Mainly movies, but I guess books or TV are just fine as well.
Sequels tend to disappoint, but some people are overly critical of some sequels and those sequels deserve more credit. What sequels do you think aren’t as bad as some people say?
My list, at least that I think of right now:
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Ouch. Yeah, I’m going there. This movie fits in and is a fine sequel to the other 3. I’d rank it 3rd or 4th, but it is by no means way behind the other ones. This movie is no Phantom Menace or Matrix Revolutions. It is actually really good.
Neverending Story 2 - OK, this one is fairly bad, but the effort is there and they were at least trying to craft a good movie. It fails in some parts, but the main error is that they made the main character the same as the first movie. They should have ignored Bastian and made up a new dude and had him follow the second half of the book instead of re-inserting the Bastian again.
X-men 3 - Hey, I like this movie, but only as an ending, which they obviously have not stuck with. I don’t get the total hate. It’s no X2, but it is a solid movie. Ratner sucks, but this isn’t that bad.
Red Dragon - Wait, another Ratner movie? Weird. I know it is a prequel, but this is way better than Hannibal and a really good movie. Weird that Ratner did this one well as well.
Fierce Creatures - OK, now I’m cheating. Not a sequel to Fish Called Wanda, but nearly and it is almost as good. I know we had a whole thread appreciating this movie, but this movie was ignored by the vast majority and it is one of the great late 90’s comedies.
This is my starter list. What sequels do you think are underrated? Prequels count, since they are made after the original.
It’s like they went out of their way to fuck over the main characters is why. About the only thing they do right in that movie is the Warren Worthington/Angel scene.
Yeah. I don’t think people say it’s bad so much as that they overlook it. The first one gets more attention and fame, but the second may actually be a better movie, and is at least creative and enjoyable in its own right.
Other movies in this category include Gremlins 2 and Babe: Pig in the City.
AFAIK, only four (plus a TV series). It’s been a while since I watched them but from memory: 3 was OK and 4 was pretty average - the ideas and gags outstripped the production companies capabilities with CG (and they went one-too-many with the graboid transformations).
I agree. People sneer at the “nuke the fridge,” but it was a brilliant bit of 30s-style plotting, nicely set up (note that the fridge indicated it was lead-lined, which made it the best place for Indy to hide).
I’ll add Return to Oz. It was much more faithful to the Oz books than the Judy Garland movie, and its dark version of Oz was fascinating. Some great imagination and a couple of terrifying villains, too.
I might not go so far as to say “really good” but I certainly did not understand the vitriol that this movie generated. I thought it fit in just fine with the other movies in the series.
I’ll second Return to Oz and Tremors 2. (Even Tremors 3 was pretty good). 2010: The Year me Make contact is better, I think, than most people seem to think it was. Hyams gets points for so faithfully reproducing the look of the original, and for his excellent casting choices. (especially Roy Scheider)
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines is unjustly derided.
It’s not as good as 1 and 2, and its main sin is that it basically renders the fantastic ending of T2 irrelevant. But evaluated on its own, it’s a fine movie. The action and SFX are great, and Claire Danes’ character is unusually deep and realistic for a random love interest in an action movie.
