You must log in or register to comment.
Two towers is the weak link
How dare you
Strong disagree on Back to the Future. The last one’s probably the best one
I don’t agree with most of those.
In what world is die hard 3 worse than die hard 2. It’s arguably tied with die hard 1 as the best one.
1st is at the top. 2nd is at the two thirds mark. 3rd is overflowing with a vangence!
…yeah, no…
Terminator is a strange one. Cooked with the first movie, second one is somehow even better and then the third one is absolute ass.
I am fully aware I’m pretty much alone with my opinion, but I find Terminator 1 far superior to T2.
Even with the limited budget T1 manages to create a far more horrifying vision of an unstoppable killer coming after you. The lo-fi’ish synth soundtrack sets a perfect oppressive feeling. The casting is perfect, Michael Biehn’ s scarred and wiry Reese with Hamilton’s young and scared next door girl going against metal-Arnold in his prime is the epitome of underdog scenarios.
And the pacing is very good, the plot flows.
T2 is a good film, but like many sequels, it suffers from the “let’s do the same thing from a different angle, but bigger and louder!” - syndrome. It doesn’t really get to be it’s own kind of beast. I was very surprised that Cameron fell for the trap, after he avoided that mistake with “Aliens”. Switching genre from space horror to space action made that film stand firmly on it’s own feet and the result was good.
Lastly, T2 has the young John Connor doing the “badass kid” - role, which so many seem to love. I just find the character annoying.
I also don’t get the hate for T3. Sure, it has some cheesy humour and the plot isn’t amazing but it’s a very solid action movie.
I think T2 hits everybody that was a certain age when it came out a bit different. Young John Connor appealed to the divorced-parents-latch-key-kid generation.
Though hard agree the first one was pretty solid. Definitely more of a horror vibe.
I disagree with the Indiana Jones ratings. The third movie was better than the second, and possibly better than the first too.
Hmm for me 1 and 3 are about equal (both fantastic), but 2 is my least favourite.
The second was so much more sexist and racist than I remembered that I gave up
I agree. Watched the second one the other day after years and this movie did not age well. The portrayel of the woman was unbearable, a massive downgrade from the first one. The racism also made me feel uncomfortable. Nonetheless, I finished that movie again, but even plotwise and in terms of overall cinematic quality, it is the weakest of the three.
Matrix is great all the way through. The problem is that a lot of people didn’t understand the story. There’s a good explainer on YouTube by Looper.
My only real gripe with the matrix trilogy is where Neo can “see” agent smith in Bane’s body and “see” all the machines at the machine city. It didn’t need that over the top messiah thing when he was already the messiah simply because of his power within the matrix.
And if the idea is “the real world is also a simulation, made to convince humans they were free” it sort of goes against all the monologuing that smith and the architect do about how humans rebelled against versions of the matrix in which they were free
That’s explained in the video. Neo can see the machines because he communed with the Source.
Eh, the subtext in 2 and 3 is neat but the first movie is by far the best. It sets up a premise and concludes it beautifully and doesn’t get too big for its britches. I still enjoy some of the over the top moments from 2 and 3 but there’s definitely a leap and I’m not sure the pay off is as good as the first film.
Sure, but it is also the medium’s responsibility to help the audience understand.
That’s true, but I’d argue that the more personal that any art is, the fewer people who will instantly understand their meaning.
Think about it like this, if you were watching a movie in a language you don’t speak (without subtitles), you could still enjoy a lot of it, but might not be able to fully follow the story. But, the story is still there if you know how to hear it. Sometimes you just need someone else to help translate.
I agree they’re better than this says, but the first is also the best, by a moderate margin. The other two get a lot of shit that isn’t deserved.
Back to the Future is, as a whole, the best trilogy on this list.
When excluding LotR
Nope, including the LotR movies. I will die on this hill.
Specifically, Robert Zemeckis > Peter Jackson. the BttF trilogy was masterfully executed with great plot, pacing, and incredible attention to detail (down to things like e.g. “Twin Pines Mall” becoming “Lone Pine Mall” because Marty ran over one of Old Man Peabody’s pines). Meanwhile, Peter Jackson couldn’t even figure out how to get major plot points like the Scouring of the Shire to work, let alone Tom Bombadil.
Scouring of the Shire deserves to cut from the films. Imagine after we said our goodbyes, we get another short movie added on at the end.
Theres a reason why everyone remembers the Godzilla short film at the end of Jurrasic Park 2
My brother in Manwe, you kind of lost some credibility calling Tom Bombadil a major plot point.
No, you misunderstood. “Not even X, let alone Y” is just as much about differences in magnitude as it is similarities in kind:
Meanwhile, Peter Jackson couldn’t even figure out how to get major plot points like the Scouring of the Shire to work, let alone [minor ones like] Tom Bombadil.
be that as it may, even “Scouring…” would have been a bad choice to include in RoTK. The ending is already way too long. I would have loved it as fan service, but from the perspective of film making cutting it was the right choice.
I know it doesn’t fit the trilogy thing, but you left out the best Rocky movie: Rocky IV.
Awman, I didn’t think matrix 2 and 3 where that bad.
I remember enjoying them.They made viewers work to understand. Viewers largely rejected that.
Which has led us, irrevocably, to spoon fed trash that plays to the dumbest person in the audience.
I enjoyed all three movies, but there was a lot that I didn’t get until I watched an explainer on YouTube.
Don’t understand why people dislike those movies so much. Even enjoyed the 4th one.
They didn’t deliver on the promises that Neo made at the end of the first movie. They’re quite different than the first film. The 4th one was an obvious cash grab by the studios. The Wachowskis didn’t want to make the movie, and they straight-up tell the audience in the movie that they were forced to do it, or let someone else do it.
The fourth was sort of hilarious on that point. HERE’S YOUR STUPID MOVIE! I’d have been pissed if I was expecting something different, but I laughed my ass off.
I wasn’t expecting much of anything with the movie. I only watched it because it was free, and I was curious. The messaging about cash grabs, licensing, and lack of style were my favorite parts of the movie. It’s just a shame that it exists and somewhat tarnishes the rest of the movies.
Yeah, but you did get to see an angry director have some corporate movie executives write her a check to tell them to fuck themselves in a pretty definitive manner.
That made me kind of happy, it was a relentless torrent of hate, but it seemed like it was aimed in the right direction.
Yes, I respected them a lot more after watching the movie than I did when it was announced.
well, on that one, i personally flat out noped out when they had that rotund dude thirst over trinity
Nice try… cant trick me into studying trilo-ology.
Indiana Jones 3 is as good, if not better, than any other movie in the series.
Way better than Temple of Doom for sure!
Temple was better than Raiders
[THOUGHT CRIME DETECTED: INCORRECT OPINION]
I can’t wait for Dune 3. If Villeneuve sticks the landing his trilogy will become for Sci-fi what LotR is for fantasy.
