Much is made of sequels. It only seems the truly ground breaking ones get the recognition. A lot of the time movie fans turn to open revolt when their beloved films get shitty sequels, sometimes rightly so. The talk of remakes, reboots, and sequels got me to thinking when I stumbled on of my favorite lesser known sequels: It Runs In The Family It is a sequel to A Christmas Story. Now, before you get your panties in a bunch I suggest you actually watch the film. Sure it isn't the momentous classic you grew up watching every single Christmas but as a continuation of the quirky family's life, it is really well done. It stands on its own and has some similar funny nostalgic life lesson moments. The actors that replaced the originals should be commended as well. While the original actors did a great job it isn't blasphemy that they were replaced (like say replacing Bill Murry with another actor to play Peter Venkman in a Ghostbusters sequel). Marry Steenburgen's gravy boat sub plot featuring Glenn Shadix, Otho from Beetlejuice, is actually pretty fucking classic. Also another favorite, lesser known because it was straight to DVD: Tremors 2 Aftershocks Maybe a little cheaper made but still stuck to the action comedy semi romance themes of the first. Add in a good amount of Burt Gummer and you got yourself a highly under rated sequel. The third film tried too hard to be more of an action movie and the fourth sequel/prequel I couldnt even make it through. Focus: What are some of your favorite lesser known sequels that you think didn't get the attention they deserved? Lets try to keep the "blasphemy" tirades to a minimum.
How about Tremors 3 and 4. In 3 they can now fly, and 4 is basically 1 but with Burt playing his ancestor.
One of the better sequels in the last 25 years was Saraband, the long, LONG awaited follow-up to Ingmar Bergman's Scenes From A Marriage, a film about a couple's relationship degeneration which is one of the best movies ever made. Bergman came out of a long retirement to film it, and just like the original it is scathing and utterly, palatably real. It's not better than the original since so very few films are, but an excellent film none the less.
Expanded focus: Sequels that were better than the first AND sequels that get shitted on all the time but you think they were actually great, say like The Godfather 3.
Expanded focus: Sequels that were better than the first AND sequels that get shitted on all the time but you think they were actually great, say like The Godfather 3. Army of Darkness. I don't believe I have to explain this any further.
The first things that come to mind for "better than the original"; Transporter 2 Crank 2 Snatch Dark Knight Batman Returns Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
Off the top of my head: National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation Toy Story 2 The Dark Knight Aliens The Empire Strikes Back Superman 2 Missing in Action 2: The Beginning (not that it's really a good movie anyway) A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors & Wes Craven's New Nightmare Blade II The Bourne Supremacy (my favourite of the three)
No way. The first MIA is the only good one, and Blade II turned the franchise from "entertaining" into "dull crap". Debatable. Then again, I thought all four films were fairly mediocre. Good call.
I always loved this one more than the first. I haven't seen the Richard Donner cut and would like to see if it is a much better movie. Which would be another good thread, "theatrical cuts vs. directors cuts" (we'll see how much gas this one haves). On focus, I've always heard grumblings that GhostBusters 2 was not a good sequel. Seeing as I was 5 when it came out and it was the first one I saw Ive always loved it. It in my mind isn't far off in quality from the first. The first is better but the second was still very good. "Vigo! You have been a BAD MONKEY!" For me the same goes for Alien 3. It was the first one of the series I saw, so I guess I wasn't as emotionally tied to the two main characters they killed off from Aliens. I think it goes back to more of a horror picture as opposed to the action film Cameron made. Even with the reported turmoil around production and filming, I think it is a great movie and good addition to the series. But because of the loss of Newt and Hicks and David Fincher basically disowning the film because of disputes with the film studio, it will always be seen as terrible in hardcore fan's minds. It's kind of funny the hate it gets but everyone seems to conveniently forget the CGI abortion of a film Alien Resurrection was, not to mention the AvP films. I don't think Snatch was a direct sequel was it? It's been a long time since Ive seen Lock Stock, were the actors from both playing the same characters? I thought it was more of a Tarintino thing where the stories kind of took place in the same film universe?
Alien³ is my favorite movie in the series. Which is odd because I'm not entirely satisfied with either the theatrical version or the special edition that was released as part of the Quadrilogy set. The theatrical version is missing that key scene where Golic frees the xenomorph after it's been captured, but the special edition changes the animal that bore said xenomorph from a dog to an ox and I hated that.
I liked it the best because it's the only film of ANY Superman film that adds something the comics have that the other films don't: violence and cruelty. It was lean, mean, and though the effect look hokey at least Sueprman actually scrapped people in it. Part 3 and 4 were appalling turkeys, the very worst of their kind. Return of Superman was a wimpy, boring and utterly pointless tease of a film.
Terminator 2: Judgment day The first one is NOT better, glad we cleared that up. And: Godfather part 2 Evil Dead 2 The Dark Knight Aliens Silence of the Lambs -Debatable on whether or not its technically a sequel, but Im counting it. Devils Rejects Clear and Present Danger Clerks 2
You've cleared nonthing with me, mon frere. The first one is the touchstone modern action movie: absolute, slam-bang thriller form start to end with no let-up. The second one has action and SFX to knock your socks off, and yes it IS a good movie, but bares the mark one too many trips to the well and I found making Arnold's android "more human" in the sequel kind of silly.
I'm with Crown Royal on this; the second is a marvelous action film, but the first one is a landmark, innovative, 80's science fiction classic with a great retro, cyber-punk feel, unique villain, everything. People forget how cool and original it was back in 1984. Many people consider the sequel better, but in terms of plot, it was mostly just a rehash of the original with a few new wrinkles. Of course, being made seven years later, its jaw-dropping action scenes and special effects were a marked improvement over the first. T2 is a great, great movie, but I consider the first one better. Now that's a good mention, although I liked "House of 1000 Corpses", too. Agreed about "Superman Returns", but Part 4, the "appalling turkey", was really not that different than Superman 2 when you look at it. Both are hokey, dumb AND humorless, mediocre action films with stupid-looking villains, and seem particularly lame nowadays. In fact, I liked Part 4 a little more only because it didn't have that whole nauseating "giving up his powers" bullshit storyline. Neither movie was "good" by the wildest stretch of the imagination.
Gremlins 2 was superior to the original in every way. Talk show host gremlin, spider gremlin, and electric gremlin? Hell yes. And the girl gremlin gave me a little chubby. Only thing that'd make the sequel better is Phoebe Cate's tits and Zacwhatshisname's death
Actually, that IS a fact. Gremlins 2 was much more fun and hilarious- Christopher Lee and especially John Glover was a riot as a Donald Trump-like billionaire (only he's not a total asshole). I thought the first one was too cold and gruesome to be considered a "family film" (remember the microwave scene?). If you want Phoebe's tits, try Fast Times (greatest scene ever) or Paradise.
I think T2 has just as many reasons to be considered a landmark film as the first film does, for different reasons of coarse. I think Camerons directing was at its peak perfection on T2. While it might have been cool and original when it came out I think it feels very dated, probably the aspects that you'd considered "retro" or "cyber punk." While a fine action movie from start to finish it still doesn't come close to T2 or even Aliens in quality in my mind. Totally forgot that one. Another movie I saw before the original. They are totally different in style. I loved Gremlins 2.
I couldn't agree more about Terminator 2. Now, let's see if anyone here will agree with me on this one: I liked Psycho 2 better than the first. The first one was good, but I like the sequel better because I found it riveting to follow Norman Bates' return to society after a long time locked up. The challenges he faced were realistic, as were his victim's family member's reactions when he was released. Thus far, I haven't found anyone who's agreed with me on this. Psycho 3 was awful, though.
Oddly enough, T2 was actually closer to Cameron's original vision of what he wanted for T1. From what I read, he wanted a thin built, regular guy, which was Lance Henriksen, to play the Terminator and big bodybuilder type for the good guy. He also passed on OJ Simpson as the Terminator because he thought he was too much of a nice guy. When Arnold first auditioned for Kyle Reese, Cameron completely changed his mind about the characters. I guess the original idea sort of came to fruition in T2. Thats not a argument for T2, just some weird history behind the characters. But as far as both are concerned, yeah T2 is the same basic story (and gets rehashed again in the abortion that is T3), but the final product is packaged much better, especially in terms of dialogue, which I think was T1's weakest point. You cant deny the punk/gritty atmosphere of T1 though, the police station scene is unbelieveable. Ya know I did too, and I was debating about this one. These two are such different movies, you hardly know its even a sequel. House of 1000 Corpses was more in the vein of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the entire Dr. Satan storyline creeped the hell out of me, but Devil's Rejects was basically about 3 murders and felt much more realistic. And what the fuck was that big mutant guy in House of 1000 Corpses?
Speaking of which, I didn't think that either T3 or, for that matter, Indiana Jones 4 were that bad. They were watchable, partially entertaining, throwaway flicks. Certainly not good, but not bad, either. If someone came into either expecting the greatness of the earlier films, I feel sorry for them. It should have been obvious that was never going to happen, for a litany of reasons. But compared to most major commercial releases, the two movies were better than average, if only because of some humor and an avoidance of melodrama. I'm as acerbic and negative towards major, mainstream blockbusters as anyone, but even I though they were alright, judged on their own merits. Yeah, the sequel is basically a different genre from the original, which is quite rare.