TOP FIVE MOST INVENTIVE HORROR SEQUELS
Sequels are, generally speaking, inevitable. Whatever the film is, if it's in production, and especially if it turns a profit, some producer somewhere is commissioning a screenwriter to get started on the sequel. Many sequels are greenlit after a film's opening night, some even before that. It's no wonder, really, that most sequels don't match the quality of their predecessors. Most don't even try.
The horror genre is plagued with bad, cookie cutter sequels. Each subsequent entry in most franchises follow the same formula, but an ingredient goes missing with each passing film, to the point where number 11 is almost a sequel to the original in name only. There are examples of great horror sequels- "Evil Dead 2," "Aliens"- but the list is short, and greatly outmatched by the overabundance of schlock studio heads churn out on the cheap to make a quick buck based purely on name recognition.
By now, if you're actually reading this, you're asking me to get to the point already. Very well. For this list, I've decided to focus on sequels that, while not necessarily successful, at least tried to do something inventive and different, rather than just regurgitating what we've seen before. Some of these are overlooked. Some are widely known and loved. Neither is the point, the point is they're wholly original stories, and the filmmakers deserve credit for trying the risky thing.
Enough typing. Onto the list.
5. Wes Craven's New Nightmare
Before he did "Scream," Wes Craven satirized the horror genre with the final installment of the original "Nightmare on Elm Street" series. Using some of the real actors from the first film, and even appearing himself, Craven's film presents the idea that sequels are created to trap evil spirits (like Freddy Kruger). When the franchise was ended, the spirit was let loose on the real world.
"New Nightmare" is a decent movie. Like most Wes Craven films, it gives us an interesting idea, but generally fails to explore it in an interesting way. Making matters worse, nearly every scene centers around Heather Langenkamp, the star of the first "Nightmare," who apparently didn't learn how to act in the 10 year interim. There are some great parts, and some dull moments, but it's a passable film, and at least tried to do something we hadn't seen before in the "Nightmare" series.
4. Troll 2
Beloved by hipsters everywhere, "Troll 2" is a masterpiece of bad filmmaking. No budget, lousy effects, god awful acting and a script that makes no sense whatsoever. And it's hilarious. Every time you think it can't top itself, it somehow does something ridiculous to keep your attention. The film was written by the director's wife as a response to her various vegan friends and their "meat is murder" rhetoric. What does that get you? A movie about goblins (there are no trolls in the movie) who kill and eat anyone who eats meat by turning them into a plant. What? There is, however, one valuable lesson to be learned from "Troll 2" - you can't piss on hospitality!
The movie has gained a cult following over the years. There was even a documentary made about it, "Best Worst Movie," which shows the cast a crew today, their reflections on making the film, and the fans who love to hate "Troll 2." Okay, so it's a bad movie. Why am I including it? Because "Troll 2" has absolutely nothing to do with "Troll." There is no connection whatsoever, aside from the name. Given, that's because the producers decided making it a "sequel" to a modestly successful film would give it better chances at the box office, but you've gotta admit. That's a ballsy move.
3. Halloween 3: Season of the Witch
Much like "Troll 2," "Halloween 3" is a sequel in name only. But this was intentional from the beginning. John Carpenter, director of the first "Halloween" and writer of the first sequel, came up with the idea of an annual film anthology, each chapter taking place on Halloween but featuring new characters and stories. So for this film, no Michael Meyers. No Dr. Loomis. No Laurie Strode. Instead, an evil witch from Ireland using a stone from Stonehenge to create magical Halloween masks that will kill any kid wearing it. Sound goofy? It is.
The film was a failure on most levels. Some of the visuals are interesting, and the music is creepy, but the acting is over the top, and the premise is too convoluted. But at least they took a chance. While this film was a failure, it was at least a noble effort to do something interesting with the medium and genre. The fourth film was back to form with Michael Meyers slaying horny teenagers, and each sequel after that followed the same formula. "Halloween 3" isn't a good film, but that isn't for lack of trying.
2. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre 2
Here's where we start to get a big decisive. This is a movie people either love or hate. The original "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" was a relentless exercise in non-stop terror. The gritty realism matched by the believable insanity made you think that even if the film weren't based on a true story, it easily could've been. The sequel, on the other hand, drops the realism and goes over the top, making the characters and settings more cartoony in the process. To some, this is a severe misstep. To a select few, this is brilliance.
I first saw "TCM2" when I was in art school. A few friends gathered in my dorm room as we watched a VHS rented from Blockbuster (ask your parents, kids). One person asked me to turn it off. Then another. Then another. And soon, the entire room unanimously demanded I turn off this horrid film that was annoying them. And while I told them that I was going to finish the movie based on the principle that I had paid to see it, deep down I was enjoying it. I liked the look of it. I liked how over the top it went. I liked Dennis Hopper, and the old man, and Tom Savini's effects. And I appreciated that, like the original, it was relentless. Its aim was not the be pleasant, it was, in whatever way it could, to make you uncomfortable. Instead of doing it through realism, the movie just attacks and attacks your nerves until you're completely on edge.
I understand completely why some people don't like this movie, or even hate it. I don't, though. I think Tobe Hooper took a bold chance with this film, and I commend him for it.
And my number one choice is:
Sequels are, generally speaking, inevitable. Whatever the film is, if it's in production, and especially if it turns a profit, some producer somewhere is commissioning a screenwriter to get started on the sequel. Many sequels are greenlit after a film's opening night, some even before that. It's no wonder, really, that most sequels don't match the quality of their predecessors. Most don't even try.
The horror genre is plagued with bad, cookie cutter sequels. Each subsequent entry in most franchises follow the same formula, but an ingredient goes missing with each passing film, to the point where number 11 is almost a sequel to the original in name only. There are examples of great horror sequels- "Evil Dead 2," "Aliens"- but the list is short, and greatly outmatched by the overabundance of schlock studio heads churn out on the cheap to make a quick buck based purely on name recognition.
By now, if you're actually reading this, you're asking me to get to the point already. Very well. For this list, I've decided to focus on sequels that, while not necessarily successful, at least tried to do something inventive and different, rather than just regurgitating what we've seen before. Some of these are overlooked. Some are widely known and loved. Neither is the point, the point is they're wholly original stories, and the filmmakers deserve credit for trying the risky thing.
Enough typing. Onto the list.
5. Wes Craven's New Nightmare
Before he did "Scream," Wes Craven satirized the horror genre with the final installment of the original "Nightmare on Elm Street" series. Using some of the real actors from the first film, and even appearing himself, Craven's film presents the idea that sequels are created to trap evil spirits (like Freddy Kruger). When the franchise was ended, the spirit was let loose on the real world.
"New Nightmare" is a decent movie. Like most Wes Craven films, it gives us an interesting idea, but generally fails to explore it in an interesting way. Making matters worse, nearly every scene centers around Heather Langenkamp, the star of the first "Nightmare," who apparently didn't learn how to act in the 10 year interim. There are some great parts, and some dull moments, but it's a passable film, and at least tried to do something we hadn't seen before in the "Nightmare" series.
4. Troll 2
Beloved by hipsters everywhere, "Troll 2" is a masterpiece of bad filmmaking. No budget, lousy effects, god awful acting and a script that makes no sense whatsoever. And it's hilarious. Every time you think it can't top itself, it somehow does something ridiculous to keep your attention. The film was written by the director's wife as a response to her various vegan friends and their "meat is murder" rhetoric. What does that get you? A movie about goblins (there are no trolls in the movie) who kill and eat anyone who eats meat by turning them into a plant. What? There is, however, one valuable lesson to be learned from "Troll 2" - you can't piss on hospitality!
The movie has gained a cult following over the years. There was even a documentary made about it, "Best Worst Movie," which shows the cast a crew today, their reflections on making the film, and the fans who love to hate "Troll 2." Okay, so it's a bad movie. Why am I including it? Because "Troll 2" has absolutely nothing to do with "Troll." There is no connection whatsoever, aside from the name. Given, that's because the producers decided making it a "sequel" to a modestly successful film would give it better chances at the box office, but you've gotta admit. That's a ballsy move.
3. Halloween 3: Season of the Witch
Much like "Troll 2," "Halloween 3" is a sequel in name only. But this was intentional from the beginning. John Carpenter, director of the first "Halloween" and writer of the first sequel, came up with the idea of an annual film anthology, each chapter taking place on Halloween but featuring new characters and stories. So for this film, no Michael Meyers. No Dr. Loomis. No Laurie Strode. Instead, an evil witch from Ireland using a stone from Stonehenge to create magical Halloween masks that will kill any kid wearing it. Sound goofy? It is.
The film was a failure on most levels. Some of the visuals are interesting, and the music is creepy, but the acting is over the top, and the premise is too convoluted. But at least they took a chance. While this film was a failure, it was at least a noble effort to do something interesting with the medium and genre. The fourth film was back to form with Michael Meyers slaying horny teenagers, and each sequel after that followed the same formula. "Halloween 3" isn't a good film, but that isn't for lack of trying.
2. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre 2
Here's where we start to get a big decisive. This is a movie people either love or hate. The original "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" was a relentless exercise in non-stop terror. The gritty realism matched by the believable insanity made you think that even if the film weren't based on a true story, it easily could've been. The sequel, on the other hand, drops the realism and goes over the top, making the characters and settings more cartoony in the process. To some, this is a severe misstep. To a select few, this is brilliance.
I first saw "TCM2" when I was in art school. A few friends gathered in my dorm room as we watched a VHS rented from Blockbuster (ask your parents, kids). One person asked me to turn it off. Then another. Then another. And soon, the entire room unanimously demanded I turn off this horrid film that was annoying them. And while I told them that I was going to finish the movie based on the principle that I had paid to see it, deep down I was enjoying it. I liked the look of it. I liked how over the top it went. I liked Dennis Hopper, and the old man, and Tom Savini's effects. And I appreciated that, like the original, it was relentless. Its aim was not the be pleasant, it was, in whatever way it could, to make you uncomfortable. Instead of doing it through realism, the movie just attacks and attacks your nerves until you're completely on edge.
I understand completely why some people don't like this movie, or even hate it. I don't, though. I think Tobe Hooper took a bold chance with this film, and I commend him for it.
And my number one choice is:
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
suispud1:
It was only a rhetorical question
cadavre:
they have put out a 9th one, but it isn't Doug Bradley as Pinhead, and therefore...bullshit. The 8th one came out in 2011. Yes...8....holy hell.