I was just watching Species the other day for the first time (never saw it in thetres) and thought it was pretty good, then I watched the second and then the third on different days, and they were crappy. With each species it got worse, the third one being the most crappy. What do you ppl. think?
2007-01-17 08:41:32 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
I agree with you ...
First: really good - good story, good suspense, good acting
Second: OK - but a little over the top with the blood & gore, IMO
Third: sucked - I want my 90 minutes back :-)
2007-01-17 09:20:07 · answer #1 · answered by Navigator 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's the usual problem, the director and production crew think sci fi is all about the special effects, not the plot or the characters. A good story will stand up whether it's a Western, a contemporary drama or sci fi. "Forbidden Planet" was based on Shakespeare ("The Tempest") and it still holds up. Give me characters I really care about and a logical plot.
2007-01-17 08:52:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I liked one and two. But I like Micheal Madsen so I may have been influenced by that. The first one was good.
2007-01-17 08:58:51 · answer #3 · answered by .................. 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. Much like "Robocop", the first film was great and it went right into the dumpster after that
2007-01-17 08:49:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah, the first one was good, but they should of ended it there.
2007-01-17 08:45:54 · answer #5 · answered by Lenneth's true challenge 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They all were pretty lame
2007-01-17 08:45:21 · answer #6 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋