MovieChat Forums > Jaws: The Revenge (1987) Discussion > Jaws The Revenge was WAAYY better than J...

Jaws The Revenge was WAAYY better than Jaws 3


Jaws 3 and 4 are notoriously known as the *beep* stain of Jaws movies but people REALLLY think 3 is better than The Revenge?? 3 was an UTTER JOKE! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Compared to this crap.

reply

At least Jaws 3-D had originality, however laughable some might see it. The overall concept isn't that bad. Anyway, the main complaint I hear about Jaws 3-D is the special effects being bad and the film having a campy tone. OK fine, from a technical standpoint it's dated, and hasn't translated well into 2-D format but it's still more entertaining than Jaws: The Revenge.

While there is a fair bit of talent on-board with the cast in Jaws: The Revenge, their performances are still very phoned in to the point that they appear sleepwalking through the horrendous script that might play well in taking a few cues from the original 1975 film, but it makes a complete mockery of it and itself in total. And the special effects are just as horrendous as in Jaws 3-D if not more, but with the ridiculous concept, I don't think even good special effects would've been able to save it. It was an idea that shouldn't have been greenlit.

Redundancy at it's worst.

reply

[deleted]

Jaws the Revenge had much better deaths in my opinion.


There were only two deaths in the entire movie, and the second death scene (the banana boat scene) was terribly done.

reply

Jaws the Revenge was based on possibly the most ludicrous premise in film history: the idea that a shark could target a family and want revenge. Add to that scenes of a shark travelling thousands of miles in a couple of days, a man who runs mid scene for no apparent reason, a shark who floats on the surface, roars, and explodes when pierced...

Jaws 3-D has silly bits and some awful (especially in 2-D) effects, but is nowhere near as stupid.

reply

SOME SPOILERS TO COME


I think Revenge is marginally better than 3-D because:


1. It brings the viewer back to Amity - scenic Amity in the winter.

2. It brings back Ellen Brody and her two sons all together as a family unit.

3. It acknowledges Martin Brody's foundational role in/for the entire series.

4. When the shark kills son Sean, we feel it, and feel for Ellen.

5. Sean's snow-surrounded funeral is suprisingly moving and Michael Small's score poignantly elegiac.

6. We briefly see Mrs. Kintner and Mrs. Taft from the original film, appearances that create a welcome resonance with the franchise's initiating characters.

7. Michael Small's score which, next to William's scoring of the first film, is the series' best use of "Jaws music", especially with its driving-and-driven Main Theme, with its unparalleled, pounding rhythms and new "contrapuntal" overlaid theme by Small: which sets a musically thrilling "dangerous shark"/"coming home to Amity" mood for the opening credits and genuine anticipation regarding what might happen later on in the film.

8. The shark effects, although not too good, beat out those of 3-D's by light years. 3-D's shark effects made the fish look luridly fake, sometimes appearing as a paper cut-out and as one poster on these boards said, "like a submarine covered in skin". Not to mention that 3-D's shark is capable of swimming backwards, which is even more unbelievable than Revenge's growling, exploding shark.

reply

1. It brings the viewer back to Amity - scenic Amity in the winter.

2. It brings back Ellen Brody and her two sons all together as a family unit.

3. It acknowledges Martin Brody's foundational role in/for the entire series.


Those elements were most likely added in a desperate attempt to live up to the legacy of the first film. But playing homage to an original classic doesn't make an inferior sequel any better, and if anything, it only serves as a reminder of just how inferior this film is to the original 1975 film.
Jaws 3-D (although technically a sequel) can at least be viewed as a standalone film, especially since it doesn't waste it's time continuously referencing elements from the first two films. And it also seems to know exactly what it is: A B-movie, and doesn't try to be anything more, unlike Jaws: The Revenge which was taking itself WAY too seriously. That was also a contribution to it's awfulness, along with the sh*tty concept, bad use of practical effects, and absence of scares.

3-D's shark effects made the fish look luridly fake, sometimes appearing as a paper cut-out and as one poster on these boards said, "like a submarine covered in skin"


It looked exactly like that in this film too, and taking place in the crystal clear Caribbean waters only highlighted the mechanical shark's flaws more, to the point where nearly every shot has propelling mechanisms visible to an extent.

Not to mention that 3-D's shark is capable of swimming backwards, which is even more unbelievable than Revenge's growling, exploding shark.


Um... No, just no.

reply

good points. just watched this movie and it felt like a true sequel to both 1 and 2

reply

Yes, as bad as this movie was, it's still a lot better than Jaws 3.

reply

Revenge was much, so much better than 3-D.

Revenge went back to Amity. Featured Lorraine Gary. And had one of the best "kill scenes" in the entire series with the death of Sean Brody in the opening.

The film falls apart after the flight to the Bahamas.

The entire plot was idiotic, but really so was 3.

III was void of anything colorful. It wasn't just depressing...it was both boring and numb. It was empty.

I always liked the Jaws franchise.

reply

Who are these people you're talking about?

reply

4 better than 3?!?!? Absolutely not!

3 had a good story line, just bad special effects. Dennis Quaid was high on coke in every scene, which is great. Lea Thompson was smoking hot in the swimming scene in this one, too.

Whoever says 4 is better has a serious problem lol

reply