The Movie Blog has posted the top 20 sequels of all time. Some thoughts:
* Can people be dyslexic with numbers? How did LotR: Return of the King win the top spot while The Godfather: Part II settled for second? How did Return of the Jedi beat out Empire Strikes Back, one of the only movies that actually surpasses the original? Admit it, the Ewoks are annoying.
* How the hell is Aliens #9? That should be #1. People are evenly split on which is better, the sequel or the original. That is an impossible feat to accomplish for a sequel.
* Terminator 2: Judgement Day comes in at #11. Word. I love that franchise.
* Clerks 2 is at #13? This should not be on any list, except for one titled "Another Reason Kevin Smith is Not as Great as You Think He Is." Ditto for Spiderman 2 at #15. Except that list would be called "Another Reason People Should Stop Casting Kirsten Dunst."
* Army of Darkness is only #17? This should be higher; top-ten higher.
* Die Hard: With a Vengeance is at #20, and I'm a little disappointed that they only refer to it as Die Hard 3. It actually has a title. And I disagree with the author who says there are people out there who think Die Hard 2 should be on the list. I haven't met these people. The second movie's not that great, but the third one, oh man. One of my favorite Samuel L. Jackson performances. (He actually has a reason to be angry.) This one should've been higher.
* Where is Back to the Future III?
As for worst sequels... surely a lot of spaces would be taken up by Star Trek, and I'd add Aliens: Resurrection, Dumb and Dumberer, and the last two Pirates of the Caribbean installments. Oh, and Batman and Robin. Sorry, George Clooney. #1 on the worst sequel? Definitely The Phantom Menace.
.jpg)
5 comments:
Does The Phantom Menace count as a sequel, though? I'm not disagreeing with your comment, by the way, just splitting hairs.
And I'm totally in love with your comments here (esp. the one about Kevin Smith - word.), except I think any Die Hard after the first is not worth my time (though I love love love the first).
The Phantom Menace is definitely a sequel... even though, narratively, it's a prequel. And it definitely sucks regardless of what you call it.
My whole thing with worst sequels is... how do you compare them when 95% of them are complete crap? It's much easier to decide which is best. I mean, how do you compare a legitimate bad sequel like Matrix: Reloaded with a straight-to-video sequel like Leprechaun 4: In Space?
I think - and I may be overthinking, because that's what I do - it has to do with intent.
For example: we can agree the purpose of most sequels is make more money on an existing franchise. I get that. However, some sequels also have a purpose to further the story told in the first movie (as in the Terminator or Star Wars series), while some (Halloween XXXLVII, or whatever) are simply squeezing a few more bucks out of the franchise. The majority of the latter are universally bad and should be ignored except on late nights when it is just the thing you want to watch to turn your mind off.
Those that attempt to do more, tell more, advance a mythology, and fail, should be judged for that failing. Especially if the original is good (Matrix being a good example).
Oh, and I do take issue that Clerks 2, Two Towers, and Die Hardest are on this list, but Lethal Weapon II is not.
You make a fantastic point about sequels. That's how I feel about Nicolas Cage, in a way. If he didn't take himself so seriously as an actor, I wouldn't hate him so much. If he was more Leprechaun 4 and less The Phantom Menace, I could at least enjoy his ridiculousness. But alas.
Ha, Die Hardest. I'll need to use that.
Post a Comment