other stories.

To point out the major contradictions:

In "Terminator 3" John Connor is alive, but his mother Sarah is dead.

In "Terminator: Dark Fate" Sarah Connor is alive, but John is dead.

In "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" Sarah and John are both alive.

The whole premise of the Terminator films, from the first film onwards, is that robots from the future are travelling back in time to change the past. This means that contradictions can be explained as the past being changed. To do this a certain amount of mental gymnastics is needed, and I confess that I haven't invested enough time to find a solution yet... if there is a solution. The Terminator franchise is even more mixed up than the Highlander franchise. It's easy enough to say that "Highlander 2" and "Highlander 3" never happened, but I don't want to deny that any of the Terminator films took place unless I have a very good reason. I intend to rewatch the three sequels ("Terminator 3", "Genisys" and "Dark Fate") back to back later this year to help me make a better decision. I shan't rewatch "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" because it was frustrating that the series was cancelled on a cliffhanger. I don't want to disappoint myself again.

The first two Terminator films fitted well together. They closed the story. If a third film had never been made, no one would have complained. James Cameron quit the franchise after these two films. They said all that he wanted to say. It was only monetary concerns that led to "Terminator 3" being made 12 years later. James Cameron strongly opposed the making of a third film, and when it was completed he called it awful. I agree that "Terminator 3" was unnecessary, but it's not as bad as James Cameron claims. The premise of "Terminator 3" is that Judgement Day is inevitable. Skynet can't be stopped, it can only be delayed.

This is in contrast to "Terminator: Dark Fate", in which we find that Skynet was completely eliminated as a threat. A new company called Legion has led to the rise of Terminators.

"The Sarah Connor Chronicles" has the interesting idea that the two different types of Terminator, the T-101 from the first film and the T-1000 from the second film, are in conflict with one another. The T-X from the third film isn't shown. The T-1000 Terminators from the far future want to make a truce with humanity and live side by side, so they want the T-101 Terminators from the near future to stop attempting to kill John Connor.

"Terminator: Genisys" openly changes the timeline by having Terminators sent back to change the events of the first film.

I really want to reconcile the films with one another. On the other hand, if the differences are irreconcilable, I have my preferences which I want to believe. As much as I enjoyed "The Sarah Connor Chronicles", the abrupt ending makes it dissatisfying. I'm happy to call it non-canon. The same is true of "Terminator: Genisys". It also ended with open plot points to prepare for a sequel, a sequel that never came.

Let's see where things go from here. Will the next film be a sequel to "Dark Fate"? I hope so. It's getting frustrating seeing the story be rebooted over and over again.

Success Rate:  - 0.6

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Terminator: Dark Fate (4½ Stars)

Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton): "I'll be back".

T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger): "I won't be back".

These two lines were spoken at different times in the film, casually, as if not meant to hold any significance, but it's obvious to all Terminator fans that they're road-signs for the future of the Terminator franchise.

I didn't realise until I watched the film today that it's not a sequel to "Terminator: Genisys". That film was far from perfect, but it had a lot of good ideas that deserved to be developed in future Terminator films. As it turns out, the film ended with dangling loose ends that will never be resolved, much like the Sarah Connor TV series. So what will Terminator fans have to say to one another when they're sitting drinking beers after a sci-fi convention? "Terminator: Genisys" never happened? It's possible to say that about "Terminator: Salvation", because the events of that film took place in a timeline that's been erased. It would take more than a few intellectual somersaults to give a logical in-universe explanation of how the last two films can exist side-by-side.

"Terminator: Dark Fate" also contradicts "Terminator 3". It begins shortly after "Terminator 2", showing that John Connor was killed while he was still a young teenager, although he appeared as a man in his early twenties in "Terminator 3". Apologists might say that after the assassination attempt in "Terminator 3" failed, another Terminator was sent back further into the past, wiping out the events of "Terminator 3". The problem with that theory is that John Connor was killed by an older Terminator model, so he must have been sent back from an earlier point in time.

As you can see, the whole Terminator franchise is a mess. The only way to make sense of "Terminator: Dark Fate" is to deny that the third, fourth and fifth films – not to mention the television series – ever happened. That's a very shaky foundation for the film.

The film's premise is that "Terminator 2" successfully prevented Judgement Day from happening. As a result, Skynet was never responsible for the takeover of the machines. Instead of that, a similar organisation called Legion launched war on the human race a few years later. This organisation created similar robots and sent them back in time using similar time travel technology. I get a funny feeling in my stomach reading those words as I write them. The premise of "Terminator 3" that Judgement Day was only delayed, not prevented, makes a lot more sense.

Apart from that, the film follows the same basic plot as the first, second, third and fifth films: two beings are sent from the future, one to kill a person, the other to protect him. This leads to the incredible action scenes that we've enjoyed in all the films. The return of Sarah Connor as the Terminator Killer Supreme is welcome. My pulse raced when she appeared to save the day.

Okay, I've rated the film highly as a sequel to "Terminator 2". I'm just begging that they'll get on with the storyline instead of constant rebooting. There's a hint at the end of the film that a sequel will follow. Let's just hope they do it right.

End of Days (5 Stars)

It's Easter. What better way to celebrate than Arnold Schwarzenegger being crucified in New York?

What do my readers think about this film? I'd really like to discuss it. I'm not blind to its faults. The film's premise is ridiculous, but everything else about it is amazing. If you can turn your brain off and accept the idea behind the film, everything else is wonderful: the acting, the pacing, the thrills, the action sequences. That's what I think, anyway. I'd like to hear from my readers. Would anyone like to write a full review of the film?

Success Rate:  + 0.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

End of Days (5 Stars)

This is a film that's been slammed by the critics, despite being a moderate box office success. I know what's wrong with the film. The plot doesn't always make sense. Or rather, the film's premise doesn't make sense, but if you close your eyes to these faults it's an excellent supernatural action film. It stands out as a film in which Arnold Schwarzenegger proves he can act well when he wants to. That doesn't happen often.

Gabriel Byrne's performance as the Devil is stunning. He's exactly as I imagine the Devil to be. He's not openly evil, but he has a seductive way of talking. He has a way of making his point of view seem positive. He sounds very persuasive when he tells people he's the good guy and God's the bad guy.

Nevertheless, this is Arnold Schwarzenegger's film. He's moving as an ex-policeman who's lost his faith. How can a man without faith stand up against the Devil? Only by finding his faith once more.

Success Rate:  + 0.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

I'm thinking about doing something different next month. I'll be on holiday for two weeks, and I doubt I'll have time to write reviews, at least not detailed reviews, so I'll post at least one holiday photo each day.

I also intend to listen to all of Klaus Schulze's albums in order. At the moment I don't think I know how to review music. All I can say about a piece of music is whether I like it or not. If I don't know what to write I'll just post a picture of the CD cover and a list of the tracks. I might start early next month, or I might wait until after I return from holiday. Probably the latter.

My Ai Shinozaki month will end tomorrow, and it wasn't as popular as I expected. I doubt I'll do anything like that in future. Or maybe I will. Don't expect me to be predictable.

In September and October last year I did a "Video of the Day" feature. I never intended to stop posting video reviews, I just haven't had time. I'll start again soon. I still watch YouTube videos almost every day, mostly children's videos, and I ought to write about the better videos. So far I've only reviewed children's videos, but I might write about other videos.

I'll continue with my Marvel Years posts. I'm going to make an effort to increase the frequency to twice a week, if possible. They take a lot of time to write. So far I'm up to April 1967. I want to continue to 1972 at least, maybe as far as 1984. I still don't know for certain. At the moment I'm writing about 10 comics each month. This will increase in mid 1968, which is the year when Marvel drastically increased its output. By the late 1970's I'll be reviewing less comics, because there will be more titles that I don't consider to be canon.

Is there anything else that you, my readers, want me to do? Films will always be my main focus, but I'm willing to add other things as I go along. Leave me a comment below.

Conan the Barbarian [1982] (3 Stars)

In 1969 Arnold Schwarzenegger was given the leading role in his first film, the low budget comedy "Hercules in New York". It was so abysmal that it ended his acting career. Over the next few years he was only appeared in films as an extra whenever a muscular man was needed. This changed in 1982 when he was given the title role for "Conan the Barbarian". Somebody was needed with a lot of muscles, and the muscles were so important that Arnold's lack of acting abilities could be overlooked.

Conan was a character who first appeared in pulp fiction novels from 1932 to 1936. His stories remained popular among fans for decades, but they found a new audience in 1970 when Marvel bought the rights and began a comic book series that lasted until 1993.

It was Marvel's portrayal of Conan that influenced the public's image of him, much more than the few pictures that were drawn in the 1930's. When you look at the cover of Conan The Barbarian #1, drawn by Barry Smith, you have to ask who could portray such a role on screen. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the logical choice.

The film's plot was an amalgamation of several stories from the 1930's. Conan is a young boy whose parents are killed by a warlord called Thulsa Doom. He's taken prisoner and sold into slavery. Years later he's trained as a gladiator and is unbeaten. His kindly master gives him his freedom, and now he only has one thing on his mind: revenge.

He finds that Thulsa Doom isn't a normal warlord, he's the leader of a snake cult. He claims to be over a thousand years old. Conan wants to hunt him alone, but he picks up two friends along the way: the thief Subotai and the female mercenary Valeria. King Osric pays the trio a large amount to retrieve his daughter who has joined Doom's cult. Subotai and Valeria say they can only be successful if they forget about killing Doom, but Conan is more interested in revenge than in financial gain.

The film shows Arnold Schwarzenegger at his worst. He stumbles from scene to scene, staring and glaring and delivering his lines without a hint of emotion. Excuses were made that Conan wasn't supposed to be emotional, but nobody believed them. Schwarzenegger couldn't act. That's all.

The critics hated the film, but it was a huge box office success. It was the popularity of the Conan character that made "Conan the Barbarian" a success (a 6.1 rating). It was Schwarzenegger's bad acting that made the sequel a failure (a -0.3 rating).

Success Rate:  + 6.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Predator (3 Stars)

A special forces team is sent to a jungle somewhere in South America to rescue an American general and several other hostages from guerrilla fighters. When they arrive they find out it was a ruse. They kill the guerrillas, but there are no hostages to liberate. The only person they take with them is a female guerrilla called Anna, because she seems to know what's going on. There are intelligence operations in the jungle, including the digging of a large hole searching for something. Some sort of creature is slaughtering people, soldiers and guerrillas alike, and ripping the skin off their bones.

The story is so predictable. After the first one of the team was killed it was obvious that it was a last-man-standing film, so I made a prediction who would survive. Major Dutch Schaefer had to survive, because he's played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Anna had to survive because she's a woman and the film needs eye candy till the end. Guess what? I was right.

In retrospect, it's difficult to understand why Arnold Schwarzenegger was ever allowed to become an actor. He can't act. He doesn't even attempt to act. He just says his lines like he's reading them off a board held up behind the cameraman. There's only one reason why his acting looks better in this film: it's because all the other actors are just as bad. Where did they find these guys?

I'll give the film three stars, but I might regret it later. I know some people highly praise this film, but I don't understand why.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Terminator 2 (5 Stars)

Today is 29th August 2017, the 20th anniversary of the destruction of human civilisation in the event known as Judgement Day. To celebrate our survival "Terminator 2" has been re-released in glorious 3D.

Does that make you shudder? If you dislike 3D films as much as I do you'll be hiding your head under the blankets. For me 3D is all about silly gimmicks like things flying out of the screen to frighten the viewers. Fortunately this isn't what we get in the 3D version of "Terminator 2". The 3D effects are very subtle, sometimes adding more depth to scenes, but mostly unnoticeable. That's the sort of 3D I can live with.

What makes the film I saw today truly worthwhile is the remastering. I've watched the film on Blu-ray four times, which is often enough for me to verify that the picture I saw today was superior. There's a perfect clarity to every scene, especially the facial close ups.

This is one of my favourite films of all time, in my top 10 at least. It's amazing that it looks so good, considering that it's 26 years old. In 1991 computer graphics were still in their early days. The first Terminator film, made in 1984, looks dated, like a 1980's film, but "Terminator 2" looks like it was made last week.

There's no way the story can be faulted. There were hints of temporal paradoxes in the first film, but they become the central themes in the sequel. The film is so well structured, perfectly paced, and Arnold Schwarzenegger proves that he can act if he really needs to.

The only negative today is that I had to watch the film in German, i.e. dubbed into German. No cinemas here are showing it in the original English version. However, I got used to it as the film progressed. The German dubbing is so good that I almost forgot it was in German.

As I've said before, German dubbing is good in general, far superior to that of films dubbed into English. Voice actors ("Synchronsprecher") are picked for each actor, not for individual films. Germans audition for the part, and priority is given to those with acting experience. They have to commit themselves to dubbing the actor over a long period of time. The voice actors have to be approximately the same age as the actors they dub, for practical reasons. If a Hollywood actor is 30 years old a 55-year-old voice actor can't be picked, because it might be necessary to dub the actor for the next 40 years. The German cinema audiences expect an actor to sound the same from film to film.

I was speaking with German friends yesterday, and they knew the names of the voice actors who are responsible for the German voices of the biggest American stars. This amazed me, but my friends were equally amazed that I didn't know their names. Obviously it's something that serious film fans in Germany are expected to know.

The German method of dubbing can lead to clashes. Thomas Danneberg is the voice of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. In "The Expendables" he dubbed the voices of both actors. I'm curious to hear what the film sounds like.

Sometimes a voice actor is exchanged. For instance, Stephan Schwartz was Tom Cruise's voice in 11 films from 1986 to 1993. When he was asked to dub his voice again in "Eyes Wide Shut" he said he was too busy, and a replacement was hired for the one film. In a television interview Stephan said that the real reason he had turned down the role was that he had just discovered that Tom Cruise was a Scientologist. Tom Cruise heard about this and insisted that the replacement, Patrick Winczewski, be retained for all his future films.

Yes, the German voice actors are so important that their Hollywood counterparts know them. It's not uncommon for them to meet to discuss a role. That shows how serious dubbing is taken in Germany.

Thomas Danneberg did a good job as Arnold Schwarzenegger's voice today. If anything, he sounded even colder and more mechanical than Arnold himself. German fans who have never seen the original version of the film are not missing out.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Terminator: Genisys (4 Stars)

"I'll be back". That's the sentence that is most commonly connected with the Terminator films. Countless people have spoken this film quote, either respectfully or mockingly, usually in a gruff voice with a fake Austrian accent. The Terminator films are all about Arnold Schwarzenegger coming back. The question is, can we expect him to come back from this one?

The first film, made way back in 1984, was intended as a standalone. The machines would one day take over the world, in a massive nuclear war called Judgement Day. After a long war the resistance would fight back and defeat them. The machines make an attempt to change time to prevent the resistance leader, John Connor, being born by killing his mother. The film ends with this last desperate attempt by the machines failing, but the future war against the machines remains inevitable.

"Terminator 2" (1991) was a risk, but it worked. It quickly won over the fans of the original film, and many even consider it better. I personally can't decide between the two. They're both brilliant pieces of cinematic art, in different ways. The machines make a second attempt to prevent John Connor becoming leader of the resistance by killing him as a boy. In turn John's mother, Sarah Connor, retaliates by making a counter attack, changing time to prevent the machines ever taking over. She succeeds, so we have a bucketload of temporal paradoxes, but effectively the machines, including the Terminators, will never exist. We're back to the status quo that we had before the first film.

Along came "Terminator 3" in 2003. We find out that Judgement Day, is inevitable. Sarah Connor's success in the second film only postponed Judgement Day, it couldn't be stopped. James Cameron, the director of the first two films, called "Terminator 3" awful. I think he was being unfair. It succeeded in telling the story it wanted to. Attempts by John Connor, whose mother is now dead, to prevent Judgement Day fail, and the film ends with it taking place. We can say that the third film returns to the status quo that we had at the end of the first film.

In 2008-2009 there was a television series called "The Sarah Connor Chronicles". This takes place in a world after "Terminator 2" but before "Terminator 3". The series is effectively a battle between three factions. Sarah Connor, together with her son John and a group of friends, wants to prevent Judgement Day happening. Terminators from the future (T-800 models, as shown in the first film) have come to attack her. Terminators from further in the future (T-1000 models, as shown in the second film) have come to attack the other Terminators, because they believe that the only solution is a truce between the humans and the machines, a truce brokered by John Connor in the future. The TV series pushes the temporal paradoxes to the limit with messages being passed backwards and forwards through time, but the series was abruptly cancelled after the second season ended on a mind-bending cliff hanger. John Connor time jumped from the present to the future, meaning he never became the resistance leader, and he's considered a traitor for advocating peace with the machines. Why oh why was this storyline never continued? The series shouldn't have been cancelled, and even if it had to be cancelled a two-hour television movie could have rounded off the story.

Maybe one of the reasons for the cancellation of "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" was the film "Terminator: Salvation", which was made in 2009, while the series was still active. The two elements of the franchise would almost certainly have contradicted one another, confusing the fans. It begins where "Terminator 3" ends. It's the battle with the machines after Judgement Day. It was planned to be the first film in a new trilogy, and I assume the third film, "Terminator 6", would have ended where the first film began, making it all a tidy moebius strip. Unfortunately, the film was so disappointing to fans and critics alike that the remaining two films of the trilogy were cancelled.

That finally brings us up to date, as far as this review is concerned. "Terminator: Genisys" (2015) is another attempt to kickstart a new trilogy of Terminator films. Arnold is back. Actually, he's back twice over, because we see two versions of him, the way he looks now and a CGI-generated younger version of himself. The machines of the future have given up the ideas of making infiltration machines that look like humans. Using nanotechnology they've developed a way to turn men into machines, so that they retain the memories and personality of the person being changed, but make him loyal to the machines. John Connor himself has been selected to go back in time and kill his parents.

Now here's the irony. "Terminator: Genisys" did badly at the box office in America, but it was a success in the rest of the world. According to the final figures on the balance sheets it was a success, but the feeling of the studios is that it was a failure. After all, the studios are based in America, so their subjective impressions are determined by what happens around them. Will Arnold be back again? It's uncertain. He wants to return, but the studios say No.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

P. S. You must have noticed that I watched the first three Terminator films, then skipped the fourth and went straight to the fifth. That's not a mistake. I wasn't in the mood to watch a substandard film. I'll probably go back and watch it some day, but not yet.

Terminator 3 (4½ Stars)

I've watched the first three Terminator films back to back this month. It's a good way to start the year. Admittedly, the third film doesn't quite live up to the first two, but it has a lot in its favour. The car chase is one of the best car chases ever filmed, superbly over the top. The subtle in-jokes get funnier every time I watch the film. Added to that, it's the first time a Terminator has looked sexy. I know I'm being shallow and judging only by outer appearances. Underneath she's the same as all the other Terminators, but you have to admit that she does look good on the outside.

Having said that, the Terminator T-X – that's the model number – does seem to have been programmed to have female traits. It doesn't just march around like a man in a woman's body, it's slinky and sexy.

Today I noticed something strange for the first time. I have the film on Blu-ray. It's a widescreen presentation, 1920 x 790 pixels. Today I found a full screen version of the film online, 960 x 720, presumably ripped from a television broadcast. Please compare the high definition version of an identical scene (above) with the low definition version (below).

The widescreen picture is sharper, of course, but it looks like a cropped version of the full screen picture. I wish I had the whole film in full screen format in Blu-ray resolution. It's not just in this opening scene where it looks like censorship. I checked a few scenes later in the film, and the whole of the widescreen version is cropped, meaning that film details have been omitted. That's just wrong.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Terminator 2 (5 Stars)

In case you're wondering who the woman in the photo is, I'll give you a clue. It's not Linda Hamilton. The photo was taken in August 2014. Those were happy days when Buster was still alive. I'll always miss that crazy little dog.

The photo isn't entirely irrelevant to the film. For years Buster sat on my lap every time I watched a film. He even gave appropriate reactions to films he liked, such as tilting his head whenever he heard a dog barking. He watched "Terminator 2" with me at least twice.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Terminator (5 Stars)

As my regular readers already know – because I keep repeating it – this blog is intended to be a film diary rather than a film review site. I keep a record of every film I watch, however often I watch it. This leads to the problem that if I watch a film repeatedly, because it's one of my favourite films, I run out of things to say about it.

That wouldn't be a problem in itself. I could just write "This is the fifth time I've watched <fill-in-the-blank>" and be done with it. However, there's a problem in the way Google indexes web sites for its search engine. When a site has several pages with the same name it picks one of them as canonical and ignores the others. That means, in the case of "Terminator", only one of the five reviews I've written about it is listed in Google's search results. The other four pages are ignored completely. In most cases the most recent page, this one, is treated as canonical, even though the older reviews are more informative. That's a shame. In theory I could tweak my pages by adding HTML code to force the indexing of my older pages, but that would be a lot of work.

On the other hand, I rely on my reviews being read by regular readers who love my blog, so they access my pages without the use of a search engine. Anyone who opens my blog's home page will see the posts for my last seven active days, so if they visit my blog at least once a week they'll never miss anything. My regular readers also know how to access my alphabetical list of posts (effectively my film list), so they can find all my reviews of "Terminator" with little trouble.

I'm not sure what the best solution to the problem is. I welcome suggestions from my readers.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Terminator 2 (5 Stars)

I listed "Terminator" as one of the 30 films to watch before you die. Shortly afterwards one of my friends told me that he thinks "Terminator 2" is better. That's an opinion I have difficulty discussing. I find both films brilliant, in different ways. I can't decide which of the two is better. They're both outstanding. "Terminator" is more terrifying, telling a science fiction story in the style of a slasher film, whereas "Terminator 2" is more of an intellectual film, adding time paradoxes to the already complicated scenario.

What also amazes me is the development of Sarah Connor in the seven years between the two films. She's gone from being a ditzy 80's big hair girl to a powerful 90's feminist icon. She can fight with her bare hands and she can handle a gun. There's also a change in Linda Hamilton, the actress who plays her. Between the two films she piled on muscle, making her hard to recognise as the same woman.

Whether or not "Terminator 2" is better than the original film it's a timeless classic that science fiction fans can watch repeatedly without getting bored.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Terminator: Genisys (4 Stars)

According to the Guardian's film critic Joe Queenan, this film "is just plain awful". I don't want to quote the reasons for his opinion here, so read his review for yourself. Many other critics agree with him, some going as far as to call it one of the worst films of 2015. As you can see from my rating I don't share their opinion, but it's not as good as the first two films, and doesn't even live up to the third film. At least it's better than the fourth film, which was intended to be the first part of a new Terminator trilogy -- a plan that was rightly abandoned.

Now "Terminator: Genisys" has been made, which in turn was intended to be the first part of a new trilogy. Whether this will actually happen is still unclear. First it was said that the trilogy had been cancelled because "Terminator: Genisys" had made a loss. I don't understand this. The budget was $155 million, and it earned $440 million at the box office. Usually, if a film earns double its budget it can be assumed that the film made a profit, after expenditures. Then there's the additional income from Blu-ray and DVD sales, so I don't understand at all how the film failed to make a profit. In January this year Arnold Schwarzenegger said that another Terminator film will be made, but he didn't confirm there would be a trilogy. No release date has been announced, so it might just be wishful thinking on Arnie's part.

The greatest strength of the Terminator franchise is at the same time its greatest weakness: Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was his iconic performance in the first two films which made Terminator famous. In an interview in the Blu-ray extras Emilia Clarke, who plays Sarah Connor, says that she can't imagine a Terminator film without Arnold Schwarzenegger. That's the hurdle we need to cross. Terminator needs to find a future without Arnold. The initial reaction might be disappointment, but if it's a first class story the fans will be won over.

Terminator (5 Stars)

30 films to watch before you die, #10

I've already reviewed the 1984 film masterpiece "Terminator" a few times, so I thought I would do something different this time. I'll write a review without including any photos of Arnold Schwarzenegger. That means the hero in the title picture is Pugsey, the only survivor when the Terminator invaded Sarah Connor's apartment. Okay, if anyone says that we didn't see him survive, we didn't see him die either. Why would the Terminator have killed him anyway? Pugsey lives!

I would have posted a dozen photos of Pugsey, but unfortunately he didn't have much screen time in the film. Or is Pugsey a girl? I can't tell the difference. I'll fill the rest of this post with photos of Sarah Connor, played by Linda Hamilton. At least I can be sure that she's a girl.

Here's Sarah getting ready to go out with her flat mate Ginger. Wow! Did girls really have big hairdos like that in the 1980's? Ginger looks scary. Even Sarah's hair is fluffier than girls would wear it today.

I didn't completely forget about Pugsey. Here he is puckering his lips to get a kiss from Sarah, while Ginger looks on in disgust.

And here's Sarah with a dog. It was probably too risky to take Pugsey for a ride in the car. If he'd jumped out he would have been splattered on the highway. Poor Pugsey.

James Cameron directed a sequel to "Terminator" in 1991, which I find just as good as the first film, though different in style. The second film is a fully fledged science fiction epic, whereas the first film has many of the typical characteristics of a horror movie. He was asked to direct a third film, but he refused, claiming the story had run its course and nothing needed to be added. This was a case where making money was more important than the purely artistic merits, so the studios handed the third film to a new director. And the fourth. And the fifth. None of the subsequent films have lived up to the quality of the first two films.

After the original Terminator was shown in cinemas again in June this year a new Blu-ray version was released. I expected the Blu-ray to be a new remastering, but that isn't the case. It's just a repackaging of the same Blu-ray that was released in 2013.

James Cameron has made many first class films, some of which I would have put in this list if I hadn't restricted myself to one film per director. It was hard to choose just one. Also worth watching are

• Terminator 2 (1991)
• Titanic (1997)
• Avatar (2009)