No, I can't agree. Psycho II's first two reels is thriller making at its best. It's asmospheric, vivid, and well acted. However, what's with the ultra-graphic 1980's style gore schtick? This is Psycho, not Demons. Also, it's hard to find many films at ALL that are better than the original Psycho, Hitchcock's most notorious film. It's legendary murder set pieces and twist ending are dynamic and engrossing no matter how many times you see the film. Perkins was brilliant, but it unfortunetly type-casted him for life as the All- American Crazy.
The only thing I didn't think was right about the criticism of Indy 4 was everyone's complaint about the aliens. Everyone immediately cried that their childhoods had been forcibly ass fucked just because the theme was aliens. It wasn't a stretch AT ALL as far as the Indy universe went. The first movies had all sorts of ghost and immortal mid evil knights. I just think people took their anger out on the aliens because the core aspects of the movie were not up to the standards of rest of the franchise. Had the movie been tightly crafted with a decent amount of similar quality fun as the first three, no one would have given a fuck about the aliens. I agree Indy 4 was better than the standard fair that came out this decade, T3 was rightfully called an abortion as bad any other recent piece of shit. On the other hand Spielberg has built a career on fashioning movies of a much higher caliber than the standard fair. It might be a notch above most other summer action films but it is well below the standard he is known for.
Good post. I recognize I may very well be the only person who thinks Psycho 2 was better than the first one. But did you at least enjoy watching Psycho 2? I've yet to hear someone say it was good, so it's been one of those weird situations where I wonder why I like what I like.
What part of it was an "abortion"? It was MUCH better than T4, and yes, better than most of the blockbusters that came out in 2003. I'm not arguing it's good, but I'd love to hear any solid reasons for it being mediocre, let alone bad. (Judged on its own merits, not against its two prequels)
I wouldnt say it is better or worse than most of the blockbusters of recent years just equal, which is to say abortion. It has the same shortfalls of any other CGI porn movie of the 2000's. Extremely shitty dialogue, horrible jokes, basically catering to the lowest common denominator the entire time. At least T4 tried to move away from the rehashed plot, which is the ONLY reason it could be considered better, I thought T4 was terrible too. Talk to the hand!
That's the most generic criticism imaginable, and half of it doesn't even apply here. The dialogue was average. Neither good nor bad, just standard for these kinds of films. The jokes? Some were funny, others were not. However, it was more humorous than most blockbusters I have seen, which was a good thing. As for "catering to the lowest common denominator", what do you think a "blockbuster" is? A movie that appeals to every segment of the population, most of whom are morons. "Inception" was a blockbuster, too. It did the same thing. However, I think we're both agreed it was awesome or near-perfect for that kind of film. One shouldn't judge these movies the same way one would a serious dramatic work. Even against that standard, most CGI blockbusters are total shit, because they're boring, lack any original action set pieces, are humorless, and force unneeded, cliched melodrama and bad acting down your throat. T3 avoided several of these pitfalls, and was okay. A failed joke in a pure entertainment picture, no different than Indy escaping a nuclear explosion by hiding in a refrigerator.
How did T3 over come any of the things you listed that Ive bolded? They forced a melodramatic moment of remembrance of Sarah Conner at a mausoleum right before they busted open a coffin filled with guns. The date of her death was ascribed as the "original" Judgment Day, so so deep. Honestly Id have to rewatch the film but I could find multiple examples that back up anything youve listed as being wrong with action films. There is a big difference between crafting a well thought out film, T2/Inception, that is wildly successful and crafting a movie to specifically hit retards over the head with that is wildly successful, GI Joe/Transformers. Having Ahhnold walk into a gay bar at the beginning felt like someone dropped a fucking retard cinder block on my head, not to mention the fact that it is about as unoriginal and unsuccessful at recreating a direct scene from an earlier film. The lack of originality and obvious cashing in on the franchise is about as deplorable as it gets with this film. If you haven't already I suggest watching T2 with Camerons audio commentary. Probably one of the best audio commentaries you will ever watch. His knowledge of the craft of action film making it detailed extensively. I couldnt recommend it more to anyone who enjoys film making.
That's not really what I consider melodrama, but you can't seriously count that, anyways. The scene only lasted 10 seconds total! The same amount of time that Indy looked at a faded, black-and-white photograph of his dead father in Indiana Jones 4. And T3 is neither; it's in-between, avoiding most of the mistakes other "blockbusters" are guilty of, but not having a single truly strong/good element going for it. See, here you're judging T3 based on its two predecessors, not on its own merits. I'm not really a fan of audio commentaries, but thanks, I might try to find a DVD with that.
We'll have to agree to disagree here because I think it made many of the mistakes shitty blockbusters do, things Incepetion/T2 avoid, and didn't have any good or strong elements. The biggest thing this movie had going for it was the fact that is was a sequel to two great action films. Other than that it had schlocky humor (rampant in shitty blockbusters), uninspiring over the top CGI action set pieces, and nothing in terms of an engaging or entertaining story. On the fact that I am comparing it to the earlier two films. I don't think Im comparing the quality between the first two and T3 at all in that instance. The film makers should be chastised for not being more original it can't stand on it's own merits because it only tries to recreate the successful aspects of the first two. It is shitty film making. At least T4 tried to get past this and is marginally more watchable.
I thought its humor worked well in parts, and it did have one very cool action set piece; the swinging crane during a car chase in heavy traffic. I've seen it before in a couple of films, but the execution there was the best and most exciting of all of them. T3 had no more or less originality or story than Indiana Jones 4 did. They're identical in that regard. Yet, you liked the latter a lot more than the former. So there were other factors that distinguished it for you. And speaking of T4, I like my schlocky, forgettable entertainment without a heavy dose of pretension. Focus- Kind of cheating, but the sequel ("From Russia with Love") to the first Bond film was much better than the original. ("Dr. No")
The crane chase scene is the only memorable action sequence I can remember from that film. It should be noted that it wouldn't have even been in it if it weren't for Arnold dropping a few million of his own coin to film it (so the press release story goes). As for Indy 4, I never said I liked it any more than I did T3. I think it is a better film over all than T3 and generally better than the average CGI flick. I think the actions scenes, as handled by Spielberg and co., are executed better. The dialogue and jokes aren't as campy/forehead slappingly bad. It had its fair share of problems and the bad parts kept it far from being great. I dislike it a lot because it wasn't up to the usual standards Spielberg had put forward with the first three films.
Die Hard- The first is my vote as the single greatest Hollywood action film of all time. Though the sequels don't measure up as far as landmark films go, all three of them are spectacularly entertaining, weakening slightly as they progress. Still, one of the very few film series where all four films are good. Indiana Jones- The first is a bonifide classic, no arguements. The second (a prequel) is nauseating, disgusting, migraine-inducing schlock that seemed only interested in gross-out gags. The Third (Last Crusade) should have been the sequel, it's a riot that thros in everything but the kitchen sink for the sake of an entertaining show. The fourth? Decent enough, but Shia LaPoof sucked in it (shocker there) and the "Alien" subplot disapointed me heavily.
I'm not sure that Bond films can count here, since they're often not strictly sequels. That said, the dialogue, characters and most scenes, particularly the action scenes, were of superior quality in From Russia With Love than in Dr. No.. Terence Young (the director), Johanna Harwood and Richard Maibaum (screenplay) made sure to stick closer to the plot of the source material with From Russia With Love than they did with Dr. No., which also contributed to From Russia With Love being a better movie than Dr. No.. Connery seemed to feel more at home with the role of Bond in From Russia than in Dr. No, so that made a difference. Also, Daniela Bianchi was WAY better looking than Ursula Andress. I think we can all agree, however, that at least 4 of the films that starred Moore as Bond were not up to the previous standard for various reasons (The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker*, For Your Eyes Only, A View To A Kill**) *Moonraker is undoubtedly the worst Bond film made. The special effects in space look SHIT, compared to Star Wars. But space combat? For Bond? Crap. Drax wasn't nearly as terrifying as previous villains - maybe because he was just too smug? Also, the blonde with pigtails was VERY annoying. **A View To A Kill is where Moore's age really starts to show and is my only reason for saying that the film was not up to previous standards. However, that said, Zorin is the finest villian in any of the Bond movies, so it's always worth watching just for him, provided Moore's age doesn't make you want to pass him a walker. Christopher Walken completely nailed the role of Zorin. I've bolded the part I disagree with. The first Die Hard was outstanding, but Die Hard With A Vengeance was the best of the series. The movie starts off with a truck being blown up, decimating a block of NYC. How can you top that? Simon Gruber is one of the best villians, in any movie. Also, McClane being forced to work with someone else, someone pretty different from himself, sets this one apart for me (SLJ is fucking awesome and we all know it). The scene in Harlem was one of the funniest in any movie. I think we can all agree Die Hard 4.0 was an abortion, but Die Hard 2 is definitely weaker than Die Hard With A Vengeance.
On the contrary, I think if T3 is going to be a sequel it should be judged accordingly and compared to the other two. I didnt like T3 because it felt like a parody of the first two movies. The acting was bad, the story was contradictory to the first two, and the music/soundtrack was a little bizarre for that kind of movie. However, one of the strongest points of the movie is Nick Stahl as John Connor. I think he has played the best version of this character out of anyone. Edward Furlong was whiney and annoying, and Christian Bale was too busy still being Batman and flipping out at PA's on set to bring anything to the character. Oh and Kristanna Loken as the TX? Let me break it down: Director: Okay Kristanna youre a terminator and all you have to do is not make any facial expressions exhibiting any feelings or emotions. Kristanna Loken: Director: Um, okay thats a wrap I guess. If I had to rank them: 1. T2 2. T1 3. T3 4. The Sarah Connor Chronicles show - I didnt mind this show and added some interesting stuff to the story line, but it went off the deep end quickly. 5. T4 - T3 wasnt great, but this movie was almost unwatchable.
I had a whole reply written up myself, but you posted this first. I think Die Hard one is the best of the series, as well as the second greatest action film behind T2. But I agree almost word for word with everything else. Die Hard 3 was definitely the strongest of the sequels. This was before Snakes on a Plane Samuel L, before he became a caricature of himself (remember how good he was in A Time to Kill?). The forth too me suffered the same fate as Terminator 3. Studio wanted to cash in on the name, made a CGI abortion with McClane battling an F-22 Raptor with only his wits and a 18 wheeler on a collapsing circle freeway, and we are left with yet another throw away movie that wouldn't have been made in the first place if the Die Hard franchise hadn't been plastered on it. edit: God, just remembering how bad T4 was. I was ready to walk out when John Conner jumped out of an airplane into a raging hurricane sea so that he could swim down to a submarine command post. UGH.....
I thought that Mighty Ducks 2 was superior to the original. Getting them out of Minnesota and introducing the new characters made it a better movie for me. Mighty Ducks was never going to be a groundbreaking or critically acclaimed franchise, why not just throw in some more stereotypes and make it US against Iceland? Mighty Ducks 3 however was an abortion. All of a sudden that whiny little bitch Charlie is supposed to be a badass? Not buying it. Was not a fan of Banks going to the varsity either.
I love the premise behind MD3, "They just won the world championship, but now they face their biggest challenge yet... some random prep school's varsity team"
Are you kidding me? Ursula Andress was one of the hottest women in the world for the entirety of the 60s. Daniela Bianchi was merely very, very beautiful. No, we can't agree, because Moore was exceptional as Bond; Connery was a great, marvelous Bond, but Moore was practically born to play double oh seven. His films are my favorite of the entire series. Moonraker is my second favorite of all the Bond films. It's a truly great action movie. Criticizing special effects in space makes zero sense, considering all the blatant, cheesy green-screens in the Connery films that we're willing to overlook. (Just check out the background in "Goldfinger" when he is riding in the Aston Martin on the Autobahn) The blonde in pigtails was a minor character that didn't have any lines of dialogue and perhaps 90 seconds of screentime. I don't see what she had to do with anything. Anyways, I don't want to go on too far of a tangent, but one of my favorite things about "Moonraker" was the incredible variety. The movie travels everywhere, from a high-tech facility in Scotland, a gondola ride in Italy, fighting on the streets of London, Carnival in Rio de Janeiro, to blasting asteroids in fucking outer space. That's the kind of diversity, scope, and constant newness that I love in action films, especially Bond ones. Totally agree. For a series that was never anything more than cheap entertainment, it was nice to see the sequel embrace that more than the original did.
Too bad Moore played Bond as a whiny, effeminate twat. Brosnan in Goldeneye was more along the lines of what Bond should be. The rugged, commando type that Fleming wrote about and Connery made famous. Too bad the rest of the Brosnan Bond films went progressively downhill. I'm curious to see which villain people would classify as the best of the Bond series. For me personally it's Alec Trevelyan/Janus/006. He had the same training and skillset as Bond, plus he was able to manipulate him psychologically and made Bond do something that few villains have been able to do, which was make him take it personally.
Are you projecting? Where do you get this? I can't recall a single moment where Moore's Bond was whiny. I can write something idiotic too, like "Brosnan played Bond like a closet homosexual", with no support or connection to reality. Moore's Bond was hyper-relaxed, and usually had a sense of humor about whatever he came up against. He played the role with a wink and a smile, which isn't that different from how Fleming wrote the character. Physically, either Connery or Lazenby were the closest to how he was written, but in terms of character, Moore was as close as either of them. Brosnan, who was infinitely more groomed and less masculine-looking than either Connery or Moore, was a "rugged, commando type"? Wow. Are you getting the actors confused here? Christopher Lee as Scaramanga was probably my favorite. He was as suave, funny, and sophisticated as Bond, and was always willing to get his own hands dirty.