Best Threequel?

[Avril Lavigne]

Psycho III is a ludicrous film but it's also undeniably fun, in a cheesball kind of way.  As for the other films in the series, I know that I'm not alone in finding Psycho II to be superior to the first film

I still need to watch Psycho III so that I'm finally up-to-speed enough to watch Psycho IV, which I need to watch purely because it's the first thing Mick Garris directed after he made my favourite movie of all time, Critters 2.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Going beyond threequels, it seems to be the consensus that the Fast and Furious series only became good with the fifth installment.

[St_Eddie]

...it's the first thing Mick Garris directed after he made my favourite movie of all time, Critters 2.

Critters 2 is brilliant.  Easily the best entry in the series.  Lee's attempts at transforming himself are hysterical and I love the Crites massing together to form a great big ravenous boulder.

I'm probably the only person who likes Critters 4 (the one in space).  It's by no means a good film, from an objective standpoint but I enjoy it in the same way I enjoy watching schlock on the Horror Channel at 2am.  Critters 3 is a slog and just plain bad though (there are a few moments of fun to be had but not nearly enough).

By the way, did you know that they're making an online Critters TV series?

Hey, little buddies, come gather 'round,
This here's the very best eating in town.
The Hungry Heifer's the place to be,
Lip-lickin' good, you can take it from me.

Try a Polar Burger, some Buffalo Chips,
Wash it all down with a Mooshake.
Pat your tummy and smack your lips,
Suck for hours on your finger tips.

At the Hungry Heifer,
We don't give you a bum steer.

[Shaky]

Said it before but Psycho 3 (1986) is a hoot with a great 80s tastic soundtrack. Not as good as the first two but good on its own terms.

Psycho 3 is easily my favorite of the four films for it's sheer unpretentious good fun. Perkins is magnificently demented in that one. 1 is obviously classic but looses some power f you know the twist beforehand and (whisper it) it's a bit dull in places. I love 2 until it starts to lead up to the very silly twist.

4's watchable for Perkins alone, even standing in a kitchen talking on the phone for the majority of the film.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Another great one is Rocky III.

A massive gear shift from the first two and it arguably turned the series into a silly wrestling cartoon.

But I loved it when I was young and nobody can take that away from me.

Rocky is a classic. Part II is a welcome extra helping. IV is a guilty pleasure. Parts V and VI are failed attempts to rediscover lost credibility.

Rocky III is just a fucking great movie and there's an argument to be made for it being the best one.

Rocky III is a tremendously entertaining film. It severs all ties with the gritty tone of the first two films, but it's still a great air-punching crowd-pleaser. The scene in which Mickey dies always brings tears to my eyes. The series still had some emotional heft at that point, despite the encroaching silliness.

Rocky IV exists on an entirely different planet to any of the other films in the series, but it's quite enjoyable as a piece of cocaine-fuelled '80s trash. At least it's never boring, unlike Rocky V, which is utterly drab, pointless and desperate.

Rocky Balboa - or Rocky 6, if you prefer - is a lovely little film, a genuine return to the relatively low-key heart and grungy charm of the original.

The original Rocky is a masterpiece, I truly believe that. A low-budget New Hollywood '70s film a la Mean Streets, albeit one wrapped up in good old-fashioned 'underdog makes good' storytelling.

[Brundle-Fly]

Rocky III is a tremendously entertaining film. It severs all ties with the gritty tone of the first two films, but it's still a great air-punching crowd-pleaser. The scene in which Mickey dies always brings tears to my eyes. The series still had some emotional heft at that point, despite the encroaching silliness.

Rocky IV exists on an entirely different planet to any of the other films in the series, but it's quite enjoyable as a piece of cocaine-fuelled '80s trash. At least it's never boring, unlike Rocky V, which is utterly drab, pointless and desperate.

Rocky Balboa - or Rocky 6, if you prefer - is a lovely little film, a genuine return to the relatively low-key heart and grungy charm of the original.

The original Rocky is a masterpiece, I truly believe that. A low-budget New Hollywood '70s film a la Mean Streets, albeit one wrapped up in good old-fashioned 'underdog makes good' storytelling.

What's Creed (2015) like?  There is even a sequel to that this year with another character returning from the old franchise. Although, this appearance would be akin to bringing back Jaws for Quantum Of Solace (2008)

[St_Eddie]

What's Creed (2015) like?

It's crap, just like the overrated game it's based on.  Not even Fassbender could save that turkey.  Also, I found the connection to the prior Rocky movies, to be tenuous at best.

[Avril Lavigne]

By the way, did you know that they're making an online Critters TV series?

I'd heard about it a while back but it always seemed like one of those projects that'll permanently be in development-hell.  I'd love for it to happen though, the wider universe that the Bounty Hunters inhabit is barely touched on in the movies & is ripe for exploring in episodic stories.  I really enjoyed the Bounty Hunter short film and how in-keeping with the old movies the production design was.

Critters 3 I can hardly ever remember much about, despite having seen it at least twice, except for the fact that it's Leo DiCaprio's first movie role & Charlie isn't used nearly enough.

My main problem with the fourth is the way they turned Ug into a villain with no real explanation.  He acts like a completely different character, only justifying it with one weak line ("things change") and it kinda retroactively puts a downer on the happy ending of 2 so I tend to pretend it doesn't exist.  Maybe it's due a rewatch in October when I do my annual 31-movie marathon, as 2AM Horror Channel schlock usually makes up the majority of my list anyway.

As for horror threequels in general, Army of Darkness is pretty damn good despite the huge change in setting/style/tone to the previous Evil Dead movies.  I wish more horror franchises would suddenly swerve into a Medieval setting.  I want to see Final Destination in 5th century Britain.

[Bogbrainedmurphy]

Rocky III is a tremendously entertaining film. It severs all ties with the gritty tone of the first two films, but it's still a great air-punching crowd-pleaser. The scene in which Mickey dies always brings tears to my eyes. The series still had some emotional heft at that point, despite the encroaching silliness.

Rocky IV exists on an entirely different planet to any of the other films in the series, but it's quite enjoyable as a piece of cocaine-fuelled '80s trash. At least it's never boring, unlike Rocky V, which is utterly drab, pointless and desperate.

Rocky Balboa - or Rocky 6, if you prefer - is a lovely little film, a genuine return to the relatively low-key heart and grungy charm of the original.

The original Rocky is a masterpiece, I truly believe that. A low-budget New Hollywood '70s film a la Mean Streets, albeit one wrapped up in good old-fashioned 'underdog makes good' storytelling.

Always been a fan of Rocky IV ("No Easy Way Out" is a gym staple, too) but hadn't actually watched it for about 10 years until recently.

Saw it on ITV4 the other day - they must have worn through the Bourne tape - and realised how basic a film it actually is. Bit at the beginning, a collection of montages, then the final fight!

[AsparagusTrevor]

It's crap, just like the overrated game it's based on.  Not even Fassbender could save that turkey.  Also, I found the connection to the prior Rocky movies, to be tenuous at best.

Are you sassin' Creed?

[St_Eddie]

Critters 3 I can hardly ever remember much about, despite having seen it at least twice, except for the fact that it's Leo DiCaprio's first movie role & Charlie isn't used nearly enough.

I'm not surprised that you can hardly remember anything of Critters 3, as it's a very forgettable movie.  You're spot on about Charlie being given the short shrift.  Aside from that, the main problems with the movie, as far as I see it, are the boring and limited setting (it's almost entirely set in an apartment building, without any power.  What works for [rec], doesn't work for Critters 3.  Mostly because unlike Critters 3, [rec] is not a badly written yawn fest) and the humour is juvenile; a real step back from the great gags from Critters 2.

My main problem with the fourth is the way they turned Ug into a villain with no real explanation.  He acts like a completely different character, only justifying it with one weak line ("things change") and it kinda retroactively puts a downer on the happy ending of 2 so I tend to pretend it doesn't exist.

Aye, that was a lame thing for the writers to do to a beloved character, purely so that they could crowbar in a last minute twist and have a villainous antagonist for Charlie to face off against in a showdown.  Having said that, as bad as the attempted justification of "thing's change" is, I can halfway accept it considering that it's been around 60 years since Charlie last saw Ug.  I imagine that after the loss of Lee, he closed himself off from forming attachments with others, eventually becoming cold and self-serving in his new position as an executive officer.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that jazz.

That's all head-canon bullshit, of course.  In reality, it would have been preferable had the writers not took a massive dump on the character to begin with.

Maybe it's due a rewatch in October when I do my annual 31-movie marathon, as 2AM Horror Channel schlock usually makes up the majority of my list anyway.

You should make the 31st movie of your 31 movie marathon, Rob Zombie's film, 31.

As for horror threequels in general, Army of Darkness is pretty damn good despite the huge change in setting/style/tone to the previous Evil Dead movies.

The biggest gripe I have with Army of Darkness is the toned down nature of the gore, as enforced by the studio.  It's verging on being family friendly, which is just plain wrong for an Evil Dead flick.  Also, I think that it kind of loses its steam in the last act of the movie.  Some of the dialogue is simply inspired though (it's immensely quotable) and overall, it's a bloody good flick, even if it fails to match the brilliance of the first two.  Oh and the European post-apocalyptic ending all the way!

I wish more horror franchises would suddenly swerve into a Medieval setting.  I want to see Final Destination in 5th century Britain.

Heh.  My vote goes to a Medieval Predator.  Oh wait, that kind of already exists!  Instead I'll vote for a Medieval... um... uh... shit, I don't know... Medieval Pumpkinhead?  No, no.  Ooohh, how about a Medieval The Exorcist?  That could work!

Are you sassin' Creed?

Ha!

+karma

[thecuriousorange]

What's the best Terminator film after the second one?

I haven't seen Genysys or whatever it was called. Sadly I have seen 3 and 4.

Now when each new one is released, it is declared "The best one since the last one that was good." (By the studio PR team and spineless, sycophantic critics who want to keep industry contacts happy)

The upcoming new one is ignoring everything bar the first two, making it the real Terminator threequel. 

[St_Eddie]

What's the best Terminator film after the second one?

None of them are particularly good but I'd say that Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines is the best of a bad bunch.  It borders on self-parody, which is never a good route for a respected sci-fi/horror series to take (I'm glaring in your direction with beady eyes, Alien: Resurrection) and it's really just a rehash of Terminator 2: Judgment Day for the most part (only far inferior) but it does at least pick up in the last act and the ending is actually really darn great.

Terminator Salvation is a tedious bore and completely squanders the opportunity to have a movie set during the perpetual nighttime in the future war, with purple laser beams going *pew* *pew* and Hunter Killers, admist a landscape of human skulls, as seen in the prior movies.  Instead it's set during the daytime.  It really does beggar belief how much they managed to fuck up a rock solid concept so royally.

Terminator Genisys is the worst of all.  Awful, just awful.  I won't go into detail because life's far too short, so instead I'll simply give my biggest gripe and say that they recast Kyle Reese as the muscular meathead, devoid of personality that is Jai Courtney.  Kyle Reese; a man from the future, wiry and starving but apparently he has access to his own personal gym.  Fucking boneheaded casting decision.  Not that it matters because the script is fucking woeful, regardless.

[Avril Lavigne]

That's all head-canon bullshit, of course.  In reality, it would have been preferable had the writers not took a massive dump on the character to begin with.

Ah, you've reminded me that my head-canon bullshit was that Ug actually died a hero during the gap between 3 and 4 and this evil replacement is a different shapeshifter of the same race who has just assumed his form, hence why he's known as Councilor Tetra to everyone but Charlie, with whom he's playing headgames.  I might even watch Critters 4 this weekend just to see if that theory holds up.

You should make the 31st movie of your 31 movie marathon Rob Zombie's film, 31.

I watched it last year!  It didn't do anything for me, but then I've felt that way about most of Zombie's work.  It seemed to be another of his attempts to make a modern equivalent of a Grindhouse classic, but this one was tamer and more forgettable than the others (the main thing I remember is Richard Brake & Malcolm McDowell being pretty entertaining, but not necessarily due to Zombie's writing).

I completely agree on all points about Army of Darkness, I remember feeling somewhat let down by the toned-down gore when I was a teenager and its last act doesn't have any of the bonkers energy of Evil Dead II, but yeah it's definitely up there as one of the few genuinely good horror threequels.

This discussion has led me to discover that the third Ginger Snaps movie is set in 19th Century Canada.  Considering the burgeoning-womanhood allegory of the original movie I really can't believe the tagline for this addition wasn't simply 'A Period Horror'.

[Replies From View]

The upcoming new one is ignoring everything bar the first two, making it the real Terminator threequel.

Fairly sure Salvation and Genisys claimed the same thing.  3, 4 and 5 were each their own attempt to spawn a new Terminator trilogy; instead we have a trilogy of "first of a new trilogy" films that are each a dead end.

Quite funny really.

[AsparagusTrevor]

Terminator Salvation is a tedious bore and completely squanders the opportunity to have a movie set during the perpetual nighttime in the future war, with purple laser beams going *pew* *pew* and Hunter Killers, admist a landscape of human skulls, as seen in the prior movies.  Instead it's set during the daytime.  It really does beggar belief how much they managed to fuck up a rock solid concept so royally.

Buried under it all I think there's might be a half-decent, non-Terminator sci-fi flick trying to get out. Mad Max with robots.

Somewhat impressively they managed to both bog it down with their loyalty to the franchise, yet they managed to make it feel nothing like a Terminator movie apart from the appearance of CGI Arnie (or Carnie).

Plus the director is called McG and Will.He.Is is in it when he shouldn't be in anything.

[St_Eddie]

Ah, you've reminded me that my head-canon bullshit was that Ug actually died a hero during the gap between 3 and 4 and this evil replacement is a different shapeshifter of the same race who has just assumed his form, hence why he's known as Councilor Tetra to everyone but Charlie, with whom he's playing headgames.  I might even watch Critters 4 this weekend just to see if that theory holds up.

Oh, wow!  That theory is perfect!  I'm blowing my previous head-canon away with the cannon within my head and replacing it with your head-canon.

I watched it last year!  It didn't do anything for me, but then I've felt that way about most of Zombie's work.  It seemed to be another of his attempts to make a modern equivalent of a Grindhouse classic, but this one was tamer and more forgettable than the others (the main thing I remember is Richard Brake & Malcolm McDowell being pretty entertaining, but not necessarily due to Zombie's writing).

I've got a copy but haven't actually watched it yet.  I really like House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects though (there's a third installment on the way; 3 From Hell).

This discussion has led me to discover that the third Ginger Snaps movie is set in 19th Century Canada.

Indeed. I've got the DVD boxset.  I'd say that the prequel is slightly better than the second film but neither comes close to being as good as the first one.

Considering the burgeoning-womanhood allegory of the original movie I really can't believe the tagline for this addition wasn't simply 'A Period Horror'.

I literally just applauded my monitor after reading that, like a great big loon.

Fairly sure Salvation and Genisys claimed the same thing.  3, 4 and 5 were each their own attempt to spawn a new Terminator trilogy; instead we have a trilogy of "first of a new trilogy" films that are each a dead end.

Quite funny really.

Quite funny or quite depressing?  This sort of thing is rampant in modern Hollywood and it infuriates me.  Why don't they just concentrate on making one good movie, with a clear beginning, middle and an end and if that works and makes a load of money, then you can worry about coming up with an idea for a sequel.  But no, everything needs to be thought of and planned as a trilogy and a way of launching a billion spin-offs via a 'cinematic universe'.

It's not only putting the cart before the horse but by doing so, it only serves to undermine the movie they intend to launch a new trilogy around because they're too worried about setting up the seeds of future plot points, with no regards for how unsatisfying that is for an audience who just want to watch a good flick.

[mothman]

Rise of the Machines is problematic. It's not great, but on the one hand, but having two such dogs following it helps to make it not seem so bad in comparison; on the other, there's the TV show at about the same time which it pales in comparison to. It's The Phantom Menace, followed by Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith.

[Bad Ambassador]

I may be the only person who liked Genisys.

[PowerButchi]

Another great one is Rocky III.

A massive gear shift from the first two and it arguably turned the series into a silly wrestling cartoon.

But I loved it when I was young and nobody can take that away from me.

Rocky is a classic. Part II is a welcome extra helping. IV is a guilty pleasure. Parts V and VI are failed attempts to rediscover lost credibility.

Rocky III is just a fucking great movie and there's an argument to be made for it being the best one.

There's more than an argument. It's actual truth. The Rocky Code is 34126

[lebowskibukowski]

No Retreat No Surrender 3

[lebowskibukowski]

Another great one is Rocky III.

A massive gear shift from the first two and it arguably turned the series into a silly wrestling cartoon.

But I loved it when I was young and nobody can take that away from me.

Rocky is a classic. Part II is a welcome extra helping. IV is a guilty pleasure. Parts V and VI are failed attempts to rediscover lost credibility.

Rocky III is just a fucking great movie and there's an argument to be made for it being the best one.

III and IV are easily my favourites. People may claim the first two are better films but III and IV are just so much more bloody fun.

[Clive Langham]

I think Scream 3 is the best of the Screams, but nobody else agrees with me.

[mothman]

I don't know if I'm ready to aceept Iron Man 3 as the best - 1 is still pretty good too - but both are definitely better than 2. Not that 2 is bad. It's a pretty solid trilogy, all in all. I'd rhetorically ask how often you can say that about a trilogy, but I'd only get inundated with responses.

[thecuriousorange]

Back when Die Hard was a trilogy, "... With a Vengeance" was also an improvement on the second one. And wisely didn't try to continue the Christmas theme.

[Dr Rock]

I seem to have a biggie that nobody's mentioned. Star Trek 3: Save The Wales.

And Thor:Ragnarok is becoming one of my favourite movies ever.

[Dr Rock]

I seem to have a biggie that nobody's mentioned.

Leave it.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

I seem to have a biggie that nobody's mentioned. Star Trek 3: Save The Wales.

The whales one was Star Trek 4. Unless you mean Wales, the country.

[Dr Rock]

Oh yeah, rule of the even numbers being the good ones. I liked 3 enough though.

Ok, Avengers 3. I've watched it several times now and that Thanos is a real jerk.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Also, this: