Invisible wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> Invisible wrote:
>>>> Well, I've seen films where the sequal is *better* than the original
>>>> too. (Off the top of my head... Shrek. Pirates of the Carribean. Die 
>>>> Hard.)
>>> Die Hard?! Noooo..... the sequels are OK, but remain poor shadows of the
>>> first film... :-(
>>
>> indeed.  And Shrek 2 is far better than the first, but 3 is lame.
> 
> Agree with Shrek analysis. Disagree with Die Hard. (The first one was 
> OK, but I prefered the numerous sequals better.)

Ah well, each to their own. My main problem with no 2 was the monumental 
  lack of knowledge or common sense exhibited by the filmmakers, made 
the whole thing seem like a bit of a cartoon. 3 was good, I liked the 
puzzle-bombing concept, but it all fell apart a bit towards the end. 
Number 4 was surprisingly good but there was too much to-ing and fro-ing.

Post a reply to this message