LogFAQs > #927007113

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	General Movie Discussion Topic
LinkMarioSamus 09/05/19 11:25:08 AM #424:	Johnbobb posted... LinkMarioSamus posted... Hardcore_Adult posted... ^ It's better than that shitshow 4.0! I liked 4 actually. If they hadn't cut it back a little to make it PG-13, it might've been on par with 3 1>3>>4>>>2 never bothered seeing 5 The really dumb thing is that both Siskel & Ebert felt Die Hard 2 was the best of the first three, when it's typically considered to be the weakest of them due to being too similar to the first one. Gene even named Die Hard 2 one of the 10 best films of 1990 (one spot ahead Dances with Wolves no less!), and then was very disappointed in the third film. For reasons that I do understand. Also Die Hard 2 has some glaring plot holes, and yet I've never seen someone criticize Die Hard 2 on that basis. I think people are just willing to pass off the planes not heading over to Andrews Air Force Base or something as action movie logic. Come to think of it, even the best action films of the era had some glaring logic errors. For example, a lot of time travel shenanigans in Terminator 2 make no sense when you think about them, and yet thankfully the people who pick up on this are typically huge fans of the film. That kind of makes me interested to see how James Cameron might justify some of those "problems" in the new Terminator film. --- "Nothing I could do!" -Darksydephil <cite>LinkMarioSamus posted [p:927007113] in General Mo... [t:77535770]...</cite> <quote>Johnbobb posted...</cite> <quote>LinkMarioSamus posted...</cite> <quote>Hardcore_Adult posted...</cite> <quote>^ It's better than that shitshow 4.0!</quote></quote> I liked 4 actually. If they hadn't cut it back a little to make it PG-13, it might've been on par with 3 1>3>>4>>>2 never bothered seeing 5</quote> The really dumb thing is that both Siskel & Ebert felt Die Hard 2 was the best of the first three, when it's typically considered to be the weakest of them due to being too similar to the first one. Gene even named Die Hard 2 one of the 10 best films of 1990 (one spot ahead Dances with Wolves no less!), and then was very disappointed in the third film. For reasons that I do understand. Also Die Hard 2 has some glaring plot holes, and yet I've never seen someone criticize Die Hard 2 on that basis. I think people are just willing to pass off the planes not heading over to Andrews Air Force Base or something as action movie logic. Come to think of it, even the best action films of the era had some glaring logic errors. For example, a lot of time travel shenanigans in Terminator 2 make no sense when you think about them, and yet thankfully the people who pick up on this are typically huge fans of the film. That kind of makes me interested to see how James Cameron might justify some of those "problems" in the new Terminator film. --- "Nothing I could do!" -Darksydephil</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1