Thursday, August 07, 2008

The sequel is always worse than the original

This has been a bit of a pet issue for me, especially since I normally hear the comment in the same breath as a rave review of the relevant sequel. It was a good rule of thumb for a long time, but how many counterexamples are needed before it stops being one. Off the top of my head I can think of ten:

  • Spiderman 2
  • X-men 2
  • Bourne Supremacy (and Ultimatum)
  • Terminator 2 (contested I guess)
  • Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
  • The dark Knight
  • Batman Returns (I just watched it for the first time since I was 11 and it's really good. I was amazed)
  • Die Hard With a Vengeance
  • Revenge of the Sith (the only decent one of the recent series)
  • Kill Bill part two

Some movies of similar quality to the first one

  • Lord of the Rings
  • Godfather Part 2 (frequently cited as "the only one" better than the original)
  • Men in Black 2 (which I prefer)
  • The Empire Strikes back (I think it's better, but it's definitely less important than the first one)

This seriously is just off the top of my head, so it's not likely to be exhaustive. I'm also aware that people disagree with many particular cases.

So what ya'll think?

1 comment:

Stacy said...

While I agree, when you're talking about action movies that's generally very true. But, just to be difficult....what about the Matrix? Speed? (though I didn't like either you can't argue that the second wasn't complete shit), pretty much any horror movie EVER MADE, or Jurassic Park?