MovieChat Forums > Bride of Re-Animator (1990) Discussion > DOES THIS RUIN THE FIRST FILM?

DOES THIS RUIN THE FIRST FILM?


Re-Animator is one of my favorite films, so you would have thought that i'd seen Bride of Re-Animator.

The reason I haven't is becuase I feel it my slightly ruin the first film.
A bit like Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, which I exuse as intentionally *beep*

Is it likely i'll I regret watching it?

thanks

reply

[deleted]

Cool!

I will have to obtain the film :D

reply

I personally thought the first one was epic. In so many ways, it was imply outstanding! But the second installment, Bride of Reanimator, I dunno. Plot seems a bit lacking in direction, they try juggling too many sub plots with not enough development, the dialogue is alright, but for some reason I found myself wishing for our naive Dan to die within 5 minutes in this film. In the first one, his struggling to accept the reality of reviving dead flesh was completely understandable. But in this one he seems aimless and childish and seems to have adopted the devil's advocate moral implications bla bla bla in far too many outbursts.

All in all, annoying at times but watchable. It didn't ruin the first one for me, because it still retained enough of the original flavor, even if it didn't bring anything new.

reply

wow...I felt the exact same way..

reply

I held back on seeing this myself and for the same reason. I first saw Re-Animator about 3 years ago and I just finished Bride a few minutes ago. I found it to be a worthy sequel, though not as good as the first. I might go check out the 3rd now.

http://www.youtube.com/bcprj666

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Yes! Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is awesome... and so is this Re-Animator sequel.

If you dance with the devil, the devil don't change. The devil changes you.

reply

How can someone's opinion be "wrong"??

"For God sakes, buy a better suit, you can come in here dressed like that"

reply

Then I must have bad taste.

reply

Nothing beats the first but I think Bride is pretty damn awesome too.

reply

Sweet nothing beats the first meaning other Sequels?I completely disagree

Aliens
I think BTTB2 is just as good as 1
Rocky 3+4 to me are better than 1+2
IJ:Temple of doom better than Lost Ark
i like halloween 1+4 the same
i think TI+T2 are both just as good
i could go on lol

reply

Cool, but I only meant nothing beats the first film in this series.

reply

okey dokey.what other horror films u like?

reply

If you think Temple of Doom is better than Raiders, there is something seriously wrong with you.


Everything else...agreed. haha. Except on Aliens...they're so different, it's hard to compare :/

reply

1. Never trust anyone who likes Aliens more than the original! Sure it's a fun action packed sequel, but it's cheesy and no way near as good as the atmospheric classic Alien.

2.What is is BTTB2? I'm making a guess that you mean Back to the Future 2? Again not a patch on the original. So many people think it's better cos of the future stuff, but it just isn't as well made and the story is weak in comparison to the first.

3. That is ridiculous! Rocky 3 and 4 are guilty pleasures. But Rocky is a masterpiece.

4. WRONG! So very wrong.

5. Not seen the Halloween sequels in a long time, I doubt any of them stand up to the first film. But can't really judge this one.

6. No Terminator is better, everyone seems to prefer T2. They're all wrong though, same reason Alien is better than Aliens...

7. Please don't...

reply

Aliens
I think BTTB2 is just as good as 1
Rocky 3+4 to me are better than 1+2
IJ:Temple of doom better than Lost Ark
i like halloween 1+4 the same
i think TI+T2 are both just as good
i could go on lol


😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Good one!

reply

[deleted]

I didn't really liked this one. Story was cliche and acting was pretty bad. The first one is very good just like Return of the Living Dead. As a sequel it wasn't realy worth it. If I were you I would only watch it as fan of the first original movie.

reply

er. "the acting was pretty bad"
What the hell did you think you were watching?? Bergman??
The acting was very good considering that it was supposed to be like that. Acting 'bad' well is like trying to write good nonsense. It is quite difficult.

reply

Well the acting in the first was better

"If you consider my post as negative, don't call me a hater. That would be hypocrite.."

reply

No.

reply

It depends on your taste of course, but I have to say yes, it pissed me off and made me appreciate the first movie much more.
They obviously had no f-ing idea where to go with the ok premise. Too much (useless) characters, too much underdeveloped plotlines shoved in together and too slow pace for such a lame payoff. Combs is the only good thing about the movie and even he is wasted in the final act. David Gale (Dr. Hill) is also good but he's giving next to nothing to do in this movie.

When Stuart Gordon left, he took the magic with him (or at least the good screenwriters).

reply