Are there any sequels that are better than the original or ones which you disagree with the common consensus?
T2> a glossy remake of the first film which improves the action but not the gritty realism and tension Aliens>a dumbed down version of the existentialist horror of the first movie Godfather 2>only works with the context of the first movie and its convoluted story line isnt as satisfying or memorable as the episodic original
I go back and forth with this one. It improves on the original i a lot of ways but again only works in context of the first which tells a complete story.
i guess this counts but the bond movies were never really connected outside small references and perhaps the return of jaws. daniel craig movies being an exception.
I wouldn't say that T2 is "better" than T1, they are wildly different experiences. T2 is more of a super expensive action roller coaster ride, while T1 is more like a dystopian sci-fi slasher horror.
somebody's been fighting Majima one time too many.
Andrew Baker
I think they pussied out in 3. It was originally going to be much darker and disturbing. There are some great visuals in 3 and it is entertaining but it reduced the series to slasher territory. NOES 1 still has a mystique and surreal quality that 3 comes close to but falls short of.
Raiders is the best but i always liked Doom better than Crusade because it actually tried something new instead of being a retread of the first. Spielberg blames Lucas for making it darker and more exotic but thats what makes it interesting instead of 3/4 which go into the same territory as Lost Ark
Infinity war was best avengers. OriginAl avengers was novel, but it’s plot was not as good as age of ultron. Plus, any avengers film that doesn’t feature Elizabeth Olsons heaving breasts loses points.