Third Films That Are The Best Of Their Franchise? [Archive]

Toku King

01-03-2009, 06:44 AM

Third films are currently known for being the worst films. So which third films are the rarities in which they are the best?
I'll throw in my hat and say "Rebirth Of Mothra 3". After the first two godawful films, Toho finally realizes that heavy tones on pollution, short monster fights, and eye rolling jokes are not how to make a monster movie. In the third movie, however, it seems that Toho finally got slapped in the face hard enough to say "You know how we could make these better?" The enemy was better than the first two, the action was better, the kids were better, the effects were better, the plot was better, the dialogue was better, and so on and so on. Virtually everything that made the first two suck was taken out and redone better with the third one.

Cyke

01-03-2009, 08:48 AM

I've read Roger Ebert calling the third Mummy movie to be the best, but I haven't seen that one and, frankly, "best Mummy movie" could mean anything, really.

I enjoyed The Last Crusade and Return of the Jedi more than their predecessors, though I regard The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark to be better made movies, respectively.

Since I already mentioned Star Wars, I'll cite Revenge of the Sith as better made AND more enjoyable than the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones as well.

Bruce Wayne Jr.

01-03-2009, 10:12 AM

Die Hard With a Vengeance.

Asmith

01-03-2009, 12:21 PM

Legato

01-03-2009, 01:30 PM

Revenge of The Sith was a vast improvement over the previous Star Wars Prequels

I rather liked Return of the King more than the other Lord of the Rings movies

Treqqor

01-03-2009, 01:56 PM

Austin Powers: Goldmember!!

I have seen this movie dozens of times and still enjoy it, the other 2 maybe twice? I still think they're funny, but I love Goldmember.

Your Imaginary Pal

01-03-2009, 02:08 PM

HP prisoner of azkhaban was the best of the first three Harry Potters.

the goddamn batman

01-03-2009, 02:22 PM

Back to the Future III, without question!

It completely saved the entire series and reframed the focus of the films from Marty to Doc. Inspiring stuff!

Here's a blog review I had a hand in:
http://saltyjim.blogspot.com/2008/12/back-to-future-iii.html

There's a very small but growing collection of some other 80s films reviewed on that blog as well.

Not the first person I've heard say III's better than II... but better than the first? No way. Not even close.

Deep_Sleeper

01-03-2009, 02:32 PM

Blade III!

....

Nah, I'm just joking.

Spider-Man 3

...

Yeah...joking again.

X3: The Last Stand

....

Okay, I can't keep up this pace. The movie was shit!

Asmith

01-03-2009, 03:00 PM

Not the first person I've heard say III's better than II... but better than the first? No way. Not even close.

Oh absolutely better than the first!
BttF III has lovely character arcs. Some actual depth. A beauty of spirit. A framing device through Doc that allows you to look back through the series and view the whole as greater than it's parts.

The first film was Michael J Fox running around pulling faces saying, 'Let's see Eric Stoltz get theses sorts of broad laughs!'

Though there was way more Lea Thompson in the first... so that wasn't a bad thing...

the goddamn batman

01-03-2009, 03:08 PM

I don't deny the character arcs, but I simply can't say it's a better movie.

Asmith

01-03-2009, 03:15 PM

I don't deny the character arcs, but I simply can't say it's a better movie.

It has ZZ Top. I don't understand how we could be having this discussion. It has ZZ Top in it!

Admittedlly, the first had way more technobabble and gee-gosh-williker style concepts, which are treated as given by the third installment. But that surface noise just weights the first flick down. With it relegated to the background by the third, we're given breathing room and a chance for the actors to explore more depth to their characters and story.

spoon_jenkins

01-03-2009, 03:16 PM

I've read Roger Ebert calling the third Mummy movie to be the best, but I haven't seen that one and, frankly, "best Mummy movie" could mean anything, really.
When I saw that quote in the commercial, I theorized that it was a backhanded compliment taken out of context as straight-forward plaudits.

Die Hard With a Vengeance.
I haven't seen numbers two or four, but I think I liked Die Hard With a Vengeance better than the first one.

the goddamn batman

01-03-2009, 03:29 PM

It has ZZ Top. I don't understand how we could be having this discussion. It has ZZ Top in it!

I don't like ZZ Top or pointless celebrity cameos. I think ZZ Top's inclusion really sums up how I feel about the movie in general. And it's the opposite of how you feel.

Admittedlly, the first had way more technobabble and gee-gosh-williker style concepts, which are treated as given by the third installment. But that surface noise just weights the first flick down. With it relegated to the background by the third, we're given breathing room and a chance for the actors to explore more depth to their characters and story.

I don't think it weighs it down. It's a part of the story. It's the how of the stories basic concept. How does that weigh it down?

I dunno, Back to the Future was absolutely my favorite movie as a kid. II was one of the most eagerly anticipated movies of my childhood and III was one of the biggest letdowns. Obviously I have a bias.

I've since grown to not hate III... in fact, I've got them all on streaming netflix and have been planning a marathon to revisit them all as it's been many years since I've seen any of them.

I don't know how they'll hold up for me now, but I suspect III will still be my least favorite.

Asmith

01-03-2009, 03:51 PM

I don't like ZZ Top or pointless celebrity cameos. I think ZZ Top's inclusion really sums up how I feel about the movie in general. And it's the opposite of how you feel.
I mentioned ZZ Top as a joke. Of course it's excessively cheesey! But at least they keep it as subtle a cameo as possible.

It had a Frisbee pie plate fight! How can you not love this film? Frisbee pie plate! You're dead to me!

I don't think it weighs it down. It's a part of the story. It's the how of the stories basic concept. How does that weigh it down?

Time travel is the stories basic concept. Explaining it endlessly is not, and bogs the scripting down.

Marty McFly's story pretty much ends with #2, and #3 serves more as a coda for his character than anything else. It's Doc that emerges surprisingly in #3 not just as the star of the final movie, but as the character the entire series, as it turns out, has been about. And the adventures of McFly the foil to lead the audience through Doc's rich personal tapestry.

With the third installment we get a maturing and a growing up. Not just of the story but both main characters as well.

I've the trilogy on DVD and watched it only recently. It's still very good. And maybe #2 is even a little more watchable now there's more distance from the 80s so it's easyier to laugh and giggle at the excesses. But three is the series concept stripped bare and pared back. I think you'll marvel at the gentleness of it's storytelling.

Plus, y'know, the freakin' Frisbee pie plate!

the goddamn batman

01-03-2009, 04:11 PM

I mentioned ZZ Top as a joke. Of course it's excessively cheesey! But at least they keep it as subtle a cameo as possible.

It had a Frisbee pie plate fight! How can you not love this film? Frisbee pie plate! You're dead to me!

Okay, I gotcha.

I dunno... as classic literature as it is to reuse the themes three times, something about the gags the third time just felt kinda... the charm had worn off a bit.

And I admit, I see III through a certain pair of letdown glasses that I've worn since it came out.

Time travel is the stories basic concept. Explaining it endlessly is not, and bogs the scripting down.

Marty McFly's story pretty much ends with #2, and #3 serves more as a coda for his character than anything else. It's Doc that emerges surprisingly in #3 not just as the star of the final movie, but as the character the entire series, as it turns out, has been about. And the adventures of McFly the foil to lead the audience through Doc's rich personal tapestry.

With the third installment we get a maturing and a growing up. Not just of the story but both main characters as well.

I've the trilogy on DVD and watched it only recently. It's still very good. And maybe #2 is even a little more watchable now there's more distance from the 80s so it's easyier to laugh and giggle at the excesses. But three is the series concept stripped bare and pared back. I think you'll marvel at the gentleness of it's storytelling.

Plus, y'know, the freakin' Frisbee pie plate!

I never thought they over explained anything. I never thought it bogged anything down.

I hope to enjoy III more than I have in the past, but, I still don't think I'll find it to be a better film. Regardless of it's merits. But, I guess as I see it, and as you're explaining it, or justifying it, it's only strength is based on the work that's come before it.

Like, would it be a great film on it's own? Can it even stand alone? Is it better to you only in contrast to II, as you're not a big fan of II? Whereas I liked II, so, to me it's not as good in contrast? I dunno... it's all very subjective.

I thought the contrast of Quantum of Solace to Casino Royale made each film stronger, but I don't think it's a better film than Casino. They work wonderfully in tandem, but on it's own, it's not a better film.

Everything you're saying about III is lost without what came before... and, like, it's hard to knock a sequel for being a sequel, and especially for being a decent or good sequel, but I don't think it's better than the original if it's real strengths come from the shoulders it stands on. If that makes any sense.

Asmith

01-03-2009, 05:05 PM

I dunno... as classic literature as it is to reuse the themes three times, something about the gags the third time just felt kinda... the charm had worn off a bit.

I'd agree with you entirely, however faced with the same gags, repeated through history trope they'd already set up, they very cleverly sidestepped that trap. By taking themselves back to the very beginning of Hill Valley and into the wild west they breath a new life into them. Was there really a more meanacing 'Biff chases McFly' around the town square gag than the third one where he doesn't try to hit him, he lynches him instead?

With the transplanting to the violent deadly west, the movie takes the light hearted gags of the previous two films and gives them a leathal and fatal edge. Biff's not threatening to steal McFly's date at the prom this time. He's just quite plainly going to shoot him dead.

Like, would it be a great film on it's own? Can it even stand alone? Is it better to you only in contrast to II, as you're not a big fan of II? Whereas I liked II, so, to me it's not as good in contrast? I dunno... it's all very subjective.

Everything you're saying about III is lost without what came before... and, like, it's hard to knock a sequel for being a sequel, and especially for being a decent or good sequel, but I don't think it's better than the original if it's real strengths come from the shoulders it stands on. If that makes any sense.

Well it is a sequel and it doesn't transend that! As a stand-alone film it would be a highly watchable and fun curio - it truly has a lot of strength, but as the third in a trilogy it carries so much more weight and impact. The very nature of a sequel reflects what's gone before it. And it's impossible to seperate it. As you say yourself.

But given that unavoidable reviewing limitations? Yes, I believe it's a stronger, tighter, more involving and frankly more interesting study of the characters than the first film. And it's place in the trilogy only makes it more so.

And let's not forget that the first film shouldn't be seperated out either. (But of course it's easier to do so since it was shot with the possibility of no further films following it, and for 4 years was the only film in the trilogy).

I find that the trilogy can enjoyably be watched by skipping the second film altogether - at least that way #2 doesn't reflect backwardly onto the first with it's cheap laughs and general excesses. Much like the Godfather trilogy hangs better if you don't watch the third.

Athena Bast

01-03-2009, 05:07 PM

Army of Darkness

joemagnum611

01-03-2009, 05:10 PM

When I saw that quote in the commercial, I theorized that it was a backhanded compliment taken out of context as straight-forward plaudits.

I haven't seen numbers two or four, but I think I liked Die Hard With a Vengeance better than the first one.

Die Hard With A Vengeance is a great movie but not as good as the first one the first time he says Yippie Ky Yay Motherfuckers is classic.

Bruce Wayne Jr.

01-03-2009, 05:24 PM

Die Hard With A Vengeance is a great movie but not as good as the first one the first time he says Yippie Ky Yay Motherfuckers is classic.

It always felt like "GTA starring John McClane" to me, which is cool. Running around New York dealing with a new and deadlier situation was constantly entertaining. Plus, Samuel Jackson before he became a parody of himself. He and Willis had a good bit of chemistry that kept things moving.

The original Die Hard is almost a different beast altogether. It's more of a claustrophobic, personal action movie. With a Vengeance takes the main character from that film and expands his world, to great effect imo.

All four of them are good fun.

I also agree with asmith about Back to the Future III. It really builds on the previous two entries, and gives Marty and Doc Brown's friendship time to shine. Their relationship makes the movie, and justifies the series.

Frank K

01-03-2009, 05:45 PM

What about Goldfinger? The third Bond movie and it's still my favorite of the entire series.

the goddamn batman

01-03-2009, 06:15 PM

I'd agree with you entirely, however faced with the same gags, repeated through history trope they'd already set up, they very cleverly sidestepped that trap. By taking themselves back to the very beginning of Hill Valley and into the wild west they breath a new life into them. Was there really a more meanacing 'Biff chases McFly' around the town square gag than the third one where he doesn't try to hit him, he lynches him instead?

Actually, that's a really great point!

With the transplanting to the violent deadly west, the movie takes the light hearted gags of the previous two films and gives them a leathal and fatal edge. Biff's not threatening to steal McFly's date at the prom this time. He's just quite plainly going to shoot him dead.

But that was never a real threat. The chances of anyone getting shot dead in this movie... regardless of it being the final installment were nonexistent.

But given that unavoidable reviewing limitations? Yes, I believe it's a stronger, tighter, more involving and frankly more interesting study of the characters than the first film. And it's place in the trilogy only makes it more so.

I'll give you the point about being more interesting with the characters themselves than the previous two, as well as it's place... but given that it's only that strong because of it's place and what it's building on, I don't think that makes it better.

All those point are irrelevant if you weren't interested in what had come before.

I find that the trilogy can enjoyably be watched by skipping the second film altogether - at least that way #2 doesn't reflect backwardly onto the first with it's cheap laughs and general excesses. Much like the Godfather trilogy hangs better if you don't watch the third.

Wow... I totally disagree. I think II has a few pacing issues, but it's a great film. I don't know why people dislike it so much. I honestly don't.

I also agree with asmith about Back to the Future III. It really builds on the previous two entries, and gives Marty and Doc Brown's friendship time to shine. Their relationship makes the movie, and justifies the series.

I can't argue the comment about their friendship. That's probably the strongest point of the film for me.

Asmith

01-03-2009, 06:37 PM

But that was never a real threat. The chances of anyone getting shot dead in this movie... regardless of it being the final installment were nonexistent.

ha... true. But still, McFly gets lynched!
Factoid: while filming that, the neck brace hook slipped on Michael J Fox, and he actually started strangling. They haulted filming a day or two as he recovered!

All those point are irrelevant if you weren't interested in what had come before.

Oh I don't know. This obviously goes to preference, but I can only watch the second film because of the good movies that bracket either side of it. But the third contains it's own internal strength. Helped along no doubt, by the placing of it into the alien wild west. Very seperate from either 1980s or 50s Hill Valley.

But, yes. There's no way you'd get to the third installment if you didn't enjoy something in the first two. Tremors 3 anyone...?

Wow... I totally disagree. I think II has a few pacing issues, but it's a great film. I don't know why people dislike it so much. I honestly don't.
The future (dehydrated pizza, two ties etc) is just too cheesey and too much of a piss-take. Then once they're back in the 50s it becomes a 'lets revisit every scene you loved in the first film' tour on rails with no exit in sight. Plus the McGuffin of Biff's Almanac is beaten to death - way too much focus.

Yeah there are some clever moments, and it's colourful and like a Diet Pepsi it's sweet and carbonated. But it seems to take every opportunity to make sure it doesn't really develop the characters beyond the end of the first film. (Tacking on McFly's fear of being called chicken doesn't count - 'cause it's dumb).

But, man, I'm still wanting one of those hover boards...

Major Danger

01-03-2009, 06:44 PM

Goldfinger

This was the one when the James Bond we all know finally came together, the girls, the gadgets, his first Aston Martin, Oddjob and a diabolical over-the-top villain with an outrageous but plausible plan. Connery really seemed at ease in the role as well. Shirley Bassey's main title song set the standard by which all Bond and non-Bond spy movie themes were rated by and John Barry's score is excellent as usual. and of course:
"Do you expect me to talk, Goldfinger?"
"No Mister Bond, I expect you to die!"

It's my favorite.

Treqqor

01-03-2009, 06:50 PM

The future (dehydrated pizza, two ties etc) is just too cheesey and too much of a piss-take. Then once they're back in the 50s it becomes a 'lets revisit every scene you loved in the first film' tour on rails with no exit in sight. Plus the McGuffin of Biff's Almanac is beaten to death - way too much focus.

I always liked going back to the 50's. It's probably one of the truest "sequels" ever created, in that it not only revisits what was done in the first movie, but adds to it, not being just a beat for beat copy like some other sequels (Crusade to Raiders of the Lost Arc; Return of the Jedi to A New Hope; etc)

Plus the Almanac is the farthest thing from a McGuffin. You know what it is, you know exactly how devastating to the future it can be, the focus on it was well balanced for being such a pivotal and crucial to the outcome plotpoint. (A true McGuffin has nothing to do with the plot whatsoever.)

the goddamn batman

01-03-2009, 07:01 PM

The future (dehydrated pizza, two ties etc) is just too cheesey and too much of a piss-take.

How much of that is revisionist thinking, though? Those things, while certainly goofy now were fine in 1989... and, it's a pretty light hearted family movie, so like, shouldn't it be a bit fun and goofy?

Also, yes, it's completely stained by the era in which it was made. But I have a hard time holding that against it.

But, man, I'm still wanting one of those hover boards...

I've never stopped wanting one. I'd take the pink Mattel one if I could.

Plus the Almanac is the farthest thing from a McGuffin.

I meant to mention that. Yeah, it's not at all a McGuffin.

Chiasm

01-03-2009, 07:01 PM

Harry Potter's third movie is still the best of the series.

Asmith

01-03-2009, 07:19 PM

How much of that is revisionist thinking, though? Those things, while certainly goofy now were fine in 1989... and, it's a pretty light hearted family movie, so like, shouldn't it be a bit fun and goofy?

Also, yes, it's completely stained by the era in which it was made. But I have a hard time holding that against it.
Hey, I love me the 80s. And while the films are goofy and should be fun, the future scenes overstep the internal universe bounds of the film. From wacky and outlandish, into cartoony. Instead of finding humour in the characters, it looks for the jokes in it's over the top cartoonish representation of the world to come.

The thick cover of quickly aging 80s veneer it's pickled in, has come to be it's greatest strength now almost 20 years on. It's aged into fine High Camp. But it still steps outside of itself to do it. Did we really need Michael J Fox in drag? It pops the audience out of the flick to get a cheap one-off laugh.

I meant to mention that. Yeah, it's not at all a McGuffin.
Well it meets 2 of the 3 criteria... y'know, except for the unimportant bit... okay, okay! It's not a McGuffin. Can I call it a HokeyPlotStirrer3000?

the goddamn batman

01-03-2009, 07:30 PM

it looks for the jokes in it's over the top cartoonish representation of the world to come.

It was very much the 80's with different "technology"... I find it hard to chastise that end of it.

Did we really need Michael J Fox in drag? It pops the audience out of the flick to get a cheap one-off laugh.

No, that was a terrible mistake. If anything, it should have been Jennifer (what's her real name?) playing the daughter like Michael played the son.

I never liked that bit.

Well it meets 2 of the 3 criteria... y'know, except for the unimportant bit... okay, okay! It's not a McGuffin. Can I call it a HokeyPlotStirrer3000?

Yeah, sure, that's fine, I guess. Though, it really is the hinge the whole movie swings on.

Asmith

01-03-2009, 07:56 PM

Yeah, sure, that's fine, I guess. Though, it really is the hinge the whole movie swings on.

Yep, and that there's the problem. While the Almanac isn't a McGuffin as it's far too central to the plot, it should be a McGuffin!

Way too much time is spent focusing on this book. With some better writing, like we see in BttF3, we could have had the book propel characters together and then their own interactions motivate and move the plot on from there.

That all said... I've now got the bigggest yen to watch BttF2 this evening...

the goddamn batman

01-03-2009, 08:03 PM

That all said... I've now got the bigggest yen to watch BttF2 this evening...

and I to watch 3...

but I want to watch them all in order, which I don't know that I have time for this evening.

suttercain

01-03-2009, 09:08 PM

stealthwise

01-03-2009, 10:50 PM

Wow, entertaining and civilized stuff with the BTTF movies. Good stuff guys. I too prefer the first one, but when I was a kid I was all about the second one, as I loved the future stuff. The first one has that great 50s feel to it, while the other two look like they're struggling a bit to outdo that first one.

As far as the question of the OP goes, I can't think of a single third movie that outdoes the first two.

Wolf-Man

01-03-2009, 11:44 PM

Ok so its probably not the best, but I find myself watching Rocky III more than the others. It's got Clubber Lang in it, and he's worth it. So maybe not the best, but the most enjoyable I think.

mgs

01-04-2009, 12:45 AM

not exactly my faves, but for some they may be...

Return of the King - I liked it but I also liked the very action toned down, first of this trilogy.

Chasing Amy - yes, the third in the View Askew-iverse, if you will. Some regard it as a very good movie. I have to watch it again to make a true judgement.

Libaax

01-04-2009, 04:42 AM

I don't deny the character arcs, but I simply can't say it's a better movie.

I agree both sequals dont hold a candle against the original BttF.

suttercain

01-04-2009, 10:09 AM

I remember watching the third one in the theater and at the end when the train smashes into the Delorean I was so freaking pissed. I literally got mad at Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale. I felt betrayed. They killed off a main character.

I can't think of any third film that tops it's predecessors. Die Hard one was better than the third. Spider-Man 2 was better than three. Superman ! & II way way better than III. Jaws better than Seaworld Jaws.

What about Friday the 13th 3. The one when Jason gets the hockey masks and kills the guy in the wheelchair? Plus the biker gang. Huh? The biker gang was cool.

marshal99

01-04-2009, 10:56 AM

spoon_jenkins

01-04-2009, 11:45 AM

Ok so its probably not the best, but I find myself watching Rocky III more than the others. It's got Clubber Lang in it, and he's worth it. So maybe not the best, but the most enjoyable I think.
Yeah, Rocky III has the best opponent and the best cheesy song.

Nightmare on Elm Street 3 pretty much moved away from the first 2 movies , making it more freddy with his one liners. The first one is still better but the 3rd one is pretty good and has arguably the best ending of the NOES franchise imo.

Nightmare on Elm Street is perhaps unique in that the seventh film is the best!

suttercain

01-04-2009, 12:45 PM

Nightmare on Elm Street is perhaps unique in that the seventh film is the best!

By seventh film you mean "New Nightmare" or "Freddy VS. Jason"?

spoon_jenkins

01-04-2009, 04:10 PM

By seventh film you mean "New Nightmare" or "Freddy VS. Jason"?
New Nightmare.

the goddamn batman

01-04-2009, 10:03 PM

The Goddamn Batman is right.

This is pretty much all that ever needed to be said. This should be a forum rule.

Christopher Cross Is God

01-04-2009, 10:50 PM

Ok so its probably not the best, but I find myself watching Rocky III more than the others. It's got Clubber Lang in it, and he's worth it. So maybe not the best, but the most enjoyable I think.

You forgot about Thunderlips!

The only "3rd movie" I can think of where I find it's better than the previous two is MI:3 ........I didn't like the first two Mission Impossible films at all, but numero tres wasn't bad.

This isn't a 3rd film, but rather 4th, in a franchise, but I always found Lethal Weapon 4 to be better than the previous 3 LW's. Of course, that's primarily because I didn't care much for the first 3 LW's.

marshal99

01-04-2009, 11:44 PM

I think LW 4 was good because of the presence of Jet Li , he's a real memorable badass in that one , his first english movie. I can't even remember the bad guys in 1 to 3.

Legato

01-04-2009, 11:46 PM

Nightmare on Elm Street 3 pretty much moved away from the first 2 movies , making it more freddy with his one liners. The first one is still better but the 3rd one is pretty good and has arguably the best ending of the NOES franchise imo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT5frKwJ8_Y

Jackie chan's police story 3 was great , and it reintroduce Michelle Yeoh back to the action movie scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIzGRADAWu8

Aces goes place III aka Mad Mission 3 with the James Bond spoof was fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8NZMYAkMOg

While I did prefer the Freddy as a unholy monster of evil than a comedic one liner Freddy I do see part three as my version of the final Nightmare on Elm Street series since the third movie brought back Nancy. The whole Freddy having a daughter thing in Freddy's Dead was rubbish.

Christopher Cross Is God

01-04-2009, 11:47 PM

I think LW 4 was good because of the presence of Jet Li , he's a real memorable badass in that one , his first english movie. I can't even remember the bad guys in 1 to 3.

Exactly, Jet Li was fantastic......Then you had Chris Rock joining in with Joe Pesci for the comic relief.

Legato

01-04-2009, 11:50 PM

I do like Hellraiser: Bloodlines. Mostly due to the backstory behind Pinhead and The Toybox

Legato

01-04-2009, 11:51 PM

Exactly, Jet Li was fantastic......Then you had Chris Rock joining in with Joe Pesci for the comic relief.

In which I did find him more funny than Joe Pesci. What I liked is that Mel Gibsons character even admited that "He was getting too old for this shit".

marshal99

01-05-2009, 12:19 AM

I do like Hellraiser: Bloodlines. Mostly due to the backstory behind Pinhead and The Toybox

Not for me , part 4 was when the hellraiser franchise went downhill imo.

I enjoyed Part 1-3 , 4 not so much , don't talk to me about the other hellraiser movies after (and i watched most of them , sucker for punishment i guess) . Even Ashley Laurence's kirsty , the heroine in the original hellraiser 1 & 2 , couldn't help the franchise when she showed up in part 6 to close off her character's chapter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQNuiVRTpCc

Legato

01-05-2009, 12:30 AM

Not for me , part 4 was when the hellraiser franchise went downhill imo.

I enjoyed Part 1-3 , 4 not so much , don't talk to me about the other hellraiser movies after (and i watched most of them , sucker for punishment i guess) . Even Ashley Laurence's kirsty , the heroine in the original hellraiser 1 & 2 , couldn't help the franchise when she showed up in part 6 to close off her character's chapter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQNuiVRTpCc

I consider part for a Guilty Pleasure of mine. Mostly because of the backstory instead of the Hellraiser in space stuff that happened later.

What are your thoughts on the third Mad Max movie? To me personaly it was decent but when it got Beyond Thunderdome then that is when the movie went downhill.

marshal99

01-05-2009, 12:33 AM

No comments on mad max movies , watched it , doesn't really stick with me , forgotten about it. I'm more of a horror buff than anything else.

Jared

01-05-2009, 01:23 AM

You forgot about Thunderlips!

The only "3rd movie" I can think of where I find it's better than the previous two is MI:3 ........I didn't like the first two Mission Impossible films at all, but numero tres wasn't bad.

I agree with this one. The best written and directed of the three. And they actually remembered the 'Mission Impossible' is supposed to be about a team!

The Black Guardian

01-05-2009, 01:47 AM

What are your thoughts on the third Mad Max movie? To me personaly it was decent but when it got Beyond Thunderdome then that is when the movie went downhill.
Road Warrior was the best of the three, imo. Those damned kids from Crack in the Earth ruin Thunderdome for me.

jesse_custer

01-05-2009, 09:11 AM

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is the best third film of any series, and I don't think it will be topped soon.

DubipR

01-05-2009, 09:24 AM

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is the best third film of any series, and I don't think it will be topped soon.

Print and Wrap...we have a winner. I was wondering when this might show up.

Christopher Cross Is God

01-05-2009, 10:58 AM

Road Warrior was the best of the three, imo. Those damned kids from Crack in the Earth ruin Thunderdome for me.

Agreed on Road Warrior being the best of the three........Beyond Thunderdome should've been good, but wasn't. One thing I didn't get was why Bruce Spence, who had a prominent role in Road Warrior, would play a different, but very similar, character in Beyond Thunderdome. I remember some people getting confused, thinking he was still The Gyro Captain.........I know others played different roles, such as the retarded guy in Mad Max playing as one of the random protaganists in Road Warrior, but Spence was too much of a familiar figure to do such with.

My feelings on Mad Max (The first film) is, it had great stunts, but had too much of that weird 70's vibe & low budget cheese for me. I still got it on DVD, for the stunts alone (And to have the original Australian dialogue). It's one of those movies where, if I chopped it up and took out at least 1/4 of the film, I'd enjoy it a lot more.

Road Warrior itself had a bit of that low budget cheese factor, but is still enjoyable.......Probably due to characters like Wez, The Gyro Captain, The Feral Kid, and even The Lord Humongous! I do think Humongous should've been utilized in a more effective way.

StoneGold

01-05-2009, 11:58 AM

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is the best third film of any series, and I don't think it will be topped soon.

Only if you count American marketing making the thing a series.

jesse_custer

01-05-2009, 12:10 PM

True.

Let's just say if you do count it, nothing comes close.

Agent Helix

01-05-2009, 12:47 PM

Die Hard With a Vengeance.

No. DIE HARD is a nearly perfect movie. The sequels are fun to varying degrees, but none are anything close to the original. The less said about the fourth, the better.

Army of Darkness

No. Evil Dead 2 is where this should have ended. Army of Darkness was cute when I was a teenager, but the slapstick and mugging is overdone and tiresome, especially compared to the near perfect combination of horror and comedy in the previous films.

Back to the Future III, without question!

It completely saved the entire series and reframed the focus of the films from Marty to Doc. Inspiring stuff!

Easily questioned. And the answer is no.

Austin Powers: Goldmember!!

I have seen this movie dozens of times and still enjoy it, the other 2 maybe twice? I still think they're funny, but I love Goldmember.

Goldmember has to be one of the most abysmal "comedies" I've ever seen.

jesse_custer

01-05-2009, 12:51 PM

I agree with everything said in the post above.

Especially about Die Hard. That's one of the greatest action films period.

Agent Helix

01-05-2009, 12:58 PM

Also, New Nightmare isn't a patch on Dream Warriors. It's too meta, and the underlying conceit of the plot is one of the dumbest in film history.

Sean Walsh

01-05-2009, 02:01 PM

I've read Roger Ebert calling the third Mummy movie to be the best, but I haven't seen that one and, frankly, "best Mummy movie" could mean anything, really.

Wow. EVERYONE I know who saw that movie both (a) loved the first 2, and (b) HATED this 3rd one.

StoneGold

01-05-2009, 02:06 PM

No. Evil Dead 2 is where this should have ended. Army of Darkness was cute when I was a teenager, but the slapstick and mugging is overdone and tiresome, especially compared to the near perfect combination of horror and comedy in the previous films.

Depends on how you look at it. AOD fails completely as a horror film, but apart from its prequels being them, it really has nothing to do with horror. It's a movie that not only defies classification, it defies you to even try to classify it. It's what happens when you make a studio movie, the studio completely forgets to pay attention, and then everyone involved pretty much goes insane.

StoneGold

01-05-2009, 02:07 PM

Wow. EVERYONE I know who saw that movie both (a) loved the first 2, and (b) HATED this 3rd one.

Wait, is the Jet Li one the third movie, or is the Scorpion King?

jesse_custer

01-05-2009, 02:12 PM

Depends on how you look at it. AOD fails completely as a horror film, but apart from its prequels being them, it really has nothing to do with horror. It's a movie that not only defies classification, it defies you to even try to classify it. It's what happens when you make a studio movie, the studio completely forgets to pay attention, and then everyone involved pretty much goes insane.

Army of Darkness isn't that funny during the second half. I was humored for 50 minutes before thinking, "So why does everyone suck this one off again?"

Not a horrible movie by any means, but the first two films engaged me much longer.

Chiasm

01-05-2009, 02:40 PM

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is the best third film of any series, and I don't think it will be topped soon.

I actually thought of this but I'd also always thought it was the first of the three made and the other two were prequels that came later. Just looked it up and saw I was wrong.

Legato

01-05-2009, 02:44 PM

I agree with this one. The best written and directed of the three. And they actually remembered the 'Mission Impossible' is supposed to be about a team!

I agree. The third movie brought back the team aspect of Mission Impossible, which I find lacking in part 2 as it was trying to be a american version of James Bond.

As far as the Halloween series go I like part one better. Yet Part four wasn't too bad but I wished that was part 3 instead of the one that didn't have anything to do with Myers in it.

StoneGold

01-05-2009, 03:15 PM

I actually thought of this but I'd also always thought it was the first of the three made and the other two were prequels that came later. Just looked it up and saw I was wrong.

Actually, for those that try to make the movies fit together, TGTBATU is the prequel.

Enyo

01-05-2009, 04:02 PM

Wow. EVERYONE I know who saw that movie both (a) loved the first 2, and (b) HATED this 3rd one.

The third Mummy film was the best, probably the best of the genre since Raiders. Agree with Return of the King, spectacular, one of my favorite films of all time.

Cyke

01-05-2009, 04:30 PM

No. DIE HARD is a nearly perfect movie. The sequels are fun to varying degrees, but none are anything close to the original. The less said about the fourth, the better.

No. Evil Dead 2 is where this should have ended. Army of Darkness was cute when I was a teenager, but the slapstick and mugging is overdone and tiresome, especially compared to the near perfect combination of horror and comedy in the previous films.

Easily questioned. And the answer is no.

Goldmember has to be one of the most abysmal "comedies" I've ever seen.

As much as I agree with pretty much every one of your answers, saying a straight up "no" to someone's opinion as if they were wrong is pretty cold.

StoneGold

01-05-2009, 05:02 PM

marshal99

01-05-2009, 08:26 PM

Army of Darkness isn't that funny during the second half. I was humored for 50 minutes before thinking, "So why does everyone suck this one off again?"

Not a horrible movie by any means, but the first two films engaged me much longer.

The first evil dead was pure horror , no comedy whatsoever
Evil dead II was part horror , part comedy
Army of Darkness was mostly comedy , less horror

Army of darkness did pave the way for the silly hercules & xena tv series to come , since they used that same formula for those series

Agent Helix

01-05-2009, 08:46 PM

As much as I agree with pretty much every one of your answers, saying a straight up "no" to someone's opinion as if they were wrong is pretty cold.

I'm not known for my incredible warmth.

The Black Guardian

01-05-2009, 10:24 PM

Except the movie is like 74 minutes long. And part of that is the end credits.
And a few minutes of recap in the beginning.

Seriously though, all was great in AOD until Ash broke character and pulled it together to rally the people against the AOD. From that point, it just seems off. I still prefer AOD to the other movies, probably because it was so purely Bruce Campbell. And there is no better AOD than the director's cut.

marshal99

01-06-2009, 01:43 AM

Director's cut was with the good ending or bad ending ?!

"Shop smart , shop S-mart".

The first evil dead still tops it , pretty scary movie at that time done with such a low budget.

Chiasm

01-06-2009, 01:51 AM

Actually, for those that try to make the movies fit together, TGTBATU is the prequel.

Well I've never seen the other two so I wouldn't know.

Asmith

01-06-2009, 02:52 AM

As much as I agree with pretty much every one of your answers, saying a straight up "no" to someone's opinion as if they were wrong is pretty cold.

I'm not known for my incredible warmth.

Plus it saves on the potential embarassment of people thinking you've got insight into your own opinions...

The Black Guardian

01-06-2009, 03:11 AM

Director's cut was with the good ending or bad ending ?!
However you describe the ending where he oversleeps, waking up in a post-apocalyptic future. Bad for Ash, but that's why it's so gooood.
"Shop smart , shop S-mart".

The first evil dead still tops it , pretty scary movie at that time done with such a low budget.
My parents pretty much ruined me on horror movies when I was very young. Scary doesn't interest me much unless there's a twist.

jesse_custer

01-06-2009, 07:37 AM

Except the movie is like 74 minutes long. And part of that is the end credits.

Closer to 80 minutes. Irrelevant anyway, though. The point is that I wanted to turn it off.

The first evil dead was pure horror , no comedy whatsoever

Wrong. Perhaps the humor is too dark for some, but it's there.

suttercain

01-06-2009, 08:41 AM

Not for me , part 4 was when the hellraiser franchise went downhill imo.

I'm with you. The entire space thing is lame. Jason X, Critters 4, Leprechaun 4 and others all went down hill once they venture into the final frontier.

I wouldn't be surprised is we soon witnessed Chucky in space.

Black Atom

01-06-2009, 11:16 AM

jesse_custer

01-06-2009, 11:52 AM

Attention to detail, sir. Deus ex machina that FUCKING MELTS FACES

the goddamn batman

01-06-2009, 12:39 PM

Asmith

01-06-2009, 02:03 PM

Last Crusade kinda drags in places... and Raiders has the aforementioned face melting, which, like... win!

Hey lookie this! We agree.

My vote is definitely in for Raiders being the superior flick to Crusade. Though Crusade had many character moments that could well rival Raiders (especially with the charming inclusion of Sean Connery), I found Crusade's insistence on shooting so many scenes on obvious sound stages both distracting and detracting. Not that Raiders didn't have it's own fair share of sets, but their design was far superior in quality.

Raider's with the large amount of location shooting gave the film a realistic edge which was vital to carrying the audience through the comic book plotline. Crusade failed at this, and instead delivered a film as cartoony looking as it's plot.

StoneGold

01-06-2009, 02:23 PM

I liked Last Crusade more than the other Indy movies, including Raiders, which I'm still not sure why everyone feels is empirically superior. It seems repetitive and has a deux ex machina.
.

They all have deus ex machina. Literally. All of them, one god or another shows up and bitch slaps the bad guys. God melts Nazis. God possesses Indy and makes the Sankara stone hot to make Mola Ram fall off the bridge. God makes the temple collapse when the Grail is brought past the threshold.

That's the whole point of the Indy films - gods will #$*( you up. I guess it even counts for 4, if you count the aliens as gods. But it's how every Indy film ends - try to achieve ultimate power via mythological items, and the mythological items will find some way to bite you in the ass.

the goddamn batman

01-06-2009, 02:34 PM

Hey lookie this! We agree.

My vote is definitely in for Raiders being the superior flick to Crusade. Though Crusade had many character moments that could well rival Raiders (especially with the charming inclusion of Sean Connery), I found Crusade's insistence on shooting so many scenes on obvious sound stages both distracting and detracting. Not that Raiders didn't have it's own fair share of sets, but their design was far superior in quality.

Raider's with the large amount of location shooting gave the film a realistic edge which was vital to carrying the audience through the comic book plotline. Crusade failed at this, and instead delivered a film as cartoony looking as it's plot.

We totally agree!:smile:

Black Atom

01-06-2009, 02:42 PM

They all have deus ex machina. Literally. All of them, one god or another shows up and bitch slaps the bad guys. God melts Nazis. God possesses Indy and makes the Sankara stone hot to make Mola Ram fall off the bridge. God makes the temple collapse when the Grail is brought past the threshold.

That's the whole point of the Indy films - gods will #$*( you up. I guess it even counts for 4, if you count the aliens as gods. But it's how every Indy film ends - try to achieve ultimate power via mythological items, and the mythological items will find some way to bite you in the ass.

The problem I have with it is that Indy really doesn't do anything to save the day. Had he been killed halfway through the movie the Nazis would've gotten away with the Ark, opened, and been killed regardless of his involvement. The way the Ark kinda becomes a hot potato is kinda bothersome to me as well, though I know it's somewhat a stable of the genre (happened in Crystal Skull also).

jesse_custer

01-06-2009, 02:49 PM

You're right. They would have died anyway. (Which is somewhat interesting. One would think the hero of an adventure would save the day. Ninja Scroll is another example of toning down obvious heroics--Jubei wins some battles by luck.)

But the film wouldn't have been entertaining without Indy. That's what I take away from it.

Raiders also makes me laugh more than the others.

ultramandingo

01-06-2009, 06:34 PM

.............Yojimbo , Tsubaki Sanjûrô , Shichinin no samurai

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/901/mifunend3.jpg (http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mifunend3.jpg)
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/mifunend3.jpg/1/w244.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img261/mifunend3.jpg/1/)

the goddamn batman

01-06-2009, 08:02 PM

You're right. They would have died anyway.

Yeah, but what a ride! Last Crusade was not as fun a ride. And, ultimately, Indy movies are about the ride.

Asmith

01-07-2009, 06:16 AM

Yeah, but what a ride! Last Crusade was not as fun a ride. And, ultimately, Indy movies are about the ride.

Yep, which is one of the many reasons why Temple of Doom is the greatest Indy movie of the lot! Mining cart rollercoaster chase! Rubber raft mountain sledding! Incredible scenes of action that swept whole theatres of audiences away. What a ride! And that incredibly tense scene on the shaky rope bridge that left viewers gasping! Just a few of the reasons that propel Temple to all time best Indy film!

Kate Capshaws wonderful and powerful turn as Indy's moral compass, doing a terrific job replacing Karen Allen and even surpassing her for onscreen chemistry with Ford. And the young fiesty character of Shortround becoming the perfect window for young kids to gain entrance into the action packed world of Indiana Jones - something largely denied them in the first film.

All of this beautiful characterisation and wild seat of your pants action wrapped up in a script filled with a gentle subtle humour (monkey brains!) and a respectful, almost reverential tour of the belief systems of Indian culture. The film is so spiritual in nature it even has Indy submitting to the existence of the Indian gods as he intones the chants to activate the holy stones. It was an exciting and uplifting time to be in cinemas in 1984! And really, who am I kidding here? It's a turkey. The film was hashed-together references to Raiders and was gruelling in places to sit through, and occassionally even painful. Shortround needed to die visibly and painfully onscreen to justify his role in this flick. This was not a good movie, let alone a good Indy film! Highly deserving of it's place at the bottom of the Indy pile... or has the Crystal Skull taken that spot? I've not built up the courage to watch it as yet.

Muggs

01-07-2009, 06:38 AM

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is the best third film of any series, and I don't think it will be topped soon.

This is the winner. It's also the best prequel aswell.

GRANT!

01-07-2009, 08:15 PM

I just saw one that would work. Playtime by Jacques Tati featuring his Monsieur Hulot character.

suttercain

01-07-2009, 08:46 PM

Beverly Hills Cop III... huh? Axel Foley is back and in a theme park... huh?

Asmith

01-07-2009, 08:55 PM

I just saw one that would work. Playtime by Jacques Tati featuring his Monsieur Hulot character.

True. It's better than Holiday.
Though not as brilliant as Mon Uncle.

Motormouse

01-08-2009, 02:29 AM

Mummy 3 was just shite. It's not better than anything, except maybe having q-tips shoved in your urethra.

I quite liked the Mummy III, but my enjoyment was spoiled because Rachael Wiess wasn't playing the Evie roll. Just plain didn't like the new actress that they got to play the part. :rolleyes:

Jared

01-08-2009, 05:41 PM

Temple of Doom is, without irony, my favorite of the Indy movies. It's only since Crystal Skull came out that I've even heard of people hating it.

Asmith

01-08-2009, 06:02 PM

Temple of Doom is, without irony, my favorite of the Indy movies. It's only since Crystal Skull came out that I've even heard of people hating it.

Really? You've never heard the genera universal dismissal of Temple of Doom before?

Well I'm certainly no fan of it (my piss-taking post above is enough proof of that), but what do you see in the film? What is it that makes it stand over the other entries in the Indy series for you?

Black Atom

01-08-2009, 06:04 PM

Asmith

01-08-2009, 06:15 PM

I don't get the ToD hate either. It's kinda like the Ewoks. Over the years, it kinda became en vogue to hate it. The mine cart chase might be the best action sequence in all the movies. It's underrated in my opinion.

I saw Temple of Doom and Return of the Jedi's Ewoks in first cinema release as a kid. And on the playground afterwards there was a general consensus that there wasn't much love for these two things.

This dislike isn't something that's grown over time into a fashion. It's been there since the start. I'd have said instead that the intervening years has fosted a softening nostalgia towards them.

spoon_jenkins

01-08-2009, 06:46 PM

I don't get the ToD hate either. It's kinda like the Ewoks. Over the years, it kinda became en vogue to hate it. The mine cart chase might be the best action sequence in all the movies. It's underrated in my opinion.
I think the two reasons I hear most often for why people dislike ToD is:
(1) it's too "dark" (ripping hearts out, brainwashed Indy smacking Shortround, etc.)
(2) it's gross (monkey's brains, bugs, etc.).
I could see how people could rank it third. For example, Kate Capshaw is my least favorite of the Indiana Jones leading ladies. But I don't think it's a huge drop-off in quality. It's not in Crystal Skull territory. And I like Shortround.

Like you, I don't get the anti-Ewok hate. In fact, I didn't realize it was a big phenomenon until a few years ago. I don't understand how folks who hate the Ewoks so much became Star Wars fans in the first place. I would've thought they'd be outraged 20 minutes into the first movie by R2D2 and the Jawas. To me, the Ewoks are the same ballparks as those characters or Yoda - not like Gungans. I don't think being cute should disqualify Ewoks from being good Star Wars characters, otherwise you got toss out a lot of others. And I don't they take me out of the movie either. They work as primitive, short anti-Empire humanoids. They don't speak in baby-talk (but anyway R2D2's vocalizations are sort of like baby cooings). I've heard that people think they fight too well. They don't do any superhuman quadruple backflips. They're guerilla fighters who can be effective on their home turf. And a lot of them die anyway.

spoon_jenkins

01-08-2009, 06:53 PM

joemagnum611

01-08-2009, 07:53 PM

I think the two reasons I hear most often for why people dislike ToD is:
(1) it's too "dark" (ripping hearts out, brainwashed Indy smacking Shortround, etc.)
(2) it's gross (monkey's brains, bugs, etc.).
I could see how people could rank it third. For example, Kate Capshaw is my least favorite of the Indiana Jones leading ladies. But I don't think it's a huge drop-off in quality. It's not in Crystal Skull territory. And I like Shortround.

Like you, I don't get the anti-Ewok hate. In fact, I didn't realize it was a big phenomenon until a few years ago. I don't understand how folks who hate the Ewoks so much became Star Wars fans in the first place. I would've thought they'd be outraged 20 minutes into the first movie by R2D2 and the Jawas. To me, the Ewoks are the same ballparks as those characters or Yoda - not like Gungans. I don't think being cute should disqualify Ewoks from being good Star Wars characters, otherwise you got toss out a lot of others. And I don't they take me out of the movie either. They work as primitive, short anti-Empire humanoids. They don't speak in baby-talk (but anyway R2D2's vocalizations are sort of like baby cooings). I've heard that people think they fight too well. They don't do any superhuman quadruple backflips. They're guerilla fighters who can be effective on their home turf. And a lot of them die anyway.

Oh God I think that the Ewoks were the worst idea ever. Especially when you hear that the original Idea was to go to the Wookie planet. That would have been a little easier to swallow.

Jared

01-08-2009, 11:22 PM

I think the two reasons I hear most often for why people dislike ToD is:
(1) it's too "dark" (ripping hearts out, brainwashed Indy smacking Shortround, etc.)
(2) it's gross (monkey's brains, bugs, etc.).

The gross/scare factor was part of the appeal when I was a kid. It was the kind of movie boys would be almost boast about watching. Hell, let's not forget the crushing room with all the bugs.

I do think the mine car chase is a great sequence. But the whole opening with the item-swap turning into a brawl with Indy being poisoned was great fun. Yes, Willie was a bitch, but that's what made it fun to see her terrorized by harmless animals and pass out at the sight of monkey brains. The bridge climax was one of the most suspenseful things I'd ever seen the first time. When you realize that Indy really is going to cut the rope, it's an awesome moment.

Raiders and Last Crusade are great too, but they suffer a bit for being so similar to each other. And I don't like the Deus Ex Machina of the Ark either. As was already said, if Indy were killed halfway through the movie, it wouldn't have made any difference.

And Short Round was cool, damnit!

jesse_custer

01-09-2009, 07:21 AM

The Temple of Doom has some of the best pacing in any movie. Ever.

Agent Helix

01-09-2009, 09:33 AM

I love the first three Indy movies to varying degrees. Of them, I think Crusade is objectively the worst, because it's dodgy on pacing and characterization, and feels too much of a Raiders re-hash at points.

Raiders is another of those near perfect films. It's shot so well, acted so perfectly for the material, and paced so amazingly that it's almost infinitely rewatchable. Complaining because Indy's actions ultimately don't save the day or affect the outcome of Belloq's plan seems to be missing the point so utterly and completely I can't even understand it. That's like saying they should've just had some eagles drop the ring in the volcano and saved everybody some time.

Black Atom

01-09-2009, 10:52 AM

I saw Temple of Doom and Return of the Jedi's Ewoks in first cinema release as a kid. And on the playground afterwards there was a general consensus that there wasn't much love for these two things.

This dislike isn't something that's grown over time into a fashion. It's been there since the start. I'd have said instead that the intervening years has fosted a softening nostalgia towards them.

I guess I have to take your word on the first part, since I didn't see Jedi until at least seven years later.

But I can't really agree about the nostalgia. I think I really began to hear people bitch about the Ewoks and ROTJ in general when the Special Edition versions of the movies were released. That's really when people first started to openly criticize Lucas to begin with, which was compounded with the release of Phantom Menace and the other Prequels. Rightly, people identified that a lot of the silliness/goofiness that made certain parts of Special Edition/the Prequels seem so stupid started to creep up for the first time in ROTJ (mostly via increasing use of "cute" gags with muppets, like the frog-thing outside Jabba's palace, Salacious Crumb and, of course, the Ewoks) and because of that, the movie is remembered as worse than it actually is. I've heard some people even suggest that Revenge of the Sith is superior to Jedi, which is just insanity.

Agent Helix

01-09-2009, 10:55 AM

Jedi is 2/3 good fun, 1/3 kind of crap. I really like the Jabba opening and the final ship battle and duel at the end, but the middle drags and the Ewoks really do stink up the joint. It's the weakest of the OT, and I've found myself less and less caring about or wanting to re-watch any of the Star Wars movies period in my old age, but it's still miles ahead of any of the Prequels.

jesse_custer

01-09-2009, 12:41 PM

The first third of Return of the Jedi is the best part of the film. I agree the middle is lacking and the last third is better. But the Death Star fight seemed very tired.

The Black Guardian

01-09-2009, 02:22 PM

ducklord

01-09-2009, 02:25 PM

I'm with you. The entire space thing is lame. Jason X, Critters 4, Leprechaun 4 and others all went down hill once they venture into the final frontier.

I wouldn't be surprised is we soon witnessed Chucky in space.

I'm gonna stand up for Jason X. Given that, as a whole, the Friday the 13th films kinda sorta suck, Jason X does a good job of giving the viewer everything you want in a F13 movie:

-- Classic Jason killing Cronenberg(!) with a javelin.
-- Voice of Reason cyrogenically-awakened character trying to explain to stupid future people that they have no freakin' idea what they're messing with.
-- Horny teenagers getting killed after sex.
-- Super-amped up nanotechnology Jason.
-- Funny female killer android.
-- Silly holographic Crystal Lake sequence ("Wanna smoke some pot and engage in premarital sex?")
-- High body count.

It's well-produced fun, imho.

Mike

the goddamn batman

01-09-2009, 02:32 PM

"Wanna smoke some pot and engage in premarital sex?"

Yes! A thousand times yes! Not with you, but yes. In general, yes.

Asmith

01-09-2009, 03:40 PM

That's like saying they should've just had some eagles drop the ring in the volcano and saved everybody some time.

What a brilliant idea! It would of been so much better.

Fodo: Hey, Gandalf. My uncle left me this ring and it doesn't go with anything in my wardrobe.
Gandolf: Do you mind if I call down a giant eagle to drop it in a volcano?
Frodo: Um... sure. If that's what floats your boat, you giant weird bearded freaky dude.
Gandolf: Good! Now let's have some lunch.
The End.

The extended editions could actually show them sitting down to lunch and talking about the weather...