You can see my response after this comment of his, describing my thoughts on the conditions for a good sequel (which I think fit quite well with the quote). That got me thinking - what do you all think is the worst sequel to a movie ever?
My vote is Predator 2, with Danny Glover and Gary Busey. What a horrible movie after the first one was so badass. Let's face it, anything where Gary Busey goes apeshit in the end is at least marginally entertaining, but that little bit didn't really compensate for how bad the rest of it was. I did think Alien vs. Predator was good from an interesting story line and special effects perspective, and Predators looks good in the same way that the original was (lots of great characters with good one-liners fighting a big monster).
What's your worst sequel? I'm warning you - I may exercise my blog administrator priveleges if anyone says Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. I happened to like that a lot, even if I'm in the minority. So think twice before you waste your vote on that.
*****
By the way, the quote was from Bertrand Russell's "Science and Art Under Socialism", in his Proposed Roads to Freedom (1918) (I read it in my copy of Essential Works of Socialism, which is a really fantastic and wide-ranging resource that's usually pretty easy to find in used bookstores). Lovecraft has a lot to say about the prospects of the artist under socialism, it's one of his most bedrock critiques of the Soviets, and it's one of his biggest hesitations about socialism in general (although he thinks it is feasible). I know Lovecraft turns to Russell for insights on a lot of different things, so when I thumbed through the book and saw this title I was curious. I just read selections of it briefly - but what I read seems to be consistent with Lovecraft's view: aware of the danger, optimistic about prospects.
Posts
Spiderman 3 was awful.
ReplyDeleteI watched Analyze This and its sequel Analyze That. The first is a respectable comedy, but the second is a bit of a mess.
Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation
ReplyDelete:'(
Gosh I barely remember Spiderman 3... I suppose that's my brain protecting my by repressing. Didn't see analyze that.
ReplyDeleteStarship Troopers 2 was pretty bad... but it got into "so bad it's funny to watch" territory for me. Predator 2 was so bad it wasn't even in "good bad movie zone".
I really liked National Treasure, and I have to say I was disappointed with National Treasure II given how much I like the first one. It wasn't terrible though - it just wasn't as good. One of the things it did (that I got the impression Analyze That did) was recycle jokes and running gags from the first one. That's a really bad move in my opinion - it's so transparent. Anyway - wasn't the worst sequel in the world, but definitely a disappointment. I'm hoping the third will be better.
As a bit of context - I'm told I give way too much leeway on movies. Even if I don't love one, I'll find it enjoyable enough to watch and am slow to be a real critic... that's what I'm told at least.
ReplyDeleteGood movie we saw this weekend - "How To Train Your Dragon". It was fun. One of those kids movies that's still well made so you can enjoy it. I hope my kids don't end up liking dumb inane shit - I hope they like stuff I can actually enjoy watching with them.
The movie Speed is an ok popcorn flick that you don't worry too much about after watching it once. Speed 2 was an abomination that killed off all good will from the first film. It is one of the most stereotypically shameless sequels I can think of.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you didn't hate "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" like most people did. I liked it, sort of, as well. The movie has its problems. But so many people just reacted badly to the content of the search being aliens, and I find that interesting. It seems the further you get from the Judeo-Christian, the less most people like these films (see the lukewarm response to Temple of Doom, a movie less charming than the third one, but arguably a better adventure movie). While a lot of the cartoonish touches in "Skull" were awful, the film at least did something "Temple" and "Crusade" did not: like the original "Raiders," it purposely attempted to create a film out of the pulp and pop ideas of the era in question, but by moving the action from the 1930s to the 1950s, tackled completely new material, with even little stylistic elements being different.
I also suspect an HPL fan would be partial to the middle section of the film, where ancient astronauts, madmen locked in asylums in Peru, strange undeciphered glyphic languages, and crazed cultists in rotting ruins all collided.