The Worst Sequel...

[Najemikon]

I wondered what people thought the worst sequel ever might be. I think it's interesting, because a bad sequel doesn't necessarily mean a bad film; it could even mean a better film. No, it has to be something that betrays the earlier movie and undermines the efforts made therein.

So for instance, Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3 are both considered to be failures, but I wouldn't say they are bad sequels. Just a case of the filmmakers losing their way. Similarly the Matrix sequels. I detest Revolutions with a passion, but it simply demonstrated IMO that the whole story was being made up as they went along and had got beyond the ability of the Wachowski's. So not a bad sequel, just a misguided attempt. Kind of like someone winning a 100 metre sprint and thinking they can win a marathon next.

I thought about this after seeing Men In Black last night. I hadn't seen it for ages and I think it's a marvellous, fun film. Men In Black 2 is also fun and in terms of quality, seamless with the first. So not a bad film as such, but it's the worst kind of sequel and I nominate it for Worst Ever. It repeats verbatim multiple storylines and jokes from the first; lazily brings back Tommy Lee Jones and so undermines the melancholy nostalgia of the first; ignores several plot developments of the first... The list goes on, but perhaps the worst crime is that it is quite good so audiences enjoy it without thinking too much about it and everyone slaps each other on the back for a job well done.

It was done for money, a reason for many bad sequels. But MIB was a monster hit and all the same crew came back, which makes it all the worse that they couldn't be bothered.

It's even a worse sequel than Aien 3. At least that had an attempt at a new angle and style.

[DJ Doena]

Star Wars Episode 1 to 3: I detest them with every fibre of my being. They are childish and lame and they have nothing of the flair of the originals. I have seen the originals for the first time in 1990 I think. Maybe 1989 but not earlier. This means I am not one of the guys who stood in the line back in 1977 and have a sentimental view upon the old movies.

Nothing works in these new movies except maybe for Padmé/Amidala. Anakin was neither as child nor as teenager acceptable. The "he has no father" storyline was even more absurd. The medichlorians was a lame excuse for The Force. And Jar Jar was on top of it all.

Matrix: Matrix is one of the "do not continue" movies. I went to the cinema for "Reloaded" and was heavily disappointed. The story of "we planned all three parts" was unbeliebable from the beginning. And what about the ending? AI and Zion make a pact? What happens to the people in the Matrix? And what about this pseudo-philosophical babbling between the Oracle and the Architect?

[addicted2dvd]

I would have to go with The Exorcist 2: The Heretic

[richierich]

For me Sting 2, what a flop 

[Najemikon]

For me Sting 2, what a flop 

I didn't even know there was a Sting 2!   

Good call on Star Wars, Karsten. And thank you for pointing out when you saw the originals. I am sick to death of people dismissing any praise for the original trilogy as mere nostalgic sentiment. I hold them in the highest regard and take it as an insult when I'm told I only like them because I saw them as a kid. I don't read The Beano anymore and I grew out of teddy bears. I know the bloody difference.

I think the core problem with the prequels is they are basically pointless. They tell us a story we know well enough from implications and it was better as a mysterious legend, moving even. Nobody was going to be able to embody that powerful image and to even try was silly. Add to that basic incompetence in how the new trilogy was structured. I liked Amidala too, but her ending was embarrassingly bad. I did quite like the idea that the Stormtroopers were actually the good guys originally, but that was hardly worth three films starring a petulant kid. Because of Jedi, I had it in my head that Annakin turned evil later in life which means it was an adults choice, not a teenage strop.

I always thought the brilliance of Star Wars was to imply a strong history, without having to produce it. It gave it strength beyond the wooden acting and simple dialogue. By showing that history, wooden and simple is how the whole saga comes across now to people who watch all the episodes in order. Bastards.

All that said, it did at least fit in with Lucas's vision. That was the story he intended, even though he should have kept it to himself. The Matrix though. Urgh. And The Exorcist 2. Double urgh. Pete, how did someone watch The Exorcist and think a sequel like that was remotely acceptable?

[lyonsden5]

Worst sequel - Blues Brothers II
THat should left it alone. The first movie is a classic.

Best sequel that had almost nothing to do with the original - Predator II
Other than there being a predator nothing was the same. Great movie though.  Given a choice I'll watch the 2nd over the 1st almost every time (sorry Arnie)

[DJ Doena]

I can't agree on Blues Brother 2000. Dan never meant it as an sequal but as an homage to the first one.

Neither part one nor part two have a real story. Both have found a way to make a road trip and sing a lot of songs. And in this way the second works as well as the first one. It's a great collection of songs and music genres.

[lovemunkey187]

Smokey & the Bandit 3. 'nuff said.

Burt Reynolds only has a three minute cameo at the end.

I can't agree on Blues Brother 2000. Dan never meant it as an sequal but as an homage to the first one.

Neither part one nor part two have a real story. Both have found a way to make a road trip and sing a lot of songs. And in this way the second works as well as the first one. It's a great collection of songs and music genres.

Going to have to disagree with you a little here bud.

For me the thing that makes BB2000 a bad sequel is that there are too many cameos by famous musical performers (Wilson Pickett, B.B. King,  Jeff Baxter, Eric Clapton, Bo Diddley, Isaac Hayes, Travis Tritt, Stevie Winwood plus lots of others) and some of it just seemed a little too self congratulatory.
But apart from that I do think that it is a fairly ok film, obviously not a patch on the original, but still watchable.

[DJ Doena]

That reminded me:

While Pirates 1 was a funny and re-imagined way to make a pirate movie, the continuations had neither the story nor the charme of the first one.

Yes, there were a lot of good scenes in it but they couldn't hold to the standards the first one had set.

[ninehours]

Highlander 2 

[DJ Doena]

Highlander 2 

Never heard of it. What would it be about after the Gathering?

[lovemunkey187]

Highlander 2 

Never heard of it. What would it be about after the Gathering?

Yep that's the one

[Lone]

I think the worst sequel would have to be Duece Bigalow European Gigalo,,I found the first to be pretty funny,but the second was a huge disappointment

[Kathy]

Hi Lone - welcome! Yet one more point awarded for a new poster!

[VibroCount]

I think the core problem with the prequels is they are basically pointless. They tell us a story we know well enough from implications and it was better as a mysterious legend, moving even. Nobody was going to be able to embody that powerful image and to even try was silly...

I always thought the brilliance of Star Wars was to imply a strong history, without having to produce it. It gave it strength beyond the wooden acting and simple dialogue. By showing that history, wooden and simple is how the whole saga comes across now to people who watch all the episodes in order. Bastards.

Prequels are not, by definition, bad. But it takes a great script, great direction, and vivid acting to pull off a good one. Think of the "prequel" section of Godfather II. Amazing script; more great direction from Coppola balancing the prequel/sequel plots; and DeNiro was even better than Pacino.

But, by and large, it is very difficult to make a prequel of any qualities other than disappointing.