Well, there may be bad ones, but ones that are inexcusable and piss me off more than anything are movies where characters remain in sequels, but are replaced by different actors. This can be excused for the purpose of time. I wouldn't expect Corey Feldman to play Tommy Jarvis in Jason Lives, and to the opposite degree, I would not expect, nor would it be explainable if a thrity year old man were to play a ten year old boy in a prequel.

The only time this has ever been acceptable in an apparent disregard for my ability to realize they are pulling the wool over my eyes was in the Back to the Future Triology where Claudia Wells was replaced my Elisabeth Shue.

Imagine if rather than the part of Day Day, Mike Epps was hired to play the part of Smokey. It would make a movie that has a lot of replay value (IMO, so feel free to disagree) simply unwatchable on principle. So you can understand my disdain when I first watched Iron Eagle IV, even with low expectations, and realizing that Doug Masters was alive (to my excitement), but was being played by somebody else (to my disgust).

What is equally upsetting is when a movie that would be just fine as a stand alone, is played off as a sequel in a franchise that it has no business being a part of. Home Alone 3 (as well as 4 after the series had been ruined) and Halloween III come to mind.

Sorry. Had to get that all out. Feel free to ingore me or to play along. Cite your own examples or criticize mine. But I had to let it out.

Tebor wrote:

* except I agree that there are no bad movies though. As for actor replacements, they bug me from time to time like Julianne Moore in Hannibal, but if Jodie Foster wants to pretend she's a director and make shitty movies about airplanes and revenge, who am I to complain? One actor change due to a time jump that did bug me though was Alex Vincent becoming Jimmy Olsen... er, Justin Whalin in Child's Play 3. First, CP3 came out like one year after Child's Play 2, but Alex Vincent was so insanely good as Andy Barclay. He was a kid I was genuinely afraid would get killed. They say kids don't like to watch kids in films, well, Alex Vincent is the exception to that rule. Speaking of which Black Friday has the best cast ever. And The Kentucky Fried Horror Show will reunite Vincent and Dourif!!! Sweet!!!!

Yeah, I didn't realize I screwed up the title Oh well. I'll just pretend that is what I meant to say.

So you actually agree that there are no bad movies? I didn't think anybody agreed with me about that. There may be a few "acceptions" but really there isn't anything that I won't watch at least once. I usually find at least some level of enjoyment in everything I watch. There are movies and genres that I don't go out of my way to watch. There are also movies that I probably have no desire to watch again, even though I thought they were decent. But I have never actually felt like my time was wasted. There are times where I feel let down, but that is about as bad as it gets.

Also, don't know if you've seen it or not, but on the cover of Home Alone 3 it said, " Roger Ebert says, 'Better than the first two.'" And while I don't even come close to agreeing with that, I didn't think it was horrible. But it just upsets me to no end to see blantant squeezing every last bit of juice from the lemon to attract attention to a movie that was obviously never intended to become successful to begin with.

Tebor wrote:

I thought they went from I to IV myself. Those are the only two I see for sale.

Yeah, those are the only ones I ever see as well. I do know the others are out on DVD, but I don't ever see them. The only one I really care to own is the first one anyways. Love the soundtrack for it by the way.

And speaking of going from I to IV, or I to 4 (for some reason they dropped Roman numerals for the final movie) those are the only two Meatballs movies released on DVD. As much as I love watching straight to video Corey Feldman movies, the one I really want is Meatballs III: Summer Job with Patrick Dempsey and Shanon Tweed. I can't figure out why you would release the first and fourth and not release the second and third. Its not like part 4 was any better than the other sequels.

Valdronius wrote:

Tebor, don't you think it's a little cruel to have the power to fix the topic typo but instead just throw it in his face?

Its okay. I "except" the criticism. ...okay bad joke. Sorry.

Knyte wrote:

Tebor wrote: Speaking of which Black Friday has the best cast ever. And The Kentucky Fried Horror Show will reunite Vincent and Dourif!!! Sweet!!!! Dammit!!! You got my hopes up, I thought this was going to be a sequel to "Kentucky Fried Movie!" Douche McCallister wrote: Not to change topics but can anyone name a movie who's sequel is better than the original? Evil Dead X-Men Spiderman El Mariachi (SP?) Superman Star Trek Terminator Star Wars (I mean Empire, not Clones) The Bourne Identity Austin Powers The Lord of the Rings

That is actually a pretty good list. I don't necessarily agree with all of them. But they are all comparable. I know a lot of people, for example that think Empire is the best Star Wars movie. But for me, I still like the original the best.

A sequel I like better that most probably won't agree with is that I like Last Crusade better than Raiders.

Also I think Christmas Vaacation rivals its predecessor. I still like the original better, but they are both great.

username wrote:

scamrock wrote: Knyte wrote: Tebor wrote: Speaking of which Black Friday has the best cast ever. And The Kentucky Fried Horror Show will reunite Vincent and Dourif!!! Sweet!!!! Dammit!!! You got my hopes up, I thought this was going to be a sequel to "Kentucky Fried Movie!" Douche McCallister wrote: Not to change topics but can anyone name a movie who's sequel is better than the original? Evil Dead X-Men Spiderman El Mariachi (SP?) Superman Star Trek Terminator Star Wars (I mean Empire, not Clones) The Bourne Identity Austin Powers The Lord of the Rings That is actually a pretty good list. I don't necessarily agree with all of them. But they are all comparable. I know a lot of people, for example that think Empire is the best Star Wars movie. But for me, I still like the original the best. A sequel I like better that most probably won't agree with is that I like Last Crusade better than Raiders. Also I think Christmas Vaacation rivals its predecessor. I still like the original better, but they are both great. um, the godfather

Good call. I still like the first better. But they are definitely on the same level.

Cattivo wrote:

Choosing between the first two Godfather movies is like a parent trying to decide which of his children he loves more. They're both excellent pieces of cinema. I think the second Bill & Ted movie is better than the first, but I think that's just because I saw it first. I don't think many people agree with me.

Yeah. I think Excellent Adventure is much better than Bogus Journey. But I can understand that if you saw if first. Like I said earlier, Last Crusade is my favorite Indiana Jones. I think it is because that is the first one that I actually owned, so I have seen it much more than the previous two, even though Raiders of the Lost Ark is usually considered the best.

Everybody has favorite movies that are from their childhood that nobody else is going to consider as good. For example, my all time favorite movie is Real Men. I don't even know anybody else who has that movie, let alone considers it one of their favorites. But its one of those movies I grew up watching. A lot of people don't like Jim Belushi. But I think his overindulgent attitude is perfect for the role (I also loved him in Gang Related and Retroactive). And I also think John Ritter has spot on comedic timing and is an underrated actor.

But yeah, both of the first two Godfather movies are easily in the argument for best movie ever made. The third? Not so much.

Knyte wrote:

I think the harder question to answer is: Which remakes were better than thier originals? Remakes are the bane of the cinema. Seriously, they completely scream "WE ONLY MADE THIS TO MAKE MORE MONEY FROM A FILM!" The only times that remakes are forgivable, is if they are remade by the original filmmaker, due to better budget, better resources, etc. Evil Dead I & II are perfect examples of this. Evil Dead II isn't an exact remake of the first, but basically is. Raimi had more money and expirence, and decided to remake the film the way he wanted the first one to be.

Okay. Since you asked that, let me ask you this. Do you like the original version of the Star Wars trilogy, or the special edition better? I know its not a remake as much as an updated version. I also understand that Lucas was just trying to fulfill his original vision that wasn't possible with the technology of the time. But how would you feel if they started doing updated versions of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws, Terminator, The Day the Earth Stood Still, or anything made when the technology wasn't as good.

I understand what he was doing, and I guess he has the right to. Its his movie after all. But at the same time, I resent it. I mean you don't see Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale updating Back to the Future.

As far as remakes though, I'll have to think about it and get back to you. I usually don't like them as much. But the only ones I can really think of off the top of my head are all classic horror remakes like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Psycho, House of Wax, etc.

Actually, I just thought of a remake I might like better. Little Shop of Horrors...maybe. I'm still a sucker for the classics. But a cheesy 80's musical with Rick Moranis is always two thumbs up in my book.

[quote="Stanly"]

scamrock wrote:

Cattivo wrote: Everybody has favorite movies that are from their childhood that nobody else is going to consider as good. For example, my all time favorite movie is Real Men. I don't even know anybody else who has that movie, let alone considers it one of their favorites. But its one of those movies I grew up watching. A lot of people don't like Jim Belushi. But I think his overindulgent attitude is perfect for the role (I also loved him in Gang Related and Retroactive). And I also think John Ritter has spot on comedic timing and is an underrated actor. I had forgotten all about that movie, I used to love that when I was younger....that's where they give the alien the glass of water, right? Movies were so much more when you are younger. When I was younger I used to love I Come in Peace also, I'm afraid what I would think if I watched it now...I should try and find it...I'm sure it would have to be VHS.....

I dunno. I don't think I Come in Peace is that bad. I mean, it is what it is. I'd actually like to get a hold of the VHS (you're right, no DVD). But Real Men is still my fave, even today. I have the DVD and still watch it regulaly.

In regards to Crispin Glover being replaced as Marty McFly, I would probably accept it, since it doesn't make that much of a difference since we don't get a lot of George McFly in the sequels except in the dinner sequence in 2015, and he is an old timer in that anyways and they don't really show him enough to tell. But the fact that Glover sued the producers for recreating his likeness, and the fact that he refused to be in the sequels because allegedly wanted more money bothers me on both sides. I mean, I don't know exactly what went down. But I can understand both sides I guess. Aside from that, which really doesn't concern me and doesn't have much impact on the movie itself, its not that big of a deal. If he played a bigger role, I'm not sure I would like it.