I personally think...

[The Ü™]

...that Evan Almighty is better than Bruce Almighty.

 

[Athenian200]

...that Evan Almighty is better than Bruce Almighty.

One is a sequel of the other, and a sequel is never better than the original. Why do you think it was better?

The first one went into all sorts of different possible uses and responsibilities of divine power, and the second one is just about a guy building an ark. Who wants that kind of reality? I mean, I could build an ark and cause a flood if I had enough money.

 

[The Ü™]

I guess I have a thing for miniatures and massive CGI, which was more prominent in Evan.

And Evan Almighty didn't have Jim Carrey.

 

[spartan26]

One is a sequel of the other, and a sequel is never better than the original. Why do you think it was better?

I'm sure you're just waiting for this but Spiderman II, X-Men 2, Batman Begins better than originals. Some people argue Empire Strikes Back as well as Aliens and T2. Godfather II also goes on the list. 28 Weeks Later, Austin Powers second installment was better than the first. Didn't see Evil Dead 2 but it gets praised as exceeding the original. What about The Road Warrior? Good case for that. Toy Story 2 also gets mentioned in this argument. Perhaps Dawn of the Dead exceeding Night of the Dead. Halloween II should also be included on the list.

It's not a foregone conclusion that the sequel will suck but I'd agree most are horrendous. Evan Almighty wasn't as good as the first. No way.

 

[miss fortune]

yes- evil dead 2 IS better than the origional- and evil dead 3 is the best of the three! some sequels are definitly better!

 

[The Ü™]

Sequels better than their predecessors:

• Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
• Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
• Aliens
• Resident Evil: Apocalypse (still dreadful, but marginally better than the first)
• Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (still the best of the franchise)
• Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
• Star Trek: First Contact
• Toy Story 2
• Batman Forever (the best of the Burton/Schumacher films)
• Scary Movie 3
• The Mummy Returns
• and that's just a few...

I must protest, though, that Terminator 2 was in no way better than the original. The same goes for X-Men 2, which was long, boring, and confusing, and the first Austin Powers was the only one of those films that was halfway decent. And Batman Begins was rather unimaginative compared to the other four. (Yes, Batman & Robin was incredibly imaginative precisely because it was so ridiculous.)

 

[Ms. M]

Sequels better than their predecessors:

• Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
• Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
• Aliens
• Resident Evil: Apocalypse (still dreadful, but marginally better than the first)
• Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (still the best of the franchise)
• Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
• Star Trek: First Contact
• Toy Story 2
• Batman Forever (the best of the Burton/Schumacher films)
• Scary Movie 3
• The Mummy Returns
• and that's just a few...

I must protest, though, that Terminator 2 was in no way better than the original. The same goes for X-Men 2, which was long, boring, and confusing, and the first Austin Powers was the only one of those films that was halfway decent. And Batman Begins was rather unimaginative compared to the other four. (Yes, Batman & Robin was incredibly imaginative precisely because it was so ridiculous.)

Though Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets has made more money than the other Potter films, I don't think it's the best of the series. I think Azkaban, Goblet, and Phoenix are all better than the first two movies.

 

[The Ü™]

Though Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets has made more money than the other Potter films, I don't think it's the best of the series. I think Azkaban, Goblet, and Phoenix are all better than the first two movies.

Azkaban was hackneyed. People only liked it because the director was both non-American and non-British. Goblet was okay -- much more in vein of the first two. Order was played like a two-hour montage.

 

[Ms. M]

Azkaban was hackneyed. People only liked it because the director was both non-American and non-British. Goblet was okay -- much more in vein of the first two. Order was played like a two-hour montage.

Actually, I liked Azkaban because it was (at the time) my favorite book of the series. Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets both suffered from feeling overlong, and the child actors were a bit too green. By the time of the third movie, they seemed to have grown into their characters. That, combined with the pace of the movies speeding up and better story telling in general in the books, caused the later movies to be better than the earlier ones (in my humble opinion, of course )

 

[The Ü™]

Azkaban was my favorite book, also. That's how the movie became disappointing. I also hated the way everything became modernized after Chris Columbus's films. The first two films had a very conservative '40s-ish style that was absent from the rest of the series.

 

[The Ü™]

I have an idea for a third Almighty movie. Adolf Almighty.

Adolf is under the special protection of [Morgan Freeman].

Apparently, God's "chosen people" were a bit too much for him to handle. He needs someone to lessen the load.

Are you ready for a miracle?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

...that Evan Almighty is better than Bruce Almighty.

This is like asking if you prefer to be punched in the face or the belly.

 

[The Ü™]

This is like asking if you prefer to be punched in the face or the belly.

Movie maker wannabes ironically seem to hate all movies.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Movie maker wannabes ironically seem to hate all movies.

I don't hate all movies, only bad ones. And I'll leave the other part alone.

 

[Mempy]

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Though Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets has made more money than the other Potter films, I don't think it's the best of the series. I think Azkaban, Goblet, and Phoenix are all better than the first two movies.

Spider-man II

Dead Man's Chest was awful. It was terribly long and poorly edited. I'd have been much happier if they cut out 1/4 of the scenes, because at least that many were unnecessary and cheapened the movie. It's like the movie didn't have an editor at all. The storyline was confusing and choppy - half the time I didn't know what was going on, and the rules of that dice game they were playing on the ship weren't even explained. The last five seconds of the movie were by far the best: Barbosa returned. I got interested in the last five seconds, because that part was cool. I've avoided seeing the third because of the second's horror.

The first two Harry Potter movies, I think, were much more magical and enchanting than the last three. They kept the characters in their school robes, had better sound effects and lighting, and were overall just directed better (I'm a Chris Columbus fan). They were much more bang-on and authentic than the others, and less cheapened and commercialized.

Spider-man three was hilarious. Me and my INTJ friend just could not stop laughing in the movie theater. The first was good, but more realistic and serious. The second gave me an impression of cheesiness (the third did too, but it was /hilariously/ cheesy at times, like it was meant to make you laugh). Does anyone remember when at the end of the third they capture Mary-Jane and when they alert Spider-man that they have her, they do it by writing on the side of a building: "We have Mary-Jane and she will die if you don't save her," or something to that effect? Haha.

 

[The Ü™]

Funny, I thought Pirates 2 was the only good movie of the lot. There was so much technological marvel in the movie.

The first Pirates movie was the shortest of the films, but felt like the longest -- extremely boring, it was. The third was basically a rehash of the second...with some very unimaginative concepts.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I really liked the first Pirates movie. It was far better than any movie based on a theme park ride had a right to be. I thought the second one was just terrible...all sound and fury, signifying nothing. It felt like the filmmakers thought that as long as it was loud and full of effects, that nobody would notice that it didn't make any sense. The third was a little better than the second, but not on a level with the first.

 

[The Ü™]

I really liked the first Pirates movie. It was far better than any movie based on a theme park ride had a right to be. I thought the second one was just terrible...all sound and fury, signifying nothing. It felt like the filmmakers thought that as long as it was loud and full of effects, that nobody would notice that it didn't make any sense. The third was a little better than the second, but not on a level with the first.

Who says it had to make sense?

Their plan worked!

 

[Mempy]

I really liked the first Pirates movie. It was far better than any movie based on a theme park ride had a right to be. I thought the second one was just terrible...all sound and fury, signifying nothing. It felt like the filmmakers thought that as long as it was loud and full of effects, that nobody would notice that it didn't make any sense. The third was a little better than the second, but not on a level with the first.

Exactly.