Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

---

Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »

---

"I'm back." --Arnold, "T3"

And he's not only back, he's back in high definition. A lot of viewers are probably saying to themselves that it's about time Warner Bros. released some big blockbusters on HD-DVD, some killer apps as they say in the computer world, and they did, releasing "Terminator 3" and "Troy" within weeks of one another. Together, they make a pretty good excuse for showing off one's new HD-DVD system to friends and relations.

Anyway, he always said he'd be back. Obviously, he meant it. The question was, could he pull it off? I mean, could Schwarzenegger at the age of fifty-five return as the muscular futuristic cyborg, after a layoff of almost a dozen years? I'm happy to say yes, he does pull it off, his physique looking a little less muscle-bound and a little more human now but still as chiseled as ever, and, even more happily, his character every bit the dogged machine it always was. Apparently, the intensive exercise he went through to put himself back into shape for the role paid off, and because his face is either that of a machine or heavily made up, the years hardly show. The movie may not be quite up to the standards of its predecessors, but at least its star is up to par.

Appropriate to a sequel to a pair of the most celebrated action movies ever made, Warner Bros. have made sure that 2003's "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" looks and sounds as good as possible in its new HD-DVD transfer. Although much of the extra material remains standard filler, it makes a good thing a little better and gives the package an air of distinction. I wish the good thing itself, the movie, had been a little better, but we get what we get.

The things that set the first two "Terminator" movies apart from the rest of the action crowd were originality and spirit in the first instance, and heart in the second. Schwarzenegger made the career choices of a lifetime (screen career, apart from his political career) by accepting the role of a villain in the first film and then by coming back in a sympathetic tearjerker role in the second. The oddball father-son relationship between his T-800 protector and the adolescent John Connor made for terrific screen chemistry. This third "Terminator," unfortunately, has none of the best qualities of its precursors. It is no longer original or innovative; its spirit is largely consumed by chases; and its heart is almost entirely gone. Does that make it bad movie? Not on your life. It's just not as good as the first two.

You'll remember from the previous episodes of this continuously circular saga that in the near future Earth had been taken over by machines of our own making, and because they were being harassed by a pesky bunch of resistance fighters led by one John Connor, they decided to send a cyborg, a robot, back in time to eliminate Connor before he was born. Neither of the tries was successful, and in this third attempt on his life the machines have designed an even more potent weapon, a Terminatrix, or T-X, in the form of a shapely female. Just why she needs to look like a beautiful young woman is really not so relevant to the plot as it is to good, old-fashioned sex appeal. You'll recall, for instance, that nobody, human or machine, can go through the time portal with clothes on. This new Ms. T-X (Kristanna Loken) is about the only thing different in the new movie, but you'll not hear a complaint from me about watching so comely a robot. Besides being easy on the eyes, Ms. T-X has an all-new arsenal of gadgets and weaponry, plus she is "faster, more powerful, and more intelligent" than any previous model. She is designed to terminate not only people but other Terminators. She's "an anti-Terminator Terminator."

So, it's ten years down the road from "T2," and John Connor (now played by Nick Stahl) is in his early twenties. His mother has died and John is hiding out, worried that the future will find him. It does, as Ms. T-X comes through the portal looking for him and for everybody who ever had anything to do with him. While the T-X goes on a rampage killing everyone in sight, John runs into an old school friend, Kate Brewster (Claire Danes), an assistant veterinarian who gets roped into the story. Then Arnold shows up as the obsolete T-800 protector, and the rest of the picture is a seemingly endless succession of chases and fights.

The movie may have little novelty left, but it does have some nifty stunts. The action is relentless, as are the two robots, with Arnold's job mainly to deadpan some succinct and often cute comments like "I want your clothes," "I'll drive," "You need a new vehicle," and "Talk to the hand." He also does a nice deadpan parody of his old entrance in "T2."

"T3" is rated R like the rest of its kin, so expect some gory scenes, but there is not the excessive profanity one found in "T2." Also expect much noise, destruction, and explosions; yet thanks to director Jonathan Mostow (who replaces James Cameron) it's all so well paced it never becomes completely breathless...just close. Finally, expect even better special effects than before (computer graphics having come a long since the pioneering days of "T2"), better and more elaborate set designs, and a more open-ended and thought-provoking climax. Indeed, the finish is one of the best parts of the show and fairly begs for yet another sequel.

As the prologue puts it, "The battle has just begun." The question is, with Arnold as the governor of California, for how long will the battle be put on hold? Or will the unthinkable happen and the films go on without him? As the old serials used to say, "To be continued...."

Video:
I thought everything about the standard-definition picture was uniformly good, so the differences between SD and HD don't show up as anything like night-and-day. That said, in a direct side-by-side comparison of SD and HD "T3" discs in separate players and selected paused scenes, the HD-DVD picture is clearly the winner. Emphasis on "clear." The widescreen size remains the same, a ratio approximately 2.18:1 across my television, and both SD and HD images are clean and red-blooded. However, the HD image is slightly better defined, the SD image when directly compared looking a tad washed out. Colors are realistically natural in both versions, bright when necessary, subdued when required. But the very slightly gritty look and minor blur in the SD version is absent altogether in the HD-DVD. Grain and moire moiré effects, which are quite minimal in the standard-definition transfer are completely absent in the HD edition. My guess is that this new HD version is about as close to what people saw in a motion-picture theater as we're going to get for a long, long time.

---

---