Reviewed by Colin Jacobson (March 5, 2013)
Today’s depressing realization: The Terminator came out almost thrity years ago. When it hit in 1984, I was a vital 17 years old, but now I’m a decrepit 45, bordering on 46.
And it ain’t getting any better from here! It’s not like that trend will reverse itself.
But enough whining about my advancing age. Although I really liked Terminator when I saw it in my youth, I must say that I haven’t watched it many times since then.
Blame that on the release of 1991’s sequel, Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The top-grossing film for that year, T2 set a new standard for action flicks.
When a new laserdisc release of Terminator appeared not long after the theatrical run of T2, I eagerly grabbed it. I remembered that I liked the first film and my enjoyment of T2 seemed to indicate that I’d still care for it.
Unfortunately, T2 spoiled me for the older, cruder film. After the more high-tech and visceral thrills of the sequel, the original seemed a bit staid and quaint.
To be sure, I still liked the movie. However, I found it to be less exciting and compelling than I remembered and expected.
Some might argue that I favor T2 mainly because of its bigger budget, and they’d largely be correct. However, I’m not taking a simple “bigger is better” stance.
In many cases, lower-budget movies are superior to more extravagant affairs because they force the filmmakers to become more creative and resourceful. Crews for big money flicks don’t have to rely on such tactics, so the results can be bloated and flat.
However, I don’t feel that’s the case with the films of James Cameron. He’s worked with some huge budgets, but he hasn’t succumbed to any of the usual temptations.
More so than probably any other filmmaker today, Cameron puts the money on the screen. I think his movies are clearly better for their extra expenditures.
To a certain degree, the biggest difference between Terminator and T2 comes down to production values. T2 offers a much better realized world that communicates its elements with greater clarity and realism.
For Terminator, Cameron and crew did wonderfully considering their budgetary restrictions, but the cheapness of the film remains evident. That wasn’t the case with T2, which had a ton of money behind it.
I also think that Cameron clearly stood as a stronger, more confident filmmaker by the time of T2. Between those Terminator films, he made two excellent flicks: 1986’s Aliens and 1989’s The Abyss.
Aliens represented a quantum leap over Terminator, as it offered a smoother and more compelling vision. The Abyss wasn’t better than Aliens - heck, I don’t think any movie’s better than Aliens - but it created a solid flick nonetheless.
While I doubt Cameron could have gone on to such heights without his experiences on Terminator, I think that many of his subsequent films top it and it looks a bit dated today. Terminator remains an entertaining and seminal work, but it doesn’t match up with Cameron’s later films.
Terminator deals with time travel at its start, as two future warriors return to 1984. One - a cyborg called a Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) - has been sent to kill the mother of a man who will become a rebel leader.
That woman - Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) - hasn’t had her son or even met his father yet, so the machine leaders hope to nip that prospect in the bud. No Sarah, no John, no rebellion, or at least that’s what the future computers hope.
To protect Sarah, the human resistance sends Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn). Throughout the early parts of the film, both Kyle and the Terminator track Sarah, and once the cyborg makes her, the chase is on. Essentially the rest of the film follows Sarah and Kyle as they run from the Terminator and try to find a way to get rid of him, something that’s no easy task with the circa 1984 state of weaponry.
When I first saw previews for The Terminator, I thought it’d be a cheesy genre flick that’d come and go quickly. I felt surprised to see the high regard with which both critics and audiences regarded it.
While Terminator shared the poor finances and mercenary tone of low-budget junk, it offered a much more engaging and innovative experience than anyone could have expected. And it still does, though I still feel that it seems somewhat bland compared to later Cameron offerings.
Without a doubt, Terminator was a much more original and seminal program than was T2, and in many ways, one could argue the latter simply remade the older movie. While I don’t think that Terminator is a museum piece, I will argue that it comes across somewhat poorly in comparison with its successors.
At 107 minutes, Terminator provides the second shortest movie made by Cameron, as only 1981’s awful 94-minute Piranha II: The Spawning fills less screentime. The length differences compared to post-1984 film aren’t minor, as all 1986 to 2022 Cameron flicks ran between 140 and 193 minutes in their theatrical incarnations.
Some feel that the shorter length means that Terminator offers a tighter experience than the later, longer flicks, with a particular emphasis on the differences between it and its sequel. I disagree, mainly because I think T2 delivers a richer, better-realized work.
Despite the increase in length, I don’t find any padding in T2. On the other hand, Terminator includes a few segments that feel unnecessary.
Except for Piranha, Terminator easily comes across as the most dated of Cameron’s films. No other work of his seems as heavily anchored in its era - those mid-Eighties fashions haven’t aged well.
Sure, some aspects of T2 are a bit dated, especially in terms of a few effects. Nonetheless, it remains a heck of a lot more timeless than its predecessor.
Objectively, The Terminator really is a pretty good movie. It certainly was an influential work that helped create a whole new genre. However, despite its originality, the film has been surpassed by later examples from the field.
Almost 30 years after its original release, The Terminator remains a fairly solid action flick. However, it’s not one that I think stands among the best in its realm.
