Category Archives: Movies

TMI…?

If you don’t know what the header means, its and abbreviation for “too much information”. In other words, if you were to say something in conversation, something very personal and perhaps more than a little embarrassing, someone might respond “TMI, man, TMI!”

One of the more interesting films that are about to be released is the latest Terminator film, Terminator: Dark Fate. The reason there is interest in the film is that for the first time since Terminator 2, actor Linda Hamilton returns to the role she is best remembered for, Sarah Connors. Sarah Connors was the target of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator in the first -and in my humble opinion best of the franchise films. She proved a tough as nails protective mother in the second film, ensuring her son would survive to protect mankind in the future.

There were several Terminator films that followed this one. Terminator 3 featured Arnold Schwarzenegger but not Linda Hamilton. In fact, if memory serves her character had supposedly passed away. Terminator: Salvation featured none of the original movie actors but Linda Hamilton did provide some uncredited voice-work in the film. Terminator: Genysis featured the return of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator and I felt the explanation for why he looked so much older was pretty clever. Alas, despite a decent first act -and some of the second act- the film truly went off the rails in its finale.

Thing is, every Terminator film past Terminator 2 did not feature director/writer James Cameron’s input and another part of the reason one may feel cautiously optimistic about this latest Terminator is that he’s back as a producer and was involved in the movie’s story.

Anyway, so I’m curious to see if this film will somehow be what most of the other post Terminator 2 sequels couldn’t, ie good, but that’s not why I’m writing about it.

Remember way, way back when I wrote about TMI?

Welp, Cole Delbyck at Huffington Post writes about how…

Linda Hamilton has been celibate for more than 15 years: “I love my alone time.”

Sadly, I can sorta/kinda see how this bit of information made it to the public: On a press/promotion junket, Linda Hamilton is interviewed by many about the movie and what she’s been doing the past few years. While she’s worked in the movie/TV industry pretty consistently, this is the first time in many years she’s returned to a very prominent starring role, and in what is her biggest role of her career.

I can see one of the interviewers asking her what she’s been up to and, gossipy question follows, who are you currently seeing?

And I suppose that’s where the TMI comes in. Ms. Hamilton probably doesn’t care at this stage of her life what is written about her. She’s noted that she purposely moved away from the spotlight because she didn’t feel comfortable there. Perhaps the response -and the too detailed information about her personal life- were calculated to get people talking about her and, therefore, about the film.

Who knows.

Still, and perhaps its the prude lurking in me (and that’s on me), but it seems when the question was asked she could have simply said she’s not seeing anyone currently and left it at that.

Then again, we wouldn’t be talking about her, and Terminator: Dark Fate, would we?

Is the new Joker movie any good…?

Since the announcement a while back that Martin Scorsese was involved in some kind of Joker film in the capacity of a Executive Producer (this was not to be), to the news that Todd Phillips, best known for the Hangover films, was set to direct this film and that it would star Joaquin Phoenix in the titular role, people have been curious, to say the least, as to what kind of film this would be.

We got photographs of Phoenix dressed in a gawdy, almost Batman-TV show-esq Joker costume, so it appeared they weren’t going for the prosthetic look of Jack Nicholson. But neither did it appear they were going for the grungy Heath Ledger version…

Related image

Intriguing stuff, certainly, and then we got trailers…

I wasn’t sure what to think of this new Joker film. On the one hand, Joaquin Phoenix is without a doubt a very high level actor, one who has received plenty of praise for his abilities. On the other hand, Todd Phillips, though he scored big with the first Hangover film, which my wife absolutely loves, also was responsible for Hangover II and III, films which were sooooo damn bad (as much as my wife likes the first film, she hates the other two. Alas, I’ve only seen the last two, which I agree are horrid).

Welp, the film had its world-premiere on August 31st at the Venice Film Festival and the reactions have, for the most part, been quite positive. Christopher Campbell on rottentomatoes.com offers the following article which encapsulates critical reaction to the film, which is still a month away from being given a general release. The article’s headline is quite positive:

Joker First Reviews: Give Joaquin Phoenix the Oscar, already

As intrigued by the film as I am, I’m not certain if I’ll be able to catch it upon its initial release. As I’ve noted too often, I don’t have the free time to go to films as much as I’d like to lately, and the fact that this sounds like something of a downer of a film (which is perfectly fine!) means I’ll likely have to go see it alone. My wife faces enough of that in her job so its highly unlikely she’ll care to go see this film.

One of the more intriguing things I’ve read and which are noted in the above article is that the film seems to pay tribute to two Martin Scorsese films in particular, Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. Some have speculated that the film was originally an attempt to remake/update one or both of those films and the concept was married to the character of the Joker.

It’s still an intriguing concept, I feel.

Let’s see what others think of it when it is formally released.

2019 Summer Movies in the Rear-View Mirror

There have been very, very good summer movie seasons littered with great and interesting films and there have been other summers that didn’t connect quite that well.

Entering September, Autumn is just around the proverbial corner (it officially begins on September 23rd) and school has begun for most if not all students in the U.S.

What better time to look back and the Summer Movie Season of 2019 and assess it?

Matthew Jacobs over at Huffington Post does just that, and his views parallel my own:

Let’s face it: The 2019 Summer Movie Season was dreadful

Man, do I agree with almost everything he writes in this article. From his notes regarding Disney, the big winner at the box office not only for summer, but for the entire year, to the fact that too many sequels didn’t connect and there were almost no comedies that found interest among audiences.

Thinking about the summer movie season, we started with Avengers: Endgame, the concluding chapter of the “phase 1” Marvel films. I have yet to see the film, though I fully intend to, but it made a great deal of money during its release yet, curiously, it feels to me like it was a big splash in a rather shallow pool.

I don’t see people analyzing this or that about the film, it seems like they watched it, enjoyed it, and moved on to the next big thing. Disney, of course, doesn’t care if the film is five years down the road looked upon as some kind of modern movie masterpiece. Especially when they pulled in as much money as they did from its initial and second run.

From there, though, things get sketchy.

Disney did well, also with Aladdin, The Lion King, and Toy Story 4 but, once again, I’m getting this feeling that the films were seen, enjoyed, made their money, but they won’t linger too long in the public consciousness afterwards. Toy Story in particular feels like its been played out and I wonder how much longer Disney will be able to make “live action” versions of their animated films before people lose interest in that.

I could go on and on, but I fear I’m going to start cribbing more and more ideas presented so well in Mr. Jacobs’ article and there seems little point in doing so.

So if you have a moment or two and are one of those film geeks like me and want a rundown of the stuff that worked, and didn’t, in the Summer of 2019, click on the link above.

It’s interesting stuff.

Didn’t see that coming…

One of the things that amuses me is the way movies either hit or sink.

There seems to be no rhyme or reason… one film connects with audiences and can become a HUGE box office hit, beloved by audiences world-wide, while another film is a complete (or near complete) wiff and sinks without much of a trace. Often this comes down to how “good” or “bad” a film is but not always. There are films that are critical bombs yet connect with audiences. There are films that are critical darlings yet bomb with audiences. Then there are those films that are complete box-office failures which, over the years, become cult darlings. Some even manage to become viewed as genuinely classic films, even if they did nothing when they were originally released. In the later case, you have the classic Metropolis and Blade Runner, both of which didn’t do very well upon their initial release and are now considered film classics.

We’re at the beginning of the school year and the latest movie releases are slim pickin’s indeed. This is not terribly unexpected. The summer rush is over and with the beginning of school, people aren’t as free to go to the theaters during the week, so studios aim their “biggest” guns to the summer period and release lower budget works they hope will recoup their investment and can hope -but do not expect- the box office of these films to be in the mega-hit range.

This past week, two films were released to theaters, one which I only discovered at literally the very last moment.

That film, Angel Has Fallen, is the third of the “Fallen” movies featuring Gerard Butler as Mike Banning, the President’s secret service detail. The two previous films featuring the character were 2013’s Olympus Has Fallen and 2016’s London Has Fallen.

The plot of the first two films involve Banning trying to save/keep the President, played in those films by Aaron Eckhart, alive despite an intense terrorist attack. In the first film, that attack was on the White House itself. In the second film, it was while the President was in London.

In this third film, Mr. Eckhart is gone, replaced by Morgan Freeman (who was in the original two films as well), as the new President. Further, Radha Mitchell, who portrayed Banning’s wife, has been replaced by Piper Perabo. This time around, Banning is framed for trying to kill the President and must clear himself…

The other relatively “big” film being released this past week was the horror/comedy Ready of Not

Both films, IMHO, look interesting based solely on their trailers, though I have less interest in Angel Has Fallen because the previous film, London Has Fallen, was so awful IMHO and Ready or Not features an intriguing (again, IMHO) concept for a horror/comedy.

So, going into the weekend, I figured Ready or Not would likely be the box office champ, with Angel Has Fallen either a very, very close second or perhaps just taking the #1 spot.

Boy, was I wrong.

Angel Has Fallen easily took the #1 spot at the Box Office with a much stronger than expected $21 plus million take. Ready or Not came in 6th with a decent (considering the film’s very low budget) take of $7.5 million.

One other new film, Overcomer (another film I know absolutely nothing about), came in at #3 with $8.2 million. The rest of the films in the top 10 were holdovers from past weeks (if you’re curious, here’s the complete rundown of the box office weekend via Box Office Mojo).

Again: I’m intrigued by this. Incredibly so. I suppose audiences were in a mood for an action extravaganza and that’s why Angel Has Fallen did well. There might be other times and other weeks where there are plenty of action films available and a film such as this one may not have done quite as well. As for Ready or Not… maybe audiences weren’t in the mood for a horror film this weekend. Maybe if the film had been released closer to Halloween it might have garnered a little more interest.

Is this the reason one did really well and the other not quite as well? I suppose its possible.

Ultimately, who knows?

As it is, I once again fall back on the quote by screenwriter William Goldman, of Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid (among others) fame. In his book Adventures in the Screen Trade, Mr. Goldman provided a quote I’ve posted here many times which, in my opinion, encapsulates the entire entertainment industry…

“Nobody knows anything…… Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work. Every time out it’s a guess and, if you’re lucky, an educated one.”

I absolutely love this quote because its so damn true. You can create what you think is an absolutely smashing work, one you think audiences will eat up and make you a zillionaire… and the work comes and goes without so much as a shrug from audiences. Then you can create something almost literally in your sleep, a work you think is nothing big, and it becomes HUGE.

The best we can hope for is some mild/moderate success in the works we do, and hope the next one does even better.

Ultimately, nobody knows nothing.

Least of all me.

The Quippy Fun of Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid

Over at film.avclub, Tom Breihan offers an interesting critique on the classic 1969 George Hill directed, Paul Newman and Robert Redford starring Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

You can trace the quippy fun of Marvel blockbusters straight back to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

It’s a fascinating –very fascinating, IMHO- look at the film. Here’s the movie’s trailer:

I love Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. While parts of the film may have aged (this is bound to happen with most films), it remains a beautifully entertaining quirky western/buddy comedy, with Newman and Redford positively shining in the title roles.

I added a comment to the article and will post it here (with a few minor alterations/additions for the sake of clarity):

Originally, Steve McQueen was intended to play the role of the Sundance Kid opposite Paul Newman. For those unaware of the fact, in the 1960’s Newman and McQueen were fierce competitors for the title of most popular movie star, and McQueen in particular viewed Newman as his greatest rival.

So the idea of having the two play in a movie was incredibly intriguing, though it ultimately didn’t happen. And yet, I wonder what Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid would have been like had Steve McQueen taken on the role. Would it have worked quite as well? Would McQueen’s Sundance have been a little too serious versus the more charming Redford take? Not that McQueen couldn’t be funny/charming as well, but like a few other movie “near-misses” with actors who could have taken on a role (Frank Sinatra or Robert Mitchum as Dirty Harry, for instance), perhaps this end result was for the best.

Steve McQueen was pursued for the lead role in the 1978 Walter Hill directed film The Driver (no relation to the more recent Ryan Gosling film) but he turned the role down and they got Ryan O’Neal to play the protagonist. He… wasn’t right for it, IMHO. Had McQueen taken the role, I suspect that film would have gone down in history as McQueen’s last great role…

Steve McQueen and Paul Newman did manage to share principle roles in a film a few years later, The Towering Inferno. The issue of whose name should be presented as the movie’s “star” continued to be an issue, which was resolved in this way, by having McQueen listed “first” but lower than Paul Newman, who was listed “higher”!

Image result for towering inferno credits

This is a screen shot of the opening credits of the film, and here you have the poster itself, which also features that same staggered credit line:

Image result for towering inferno credits

Again, McQueen is listed “first”, but Paul Newman is listed “higher”!

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs And Shaw (2019), A (Almost on Time!) Review

The Fast and Furious franchise has been a huge box office success for years now to the point where investors decided to make a spinoff featuring Dwayne Johnson’s Hobbs and Jason Statham’s Shaw. Here’s the movie’s trailer:

If you’re a fan of the franchise, this looks like a fun time, no?

Well…

Here’s the thing about these films: They’re pretty ludicrous. But, as ludicrous as they were, I will give the F&F franchise this much: they kept things “serious” enough so that you feel some actual suspense. As stupid as they could get, you sometimes worried for the fate of the characters.

Not so with Hobbs and Shaw.

This film, from the opening minutes to the closing act, is presented as a goof. There are plenty of stunts and quips, delived by Hobbs at Shaw and vice-versa. Some of them are genuinely funny. There are two cameos that are for the most part delightful (I won’t spoil the surprise), and Vanessa Kirby and Idris Elba do fine as Hattie (Shaw’s sister) and Brixton (the movie’s big bad guy).

But…

There is absolutely no sense of danger in this movie, despite all the stuntwork and sweat. There is no feeling, at any moment, that either Hobbs or Shaw or Hattie are in any genuine danger. As fearsome as Brixton could have been -he is presented as something of a bionic/android super powered man- he never lays much of a finger on our heroes nor could I, as an audience of at least one, ever felt he actually would.

So what we’re left with is a very slick and very loud film filled with explosions and crashes, shattered glass and crumbling concrete, and a decent enough story that the director/producer never allowed to get serious.

Which begs the question: How are we to feel any suspense, any thrills, in a film that so clearly doesn’t seem to want you to feel them?

There’s also this romance thing that is almost pathetically inserted into the film between Hobbs and Hattie that, it would seem, the movie’s makers belatedly realized was going nowhere and decided to tamp down on and essentially ignore by movie’s end. Perhaps I didn’t stay in long enough but the closing credit scenes (at least two or three of them, I lost track), didn’t bother to show whether Hobbs and Hattie finally had a date (OOPS! EXTREME SPOILER: They both survive at the end of the film!).

I have to say, despite some good laughs and some well executed action sequences, Hobbs and Shaw left me curiously unimpressed and, as we move further and further from the date I saw it (that was earlier last week), the less impressed I am with the whole thing.

Next time and despite the ludicrous things presented on screen, perhaps they should at least try to take these things a little more seriously.

The Hunt (2019)… a little more…

A few days ago I posted about the movie The Hunt, set to be released some time this year, and how its trailer was, IMHO, a perfect example of giving away too much plot. (If you’re interested, you can read the original post here)

Welp, it appears it hid from me (either that or I was too dense to notice) the fact that the film presents a situation where “liberal elites” are the ones who make a sport out of hunting and killing the salt-of-the-earth Red State folk, something that, thanks to that explanation, becomes clear when re-watching the trailer video…

Given the mass shootings which occurred these past few days and initiated by what appear to be right wing types, the studio behind The Hunt realized their movie and its promos may be a little too provocative in times like these.

As Jeremy Fuster points out in his article presented on thewrap.com…

Universal pauses marketing campaign for “The Hunt” after mass shooting

There is a long history of provocation in the entertainment industry, be it music (Jimi Hendrix’s rendition of The Star Spangled Banner as protest against Vietnam), literature (A Clockwork Orange), and movies/TV (The Prisoner, Planet of the Apes -the original-, etc. etc.).

When done well, I tend to applaud takes on controversial subjects. The movie The Parallax View, for example, presented a paranoid view of the United States and those who have all the power and how they keep those who step out of line in check… sometimes through assassination. Warren Beatty, who played the protagonist in the film, is a newspaperman who stumbles upon the deep, dark secret behind a cabal that may be responsible for assassinations. The movie becomes a fascinating look at how an innocent man becomes a patsy through mind control (think Lee Harvey Oswald, for those who are conspiracy minded).

Reading up on The Hunt and it’s entire analogy/message, I can’t help but think: Is that it? Rip off The Most Dangerous Game but offer the “clever” twist that the hunters are homicidal liberal elites preying on the “good folks” of the red-states?

Really?

Good luck with that.

The Irishman (2019)… a big lie?

Set to be released this year is the Netflix produced, Martin Scorsese directed, Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, and Joe Pesci (among many others) starring The Irishman, a mob saga that promises to be something quite grand…

I must admit, I heard of the film being made but didn’t think much of it. When I saw the trailer, though, I got excited. The Irishman looks like an old fashioned Godfather-esq type mob film, filled with betrayals and shootouts.

I had no idea about the source material, though, and didn’t know how accurate, historically, the movie would be. Yeah, Jimmy Hoffa was a character in it (played by Al Pacino), but otherwise I had no idea if this would be fiction or semi-reality or an attempt at a full biography.

Then, I stumbled upon this article by Bill Tonelli and presented on Slate.com. In it, Mr. Tonelli argues the book and confessions of one Frank Sheeran, the Irishman the movie refers to, are likely complete and total fabrication.

Read for yourself:

The Lies of the Irishman

Mr. Tonelli offers fascinating reasons to doubt Mr. Sheeran’s confessions, which made shortly before he passed away in a nursing home in 2003 and which formed the basis of the book subsequently published to much acclaim and which is the basis of the Scorsese movie.

Mr. Sheeran, among other things, claims to have been the triggerman who killed Jimmy Hoffa. His claims, however, are decidedly wild above and beyond even that one claim, though I don’t want to spoil the article by giving them away (suffice to say the book and, presumably, Mr. Sheeran’s confessions paint him out to be something like a Forrest Gump of the mob world, involved to some extent in almost every big mob activity from the early 1960’s and through the 1970’s).

Read the article if you’re interested, it paints a fascinating portrait of the man and reasons to doubt his confessions. Note, too, that the author does present the “other” side, a few people who believe Mr. Sheeran was telling the truth.

Me?

When a story sounds too good to be true…

The fact that Sheeran positioned himself in so many big mob events while it seems many in law enforcement barely knew of him, suggests either A) he was a criminal mastermind who hid his tracks expertly behind the veneer of a drunk, or B) he was a gross exaggerator who spun tall tales regarding his own involvement in unions and the mob.

The story does indeed sound a little too good to be true.

My feeling is the odds are more with option “B”.

Guardians of the GAlaxy Vol. 2 (2017) a (mildly) belated review

Back in 2014 Guardians of the Galaxy was released to theaters and was a box office mega-hit. The film was generally loved by critics and especially audiences and helped cement Marvel’s movie Empire by expanding its reach into space.

Back then, I wanted very badly to catch the film in theaters but was unable to, finally picking up the BluRay when it was released and finding… I didn’t like the film. (You can read my full review of Guardians of the Galaxy here).

In fact, re-reading the review of the original Guardians of the Galaxy I posted, if anything I was being a little too nice in describing my feelings about it. I hated the film. I hated having wasted my (and my wife’s) time watching this juvenile, silly, and incredibly un-original work.

So little did I think of the film, Dr. Strange, and Captain America: Civil War (three Marvel films which I saw in close temporal proximity) that my feelings about Marvel films took a serious nose-dive. Where once I looked forward to catching the latest Marvel films, I found myself avoiding them. To the point where I have yet to see most of the Marvel films released since this period of time such as Ant-Man and the Wasp, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, and the last two Avenger films (I have digital copies of both and intend to catch them, though!).

The other day Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, yet another of the Marvel films I was avoiding, aired on TV and I caught the first few minutes of it.

Mind you, I’m still smarting from how little I liked the original film and had no intention of seeing the sequel. Especially when I recalled upon its release GOTG Vol. 2 found more than a few of the fans of the original feeling it wasn’t as good as the first one.

If I hated the first one and fans of that film didn’t like the second quite as much, what were the odds I’d like it?!

…well…

Funny thing happened on the way to my ignoring GOTG Vol. 2. I caught the first few minutes, as I said, on TV and… I kinda liked what I saw. It was silly but pleasantly so.

Alas, I didn’t have the time to watch the whole thing in one sitting so I set the DVR and let it record the movie. I finally caught the whole thing a couple of days ago aaaaaannnnnndddddd….

Whatdoyouknow?!

I liked it!

Understand: The film isn’t “perfect” and there are some rather clunky elements in it, but overall GOTG Vol. 2 carries a more original plot than the Star Wars retread of the first film (which was a large part of the reason I didn’t like that film) with more emotional payoffs. The silly humor is still there but toned down from the overbearing nature I felt was in the first film, and the characters feel like they’re more of a part of a team and care for each other.

The plot -for those one or two people not me who haven’t seen the film- goes like this: The Guardians are contracted to protect power cells from an incoming monster. They complete their mission but Rocket Raccoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper) betrays their employers by stealing a handful of the power cells.

The Guardians are pursued and their ship crippled as they escape the wrath of their employers and crash land on a planet. It is there Peter Quill/Star Lord’s (Chris Pratt) long lost father Ego (Kurt Russell) appears and reveals he has been looking for his son for years.

With their ship nearly destroyed, Rocket is left with the young Groot and their prisoner Nebula (Karen Gillian) alone to fix the ship while Quill, Gamora (Zoe Saldana), and Drax (Dave Bautista) fly off with Ego and his companion Mantis (Pom Klementieff) to his planet while those pursuing the Guardians approach…

Shakespeare it ain’t, but then again, other than Shakespeare, what is?

The film moves along at a brisk pace and while at times very silly, plot-wise, I found the characters this time around more intriguing and the story better presented than the Star Wars retread of the first film.

So, yeah, I liked the damn thing even as I hated the first and, you know what?

That’s the way it goes.

Recommended!

The perils of offering too much information…

…specifically, when it comes to a trailer of a film:

Set to be released later this year, The Hunt clearly owes a great deal to Richard Connell’s 1924 short story The Most Dangerous Game. It is my opinion Mr. Connell’s work is one of the most adapted stories ever.

The original story involved a hunter who falls overboard while in the Amazon, swims to an island, and there finds a palatial estate run by two Russians. One is mute and the other chillingly tells our protagonist he will be released into the wilds and hunted down.

The story was a big success and in 1932 RKO pictures released the first adaptation of the story in a movie by the same name. The film was produced by the same people behind the original King Kong and, if you look close enough, you’ll see that in some of the jungle scenes of The Most Dangerous Game (the film), are identical to those used in King Kong!

Since that first film, and as I mentioned above, there have been innumerable adaptations of this general story, where a seemingly powerless person(s) are hunted by people with weapons and they turn the tide in time…

These are but two examples (and fairly recent ones) of the use of The Most Dangerous Game plot. Essentially, any story you see which involves people hunting others for sport, you’re dealing with a story inspired by Richard Connell’s famous short story.

The point of this entry, however, is not to present the history of this particular story but rather point out something that is very bothersome: A movie trailer giving away an entire film’s story.

I mean, come on…!

Why bother going to see this movie as almost everything seems to have been spoiled in the above trailer? We learn who the bad guys are, what they’re up to, who the protagonist is, and we even see that the two have a confrontation in her mansion toward the end. Along the way we also learn about how a few of the “prey” get killed and…

sheesh.

Why do movie studios insist on giving everything away? Can they not make a trailer that leaves a few surprises?

Which reminds me of the trailer that most egregiously, IMHO, gave away everything: The original trailer for Terminator 2. Here it is:

I mean… wow. Watching this trailer today I’m still furious about how much was given away of the story.

Remember: The first Terminator had Arnold Schwarzenneger play the bad guy and, if you were to watch that film and Terminator 2 one after the other (and without any prior knowledge of what goes on in them), director James Cameron does a masterful job of keeping the fact that Arnold’s Terminator in the second film is “good”. In fact, Cameron made it appear he was just as bad this time around as the first film, hunting his “prey” (this time John Connor) while, simultaneously, a mysterious other individual, who looked an awful lot like Michael Biehn’s Kyle Reese from the first film, was also tracking the boy down.

This all leads to a point in the film where, in a mall, the young John Connor is trapped between Arnold’s Terminator and the mysterious Robert Patrick character. We figure Arnold’s Terminator would try to kill Connor and then…

….surprise…!

Arnold’s Terminator turns out to be the good guy this time around!

It would have made for a terrific twist to audiences back in 1991… except that damn trailer gave it all away.

I recently watched, for the first time in years, Terminator 2 and was astonished by just how much effort James Cameron put into making that twist work.

Too bad the studios decided to chuck the movie’s biggest surprise by revealing it in the trailer.