Best ever sequels and Prequels???

Bentrandom said:
Would Hunt for the Red October count as a sequel?
Click to expand...


well its chronlogical a sequel to patriot games (the book) its a prequel to the movie because Jack has only one child THFRO. in then you could count SW:IV A new hope as a sequel to. And half godfather2 as a prequel. As we would with the exorcist.

Its better that we count sequels as what order they are made in real life.
 
Bentrandom said:
Amry of Darkness, Back to the Future 2 (who didn't want a freakin hoverboard), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Desperado, Bourne Supremacy, and The Color of Money? Would Hunt for the Red October count as a sequel?

Can't forget Ace Venture When Nature Calls no matter how hard you try. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Those are some bold words with Army of Darkness and BTTF 2. I LOVE both of those movies but I don't think they are better then the originals, they come very close though don't get me wrong. And yes, I did want a hoverboard. :laugh:
 
DukeTown_Baby said:
Maybe not the best 'sequel' ever... but what about "Hannibal" and "The red dragon" ??
Click to expand...
While those movies are alright on their own- when you hold them up in comparison to Silence of the Lambs, they look like poo. Silence of the Lambs IMHO is one of the finest suspence films ever made, these two aren't in the same league. I also think that you find most people prefered "Manhunter" over "Red Dragon". But if we are considering SOTL as a sequel to Manhunter, then I think that argument can be easily made.
 
Dead or Alive 2 (Impossible sequel that is not much a sequel, but still cool none the less)
Within the woods (Just because it started it all)
 
gotta say Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade; it's my favorite Indy film.

yankee, you forgot the matrix reloaded and revolutions. the original matrix was awesome, it's still one of my favorites, but it's sad the potential they had and what they ended up with.
 
ecarr said:
gotta say Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade; it's my favorite Indy film.

yankee, you forgot the matrix reloaded and revolutions. the original matrix was awesome, it's still one of my favorites, but it's sad the potential they had and what they ended up with.
Click to expand...

The Matrix is something that I'm a bit of a 'fan boy' when it comes to.

The sequels by no means come close to the original, but I enjoyed them.
 
I can't believe we forgot to mention Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan!!

Of course the first film was so god-awful that the offspring had nowhere to go but up.
 
Day of the Dead, I think, is very underrated but it definitely has a lot to live up to when compared to Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead.
 
seejay1031 said:
I also think that you find most people prefered "Manhunter" over "Red Dragon."
Click to expand...
FINALLY, someone besides ME has seen both films and is in agreement with me! Michael Mann's Manhunter is so vastly superior to hack-director, Brett Ratner's piece-of-utter-crap version, Red Dragon, it's not even funny. Some of the scenes in each film are verbatim, line-for-line, the exact same dialogue. But Michael Mann's Manhunter is so more expertly crafted. The staging, the blocking, the casting . . . it's all there in Manhunter. Watch identical scenes from each film and you'll be amazed how bad Harvey Keitel and Edward Norton are in them (due to the writing and direction). Ralph Fiennes as the "Dolarhyde" character is the mis-cast of the century.

If you've never seen either film, watch Manhunter first, then watch Red Dragon. If you've seen Red Dragon, but haven't seen Manhunter, you need to see it. If you've seen Manhunter but haven't seen Red Dragon, you're in for a good laugh.

These two films are TERRIFIC examples of how different directors working with much the same material, working with different actors came up with such dramatically different results.
 
NBCshooter said:
These two films are TERRIFIC examples of how different directors working with much the same material, working with different actors came up with such dramatically different results.
Click to expand...

Speaking of that, I can't wait to watch both Exorcist prequels back to back. I think the Schrader version is coming out on DVD soon.
 
NBCshooter said:
FINALLY, someone besides ME has seen both films and is in agreement with me! Michael Mann's Manhunter is so vastly superior to hack-director, Brett Ratner's piece-of-utter-crap version, Red Dragon, it's not even funny. Some of the scenes in each film are verbatim, line-for-line, the exact same dialogue. But Michael Mann's Manhunter is so more expertly crafted. The staging, the blocking, the casting . . . it's all there in Manhunter. Watch identical scenes from each film and you'll be amazed how bad Harvey Keitel and Edward Norton are in them (due to the writing and direction). Ralph Fiennes as the "Dolarhyde" character is the mis-cast of the century.

If you've never seen either film, watch Manhunter first, then watch Red Dragon. If you've seen Red Dragon, but haven't seen Manhunter, you need to see it. If you've seen Manhunter but haven't seen Red Dragon, you're in for a good laugh.

These two films are TERRIFIC examples of how different directors working with much the same material, working with different actors came up with such dramatically different results.
Click to expand...

Weird, I preferred Red Dragon,, but I agreed on the mis-casting. However, I did think Norton acts very well in it, as always. Manhunter is on TV in a minute, so I'll check it out and probably revise this post in the morning... maybe I was just in a funny mood. I thought that the "mirrors in the eyes" scene in RD was really creepy.
 
Yeah, watched Manuhunter and I still prefer Red Dragon. There are things that I prefer in MH, but overall I think Red Dragon is more suspenseful, scarier and better made. It does have 16 years of film maturity to benefit from though.

I prefer Tom Noonan as Dollarhyde in Manhunter and I also think MH demonstrates Will Graham's mental struggle better than Ratner's version. I do however prefer Hopkins as Lecter over Brian Cox (as Lecktor - why the different spelling?).

I check on IMDB, and RD comes out with 7.3 rating just above MH's 7.2.
 
I think many prefer the version they saw first. Because the 2 version are very similiar. Of course they both differ in a visual style. But story wise they are the same (strange).

I saw MH first. And RD didnt really bring anything new except Hopkins as Lektor (the only reason they made this movie)
 
I did actually see MH first. I then saw RD in the cinema a year or two after and bought it on DVD. I didn't realise how similar they were until I watched MH again today.

I do think MH is pretty good, but I though RD was better and a really well made film. Personally I don't understand why everyone seems to hate Ratner so much. RD is just a more modern version + Hopkins really, with a twist (and IMO better) ending.
 
For a short list of sequels, not to repeat too much...

Spiderman 2
X-Men 2
Star Trek 2
T2
Chasing Amy/Mallrats
Aliens [a different kind of good, not better]
Ocean's Twelve [a different kind of good, not better]
and
Highlander 2 [just kidding]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top