The 7 Suckiest Star-less Sequels

I have not seen any of those movies. Interesting list though.

I have the ultimate, sequential, downward, casting spiral right here...

The Omen - Gregory Peck

The Omen II - William Holden

The Omen III - Sam Neil

The Omen IV - uh... Michael Woods?

The Omen (remake) - Ow, OK - I give, I give - just stop hurting me!

I was surprised not to see "The Crow II"

Batman/Batman Returns: then-popular Michael Keaton

Batman Forever: Val Kilmer (bad casting)

Batman & Robin: then-relatively-unknown George Clooney (and all around bad movie)

Batman Begins: relatively-unknown Christian Bale. Thank goodness for that!

Superman Returns with... that dude... Guy Whatsisnameisky

Can't forget The Fly II.


Oh wait. Yeah, I can.

Okay, I didn't even know some of those had sequels. Yikes!

O yeah, Dumb and Dumberer... what was that? And Son of the Mask... why even bother? The first one wasn't that good to begin with.

And how about Blair Witch Project 2? Not that that the first one had stars in it, but it was not bad. The second one not only totally changed the format, but it sucked.

What? No Grease 2?? One of the worst. movies. ever.

I'm embarrassed to admit I've even seen it.

Anyone see Butterfly Effect 2?

I didn't cause it wasn't Mr Demi Moore.... One was okay - book was better

There was a Butterfly Effect 2? My.

Tiger said:

I was surprised not to see "The Crow II"

Click to expand...

Technically it was another person in another city that died and became The Crow. The only good ones are the first and the third one. The suckiest one in my opnion was The Crow IV with the guy from Angel as a Satanist living in a desert on the year 2060

There is also a sequel of Chinatown directed by Jack Nicholson called The Two Jakes


Does any has seen Dungeons & Dragons 2? or have thoughts of the newest Stark Trek movie with only Leonard Nemoy?

and there is also Carlitos' Way 2

and there is Psycho IV: The Beginning

and even From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter!

maxmordon said:

Technically it was another person in another city that died and became The Crow. The only good ones are the first and the third one. The suckiest one in my opnion was The Crow IV with the guy from Angel as a Satanist living in a desert on the year 2060

Click to expand...

That's why it can be designated "starless"--unlike "The Two Jakes" that still starred Nicholson.

Tiger said:

That's why it can be designated "starless"--unlike "The Two Jakes" that still starred Nicholson.

Click to expand...

sorry

Hoo-ha!

maestrowork said:

Batman/Batman Returns: then-popular Michael Keaton

Batman Forever: Val Kilmer (bad casting)

Batman & Robin: then-relatively-unknown George Clooney (and all around bad movie)

Batman Begins: relatively-unknown Christian Bale. Thank goodness for that!

Click to expand...

On Returns: Stylistically it's great, but my problem with it is the lack of a solid narrative. It all just seems to... happen.

On Forever: Yeah, Kilmer wasn't exactly the best choice, but the film's flippin' fantastic! You either have to be a die-hard Batman fan or a humourless git to find yourself unable to derive any enjoyment from the experience (not accusing you of being the latter, of course).

On & Robin: It's shite. A bloody travesty, by all accounts. But it's action-packed, camp as Christmas (perhaps the only cold-related pun Arnie didn't utter in that film), and a fun way to waste two hours. I love it! As a Batman film it's disgraceful, but as an exercise in ridiculousness it's genius.

On Begins: I like it, and it's a great start to a new take on the franchise, but the script needed work. Thankfully the Nolans have taken over scripting duties for the sequel. Here's hoping we'll have no more "Gotham is the heart of criminality" (leave the symbolism for Sin City) crap.

maxmordon said:

Superman Returns with... that dude... Guy Whatsisnameisky

Click to expand...

Brandon Routh?

I really don't understand people's beef with Superman Returns. Yes, more feats of continent-lifting proportions would've been welcome, but I was quite impressed with the focus on the character's personality rather than his abilities.

After all, you may be able to turn back time by circling the world X many times (it's hard to keep count), but no degree of physical strength can force a woman to genuinely reciprocate your affections.

Some people say that Superman's no longer interesting because "he can do everything." I disagree. If the guy's power has no limit, then throw some obstacles in the way to spice things up.

I am aware of the "Death of Superman" story, but I'd rather that wait a couple of films. At least until the character's been developed to the point that we actually mourn his defeat at the hand of Doomsday.

maxmordon said:

or have thoughts of the newest Stark Trek movie with only Leonard Nemoy?

Click to expand...

I can imagine a school cafeteria somewhere in California in the late 70s/ Early 80s. A teenage J.J. Abrams is geeking out with his buds over meatloaf. Then at some point during the conversation the young J.J. is suddenly struck by an idea:

"Hey, guys! Wouldn't it be cool if they made a Star Trek film when Kirk and his star-faring homies were all our age?!"

I get the feeling Abrams has wanted to do this for a very long time.

I reckon it's gonna be fab!

Dumb and Dumberer had to be the worst sequel I think I've ever seen. All the more so because of the astonishing void-between-galaxies-sized quality gulf between it and the original.

The Chronicles of Riddick (sequel to Pitch Black) has Vin Diesel in it (and Judy Dench) but it was still pretty bad.

Speaking of Vin Diesel, the Fast and Furious franchise went downhill after the first one. Paul Walker didn't even do the 3rd one and they hired some guy who looked like him...

I actually thought the Chronicles of Riddick wasn't too bad...but then, I have no taste.

Frankly, the second and third chapters of the Matrix were DVD-induced torture for me, even though they had the original stars.

The Exorcist, and its sequel.

Horrible sequel.

Pretty much all horror films get worse with the sequel, in my opinion.

Ooh, and Bewitched.

Usually Nicole Kidman makes good films, right?

But in this one, it's as if she took acting lessons from Melanie Griffith.

The 3rd Exorcist was just as bad - and it had George C. Scott in it. I think he lost a bet.

eldragon said:

Usually Nicole Kidman makes good films, right?

Click to expand...

"The Intepretor," "Practical Magic," "The Invasion," "The Stepford Wives".... I'm not so sure about that