Geezus wrote: |
I don't want to drag this on ..... But I just HAVE to jab back.... What DO-YOU mean with " uneventfulness " ?  Is it the long built up of gloom and doom to a >DANG<! - ending? I prefer that to the chain of tedious little slices of actions with little to no built up between whatsoever that part 3 was.... Also it felt as if they tried to rewrite the entire story arc background in the third one....  Part 3 (and 4 if you wish) felt like Outer Limit episodes....bad ones.... |
bingo, but no its not built up
because it simply does not work, they fail to build up any tension or doom because they essentially, imo, cloned the first movie as is often the failing of sequels. They cloned the investigativeness of the first film but unfortunately its neither as good nor works as well the second time round. They drag their feet too much and they loose the audience (or most the audience), and we've been there and seen it done better.
I mean that nothing happens and it has no substance to fill it, that's not build up. After number one, its just wasted space retreading it. Phantasm 3 doesn't delude itself into this and instead just makes it entertaining by having stuff happen. its a b-movie scif-actiony comedy thing, but at least its not got any lulls in it.
Just to restress, it isn't build up because it doesn't work, else you wouldn't get bored with it so quickly. Did you see phantasm 2 before phantasm 1 by any chance?
I have no illusions that 2 and 3 are mere sequels of the first, but 2 acts like the first and fails in its aims to that end, and the 3rd acts like a sequel and it works a lot better because it does imo. They maybe stood on a little toes with the plot... bringing back a baldwin does that
But it doesn't negate any of the first.
| Quote: |
I suppose 3 was a failure for me from the word go as it was thrown into a X-file pittrap - with part 2 revealing us this glimpse of this mindblowing bigger picture....how was it ever gonna topple that ? |
Now i have to question, if you've even seen number two?
and the next part makes me question if you've seen parts 1 and 3 also...
| Quote: |
....and part 2's ending ends the way it is throughout ; gloom & doom  |
They don't do a double take in number 3 because i think they already had number 4 lined up, whereas with 1 and 2 they do double takes.
It isn't doom and gloom, is droll,
repitition and waste intermitten with action that's a little too infrequent for my taste. The whole chasing is tired after 3 or 4 minutes, but they keep it up for a sizeable portion of the film, which is the main flaw.
The main reason I would rather watch 3 to 2 is because they don't try and clone the first one again, and make them all coy and investigative of the Tall Man. It doesn't work, and watching the movie it clearly doesn't work great.
| Quote: |
Face it ! Phantasm II = the empire strikes back of the phantasm series  |
Where can come up with this crap? I suppose your ravings aboutr Nightmare on Elmstreet 3 is because its the The Good, The Bad and The Ugly of Nightmare? The bad perhaps..,
Phantasm 1 beats the living snot out of this one quite easily. This has substantial whole in it where nothing happens, and no "building atmosphere" it is not. Phantasm 3 is essentially the same except they don't have these vast wholes of "chasing" the tall man and just fill it with gore, a bit of humour and some b-movie crap (which for a b-movie franchise is pretty fair game).
I still like them all, else i wouldn't own them myself. But i'm not going to delude myself that phantasm 2 is some amazing movie better than 1 or even 3, it isn't. I can see why someone might favour 2 to 3, but better than 1? lol, that's stupid to me, but whatever floats your boat. Obviously on a site like this people are going to like crap and shun classics.
Then again people like the remake of Dawn of the Dead better than the original, and texas chansaw better than the original, and Nightmare on Elm Street 3 is better than the first, or think sony playstations are amazing.... so there's obviously no accounting for taste
note:
I do like all the films, i'm just not playing ball that this is anywhere remotely near better than 1, and honestly its about as good as number 3. 2 3 and 4 are consistantly juggled in estimation, but i think there's more of a case for 3 and 4 (4 if you like scifiy stuff)
Ooops I read it completely, just couldn't resist 
