boe_dye sez: Okay, I get why people didn't like it. here is why I did:

Rating: 9/10 (24 May 2009)

First off, lets understand that this isn't really the "finality" of Terminator. It's more on the order of this is a story how we get from point A which would be sometime after Terminator 3, to point B which would be before the war is over. In all honesty there is a considerable amount of groundwork to cover between here and there which, thankfully, McG did not choose to cover.
What was good was that the story followed and respected the groundwork that had been laid before. Like all great heroes, they don't just pop up one day and say "Here I am to save the world". No, they are seasoned, experienced veterans who are alive and kicking because they were smarter then all the other people who didn't live all that long.
Previous Terminator films almost made it sound as if the Resistance was nothing more then a motley crew of ragtag fighters fighting for survival. This made them considerably more organized.
One thing that did surprise me was that this is NOT a Christian Bale movie. Yes, Christian Bale is in it, and I happen to believe that man can do no wrong when it comes to acting (yes even Newsboys). His Batman voice was a bit overplayed and at one point I was half expecting his to start muttering "Whyrutryingtokillme".
Never the less, the film more focused on the Resistance as a whole, and Conner's affect on the resistance. It showed more how he grew into the role as John Conner, Leader.
Lots of action. LOTS of action. One great thing is that McG chose to use more robots when possible as opposed to CGI. CGI is overplayed and makes everything look fake. This was about as real as a movie as I have seen in a while up to and including a very realistic auto rotation that as a former helicopter student, I was very well aware of the ramifications of.
Again, it followed the storyline very well and as far as plot holes go, I will get into that with the "cons".
The Cons.
What most people are complaining about:
The time line. Alright, first of the Terminator does create a mess of predestination paradox's. But without getting into a whole philosophical diatribe about something that could never really happen anyways I will say this: What is going to happen, is ultimately going to happen. You cannot change the future, only delay the outcome. It's not to say that you don't have a choice you do, however it's simply a matter of catching up to that choice and, to quote, understand that choice.
If they changed the future in the second film then the time line creates a huge paradox anyways that says that Kyle Reese, while still being born at one point or another will never have a reason to go back into time to impregnate Sarah Conner and John Conner is never born...
Therefore at some point or another, the events that happen have to happen.
Which is why in the 3rd one, Arnie says that Judgement day is inevitable you only have to survive it.
Nextly and this is what secret agent J had to gripe about, was the whole dropping into the center of the Machine City or Skynet Central and there being almost no resistance what-so-ever. Let's be honest. If the machines really wanted to wipe us out, then it wouldn't be that difficult. Drop a few nukes. The just mercilessly eradicate us all. Non stop slaughter. No rest no quarter. Thats why in a movie such as "The Matrix", the machines effectively DID win. It was only by fighting from the inside out did humanity have a chance.
That being said, you have to take certain liberties to make the machines less then what they are. And because of those liberties you can have static bases, utilities, aircraft weaponry and a whole other schlew of things at your disposal in order to have some semblance of hope.
So, Skynet has to be vulnerable. And call it profound arrogance on the Machines part. Why should they need to have sentries and armed personal guarding it's most valued base of operations? Why? Because in all their logic and mathematical precision they can never compute something that is random chance. They cannot think outside the box of numbers and statistics. Getting to that point is in the machines eyes a mathematical impossibility.
Next, and this is a gripe that I do agree with.
Molten steel has been proved effective in the decimation of T800's. Why oh why it didn't work on the model in the movie is beyond me. Nitrogen gas, commonly used for cooling seem to be an effective method for immobilizing T1000's.
Now physics states that if you super heat something, and then super cool it at an extreme rate that it usually shatters pretty quickly. like taking a hot frying pan and dropping it in water will most definitely warp it beyond use.
Why it wasn't the case here is beyond me as it has proved effective time and time again.
Lastly, the paying homage to the previous Terminator films by re-imaging certain sequences got old fast. It was almost on the order of history repeats itself or what goes around comes around. Yes we know, your mom fought the terminator walking up the flight of stair just like you are now.
Yes we know your Terminator buddy in the second film got pounded with in the chest with a steel girder just like your Terminator buddy is right now.
However, the use of Arnold as the T800 prototype was AMAZING! Well thought out, and well played and epic beyond belief.
A definite redemption from the campy Terminator 3 debacle!