2 is funnier but 1 was a better movie... 2 had the funnies scene every with jeremy piven as the versace salesmen...
i forget exactly what he says but hes hilarious in that scene as the gay versace salesmen....
hes a great actor, absolutely spectacular in entourage which has to be the coolest show ever
cant wait for april when it comes back on
na i totally agree, the first one is a much better movie and i thought it was funnier. the 2nd one had better action scenes but overall the 1st one is much much better, its my fav film.
shareSame here 1 was more funnier didnt anyone find Tucker to be more annoying then then in the first one.
shareI like 2 better because i think the chemistry is stronger between them. They bounce off eachother quite well. If i'm honest, i don't care so much about action, its not really what i watch Rush Hour for. It's just a bonus.
shareAre you kidding me?
The second one is leaps and bounds better. Much funnier and interesting.
GUYEKA, GUYEKA! LMAO.
2 is funnier.
I uploaded it first ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhThaawA4_Q
1 was awful
Tucker was twice as annoying, Chan was being held back
both men fixed these problems in #2
--------
I DEMAND FREEDOM OF THE POST!!
Ed, Edd n Eddy fansite!!
www.the3eds.com
[deleted]
I liked 1, but I've always thought 2 was leaps and bounds above it. Chan's English was a lot better, so him and Tucker were able to play off each other a lot more. Plus, I love the many funny lines.
[deleted]
I love all 3!
I watch it as just one big movie =]
Lalalala
Both are even in my mind.
The first one has a special place because it's the first one, so everything was new and refreshing. It's always hard for a sequel to top the original for this reason.
Most posts in this forum are much better than yours.
Sincerely, why would anyone write a 'controversional opinion', and yet start it with a number instead of actual words, use bad grammar, use a period where not needed (the topic should never have a period, unless we're talking about periods), the statement is an unfinished sentence anyway (as in 'better than what'?), and the next insult to any regular human being that has eyes and can read a post, your post is ridiculously tiny.
Not to mention your all-lowercase, really childish and ridiculous name (no offence), and finally..
..the final insult... you don't explain your 'point' at all.
Now, I am willing to at least defend and explain my points, no matter how much you might disagree with them, but you just basically spew a couple of insignifigant almost-words (you should know that you are not supposed to use numbers for words unless the numbers are really big - with small numbers, you actually WRITE them instead of just using the numbers - how lazy can you get?) and think you accomplished something. Sigh.
As far as to the actual topic, let's think about it.
The first movie is good, but has a lot of boring filler. It's based on the most clichéic storyline ever imagined - damsel in distress that our hero must rescue. Yawn.
The antagonist is also OBVIOUS almost from the get-go, so the attempted 'mystery' fails miserably. It also has many annoyances, like Jackie and Chris PRETENDING to eat, instead of ACTUALLY eating (how hard is it to eat on camera? Just look at Brad Pitt in pretty much ANY movie..)
The action scenes are lackluster, the humor is not as good, the bad guys are more cartoony, and yet the movie takes itself a bit too seriously. It's like taking all the bad sides of Jackie's Hong Kong movies, then combining them with all the bad sides of Jackie's Hollywood movies and adding a dash of Chris Tucker to the mix, plus an annoying kid actor and there's your movie.
It's a good movie, but it falls short on every possible level.
The sequel actuall picks up the ball and runs, achieving the goal the first movie failed to reach.
The sequel is funnier, it has more action, less filler, more interesting and complex story, more twists, takes itself less seriously, and most importantly, has WAY more action, better quality action, more 'impressive Jackie-stunts' his Hong Kong movies are famous for, and so on.
There are some bad sides, as in 'a woman can't take a punch from a man' (though in Hong Kong, they can, so go figure), 'a good guy can't defeat a bad guy, so a random accident has to do it for him' (the axe that hits the antagonist woman), and all the typical misandristic 'men are cannon-fodder, women are precious, so you shouldn't hit a womblahblah'-stuff - when are we going to get true equality?
Oh, that's right, old Hong Kong movies RESPECTED women more, because women in those movies actually TAKE PUNCHES AND KICKS TO THE FACE from men and women (as do men). That is EQUALITY, and that makes a strong female character. Most Hong Kong female characters are way stronger and braver than anything hollyweird has pretty much ever shown us, especially in modern times.
(Don't talk to me about Ripley, by the way, because they circumvent this 'women can't take punches from men' problem by making the antagonists 'alien creatures' - what a cop-out!)
This sequel to Rush Hour is OBJECTIVELY, on all possible levels, better than Rush Hour was. The first movie does have some good and cool action scenes, but they're short, and you have to basically wait in boredom to get to them, and the ending is a bit anti-climactic.
The Rush Hour movies are essentially just 'fun popcorn flicks' that don't mean much, but as such, they work really well. The sequel does showcase both Jackie's and Chris's talents much better than the first movie - there's just more everything good, and less everything bad about this sequel.
Neither movie is as good or daring as Jackie's and other people's Hong Kong movies, though, so the whole debate is kind of irrelevant anyway.
Just watch the best Cynthia Khan movies to see a really cool female action hero that can HONESTLY be said to be strong, brave and amazingly cool. She's basically the female equivalent to Jackie Chan, when it comes to exciting fights, although she doesn't do as many or as interesting stunts (not that she even does her own stunts or all fight moves, either).
There are also interesting Moon Lee movies I would wholeheartedly recommend to any Kung Fu/Jackie/Rush Hour-fans, not to mention some Michelle Yeoh stuff.
All in all, although the sequel is vastly and objectively superior to the first movie, both movies are lackluster when compared to the best Hong Kong movies that don't suffer from the hollyweird limitations and crazy 'rules'.
The problem with these movies is that they're not QUITE 'Kung Fu' enough to be on par with the Hong Kong stuff, but their stories and structures are also not QUITE on par with 'really good movies', their twists are not all that interesting, and so on.
So although they do deserve to exist as harmless popcorn fun, they don't quite reach the elevated status of most other good movies on pretty much any level. Jackie has been in better movies, so has Chris. Better musics/stories/atmospheres/ideas exist, better action exists, better 'Hong Kong' stuff exists, better stunts exist and so on and so forth.
These movies fall inbetween the cracks of better movies on all sides, on all levels, and in all possible ways, even comedy-wise (there are better comedies).
If you watch some 1980s classic movies, then the best Jackie Chan and Cynthia Chan Hong Kong-movies, then the best comedies, like 'Liar, Liar (1997)', and maybe a couple of the better action movies, Rush Hour movies do not impress on any level too much.
As something to watch to pass the time, these movies are 'fine'. They are not the best.