Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,130
- 1,780
- 126
What's interesting to note is that on Metacritic, the rating for T1 is much higher than for T2. ie. Both get positive reviews, but T1's positive scores are significantly higher.OK, of course I've watched both multiple times:
T1: 4x
T2: 3x
Didn't bother with T3.
Rotten Tomato rankings last time I checked:
T1: 8.6/10 ... 30 fresh / 0 rotten
T2: 8.4/10 ... 25 fresh / 1 rotten
Those are high rankings.
It's been observed that the theatrical cuts are definitely superior to the director's cuts for these films.
IIRC, T1 put Arnold on the map, set up his huge career in the movies. The history of how it came to be made is an interesting read.
I've seen T1 a gazillion times. I've seen T2 a bazillion times. I think I've seen T3 twice. I've seen T4 once.
T1 is the best constructed film overall, although the acting for Sarah Connor's roommate was annoying at times, and the 80s outfits date it now. Luckily, Sarah Connor's roommate had a minor part.
T2 is a solid film, and has much better production values than T1, but it is far, far too dependent on liquid metal to drive the movie. And I found John Connor really, really annoying. I don't know if it's the character, or it's Edward Furlong's portrayal. Actually, I think it's probably more the latter, but also a bit of both.