Which Sequels do YOU prefer to the originals?

I have to say I agree with Lady Hoot. I find Temple of Doom to be by far the strongest of the three. Much darker and more interesting. Raiders was ace great, but Crusade was just disposable fluff.
 
I disliked 1989's "Batman" because Jack Nicholson shoved his face all over the camera whilst Kim Basinger was too screamy. I much prefered 1992's Batman Returns" because the chemistry between all the characters, the plot, villains and score were a dazzling mix of sinister theatrical performances.
Terminator 2 was less of a horror film and more of an action film which I prefered as it was more complex and full of dystopian elements.
X-Men 2 contained more action and a faster plot than its predecessor.
I prefered SAW II to the original because I liekd the dynamics of seeing the cops in action and the victims in a house as opposed to a small bathroom. The characetrs were less annoying than in the previous film and I liked the ending betetr than the first one.
Aliens is slicker and more actionpacked than Alien. The film also saw Sigourney Weaver famously fight with the Queen Alien.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park is the only Spielberg film I like for it's darker and twisted tone, set on a new island with some new and refreshing characters the film saw great sequences such as the power of nto 1 but 2 T-Rexes.

Are there any sequels that YOU consider better than it's predecessor? And for what reasons?
 
Superman II...

The audience already knew who Superman was - no long build up required. It was good to see him making the hard choice to lose his powers. Not to mention the great climax to the film - great action scenes that still stand up today.
 
I have to say I agree with union jak. The first and third films feel like proper Indiana Jones films. You get the bits at the beginning when he is the boring professor, then he hears of his "mission" and off he goes. The second one is great fun and very enjoyable, but he sort of wanders into what he is doing which has always bothered me a bit. And that woman is ****ing annoying. I think I like the third one the best. The relationship between Indy and his dad is top notch (one of the only Sean Connery performance I actually like, perhaps because for once he is playing his age). I really must buy the box set.

Um num sheebay! Um num sheebay!
 
I thought that too for a while until I saw all three back-to-back. Made a hell of a weekend. ;)

I also prefer 'Kill Bill: Vol. 2' to the first one as it is more plot driven and less franticness.
 
As with people above, I prefered Batman Returns to Batman, Addams Family Values to The Addams Family, X2 to X-Men, Aliens to Alien and Terminator 2 to The Terminator.

I find that most originals spend time developing characters and their sequels deliver the better plots.
 
For me it's the reverse! I thought Volume 2 was a bit dull after the excellent Volume 1. I also thought the soundtrack to Vol 1 was brilliant, and Vol 2 was a bit... missable.
Both were great films though, although technically it is one large film split in two.
 
Another agreement there. Great as Star Wars (ANH) is, ESB is the greatest movie of all time, so what's to say?

Another pop for X2, which was awesome compared to the half-arsed X-Men.

Finally, whilst Aliens isn't technically a better movie than Alien, I do much prefer it.
 
Back
Top