Produced for a mere $6 million, modest even by 1984 standards, the first Terminator movie was a surprise success that launched director James Cameron and star Arnold Schwarzenegger onto the Hollywood A-list. After respective careers each boasting bigger and bigger hits, the two finally reunited in 1991 for Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Greenlit by the now-defunct Carolco studio with an astounding budget in the vicinity of $100 million, not only was it the most expensive movie ever made at that point, the sequel's budget was somewhere more than three times larger than the entire domestic box office gross of the first film. It was a huge risk from a studio that eventually drove itself into bankruptcy making similar gambles (the company's finances were such a mess that even producing blockbuster hits lost them money). Of course, T2 as the ad campaign coined it, was a monstrous hit that dominated that year's box office and has gone on to successful longevity as a popular home video staple. The film gave audiences exactly what they wanted, and being a pretty damn entertaining movie and one of the few sequels every bit as good as its predecessor certainly didn't hurt.
To be honest, I find it rather amusing that there are still fans who argue the merits of the first Terminator against its sequel, as if they don't complement each other perfectly. Both movies are exceptionally entertaining works of science fiction with smart scripts and strong direction. While the first Terminator is a leaner, more urgent film with tighter plotting, the mega-budget Terminator 2 excels in bringing the story to a larger canvas while maintaining some rich character development and thematic resonance. It makes a strong case for the "bigger is better" mentality that has sunk many other Hollywood extravaganzas thrown together by less talented filmmakers.
Sure, the movie has some plot holes that contradict the rules previously established (How did the liquid-metal T1000 get through the time portal without a covering of living flesh? For that matter, why didn't the machines from the future just send the new robot assassin back to 1983 to whack Sarah Connor when she wouldn't be expecting it?). But those are hardly worth quibbling about. The fact is, no other filmmaker delivers more bang-for-the-buck than James Cameron. When he spends a lot of money to make a movie, it all shows up on screen. His action scenes not only continue to top one another in scope and ambition, but are executed with precision and elegance unmatched by his contemporaries. The action progresses naturally from the story in T2, and is more than just empty spectacle. That's one of the reasons the movie holds up so well despite advances in special effects technology. The CGI "morphing" process that was so revolutionary at the time looks a little crude by current standards, but is integral to the movie's story, not just an effect for effect's sake. Cameron's skill at blending many different types of visual effect (CGI, miniatures, rear projection) is also unparalleled. The director is notorious in the industry for being a control freak who micromanages every aspect of his movies' production, and that may indeed not make for a pleasant working environment, but there's no denying that he knows exactly what he wants and will go to any length to get it right. The success or failure of a James Cameron movie rests entirely on James Cameron's shoulders.
Make no mistake, Terminator 2 was and still is an enormous success, both financially and artistically. Smart, thrilling, and action-packed, it's endlessly repeatable entertainment. That's probably why it's been released and re-released so often on every video format since its debut.
']]}
