May 26, 200719 yr Hi whats your opinion on the worst sequals ever made I think these are the worst DIE HARD 3 GHOSTBUSTER 2
May 26, 200719 yr Hi whats your opinion on the worst sequals ever made I think these are the worst DIE HARD 3 GHOSTBUSTER 2 I didn't think Die Hard 3 was that bad. Die Hard was easily the best one, but I would say DH 3 is the next best, followed by DH2 being the worst.
May 26, 200719 yr Spiderman 3 Die Hard 3 wasn't that bad, I think Die Hard 4 will be a contestor for this award (the actionscenes I saw in the previeuw were too over the top to be Die Hard :oops: ) Police Academy x, it got old after the first one really...
May 26, 200719 yr Die Hard 3 wasn't that bad, I think Die Hard 4 will be a contestor for this award (the actionscenes I saw in the previeuw were too over the top to be Die Hard :oops: ) Too over the top?!?! All the Die hards are completely "over the top"...they are supposed to be! BTW - I agree with Indy...#1, #3, #2 Here's some bad sequels (note: doesn't mean the previous was necessarily good, just that the sequel is worse): Teen Wolf Too Legally Blonde 2 The Next Karate Kid Revenge of Nerds 2 Dumb and Dumberer Speed 2 Weekend at Bernies 2 Batman and Robin The Whole Ten Yards Blues Brothers 2000
May 26, 200719 yr Critters 2 Tremors 2 Charlies Angels 2 Phantom Menace (20 years for that!) - kinda' a prequel too I suppose Star Trek 5 (The Final Frontier) Blade Trinity (basically a 2 hour Ipod commercial) Rocky 5 (what were they thinking?... or were they?) Starship Troopers 2 (had basically nothing to do with the original) Battle Royale 2 (gah!)
May 26, 200719 yr all the matrix sequels Sadly I kind of enjoyed those just for an action flick but compared to the first they were so horrible. The first was just amazing, hard to top.
May 27, 200719 yr I think we can put the Godfather part 3 up there. Especially when you see the quality of the first two movies it's unbelievable that they made something like this. Signature by Maurice SendakWhen the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!
May 27, 200719 yr I think we can put the Godfather part 3 up there. Especially when you see the quality of the first two movies it's unbelievable that they made something like this.Oh yea - that I'll agree with. I'm not a big fan of the trilogy in the first place; but number 3 is pretty blah. Actually now that I think about it - it's mainly number 3 which feeds the dislike
May 27, 200719 yr the first godfather is easily the best, the second is pretty awesome, especially when it shows how vito became the Don, awesome... the third was very dissapointing thanks to mitsubishi64 who made this sig
May 27, 200719 yr the first godfather is easily the best, the second is pretty awesome, especially when it shows how vito became the Don, awesome... the third was very dissapointing I liked the third Godfather film. I think alot of people didn't like it because they expected to see Micael Corleone going about doing the same sort of stuff as he did in 1 & 2 - ruthless killing of anybody who crossed his. However, you can't do that 20 years later because people change. He's become an old man who's questioning what he's done with his life and since he's a religious man he has to wonder about how god will percieve what he has done (for instance killing his own brother). He has to look for forgiveness, for benediction and absolution of his many sins. I think it's a great film in it's own right about a man coming to terms with his live and his own mortality. Don't get me wrong though, it's by no means perfect. Sofia Coppola isn't going to win an Academy Award for her acting but she plods through her role without being too wooden. I think there should have been more of Joe Mantegna to create a bit more tension and the tension between Michael and Vincent could have been developed a bit more (about how Vincent liked Michael's daughter). All in all though I liked Godfather: Part Three, I feel in some way I have to make this impassioned plea when people say that it was a terrible movie. That being said I fully admit that its not as good as the first 2 films but I don't accept that as a basis for writing off number 3. --------------------- I think people should view sequels as stand alone films first and foremost. A good sequel can stand as a single film (if it's good enough) without you needing to see the earlier film. I don't like when people come into a sequel expecting too much off of the back of a previous film. I think it's great when a sequel expands on whats came before, even if that means going in a different direction and doing things differently, people seem to associate change in a sequel with a bad sequel which I just don't get. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)
May 28, 200719 yr Why should people see sequels as stand alone films? It's a sequel after all. It's only logical that you compare it with the quality of the movie that has gone before it. Especially when it has got the same director, writer, actors, composer. And then if you see what they have done with the previous two movies the third one is almost unacceptable. They've set a certain standard with their first two movies. If you're going off that path, alright, that's fine with me. But at least make something out of it. The third Godfather didn't do that, so it's a bad sequel. I understand what you're tryng to say though. Compare the Godfather pt. 3 with Scary Movie 3, and The Godfather is the better movie. But that's not how it works. Signature by Maurice SendakWhen the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!
May 28, 200719 yr Why should people see sequels as stand alone films? It's a sequel after all. It's only logical that you compare it with the quality of the movie that has gone before it. It is logical to compare a sequel with the original, I just feel that a good sequels should be good enough to stand up in their own right without relying too much on the reputation/quality of what came before it. I just don't believe in selling something off the back of something else. Sequels in my opinion, should ideally seek to be quality films in their own right. I think the basis of my opinion comes from seeing alot of sequels on TV then backtracking to see the original afterwards. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)
May 30, 200719 yr 2nd karate kid, and the shrek movies, the're afull... and epic movie {DeviantART}{Last.Fm}{Join Sublime GFX, great community for artists!}Back to RuneScape, Again.Avatar by Brian The Great
May 31, 200719 yr Major Leagues 2 122 Combat : 99 Hits : 99 Attack : 99 Strength97/99 Defence : 99 Fletching : 99 Woodcutting
June 1, 200719 yr Pirates of the Caribean at worlds end....Horrible compared to the first and even second! -.-
June 1, 200719 yr Author Pirates of the Caribean at worlds end....Horrible compared to the first and even second! -.- *GASP* THATS THE BEST IN THE SERIES *FORMS ANGRY MOB*
June 1, 200719 yr All the Friday the 31th sequels just ended up disappointing me... Lol the 31st. I hated Shrek 2. Tumblr. Follow me!
Create an account or sign in to comment