Fouled-Up Follow-Ups Dept.

It would surprise me far more if Eli Roth was NOT familiar with Lights Out.  Take a look at his list of the best horror movies you never heard of over at Rotten Tomatoes.  He is familiar with every torture and gore film ever made.  That seems just a short step to a radio show.

Originally posted by Razzilla Hostel Part II seems to be a rip off of more than just the original Hostel...but of an old Lights Out episode on radio titled It Happened (dated 380511)... Makes you wonder if the writers were fans of the show...and if they weren't...WHY did they have to do it???

 

1) Why do people always complain about Galactus? Come on! If you have some sense, a giant with a purple hat does NOT, NOT look more frightening than a hurricane-looking, "The Day After Tomorrow-like" tornado. Maybe that's my opinion. It looks more threatening, I shall say?

2) If you expected FF2 to be so bad, why spend $20 on it? Why not watch it in the internet? $20?!!! I won't even spend that much on a great, fantastic masterpiece (unless it's IMAX).

2007 will go down as one of the worst years ever for remakes and sequels. The Hitcher and Halloween were a discredit to the originals. Hostel 2 and Saw IV -- enough already! Hollywood continues it's downward spiral with talks of an Alice Sweet Alice remake(say it isn't so!) and Prom Night and Escape From New York remakes. Plus talk of a Wedding Crashers sequel!

Where is the originality and creativity in Hollywood? 

 

I don't know where to begin!
,
I can understand sequels for Spiderman, after all, look how many comic books were printed.   Pirates was supposed to be a trilogy, though if they had used the same writer-director-producer-team for each movie then maybe the movies would have been more consistent.
,
But follow-ups to comedy hits, and I use the word hits cautiously,  are simply attempts to squeeze more money out of dead horses.  Some of these sequels, (and prequels) use scenes left out in the originals.  While this was plausible in the "Superman Returns" movie, it's simply another way to be cheap.
.
Then of course, we have to consider whether the original movie was funny, well acted, exciting, worth the admission price etc etc.
The answer for most of the the movies of 2007 is a big NO!
.
As for rating these movies, I'd prefer a system that starts with 20 or even 30 movies, then pick the top ten, then the top three.  With a long list, the worse movie will often show up very quickly because it was indeed the very worse.
On the other hand, I don't place a vote with a movie unless I see it.
 I stay away from horror movies and dumb looking kiddie movies.  Quite frankly I would never be able to earn a living at being a movie critic as I would not review half the movies made!  Come to think of it, maybe that is the case with movie critics today?

Originally posted by Brierfox Quite frankly I would never be able to earn a living at being a movie critic as I would not review half the movies made!  Come to think of it, maybe that is the case with movie critics today?

I've long held the suspicion that some critics hand off their press passes to a friend now and then and write their reviews on the basis of second hand information. In another thread, I pointed to Roger Ebert's review of Gods and Generals. His review contained several mistakes so glaring that I have to seriously doubt that he watched the movie. Let's face it; the number of movies made in a given year generally falls in the neighborhood of 200-300, most of them are awful, and most of them are going to be about subjects that any given individual isn't going to be particularly interested in. Would anyone really be shocked to find out that there are celebrated professional reviewers out there that really aren't watching all those movies?

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter I don't get it: merely adequate three-quels like "Spider-Man 3" and "Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End" get targeted, while unholy abominations like "Rush Hour 3" skate on by?

Very good point. Speaking about Rush Hour 3, how come Head-Razz never had a forum topic for that movie, while Pirates 3 did?

[QUOTE=saturnwatcher]

 As long as the rubes keep forking over the cash, keep dangling the bait in front of them...

-------------------------------

I guess that would explain why there were 7 "Police Academy" films, which starting with #3, proving you can make a worse film than its horrible predecessor

 

Funny, you defended "Are We Done Yet?" in another area of the forum, and now you don't like it. As for "The Hills Have Eyes 2", it's nowhere near as bad as the "original" "Hills Have Eyes 2", where Pluto and Jupiter came back from the grave (Why not just bring Mars and Mercury back as well?), german shepards have flashbacks (at this point, I was laughing hysterically), and annoying bikers filling in for the sympathetic Carter family...

Originally posted by moviewizguy Ok, I don't like Hills Have Eyes 2 and Are We Done Yet? Still, although they may be part of the bottom films of this year, well, they were not very bad. I rate them both 4/10. Both uneccessary sequels.