Sequelae

... and it didn't have Ewoks.

At least it didn't have jar-jar... The ewoks were bad, but jar-jar was a travesty.

Anyway, Ocean's Twelve was as good or better than Ocean's Eleven, IMHO.

Spectacularly bad sequels:

Caddyshack 2
Meaballs 2


-Zeke

edit: Cool, this is post 111111 in O/T.

I actually really liked Toy Story 2. It found a key element that made TS1 so fun (Buzz having to deal with the fact that he's a toy rather than a real space hero), and allowed the same character arc to happen again in the sequel (another buzz gets unboxed).

I was hoping they'd do the same with MIB2. MIB1 had Will Smith having to come to terms with the fact that aliens were real, and they were able to do the same thing in MIB2 by having Tommy Lee Jones' memory erased. While that part of it was fun, other aspects of the sequel made it less fun than the first one.

Yeah, Toy Story 2 could well have been much worse (particularly if Disney had made it on their own without Pixar's help). Still, the non-sequel Pixar films have just been one amazing film after the next (even Cars, which I seemed to enjoy far more than the average reviewer). If I was forced to pick a "worst" Pixar film, it would probably be Toy Story 2 (despite it being so much better than anything to ever come from, oh, Dreamworks animation group).

I was about to write a rant about the inspired awfulness of Leonard Part 6 (Bill Cosby, gone horribly, horribly wrong), but that led me to a Wikipedia page on the worst films ever. Wow. Great list.

Gotta weigh in on Pixar (who's the only reason I even regard Disney as an entity). Toy Story 2 felt so contrieved and disjointed. But it was good. For the worst Pixar film, I'd have to struggle to say "Finding Nemo." Seriously, you can't have a Pixar/Disney film with no bad guy. And that school of fish thing was pointless (but it kept that voice actor in, which I guess was the point). Cars was an instant classic.

How do you all rate the sequels to these more time-tested films:
Jaws
Rocky
Godfather (above comment noted)
.... Police Academy??

You mean Jaws 3 in 3D? What were they thinking?

Wow, that just about sums it up. If anybody has had the pleasure of not seeing Jaws 4, I totally recommend you not seeing Jaws 4.

Crap, I forgot to mention another time tested film:

Superman

That's a no-brainer though, eh? I still don't think I've seen the first installment.

It is because they were so awful that I like to pretend that they don't exist. The Matrix was such a good film, great ideas, good story, incredible special effects and action. The second and third films might have had the same effects and action, but apart from that they were just crap. I sat there through most of the second and third films bored out of my mind. I came very close to walking out of #3 and I have never walked out of a film in my life.

I have the same issue with Pirates of the Caribbean, #1 was so good that I at least expected #2 to be watchable fun. But it wasn't and there is no way that you could convince me to waste my time watching #3.

I'm normally quite good at avoiding watching crappy films (I have a mate who just goes to see any old crap), but I so wanted Matrix #3 to be good that I went to see it even knowing how awful #2 had been. Never again...

...and breathe, rant over

I'm not one who needs 'closure' in a movie, and I thought that the open end of the first Matrix was simply perfect. Also with Mark and Andy consider The Matrix to be a movie and do not speak of the other two. A poll may be interesting...

How about "everyone said the sequels sucked, so I deliberately didn't even see them, in order to preserve my admiration of the first one"? And the same, FWIW, with Foundation books after the third one, and Dune books after the first one. And I wish I'd done the same with the third Gormenghast book.

Peter

True true, that would be smart. Don't think I can edit the poll now anyway.

The strategy wouldn't have worked for me on the Matrix though, I remember going to see the second one on opening night with a bunch of guys from work. Made the mistake of really hyping it up beforehand too. It was a disaster.

Went to see the third to see whether it would make the second make more sense and fill in the new gaping holes in the story. That was another big mistake.

Can I vote for something in-between the first two options? The first was great, and I enjoyed the second two well enough.

As for those of you who skipped the second two Alien movies - oh, how I envy you. The third one was bad, and the fourth one was just shy of Highlander 2 in magnitude of suckiness.

I remember waiting ages for Fox to finally release the special editions of 1 and 2 on their own. For the longest time you could only buy them in the Quadrilogy.

And I definitely agree with an earlier sentiment that the first two Alien movies are equally good in completely different ways.

I'm really curious: what is it about the second and third films in the Matrix trilogy that everyone didn't like. Beyond the consistent scholarly "they sucked" comments, that is?

I ask because I think there's a lot to talk about there, philosophically, and I'm genuinely confused by the brusque dismissal these films seem to get.

The main problem is the plotting and the fact that it just feels like the same thing over and over again. I was sat there at one point thinking "oh goody, yet another fight with lots of Agent Smiths".

I'm sure there was plenty of other stuff that I didn't enjoy, but I have only seen 2 and 3 once and it is hard to remember even what the "plots" were now. I do remember how badly they sucked though

Exactly, that I what I was trying to say, but said it badly.

Bitt, first of all, thank you for providing the first truly insightful explanation of why you didn't like the movies.

That said, I (of course) disagree. I feel that a huge part of the appeal of the story is the process: the fact that the ending is fairly anticlimactic is, to me, a large part of the point. Since so many people connect it to the Christ myth, we'll go with that. Other than the horrific way the character of Christ was put to death (although scores of other people met quite similar fates), what was really "climactic" about his end? Not much. It's the value believers ascribe to his act that's important. And more importantly, it's the process he followed, the journey he took, that's important to those believers. I'm glad the Brothers Wachowski didn't take the Salieri approach and give it a big finish so we would all know they were done.

As for the action sequences, I agree up to a point. I think in certain instances those sequences perfectly accomplished their goals. In particular, the "defense of the dock" sequence was, for me, oppressive. Oppressive in that it was at least 20 minutes long, without a moments reprieve. Oppressive in that it was, in all ways, a slaughter. And in that I think the B.W. got it just right: I felt like I was being overpowered, just as the characters in the film were being overpowered. But yeah, I could have done with fewer "Army of Smith" fights. But even that worked for me on some level. It just kept getting more surreal, just as the Matrix did as the system started to break down.

Just my 2¥.

EDIT: Hit POST too fast.

I think it's important to remember that it's no more correct to say that "The Matrix" was "a sci-fi movie with some religious overtones" and the sequels "religious fantasy with sci-fi overtones" than it is to say that "Fellowship of the Ring" was a road-movie and the sequels were war movies. The Matrix was intended from the start as a trilogy, and as such, each part focuses differently.

Ok, here's a small list...

X-Men - they all sucked. Big time. I wish I could erase them all from my mind. #3 was a total and utter pile of garbage though, much worse than the first 2 in every respect.

Matrix 2 and 3 - massive stinkers. Story was complete BS, production totally crap compared to the first. Like comparing a master painting to a cheap litho knock-off.

Superman... Only the first 2 originals were any good. The recent one was complete shite.

Batman - 1989 original was good, second was good but not as good. Rest of that 'series' were some of the worst movies ever made. Batman begins was excellent, better than the 1989 Batman.

Blade - first one was quite good, sequels not as good, but 3 better than 2. Blade, IMO, is one of the best cinematic realisations of a Marvel franchise to date. Hell, any comic.

Police Acedmy 2, if I remember correctly, was extremely funny at the time and I ranked it better than the first. Everything else sucked, and number 6 sucked REAL bad.

Pirates of the Caribean - first better than second, but I still enjoyed #2. Just wish they hadn't ended it on a cliffhanger that makes #3 seem like #2 part 2.

Resident Evil - liked both of them equally.

Spiderman... first two were watchable, but not as good as they should have been. I expected more from that franchise. Haven't seen #3 yet, but expect it to be better than the first two.

Liked the 4 primary Alien movies enough, but #1 and 2 were my strongest. I don't have a big enough problem with #3 to rate it below #4.

Predator - liked both equally.

Toy Story - first was definitely better. But neither as good as a number of other Pixar movies - Mosters Inc. and Finding Nemo for example.

Die Hard - probably all the same for me.

Mad Max - #2 was practically in a different series than the first and I prefer it. I also liked Thunderdome but not as much. There is no Mad Max 4 that I've ever heard of (thought someone mentioned that back a page or two).

Fantastic 4 - the sequel has got to be better than the first movie (even though it hasn't been released yet). There was just not much to the first one.

Bourne series - first one was by far better than #2. But not so much because of the story, but Doug Liman's direction. Paul Greengrass (#2 and upcoming #3) is a tool and should be shot for the near unwatchable camera shake he brought to the sequel.

Lethal Weapon - liked them all, but first 2 were the strongest for me.

I don't consider Kevin Smith's Jersey flicks sequels, but rather independent movies that share the same universe. Loved all of them. First Clerks better than the second though (the one true sequel).

Harry Potter - I prefer #1 to #2 but #3 to #1. Not sure how I put #4 in there, but I liked them all quite a bit. It's one of my favorite movie franchises of all time. Disclaimer: I haven't read the books.

The first two Shrek movies were just OK and I can't really say one was better than the other.

Pink Panther 2006 - not technically a sequel, but not quite a remake either. In any case, it doesn't hold a candle to the originals. Kevin Kline absolutely sucked in it. Steve Martin had some good moments, but it wasn't near his best work by a long shot. Beyonce was terrible and should not have been cast in that part at all. I managed to sit through it but was tempted to turn it off a few times.

Fierce Creatures, some would call a sequel to A Fish Called Wanda, but it just had the same actors. Not as good as the original picture anyway.

Indiana Jones - all good, #1 and #3 the best. Really looking forward to a fourth installment, I hope Sean Conery's health is doing well (haven't heard anything about that guy in ages)

The Ewoks movie was almost better than the three new Star Wars prequels. The original trilogy is the true Star Wars saga and as mentioned, I prefer Empire over the other two by a huge margin. I could forget about Ep1-3 completely - though they weren't as bad as the Matrix or X-Men that I want to purge them from reality.

Jaws - there's no competition with the original. Not from its sequels or any other shark-themed movie to date.

Mission Impossible - #1 and then #3. Number 2 was one of those movies that need to be purged.

Charlie's Angels... Umm, is there even a point to ranking these? They all sucked as bad as Police Academy 6.

Chronicles of Riddick was better than Pitch Black (I enjoyed both though)

I'm looking forward to a few sequels that I hope don't let me down: The new Harry Potter movie, next Narnia, Pirates 3, Hellboy 2, new Indy, new Bourne

and not so much looking forward to, but hope they're decent because I'd like to see them: new Die Hard and Shrek 3

And of course one can also hope for sequels: off the top of my head one would be a new Riddick movie taking off from Chronicles.

While the Matrix was originally conceived with the *possibility* of being a trilogy, it wasn't a definite and the first movie did not rely on it in the least. At the time the first movie came out there were also no firm story lines or concepts for the sequels as far as anything I'ev ever read.

Concept and desire don't factor in when the end result is so piss-poor. The movies just seemed like they were developed over a weekend with way too much beer and not enough thought. The stories were just contrived, cliche and annoying. So much possibility existed with the setup of the original. I don't care whether or not the movie was allegorical - it works very well for Narnia. The fact of the matter is that the sequel just weren't good movies. Not as follow ups and certainly not on their own. Blaming the disaster on the finale doesn't give enough credit to the craptastic progression of the second installation.

I remember having watched SW:Ep2 and thinking, damn, I hope the Matrix sequels don't let me down like this. And after watching the second Matrix I hoped (and hoped) that they would rescue the story line in the third movie. Boy was I WRONG. Of course George Lucas came around with a cowpie of a release two years later to solidify my bad 4 year SW/Matrix experiences.

Been away for a bit...

Bitt, nice reasons why people don't like the 2nd and 3rd Matrices. Personally, I agree with what you say but also add that they seem so unfinished compared to the first. More and more of the story becomes unexplainable. I remember there are long drawn out scenes which blatantly just feel like filling time. Oh, but I do remember a cool car/bike chase sequence. Apart from that, it lacked the satisfaction that I had after watching the first one.

Bruno, that is an excellent list, I really agree on what you say about the movies that I've seen in there. Well, I liked Toy Story 1 and 2, Shrek and Bourne Supremacy a bit more than you did... but yes, good list.

I didn't feel the shaking during the fight sequeces in Bourne Supremacy worked as well as it did for you, Bitt. I found it more disracting and nausiating than anything else. There was also plenty of shaking during running and driving sequences. Plus many of the shots were far too close to be enjoyable. It did have one hell of a car chase though. One of my favorites of all time.

Back to my small list for a second...

Fogot about Ocean's 11. Like it a LOT. Didn't like Ocean's 12, but I'll watch it again to see if I change my mind (it's happened). It was watchable, but when it was over and I had time to reflect, I really began to dislike it. Almost feeling cheated of the time I spent to watch it and think about it. One can only have hope for number 3, Ocean's 13.

And of course if you can call the Bond Movies "sequels" then the most recent one is one of my favorite of all time. I suppose it's technicallly a "prequel" in Bond's own lifecycle, even though the timeline is shot because it's set in present day. Keeping my fingers crossed they only do original films and don't remake any of the previous titles.

Twin Peaks, Fire Walk with Me - this is also technically a prequel and of a TV show to boot. Not as interesting/cool as the TV show. This one just came to mind because I recently replaced my long-lost cassette versions of the two soundtracks with some high quality digital goodness.

IMO, Pitch Black is barely science fiction. It's an action/thriller set "in space". The exact same plot could have happened with a train wreck in the 19th century, in the mountains, surrounded by wolves. Or any of a dozen other settings. That doesn't mean it wasn't an entertaining movie, though.

There has to be something about a movie that depends on the scifi element for me to really think of it as scifi rather than just, I don't know scifi-themed. For some reason, I do make exception to that rule when it's functioning as an allegory or metaphor, rather than just window dressing.

So, that said, my favorite scifi movies would be movies like 12 Monkeys, Brazil, Blade Runner, Code 46, Wild Palms, Children of Men, Pi, Primer, Dark City, Strange Days, Unbreakable, V for Vendetta, Gattaca, eXistenZ, Solaris, New Rose Hotel, Abre Los Ojos, Paycheck, Total Recall, Minority Report, Fahrenheit 451, The Andromeda Strain. Unfortunately, very few movies like this get made. (Note: not all of those movies are my favorites, and I don't even like some of them, as I think they failed, but that's a survey of the type of movie of which I'd like to see more be made.)

Pitch Black was totally sci-fi, because it required me to suspend my disbelief on an important plot point: That a species of high-speed, giant, carnivorous, predatory bats could survive for eons on a planet with little to no prey to feed upon, and then pour out of the caves in vast numbers just because of an eclipse, to feed upon a scant handful of humans who were there more or less by accident. Surely some kind of science fiction has to be happening for a species to be able to survive and propogate in those circumstances.

Speaking of Gattica... I don't ever remember hearing much about it when it was in theaters or when it hit video. I think I saw it on accident when my roommate rented it or something. Have I successfully blocked enough advertisements (TV, web, etc) to have missed any mention of it or was it really kind of a sleeper movie? I thought it was amazing, personally.

No, you're right; no one saw it. Well, other than the "sleeper" part. It appears that it lost a large amount of money.

'Return of the Killer Tomatoes' was far superior to the original.

Though, with the bar set that low it would've been tough not to be.

It only cost under $5 to see a movie in the US in late 1997? With ticket sales of 2.6M by Dec 31 and gross box office over 12.3M as of march 1998, the numbers just don't quite add up for me.

I'd be very surprised if the budget was also 36M. I can see production being less than half that amount, but I can't guess how much they would have spent on promotion.

Briliant movie BTW - have watched it 4 times and still love it. One of my early DVD purchases.

I saw Spiderman 3 on Saturday, originally intending to see Disturbia. I really wish I'd gone to the right movie theater (my friend mixed up the times/theaters).

That was a terrible movie. Not just because of the dorky evil Peter, either. There were just so many little problems with it that add up to one big mess of a film. Thomas Hayden Church was good, as usual, and Topher Grace made the best of his part (which is to say, not much), but the writing and direction was just terrible across the board. And am I the only person who's been continually dismayed that Tobey Maguire is playing this part?

I spent the dance montage with my hands on front of my face. My friend was so sunken in his seat (out of dismay) he almost fell out. I'm embarrassed that I added to the monster amount of money that crapfest has earned.

Anyway, everyone should do themselves a favor and seek out Waitress or Away from Her this weekend. Your lives will have been richer for it.

Yeah, I doubt that Return of the Killer Tomatoes had a budget of $36M, too.

FWIW, Disturbia does exactly what you expect pretty well. That is, if you are inclined to see it, you won't be disappointed, but it's clearly not for everyone. Not deep thinking, but fun.