|
Post by malbowski13 on Jul 11, 2008 16:47:15 GMT -5
"Not as good as the original"
I've heard people in movies and in real life say repeatedly that the 1st one's always the best and blah blah blah!
I've got some exceptions that I feel quite strongly about and hope you guys come up with some too.
Halloween 2 TCM 2 Hellraiser-Hellbound
(To keep this simple, try to stick to the originals vs. part 2's only)
|
|
shunty
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?
Posts: 537
|
Post by shunty on Jul 11, 2008 18:09:02 GMT -5
Nothing can beat the original hellraiser fatty! And you spelled SEQUEL wrong.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jul 11, 2008 18:33:24 GMT -5
haha save all bash remarks for laz i do agree with you tho mal, for the most part part 1's are better but i know i have seen some exceptions and i just cant think right now, i will be back with them when i do tho
|
|
piggsy
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ?
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by piggsy on Jul 11, 2008 18:55:33 GMT -5
I completely agree, mal. Those sequels you listed are either better or just as good as the originals. Some others are...
Friday the 13th part 2 Saw 2 Dawn of the Dead Nightmare on Elm Street 2 (Well, it's not as good as part 1, but I like it)
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Jul 11, 2008 23:10:07 GMT -5
Friday 2 had the coolest killing with the wheelchair guy getting the machete in the head then pushed down the stairs.Classic.
Worry about your own spelling, Cunty!
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jul 11, 2008 23:21:17 GMT -5
Nothing can beat the original hellraiser fatty! And you spelled SEQUEL wrong. I have heard so many people kissing Hellbound's ass... I haven't seen it yet, but I really doubt it's anywhere near as good as some people say. Probably just gorier... Hmm, that does sound nice. haha save all bash remarks for laz And save all the idiot, redneck jokes for retarded T. I completely agree, mal. Those sequels you listed are either better or just as good as the originals. Some others are... Friday the 13th part 2 Saw 2 Dawn of the Dead Nightmare on Elm Street 2 (Well, it's not as good as part 1, but I like it) I love Nightmare on Elm Street 2. I think it's okay, but I personally love it. Saw II is a piece of shit, though. Still haven't seen the original (when the fuck are Comcast going to put it on-demand?) "Not as good as the original" I've heard people in movies and in real life say repeatedly that the 1st one's always the best and blah blah blah! I've got some exceptions that I feel quite strongly about and hope you guys come up with some too. Halloween 2 TCM 2 Hellraiser-Hellbound (To keep this simple, try to stick to the originals vs. part 2's only) Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is a joke, not a horror film. And it has no style and no intelligence compared to the first movie. It literally takes everything of substance from the original and vomits all over it - driving down the value until there is none. Halloween 2 looks good... but it's just not a very well-made movie. Halloween the original is a masterpiece. So I hugely disagree.
|
|
piggsy
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ?
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by piggsy on Jul 12, 2008 0:14:49 GMT -5
Hellbound's good. It's about on par with the original, I'd say. It's vision of hell is quite creepy and bizarre. But...how they killed off Pinhead was very stupid and anti-climactic.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jul 12, 2008 0:44:19 GMT -5
whatttttt piggsy, how the hell can you think saw 2 was better then saw, saw was and still is one the best movies of the 2000's, prob my fav ending in a movie ever, saw 2 was a huge dissapointment and an OK movie at best,
what in the world made you like part 2 better??
|
|
shunty
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?
Posts: 537
|
Post by shunty on Jul 12, 2008 2:42:31 GMT -5
hellbound lacked the originality of the first one, and the overall scaryness. did i spell scaryness wrong? does anyone remember that awesome scene in the first one where that cenobite monster chased ashley laurence down that long corridor? i just thought of that.
|
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Jul 12, 2008 3:45:54 GMT -5
I'd say Hellbound is about equal to the original. I didn't think it was noticeably more gory really, but then again the original was pretty damn gory to begin with. What it does do is expand on the original, which a sequel should do. It's not just a flimsy excuse for some idiot to fuck around with the puzzle box some more, just to unleash complete carnage(see any Hellraiser after Hellbound). It does have a point.
TCM 2...I love this movie. I have really fond memories of watching it as a kid. Also Choptop is a horror icon as far as I'm concerned. That said, it's a joke compared to the first one. It was meant to be. As far as sequels go, I think part three was superior to this one. As for a fun movie to go with your pizza and beer, TCM2 is great.
Aliens: I like action in my movies. Aliens certainly delivers. it really depends on what sort of mood I'm in though. As far as it goes Alien and Alien3 are more comparable in style. Alien3 gets treated unfairly, because it's not Aliens either, but it had the misfortune of coming afterwards, instead of before like Alien. If Aliens did not exist, 3 would have a better reputation. If Aliens had of been the first in the series, Alien would probably get bashed a lot too.
The Good, the Bad and The Ugly: This was the third in the man with no name trilogy, and it truly is the best of the series. Better than the first two combined, and that's saying a lot because For a Few Dollars More is also greatly superior to the original, and the original ain't too shabby itself.
Evil Dead 2: This was supposed to be a direct sequel, but Sam Raimi didn't have the rights to do a sequel, so he filmed it as more of a quasi-remake. It's superior to the original in every way, except for originality.
Army of Darkness: This one isn't better than Evil Dead 2. It's kind of like Alien vs Aliens. Both great films, but the one you prefer depends on your mood at the time.
AvP2: I'm not sure that this is saying much, but it is fucking Citizen Kane compared to AvP. AvP2 isn't a great movie. It's not even good. It is entertaining in a mindless way, and that's all. It does get extra points for trying, which is more than can be said of AVP. AvP is just complete shit.
Predator 2: This was much more intelligent than the original. The action level was about the same, but Predator 2 was much more gory, and brutal. It also does a better job of painting the Predators as a noble race, instead of being creatures that delight in killing stuff.
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Jul 12, 2008 11:13:50 GMT -5
What about T2 VS. The Terminator? I go with Terminator.
Predator is one of my favorite Arnold movies , so I gotta disagree Lowkey. Gary Busey and Danny Glover do great jobs though. Predator needs a solo film next. Not sure about what kind of setting they should have...
|
|
piggsy
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ?
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by piggsy on Jul 12, 2008 15:10:34 GMT -5
whatttttt piggsy, how the hell can you think saw 2 was better then saw, saw was and still is one the best movies of the 2000's, prob my fav ending in a movie ever, saw 2 was a huge dissapointment and an OK movie at best, what in the world made you like part 2 better?? I didn't say it was better than the original, I said it was almost as good.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jul 12, 2008 15:17:08 GMT -5
whatttttt piggsy, how the hell can you think saw 2 was better then saw, saw was and still is one the best movies of the 2000's, prob my fav ending in a movie ever, saw 2 was a huge dissapointment and an OK movie at best, what in the world made you like part 2 better?? I didn't say it was better than the original, I said it was almost as good. Than that means the first Saw sucks. A lot. Hellbound's good. It's about on par with the original, I'd say. It's vision of hell is quite creepy and bizarre. But...how they killed off Pinhead was very stupid and anti-climactic. I have a very strange relationship with the original Hellraiser. I like the adult characters (Julia, Larry, Frank), but Kirsty and her boyfriend I can't stand. I don't like the special effects and the creature effects (I dispise that ugly frickin' orange worm) - but the Cenobites look incredible. The dialogue is great, for the Cenobites and Julia and for the most part- Frank. But Kirsty is totally neglected as a character, so we end up having to like her for the same reason we have to like Ripley from Alien- because she runs fast, gets mad instead of whimpering, and kicks and punches more than she is kicked and punched. But I just don't like her at all. The music is too stale and stiff for the most part, but sometimes it really works (like during the sex scene where Larry cuts his hand) - sometimes it's really lush. Some of the imagery is great. Like at the hospital. And the puzzle box looks great. And some of what Barker does with the shadows looks great. I still don't know quite what to think about the movie. hellbound lacked the originality of the first one, and the overall scaryness. did i spell scaryness wrong? does anyone remember that awesome scene in the first one where that cenobite monster chased ashley laurence down that long corridor? i just thought of that. I hated that sequence. But I hated the scene at the end a lot more. The one where it and Kirsty and Kirsty's boyfriend are fighting over the puzzle box. It becomes painfully obvious that if Kirsty and the boyfriend just sat there, the monster would just wiggle and never do anything to hurt them. the original was pretty damn gory to begin with. I completely disagree. But then I take a really good look at it one day (about 2 months ago). The only truly gory scene was Frank in Larry's skin in the attic and you only saw those pink close-ups of the little hooks sticking him...where was that(?), 1/4th of a second of his exploding head, maybe 1 second of that pendulum slicing his back through his shirt, and the hook pinning his hand but not in closeup. That is the only gory scene in the movie. After that- you have bloodless hammer whacks, Larry scratching his hand, the rat slicing (no dripping blood), and a couple of people dribbling blood from their mouths. That's it. Anyway, my votes: Sorority House Massacre II. I haven't seen the original in a long while and now some online critics say it wasn't so bad. I thought it was crap when I first saw it. It was a little suspenseful, but stylistically - it was basically The Initiation, Part II in a sorority house with a half-assed escapee from an asylum attacking the victims. But anyway, SHM Part II is really fun! It's an all-female cast, so there's very little macho or sexed-up straight guy bullshit. The music score is done by Chuck Cirino, who did sound effects and additional sound work on the 1988 masterpiece Killer Klowns from Outer Space - and he manages to keep that amazingly creepy feeling of the stuff he did in that spaceship from KKfOS and has it dripping all over SHM II. The organ music for this movie is great! The house looks great and there are a lot of scenes of the girls walking off alone and it gets really creepy. Then, that scene in the bathroom is amazing for a direct-to-video horror movie. And I love that scene with the phone and the reveal of the killer. And the blood looks perfect (dark red, not too thick). White walls being splattered - great image. And the tone of the film is creepy and dark without being depressing. So it's a lot of fun. Friday the 13th Parts III, VI: Jason Lives, VII: The New Blood, and VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan. Not to say the other 4 movies aren't fun. They're all incredibly entertaining (the ones made before the 1990s). But these movies are unquestionably the scariest, best-written, or best acted by the casts. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors. I still like the original movie, parts of it. But this sequel is technically superior. The writing and acting are definitely a bit improved. Emotionally, there's more impact. It's scarier (in my opinion / although they did change the format of who Freddy was and what he was supposed to do) because he's much more of a Grim Reaper type, which increases the film's dread quotient. And the amount of dread in the film coupled with the amazingly nasty and gory death scenes, makes the film downright disturbing. And it also feels a little too extreme for mainstream audiences. Either way, for a sequel - it's un forgettable! Of course, none of this means I dislike the original at all. Ghoulies 2. The original was very slow and cheap-looking. And for that, it didn't have any memorable scare scenes, gore, death scenes, there was no atmosphere, the costumes were really goofy and laughable (the wizard stuff there was just a 2nd rate version of Roger Corman's 1963 classic, The Raven... or whatever film about witches had guys dressed up like wizards), and the monsters didn't look that great. Really. In the sequel, they've gotten a bit of a make-over. And they look good, even better than the Gremlins from the original film. Then, you add the carnival backdrop of the film, and a lot of commentary on the way horror movies are jading kids that might enjoy a spook-house if they didn't watch so many horror films (that they're too young to see anyway ). Then, there's that famous scene with the weasely rich guy in that trailer...The one that actually uses the tagline from the first movie. It was written by Stuart Paoli from Re-Animator. And there's cool hard-rock / metal music (LOOK ON YouTube and you'll find a music video for the movie). And some pretty decent kill scenes. Leprechaun 2 and 3. Now, I can only imagine what you might be thinking... But the original Leprechaun was Critters with a monster instead of a bunch of creatures (both took place on a farm, have scenes in barns, had the potential victims running to find their truck had been wrecked, have scenes with cops being killed, and had funny scenes where the monsters look at consumer products that are similar to them). And there were quite a few cool moments in Leprechaun. But the first two sequels, badly acted or written though they may have been in parts, were cool or had something going for them. None of the Leprechaun films are masterpieces. But they are clever novelties. Part 2 is the best of the series, clearly. Not surprisingly because it was directed by Rodman Flender (who went on to do the stupid but very energetic and watchable Idle Hands). Unlike the first film with its awful special effects, part 2 has great gore (the "finger lickin' good" scene being the best, but also the hard to watch "I wish for your pot of gold" scene). And part 3 is my favorite because it finally does a lot to tackle the whole notion of greed that was missing from the first 2 movies. You got a few scheming people, sure. But in part 3 - everybody is a schemer! It takes place in Las Vegas and they really did put in a ton of staples of Vegas and greed - Casinos, Magic Acts, Televangelists, Pawn Shops, Celebrity Impersonators, Opportunistic Doctors, "Fountain of Youth" wish, Yuppie-Gangsters, Limousines, and more. More later.
|
|
piggsy
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ?
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by piggsy on Jul 12, 2008 16:05:14 GMT -5
Lazario, you and I may be the only two people on Earth who enjoyed Jason Takes Manhattan.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jul 12, 2008 23:45:12 GMT -5
Than that means the first Saw sucks. A lot.
i think its about time you just see it for yourself
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jul 13, 2008 2:02:40 GMT -5
Lazario, you and I may be the only two people on Earth who enjoyed Jason Takes Manhattan. Enjoy? Or: worship-at-the-altar-of? Than that means the first Saw sucks. A lot.i think its about time you just see it for yourself Don't think I don't want to. It's never fucking on anywhere. ... WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT!!! It's on YouTube!
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Jul 13, 2008 13:36:28 GMT -5
What is everyone's favorite Rambo? I haven't seen John Rambo yet but I like First Blood part2 where they are in Vietnam. Not great movies but I'm sure you guys have seen them.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jul 13, 2008 13:56:10 GMT -5
Rambo is boring. But I'm not an action movie or war movie fan nor expert.
|
|
piggsy
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ?
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by piggsy on Jul 13, 2008 14:20:45 GMT -5
My dad loves First Blood. I myself have never seen one of the films, but I'm not a huge action fan.
|
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Jul 13, 2008 15:18:45 GMT -5
First Blood is the only one I'd call good. It's a somewhat intelligent movie, with a very valid point to make about how this country treats vets. The sequels are just mindless action flicks. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
|
|