As much as Hollywood loves to franchise anything successful, not every movie needs or even calls out for a sequel. This week’s Roundtable isn’t just about bad sequels, necessarily, but specifically about sequels that have no reason to exist at all.
Deirdre Crimmins
Thought it was a staple of early 1990s cable TV, and I obligingly watched it as a kid, I hold no affection in my heart for ‘Caddyshack II’. It has to be one of the least necessary films in existence. The original ‘Caddyshack‘ is a certified comedy classic. Filmed in the heyday of ‘Saturday Night Live’ with all of that show’s best actors (or, at least the ones who weren’t in ‘Animal House’), ‘Caddyshack’ helped usher in a new comedy era in 1980. But then eight years later, the sequel that no one asked for was released. Sure, Chevy Chase was back for a bit of the film. And the fight against snobby country clubbers is always fun. But replacing Bill Murray with Dan Aykroyd was poor, and Jackie Mason’s humor never really translated well to the big screen. The entire film reeks of being an uninspired cash-grab.
M. Enois Duarte
In the entire history of unnecessary sequels, ‘S. Darko‘, Fox’s lame attempt to capitalize on the cult popularity of Richard Kelly’s ‘Donnie Darko‘, should rank at the very top of the list for the absolute worst. Publicly denounced by Kelly, who had no involvement with the production, the plot picks up seven years after the events of its predecessor and follows Donnie’s sister, Samantha (Daveigh Chase), who’s tormented with terrifying visions similar to Donnie’s. The story is a confusing, muddled mess littered with enough plot holes to turn the whole fiasco into Swiss cheese. It’s a complete waste of time and should be avoided at all costs.
Brian Hoss
I watched and enjoyed ‘Sicario: Day of the Soldado‘, but it’s very much an unnecessary sequel. Decent script, decent acting, etc. But even if it’s of the same world as the first film, it’s very obvious by the end that the story is being sacrificed, not just for the sake of this sequel but for potential further sequels. The ending makes the film feel even more like a direct-to-video type of sequel. I wonder who will be on-board for the next ‘Sicario’?
Adam Tyner (DVDTalk)
Eager to stripmine its deep cinematic legacy for some quick direct-to-video cash, Disney spent a decade churning out one forgettable, low-budget sequel after another. Chances are you had no idea that dreck like ‘Cinderella II: Dreams Come True’ or ‘The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea’ even existed. Beyond being completely unnecessary from a narrative standpoint, these lazy, simplistic “cheapquels” often completely misunderstood the original movies and savaged beloved characters in the process.
Sometimes the schadenfreude proved too much to resist, so I’ve suffered through a handful of these over the years. Far and away my least favorite is ‘The Fox and the Hound II‘, although I guess it’s technically a mid-quel rather than a sequel since it takes place when Tod and Copper are still pups. You’ve all watched the bittersweet original about the clash between an enduring friendship and societal demands, right? Wouldn’t it have been so much better if Copper had joined a band of country-singin’ stray dogs instead? Yup, thrill to a bunch of chicken-fried musical numbers with puppies wiggling their butts, the tonal whiplash of sugary slapstick and a mean-spirited streak, Copper letting his newfound stardom going to his head (poor Tod!!!), and generally desperate pandering towards its pint-sized audience. Woof.
Josh Zyber
William Friedkin’s ‘The French Connection‘ is a legitimately great movie that simply did not need another chapter. Although the film ends on a deliberately anticlimactic note, it’s a very fitting conclusion to the story. That should have been the end of it. However, after the movie made a lot of money, won a bunch of Oscars, and made Gene Hackman a big star, the studio couldn’t resist capitalizing on all of that.
Four years later, ‘French Connection II‘ came along and, save for Hackman, was devoid of nearly all the qualities that made the original such a standout. Because Friedkin had the good sense to stay away, the normally-reliable John Frankenheimer was brought in to replace him, but was provided little to work with. Gone is any pretense of being based on a true story, or any attempt to replicate the first movie’s gritty street-level authenticity. Instead, we get a poor script and merely workmanlike direction shot on obvious studio sets. Aside from the foul language, the sequel looks and feels like a bad TV movie. It has none of the original’s jangly tension or exhilarating style. While it’s not a terrible movie, it is a terrible sequel that shouldn’t have been made.
Your Turn
Setting aside movies that were obviously designed to be franchised (‘Harry Potter’, ‘The Hunger Games’, etc.), what are your picks for the most pointless, unnecessary sequels?
njscorpio
I haven’t even seen them, but I’ll go ahead and nominate the sequles to ‘Highlander’. I’m a HUGE fan of the original, and I watch it at least once a year. I refuse to taint my experience.
As for one I saw…I’ll go with ‘The Crow: City of Angels’. A terrible movie in it’s own right, to have it follow up such an iconic film is an insult to Brandon Lee’s performance.
Bolo
I’ve definitely seen worse sequels to better movies, but in terms of narrative and even entertainment value pointlessness, ‘Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps’ certainly jumps to mind. I don’t consider the first film to be any towering masterpiece, but it told a character-driven story and delivered its message in way that was relevant to its era. When the sequel came out, corruption in the world of finance was topical, but Oliver Stone just couldn’t find an angle on it, nor could he really find anything entertaining for his characters to do.
Csm101
The first time I ever felt that way about a sequel was when the trailer for Sister Act 2 came out. I was like, “ Da Fuq???” Maybe it’s a good sequel, but I never saw it.
Julian
For what it’s worth, it’s a VERY good sequel. I like it a lot more than the original. A pre-Fugees Lauryn Hill steals the show.
Charles Contreras
For me, the following titles I think were a waste of celluloid: Superman 3 and Superman 4, Blues Brothers 2000, Smokey and The Bandit 3, and maybe Robocop 3. Okay, maybe include Batman and Robin in this list as well, whose only redeeming quality was George Clooney as Batman.
photogdave
Various Smokey and the Bandits come to mind.
The Jaws sequels are pretty unnecessary and dilute the power of the original.
First Blood should not have been followed up, although Rambo, First Blood Part Two has some great scenes that have become pop culture classics.
Most comedies don’t require a sequel. (Naked Gun excepted)
John M Burton Jr.
I don’t like horror movie sequels (The exception is Bride of Frankenstein). They feel like money grabs and each one gets worse and worse.
Ryan
I actually thought 28 Weeks Later was better than the first one….but yeah, usually horror sequels stink
David
Sinister 2 could have been and should of been legit, but instead it was god-awful and only recently replaced by the first purge as the worst big budget horror film I have ever seen.
Pedram
This might be controversial because it wasn’t necessarily a bad movie (just an OK one IMO), but I didn’t really see the point of Predator 2.
Part of the reason the first was so great was because of the tension caused from the fact that the team was in a jungle, isolated from any help, and being picked off one by one by an invisible hunter. While maybe a curious notion, I never wanted to see the Predator come to a big city and be chased by some random cop. The best thing that movie did was introduce us to hints of a bigger Predator universe in the ship at the end. Otherwise, it’s pretty forgettable in my book.
I’m hoping the next sequel by Shane Black doesn’t fall into the same category.
Bolo
I don’t think ‘Predator 2’ is anywhere as good as the first one, but I’m glad they tried some new stuff rather than just sending another group of soldiers into the jungle. Personally, I think it would be cool to see an installment set in some snowy winter wasteland. Like some abandoned Siberian industrial town with a bunch of forest all around.
I skipped the ‘AvP’ movies. The trailer for Shane Black’s new installment was so dire that I don’t even plan on making any effort to see the film. When all you can put together to sell your movie is a “yo mamma” joke and Olivia Munn’s dreadful acting, it just makes me think there’s nothing there to sell. Maybe stellar reviews could tip me into giving it a rent.
Pedram
Yeah a city setting is better than another jungle setting I guess. Your snow setting sounds interesting. I’m sure they’d have a scene where they show the footprints but the predator is invisible.
I actually liked AvP 1. It was cool to finally see the setup from Predator 2 realized.
Dennis Heller
I didn’t see the sequel or the original, but surely Weekend at Bernie’s 2 is the correct answer here
Trond Michelsen
I’m just so happy they never made a sequel to The Blues Brothers. I can think of at least 2000 reasons why that would have sucked.
Julian
I really like ‘Blues Brothers 2000’. Excellent, excellent soundtrack.
Trond Michelsen
You’re right. The soundtrack is great. The movie’s got 1999 problems, but the soundtrack ain’t one.
Julian
Your puns are on point, Trond 🙂
Julian
Hey, Adam Tyner, they even made a ‘Cinderella III’!! And, by most accounts, it’s quite good! (I’ve never seen it)
Nestor
Exorcist 2: The Heretic was just horrible. The Matrix Reloaded and Revolution were such a boring letdown.
And i just plain hated The Lost World: Jurassic Park.