Discussion in 'Movie Lounge' started by Ken McDaniel, May 25, 2007.
Per Rotten Tomatoes:
I'll be back. Discuss.
So tomatoes like hobbits?
As for the others, I can totally agree with those numbers. Other then Rings, most all those other sequels have sucked compared to the originals, lazy directors about sums up why. They hit their cash cow with the first so the sequels are instant money makers with very little effort involved in making them.
Star Wars technically had 6 features to it's name.
I thought about adding them in but with the exception of the original trilogy but got lazy. It looks like critically, they got better as they went. (63, 66, 81).
Star Wars would be like:
I know I'm not the only one and I know MANY others who felt Empire is the best Star Wars film.
As far as sequels go, as the films move on, typically directors change and actors get stale with their roles. They begin to just mail in it.
Let's add Shrek and the recent Star Wars trilogy:
Shrek II: 88%
Shrek III: 41%
Phantom Menace: 63%
Attack of the Clones: 66%
Revenge of the Sith: 81%
Shrek resonates with me, though i'd say Shrek II is somewhat overrated (i'd have it at about 75%), but i'd put both Clones and Menace at below 50%, and Sith closer to 90% (liked it alot, the only one that felt sort of like the original trilogy).
Here's Die Hard:
Diehard : 95%
Diehard 2: 64%
Diehard 3: 47%
I agree with DH3 ratings..that was a horrible horrible excuse for a Diehard movie. I thought the 2nd one was a bit better than the numbers show, but not qyite on par with the original.
Here's an interesting take:
Rocky II 68%
Rocky III 67%
Rocky IV 45%
Rocky V 22%
Rocky Balboa 76%
Anyone want to track down the Star Treks?
Star Trek the Motion Picture 55%
Star Trek II: TWOK 96%
Star Trek III: TSFS 74%
Star Trek IV: TVH 89%
Star Trek V: TFF 23%
Star Trek VI: TUC 79%
Star Trek: Generations 47%
Star Trek: First Contact 94%
Star Trek: Insurrection 61%
Star Trek: Nemesis 37%
Funny how the second film of both runs was the best of the bunch.
yeah, but IMO both ST VI and ST IV are clearly better than "wrath of khan". :roll:
I'm leery of tomato-meter ratings of movies that came out before the 1990s, because most of those numbers reflect a few contemporary reviews but a whole lot of more recent reviews, because many of the at-the-time-of-release reviews are not archived and thus are not available.
Just a random click on "star trek II" found 2 reviews published in 1982, but 7 published in the last few years. I'm interested in criticism published in the context of a movie's release, not a retrospective appraisal. The latter are likely to be biased by the consensus opinion that has evolved (e.g., if i were to review 'casablanca' right now, i'd probably give it a positive review even if i didn't really like it, just because "everyone" says it's a great movie and you'd be viewed as a weirdo for saying otherwise).
That's not to say it wouldn't be interesting to compare the two kinds of reviews to see if critical opinion has changed (e.g., i bet more recent reviews of 1999's "phantom menace" would be harsher than the contemporary reviews, because in 1999 we'd been without a star wars movie for so long and there was a very positive nostalgic halo that probably caused lots of critics to give the new film the benefit of the doubt).
Another example would be a film like "fast times at ridgemont high". At the time it was released in 1982, i recall most reviewers being scathing in their criticism. Nowadays, the film is considered to be a minor classic, and reviews done today would (i bet) be much more positive. Partly this would be because in 1982, the reviews were written by people in their 30s and 40s who weren't in touch with early 80s teenage life. Reviews written today would be by people who were young in 1982 and probably remember it fondly as reflecting their personal experiences at the time.
So that kind of analysis might be interesting, but we can't mix contemporary and retrospective reviews together, as RT does.
Agreed except I liked DH3 better than you did.
If DH4 is a PG13 film then I fully expect it to be another AVP which I hated beyond belief.
Agreed AVP was horrible...sad to see a great film series like that go to waste the way it did.
I saw Rocky II and III recently and there's no way that III is almost as good as II, IMO. III was the beginning of the end, until the recent Rocky Balboa.
IIRC, when III came out in 82, it was considered (generally, by most critics) to be a distinct improvement over II.
My annoyance with sequels is the tendency to put more and more into each movie. More of what made the first great, more jokes, more stars, more pop-culture references, etc.... Well, sometimes what makes the first movie so good is the lack of excess in it. Hollywood has ruined numerous sequels by simply over-doing them.
A New Hope 95%
Not in my book. Can't call those last three crapfest films Star Wars. They are the poster child for how not to make a movie.
Just wondering what exactly is the point of this thread? Not getting it...
Separate names with a comma.