Originally Posted by MisterTwister
They might have both of those things but at the end of the day they were still annoying as fuck.
You think for one second the kid and the black military woman were 1/10th as annoying as LeGros and the blonde were boring? Wake up: the actor playing the kid did a great job and the character never went over-the-top nor was given a load of one-liners or anything like that. You clearly need to watch the film again or are merely reacting to the idea that there's a kid in the film. The film may have been using the character to shoehorn in another "Mike-from-the-first-movie" but that does not mean the actor was playing this. He was a lot stronger and more independent than Mike was in the first film, was given a set of skills that set his character apart from his cliched function in the story, and had anything but an annoying screen presence.
Rocky I will admit was not as strong a character, since the movie kept using her as a "Reggie's horniness will get him into trouble" prop. But, again, the movie didn't make the actress play up any stereotypes to make up for a lack of depth. If any claim could be made against her, it's that she's a bit hollow. Which is potentially true for every female character in the franchise (barring the 4th film which I haven't seen). And even then, I still thought Samantha Phillips was decent (and underused) as Alchemy in the 2nd film. (Too bad she wasn't given a meatier role.)
Sorry, Twist, but you have no case here. None. Not against the actors. If you're just reacting to the cliches, it doesn't matter. A film is allowed to contrive anything it wants to. What matters is how it puts its ideas to use and, for what it is and what it's trying to be, Phantasm III
has almost no fat on it.
Originally Posted by maybrick
The scariest thing about III is the fashions, but overall I enjoy it more than II. It could have done with less kid and more Mike, but Oblivion made up for that.
My order is still 1, 4, 3, 2. Actually, it looks as if 2 has slipped to last place. Hmm. It's still a good movie, but it's only plus is that it had the biggest budget. If the studio didn't intervene to the extent that it did (insisting upon a linear storyline, forcing Don to choose between Bannister or Baldwin) then it probably would have been as good or even better than the original. We'll never know.
Well, as I hope you can tell from my reaction to the film, I don't think Character Loyalty or that all the same actors returning to play the protagonists is as vital to a film's success in this franchise as you seem to. The problem with 2 I doubt is a missing Baldwin so much as it's just LeGros is terrible in this role. After watching III, LeGros could have nailed that part- not much of the movie rested on Mike's shoulders either way. But he was, of course, at least half the movie in part 2. And, whether all the returning cast were in check or not, Paula Irvine butchered an interesting part and character. The film was coma-inducing enough (which sometimes I counted as a strength- during the sequences when we were supposed to feel something about all the towns being wiped out), it didn't need her feeding it further sedation.