I very much liked this article, and I agree with it to an extent, but I wish to suggest another angle to consider.

I admire McG's work on this movie. It is admirable for one central reason. This reason is that he questioned, and tried to extend beyond, the previous Terminator formula. In a multi-million dollar moviemaking industry, in this particular case with a $200 million dollar film on the line, this is an EXCEEDINGLY brave thing to do. Possibly one of the bravest things I have seen in a major American film in recent times. This article suggests that the film is not a Terminator movie, as it does venture forth very far from the source material. This is quite correct, because it does.

I however consider this a laudable positive aspect and not as a negative. Did McG succeed in still making a great movie, even by venturing forth from the cliched previous Terminator formula? Arguably yes. It had a story which I found interesting, backed by meaningful action which I enjoyed. Every plot point is not explained on a fifth-grade level, but I demand no such thing from a film that angles toward what I like, which in this case is a good solid action film.

Will it earn McG a lot of love from Terminator fans and the expectations of critics, who seem altogether bent on stressing the previous Terminator legacy? Those who demand seeing more of the Governor of California? As seen in the last week or so, this is a decided no.

All things being equal however, I personally liked this film, and I hope they make a sequel, etc. This movie venture into the unknown represented a surprise for me, and for such bravery, McG deserves all commendations applicable, even though perhaps the film is not perfect in practice on some levels as indicated by other commentators.