“Terminator 2: Judgement Day” (1992)
As with “Aliens,” Cameron knew that going bigger was the key to the follow-up when it came to sequelizing himself, as he returned to the film that made his name. And again, he gave a twist with the eight-years-later “Terminator 2: Judgement Day” — turning Sarah Connor (Hamilton, who would begin a relationship with the director on set) into a Ripley-esque badass on the edge of sanity, introducing her future-saviour child John Connor (Edward Furlong), and crucially, sending the T-800 (Schwarzenegger) back not as adversary, but as hero, this time facing off against an even worse robotic killer, the T-1000 in Robert Patrick. Cameron brought everything he’d learnt on subsequent projects to the table, with several phenomenal action set pieces (the motorbike/truck chase is still an all-time classic), and repurposing the liquid CGI effects of “The Abyss” into his new villain, a genuine jaw-dropping, game-changing wonder. It helps that Patrick, while slight in contrast to Schwarzenegger, is wonderful, a villain just as deadly, and somehow even less human, than his predecessor. It’s a rousing, thrilling summer blockbuster, but one that can’t help but suffer in comparison to the original: Schwarzenegger’s performance loses a lot of its power by being brought onto the side of the angels, young John Connor is a Bart Simpson-esque figure who dated pretty fast, and the relationship between the two wavers between humor that falls flat (jokes have never been Cameron’s strong point) and unearned sentimentality. Still a million times better than the films that followed it, though. [B-]
“True Lies” (1994)
Remember what we just said about Cameron and comedy? This would be the nail in that particular coffin. The director reunited with Schwarzenegger for a James Bond-inspired espionage-themed action-comedy about a superspy whose wife (Jamie Lee Curtis) thinks he’s a dull computer salesman. And as ever, Cameron delivered on the action side of things, with several stunning set pieces as good as anything he’s made before or since, most notably the motorcycle vs. horse chase, and the impressive Overseas Highway section. But even then, he goes a little overboard, with a Harrier Jump Jet finale that feels overstuffed and something of a damp squib compared to what came before (a common trend in 1990s action movies: see also near-contempoaries “Speed” and “Die Hard: With A Vengeance“). But more crucially, while the cast — particularly Curtis, who won a Golden Globe for the performance — are game, the gags don’t land as often as they should, coming off as sitcom-y rather than the stuff of rom-com greatness. We suspect it’s because there’s an unpleasant, mean-spirited tone to the whole thing: Cameron can’t meld the extreme violence to the light tone, and there’s something deeply misogynistic about the way Curtis’ character is treated. To say nothing of the Islamic terrorist villains, which felt uncomfortable even at the time, but is damn near unwatchable these days — indeed, Cameron pulled the plug on a sequel after 9/11. Worth watching for the action sequences, but the rest is better left fast-forwarded through. [C-]
“Titanic” (1997)
It looked at the time as if James Cameron had finally met his hubristic downfall with “Titanic.” A period romance with another disaster-plagued set, which went wildly over budget, making it the most expensive movie of all time, and the doommongers were out in force. But of course, it turned out to be the most successsful movie of all time, the first to make a billion dollars, a haul that will only be added to by this week’s 3D re-release. In the intervening fifteen years, it’s become hard to distinguish the film’s success, and its inevitable backlash, with whether or not it’s any good. But it’s unlikely the film would have become the phenomenon it was if it didn’t work, and make no mistake: “Titanic” works like gangbusters. Is it one of the finest works of cinema? Of course not. The script clunks in many places, there’s a lack of nuance throughout, both in the depiction of the bright-eyed, charming below-decks passengers and the sneering upper-class passengers embodied by Billy Zane‘s toupeed villain and the bookending sequences feel indulgent (and mark the only time that Bill Paxton has felt ill-fitting in a Cameron picture). But one only has to look at “Pearl Harbor” and “Australia” to see how difficult it is to pull this sort of thing off, and Cameron makes it look easy: the film is immaculately made on every level, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are excellent as the central couple, deservedly becoming lasting stars on the back of the film by giving “Titanic” heft not necessarily found in its screenplay, and the sinking, when it comes, is undeniably thrilling and horrifying in equal measure. Cameron’s made better films, for certain, but it’s little wonder that this one connected in the way it did. How could he ever top it?… [B+]