What is the worst sequel ever made? (Has to be #2 in a series)

If we're talkin' about the worst, there should be criteria:

1. Its antecedent had to have been reasonably good. (There's no point in choosing, say, Leprechaun 2, fer cryin' out loud.)

2. This sequel has to be so wretched--or offers a revelation so inane--that it undermines, or destroys, the impact of the original for the viewer.


My pick...Halloween II. Whereas the original played like something out of the Brothers Grimm, brilliantly framed in an unnerving world of light and shadow, the sequel was purely and simply slasher...and a rather mean-spirited one at that. (I could have done without the image of that boy who had bitten into the razor-blade apple, or the half-naked woman who had her face scalded in a hot tub.) Worse, we find out that the villain, whom we accepted as Evil Incarnate, actually had a motivation, reducing him to a psycho with family issues. Terrible.


So what is it? The Exorcist 2? Highlander 2?

only one.

I had such high hopes. dashed against the rocks.

That's got to be the worst sequel ever, hands down. Nothing else approaches it's badness. By comparison event the Matrix sequels look good.

Sweet Christ on a trailer hitch, that was a terrible idea. Dan Akroyd should be stoned for that.

Highlander 2 was pretty darn bad, but BB2000 was just disappointing on SO many levels.

I avoided it all together

Then, when it was doing its HBO run, we saw the 'Ghost Rides in the Sky' bit, with CGI ghost rides, and a cop car pileup that had absolutely no build up or freshness to it.

It was a tired old piece of meat, that one, and I only saw the good bits :eyes:

What induced me to see that I'll never know!!!

Also Grease II was pretty awful!

then again, most musicals are

John Travolta was soooooooooooooo cute! I have the sound track and listen from time to time and dance around and sing. I do have a bit of a geeky side I guess sometimes.

I loathe it.

I watch everything that man is in but, was he on crack when he signed on to do that movie? :crazy:

:evilgrin:

Weak supporting cast, completely unbelievable plot, and full of inconsistencies.

BZZZZZZZZZZT. The judges have disqualified that answer.

:puke:

Flat, uninspired, and just all-around kinda depressing. No one seemed to be having a good time the way they did in the first one.

It was so bad, there never was a Part 1 thru part 5.

The scalding water scene is just plain nauseating.

Although it doesn't qualify on the first point.

Saw it at the drive-in, we all fell asleep.

It just didn't work for me.

Striker escapes from the Ronald Reagan Hospital for the Mentally Ill


(I'll be framegrabbing a pic of the hospital name; it's so utterly apropos!)

:evilgrin:

The movie just tried too hard to be funny, while the first one was just funny.

I think the people who made Airplane 2 really had the best intentions (and I really wanted to like it), but you know what they say about the road to hell being paved with good intentions and all that.

Paul Newman and Robert Redford weren't available, so they got Jackie Gleason and Mac Davis instead!

What a come-down in casting....

Perhaps that's just for the best. :)

Or the inside of any movie theater. Period.

nt

the first one was enjoyable, the second one, embarrassing

Was that dreck, or what?

And I would say the short lived early 80's lineup of "Aerosmith" featuring two guitarists who would never be heard from again. Except even that wretched mess was better than the AeroShit of the 1990's.

The 1974 original remains the BEST mad-slasher movie EVER. That stupid sequel was so pathetic it was funny. Director Tobe Hooper apparently completely forgot during the intervening 12 years what the original was all about.

Ron

that sequel paid absolutely no homage whatsoever to the original.
he definitely played into sexuality more with the sequel-but not in a good way.

Which is why they never made a "Dumb and Dumberest".

They were all pretty sucky.

or Bad Boys 2

Not the amazingly lame cartoon series, but an actual movie?

Actually, given how iffy the original was, I'm not sure ST2 could meet the criterion of its antecedent being "reasonably good."

The book (despite its obnoxious hyperlibertarianism) was light years better than the adaptation Voorwhozits gave it. I think he even said that he hated the book but was doing it anyway.

Woof, woof!

Although, there are a few rare exceptions when the
sequel is better than the first movie, book, ... whatever.

Those even more rarely have a number in the title itself.

IMO, better than the first.

Edit: Toy Story 2 was also better than the first, IMO

david

Bob Hope and Bing Crosby made it in 1961, at least 15 years after the other "Road" pictures. They were older, the gags were the same, and it just didn't work.

Imagine Jackie Mason over Rodney Dangerfield!

The original Austin Powers was geniunely funny and had heart. It's sequel was one gross out gag after another with a storyline that made little to no sense.

Not!

You nearly gave me a heart attack!

And I think better than Godfather I.

While I think it's a reasonably good sci-fi movie in its own right, I cannot stand it as a sequel to the mostly symbolic, artistic 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is, clearly, one of the greatest films ever made.

david

While a good film, what it did to the original (here's all the answers and they look a lot like "Childhood's End") was terrible. Also, Heywood Floyd bald faced lying that he "didn't know" when the last thing HAL did in 2001 was show a video of Dr Floyd explaining why HAL was directed to deceive really soured me on it.

Species was an OK SciFi thriller. Species 2 was the second worst movie of all time after Battlefield Earth

"The Rage:Carrie 2"

An abomination. A pointless sequel to one of my favorite movies.

I was so outraged. I looooovvvvveeeedddd Silence of the Lambs that this was such a disappointment. Eating brains? Puhleeezzzze!

What bothered me most about it (and there was a little bit of this in "Silence OTL, but not enough to make it suck), is that Lechter was given superhuman powers, eg the ability to castrate a passing pickpocket through his clothes in half a second...and convince someone to cut his own face off by sheer will. As soon as Lechter was given powers beyond those of an average, believable human, he ceased to be "real", and therefore ceased to be a threat.

Unless camp performances are what frighten you.

total lame shitjob compared to the first

there's a sequel? are you talking about american psycho by bret easton elis?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0283877

It went straight to video
starring Mila Kunis & William Shatner
'nuff said

The Exorcist 2

:puke:

I couldn't BEAR it, and I can "bear" a lotta bad movies...

:puke: is RIGHT!!!!!!!!

I really, really, really liked the original for many reasons. One of them was because Laurie (JLC) was not a "helpless screamer." I hate those women characters in horror movies who go all limp and cower and scream, or run away and fall down then lay there and wimper. Or worse yet, run UPstairs where there is no hope of escape!

Give me Ripley, kickin' ass and not even taking names later, any time.

I saw it last week. Awful, just awful.

What a dreadful sequal to a superb movie.

any film with wayne newton jabbering is awful enough, but BBII is in a class by itself.

i guess the only saving grace is that it is only marginally worst than the BBI.

i did learn one thing from BBII don't ever, ever fuck with a chinese guy with a patch over one eye.

When the infamous shark traveled around the world, looking for the poor woman and absolutely ruined a perfectly good boating day.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088207/

Check it out...

RL

And the two before it were so good.

even the opportunity to drool for 2 hrs over brendan fraser could not save that one.

the sequel to Gone With the Wind. What the hell were they thinking?

Not nearly as bad as other sequels identified in this thread, but the first was so fantastic the second pales in significance (though not "wretched" or "inane", and does not "undermine, or destroy, the impact of the original).

Actually, it's pretty good.

We didn't need a CHUD one much less a sequel. Now, now... I admit, Piranha II: The Spawning was pretty bad (even if Jim Cameron did direct it)..

But CHUD II is much worse.

I mean, after all, a sequel to "Saturday Night Fever"...directed by Sylvester Stallone???

:wtf:

I remember once actually seeing that in the theater. At least it was a 99 cent theater. Anyone remember those? :D