And here's my mod:
And notes:I will say in advance that I'm not ranking these movies relative to other movies or other trilogies, but merely to the other movies in it's own arc. ie, I'm not saying that The Choad Warrior is as good a movie as Empire Strikes Back, but that they are each that much better than their corresponding prequels and sequels. Also, I've noodged up the level of petulence and defensiveness in my explanations, just for whatevs.
STAR WARS
A contentious topic to say the least. I hold to the hardcore fanboy position that Empire Is Best. The hardcore fanboy position opposes the sniffling false-purist position ("A New Hope is best"). In this case, the sniffling false-purists are sentimental, pretentious dickweeds, and usually in indy rock bands.
INDIANA JONES
With Indy, the hardcore fanboy position and the sniffling false-purist position are nearly congruent. The original is best, and "that first step is a loo-loo." Temple gave us "mon-kee blains!" Crusade gave us similarly fucked moments of high camp, or low camp, or an even worse zone in between the two. John Rhys Davies: "he's in the belly of that metal beast." Fuck you.
THE MATRIX
When the second two Matrix movies came out we realized that whatever choices that the Waichowskis made in the first movie which appeared to be judicious and brilliant, were actually just the result of external constraints. Those constraints removed, they were free to cock-up the second two movies. Totally overlong & tedious fight scenes. Totally overlong & tedious philosophical dope smoking. Not without their moments, but top-heavy from the weight of their own gratuitous bullshit. The third Matrix movie introduces the Spence Rule, which contends that the Presence of Bruce Spence imperceptibly makes the third installment of a trilogy somehow better than it's predecessor/s. The second Matrix movie sucked giant donkey scrotums. Said it. Had to.
STAR TREK
Mumps might order a hit on me for saying this, but I don't remember much of anything about the first three Star Trek movies, not having seen anything of them (save for isolated scenes from Khan) since high school.
SUPERMAN
First installments generally benefit greatly from the thrill of seeing whatever-it-is on screen for the first time. In this case, it's actually seeing a super-hero being awesome, which is a pretty big deal, even though Hackman's Luthor was about as cerebral and non-threatening as a "villain" could possibly be. Lex Luthor was just a misunderstood middle-manager from another department that you had a disagreement with (back when you worked in Hackensack). The entire franchise (and all comic book movies that followed) owe an eternal debt to John Williams, and yet I ranked the second movie higher. Why? It's simple: "KNEEL BEFORE ZOD."
JURASSIC PARK
The sniffling false-purist says that the Jurassic Park movies are diminished because "the characters are two dimensional" and the plot has "big holes in it." It's how the Universe gently lets you know you are talking to a giant, weeping, asshole of a pustule. The reason you go to see a Jurassic Park movie is to see Dinosaurs Eat Lawyers, or Each Other. That's why the third one is best, and so forth. Fuck you!
MAD MAX
Mad Max is a boring movie. I never saw the third one. Are you going to tell me it's somehow culturally necessary to being an American in 2009? We don't need another heee-ro. Exactly.
JAWS
I like Roy Scheider. I don't remember a damn thing about the second two Jaws movies, and am pretty sure I didn't even see the third one. But I know that's when "it got personal." Fuck you.
BACK TO THE FUTRE
I have to say that the second two movies are serviceable, from my recollection. I defer to Shawn.
DIE HARD
I think you could niggle with me about the comparative ranking of two and three, but that's about it.
BLADE
Blade was a pretty fucking awesome comic adaptation, in terms of bringing comic book flavor to film. (not that anyone actually read "Blade" the comic) The second Blade movie was a gorgeous empty POS in which we all realized that Guilermo del Toro has a huge gay crush on Ron Perlman, which is a good thing because it made Hellboy possible. I didn't see the third one. Or did I? Exactly.
APES
Hunh? I vaguely remember Tom Wopat and/or John Andersen being in the sequels.
GODFATHER
You know what? I never read Milton's Paradise Lost either. Fuck you!
ROCKY
Rocky is a pretty awesome movie. Clubber Lang is a pretty awesome villain. It's basically an ungentle stepping-down process from the first one to the last. (Has it really ended?)
TERMINATOR
I have to say that Arnold's commentary track on the third one contributes very much the "high" rating it received. And Claire Danes. Oh, Clare. What!? She's special, fuck you.
RAMBO
I bothered to type the word "Rambo." Snooker me thrice...
BATMAN
Burton's Batman makes for an awesome stylish movie, and a HORRIBLE Batman movie. After it spit out Keaton (a more or less destroyed man, in much the same way that Waterworld irreparably damaged Kostner, except that Keaton was unable to reinvent himself the way Kostner has), Batman began a sequence of serially devouring everyone with the hubris and status to attempt the role. Slate's Stephen Metcalph says that the character of the Batman is a vortex that engulfs & transforms otherwise charismatic leading men into a inert hunks of carbon fiber/titanium weave. Weren't there five movies in series? Schumacher, nipples, dance numbers, bla bla bla.
ALIEN
The only real debate here is how much lower parts 1 and 3 are than part 2. Alien was a boring movie. I know, I know. Fuck you. "He Knows You're Alone" with special effects. Yeah yeah, Sigourny in briefs. Fuck you. Aliens 2: AWESOME KONG. I liked Aliens 3. It worked for me, dog. You say, "sepia is not an aesthetic standard." I say, "english convicts make it so." Fincher roolz. Fuck you.
10 comments:
BTtF: I thought 2 was serviceable, maybe even decent, but I thought 3 was much better. The focus on Doc brought a much needed bit of heart to that one. Also, changing the setting so dramatically made it "more different" from 1 than 2 was.
SW: I've never made claim that Star Wars is a better movie than Empire. I do have more fond memories related to the original, though.
Indiana Jones: I think 2 was so terrible, that it would be a shame to rate 3 as slightly higher. I'd put it more at the 60 percentile.
Die Hard: from my memory, 2 was just awful. 3 was over the top and corny, but somehow better than 3. Also, there were four movies. For that matter, how are some of these being judged as trilogies - is the idea that as long as there are at least three movies, it's a trilogy? Star Trek doesn't come close to a trilogy. It's not like there was any sort of arc in the first three movies, placing them seperate from the 4, 5, etc.
Terminator: I guess I agree with the assessment. Though, 3 seems so irrelevant to me, that I'd probably give it a mere pixel.
The others: I'm bored and the baby is crying.
Wait, all three Jaws movies are equal???? Did you fucking even SEE Jaws 3 in 3D? I fucking did. In the fucking theater. I was 12 at the time, and even I knew it was a steaming hunk of fucking shit. Even if you don't think Jaws is a classic, putting it even with J3D makes me start doubting any opinion you have/had/might ever had about movies/music/books/or any other thing that might even remotely be considered a form of art in some sense.
In short, I guess I didn't really like Jaws 3D very much.
You know, for someone who sings the praises of "Baraka", you're pretty quick to label movies as "boring"; I definitely see a trend here.
First, where you are right; it's clear that the original post was using an objective, all-movies scale. I'm perfectly fine with your reinterpretation. Makes more sense anyway. In any case, this guy's definition of a "trilogy" is pretty suspect when he's taking movies that are clearly just franchises being run into the ground and picking the first 3 as a trilogy (Rocky, Star Trek, etc.). With Batman and a few others, you've broken your own rules; since the scales are supposed to be relative, there should be one that is maxxed out, but I understand that for series that you are "meh" on all of them, your reluctance to give them all the highest value, but I'll assume that your baseline score is 7/10.
You'll get no argument from me on your assessment of Indiana Jones, Superman, BTTF, Die Hard, Jaws and Rocky. I've never seen the 3rd of Spider-Man or X Men (or any of Blade), taking it on faith that it was a waste of time; similarly, as you have no opinion/memory on some of the Star Trek, Mad Max & Apes, I won't go into that (I'm not even sure which of the Apes sequels would be considered #2 & #3).
Fuck Paradise Lost, dude. Just go watch the Godfather movies. They're damn fine and go down easy. Better use of your time than watching "The Break-Up" or "French Twist" (Thanks, Netflix friends feature).
But on to the second guessing.
Star Wars: I'm one of the few who places RotJ much higher than most (although still not higher than the others). It's a damn fine film, and fanboys let Ewok hatred, and the fact that it set the mold for later films (the "collection of set pieces" style of story telling). But the setpieces of Jedi were all uniformly awesome, better than any of the others. The first two films (with the Death Star attack and the Hoth battle) had already established the fact that grossly underpowered individuals are capable of destroying the super-machines by aiming for the soft spot, so I had no fundamental problem with spearchucking Ewoks routing the omelette-armored forest troopers. As a teenager, I got choked up watching Vader's death scene, and perhaps you've forgotten brief appearance by one Palpa-motherfucking-tine? There's no way RotJ is 1/4 as good as SW; it's equally good, just as a different kind of movie.
Matrix: You're being too kind to the 2nd & 3rd movies. I can't even remember what they're about anymore - there is no worse result in movie making, IMO.
Jurassic Park: Was the 3rd movie that good? I never even bothered to watch it. I don't think I've even seen it come up on cable repeats.
LotR: You're all familiar with my opinion on this. I find all 3 movies to be pretty ponderous. I attribute their success to some temporary mania that swept the populace that might be some side effect of the drugs introduced into the water supply that got Bush reelected.
Terminator: I'd put 1 & 2 on equal footing; they're both awesome in slight different ways. 1 was grittier and a more bad-ass, 80s movie type. It didn't have the money of 2, but it was also less sentimental/cheesy. If Jedi gets dinged by Ewoks, T2 must suffer for the "Thumbs Up" from Arnold as he's lowered into the slag.
Rambo: R2 was the one with the exploding arrowheads, right? I just can't give it that high a score. Too much cartoon reality in a movie that's ostensibly supposed to be set in the real world. Not much difference from R3 IMO. I'd rate all 3 the same, thought the first is much different from the latter 2, it wins points in terms of lacking cheese what it lacks in flashy action setpieces.
"Alein": Apparently the first movie was so "boring" you forgot how to spell it. There is no way that the third movie is better than the first. Once again, A3 earns the "I can't even remember what this was about" award, and A1 kicks all kinds of Ian Holm, Harry Dean Stanton, Yaphet Kotto ass. A completely different experience from A2, but no less awesome. A2 is the good guys vs. Zulus, A1 is the most stylish (and flop-sweatiest) "monster in the house" movie ever made. Plus, A1 arguably introduced the now-beaten-to-death trope of the evil mega-corporation that treats its employees like expendable capital.
Incidentally, Ridley Scott decided to make a sequel to Cameron's A2 a few years ago: Blackhawk Down - maybe you saw it?
Also:
I have to amend my last post & agree with Shawn. It is unconscionable that Jaws 3 be equal to Jaws. Although I'm not much of a Jaws fan, J3 was clearly a steaming bowl of vinegary colon-blow. I do remember thinking Jaws 2 was adequate. I've seen all of Jaws, but never in one sitting.
And just to reiterate: "Alien[s]" and "The Godfather" are probably the only cases in the history of film where the both the first & second films were basically perfect. Other films (SW, Spider-Man, X Men, Terminator) equalled or exceeded the first, but the first wasn't "perfect."
Shawn:
SW: I wasn't referring to you. Consciously. (Are you in an indy rock band or something?) Seriously I always assumed you liked Empire best like me, and similarities to Sniffling False Purists and Old Chums in this case are purely coincidental.
Dr. Jones: I remember there being a stated "we're taking our franchise back" line when 3 came out, sort of an admission that 2 was a fiery, smoking cornhole of a movie. I guess it was better.
DH: That's right, if you count the one that came out last year, co-starring "Hello, I'm a Mac." I basically did not correct any of this guy's "tril assertions" even when I knew they was wrong.
Terminator: I guess I gave it a lot of props because I liked how nicely the ending scene linked to the backstory of the first movie, with all those radios piping on, "helloo! My name is Dickweed Crackerspawn in Lebanon Kansas, is anyone out there!" That whole sitchu room was such a nifty solution to the myth of how Connor somehow organized the entire resistance, that it allowed me to think that the whole trilogy was really one story. I'm a tard.
Jaw: Totally an oversight. I meant to wipe those bars out. I didn't evun see the third one!!! You sawrit in 3D, HAA-HAANH!
Steve:
Baraka? 1) I think there's a different between subtlety and boredom. Baraka is riveting. Movies like Lost in Translation or In the Bedroom don't have a lot of kinetic action, but there is deliberate characterization happening in the details. (...continued at Alien)
What's funny is I KNEW you would call me out on the inconsistency of my rating scale. It did make sense, but then I just couldn't rate the best Rambo movie as being equal to Star Wars. I was weakened by Dorkonite...
Godfather/Netflix fucked you:
HAH! For what it's worth, I HATED French Twist. I used to have a big crush on Sophie Marceau/Juliette Binoche/etc.
Alien: As you might have guessed I don't really have any investment in my argument that Alien was boring, I was just being an asshole for the sake of boosting the Aliens qua Dickens scenario of A3. Lord knows I love a good prison sex drama. Alien was attempting something pretty different than the rest of them.
I did see Blackhawk Down. I forced myself to sit through it like a homework assignment, because I felt I needed a visual reference point for modern warfare. (I had the feeling that nothing since Viet Nam has really been done "accurately.")
It was an unpleasant movie that I would only recommend to friends. We knew Ridley was a stunning technical director -- it seemed like he was just trying to see if he could get us invested at all in a bunch of Americans in a 3rd world hell. I felt like I could smell Bruckheimer's odious presence throughout the movie. (from the SRV on boomboxes as the choppers flew in (or was is Ride of the Valkyries, WAH-WAAH!) to every single scene with Sizemore).
Every scene that Ewan was in was like a nice break from the rest of the thrill-kill nutbusting.
Your comments on RotJ are interesting. I'll get back.
Yeah, on RotJ - considering some of my favorite parts of the trilogy are from that movie, I can't really hate it too much. Except, no, I'll never forgive the Ewoks.
Black-cock Down basically left me as shell shocked as the characters would be at the end of the movie. Though, I did enjoy the little bit with the Rangers coming through, looking all bad-ass. I think for "war is hell" sorts of montages, I'd rather watch Saving Private Ryan.
I have no problems with Baraka, but it's definitely not a standard crowd-pleaser. I've just always thought it was funny how you can embrace stuff like it while at the same time pushing aside other "boring" fare. Maybe it's just that your patience with slower-paced stuff is greater when the medium is primarily visual instead of narrative.
I only put in the Blackhawk down comparison there to be cute; no inferences should be made with respect to my opinion of the quality of the film - like the rest of you, I thought it was technically skillful without actually being enjoyable or memorable.
Which is why Aliens is so awesome; it's the same template: You're surrounded by savages - fight your way out with firepower - but Cameron makes it fun. Scott just implements the template without error.
I think I've made this comment before, but my LotR crack about drugs in the water supply wasn't completely throw-away, in that I attribute the popularity of the movies (among the non-geek public) to be due primarily to the fact that we were in the middle of our glorious War on Terror, and LotR is a pretty transparent allegory for "We are teh gud guys - must kill bad guys with extreem prejadis." Sure, there's more going on than just that, but the superficial story is one of an unreasoning, there-for-no-reason evil that must be obliterated by any means necessary.
It's a (probably subconsciously) propagandist piece. The fact that intellectual, wanking, pundit class never made much of this (to me) obvious connection was always a bit of a mystery.
Oh, of course, Terminator isn't done yet.
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/terminator-salvation.html?showVideo=1
Also, nice lighting.
Post a Comment