Never watched Evil Dead 1 I think, but ED2 and Army of Darkness are pretty good. And Army of Darkness is more of a dark humor/fantasy/action film with a touch of horror rather than straight up horror.
The others I have never watched, and I NEVER got into Star Trek.
Check out the Evil Dead series if you get a chance. Think of a cheesy b horror movie (MST3K has done a ton of those), with bad animation, but is actually entertaining.
targetman377 wrote:Hey egal thanks for the little ride but could you put at least 2 moives away from the place we are supposed to be. we could just fly you there i mean its in our intrest to that the ring be destroiod. no no... i insite it would make a much better if we walked who knows there might be a giant battle that WE TAKE NO PART IN AND SLIP OUT THE BACK!!!!! yes yes... ahhh now why was that even in there??? oh well we may never no. lets walk some more we have a whole 3 movies to do this.... hey did you notice i don't have shoes on thats cool right i am a hobbet yeah lets just get back to walking also..
side note i once went to bar triva and the question was poised to the bar that stated in all 3 movies how many talking roles are the in the lord of the rings the whole bar guessed and i am like.... hmmmm RANDOM NUMBER 116 and then the answer popled up and my jaw dropped i guessed right on!!! then a some one walkes up and goes (note this is after i got my free beer) do you know gandolfs second romoved cousin?? i clanced back and said that was a compleat guess i no nothing about the movies i hate them actually. he walks away mad. me laughing drinking free beer thanks lord of the rings. (so your not all bad)
Actually Tolkien does explain this. The eagles are physically incapable of carrying them long distances and even if they were they are easily spotted by Mordor and no match for the dragons that the Ring Wraiths rode on. The only reason the eagles were able to at the end of the movie was because, Sauron and the Ring Wraiths were defeated and the rest of the orcs were in shambles. So in other words, one does not simply fly into Mordor.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
targetman377 wrote:
no sequals kill things unless its jurassic park
Shrek 2.
Shrek 2 wasn't that bad. It was a pale comparison to the first but it wasn't that bad. Jurassic Park: The Lost World was a horrible abomination that is best forgotten.
You see, I prefer Shrek 2 over the 1st. Not that the 1st is bad, just that Shrek 2 flows better. And the Nostalgia Critic agrees with me there.
I agree some sequals are horrible and should never have been made, but others are just as good, if not better than the one that came before them. Like "The Mask", not a great movie, but it was funny and entertaining. It's sequal though was just plain awful, it didn't even have any of the original characters and the quality was worse than the 1st. On the flip side, you have (in my opinion at least), the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The first one was by no means bad, but the 2nd and 3rd ones were better. Why? Big medieval style fantasy battles. Don't ask me why I like those, but I do.
If you were to eliminate the last 30 minutes of the Return of the King I might agree with you but the last 30 minutes were an abomination on the movie and on the entire trilogy. I never bothered with the second Mask. And I am not arguing that all sequels are worse than the original. I would say that Empire Strikes Back is at least as good as A New Hope and many consider it the best of the 6 (or 3 if you're one of those hard core deniers of the new trilogy) and going back to Lord of the Rings, the Two Towers was the best of them IMO.
I could agree that the second flows better than the original Shrek but the original Shrek was much funnier. Best scene in the second one is where they are breaking into the castle playing "I Need a Hero"
Here are four definitive rulebreakers to the law of "Sequels Suck" (in no particular order):
1. Evil Dead 2
2. Hellraiser 2
3. Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan
4. Godfather 2
All of these outdid the original. Anyone care to disagree?
1. I'll agree. THe first one was Okay. the second one was great.
2. Never saw it.
3. I've always kind of been meh about the original Star Wars and it's movies. Khan was good but I don't have much to compare it to.
4. I'll disagree but only in that I think both were about as close to perfection as one can get.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
I can understand missing Evil Dead or Hellraiser, unless one claims to be a horror movie buff, but missing Godfather 1or 2 (forget 3 ever existed) is as close to a cinematic mortal sin as I can think of.
Cleanse thy soul, my oh my brother...Cleanse it!!!
I can understand missing Evil Dead or Hellraiser, unless one claims to be a horror movie buff, but missing Godfather 1or 2 (forget 3 ever existed) is as close to a cinematic mortal sin as I can think of.
Cleanse thy soul, my oh my brother...Cleanse it!!!
Well this is also the guy who describes the LoTR movies as walking so honestly, I'm not all that surprised. Also ah if we only could eliminate 3 from existence.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
I can understand missing Evil Dead or Hellraiser, unless one claims to be a horror movie buff, but missing Godfather 1or 2 (forget 3 ever existed) is as close to a cinematic mortal sin as I can think of.
Cleanse thy soul, my oh my brother...Cleanse it!!!
Well this is also the guy who describes the LoTR movies as walking so honestly, I'm not all that surprised. Also ah if we only could eliminate 3 from existence.
never like mafia movies too me they are rather boring to me. as for horrer movies i hate them no plote cause for me the movie stops when any sane and rational person would get the f*ck out of there and alert the fucken authorties. now if you want to talk good movies now then that deponds on what your looking for... comady wise i would go with monty python or hitchhickers guide. as for best super hero movie BAtman begins was bettter then all the sequeals and the dark night rises was better then the dark night.. at least i like the plot with rosducul better then the joker... was not a fan good acting yes but not that entertaining...
Sorry not that your opinions aren't valid but I think I'm not gonna pay attention to your recommendations in the future because we seem to have vastly different tastes (note: I like Batman Begins and Dark Knight Rises but saying they are both better than The Dark Knight is to me like saying The Temple of Doom was better than The Lost Ark).
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Lance Thrust wrote:
Here are four definitive rulebreakers to the law of "Sequels Suck" (in no particular order):
1. Evil Dead 2
2. Hellraiser 2
3. Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan
4. Godfather 2
All of these outdid the original. Anyone care to disagree?
1. I'll agree. THe first one was Okay. the second one was great.
2. Never saw it.
3. I've always kind of been meh about the original Star Wars and it's movies. Khan was good but I don't have much to compare it to.
4. I'll disagree but only in that I think both were about as close to perfection as one can get.
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. Here is my experience: When I first saw GF2, I considered GF1 superior. I truly thought GF2 was boring. Pacino just stared off in to space for most of it. But on repeated viewings, I discovered something I hadn't expected.I slowly began to realize, he wasnt 'staring' , he was acting! Watching someone convey so much emotion and inner conflict without saying a word gave me a new found appreciation!
Therefore, final perfection score:
Godfather 1: 97%
Godfather 2: 98%
I have to keep at least 2% in reserve for future possible masterpieces....
Pacino's acting without saying anything was masterful (For that matter, De Niro's in 2 was far from bad itself). Take out any subtitles from the Italian scenes in the first movie involving Michael and just watch. It's brilliant. Same goes to the restaurant scene and the baptism scenes, there was so much more said in his expressions in those scenes than ever were in his words.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
targetman377 wrote:lone wolf i would say the it more like
batman begins 97%
dark night 92%
darnight rises 93%
and I'd personally say
Batman Begins 91%
Dark Knight 95%
Dark Knight RIses 88% (It was faster paced than the first one which is good since we can't forget that these are action movies but the plots of the first two were better and there were some holes in it that I cannot over look. Still I liked Bane as a villain so I give it high marks overall).
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
targetman377 wrote:lone wolf i would say the it more like
batman begins 97%
dark night 92%
darnight rises 93%
and I'd personally say
Batman Begins 91%
Dark Knight 95%
Dark Knight RIses 88% (It was faster paced than the first one which is good since we can't forget that these are action movies but the plots of the first two were better and there were some holes in it that I cannot over look. Still I liked Bane as a villain so I give it high marks overall).
I agree with you completely, Strikewolf. As grades, it would have to be:
Batman Begins: A
Darknight: A+
Darknight Rises: B+
you think we can play trumpet while we wight in this thread i am drunk...
watching back to the future right now going to the cherry pit after the 2nd movie!!!!! its a dive bar near where i live woow i am really drunck!!
targetman377 wrote:you think we can play trumpet while we wight in this thread i am drunk...
watching back to the future right now going to the cherry pit after the 2nd movie!!!!! its a dive bar near where i live woow i am really drunck!!
you're bluffing. You spell better when you're drunk.
Cleanse thy soul, my oh my brother...Cleanse it!!! 
