Jump to content

The worst sequals ever made


sycosis5

Recommended Posts

Hi whats your opinion on the worst sequals ever made

 

 

 

I think these are the worst

 

 

 

DIE HARD 3

 

GHOSTBUSTER 2

 

 

 

I didn't think Die Hard 3 was that bad. Die Hard was easily the best one, but I would say DH 3 is the next best, followed by DH2 being the worst.

q8tsigindy500fan.jpg

indy500fanan9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiderman 3

 

 

 

Die Hard 3 wasn't that bad, I think Die Hard 4 will be a contestor for this award (the actionscenes I saw in the previeuw were too over the top to be Die Hard :oops: )

 

 

 

 

 

Police Academy x, it got old after the first one really...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Die Hard 3 wasn't that bad, I think Die Hard 4 will be a contestor for this award (the actionscenes I saw in the previeuw were too over the top to be Die Hard :oops: )

 

 

 

 

Too over the top?!?! All the Die hards are completely "over the top"...they are supposed to be! BTW - I agree with Indy...#1, #3, #2

 

 

 

Here's some bad sequels (note: doesn't mean the previous was necessarily good, just that the sequel is worse):

 

Teen Wolf Too

 

Legally Blonde 2

 

The Next Karate Kid

 

Revenge of Nerds 2

 

Dumb and Dumberer

 

Speed 2

 

Weekend at Bernies 2

 

Batman and Robin

 

The Whole Ten Yards

 

Blues Brothers 2000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Critters 2

 

Tremors 2

 

Charlies Angels 2

 

Phantom Menace (20 years for that!) - kinda' a prequel too I suppose

 

Star Trek 5 (The Final Frontier)

 

Blade Trinity (basically a 2 hour Ipod commercial)

 

Rocky 5 (what were they thinking?... or were they?)

 

Starship Troopers 2 (had basically nothing to do with the original)

 

Battle Royale 2 (gah!)

Harrington.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

all the matrix sequels

 

 

 

Sadly I kind of enjoyed those just for an action flick but compared to the first they were so horrible. The first was just amazing, hard to top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can put the Godfather part 3 up there. Especially when you see the quality of the first two movies it's unbelievable that they made something like this.

21o4pav.jpg

Signature by Maurice Sendak

When the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can put the Godfather part 3 up there. Especially when you see the quality of the first two movies it's unbelievable that they made something like this.
Oh yea - that I'll agree with. I'm not a big fan of the trilogy in the first place; but number 3 is pretty blah. Actually now that I think about it - it's mainly number 3 which feeds the dislike <.<
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the first godfather is easily the best, the second is pretty awesome, especially when it shows how vito became the Don, awesome...

 

the third was very dissapointing

 

 

 

I liked the third Godfather film. I think alot of people didn't like it because they expected to see Micael Corleone going about doing the same sort of stuff as he did in 1 & 2 - ruthless killing of anybody who crossed his. However, you can't do that 20 years later because people change. He's become an old man who's questioning what he's done with his life and since he's a religious man he has to wonder about how god will percieve what he has done (for instance killing his own brother). He has to look for forgiveness, for benediction and absolution of his many sins. I think it's a great film in it's own right about a man coming to terms with his live and his own mortality.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong though, it's by no means perfect. Sofia Coppola isn't going to win an Academy Award for her acting but she plods through her role without being too wooden. I think there should have been more of Joe Mantegna to create a bit more tension and the tension between Michael and Vincent could have been developed a bit more (about how Vincent liked Michael's daughter).

 

 

 

All in all though I liked Godfather: Part Three, I feel in some way I have to make this impassioned plea when people say that it was a terrible movie. That being said I fully admit that its not as good as the first 2 films but I don't accept that as a basis for writing off number 3.

 

 

 

---------------------

 

 

 

I think people should view sequels as stand alone films first and foremost. A good sequel can stand as a single film (if it's good enough) without you needing to see the earlier film. I don't like when people come into a sequel expecting too much off of the back of a previous film. I think it's great when a sequel expands on whats came before, even if that means going in a different direction and doing things differently, people seem to associate change in a sequel with a bad sequel which I just don't get.

wild_bunch.gif

He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,

and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

- Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should people see sequels as stand alone films? It's a sequel after all. It's only logical that you compare it with the quality of the movie that has gone before it. Especially when it has got the same director, writer, actors, composer. And then if you see what they have done with the previous two movies the third one is almost unacceptable. They've set a certain standard with their first two movies. If you're going off that path, alright, that's fine with me. But at least make something out of it. The third Godfather didn't do that, so it's a bad sequel. I understand what you're tryng to say though. Compare the Godfather pt. 3 with Scary Movie 3, and The Godfather is the better movie. But that's not how it works.

21o4pav.jpg

Signature by Maurice Sendak

When the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should people see sequels as stand alone films? It's a sequel after all. It's only logical that you compare it with the quality of the movie that has gone before it.

 

 

 

It is logical to compare a sequel with the original, I just feel that a good sequels should be good enough to stand up in their own right without relying too much on the reputation/quality of what came before it. I just don't believe in selling something off the back of something else. Sequels in my opinion, should ideally seek to be quality films in their own right. I think the basis of my opinion comes from seeing alot of sequels on TV then backtracking to see the original afterwards.

wild_bunch.gif

He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,

and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

- Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.