So, I've seen parts of the first one on cable, but not seen any of the others. Now that the "trilogy" is complete (at least that's the impression I get) are they worth owning? Keep in mind I'm not a huge fan of the games, so I'm asking in terms of their value as sci-fi/zombie/action flicks.
Edit: By "RE" I mean "Resident Evil" :-)
Ha ha ha. No. The first one is ok, and I would probably sit through parts of the second and third if they ran on TNT or something. But I'd say they are of limited value to the kind of person smart enough to skip them when they were in theaters (alas, not me).
Um, no. Beyond the sorta-almost-not-terrible first one, they're barely renting.
Ranking:
2 > 1 > 3
I own the first two and I'm kinda meh about the 3rd.
That ranking is how I'd rank the three X-Men movies and the three Spiderman movies.
Matrix would be sequential 1 > 2 > 3
LotR Trilogy 2 > 3 > 1? Hm ... not sure.
Yes they are.
Anyone who says they are not is a giant douche.
I think RE1 was better than RE2, but I haven't seen RE3. The first two are good in a Milla J. kicking zombie butt way. What else do you really need to know?
It's how I would also rank the original Star Wars movies.Originally Posted by VegasRobb
They are all pretty bad movies, imho. Barely rentals.
They're not worth watching, never mind owning.
Well, that probably explains itself quite nicely. I mean, it's not really worth arguing about because from where I'm sitting it's just a question of the shiniest turd.
But I'm going to go ahead and ask anyway. What on earth could possibly make RE2 a better zombie movie/action movie/movie in general terms? What sold you on it? The motorcycle through the stained glass? And by that I mean, sko "fun set pieces argument" impossible for everyone who was cutting their veins at that point to appreciate?
Watch the first ten to fifteen minutes of the first one... and you're done.
Definitely worth a used DVD pickup under $5 each.
I love chick flicks! (Chicks with guns, that is.)
The first movie was watchable. The second was just above a Sci-Fi original. Can't be bothered to watch the third.
Maybe when she ran up of the side of Toronto city hall and a nuke detonated beneath her?
I liked the first one quite a bit, but the others are a pass.
Yeah, these get progressively worse. The original movie has a terrific set-up, and any cast with Milla Jovovich and Michelle Rodriguez is fine by me. But like most bad horror, it doesn't really go anywhere. However, the second is a low-budget throwaway, and the third is a bigger budget throwaway, most notable for the way Milla Jovovich was replaced by a CG likeness of her. A pretty good one, to be sure, but CG nevertheless.
-Tom
i really liked the first one. decent action and i liked most of the characters. and even if not genius level, not that many dumb moves. milla jovovich kicked a dog in the head.
the second was crap. not even the zombies strippers could save it. you can't even see the action in the cemetary sequence. dumb characters (let's split up! and here take a gun even though you've never used one in your life!). who the hell walks through a cemetary during a zombie apocalypse!?!?
People actually have kind things to say about RE2? Amazing.
I enjoyed RE1, mostly for Milla and the laser corridor scene, but really it's hardly purchase material. RE2 is almost as unwatchable as UltraViolet(Not even Milla saved that one). I didn't bother with 3, but I assume the worst.
I also am quite a fan of the games, old and busted tank control ones even.
Oh, it's one of those Canadian things. I see. The movie is still a botched abortion smeared across a lens.
No, sorry, I was presenting that as an example of how awful it was.
LK,
The soundtrack to RE2 is excellent. That's really what set it apart from the first. Found quite a few neat bands to check out and follow. I'm not sure if you can get enough from the samples on iTunes or Amazon but it really is a solid collection of rock/metal (nu-metal?). Track it down if you can.
Is that a general enough term? The soundtrack is good enough that I can forget about Mike Epps.
What does "sko" mean, btw?
Some Kind Of
It's a OMM/Caltrops forum thing. Never seen it used anywhere else.
THANK GOD. Here I though my video game war buddy was losing it. Faith: reaffirmed.
I was on that soundtrack like white on rice. I was going through a phase at the time of purchasing soundtracks from bad movies and enjoying them, but I still think it's a good sampler of many mediocre/good bands at their best. Nymphetamine alone was worth the price of admission, and like you I found some new bands down that rabbit hole.
It's still a terrible movie experience, and the soundtrack can't come within miles of salvaging it.
Actually I meant superior kerosene oil, and yeah, I assumed it was in broader use. My bad.
For me it was cKy shining through the brightest. I have a thing for that type of guitar sound though.
Anyway, I think you understand now that it's more of a sum-of-the-parts thing versus movie-standing-alone thing with the 2>1>3 ranking.
Oh, why was Spiderman in bold?
Thanks for the definition of "sko". I unknowningly used the "fun set pieces" argument to support my (then) belief that the second Matrix movie was good. Keil or Gallant was nice enough to gently break the movie apart and reveal reality to me.
Because (in my frame of reference), S 1 I could forgive, the rest, not so much. So I think I understood where you were coming from (a different planet altogether from me) when you cited 2 as superior.
First time through:
1 > 2 --------- 3
Repeated viewing:
2 > 1 > 3
Way too much exposition in 1 and 3. Sucks the life out of the movies.
The first RE movie was a rental for me and it was barely okay. The second, also a rental, was slightly worse. I didn't see the third (if I do, it'll be a rental at some point). Basically, I'd say they weren't worth owning for sure (I've never played any of the games, either).
I like the first quite a bit (and yes, I own it). The second was meh, and I didn't bother to see the third.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote