Skip to main content

The Terminator (1984)



Director
James Cameron

Cast
Michael Biehn
Linda Hamilton
Bill Paxton
Shawn Schepps
Arnold Schwarzenegger

Plot
The film takes place in 1984. A robot is sent back from the future to assassinate a woman. Her unborn son is destined to lead a rebellion against the future robot leaders of the world. This son also sends back someone to protect his mom and himself. The robot and the soldier end up ruining half the economically active population in their battle for the woman's life, but all is fair in love and war. Even time travelling and big poodle hair.

Review
This is a superb twist on the 1984 Big Brother theme. Imagine being stalked by an indestructible cyborg from the future with an Austrian accent to boot. Of course, the pitiful machine is up against Linda Hamilton. Even “the Governator” Arnie doesn't stand a chance against that much testosterone.

Brad Fiedel deserves a special mention for his creepy synthesiser soundtrack. While the film has aged badly, it remains a classic. The dialogue is stuck in the middle of the eighties, but the storyline is impeccable. I particularly enjoy the twist of making the bad guy the good guy in the second film, because in this one the bad guy is seriously bad.

Conclusion
If you are concerned about the low educational value of Sci-Fi films with body counts as high as this one, consider the indispensable recycling lessons, particularly in the closing scene.

Rating


Coming soon: The chauvinist guide to feminism.

Comments

David said…
wow, 1984! This movie is almost as old as me. Thanks for the review. It is fun to revisit the classics. Have you seen the newest special addition; I am wondering if it would be worth a rent? Thanks for the comment on my blog by the way.
EK said…
I loved this movie..Nice review

Popular posts from this blog

Fist bump the Trump

I must confess that I did not follow this election as it unfolded, because I have no skin in this game. I only became interested when I saw the crocodile tears on Facebook.

What fascinated me more was that the Trump supporters came out of the closet for the first time to voice their opinions. Virtually none of these Trump supporters espoused racist, misogynistic or any of those kind of deplorable views. Most of them were just pointing fingers at the know-it-all Clinton supporters.

What characterised this election? Rather than enlightened liberals waging a culture war with backward rednecks and hayseeds, three things characterised this election for me:
Shared hubris: Our candidate is bad, but the other candidate is even worse. Both parties seemed to espouse this sentiment.Joe Sixpack's Revenge: Based on voter turnout and based on for whom the largest voting group voted, this election was the revenge of the average American. That is average American by sheer number. Nobody bothered t…

Why has outrage come to dominate platforms like Twitter?

This question was posted on twitter by Sarah Britten Pillay. I shall try to answer that here, or at least address some of the topics surrounding this notion.

What makes a platform like Twitter more outrageous than the next? A brief summary of my thoughts on the topic: It would be interesting to contrive some outrage meter that could detect outrage levels in a piece of text.Plenty if not most of social media outrage is manufactured as a distraction.Outrage that isn't manufactured can be analysed by means of kin selection concepts from biology.If you aren't entirely sold on the sociobiology idea, then the balance of risk and incentive from game theory can also shed some light on the rationale behind social media outrage. Outrage levels are too damn high I do agree that social media platforms tend to be filled with more outrage than others, but as far as I know there is no means of detecting or measuring outrage. The need exists for some outrage quotient or some method of classify…

White tears the most valuable currency but not as valuable as fauxtrage

This formerly glorious publication which I shall not even bother naming has also fallen into the habit of censoring its comments section, at least when it comes to white tears. Fortunately, I could still save this obviously far superior comment from the rather myopic agitprop from whence it came. I know it is superior because the quality of your commentary is inversely proportional to how long it stays unscathed. That's why the sanctimonious finger-wagging op-eds rarely get deleted, but the comments rarely last long.
Anyone - black or white or of any other pigmentation persuasion - with a Rhodes Scholarship can but only cry White Tears. Someone with a Rhodes Scholarship is in the very lap of privilege, the likes of which not even the majority of pale South Africans born with a silver spoon will ever see. That is why it is not uncommon to see their ilk waiting on tables instead of whipping their slaves on their ill-begotten land, which they refuse to give up, you see.
A similar campa…