The Worst Sequels and Remakes
It was hard to come up with a Top Five of the worst remakes or sequels, so I thought this time around I would just list a few good examples of when some misguided studio head decides the only good idea is the least original.
- Poltergeist II: The Other Side and Poltergeist III.
Remember that great revelation in the first Poltergeist when Craig T. Nelson realizes his house is haunted because his unscrupulous boss developed a housing community on top of a cemetery without moving the bodies? Yeah, as it turns out, his house was really haunted because it was built over a cavern that held the bodies of a 19th century religious cult. I guess that's all fine and dandy, but it always irks me when a sequel completely contradicts what came before. Mainly, though, there's just nothing memorable or scary in either of these movies. The second is a meandering piece of nonsense with a bit too much made up Native American mysticism, while the second is an overly simplistic bore that none of the original cast would go anywhere near. Except, of course, for Heather O'Rourke, who unfortunately died during production. These are useless sequels that have no reason to exist other than for profit.
- Any of the Halloween sequels
I will admit that the ending of the first Halloween is left open. But it was done for effect. The horror for Jamie Lee Curtis's character is over, but Michael Myers is alive, out there somewhere to kill again. He really is the Boogey Man. But rather than allow him to remain a legend, producer Irwin Yablans thought it best to continue the series, and make Michael Myers into the typical horror movie slasher. I'll at least give Halloween III credit for trying to do something different, even if it did so with such spectacular failure. From part IV through Halloween: Ressurection, these movies have nothing original or interesting to offer. They're paint by numbers movies.
I haven't seen the remake or its sequel. I'm not really all that interested.
-The Fly II
How did the guy who did the effects for Cronenberg's amazing remake direct a movie with such terrible effects? This movie is a lifeless, boring crapfest of bad melodrama and cheesy set pieces. And Eric Stoltz.
- Nightmare on Elm Street, parts 2, 4, 5, and Freddy's Dead
Freddy Kruger goes from being a scary child molester turned monster to a wise cracking anti hero. Sounds like something you usually only find in mainstream comic books. The third movie is off this list because it's the closest anyone came to making something more interesting out of the series (it was written by Wes Craven and Shawshank Redemption director Frank Darabont), while also trying to put an end to the sequels. No such luck, so we're stuck with three more dull entries in the series, one with 3D.
-The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake
If you hated the documentary approach to the original, then you'll love this slick remake. Shot with somewhat well known actors, and jam packed with cliches, it replaces the originality of the classic Tobe Hooper movie with marketability. It must've worked, since an equally terrible prequel was made.
-Child's Play 2 and 3
The first Child's Play was already on thin ice. It's a premise that can only be stretched so far. These sequels jumped right through it, each one just a pale imitation of the next. The third then commits the always terrible crime of aging the hero from kid to teenager when the films were only released a year apart. Lame.
-Creepshow 2
My assumption is George Romero wrote this movie while on the toilet. It was something he did to pass the time. This movie is written by the same man who wrote Dawn of the Dead, The Crazies and Knightriders? That just doesn't seem right. With only three stories (the first had five), some of the worst acting in any film, and premises that don't hold up to scrutiny, this movie really is just a pale imitation of its predecessor. Its one saving grace? It was directed by Romero's long time cinematographer, so it actually looks pretty good.
-The Wicker Man remake
I'm not a huge fan of the original, but it's at least creepy and weird. This one is creepy in all the wrong ways. Nicholas Cage must be doing a lot of drugs these days. It's the only way to explain how someone could be so good in Raising Arizona or Leaving Las Vegas and then somehow become one of the worst actors on the planet. The bees! Oh, no, the BEES!
It's worth watching just for Cage punching a woman in the face while wearing a bear suit. Oh, yeah, did I mention the movie is ridiculously misogynistic?
-An American Werewolf in Paris
Bad effects, bad acting, bad story, bad movie.
-American Psycho 2: All American Girl
A sequel in name only. There's a brief reference to Patrick Bateman early in the film, and then it's all about Mila Kunis killing people to get ahead in college. It features William Shatner in a dramatic role, and was directed by Morgan Freeman. No, not that Morgan Freeman.
The film was adapted from a script called The Girl That Wouldn't Die. That means a studio had the script, saw American Psycho become a surprise hit, and decided to slap the title American Psycho 2 onto this movie and add one scene that vaguely links the films.
-Psycho remake
Of the Psycho sequels, I've only seen the second. And while it's not a great movie, it at least tries to tell its own story. This remake, directed by Oscar nominee Gus Van Sant, doesn't try to do anything original. It is, in fact, a shot for shot remake. Shot for shot. It's a nearly exact duplicate of Hitchcock's classic, and it still sucks. Maybe it's because it stars Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. Vaughn can be an effective actor, but while Anthony Perkins added sympathy to the role of Norman Bates, Vaughn added and edge to the character. From the start you don't trust him. You feel uneasy around him. Which means you're set up for the big reveal right from the start.
Small changes are made to supposedly update the movie. Lila Crane runs off to grab her Walkman instead of her coat. Monetary values are changed. Norman masturbates while watching Marion undress. Do these changes add anything? Sure. I remember seeing the movie in the theater, and hearing the sounds of Norman's wanking, to which another audience member loudly replied "that's disgusting!" It takes you out of the moment. It's silly.
Van Sant has since admitted that the making of this movie was more like a film school exercise. That the quality of the movie was more than just how the shots were set up and edited together. He's right.
It was hard to come up with a Top Five of the worst remakes or sequels, so I thought this time around I would just list a few good examples of when some misguided studio head decides the only good idea is the least original.
- Poltergeist II: The Other Side and Poltergeist III.
Remember that great revelation in the first Poltergeist when Craig T. Nelson realizes his house is haunted because his unscrupulous boss developed a housing community on top of a cemetery without moving the bodies? Yeah, as it turns out, his house was really haunted because it was built over a cavern that held the bodies of a 19th century religious cult. I guess that's all fine and dandy, but it always irks me when a sequel completely contradicts what came before. Mainly, though, there's just nothing memorable or scary in either of these movies. The second is a meandering piece of nonsense with a bit too much made up Native American mysticism, while the second is an overly simplistic bore that none of the original cast would go anywhere near. Except, of course, for Heather O'Rourke, who unfortunately died during production. These are useless sequels that have no reason to exist other than for profit.
- Any of the Halloween sequels
I will admit that the ending of the first Halloween is left open. But it was done for effect. The horror for Jamie Lee Curtis's character is over, but Michael Myers is alive, out there somewhere to kill again. He really is the Boogey Man. But rather than allow him to remain a legend, producer Irwin Yablans thought it best to continue the series, and make Michael Myers into the typical horror movie slasher. I'll at least give Halloween III credit for trying to do something different, even if it did so with such spectacular failure. From part IV through Halloween: Ressurection, these movies have nothing original or interesting to offer. They're paint by numbers movies.
I haven't seen the remake or its sequel. I'm not really all that interested.
-The Fly II
How did the guy who did the effects for Cronenberg's amazing remake direct a movie with such terrible effects? This movie is a lifeless, boring crapfest of bad melodrama and cheesy set pieces. And Eric Stoltz.
- Nightmare on Elm Street, parts 2, 4, 5, and Freddy's Dead
Freddy Kruger goes from being a scary child molester turned monster to a wise cracking anti hero. Sounds like something you usually only find in mainstream comic books. The third movie is off this list because it's the closest anyone came to making something more interesting out of the series (it was written by Wes Craven and Shawshank Redemption director Frank Darabont), while also trying to put an end to the sequels. No such luck, so we're stuck with three more dull entries in the series, one with 3D.
-The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake
If you hated the documentary approach to the original, then you'll love this slick remake. Shot with somewhat well known actors, and jam packed with cliches, it replaces the originality of the classic Tobe Hooper movie with marketability. It must've worked, since an equally terrible prequel was made.
-Child's Play 2 and 3
The first Child's Play was already on thin ice. It's a premise that can only be stretched so far. These sequels jumped right through it, each one just a pale imitation of the next. The third then commits the always terrible crime of aging the hero from kid to teenager when the films were only released a year apart. Lame.
-Creepshow 2
My assumption is George Romero wrote this movie while on the toilet. It was something he did to pass the time. This movie is written by the same man who wrote Dawn of the Dead, The Crazies and Knightriders? That just doesn't seem right. With only three stories (the first had five), some of the worst acting in any film, and premises that don't hold up to scrutiny, this movie really is just a pale imitation of its predecessor. Its one saving grace? It was directed by Romero's long time cinematographer, so it actually looks pretty good.
-The Wicker Man remake
I'm not a huge fan of the original, but it's at least creepy and weird. This one is creepy in all the wrong ways. Nicholas Cage must be doing a lot of drugs these days. It's the only way to explain how someone could be so good in Raising Arizona or Leaving Las Vegas and then somehow become one of the worst actors on the planet. The bees! Oh, no, the BEES!
It's worth watching just for Cage punching a woman in the face while wearing a bear suit. Oh, yeah, did I mention the movie is ridiculously misogynistic?
-An American Werewolf in Paris
Bad effects, bad acting, bad story, bad movie.
-American Psycho 2: All American Girl
A sequel in name only. There's a brief reference to Patrick Bateman early in the film, and then it's all about Mila Kunis killing people to get ahead in college. It features William Shatner in a dramatic role, and was directed by Morgan Freeman. No, not that Morgan Freeman.
The film was adapted from a script called The Girl That Wouldn't Die. That means a studio had the script, saw American Psycho become a surprise hit, and decided to slap the title American Psycho 2 onto this movie and add one scene that vaguely links the films.
-Psycho remake
Of the Psycho sequels, I've only seen the second. And while it's not a great movie, it at least tries to tell its own story. This remake, directed by Oscar nominee Gus Van Sant, doesn't try to do anything original. It is, in fact, a shot for shot remake. Shot for shot. It's a nearly exact duplicate of Hitchcock's classic, and it still sucks. Maybe it's because it stars Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. Vaughn can be an effective actor, but while Anthony Perkins added sympathy to the role of Norman Bates, Vaughn added and edge to the character. From the start you don't trust him. You feel uneasy around him. Which means you're set up for the big reveal right from the start.
Small changes are made to supposedly update the movie. Lila Crane runs off to grab her Walkman instead of her coat. Monetary values are changed. Norman masturbates while watching Marion undress. Do these changes add anything? Sure. I remember seeing the movie in the theater, and hearing the sounds of Norman's wanking, to which another audience member loudly replied "that's disgusting!" It takes you out of the moment. It's silly.
Van Sant has since admitted that the making of this movie was more like a film school exercise. That the quality of the movie was more than just how the shots were set up and edited together. He's right.
I also like run on sentences.