MovieChat Forums > SisterSuzy101

SisterSuzy101 (96)


Anyone else prefer the sequels? I don't understand why Emmett couldn't simply show Clara the DeLorean So season 4 and 5 have been removed from Netflix Contrary to the popular assumption, I don't think Walt shut his family out his Will... Pete is basically Squidward I can honestly say... If you think USS Callister had a happy ending, think again... Allegations of racism are bullsh*t as far as I'm concerned View all posts >


To be honest, the lack of innovation with the casting the BTTF sequels always kind of irked me. Having Crispin Glover, Lea Thompson, and Tom Wilson play their older and younger selves was fine in the first movie - but then the second movie we have Wilson play Biff of all ages and his grandson (feel free to disagree, but I always found Griff to be annoying, he's supposed to be a more intimating version of Biff but instead comes off as comical), have Michael J. Fox play not only his older self, but also his son AND daughter (they were REALLY pushing it there), and of course Thompson playing her elderly counterpart. So I guess it's no surprise that casting would once again be recycled in the third movie, with Fox and Thompson playing the Irish McFlys, and Wilson coming back to play yet another Tannen relative, Buford (though to his credit, Buford Tannen does make for an intimidating antagonist and Tom Wilson played him well. Definitely making up for Griff's shortcomings and almost rivalling Biff). But yeah, the trend does become tiresome by this point, not to mention distracting. Mary Steenburgen playing a love interest of Doc was a breath of fresh air. That doesn't address anything I, nor PrimeMinisterX said. No, I found the original to be a bit all over the place too. On first viewing, I couldn't tell what was a flashback or cutaway half the time. They even have flashbacks within flashbacks! Wow, what a cleaver and witty comeback... NOT! Just because a movie is made for kids that doesn't mean that it has to be held by extremely low standards. Heck, some movies considered the greatest ever made have been intended primarily for children; Toy Story (along with the majority of Pixar's credits since 1995), The Lion King (and many other animated classics made by Disney), The Iron Giant and Spirited Away (and other Studio Ghibli productions) just to name a few. Sure, some kids may enjoy this movie initially, until they reach their preteen years and wonder what the hell they were thinking! Well, it seems one of the many problems is that this movie was released too many years too late, thus released to an audience too unfamiliar with the source material. And a good film adaptation of anything should still be accessible for non-fans of it's source, where's this film pretty much just exists in a closed universe. Another problem with adaptations like this (live-action cartoon) is that they fail to understand that what works in 2-D animation, doesn't always work in live-action - even though Moose and Squirrel may look like their cartoon counterparts, they stand out like a sore thumb in the live backdrop. I also think it's rather humorous that you insist on The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle being an "achievement" and a "good movie", when in reality it failed to connect with audiences all over (hence the dismal 4.2 rating on IMDb), bombed at the international box office despite heavy promotion and recognisable cast, and has almost been forgotten over time - so your opinion may not be as factual as you claim. I could go on, but I think you get the idea... Horton Hears a Who was made by Blue Sky Studios, not Illumination like this one. Sure, Horton's not that great either, but it's by far the best of the theatrical Seuss adaptations. After the crass and garish abomination that was the Jim Carey version, I can honestly say that this remake was more than welcome! Might have been worth your while reading the entire thread... Battleship is at least competently made and actually entertaining, unlike your other examples. View all replies >