Sequels that are better than the first ones.

even V -- just that it's a bad episode

lol sad but true

'Bad' is a very mild descriptor of V.

Only ST: The Motion Picture really captures the sort of sixties era Sci-Fi that the original series offered, and despite its interminable masturbatory drydock sequence, is the only ST with any sense of wonder.

You vastly overestimate a movie that's the equivalent of being stuck in a Best Buy electronics section staring at TVs for three hours.

Wrath of Khan actually has a good script with crackling dialogue and, uh, performances.

worked better on a big screen xp

also i hate to use "fan service" but ST:TMP engaged in it massively, being the first blockbuster-budget adap of a rinky-dink TV show

TMP is a really weird movie. It has it's charms and I am naturally forgiving of epic abstract space visuals on a big screen, but the pacing and the editing and the lack of story is really strange. I mean, there's the excessively gory transporter accident early on (for no apparent reason), there's all these shots of people looking at screens (just to remind you that the cast still exists, I suppose), the set/costume design is all in drab grays, etc. There were just a lot of bad filmmaking decisions involved.

I've never been able to stay awake through TMP.

Wrath of Khan is a great film and like Empire Strikes Back it being the sequel benefits from not having to do the required storytelling beats a first film must have to introduce the characters and world to an audience. the work can now deconstruct these themes, so we are seeing Obi Wan early in Empire as a ghost, a dead man, and watch the entire crew of the Enterprise die right at the start of Khan, itself a simulation. the filmmaking and formal presentation is expertly well done for both films. shot and pacing recalling classic naval battles, the casting of shadows across these ships. the type of movies made w b roll stock bought from military tests, etc. ie. that tracking shot when they are opening the torpedo bay is balletic. certainly the scenes of them dueling in space w the shit over the eerie backing were great callbacks to the old submarine naval films, updated for psychedelic space age. Spock's sacrifice is one of the most amazing acting scenes in all of pop film, it really brings the waterworks. with Spock they really pull off a space Jesus. then the space funeral with "Amazing Grace" to cap it off was really tasteful and classic-feeling. plus there is the whole horror villain stuff w Khan himself, the film god Riccardo Montalbahn, torturing the captured Trek crewmembers, commandeering his Diamond Dogs-style space pirates. these are the Hyper timelines for both series. both are able to take the original idea, the nuclear kernel of Star Trek/Wars and spin it to be the best pulp representation of the pre-established world ever. Darth Vader doesn't just choke a guy out, he kills him over a video screen. the film is a classic.

Temple OTOH is a piece of shock rock trash, v much in the mold of maybe Pulp Fiction or other grind-house worshipping. the brownface and stereotyping of "savagery" is pretty bad and a little too old school imo. it is the edgy Indiana Jones. i always find Raider more awesome, more confident in itself, more mysterious. that music when they are talking about Abner and the Ark, this occultist, and taking this real-world battle of right and wrong and literalizing it through the use of the Ark as maguffin and the whole OT ending. Temple was an archeology of a non-existent racist trope of what "Occidental" religion is like from back in the 19th century. i don't think this gives it nearly the gravity or sense of reality that Raiders does by using both a real world villain and a real world religious tradition to base it on.

Marion may have been a trope at times but she was also doing things like smacking Indy in the head w a full length mirror. that intro where she runs the bar in Nepal and is drinking a huge barfly under the table is incredible. then there are her scenes conning her way out of the nazi tent, getting French archeologist-turned-collaborator Belloq drunk and pulling a knife on him. not saying hers isn't a problematic role at times but i really like her portrayal and it's a pretty awesome multidimensionally iconic character. Willie felt one-note in comparison, just constantly screaming or whining, and was written that way, she never really has agency in anything she is doing. tbh it takes me out of the movie a bit, it feels like i am watching Scooby Doo. were they trying for a Valley Girl type here, cash in on that 80s trend? i like Marion. she is knocking people out with cookery, she is starting up airplanes, she is more self-actualized. she also isn't forced into reaching her hand into a squirming bug-filled wall. Temple is mean spirited to its characters, it makes it harder to watch.

Marion starts the airplane inadvertently and yells INDY

oh wait i meant Temple is a "Orientalist" trope. the intellectual stages of colonialism and imperialism, a lot of archaeology was done w these biases, there is a tendency to exoticize, to do fake anthopology. there is something to be said for archaeology's dual history with entertainment. in medieval times kings and the wealthy would hired people to go explore, plunder, report back wonderful stories to hear, so embellishing the truth was in vogue.

Marion starts the airplane inadvertently and yells INDY

well yeah this is a b movie after all she is going to spend half the movie doing this.

I think Capshaw finds variants in her one-dimensional character (I like Marion but like I wrote earlier she gets too much credit).

the film god Riccardo Montalbahn, torturing the captured Trek crewmembers, commandeering his Diamond Dogs-style space pirates.

lol @ Diamond Dogs

Indy is plundering his hemisphere's religious past in the 1st and 3rd movies. he's a cultural tourist for the others.

I like Montalban's explanation but he softsoaps Khan by attributing his obsession to the death of his wife. Khan hates Kirk, period, and he loves it, it gives his life meaning and purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxxSzt49cYw

it is crazy that they are never onscreen at the same time, the whole thing is done by them talking over video screens. it really befits their the OTT performances. maybe this adds a layer of menace to it all...?

and Kirk is so unworthy of the hate, in the same way a man or woman we used to love now looks...pathetic.

it should be added that it's also a very, very good idea for a movie. i can't think of a better tie-in to a previous storyline, the way it picks up the thread.

it also reminds how bereft of ideas Star Trek: Into Darkness is.

meaning a storyline that has been seemingly long-discarded and forgotten, it's just such a clever device albeit very simple on the surface.

TOS is littered with those kinds of potential plot threads

so many episodes where they come down and fuck up a planet and then are like "gee, who knows what this place will be like 100 years from now?" or similar

and Kirk is so unworthy of the hate

the cast of TOS might disagree

lol

I think Raiders is the better movie, but in many ways Temple of Doom feels like the movie that Spielberg and Lucas didn't have the nerve to make the first time around. It's a direct homage to the B serials they're sending up, with all of the racism and tastelessness in tact. I mean, Spielberg ends Raiders with a Citizen Kane homage, fer Christ's sakes!

Exorcist 2 fucking sucks the only good thing about it is the Morricone theme and the Snakefinger cover of the Morricone theme. I like the song in Shock Treatment better than Rocky Horror but I'm sure that's been mention itt.

songs*

Boorman seems to think it sucks too but the visual excess in the thing is a wonder to behold, not to mention the Burton excess. I won't defend it as a good movie.

as i pointed out upon re-seeing it in a theater this past summer, Raiders swipes two of its biggest stunts from Stagecoach and doesn't really improve on em.

As for Godfather II, Coppola said his m.o. was "I wanted to punish Michael," so I think it plays better with Catholics.

Raiders swipes two of its biggest stunts from Stagecoach

I assume the dragged-under-the-moving-car one is one, what's the other?

Indy jumps from one vehicle to another in that same chase, I think? or is it horses? anyway it's much like Yakima Canutt (doubling for John Wayne) sequentially leaping horses.

yeah but Nazis

If you're gonna steal, steal from the best, etc.

Did not realize Nazis directed Stagecoach, tbh.

Raiders is alright, but as with several Coen Bros films most impresses people who never saw the antecedents.

Nah, I love Stagecoach and Raiders for other reasons, and besides Spielberg pays tribute to Ford by taking what he learned and putting it in a new context. It's true that the discovery of the Ark and the final Ark-going-apeshit scene have a grandeur missing in the other Indy films. And Belloq's drunk scenes with Marion compensate for his being a rather pallid villain.

I think I'd call Aparajito the best film sequel. Not that it's better than the first or third films, but it stands on its own as a work of art and probably makes perfect sense seen in isolation from the others.

Boxer's Omen is way way way better than Bewitched.

I like Once Upon A Time In China 2 and 3 better than the original.

Exorcist 3 >>>>>>> Exorcist 2 btw

Well, yeah.

I'd have much more time for an 'Exorcist 3 > Exorcist 1' argument than the insane 'Exorcist 2 > Exorcist 1 (or much of anything)' argument Alfred has put forward.

On the horror front, I have basically zero time for any of the Child's Play films with 'Child's Play' in the title but I think all of the subsequent Child's Play films with 'Chucky' in the title are good-to-great.

child’s play 2 is great but otherwise you’re right

I was 13 when Raiders came out, I hadn't seen the antecedents!

well Morbius was 13 when Stagecoach came out, so you can understand why he feels this way

child’s play 2 is great but otherwise you’re right

(& I was like yep that looks like a brad opinion, checks out)

Rocky iii ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓

Wrath Of Khan was my first ever in-cinema experience of looking at my watch at the end credits and being flatly baffled as to where 2 hours had gone. i don't just mean 'oh it flies by!' i mean literally dumbstruck and perplexed that time could even move so fast. i was only a kid but even today it seems to have incredible pacing, i think partly it's because Khan actually takes a time (half an hour maybe?) before he even rocks up. it's a *masterpiece* of structure.

Problem Child 2 probably is the best of the trilogy btw

Iron Man 3 is much more fun the first two, how did it get to be divisive? Is it the Kingsley stuff?

I think a lot of people have issue with that plot twist, yeah - I personally thought it was great, the idea of a 'created enemy' fascinates me and is something I can totally buy if it is done well (which I thought it was here).
In this case, there will always be comic book fans who are disappointed that they didn't get the villain closer to the source material. (For those, there's a must-see one-shot special with Kingsley called All Hail The King, which is included on the Thor 2 Blu-ray.)
But I think a problem for many was that Guy Pearce's Aldritch Killian wasn't an impressive enough main villain.

I've also more than once heard people having problems with the final battle, for being too CGI-heavy and/or because Tony couldn't get access to his armor for so long, his entire house is destroyed and then is suddenly and conveniently able to call on an armor-army from an undamaged storage section in the end. But he needed to re-establish contact beforehand & the storage was pretty much a vault, I personally don't doubt that he couldn't have done so earlier.

I love the movie and I personally even prefer it over the first Iron Man, I've seen acclaim, but I know I've often seen people list it low as well.

Amazon recently recommended me the Home Alone box set. There are five of those films but I was only aware of three.

Problem Child 2 probably is the best of the trilogy btw

take it to the controversial opinions thread buddy