Sequels that are better than the first movie.

Sometimes though, a sequel is made following a low-budget surprise hit and the studio throw a lot of money at it but miss the idea of the original - so you get rubbish like Exorcist 2, Nightmare on Elm Street 2, etc. It then takes the original writer/director to come back on board to make a decent 3rd movie - e.g. Exorcist 3 and Nightmare on Elm Street 3 - better than the 2nd but not as good as the original.

(btw, I actually like Alien 3 and Terminator 3)
 
Actually, I partially take that back. I was in the heat of the moment there.

Gambon hasn't ever really been at fault for ruining the Harry Potter series, that fault primarily belongs to Warner.

I still feel Gambon is overrated as an actor, but his acting ability is hardly that of a plank of wood.


Couldn't have said it any better myself. ;)
 
I agree with this - Batman Forever was my favourite of the 4 films of that particular franchise - but I know a lot of people didn't like it.
 
I disagree T2,Gremlins 2,Short Circuit 2 being better movies then the originals although all 3 were as equally entertaining.

I'd say Dawn Of The Dead was as good as NOTLD Dead which is incredible when you think how important NOTLD is to film.

You could argue Good,Bad & Ugly is better then the Fistful of Dollars but it's not really a sequel or a actual series movie either.

I agree Empire Strikes Back was better then Star Wars but that comes into the series movie category.
The third Indiana Jones movie was the best in the series but again that comes into the series suggestion.
 
The SFX in T1 looked wrong to me when it came out, and are very hard to watch today, whereas T2 was pretty much flawless and still looks good. So money well spent.

However, there more differences than the budget. T1 is basically an extended chase sequence. Although it introduces a lot of the SF ideas of the franchise, it doesn't have much moral depth. What we initially take to be a man is gradually revealed to be a machine. And, well, chase chase chase. There's nothing to it.

T2 has some chase sequences in it, but also a long middle section in which they stop, take stock, and then go on the offensive, gunning for the scientist and then for the labs. It has several moral twists, such as over whether Sarah will or should kill the scientist. What we initially know to be a machine gradually becomes more human. It is a much richer story. Some of the issues which are now being explored in the TV series, such as the contradiction between teaching John how to be a future leader and preserving him so he has a future, are already fully developed in the film.

So for me the second film is far more than a remake, and is much better than the first.
 
I absolutely love Aliens, but as great a Sci-Fi/Action film as it is, Never did or does it come close to the technical excellence that is Alien.

Alien on a visual level alone blows away Aliens.

The Alien planet/The Space Jockey sequence are legendary. Cameron just couldn't quite manage to recapture the same feel for his equivalent portrayal in the Special Edition that features the crashed spacecraft.

The same goes for various other things, like the look of the facehuggers.

The scene in Aliens where the egg opens right by Newt has always been problematic for me, because it just looks so inferior compared to how it looked in Scott's film. When Cameron brought up all of these things in his commentary on the DVD, I just remember thinking "exactly".

Aliens is one of my all-time favourite pictures, however... it hasn't ever had the epic scale that Alien possesses. I consider the first film to be a cinematic masterpiece.
 
1) 28 Weeks later was much, much better than 28 Days Later . The first film was pretty good but was marred by a poor second half. I didn't like the "happy" ending either. Happy endings do not belong in a horror movie. :mad:

2) Blade 2 was better than Blade.

3) Many of the James Bond films are far better than the first one. There's too many to list so I'll just leave it at that.

4) The same goes for Star Trek. That first movie was pretty boring. The sequels, although the quality varies with each one, are better (Let's forget Star Trek 5... shall we? :D ) .

5) I also prefer Predator 2 over Predator which was also a fairly decent film.

6) I enjoyed Resident Evil 3 more than the first movie. But the RE games are better than any of the films.

7) I'm a fan of the Terminator films but Terminator 2 was the best of the bunch.

8) I love Alien but I love Aliens more.

:)
 
Rocky 3 is better than Rocky 2. Rocky Balboa is significantly better than Rocky 5.

And even without seeing the movie yet, Incredible Hulk with Ed Norton will SMASH Ang Lee's dire take on the Hulk (okay, again this blurs the line of rework / sequel).
 
Usually I hate sequels to movies but agree with The Godfather Two.

I also like all the Bourne trilogy movies but think the second and third in the series are even better than the first one

As for the Bond movies....I can't bear any of them :eek:
 
Come to think of it, John Rambo (ie, Rambo IV), was absolutely brilliant this year and was easily better than Rambo 2 and 3.
 
I personally feel Batman and Batman Returns are still the best Batman films. That is also still the consensus agreement. Only Begins has an equal fan base to Burton's films. Fanboys of either portrayals of the Dark Knight that just love to flood the boarRAB over at IMDB can kiss my a*se, they really can. I can't stand them.

What do fanboys have in common? Delusion, arrogance, conceitedness. Basically a severely unhealthy obsession towarRAB a particular subject. That is what a fanboy is for thouse few individuals reading this who are not already aware.

Forever and Begins are good. For me Keaton was solely missed in the former.

Batman & Robin is abysmal. Clooney stunk beyond belief in that film. He even voted himself as the worst Batman/Bruce Wayne. Bravo Clooney.
 
Back
Top