1st one sucked, 2nd one was even worse
-
esther-eisenhauer — 19 years ago(June 09, 2006 04:30 PM)
1st one sucked, 2nd one was even worse
by - vdbke on Fri Apr 16 2004 11:45:35
Did anybody above the age of 4 like this film?
I'm offended. I happen to be almost 19 and I love this movie. God!
I'm not psycho, just a little loopy
~Es~ -
RomiMJJ — 19 years ago(August 17, 2006 08:31 AM)
My little bro's got the 2nd one on VHS, I don't like any of both.
Look at the nominations O.O!! http://imdb.com/board/10158622/awards
LONG LIVE THE FLINSTONE'S ANIMATION!! -
addnamehere — 19 years ago(October 04, 2006 09:45 AM)
I didn't like that they changed the people playing the parts. Then again it was several years after the first. But I think the first actors/actresses were better. Well now seeing some more of it I guess the actors and actresses aren't that bad in the second, but it is just annoying when they make sequels to movies with new people playing the roles.
-
oldtiger1965 — 19 years ago(December 19, 2006 08:14 PM)
For anyone that remembers the original concept of the cartoons I think both (live action) films took liberties from the original animated cartoons.
IMHO, the first movie tried to play a (semi-serious) tribute to the concept of what was the creativity of "science and technology" and society of Bedrock.
I remember most of the supporting characters with Spanish names. Wilma was pretty smart, and I always wandered why she would stay with Fred. But, Fred does have his very good side.
One thing is that Kristen Johnston is usually typecasted as a "dumb character". She has to be be pretty smart to pull it off (she does not take herself seriously despite being awesome looking). Both Kristen and Jane are closer to the looks of the cartoon characters.
The debate will continue. But I think that the second film is closer to the spirit of the cartoon series than the first one.
Both are funny, and I enjoyed the quick asides explaining the inner technical workings. I also like the easy jokes.
Perhaps they should have tried to get the original actors to replay their roles (I need to look up where are they now). But now, any animated film that does not have the "look and feel" of a Toy Story or Polar Express will be doomed at the box office. This movie (like the first movie) is a nostalgic look back for baby boomers to share with their kids.
If you were expecting drama or "serious comedy" you need to look elsewhere. The cartoon series succeeded in that it was zany, and it did not need to be taken seriously.
These films achieved that much: they were zany and should not be taken seriously.
Salvadoreo by birth. American by the Grace of God. -
the_big_dogma — 19 years ago(March 21, 2007 09:08 PM)
Putting aside the fact that the actors in the first movie probably didn't want to do the second movie, it is a prequel. It is harder to make people look younger than it is to make them look older.
Besides, I think Rossie O'Donnell was all wrong for Betty.
"Movies is high class."
"Yes, they is, isn't they." -
dekion45 — 18 years ago(July 22, 2007 01:52 PM)
The only reason O'Donnell was cast as Betty is because her natural laugh basically matches Betty's on the cartoon.
They were playing both of these movies on BBCK this weekend. These movies are horrible at best. That Steven Baldwin as Barney was just awful. He looks like such an idiot I'd like to slap him across the face every time I see him. The OP said it right back in 2004. -
nobiggie — 17 years ago(December 07, 2008 04:32 PM)
I loved/love both movies. I was 11 when the first one was released in 1994 and was 17 when the second one hit the theaters.
They are much fun.
I'm gonna watch them again soon.
The first one with Rosie and Halle Berry is closer to my heart.
What's there not to like about these movies?
You gotta bring back your child's heart when watching these.
And yes, Steven Segall fans should keep away. Although, you never know..
"Empire Records, open 'til midnight".