Agreed. I also think that the third Bond movie - Goldfinger - was better than the first two(or any that followed, really).
Heartily disagree. They are both very good films, but the first one is so much more suspenseful.
That’s what I came to post, and pretty much all of filmdom agrees with you. With the exception of some odd anachronisms (caused by tacking on the Mary Shelley prologue and epilogue after the screenplay had been written), the whole film is better. It’s tauter, more suspenseful, the monster is a better-developed character, and so is Frankenstein himself, and the FX are very impressive for the time. Actually, they remained impressive right up until the introduction of CGI, and the film was made in 1935.
On a related topic, I can name a few rare remakes that were better than the original. The 1931 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is much better than the 1920 version, in spite of the presence of John Barrymore in the 1920 version. The 1944 version of Gaslight, that won an Oscar for Ingrid Bergman as Best Actress, is way better than the 1940 version, which is so bad, it’s hard to follow. And the version of The Maltese Falcon with Humphrey Bogart is far superior to the one made 10 years earlier, in spite of the introduction of the Hays’ Code before the second one. Those are rare exceptions to the general rule that remakes are never as good as the original.
I agree with both of those, although my opinion may be colored by the fact that I think I saw the second movie first. And interestingly, both were James Cameron films.
Less popular perhaps; I preferred Babe: Pig In The City to the original
(Plus it has one of my favorite Clint lines: “You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend, those with loaded guns and those who dig…”)
“Godfather” had the great performance by Marlon Brando, but “Godfather 2” had an even better performance by DeNiro…love them both, “Godfather” is more iconic, but 2 was a better movie, IMHO…
I saw T2 before I saw T1. Looking back it was a mistake. I’m sure the first 15 minutes of T2 appeared totally different for people who had seen T1 first and who didn’t know the ‘plot twist’.
“McHale’s Navy Joins the Air Force”.
**JUST IN CASE ANYONE HASN’T SEEN IT BY NOW, **SPOILERS FOR ALIEN FOLLOW:
It just occurred to me that anyone who didn’t see Alien in a theater may not have experienced how edge-of-your-seat the ending was.
When the movie came out, Sigourney Weaver was unknown. Now she is more famous than anyone else in the movie. But, at the time the movie came out, the characters died in order of the fame of the actors playing them. Yes, John Hurt was the most famous actor in the movie at the time.
No one believed that Sigourney Weaver was really going to survive. It just wasn’t done in films to kill off all those famous people, and save the unknown. It went entirely against trop. And yet, there was something, something about her determination, about the way the ending was playing out, the acting and the directing, that made you hopeful. People were holding their breath, and everyone screamed when the alien was in the escape pod. Then, at the end, when Ripley was really safe, everyone applauded.
It’s impossible to recapture that when seeing the movie now. There’s now way to see it in 1979 ever again. So I guess someone who has seen it subsequent to its theater release might not experience it as heart-stoppingly suspenseful as it was originally.
For me, who saw it, as well as Aliens, in a theater, the first one is way better, but I suppose that for people seeing both now, the second one could be more exciting in some ways, especially if you are not familiar with many of the actors in the first one. I mean, if you are only vaguely familiar with some of the actors, and others not at all, but consider Sigourney Weaver an A±lister, the ending is much more predictable.
Of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, the second was better than the first. Not that the first was in any way bad.
The later ones shall not be discussed.
Interesting analysis. I was going through this thread wondering how so many people could think that the second one was better than the iconic first. I think you’ve explained it. Like you, I saw them in the theater.
I didn’t know this, but I heard recently that Logan can’t technically be a sequel to the other X-men movies. It says in the opening that no new mutants have come along in 20-25 years and we just say the end of Days of Future Past happening no more than 10 years prior to it.
I don’t know if it’s necessarily better than the original, but Trainspotting 2 was as good as and in some ways better than the original, in my opinion. The characters’ stories have grown and the actors are all 20 years older as while, adding believability. It makes sense to come to terms with being addicted—just be addicted to something else.
Maybe I’m missing something: how many of the mutants in Days of Future Past were under the age of 10? Because if, 10 years later, they’re all in their twenties or older, and no other mutants under 20 are around, then . . . what?
Both great movies, but I thought “2” was very uneven - the DeNiro parts were far superior to the Pacino parts. Not because of the acting, but the plot of the Pacino sections was extremely convoluted (maybe edited down too far?).
Plus “1” has the baptism sequence climax…
Godfather II is, so far, the only sequel to win Best Picture at the Oscars.
Well, there’s The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King.
To add my two cent to the Alien vs Aliens debate, I think Aliens is the better film. That being said, to me this debate is like debating between an A and A+ because they are both great films. I give Alien an A and Aliens an A+
Like I said, the continuity between all the X-Men films is very confusing. TV Tropes page on continuity snarls give the films their own page just to explain them all: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ContinuitySnarl/XMenFilmSeries
Uh, okay. But what’s confusing about this specific point?
Mahaloth said: “Logan can’t technically be a sequel to the other X-men movies. It says in the opening that no new mutants have come along in 20-25 years and we just say the end of Days of Future Past happening no more than 10 years prior to it.”
My reply is, if the mutants at the end of that movie are 11+, then near as I can tell there’s no problem if we’re told — 10 years later — that no new mutants have come along in 20 years; because, near as I can tell, it’d be entirely possible that no new mutants have come along in 20 years.
A lot of these movies you guys are talking about I haven’t seen… I’ll have to add them to my Netflix queue.
Re: *Aliens *, the second was more of an action movie and the first was more of a thriller/suspense IMO. Dunno if that makes much of a difference regarding which one is “best,” but I like action movies more than suspense.