CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Drafts & Lists › Favorite franchises, and the best films in each?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Favorite franchises, and the best films in each? - Page 2

post #51 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:19pm
Actually T3 seems to have a lot of supporters on the boards, and is considered, at the very least, underrated.

T2 I actually can't even watch anymore. I've seen it way too much and Edward Furlong kills it.
Reply
post #52 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:20pm
Hey, if you read my above statement about T2, I like T3 as well. I was just using it as an example of Cameron's recent endorsement of sequels to his stuff.

Can't say I enjoy it as much as T2, but I will say that T3's ending is actually necessary in order for the whole series to still make sense. I'd even be up for a T4, but not in the way they currently seem set on doing it. Didn't that army base sort of give you a Beneath the Planet of the Apes vibe, but in a good way?
Reply
post #53 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
Back-to-back, Aquafresh. I have a feeling that's how we're going to have to fight this one.
Either that or all the closet T3 fans will hear our rallying cry. It's due for a backlash to the backlash to the backlash.

One thing you can't argue: Nick Stahl was a better John Conner than Ed Furlong could have ever been in his wildest, heroin-induced fever dream.
Reply
post #54 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll
T2 I actually can't even watch anymore. I've seen it way too much and Edward Furlong kills it.
I keep hearing this and I'm sorry, it's bunk. He's supposed to be playing a bratty 13 year old kid and that's exactly what he does.
Reply
post #55 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:27pm
Just because he's supposed to be annoying doesn't make him less annoying. In either case, I think it's time I revisit the whole series (and see T3 for the first time) because it's been a while.
Reply
post #56 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Sherman

Can't say I enjoy it as much as T2, but I will say that T3's ending is actually necessary in order for the whole series to still make sense. I'd even be up for a T4, but not in the way they currently seem set on doing it. Didn't that army base sort of give you a Beneath the Planet of the Apes vibe, but in a good way?
Actually I'd like to see a BTPA inspired T4.

I haven't seen the TV show (is it even on yet?) but I bet that after it soils the franchise with it's crappiness the public at large will come to fully appreciate T3.
Reply
post #57 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:29pm
Actually, one thing I was thinking when watching Live Free or Die Hard was, would it kill them to have at least one tiny Dr. Silberman-esque cameo from a minor supporting character? T3 did much to make itself welcome by throwing Earl Boen into the fray for one minute.
Reply
post #58 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:29pm
Sorry if that appeared multiple times, I don't know what just happened to my internet.
Reply
post #59 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:35pm
A future war T4 with Nick Stahl in the lead and a solid director would sit just fine with me. My question about that show is, if it's after T2, how come John is surprised that Judgement Day still happened in T3. The only logical (and that's a relative term in a series about time-travelling cyborgs) explanation I can think of is that in its final moments of panic, Skynet sent back way more Terminators across the pre-Judgement Day timeline than we ever thought possible.
Reply
post #60 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll
Just because he's supposed to be annoying doesn't make him less annoying. In either case, I think it's time I revisit the whole series (and see T3 for the first time) because it's been a while.
You should definitely watch T3. I think this summer's crop of limp sequels makes it look even better now. A lot of it isn't much different from T2, just a lot of fun set pieces but it gets real interesting in the last act.
Reply
post #61 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:42pm
I agree with Moltisanti. Actually, T3 ends up feeling like a decent prequel to the future war segements of the first two movies. In fact, John Connor's last scene gave me "the mask going over Darth Vader's face for the first time" goosebumps. I don't want to say any more, but those who have seen it know what I'm talking about.
Reply
post #62 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:43pm
You know, the Terminator and Alien series both share this in common -- they both have potential sequels that seem like no brainers but remain frustratingly unfilmed. With Alien it's the goddamn Aliens coming to earth (and not in this bullshit AVP fashion, but proper. Y'all know what I mean.) and with Terminator it's the goddamn future John Conner robot war. Both of these things are the natural progression of the storylines, but instead they give us the same recycled storylines with cosmetic changes. It's kind of maddening.
Reply
post #63 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:51pm
T3 is overly derivative of it's predecessors, at least for most of the running time, and the TX is a rather pathetic stab at topping the previous iconic Terminators. But I can forgive that because of a great setpiece or two, an intense puberty-holdover crush on Claire Danes, the previously mentioned great finale, an intense Carnivale-holdover love of watching Nick Stahl carry the weight of the world on his shoulders, and healthy doses of humor that (mostly) works without undermining the apocalyptic stakes. Oh, and the drive-thru shooting makes me giggle like a little girl.
Reply
post #64 of 94
7/6/07 at 5:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Sherman
I agree with Moltisanti. Actually, T3 ends up feeling like a decent prequel to the future war segements of the first two movies. In fact, John Connor's last scene gave me "the mask going over Darth Vader's face for the first time" goosebumps. I don't want to say any more, but those who have seen it know what I'm talking about.

I'm with Sherman on this one...its not as extreme as, say, Soilent Green...but its definitely a movie where the last scene redeems all that comes before (and what comes before isn't bad...just not Cameron-quality).
Reply
post #65 of 94
7/6/07 at 6:02pm
The T-X has nothing on the T-1000, but the bathroom fight is pure joy.

Even though much of the film is a rehash of T2 it is a required rehash. If the film had started with the future war it would have really made the events in T2 pointless. It was important to show why exactly the war ended up happening, and equally important to have a film where you could buy John Connor as a plausible leader of the human race.
Reply
post #66 of 94
7/6/07 at 6:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Panarotti
Can someone tell me: What was so wrong about Superman Returns? Everywhere I turn, it seemed like everyone was bashing it.
It wasn't that it was missing action, to my mind, it was that the plot was sooo stupid. To be sure, there were some amazing elements--Supes' relationship with Lois & family was interesting (particularly the kid) adn the detached tone of the film worked for me as well. Oh, and Spacey was good.

However! Lex's 'big scheme' was absolutely terrible--not only a re-hash of his plot in Superman: The Movie--but totally unbelievable (who wants to live on a continent that looks like Antarctica?). And James Marsden ended up being the closest thing to a hero--but he had little to no screen time or lines. The superpowers of the kid were totally wasted (as were all interesting elements) and for all the focus on Superman's malaise, its never filled out. And whoever played Lois Lane--that was the worst performance I can imagine.

Donner's original (the best by far) has great acting uniformly and some genuinely funny slapstick. The backstory is a little convoluted and long but the main plot--Luther blowing up California--is a perfectly plausible scheme for a supervillain...And the moment when Superman discovers Lois dead and lets out that blood curtling scream...it captures the sadness of a perfect man who still can't control an imperfect world. And when he violates his code of conduct by reversing time in order to save Lois--this is a moment of hubris that Superman never really has again in the film series.

And what's with Singer's screwy chronology, etc? 'Returns' should either be a reboot of Superman 3 or its own seperate thing...instead, he pics at the series' chronology as if it were a buffet and ends up with a muddled mishmash of things Donner did better. Best part of Superman Returns is the opening credits...
Reply
post #67 of 94
7/6/07 at 6:23pm
Just to pointlessly spew more love for T3 --

That summer, Matrix Reloaded had that much ballyhooed highway chase that ended up seeming like such a greenscreened phony compared to T3's brutal, crane enhanced sequence. For all I know it was digital fakery as well, but it really looked like they were slamming stuntmen into the sides of buildings and tearing down entire Los Angeles blocks. I gotta say, as an East Coast asshole with a love/hate relationship to my adopted new home, I get a real kick out seeing LA trashed.
Reply
post #68 of 94
7/6/07 at 7:20pm
Superman Returns' biggest sin was that it was disappointing. There were some good elements in it, but none of them were developed enough, and the movie never managed to pull together as a whole and become great. In the end, I liked it but I didn't love it, and that's just not enough for a Superman movie.

The original is still the best; I still watch it four or five times a year. Donner's direction is impeccable, Geoff Unsworth's cinematography is beautiful, Tom Mankiewicz's dialogue crackles, and the performances are sublime. Especially that Chris Reeve kid.
Reply
post #69 of 94
7/6/07 at 10:08pm
Greg said it, "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" is a real gem and my favorite.


That opening scene when Zira and Cornelius take their helmets off and the reactions that follow is priceless.

I also dig how the sequels move back and fourth in time without any massive contradictions.

A great score that is impossible to find.

I also love Superman Returns and T3.
Reply
post #70 of 94
7/6/07 at 11:00pm
The CD for the first movie has a good amount of music from ESCAPE as bonus tracks.
Although the best film is the original, I love the second half of BENEATH. I went to a Christian school, and we used to say "Glory be to the bomb..." and "Untooo my GOD!" when they'd march us into the church.
As I remember, BATTLE implies that the world might not be blown up after all, right? If so, nuts to that.
Reply
post #71 of 94
7/6/07 at 11:25pm
Thread Starter 
I agree, Apes is a franchise that never really gets its due. I recently saw Escape and Conquest for the first time courtesy of Netflix, and they really did a pretty respectable job of devising a "future history" ... Star Trek has more contradictions in its multi-series timeline, for God's sake.

And you come to appreciate what genre staples Roddy McDowell and Ricardo Montalban really are. (Can't wait to see Battle for the first time, but for some reason there is a "long wait" for it on Netflix.)

In light of the comments on Terminator, here is a question for you ... is whiny Edward Furlong really any worse than whiny Hayden Christensen in the SW prequels? (Is it a battle even worth winning?)

As far as Superman Returns, as I said to another poster, it seems almost like people decided in advance to not give the film a chance. Yeah, it draws a little too much on the real estate swindles of the Donner original, etc., but it nicely captures the same nostalgic feel of the Chris Reeve movies (the first two at least). Some people compare it unfavorably to Batman Begins, but the thing is that Superman's appeal is for different reasons that Batman's.

Some people who bashed Superman Returns are the same people who praised Land of the Dead -- a watered-down, R-rated reminder that Romero's best work is behind him (at least until we see how Diary of the Dead turns out). Land had some interesting characters and ideas, but there was not nearly enough time to develop them fully -- and for once they had real actors like Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo, who were kinda wasted. Some moments of inspiration, like the zombies treading through the water in the moonlight, but none of the gut-ripping excessive glory of its predecessors.
Reply
post #72 of 94
7/7/07 at 2:02am
Honestly, you're better off leaving the series with Conquest. Battle had a budget of about four dollars, makes very little sense, and feels like a massive scaling back in storytelling ambition from the previous film. There's just very little that actually works. As a kid, it was extremely disappointing.
Reply
post #73 of 94
7/7/07 at 2:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Panarotti
In light of the comments on Terminator, here is a question for you ... is whiny Edward Furlong really any worse than whiny Hayden Christensen in the SW prequels? (Is it a battle even worth winning?)
No on both counts, which makes it not even a question worth asking.
Reply
post #74 of 94
7/7/07 at 3:54pm
Battle of the Planet of the Apes...where the fate of mankind is decided in a treehouse and on a schoolbus driven by people with bad skin.

Yeah, I don't understand the Superman Returns hate, either. I thought it was a nice alternative to all the gritty and dark comic book stuff that, at this point, is getting to feel just as cliched and safe as campy Batman and Robin schtick. It feels pretty anti-climactic, I'll give the haters that, but for me there's just too much to enjoy in that movie.
Reply
post #75 of 94
7/7/07 at 4:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Panarotti
As far as Superman Returns, as I said to another poster, it seems almost like people decided in advance to not give the film a chance. Yeah, it draws a little too much on the real estate swindles of the Donner original, etc., but it nicely captures the same nostalgic feel of the Chris Reeve movies (the first two at least). Some people compare it unfavorably to Batman Begins, but the thing is that Superman's appeal is for different reasons that Batman's.
I'm a little hesitant to comment on the above when there are far more interesting franchise entries to debate, but...

I was one of the biggest supporters of the idea of "Returns" being set in the Donner universe. That first Teaser trailer with Brando's voiceover and John William's music gave me chills. It wasn't until actually watching the film that I realized what a mistake that was. Singer could have never made Superman:The Movie. Not because he is a bad director, but because his sensibilities completely clash with the style and feeling that Donner brought to the original. The result wasn't necessarily an awful film, but one that failed to meld the two opposing tones in a successful manner. Add to that the fact that they blew their wad with the first action scene and tried to go for awe instead of excitement in the third act, and you're left with a film that I've never been able to watch from beginning to end since my first viewing. Believe me, I've tried.

So, no, not everyone that dislikes the film set out to do so in the beginning.
Reply
post #76 of 94
7/7/07 at 9:10pm
Amph, give Returns another chance. Without outside influences, turn it up and enjoy.

Of the Pink Panther films, "A Shot in the Dark" and Strikes Again are the best.

Harry Potter- the last film worked great for me.
Reply
post #77 of 94
7/7/07 at 9:15pm
The thing with Battle was that the original screenwriter from Conquest, died. The studio was not impressed with Conquest's box-office take so they slashed the budget resulting in a less than epic finale.
Reply
post #78 of 94
7/7/07 at 10:03pm
Sometime down the road, I may give "Returns" another chance, Zod. Right now, I'm itching to revisit the Ape series after reading this thread. I meant to do it last year after reading Devin's retrospective on the series:

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=7256

Never got around to it, though. Time to do so.
Reply
post #79 of 94
7/8/07 at 12:18am
One thing that Apes has going for it as a franchise is that nobody can ever accuse them of making the exact same movie over and over. Each one is a continuation of the story that serves as both prequel AND sequel, and often they move into all sorts of dangerous new thematic and plot territory. Except Battle. Battle sucks.
Reply
post #80 of 94
7/8/07 at 1:15am
Love the monkey head DVD case.
Reply
post #81 of 94
7/8/07 at 2:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amphibatron
Singer could have never made Superman:The Movie. Not because he is a bad director, but because his sensibilities completely clash with the style and feeling that Donner brought to the original.
Could not agree more, and I say that as a huge Singer fan (X2 being my favorite of that franchise). Donner gave his film a warmth and heart that Singer couldn't, though not for lack of trying.

As for Harry Potter, I doubt anything will ever replace Azkaban for me. Even with the darkening subject matter taken into account, Goblet of Fire took itself a little too seriously for my tastes, whereas Azkaban was fun, and fluid, and really magical. Plus, it's hard to argue with Alfonso Cuaron as a filmmaker.
Reply
post #82 of 94
7/8/07 at 2:31am
I know a lot of people think each Potter movie is better than the last, but I'm firmly in the camp that thinks that Goblet of Fire, while good, is certainly a step down from Prisoner of Azkaban. I'm a little disheartened to hear Order of the Phoenix getting not-so-great pre-release reviews.
Reply
post #83 of 94
7/8/07 at 3:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amphibatron
Sometime down the road, I may give "Returns" another chance, Zod. Right now, I'm itching to revisit the Ape series after reading this thread. I meant to do it last year after reading Devin's retrospective on the series:

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=7256

Never got around to it, though. Time to do so.
Any and every sequel in the Apes series is a flyspeck on the original film. You're goddamn right I said it.

But, as has been said, you will never find a franchise where the sequels say "fuck you" to rehashing the original as much as this one. The sequel that MIGHT fit the "rehash" description (Beneath) becomes so bat-shit insane in its second half that it might be the craziest sequel of the lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexc.
As I remember, BATTLE implies that the world might not be blown up after all, right? If so, nuts to that.
What does the crying statue mean, then, Alex? Every ending to every Apes sequel seemed to be daring the producers to figure out a way to keep going.

The extended cut of Battle is a slight improvement. Worth watching for Paul WIlliams and John Huston. Conquest isn't some untouchable masterpiece that you can't watch 80 more minutes of Apes after it.
Reply
post #84 of 94
7/8/07 at 3:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Zod
Of the Pink Panther films, "A Shot in the Dark" and Strikes Again are the best.
Damn, I forgot about those movies too. Another beloved piece of my childhood. I have to say, though, that I would have agreed with your choices until a couple of months ago. I rewatched the Clouseau movies, and A Shot in the Dark just didn't live up to its memories for me. It kind of bored me, really. The Return of the Pink Panther stood up much better. The Pink Panther Strikes Again, though, is still genius. It's a perfect live action cartoon if ever there was one.

The weird thing about revisiting the first one is that Clouseau is barely in it. It was clearly designed as a supporting role in a movie about The Phantom. But Sellers just walked away with the movie.
Reply
post #85 of 94
7/8/07 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Sherman
I know a lot of people think each Potter movie is better than the last, but I'm firmly in the camp that thinks that Goblet of Fire, while good, is certainly a step down from Prisoner of Azkaban.
I thought the general consensus was that Azkaban was the superior of that franchise? It's certainly my favourite. I watched Chamber of Secrets the other night on TV and I think Colombus gets too much shit for his entries. I mean he is pretty much a Ron Howard kind of guy but I think he did a pretty good job of fleshing that world out for the first two go arounds. Some of the scenes fall a bit flat but overall the films hit the right notes.

I seem to be alone in being head over heels in love with the Russian Nightwatch/Daywatch films.
Blisski.
Reply
post #86 of 94
7/8/07 at 11:06am
I defend Columbus' first two Potter films as well. I have no great love for the guy's body of work, but he did a great job on these. Yes, Cuaron made the better film, but his job was easier than Columbus', because Columbus had already done so much of the setup work. I think Columbus has been robbed of some of his deserved credit for the success of these films. Had he botched the initial entries, the whole thing would have gone into the toilet before Cuaron had a chance to step up.
Reply
post #87 of 94
7/8/07 at 12:15pm
I don't understand the love for Prisoner of Azkaban. I love Alfonso Cuaron as much as the next geek, but that film feels way too rushed and the time travel/werewolf finale falls flat. Goblet of Fire is definitely the best of the series, at least in my opinion.

I'll also chime in with liking T3. I think what I enjoy most about is the sheer weight all of the action has. It really does feel like robots who weigh tons are slamming each other around, and a lot of that is due to the stunts being so practical and not CGI heavy. Plus the ending is greatness.
Reply
post #88 of 94
7/8/07 at 2:36pm
I think my problem with all the Potter movies except for Azkaban (which admittedly only barely sticks the landing after that convoluted third act) is that they never seem to know when to be a series of films and when to be adaptations of the books. A lot of times we're left with things being half-adapted in the film versions that simply feel rushed or crammed in there to appease the readers. But without the depth or context found in the books, this stuff just falls flat and would be better left cutting altogether. It weighs down the first couple of movies, which do have the chore of establishing the core people and places for the rest of the movies. But, the worst example of this to me is the opening of Goblet of Fire. I know it seems like such a shame to not show the Quiddich Cup, but it's terribly rendered CGI and it is chopped up so badly that we're left with characters running around like chickens with their heads cut off for the first 15 minutes of the movie, so are we really better off with it included? The only plot-advancing elements to come out of it are introducing Victor and showing the Death Eater mark in the sky. I would think that any half-decent screenwriter would be able to move these somewhere else and still have the movie make sense.
Reply
post #89 of 94
7/8/07 at 2:54pm
Bear with me because I haven't read the books.

The Quiddich Cup also introduces Cedric and his father Amos and how they're so damn perfect in everything they do right off the bat (They're early in meeting and land perfectly after the portkey trip). Keep in mind the continued exploration into the teenage mind that really makes the past two films work play into this. It also plays into the reveal of Victor Krum, the jock of the movie and serves as a great insight into Ron's feelings toward Hermione (At the Quiddich Cup he adores him, before the Yule Ball dance he despises him.).
Reply
post #90 of 94
7/8/07 at 3:27pm
I had forgotten about Cedric. Still, can you deny that this section feels a wee-bit underwhelming and tacked on, especially compared to the rest of the movie, which handles the growing threat and relationships between the young wizards very organically.
Reply
post #91 of 94
7/8/07 at 3:33pm
At least they had the sense to throw everyone in "magic world" instead of another retread with the Dursleys (Who are great, but have run their course). There's also that sense of wonder in these first few scenes that you need to have in a Harry Potter movie. Not to mention them raising the stakes by introducing a new threat in the Death Eaters.

Now that shit in the house at the very beginning? That shit makes no sense to me.
Reply
post #92 of 94
7/8/07 at 6:32pm
One thing I will certainly give the Harry Potter films is that they have consistently shown perfect, spot-on casting choices every step of the way. Visualizing print-based characters is always a spotty business, but they've been as close to perfect as you can get.
Reply
post #93 of 94
7/8/07 at 11:43pm
I think part of why the casting has been so good in these movies is because it's a textbook example of one of those things people point to about the post-Spielberg world of blockbusters. They're confident enough that people are paying for the story, not the actors, and so they really could care less if, say, Timothy Spall is who all the teenage girls are putting on their bedroom walls. They're determined to keep the British flavor by sticking with older Brit actors, and that's fine by me.

By the way, I'm loving that every day this thread seems to organically shift focus to a different franchise.
Reply
post #94 of 94
7/9/07 at 12:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
One thing I will certainly give the Harry Potter films is that they have consistently shown perfect, spot-on casting choices every step of the way. Visualizing print-based characters is always a spotty business, but they've been as close to perfect as you can get.
The casting for the Dark Arts teachers alone have been inspired. I use to have a seething hatred for Kenneth Brannagh until he showed up as Lockheart. Brilliant.
I think Azkaban gets a lot of love because it's more beautifully crafted than the Columbus or Newell entires. It has a rich, textured beautifully organic quality to it that the other films simply have not had. All four of the films completely sell you on the fact that this is a world where magic is commonplace, but I felt Cuaron's film was the most lush and vibrant realization of that concept. To put in a much more wanky fashion: Columbus and Newell are Good Film Makers, Cuaron is an Artist. The third act is a bit wonky but that's as much Rowlings fault as Klove's and Cuaron's.
Also, Azkaban had that great Python's Meaning of Life nod.
Hilarious.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Drafts & Lists
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Drafts & Lists › Favorite franchises, and the best films in each?