The future maker of "Avatard" goes back in time to add some new scenes.

Rating: Null/10 (10 December 2014)

James Cameron is no intellectual; that much we know. He is great with action scenes and special effects, but when it comes to character, plot, casting, and logic – forget about it. So when someone accuses him of treating his audiences as imbeciles, one must be careful. He isn't necessarily treating them any different than he'd treat himself. To him, dumb plots = intelligent plots; he doesn't differentiate. A plot is a plot, and an actor is an actor. He is quite autistic that way.
T2 is a very entertaining movie, but its plot is full of logic holes and stupid little plot-devices. It swims in cameronian nonsense. I guess this was just a warm-up for the REAL nonsense to come: "Titanic" and especially "Avatard".
First, let's pick on the most obvious target: the time-travel. Any movie whose central premise revolves around time-travel is going to run into heavy complications, by default. If Schwarzenegger chose to go back to, let's say, September 1991, why didn't the evil robots send their assassin to August 1991? Or even better: to 1989? And that's just a snippet of the logic-problems that arise whenever time-travel is thrown into the mix. I won't go into the rest; I would exceed my 1000-word limit on that topic alone. Suffice it to say that if there is one point in the past that one can visit, then there must be gazillions of them, an infinity of past points; all these worlds co-existing in the same universe – which is why time-travel (into the past at least) isn't physically possible (despite what fame-starved astrophysicists such as Michio Kaku claim).
Before I go on to the other nonsense, let me just point out to the incredibly stupid time-travel-related paradox of the 1st Terminator robot (1984) providing the knowledge (with his severed robotic arm) to Cyberdyne Corporation that lead them to eventually destroy the world – which in turn leads to a series of events that get the 1st Terminator sent in the first place! It's self-contradictory, illogical and insane.
As for characterization, startlingly dumb is Sarah Connor's behavior and her empty-headed decision-making process. Instead of playing it smart – by pretending that the story about annihilation and robots is nonsense – she acts out like a bona-fide mad-woman, ensuring a permanent stay in the maximum-security loony-bin. Dumber yet, when she finally gets a chance to be released, i.e. when the cops show up to interrogate her regarding Schwarzenegger's renewed appearance, she decides to not co-operate at all. Later on (only in the Director's Cut) she actually wants to SMASH Arnie's tiny brain with a hammer, in spite of the fact that this act would be tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot, the other foot, both arms and the neck; after all, don't they need him as defense against Melty? In other words, the mother of mankind's savour is an imbecile. Gives us all hope, huh? The fact that Cameron actually added this scene to his Director's Cut – i.e. amplified Sarah's idiocy – speaks of Cameron's own tiny intellect.
Linda Hamilton's unfortunate casting is yet another example of why directors shouldn't cast their wives – and why most actresses marry directors. Eastwood casting Locke: big mistake. Tim Burton casting Helena Bonham Carter: dumb dumb dumb.
As flawed as this Sarah Connor character is (and so unattractive, with that damn masculine face, a lack of curvature and boobs, and those disgusting wiry Madonna arms), her son is far worse. Here we have a juvenile delinquent, totally amoral and reckless – yet this is supposed to be THE savior of mankind? There is a particularly "disturbing" scene (in the sense that it is so stupid it's almost smirk-worthy) in which the kid screams for help when Arnold holds him by the arm. Later, when help does arrive – by which time the kid feels no longer threatened by Arnie – he tells the two good Samaritans: "take a hike, bozos" and calls one of them "a dumb jock".
THIS is the savior of mankind? Really, James? The only conclusions I can draw from this scene are: 1) a confirmation of Cameron's stupidity (and perhaps even a skewered sense of morality; fancy that in a libtard?), and 2) a rising suspicion that Cameron was a nerd often bullied at school by "jocks" (i.e. alpha males that nerds detest, partly out of jealousy), and that this scene was his way of "getting back at them". There is nothing more embarrassing than a scorned, scarred-for-life ex-nerd trying to sort out his adolescent mental frustrations on the big screen. Connor Junior also wears a Public Enemy T-shirt; a well-known shmip-shmop group that wrote racist lyrics aimed against Jews, Koreans and Caucasians. But that's Cameron for you; he is a libtard, so obviously his ethics will be a "little" out there.
Which brings me to the abysmal casting of this "child savior". Has anyone ever heard of a hermaphroditic alpha male who leads millions of men into battle? I haven't. There are no historical records that support any such case. Leaders of men (and often even female leaders of men) have an excess of testosterone, not estrogen. And yet Cameron, in his infinite lack of wisdom, taste, and common sense cast an effeminate boy-girl to portray Connor. Furlong is so girly in every manner that he makes Di Crapio look like the neighbourhood butcher. Was Leo unavailable to play a Saviour of mysterious gender? Many people complained about Furlong being supremely annoying and they're mostly correct.
To be fair, Furlong isn't a bad actor at all. He is just badly miscast. Acting "talent" isn't the issue here. After all, Al Pacino would also know exactly how to play this kid – but who would believe that a 50 year-old Pacino is an 11 year-old kid?