I watched two Star Trek movies today, so I should update mineTOS Star Trek Movies
Star Trek 2 > Star Trek 6 > Star Trek 4 > Star Trek 1 > Star Trek 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>infinity>>>>>> Star Trek 5
I thought Voyage Home was an incredibly stupid idea in practice tooI'd put The Voyage Home over Undiscovered Country, but I just loved that they were actually able to pull off what is an absolutely stupid idea on paper.
Alien = Aliens >>> Alien3 >>>>>>> Alien: Resurrection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AVP < AVP: Reqiuem
That was easy enough.
My god, Requiem was just horrible. I'm not usually disgusted by movies, but the birth ward scene was just unesseccary and revolting.Alien = Aliens >>> Alien3 >>>>>>> Alien: Resurrection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AVP < AVP: Reqiuem
That was easy enough.
Agreed, BUT I think Revenge of the Sith is on a tier between the originals and the other two prequels. That movie actually had some fuckin gravitasEmpire Strikes Back > Star Wars >>> Return of the Jedi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Prequels, all of which are equally filled with suck.
I'd totally flip 1 and 2. Come on, Terrence Stamp as Zod? Plus, the ending where Superman turns back time in the first one was just stupid. I will concede there was the stupid magic amnesia kiss in the second one.Superman I >> Superman II >>>>>>> Superman Returns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Superman III >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...shit, I think I broke that button trying to get to Superman IV.
He did that once, and yes, it was the biggest WTF moment of the movie, but still not as dumb as turning back time by flying fast around the world. It's the first movie that has multiple cuts.I've only seen one version of Superman 2 and it was silly, he was throwing magic shields around from his chest. I know there's like 1200 different cuts of the movie.
If it didn't have all the cheesy comedy stuff forced in by the director that replaced Richard Donner, I'd agree. I'll take going back in time at super-speed (not turning back time) over the giant S tarp any day.I'd totally flip 1 and 2. Come on, Terrence Stamp as Zod? Plus, the ending where Superman turns back time in the first one was just stupid. I will concede there was the stupid magic amnesia kiss in the second one.
I'm actually kind of interested. I wanna see Gene Hackman chew scenery, and General Zod, and then see what the bottom of the barrel really looks likeCharlie Don't Surf, you wanna join in on this and watch the original 4 for the first time?
He literally turns back time, They even show reverse footage of all the damage being undone. Plus it started this whole Lex Luthor does nothing but schemes to acquire property thing. The Kryptonians were far better villains. The S shield thing is a few seconds of throwaway WTFery, but the time thing is a major plot point.If it didn't have all the cheesy comedy stuff forced in by the director that replaced Richard Donner, I'd agree. I'll take going back in time at super-speed (not turning back time) over the giant S tarp any day.
Though I will concede that II has my absolute favourite movie moment of all time:
[DOUBLEPOST=1368937234][/DOUBLEPOST]Dammit, that's it. I'm watching all 5 of them this week on my days off in preparation for the upcoming Man of Steel.
Charlie Don't Surf, you wanna join in on this and watch the original 4 for the first time?
3 wasn't a good movie, but for some reason, when the sister gets turned into a robot, I had nightmares about that robot for weeks after watching it. I don't know why, but it terrified me.You couldn't pay me to watch 3 or 4 again.
Yup, still nightmare fuel...3 wasn't a good movie, but for some reason, when the sister gets turned into a robot, I had nightmares about that robot for weeks after watching it. I don't know why, but it terrified me.
I was onboard with most of the post until this part. He did a great job as a Superman, otherwise I don't know if I could say best superhero movies made.the best superhero movies made so far, IMO.
Yeah, I personally would put Return of the Jedi = Revenge of the SithAgreed, BUT I think Revenge of the Sith is on a tier between the originals and the other two prequels. That movie actually had some fuckin gravitas
Besides some outdated special effects, I still think they hold up extremely well. They have a reverence for the source material, they're fun to watch, and for DC movies, perfectly captures the feeling of the universe. The long held difference I've always seen between the DC and Marvel universes is that DC is where heroes are Iconic, where as the Marvel univers is more about fallible humanistic characters. There's some bleed over between the two, but for the most part, they have a certain feel that makes them different as a whole body of work. I think the original 2 Superman movies really captured that feeling. While I love the Nolan Batman movies, I think they don't fit as well in the DC universe as a whole. It's one of the reason the Nolanverse would never fit in with a Justice League movie.I should also say that, while I have a total soft spot for them, I don't think the Christopher Reeve movies have held up well to time.
OH MY GOD. I thought I was the only one. Granted, I was a little kid at the time, but still. That shit was terrifying when you're young.[DOUBLEPOST=1368940082][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, The Bourne Identity > The Bourne Supremacy = The Bourne Ultimatum >>>>>>> The Bourne Legacy.3 wasn't a good movie, but for some reason, when the sister gets turned into a robot, I had nightmares about that robot for weeks after watching it. I don't know why, but it terrified me.
I'm not 100% sure where I heard this from (I think the guy who made xkcd) but theres a theory that he didnt turn the earth around to go back in time, but he flew so fast that he was going faster than the speed of light, and the earth turning backwards was a way to show time travel.I'd totally flip 1 and 2. Come on, Terrence Stamp as Zod? Plus, the ending where Superman turns back time in the first one was just stupid. I will concede there was the stupid magic amnesia kiss in the second one.
Well, if we're going to try to bring science into this, that should make him go -forward- in time relative to the Earth, not backwards.I'm not 100% sure where I heard this from (I think the guy who made xkcd) but theres a theory that he didnt turn the earth around to go back in time, but he flew so fast that he was going faster than the speed of light, and the earth turning backwards was a way to show time travel.
You're a page late.You know that there's a theory that Supes isn't going back in time by making the earth reverse on its orbit, but by flying faster than the speed of light, which causes the earth to LOOK like it's reversing.
I didn't see where someone posted that, just people bitching about it.You're a page late.
I didn't see where someone posted that, just people bitching about it.
Now get off my lawn.
Agreed, but I'm in the minority that actually liked the sequels. Are they as good as the first? Oh LORD no. But they are still good on their own.Matrix >>>>>>>>>>>>>Matrix 2 and 3.
No comparison sadly
Fun fact: Superman III was originally going to introduce Supergirl into the film franchise and its villains would have been Brainiac and Mr. Mxyzptlk.Superman 3's only saving grace was the whole evil Superman persona bit. If the movie had focused more on that, it might've been much better. MAYBE.
Also, as much as I do love Superman II, Bowielee, the first has that amazing helicopter sequence. Nothing, in my mind, beats out "You've got me? W-who's got you?!" But as you said yourself, they're both great movie. To prefer one over the other isn't a crime worth throwing someone in the Phantom Zone.
BOTH of them AND Supergirl? No thanks. That sounds a little too loaded with new characters, a problem that many Bat-films have run into.Fun fact: Superman III was originally going to introduce Supergirl into the film franchise and its villains would have been Brainiac and Mr. Mxyzptlk.
Yeah. If they had stuck closer to that idea, Supergirl and Brainiac would have been enough. Though, Mxyzptlk could have been fun, with them planning on casting Dudley Moore as the fifth-dimensional prankster.BOTH of them AND Supergirl? No thanks. That sounds a little too loaded with new characters, a problem that many Bat-films have run into.
I thought Spider-films were the only films that were hyphenated.BOTH of them AND Supergirl? No thanks. That sounds a little too loaded with new characters, a problem that many Bat-films have run into.
Instead we got a really bad movie, so we won I guess.BOTH of them AND Supergirl? No thanks. That sounds a little too loaded with new characters, a problem that many Bat-films have run into.
Yeah, I forgot about that, it was really creepy.Yup, still nightmare fuel...
I got the creeps just watching this clip again.
You didn't see Spectacular?Ultimate Spider-Man >>>>> The Amazing Spider-Man = Spider-Man 2 > Spider-Man >>>> Spider-Man 3
i.e. I didn't care for the movies.
Let's remember than a particularly good piece of shit is still a piece of shit.Five and six are actually decent movies?
Let's remember than a particularly good piece of shit is still a piece of shit.
I'm just surprised to see them rated above the first. That was a reasonably-ok brainless car action movie. I think I saw 2 once, though I honestly couldn't tell you, and I was wondering what any sequel could possibly bring to bear to lift it above "forgettable-okayish-action-movie".
Also, my slightly tweaked Fast rankings:
Fast 6 >> Fast 5 >>>> Fast 1 > 2 Fast 2 Furious >>>>> Fast 4 = Fast 3
I'M HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUNGRYYou are very on your own in liking 2F2F over any of them I think.
Cuuuh.
I think it says plenty actually.You are very on your own in liking 2F2F over any of them I think.
Cuuuh.
Pfft thats nothing, my man Gojira has 29 movies(discounting a horrible American movie even though it was technically canon I admit to liking the cartoon).Let's try not to focus too much on the fact that we live in a world where six, SIX fast and furious movies have been made.
He means that the Fast and the Furious isn't a franchise that warrants six movies--there are several franchises with more movies than six.Pfft thats nothing, my man Gojira has 29 movies(discounting a horrible American movie even though it was technically canon I admit to liking the cartoon).
I gotta watch the eight I haven't seen, I feel like a poser for not. TO GOOGLE!
Well story wise yes, but entertainment wise no. These films entertain the lowest common denominator, and that is always the majority of who goes to movies.He means that the Fast and the Furious isn't a franchise that warrants six movies--there are several franchises with more movies than six.
Well story wise yes, but entertainment wise no. These films entertain the lowest common denominator, and that is always the majority of who goes to movies.
Good example. Michael Bay movies are pretty exactly on the same level as the entire F&F franchise. Same audiences majority too.Than explain how Michael Bay keeps making movies.
Good example. Michael Bay movies are pretty exactly on the same level as the entire F&F franchise. Same audiences majority too.
Also: INB4-nah-
ww, am drunk and n a brken keybard, but there are s many reasns why yu're wrng. mchael bay s an vuerve. and way dfferent frm the f/ f franchse but they bth wn adn make dstnctve awesme mves. ugh fuck ths keybard.
Nah.Good example. Michael Bay movies are pretty exactly on the same level as the entire F&F franchise. Same audiences majority too.
Also: INB4-nah-
Yeah, you just described Michael Bay movies to a tee. (Derpy Retarded with action scenes) just because you enjoyed F&F and not Transformers doesn't not make them mutually different fundementally.Nah.
Just saw 6.
The action in it destroys most other action movies with how ridiculous it is, how well it's filmed and how rad it gets. I loathe most Michael Bay films and I had a fucking amazing time at Fast 6. Justin Lin is an amazing action director. He's apparently done making FF movies now and is going to be doing new things. I am stoked to see what he does.
The movie is derpy retarded but it makes up for it with how rad everything else is (It's like the anti-Star Trek, where I think the action in the new Star Trek is kind of shitty).
It's the bombastic 80's action movie that the Expendables wishes it could be.
#1: The transformer movies were cacphonic insanity, shit like Armageddon wasn't.See, what was happening onscreen during Fast 6 was easy to make out. It wasn't a blurry mess of fucking cacaphonic insanity like most Michael Bay movies are.
Also, the Rock is charismatic as fuck.
Evil Asian Guy was the lead in The Raid: Redemption, where he had even more fighting to doThe fight between Tyreese, Sung Kang and police vs evil Asian guy while Gina Carano is brutally knee fucking Michelle Rodriguez to death is one of the best hand to hand fight scenes I've seen in a big budget mainstream film in years.
Evil Asian Guy was the lead in The Raid: Redemption, where he had even more fighting to do
Harry Potter 1=Harry Potter 2>Harry Potter 3>Harry Potter 4>Harry Potter 7 pt 1 & 2> Harry Potter 5>>Harry Potter 6.
I have to finally admit. I'm getting really weary of the decline of movie quality. I'm not saying that previous decades didn't have their share of turds, but I feel like the quality of movies is inversely proportionate to the size of their budget.
Harry Potter 6 was your favorite? Are you Bizzarro me?Wow, this is perfectly opposite of my rankings, almost exactly. I've not read the books, obviously, and treat the movies as movies
As I said I haven't seen it!Man, I just can't believe anyone can think that HP 3 isn't the finest film in that series, for a variety of reasons:
1) Alfonso Cuarón.
2) Alfonso Cuarón.
3) It's a terrible, talky book and Cuarón turned it into the tightest little Harry Potter film you can find.
4) He drastically changed the visual tone from the mediocre Chris Columbus designs that screamed "generic fantasy" and gave it some actual depth.
5) He moved the series away from kid friendly fantasy and in much more mature direction.
6) It's the only one without any real bloat. It's a remarkably tight film that never veers from the story. Everything in that film serves the story and I don't think any other HP film can say that, but especially not the first 2.
Oh and: 7) Alfonso Cuarón BITCHES.
Interesting. Personally it was the only book of the series I had a hard time getting through. I was just exposition upon exposition and it felt like next to nothing happened other than Rowling going, "Shit! I gotta cram in as much of the crap in my head into all these speeches as I can." Granted, it's been years since I read it, but I just remember it being talky and boring, which is part of what made Cuarón's translation so engaging IMO.I hated the third movie, but that's mostly because it was my favorite book in the series. As with most book to movie transitions, the things you have the most affection for are the ones it's hardest to satisfy on film.
Also, by cutting out all the stuff about Harry's father and Snape, it really makes Snapes story much weaker.
They should have been going with Terry Gilliam from number One and I might even have watched it!Hey does anyone know who directed Harry Potter 3?
You'll thank me for this, because everyone that's only heard the phrase always makes this same mistake.Both Sirius and Snape could've used more development in the films, especially Sirius and how his family freakin' disowned him and what-not.
Bowielee I agree, they hardly even touched on the relationship Snape had with James. It was like, one or two flash-backs and that was it.
Also one common thing with all the films is how the special effects REALLY run the gambit from those awesome dementors, to the boring patronus. I did not like how the Patronus looked on film, didn't work for me.
I like Terminator 1 more than 2 and Salvation more than 3!
Rocky 4 = Rocky 2??!?! WHAT THE FUCKRocky > Rocky 3 >> Rocky 4 = Rocky 2 >>>> Rocky Balboa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rocky 5
I agree, those movies are not equals in ANY sense. Rocky 2 gave Rock the championship, while Rocky 4 was utterly weird and killed off Apollo Creed. Entertaining flick, but still.Rocky 4 = Rocky 2??!?! WHAT THE FUCK
So much bit shifting!> = >>>>>>>>>>>>> ad nauseum.
Y'all are abusing boolean operators.
Rocky 2 was a really boring rehash of Rocky with a slightly different ending. Rocky 4 was an absurd but fun to watch flick about how Rocky ended the cold war. If both were on at the same time, actually, I'd probably rather watch 4.Rocky 4 = Rocky 2??!?! WHAT THE FUCK
This makes it look like nothing is better than the Police Academy movies, which appears to be the opposite of your intended point.>>>>> Police Academy 1-8
Oopsie, me and mathematics stuff...This makes it look like nothing is better than the Police Academy movies, which appears to be the opposite of your intended point.
Mine would be the same, except trade New Nightmare and 3.Nightmare on Elm St 1 > Elm St 3 >>> New Nightmare > Freddy's Dead >> Elm St 4 >>> Elm St 5 >>>>>>>>>>> Remake >>>>>> Elm St 2.
Freddy vs. Jason, though technically not a Freddy movie, would probably fall around New Nightmare. 5 had some fun kills, but by Christ, the story was up the walls bonkers
Weird right? I'm on the fence on the second being better than the original(haven't seen the original in forever), but the third was AWESOME! The plot was solid, the antagonist was EXTREMELY memorable, and those 3-D effects! AWESOME!Madagascar 3 > Madagascar 2 > Madagascar
I'd put 2 after New Nightmare. I know most people hated it because it seemed to be such a radical departure from the series, but it was still creepy as fuck and the subtext of Freddy as a metaphor for homosexual feelings is very interesting. Also, Freddy was actually still scary in that movie, rather than the murderous clown that he could become in all the films that came later in the series.Nightmare on Elm St 1 > Elm St 3 >>> New Nightmare > Freddy's Dead >> Elm St 4 >>> Elm St 5 >>>>>>>>>>> Remake >>>>>> Elm St 2.
Freddy vs. Jason, though technically not a Freddy movie, would probably fall around New Nightmare. 5 had some fun kills, but by Christ, the story was up the walls bonkers.[DOUBLEPOST=1370295360][/DOUBLEPOST]And while I'm on a horror kick:
Child's Play 1 >>>> Bride of Chucky >> Child's Play 2 >> Child's Play 3 >> Seed of Chucky
I'd put 2 after New Nightmare. I know most people hated it because it seemed to be such a radical departure from the series, but it was still creepy as fuck and the subtext of Freddy as a metaphor for homosexual feelings is very interesting. Also, Freddy was actually still scary in that movie, rather than the murderous clown that he could become in all the films that came later in the series.
I'd also never considered the homosexual subtext of 2 before (as I said, it's been a LONG time; probably not since High School days), but now that you mention it, I can totally see it.
Define subtext for me, what is it in your mind?man not to quibble, but that aint subtext. its fuckin TEXT
Define subtext for me, what is it in your mind?
I'd also never considered the homosexual subtext of 2 before (as I said, it's been a LONG time; probably not since High School days), but now that you mention it, I can totally see it.
Are we still talking about the Fast & Furious series?man not to quibble, but that aint subtext. its fuckin TEXT
I agree with your sentiment. Speaking as someone whose favorite film is Back to the Future, the sequels aren't bad, it's just that I feel you need to watch them together while the first one you can watch by itself.Back to the Future > Back to the Future II = Back to the Future III
Are the sequels as good as the first? No, definitely not. But it's damn close. They continue the story seamlessly (minus one actress change), include lots of clever callbacks to one another, and while they continue some running jokes (manure!), there's a lot of great, new, and equally memorable stuff to enjoy.