I think you may have confused Tarkovsky films. If memory serves the scene you describe is in Stalker. Solaris takes place entirely at a space station over a planet that is covered by ocean.

And honestly, both are pretty slow moving, Stalker is almost unwatchable. But that was Tarkovsky.

I did like that film, but it really wasn't a superman movie, it was a richard pryor movie. It just happened to have superman in it. It would have worked the same if it had batman, aquaman, yahooman or soulman. But for a richard pryor movie, it was pretty good.

There are some sequels that really do surpass the original...

Die Hard 2 did that...
Empire Strikes Back.. far superior to Star Wars...
Star Trek 2... SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE FIRST ONE.. and the following seventeen versions as well...

So there is some worth to a FEW sequels, but most are just eye candy designed to make people feel safe in the fact that this is the same crap as always. Nothing to worry about.

As with Die Hard 2 and why it surpassed the first one, is purely because that overall is was a better picture. There were no stand out performances as was the case with Alan Rickman, who arguably is one of the best movie bad guys ever, but it served as a better story. We already had most of the character development out of the way, and still managed to provide fun and new things to keep the audience jumping.

Dave

 |  IP: Logged

As to why I think Die Hard 2 was better than the first? Well you do make the very good point once again, as I did, that Alan Rickman was a very well defined bad guy, and that Bruce willis was a very well defined good guy. Yes the stories were similar in nature, as is with many sequels. HOWEVER, there was a different nature about the film. Bruce willis's character instead of one man against an army, he now has the help of a cast of several, showing his ability to be an effective commander, so now it is army against army, while still getting into that one against many situation. Not only does he have to face the bad guys, he has to convince the many that he is right, and get them to follow him to victory. It shows a wider dynamic in his character as he must deal with the many individuals who are not the bad guy, but yet could hinder the process. Plus, sneaking around is a lot harder in a very open space, where there are fewer places to hide around in. It is harder to play PEEK A BOO that way. It puts him in the position of getting ambushed instead of the other way around.

We also get the added dynamic of several differnt lives affected because of the potential for widespread disaster in the form of crashing airplanes with many more innocents to destroy. When he finds the burned up doll on the runway, his character is reminded that he could lose something so precious to him if he cannot succeed. Much like in the first film, but with more ominous overtones.

Try not to think of this as a rehashed story, as would be the impulse with any sequel, but more of a continuation of the story line. Remember that in the first, he was on the outs with wifey, hoping to patch things up. Now they are good to go, and he doesn't want to lose that. Thier lives are different, and now he just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time, again.

Most movies these days are nothing but rehashes of other stories anyway. But lets face it, just because its been done, doesn't mean that no one else can do it again. As Robin Williams put it "When someone asks you to put it in your own words, respond with this... SPLERP LEEK PUTNAK GOLROK NUP"

Finland born director Renny Harlin handled the duties quite well. He has had success with pretty weak material, and yes Die Hard 2 was no excpetion. He was able to give the film a dimention that separated it in many ways from the first film. He has had some successes, and some failures, as most directors do.

Dave

 |  IP: Logged

You're right, the first Die Hard was better, but you might as well drop it, Dave is never wrong.

It's time to get a life man.

First off, you are mistaken that I am never wrong. I know you use the phrasing in a more cynical manner, but I understand your point. It is not that I feel I am always right Chad, but rather, I spend time formulating opinions, studying facts, researching and reading, and making sure I have covered all bases before I speak.

It is easy for one such as yourself to think that I feel all high and mighty about myself. My own personal pursuit of excellence allows me a very small margin of error in things that I say and express. There is a very old and wise qoute; "it is better to be silent and to be though of as thoughful, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

So for me, I prefer to at least try to know what I am talking about before I start into any conversation. When we are talking about the nuances of wheter Die Hard is better then Die Hard 2, that is all just a matter of personal opinion. I can state all of my reasons why I believe the second film is better, and also try to make the case of why so many critics and audience members preferred the second film. Someone else can try to make thier point as to why they liked the first one better, and why it is better in thier opinion. After all, it is just opinion.

Of course, you could just interject and try to make people think I am all high and mighty, but all you do is come off like you have some childish vendetta against me. Sometimes I have to wonder what keeps you up at night, then I remember I have more important battles to fight.

So you understand Chad, I am only one person with one opinion. I do not force it down anyone's throat. If you read every post I have ever made, you would find this to be true.

I do have a very strong opinion, and stand by it. I also am very open minded, and am able to take information I may have not considered before, to either change or strengthen my current opinion.

In the future, you might want to save your posts for some meaningful dialogue. I have seen you do so in the past. Let's get the old Chad back. How about it?

I don't mind a challenge. I love a good brain drain. But let's keep it to that extent, and not trying to see if you can tie me up in a cloud of my own logic. You could do it, I am sure, because I am not always right, but the time you spend trying to show me up could be better spent just forming your own brilliant opinions and ideas.