The last movie you saw...

[maxpayne2409]

hmm that was a much shorter less indepth argument from spud then i was expecting, maybe i should rewatch robocop 1, last time i saw it was in 1995/6

[spudthedestroyer]

its pretty damn obvious Robocop 1 is better than Robocop 2. I don't think the director of the second would think his movie was anywhere near as good.

Its like saying Ghostbusters 2 is better than ghostbusters 1. It just isn't

[maxpayne2409]

your right about gb, 1 is easily better then 2, but there are occassions where the sequel is better then the original.. cybertracker 2 for instance , Dawn of the dead, easily better then night, although thats one of those rare times where the tom savini remake is better then the original

[spudthedestroyer]

Sorry wasn't meaning to distract from the point as it seems to have done, I was trying to clarify; the parallel was about the pointlessness of arguing an example of a blantantly inferior sequel such as Robocop 2 as anything other than inferior to the original.

I'm not stupid enough to claim sequels are inferior, that's neither true or justifiable since there's lots of cases that are. That was not an inten... making a case for sequels... just saying robocop 2, which clearly isn't as good as the first, is like saying something like Ghostbusters 2, which clearly is not as good as the first, is as good as Ghostbusters. They just ain't

There's loads of superior sequels, I'm pretty sure its been done to death on these boards, even in this very thread i suspect. The inevitable creation of stuff like The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, Evil Dead 2, Empire Strikes Back, etc. wasn't what i was getting at.

I was just trying to pointing out that RC2 was a case of a sequel that just fails to match the original even if its just about bareable in itself

Never seen cybertracker 2... i don't think i've ever seen cybertracker 1

ps. Ghostbusters 2 is way better than RC2, before you think i was meaning something crazy like that too

[maxpayne2409]

ps. Ghostbusters 2 is way better than RC2

i could never ever misunderstand that, as yes gb2 is easily better then rc2, gb just rules in all generalness

hmmm maybe ill watch rc 1 again then to see, as like i said before there is several years gap between the watchings of both

but i think you should check out cybertracker 1 and 2 to see what i mean (although whether you will like either of them is very debateable but you will most likely agree 2 is better then 1 either way )

[dinky]

I think it's a good general rule that the sequels are inferior to originals. operative word being general</i> though. anyway, we all agree that there a plenty (a solid 10-20 in my book) that are equal to or better than the originals, so no need to push it any further.

two new ones: match point</i> and werewolf hunters</i>. point</i> is the latest from woody allen. I knew it was supposed to be different, but I still expected something...iunno...funny. it wasn't, and it didn't try to be. it was pretty straightforward...I wouldn't call it psychological thriller. it was lighter than that. all in all a decent film. and I'm glad he finally moved away from the NY locales and such. but I really wasn't in the mood for anything drama-ish without some absurd or comic thread underlying it.

hunters</i>, I'd never heard of, but woke-up on the sofa at 1am, and it had just started, and it looked like my kind of fantasy-horror. turned out to be quite dull. hot chick with exquisite titties gets-off in a tub with a bar of soap made from human fat of murdered women. but otherwise, it wasn't so good. I kept watching in hopes of some action, but it played-out more like a salem witch trial type of thing. the way it ended made it seem like it was based on a true story. pity. the "truth" is rarely interesting in these movies.

[maxpayne2409]

but I still expected something...iunno...funny

how can you ever expect a woody allen film to be funny? or to even expect it to be good, well i guess if you like Woody Allen then maybe you might expect ti to be good i suppose, but not me i hate the guy and his boring films, the only one i can tolerate is that 10 things you always wanted to know about sex, which is ocassionally amusing but still kind of on the level of how scrubs is sometimes occassionally funnhy

[dinky]

lessee...small time crooks was funny, and jade scorpion. annie hall is an all time classic. manhattan is another, though I haven't seen it to judge. deconstructing harry & hollywood ending and mighty aphrodite were funny in their neurotic quirky way, but all in the "same old shtick way" so therefore boringing, which I'm sure summarizes all the rest of his resumé that I haven't seen. I suppose you found as good as it gets</i> unfunny too? I thought it was hillarious - didn't care for the sentimental helen hunt morality lesson that it turned into, but jack's quirky guy reminded me a lot of allen's usual shtick (which I actually liked in antz</i> - just thought the animation was shoddy and story unimaginative).

mmm...also stayed up for beastmaster</i> after werewolf hunter</i>. nothing much to say, really. enjoyed it. sadly, the sword fights betray how bad marc singer actually is as a swordsman (especially if someone like me</i> can see it and laugh). but I liked. had a nice He-Man feel to it that the dolph lundgron masters of the universe</i> lacked (and even that movie I don't hate - although I thoroughly resent the coming to earth setting ala AvP. people know wtf he-man is. you don't have to sell it to the girlfriend or "make it human").

[maxpayne2409]

your right i did think as good as it gets was crap

although beastmaster is amusing (unintentionally.. possibly)

speaking of unfunny movies i watched Date Movie tonight and it was obviously one of those supposedly spoof everything going movies it just ended up being really boring instead

also watched Young Sherlock Holmes, haven't seen it since i was in primary school, but it was still excellent, really enjoyed it

[dinky]

although beastmaster is amusing (unintentionally.. possibly)

it's a skit compilation show. in many ways, they never outgrew their In Living Color roots. then...I also don't think much of mel brooks stuff, which feels kinda the same (although not nearly on the same shoddy scale). but didn't you like Not Another Teen Movie? I thought you or maybe spud did. I thought it was the same drivel, at any rate.

then again, I think similar things about hot shots and even the (ahem) untouchable naked gun stuff. never got into any that comedy. yet I enjoy wedding crashers and drive me crazy. go figure.

[maxpayne2409]

wedding crashers was absolute shite, and generally annoying, i can watch Mel Brooks movies but Spaceballs aside im not exactly a fan

naked gun is jsut great thou, although still not as good as Police Squad (which is finally coming to dvd) was

drive me crazy was ok though but i dont think id class it under comedy

Not another teen movie had a few moments but it's not a movie i would really watch more then twice maximum

[spudthedestroyer]

but didn't you like Not Another Teen Movie? I thought you or maybe spud did. I thought it was the same drivel, at any rate.

You've got to be f*ckin kidding me right? You've gotta know for a fact it sure as hell aint me.

[dinky]

sorry. comedy is so disparate, I thought it really might have been thee. almost positive I read it on a board with black background.

lessee, caught up on all the tv series: entourage</i> and deadwood</i> s3 latest eps. the 4400</i> s3 first three eps. the 4400</i> - I know I've said this before but still - is almost comics-to-tv ripoff of strazinsky's rising stars</i> comic. it's changed well enough to avoid any copyright infringment or whatnot, but it has become so damn similar, it's eerie.

[dinky]

big lebowski</i>. nuff said.

[maxpayne2409]

nuff said ina good ro bad way? its one of those films i just never got round to seeing

[spudthedestroyer]

I watched "V for Vendetta" and I agree with the positive reviews. Okay its a tad cheesy and what not, but it works. Very entertaining movie from hollywood, given that they don't usually deliver that, its job well done.

I kept expecting Agent smith to say "combine 'arvistor" though

I also retried halo for about 1 minute to test i wasn't imagine its shitness, and i wasn't

[dinky]

nuff said ina good ro bad way? its one of those films i just never got round to seeing

I'll pretend you didn't say that. it's great.

[maxpayne2409]

just watched the children of the stones, its an old 70s itv scifi set in Milbury (really Avebury in Wiltshire) about a scientist and his son who arrive in town to study the rock circles from neolithic times and discover something far more sinister, well worth a watch although the music gets a bit annoying, thankfully there isn't much of it.

incidently it stars spuds favourite ever actor Gareth Thomas of Blakes 7 fame

also started watching Survivors series 2 (1st ep so far)

[dinky]

x-men: evolution</i> s3 d1 & couple eps of d2. enjoying it. like the way they work in other x-kids while keeping with a managable core. that said, story arcs are bouncing around too much. the 90s series was very tight in this respect. every ep was almost like a chapter in a book. this one bounces around too much, especially in regard to the big bad guys (magneto, mystique, apacalypse). iunno, I like generally what they've done in the series, but the stories they open-up...there are a lot of doors left open with rooms unexplored. the first two seasons were better about this, building-up to the s2 finale. now though...it's a lot more helter skelter. you'd think a 13 ep season would be wound a bit tighter.

[spudthedestroyer]

Watched Alexander. It was the director's cut which is shorter, but it turns out all Oliver Stone cut out was some gay stuff so to be honest, its probably a good thing for me Sopranos has done enough gay stuff for my tastes.

As for the movie, well i avoided it for a while, but all i heard was how shit it was for the most part. To be honest, it isn't that bad. Its really light though, covers lots of scraps of Alexander but really doesn't engage well enough at any particular moment in his life which leaves the whole thing detatched. Loved the battle sequences, there should have been more... lots more. There was desperately little in Babylon too. I can see where the criticism comes in, Stone never attempts to really build Alexander's character, and the other generals are pretty lightly covered. I have to wonder if it would have saved the film better if he would have focused on a particular period in Alexander's life more, and then jump later to him on the far reaches of the empire to show him loosing control. It seems to hop, skip and jump all across the Persian empire rather too quickly (even for Alexander the Great! ).

Still I think its worth watching, even if its for the battles alone. Rome: Total War with better graphics