Kevin's Watch

Wrath of Khan was much better than ST The Motion Picture

Heathen! There is no better horror movie made than The Exorcist!! But, fair enough. Exorcist 3 was very good. Interestingly, everything in Exorcist 2 to do with Reagan was forced in there by the production company against the director's wishes (John Boorman's). Some people who had seen the film before these additions called it one of the most amazing horror films ever made. Certainly, a lot of the stuff in it is very striking. Sadly, the correct version of Exorcist 2 no longer exists, as some of the stuff which was deleted to make room for the ridiculous additions is no longer extant.

Empire Strikes Back is the best example of a sequel which was far greater than the original, in my opinion.

yup to all that ...

. ugh, have to disagree there... Unlike other picks, this one is more difficult to be cut and dry about; one of the reasons is that, although both are well made, they are completely different styles, so it comes down to a subjective opinion rather than objective one.
I thought Alien was a great movie, and all Cameron did was add more 'action' and some really annoying characters... <shrug>

and that ...

Weekend at Bernies 2 kicked arse over the first one though

And the Harry Potter movies just keep getting better and better! I think this is a very unique phenomenon.

meh, Prisoner of Azkaban is my clear favourite, excellent cast, David Thewlis and Gary Oldman were great ...

Evil Dead two was a bit cleverer than the original, though I really did enjoy all three of Raimi's efforts ... speaking of whom, Spider-Man 2 was perhaps a shade better than the first one; 3 was a real disappointment though

Perhaps I am alone in this, but I found Batman Begins to be far superior to any of its predecessors.

I'll agree - although Batman was a far more influential and groundbreaking film, a recent viewing doesn't hold up.

Mr. Broken wrote:Perhaps I am alone in this, but I found Batman Begins to be far superior to any of its predecessors.

In terms of writing and acting YES! The original Batman however, was much more sweeping in it's vision. (And how can you top the Elfman score?) Burton's true gift is in creating beautiful Gothic fantasy worlds.

All I have to say is ,Bat Dance!

Don't be talkin smack about Prince!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5zOPGMIyMQ

(Be sure to watch till about the 4 min mark or so)

Prince has pulled more (and better) tail than all of us combined.

I won't make fun of him.

I can almost see the cloud of venereal disease surrounding him . . .

He's not my thing, but he's a damn talented musician. Can't forgive him for Rasberry Beret, though.

It just doesnt seem right that we are alowed to call him Prince again.

His name is Prince.


And he is funky.

Star Trek II was better than Star Trek I but Star Trek III was worse than Star Trek II and possibly better than Star Trek I, or at least more entertaining on the whole. Star Trek IV was superior to Star Trek III and Star Trek I but wasn't better than Star Trek II. Star Trek V was the worst film ever made in the history of mankind and therefore was not better than Star Trek I, Star Trek II, Star Trek III or Star Trek IV. Star Trek VI was better than Star Trek V, Star Trek I and Star Trek III but was not superior to Star Trek II or Star Trek IV. Star Trek VII was confusing and at times better than Star Trek VI but at other times far worse however Star Trek VII was indeed better than Star Trek V, Star Trek III and possibly Star Trek I. Star Trek VIII was better than Star Trek VII, Star Trek I, Star Trek III, Star Trek V and Star Trek VI. Star Trek IX was well intentioned but was pretty boring so Star Trek IX was not better than Star Trek VIII, Star Trek II, Star Trek IV, Star Trek VI and Star Trek VII. Star Trek X was just okay for some reason. Must have been the dune buggy chase that people hated so Star Trek X was better than Star Trek I, Star Trek III, Star Trek V, Star Trek VII and Star Trek IX.

I guess.

I am certain that Matrixman will disagree with some of my opinions concerning Star Trek I but I am willing to bear the discomfort of not fully agreeing with him in this one small area.

Star Trek V is misunderstood.

Other than ST:II, it's my favorite Trek film.

Cail wrote:Star Trek V is misunderstood.

Other than ST:II, it's my favorite Trek film.

Misunderstood? Rocket boots, Cail? ROCKETBOOTS!?!

You can accept transporters, nanites, and the subatomic particle of the week, but you have trouble with rocket boots?

Cail wrote:You can accept transporters, nanites, and the subatomic particle of the week, but you have trouble with rocket boots?

It's not that I don't believe in the technology I just think the concept and usage is so stupid it's insulting on a cosmic level.
There are bright spots to the film. Scotty cracking his skull. The question "What does God need with a Starship?"

My biggest pet peeves of Star Trek V.

The campfire sing along.
Sulu and Chekov getting lost.
Kirk hurling the cat woman across the room.
The abysmally poor special effects.
Uhura's fan dance.
More, even dumber, Klingons.
Spock's never before heard of half brother Sybok.
The observation room with the ship's wheel that seems to suddenly be the central focus of the Enterprise A and such an expensive set piece that you can't seem to escape it for very long.
THE ROCKET BOOTS!
The obvious use of a support track to hold the victims er Spock and friends while using the rocket boots.
With the wide use of anti gravity fields why on earth would anyone even suggest the use of rocket boots? Only the dune buggy chase in Star Trek X is as out of place.
There are about a hundred other things that I find unwatchable about Star Trek V. I don't mean to be a pain I just find the film inept and insulting.

The remake of Casino Royale, was the first Bond film to even come close to the character of James Bond as Flemming wrote him. Best Bond Sequel.

Mr. Broken wrote:The remake of Casino Royale, was the first Bond film to even come close to the character of James Bond as Flemming wrote him. Best Bond Sequel.

Agreed.


I'm more partial to Robocop 2.

aTOMiC wrote:

Cail wrote:You can accept transporters, nanites, and the subatomic particle of the week, but you have trouble with rocket boots?

It's not that I don't believe in the technology I just think the concept and usage is so stupid it's insulting on a cosmic level.
There are bright spots to the film. Scotty cracking his skull. The question "What does God need with a Starship?"

My biggest pet peeves of Star Trek V.

The campfire sing along.
Sulu and Chekov getting lost.
Kirk hurling the cat woman across the room.
The abysmally poor special effects.
Uhura's fan dance.
More, even dumber, Klingons.
Spock's never before heard of half brother Sybok.
The observation room with the ship's wheel that seems to suddenly be the central focus of the Enterprise A and such an expensive set piece that you can't seem to escape it for very long.
THE ROCKET BOOTS!
The obvious use of a support track to hold the victims er Spock and friends while using the rocket boots.
With the wide use of anti gravity fields why on earth would anyone even suggest the use of rocket boots? Only the dune buggy chase in Star Trek X is as out of place.
There are about a hundred other things that I find unwatchable about Star Trek V. I don't mean to be a pain I just find the film inept and insulting.

<sigh>

I've spent years defending this film......

Yes, the effects are pretty rough. That's about the only beef I have with the movie. Yes, there's a lot more slapstick humor....These guys are best friends, they're going to do that stuff. As far as Sybok....Meh, he's an interesting character.

The concept and scope of the film are both awesome. It's a damn shame that Universal slashed the budget and Shatner's vision couldn't be realized.

Balon wrote: I'm more partial to Robocop 2.

This man says that's not possible: