As a general rule, sequels suck. The reason for this is lack of originality. The modius operandi of a producer of a sequel is to copy as closely as possible the formula and/or elements of the previous film in an effort to attract back the same people who saw the original.

Examples: Two sequels which I have recently watched, Terminator 3 and Matrix 3. Now, if there is one type of movie that is sure to suck more than a sequel, it is a three-quel, and this generally holds true here.

As your pre-school counting skills have alerted you, Terminator 3 follows on Terminator 2. T-2 had a plot which turned the premise of the original on its ear and explored weighty topics like the human condition and fate. At the same time it redefined what sort of action was capable of being shown in a movie, action so realistic and of such scope that only one other film has ever attempted anything of its magnitude.

Many people disagree, but I think T-2 remains the finest big-budget action picture of all time. So it's sad to see it followed up by Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, a predictable low-budget near-spoof of a sci-fi flim which just tries to repeat T-2 with a few bits changed. In a stroke of originality, Arnold is back as the good Terminator programmed to protect future savior John Connor from a more advanced killing machine. It goes without saying that I found these 'characters' to be flat and unlikable and the action was CGI-ed into cartoonhood too often.

Neither James Cameron or Linda Hamilton (whose character, I might add, is the protagonist of the Terminator films) wanted to have anything to do with this and it shows. Also missing is the score and blue-hued cinematography of the original two. (I'll forgive those things since I think their absensce is less insulting to the original two than their inclusion would have been.)

Furthermore, the film makes no effort to even make sense. I'm not exactly a computer science major or anything, but even I recognized that the technobabble about how the super-virus works is absolute malarky. The film is clearly only interested in (lame) shoot-outs, (derivative) fight sequences, and (boring) vehicle chases. If that's all you want to do, at least try come up with your own premise. No one needed a Terminator 3.

On the other hand, we did need a Matrix 3, if for no other reason than Reloaded asked so many questions that it was little more than a 2-hour teaser trailor for Revolutions. Sad to say, as a tie-ing up of the loose ends from Reloaded, the movie fails. The end of the war is a total cop-out and falls flat, plus there is no explanation attempted about how Neo can have powers outside the Matrix or how Smith can exsist in the real world. There's not even any lip service paid to the big twist from Reloaded, and if enevitablilty or systems of control played any part in the climax of this film, I must have missed it.

Sure, there are parts of the movie which are quite entertaining to behold (the battle for the dock) and it even sports some decent-looking CGI. (How often do you hear me say that?) However, a movie is not made by its action sequences, but rather by its plot and characters. In that regard, Revolutions is a failure: the 'romance' between Neo and Trinity is almost as strained as the 'romance' between Anakin and Padme. Trinity should have stayed dead in Reloaded and saved us all the pain of that absurd virtual heart-massage revival sequence. Her part here should have been filled by pious believer Morpheous, who has about as much to do as Han Solo did in Return of the Jedi. I did like Niobe and Seraph, though.

So, the verdict on Revolutions is "crap", but it's certainly worth seeing if you're into the series. Terminator 3 comes out on DVD next week and my advice is to avoid it unless you are looking to make fun of it.