JCC Sequels you embarrassingly enjoy more than the original.

Jaws 2...

 

I've honestly never really understood why Batman & Robin gets so much hate. Don't get me wrong, it's a terrible movie, but there's nothing really fundamental that distinguishes it from from its direct predecessor. Yes, the campiness is kicked up to 11, but the difference is of degree, not kind.

 

When I was younger I liked it, but I watched it again not too long ago and didn't like it all. I think Batman Forever is underrated.

 

I'm perfectly well aware that the Ark is in KOTCS, thank you - I have the movie on DVD and have seen it countless times. What I was saying is that I wished Indy had seen the Ark in the movie like he did in the novelization.

 

I don't know that I'd have called the original '89 Batman "camp". Looking at it again recently it struck me as having its feet firmly set in the very earliest 1940s -- and therefore dark and gothic -- Batman comics rather than glorious 1966 silliness.

 

Iron Man 2 also comes to mind.

 

Whatever CT, Quantum of Solace is an incredibly good film. The plot is not as mindnumbingly stupid as Skyfall. The personal journey is more involved than Casino Royale and the payoff more satisfying.

 

I think you know that's not true, which is why you're embarrassed for liking it.

 

mortal kombat: annihilation
the thing (the newest one)
x-men 3
apocalypse then
batman forever
tremors 2
and its not a sequel, but A Fistful of Dollars is superior to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

 

I think Batman Forever does a hell of a lot more exploring of the Batman mythos than anything Tim Burton did. Burton's Batman is a whiney Burton goth kid with no motivation or magnetism. I think Michael Keaton does fine but Kilmer is a far more interesting Bruce Wayne. In assessing the movie people forget that Kilmer's Batman has a story arch that goes into his scars. It isn't done up to the levels of the best super hero films but it does more than a lot of the endless Marvel films that gush out of Hollywood every year.

 

So not embarrassed.

 

No need to be embarrassed by that. It's by far the best of the TNG era movies that were made.

 

Last Crusade is a great movie. But Raiders is the greatest movie.

At least you have the decency to be embarrassed.

 

Indeed. Though it's probably fair to call it a substantial improvement over its predecessor.

 

Between Raiders and Last Crusade, in terms of pure craftsmanship, Raiders is the better of the two, but I have to give the edge to Last Crusade as being the better story. It has more of an emotional heart than Last Crusade, and that's all up to the relationship between Indy and his father. Raiders does have Marion, who is a fantastic character and easily the best Indy girl, but their relationship in that film was pretty cookie cutter. Indy and his dad was just something we don't usually see in big blockbusters, where the hero's most important relationship is usually a romance with a gal, and Last Crusade avoids that and does something completely different.

edit: incidentally, Indy and Marion have a far more interesting character development together in Crystal Skull, which is one of the few things in it's favor.

 

As one of this place's biggest Indy fans, I can't tell you how many times I've gotten into discussions where everyone else bashed LC as being campy and silly and not true to Indy.

My dad is an early adopter. So I also still think of the places where I had to flip my Jurassic Park and BTTF laser discs for years until they finally came out on DVD

But yes, there were commercial SVHS's. I think the better part was that it was letterboxed. Friends who watched it always got confused by the black bars and wondered what was wrong with the TV. Amateurs.

This is the beauty I grew up with. It's a miracle I didn't wear the tape down.

I actually quite like Psycho 2. It's an underrated horror film that still has the character focus. It is also extremely unique in having the person who was the antagonist in the previous film as the protagonist now. And not just in a "he's the main character" way. It does a great job of acknowledging that mental illness is something to pity and sympathise with. However it also maintains that sense of dread surrounding someone you know has killed a lot of people.

However, Psycho 2 - while highly entertaining and fun to watch - can't claim the directing or writing mastery of the original. Psycho is a film that delved deep into psychological issues in normal people long before such a notion was mainstream. The parallels and sympathies drawn with Marion and Norman were so ahead of their time that they play very well still today, IMHO. And Anthony Perkins truly gives one of the best and most nuanced performances in cinema history. I don't know. I just never tire of that film.

Exactly. The Marion romance in Raiders is great, as is the respect Indy gains for the Ark. And it's just an utter masterpiece of a film. But I'm with Coruscant in that the adult father/son story of the film is more rare, rich, and compelling to me. Obviously Spielberg does a lot of father/son stuff, and it's a common story thread in a lot of things. But I don't think I've ever seen it done so effectively in either another action-adventure (where it's usually tacked on in the name of a story arc) or straight up drama (where it's often overwrought and depressing). Last Crusade definitely strikes an amazing balance that feel much more realistic and impactful at the end of the day.

 

So, by the by, one of the reasons I can't take Last Crusade seriously as a challenger to Raiders is because it character assassinates Marcus Brody -- if I were "detractors" I'd point specifically to that levity. But Henry Sr.'s is 100% required for his character.

 

Sallah too, dp4m

 

Both of those posts were spot on. Last Crusade absolutely squashed those characters into insipid annoyances.

 

I was also unaware of the Super VHS movies. I only ever saw the blanks.

 

Thor 2?

 

Edit: Goddamned stupid interwebs

 

Well clearly I was one of the few enlightened children Between that, Laser Discs, and my first DVD player in 1997 being a DIVX player (not the file format, the one that played disposable $5 DVDs that would only last a day once you activated them so you could buy them, put them on your shelf, then 'rent' them whenever you wanted), I think I probably did win the 90s.

I understand the Brody criticisms, but I also don't agree with them. If Marcus were acting all bumbly and out of sorts in his own University, it would be one thing. But I feel like Brody acts fairly normal at the University and even as I'd expect him to when, say, Indy's hitting on Elsa and he just wants to get to the church. He only becomes all uber British and comically out of sorts when he's thrown into an environment he's completely unused to.

Yes, there are maybe a few over the top moments with him that could have been played more straight. But I actually think they did consider how his character would act in the situation he was in. And actually, the inclusion of much more Marcus is one of the things I love about Last Crusade. But again, remember that I saw them out of order. So if that was your first introduction to Marcus, it really wouldn't seem so bad to you. To me that's just who the character was, and then when we see him in Raiders back in his own place of comfort, he acts the same as he does at the beginning of LC.

 

Agreed. First Contact is a great Trek film.

 

What about Star Trek: Insurrection?

 

Hated Insurrection, IATI. Clunky as all get out. Data's "boobs" lines had me rolling my eyes. The only good point in the movie is when Riker says "I intend to shove it down the Son'a's throat." Bada** right there.