Movie sequels that, for a wonder, didn't suck

We’ve had several “sequels that sucked” threads in CS recently – so I thought I’d start one to provide some balance.

To start with: I liked The Rage: Carrie 2 (1999). You would think a sequel to a classic like Carrie (1976), and so many years later, and without even involving Stephen King or basing it on one of his books, would be a sure recipe for disaster. But I liked the result. It wasn’t even really the same kind of movie as the first Carrie – it couldn’t be, without a religious psycho like Mrs. White as a central plot engine – but it was a success in its own right. Of course the element of suspense was much less than in (a first-time viewing of) the original because you knew, in general terms, how it was going to have to end. But the production quality was good, the acting didn’t disappoint, the dialogue was sometimes intense, the high-school theater-of-cruelty themes were timely updated. And Emily Bergl . . . GRRRR! :smiley: I’m sorry, Sissy Spacek is talented, but in terms of sex appeal there’s no comparison!

Any Which Way You Can (1980) might not have been quite as good as Every Which Way But Loose (1978) – but it was not significantly worse (not that the first one set the bar all that high), and it did have its memorable parts. John Quade gave a redneck-bravura performance as Chollo, leader of the Black Widows! (“Lord, you have given me this cross to bear, and I will carry it from Jerusalem to Jackson . . .”)

What other sequels have you seen that disappointed by not disappointing?

I thought The Rage: Carrie 2 wasw okay but nothing all that special. I really think it would have been better off being released not as a sequel, but as a stand-alone film. Plus, I really hated what happened to Amy Irving’s character. Well, not so much that it happened, but how it happened. It was so cheesy.

As far as good sequels go, I really liked Ginger Snaps 2. I haven’t seen the third one yet, but I have high hopes for it.

Then, of course, there are the classic good sequels that always get brought up in discussions like this-- The Godfather: Part II, Aliens, Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo, etc.

Just to stir up the pot early on, I’m going to be the first (and probably only) one to bring up Alien 3. The more I watch it, the better it gets, and with the release of the director’s cut, it really is a great movie. Awesome sets, great acting, interesting idea and a good plot…aside from the ending, I’m not sure why people hate it so much, and in retrospect, the ending was perfectly fitting.

I will agree with everyone though that Alien Ressurrection was a piece of shit.

Evil Dead 2 is probably my favorite movie of all time, even though I believe that Army of Darkness is the greatest movie ever!

Empire Strikes Back
The Two Towers

Aliens – to my mnd, far superior to Ridley Scott’s film. I own Aliens, but not Alien.

Airplane 2 – Even though it wasn’t by the team of Zucker/Zucker/Abraham, this kept the feel of the original far better than most not-by-the-originals sequels. And with a comedy of this sort, that’s high praise. One of the few sequels I like as well as the original.

Toy Story 2 – they had a lot of ideas left over from the original. The opening alone is worth the price of admission

Shrek 2 – very well done
Terminator 2 – It lacks the purity of the original, but it’s consistent, and the excellet special effects make up for it.

Quatermass 2 (Enemy from Space – better than the first Quatermass movie. One of the most original SF movies I’ve seen. The second sequel, made years later and with a bigger budget (Quatermass and the Pit aka Five Million Years to Earth), is in my top ten SF films.

I thought Spiderman 2 was a vast improvement over the original. The first one was just fine; exactly what I was expecting. The second one actually had me *caring * about the characters.

You know what the funny thing is? After Alien 3, I was ready to give up on the franchise, but was impressed with how much Resurrection managed to improve upon the sorry state of affairs. Yes, I like the 4th Alien movie much better than the third.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is the classic example of the superior sequel.

Most that I would have mentioned have been listed, but I would add X2: X-Men United and the Harry Potter sequels to the list-o-honor.

I felt exactly the opposite. Spider-Man 2 made me stop caring for those characters.

I’m probably not doing myself a favor here by admitting that I loved and still love Ace Ventura 2…(even though I was “eh” on the first one.)

I’m a definite Christopher Lee fan, but darned if the 2nd Hammer “Dracula” film, the Lee-less, Dracula-less “Brides of Dracula” isn’t the BEST in the series! Lush colors, hot babes, kick-ass action hero Peter Cushing Van Helsing. & creepy decadent mother-son vampires!

PLUS, Cushing’s VH cures his own vampire bite with a hot searing iron (a cross?) and holy water! Years before Rambo poured gunpowder into his arrow wound to sear it!

Adding Superman 2, Rocky 2, Robocop 2 to the list- all of em were made better by sticking a “2” at the end, but made faaaar worse by sticking a “3” at the end.

Nitpick: I would not call something a “sequel” if it is the second installment of what was originally conceived of as a trilogy. The Fellowship of the Ring (book or movie) is not, after all, meant to be a completed story on its own, it’s designed along “to-be-continued” lines. For the same reason I would not class Kill Bill 2 as a sequel. The later Harry Potter movies (and books), on the other hand, do count as sequels because each one is meant to be a completed story although it is also an installment in a longer series. With regard to the Star Wars movies – classification as sequel or not-sequel would be debatable.

Am I picking my nits too finely here?

You mean I’m not the only one? As a former comic fanboy, I should have loved the movie (as I have every Marvel movie in the past five years sans The Hulk) but it sucked. Sucked, sucked, sucked.

Wrath of Khan is my pick, by the way. ST: The Motion Picture bored me to tears but it managed to follow up with an excellent sequel… the complete opposite of the *Spiderman * series so far.

Gremlins was a so-so creature feature, but Gremlins 2 was a blast. They took the premise of the original and had all sorts of goofy fun with it.

I thought Die Hard 2 was good, though the scenes where they tried to fit in characters from the first movie all fell pretty flat. And Superman 2 was better than the first.

Although a lot of people will disagree, I thought that Temple of Doom was much better than Raiders of the Lost Ark, dispite all of what’s her names screaming and shreeking.

Also, I thought that The Empire Strikes Back was far better than Star Wars. I also thought that it was a lot better than Return of the Jedi too.

I thought Barbershop 2 was nearly as good as Barbershop.

Was it Mall Rats that was a quasi-sequel to Clerks? That was ok.

Force 10 from Navarone was a decent lower-budget sequel to The Guns of Navarone.

Airplane II was pretty decent, as were Hot Shots, Part Deux! and Back to the Future, Part II,

Under Siege II was just as good as the original, which isn’t saying much.

And yes, Star Trek II was an improvement, but in reality only because the first one SUCKED so bad.

I almost forgot about those two. I liked Hot Shots, Part Duex! a lot better than the first. And I liked the second Back to the Future a little bit better than the first. And a whole lot better than the third.

The one that I thought of immediately has been mentioned - Spiderman II was fantastic.

No, I’d go even further: The Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy at all. It is ONE book, separated (and originally published I believe) in three installments. Even a trilogy is 3 connected individual stories that complete a saga. The Lord of the Rings is one (very large) story. Since the book isn’t a trilogy I have a hard time calling the movies a trilogy…they are exactly along the lines of Kill Bill…one story split up to make it consumable.

It’s the same way a miniseries such as Band of Brothers can not be considered a movie with 9 sequels…just one story split up to accomodate the time needed to tell something with that breadth.