I see where you're coming from, but the over-the-top aspects didn't bother me.

But then she wouldnt have killed bill :eek:

I guess a lot of people felt the same as you. That makes sense

yes she would have if u made it one movie, it could have been a good 2 hour or 3 hour movie.the second movie was just dreary, just made it a 2 part movie cus he aint made a movie in years, and thought it would be a quick money maker :p

I probably preferred the first one, but I loved the second one and felt it was very necessary to have two films. There was a lot to tell, and I don't think it dragged at all.

each to there own i supose, i just liked the first one i watched the 2nd one and just could not wait for her to kill bill, and i have to say i was glad when the credits came up by the end. but i know alot of people who loved them both just dint work for me. i prefer tarantinos early work.but i did like bits of 2nd one not saying i totaly hated it, just dint live up to the first one for me.

Well the way i looked at it was, the first one was all fast paced action and the second one slowed it down a bit and made it more about the story and the drama which i liked because it meant more when she faced off against Bill. It became more then just a generic revenge action movie. In the end i probably like them both the same.

i am a massive martial arts fan prob y i am not so that much into them, i do martial arts myself so when i want to watch a martial arts movie i go for the full on over the top action ones, which is y i prob liked the first better.i dont go for story lines with martial arts movies, if i want a story i watch other movies.

i hated the new nightmare on elm st

i am not a fan of the original, but i much preferred the original over this.
Jackie Earle Haley was awful as freddie kruger.

Okay that makes sense

How did i forget that. I hated that. I didnt even bother finishing it.