The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It's happened to everyone. They hear about the sequal of a film they loved and get all excited, then they find out the director's different, then the actor/actress, then the storyline does not follow.
Films which I found that's pointless in beingn called a sequal are Hannibal, M:I 2, some Bond film. M:I 2 was a big let down. The directing was good but John Woo just bought too much 'Hong Kong' moves into the movie. Brian De Palma's representation of Mission Impossible was best, a smart storyline, well paced screenplay, fair amount of action.
Hannibal was poor. I expected a psychological thriller an dinstead got a face fall of gore and uncreative mush brought together by Ridley Scott mundane imagination. Gladiator was good and the directing a=was fair but it was nothing special.
Hopefully, Ridley Scott will stay away from T3 and hopefully in T3, the storyline follows as T2 did so well.
I don't know about you but film sequels should have the same package as it's predecessor. Obviously not the same film but the same atmosphere and feel to the film.
Films which I found that's pointless in beingn called a sequal are Hannibal, M:I 2, some Bond film. M:I 2 was a big let down. The directing was good but John Woo just bought too much 'Hong Kong' moves into the movie. Brian De Palma's representation of Mission Impossible was best, a smart storyline, well paced screenplay, fair amount of action.
Hannibal was poor. I expected a psychological thriller an dinstead got a face fall of gore and uncreative mush brought together by Ridley Scott mundane imagination. Gladiator was good and the directing a=was fair but it was nothing special.
Hopefully, Ridley Scott will stay away from T3 and hopefully in T3, the storyline follows as T2 did so well.
I don't know about you but film sequels should have the same package as it's predecessor. Obviously not the same film but the same atmosphere and feel to the film.
I'm totaly with godfather on this one, Mission Imposible was a great film, it wasn't appreciated by sonme people cause it made you think too much. Mission Impossible 2 was not a bad film, I actualy enjoyed it but it spoilt the series as it was far to different to be called a sequal, 90% of the people who enjoyed the first film would have found MI:2 to be an insult to inteligence. The name was only given to sell it.
Any film which changes the director, actors and doesn't relate the storyline should not be called a sequal.
Any film which changes the director, actors and doesn't relate the storyline should not be called a sequal.
I'm not saying that John Woo is a bad director. I actually think that he did a good job in Face Off. But what I noticed was that John Woo seems to be running out of ideas. In Face Off, does anyone remember the scene towards the end where Travolta and Cage met, note the slow motion medium shot of Travolta's side and the use of doves-connoting death. Now track back to M:I 2 where Tom whistfully leat around the cave and blew up the door. Now note the slow motion medium shot of Cruise's side and again the use of dove for, guess what, peace.
He is a great director but let's be a little ore adventurous with our idea's shall we Johnny old boy.
He is a great director but let's be a little ore adventurous with our idea's shall we Johnny old boy.
A couple of points I'd like to pick up on, first, Mission Impossible was slightly disappointing as far as I was concerned. Great to just sit back and watch, but I felt it wasn't true to the series, as it failed to quite capture the intricacy and attention to detail that was captured in the original, and although they may have tried to keep it more plot based, it didn't quite do it for me.
Unfortunately, I found Mission Impossible 2 disappointing aswell. Admittedly it was SUPPOSED to be more of an action film, and as Halfalive said the John Woo action sequences were superb on their own, but I felt that Tom Cruise had tried too hard to make it both things - as the transition from fast paced, adrenaline pumping action scenes, back to the bits "inbetween" with an attempt at a plot were very unsubtle. It just didn't work, it felt like it couldn't decide if it was one or the other, and was sort of "out of sink" with itself.
Which is a pity, and dont get me wrong, I'd still sit down and watch these films again, especially with a bunch of mates, but I wouldn't take them too seriously, thats all I'm saying :)
On a lighter note, I thought Gladiator was an EXCELLENT film, definately a worthy member of my movie collection. I loved the whole thing, it had a great cast, and a very talented director, made with a great screenplay, and it was on the whole something fresh and original for once. I remember watching this film when I had flu, it really helped me through it! The fighting scenes were fantastic; the towering collesium filled with romans, cheering and jeering, whislt the gladiators battled to the bloody death below... it really did look amazing. Aswell as this, the plot was well thought out but not over-complicated; and with enough depth, and plenty of twists turns, to keep even the more analytical viewer happy.
Anyway, the only sequel I really am excited about right now is The Matrix 2. And if that even lives up to its predecessor, my faith in suequels will be totally restored!
Unfortunately, I found Mission Impossible 2 disappointing aswell. Admittedly it was SUPPOSED to be more of an action film, and as Halfalive said the John Woo action sequences were superb on their own, but I felt that Tom Cruise had tried too hard to make it both things - as the transition from fast paced, adrenaline pumping action scenes, back to the bits "inbetween" with an attempt at a plot were very unsubtle. It just didn't work, it felt like it couldn't decide if it was one or the other, and was sort of "out of sink" with itself.
Which is a pity, and dont get me wrong, I'd still sit down and watch these films again, especially with a bunch of mates, but I wouldn't take them too seriously, thats all I'm saying :)
On a lighter note, I thought Gladiator was an EXCELLENT film, definately a worthy member of my movie collection. I loved the whole thing, it had a great cast, and a very talented director, made with a great screenplay, and it was on the whole something fresh and original for once. I remember watching this film when I had flu, it really helped me through it! The fighting scenes were fantastic; the towering collesium filled with romans, cheering and jeering, whislt the gladiators battled to the bloody death below... it really did look amazing. Aswell as this, the plot was well thought out but not over-complicated; and with enough depth, and plenty of twists turns, to keep even the more analytical viewer happy.
Anyway, the only sequel I really am excited about right now is The Matrix 2. And if that even lives up to its predecessor, my faith in suequels will be totally restored!
I partly agree with you here. There have definately been alot of big film let downs. And these do include MI:2 and Hanibal. But I really dont think you can blame John Woo for the "Failure" of MI:2. John Woo is one of my favourite directors by far. There's nothing I enjoy more than sitting back and watching a obscure John Woo that nobdy has ever heard of. I think the problem with MI:2 was the writters, not the director. Mission Imposible, while being a great film, was fairly under appriciated. With MI:2 it was highly anticipated and the writters / film company played up to this, trying to make the script appeal to a larger range of people. All John Woo did wrong was put his name on a relatively poor movie. I also thought some of the John Woo moments in that film were very well done.
Peace Out
Peace Out
It's happened to everyone. They hear about the sequal of a film they loved and get all excited, then they find out the director's different, then the actor/actress, then the storyline does not follow.
Films which I found that's pointless in beingn called a sequal are Hannibal, M:I 2, some Bond film. M:I 2 was a big let down. The directing was good but John Woo just bought too much 'Hong Kong' moves into the movie. Brian De Palma's representation of Mission Impossible was best, a smart storyline, well paced screenplay, fair amount of action.
Hannibal was poor. I expected a psychological thriller an dinstead got a face fall of gore and uncreative mush brought together by Ridley Scott mundane imagination. Gladiator was good and the directing a=was fair but it was nothing special.
Hopefully, Ridley Scott will stay away from T3 and hopefully in T3, the storyline follows as T2 did so well.
I don't know about you but film sequels should have the same package as it's predecessor. Obviously not the same film but the same atmosphere and feel to the film.
Films which I found that's pointless in beingn called a sequal are Hannibal, M:I 2, some Bond film. M:I 2 was a big let down. The directing was good but John Woo just bought too much 'Hong Kong' moves into the movie. Brian De Palma's representation of Mission Impossible was best, a smart storyline, well paced screenplay, fair amount of action.
Hannibal was poor. I expected a psychological thriller an dinstead got a face fall of gore and uncreative mush brought together by Ridley Scott mundane imagination. Gladiator was good and the directing a=was fair but it was nothing special.
Hopefully, Ridley Scott will stay away from T3 and hopefully in T3, the storyline follows as T2 did so well.
I don't know about you but film sequels should have the same package as it's predecessor. Obviously not the same film but the same atmosphere and feel to the film.