http://www.411mania.com/movies/columns/96085
The original Batman franchise from Tim Burton and later, Joel Schumacher needs to be on the list. So does the "Jaws" franchise and live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles films.
The Robocop series
My re-living of the original film drove my curiosity, and so it was that shortly after I re-watched the first film, I dug out my old VHS copy of Robocop 2. My memories of that film were somewhat fond as well; I didn't like it near as much as I had the original, but it was more than enough to keep my attention throughout the entirety of the film. After I'd re-watched that film, it became clear to me just how far of a drop-off there exists between the first and second, not in terms of acting, or action, or anything of that nature. It just seemed as though it was fleecing those elements from the first one (quality acting, action, special effects), but declined in bringing with it the deeper stuff that had been a part of Robocop. While I feel as though that was a mistake on the part of the director for the second film (Irvin Kerschner), on the whole the film was actually quite good, and while not approaching the levels of greatness achieved by the first film, it was still definitely enjoyable. But then there's the third film (Robocop 3, of course), and in regards to that little movie during this re-living period of mine for the franchise a few months back, re-watching the third film never crossed my mind. My memories of that movie, even as a child, can be summed up like this: I've never watched it all the way through. And for a kid who loved him some Robocop, that should be enough to tell you what I thought of that movie, even then. I remember the guy playing Robocop couldn't hold a candle to what had come before (Weller was just too great in that role), and ninja robots. But the franchise makes this list due to the fact that ever since I re-watched the original, I've had this urge, a longing for a theatrical revisit to the Robocop mythos and one done with the same amount of violence and intelligence that permeated the first film. I think we're long overdue.
The Aliens vs. Predator series
The first AvPwas okay, all things considering; however, the film lacked one thing that was necessary for my utmost enjoyment in regards to what I was watching: there simply wasn't enough aliens fighting the Predators. Whenever I saw the flashback during the movie where it showed a handful of Predators in a hardcore struggle against what looked to be an entire PLANET of aliens, I couldn't help but think that THAT was what I should've been watching. On the whole, though, I couldn't complain too much about what the first AvP film carried with it, as the Predators and the Aliens both looked great, and what confrontations there were between the two came off pretty good. However, whatever good will I may have forced upon myself in regards to the first film, the second movie, Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, completely and utterly squashed said goodwill like a bug. It's a very rare thing when I claim that a film does little more than disgusts me, but here's one: AvP:Requiem disgusts me, and I truly feel that everything about it is horrible. While the AvP series on the whole can still probably be saved, my hope is, however much it may depress me, that the studios give up on the AvP stuff for now, and just give us some new Aliens and Predator films proper.
The Star Trek franchise
Out of the ten Trek films that have been released thus far, seven of them have dealt with the cast of the Original Series, and out of those, there's really only one film that I can honestly say wasn't all that good (that being the Shat' directed fifth installment and possibly Generations, though that's more of a TNG driven film, though the Original Series' cast makes appearances). The rest are all quite solid, even the glacially paced first film, and as for the remaining films in the franchise that deal with the TNG cast those are fine too, though even the best of those particular films (of which I think First Contact is) aren't quite as good as the second, third, fourth, and sixth films. However, after the bottom of the show Enterprise dropped out, for the first time in a long time, there wasn't any new Star Trek material being primed to debut either on film or television though that's about to change, as J.J. Abrams prepares to unleash his upcoming reboot' film this summer.
The Superman franchise
I laud Bryan Singer and company for recognizing the mark set by Donner's 1978 classic in their creation of 2006's Superman Returns, but while I may have been personally intrigued in their effort to craft an installment in a film continuity that hadn't been touched in nearly twenty years, I've often wondered if that is also one of the predominant reasons for the mixed-to-negative feelings in regards to Superman Returns. In a sense, apart from plot-holes and the kid', that very well could be the film's greatest failing, as: A.) the film was a slave to the pre-existing continuity and storylines, and thus had to serve the master of those who were indeed familiar with the earlier movies and reel them into a world that hadn't been explored for a good long while; and B.) the film also had to cater to those that were watching Superman Returns that potentially may not have seen the original installments in the series, hence several aspects of Returns were shared with that of the original (such as the dialogue when Supes saves the plane, and what-not).
The Spider-Man series
Spider-Man was the first live-action film based on a comic that left me feeling as though I had just truly watched a comic book come to life on the big screen as I walked out of the theater; Spider-Man 2 upped the ante and improved on the first film in every way conceivable, and it remains to be the one and only film that I've ever had the gumption to see on IMAX, as I made a special trip to Kansas City just to watch it after it had been released in that format. Good times, good memories, to be sure and then came Spider-Man 3.
So what was wrong with the film, exactly? Apart from the goofy emo turn that Peter Parker underwent after acquiring the symbiote (I actually felt a little bit embarrassed after watching the street-dancin' scene for the first time ), most people would consider the treatment of fan favorite Spidey villain Venom to be the most egregious offense that the movie committed, and I'd be in agreement with that assessment somewhat. However, I believe that the complete mishandling of Venom/Eddie Brock is only a construct of what I personally believe to be the most offensive aspect of the film. For you see, the first two films did something that I personally think was really fantastic, and something that I appreciate implicitly they had a continuous build from movie to the next, and said build pertained to the slow burn of Harry Osborn's turn to villainy. In that sense, Spider-Man 3, for all intents and purposes, should've been Harry's movie. Sure, they could have kept the Sandman in the movie if they wanted, in order to push his conflicted character as well as have that big-time CGI element that Sandman brought with it but the main focus of the movie should've been the conflict between Peter and Harry, former best friends. Instead, the lent Harry an amnesiac angle, for what I believe was the sole reason to sweep Harry to the side for a time so that the film could take the time to build up the character of Eddie Brock; other than for that reason, the amnesia angle meant absolutely nothing, lending nothing to the story of the film. And that, in my opinion, was the ultimate failure of Spider-Man 3. The Eddie Brock/Venom character would have been far better served to have been introduced and played with a little bit in this film in order to build to the next film, and nothing else. By doing that and then revisiting the character in subsequent films, they could've lent the character the same amount of weight that Harry carried with him. Instead, they chose to inject the character into the film's universe, attempted to get him over with audiences at the expense of the character that had been building up to this film since the first installment, and (presumably) run the gamut with the whole Brock/Venom/symbiote plotline in one film and in one film that shared time with Sandman and the Harry-Goblin. Logic should have dictated that, if Raimi and the studio just HAD to do the whole symbiote thing, that they introduce the symbiote as it bonds with Peter, then perhaps Peter cripples or actually kills Harry (or Sandman) due to the symbiote, which in turn would lead to Peter getting rid of the symbiote as the film ends with the symbiote falling onto Brock, of course. Oh well. You know, that whole thing didn't bother too much, when I thought that Spider-Man 3 was going to be the end of the franchise; however, since a fourth and potential fifth film have been announced, it just makes that lack of build to the Brock character THAT much more inexcusable. But, in the end, I believe that Spider-Man 3 will be looked back on as being little more than a slight bump in the road, as I think that Spider-Man 4 will see a return to form for the series.
The X-Men trilogy
To this day, the only X-Men film that I've seen in theaters was X-Men 2 and that was only the first ten minutes of the film, as shortly after Nightcrawler's attack on the White House, the movie screwed up. The theater refunded the price of admission to all the people in attendance of that particular film, with the promise that if they stuck around long enough, perhaps the theater folk could get the picture up and running again. Needless to say, I didn't stick around.
However, don't take that to mean that I disliked the films. I thought they were fine, and I bought the movies on DVD shortly after their release on home video. In regards to that, I thought that the first film was pretty good, and a pretty fun movie, all in all; X-Men 2 (I hate calling it X2) did what a sequel to a good movie is supposed to do, in that it improved upon the first film in almost every regard. In the end, I rather enjoyed myself while watching both films, and while they're not ranked among my very own personal favorites, I appreciate the quality of the two movies. The third X-Men film, The Last Stand? Eh, not so much, to which a multitude of reasons can be attributed to. So let's count them down, shall we (and if I miss any, feel free to chime in)? First off, there's just too much going on in the third film, as the film takes several plotlines from past comic story-arcs and just kind of tosses them all in the mix. The Phoenix Saga, the mutant cure angle two fairly weighty and potentially emotional storylines that could have easily carried two separate films, if not more, by themselves alone. Secondly, whereas Bryan Singer, the director of the first two films, did a fairly admirable job in handling a large cast of characters, the large cast seemed to be almost too much for new director Brett Ratner to handle, and the fact that X-Men 3 went ahead and added dozens MORE characters didn't help his cause all that much. Some characters, such as Angel, just seemed to be in the film for the sake of being there, and others, like Beast, had potential to be intriguing before they became just another face in the crowd. Thirdly, the script seemed to have been enrolled in Jeph Loeb's school of writing. For those who don't know, Jeph Loeb is, of course, a writer, perhaps best known for his stint in comics and being the co-Executive Producer and writer for the show Heroes. Now, while Loeb has indeed pumped out some good work (of which Batman: The Long Halloween comes to mind, and was one of the Batman yarns that Christopher Nolan used as a template for his own Batman films), in more recent years he's drawn some heat for producing stories that devolve into little more than shocking moment after shocking moment, with little to no build between such moments and little apparent sense for such things to happen (for proof, check out the current Marvel series Ultimatum). That's essentially what drives the heavy plot in The Last Stand: shocks, which doesn't help the natural progression of the plot, as a lot of stuff happens with no rhyme or reason for it. A major character is killed off in the first ten minutes, and by the end of the film, it appears that easily ninety-percent of the characters that appeared in the film (and the series as a whole) have either been killed or de-powered which would be absolute murder if the studio ever wanted to produce a proper X-Men 4 film, as that would require ret-cons of a Herculean effort in order to bring back the major characters with heavy relevance to the X-Men mythos that are now gone. In that sense, I suppose that this new X-Men: Origins line of prequel films is indeed the best way to go; in fact, it may be the ONLY way to continue with an X-Men film franchise.
The Crow series
Despite what others would say, I feel that The Crow is well-deserving of being ranked among the best of the best in regards to films adapted from comics. The film had a great, dark visual style, and an atmosphere that pulled in me in right from the opening scene until the end credits. Brandon Lee showcased that he could be more than just the son of a legend, and truly tapped into an (then) unforeseen talent that many weren't aware that he harbored within him which made his unfortunate death at the hands of a malfunctioned prop just that much more of a shame. In my opinion, everything about the film was a masterpiece, and, perhaps with the exception of Dark City, stands as a high watermark in the career of director Alex Proyas that he may never be able to duplicate. Most importantly, I felt that, since everything was resolved in the film, there was absolutely no need for a sequel. However, those sequels did indeed come, and much like a lot of other great films that spawned a franchise, the original movie would be the only thing great' about the series that was birthed from it.
I can remember seeing the original trailers for the second film, titled The Crow: City of Angels, and I can especially remember the levels of disinterest that I harbored towards the film, even without giving the movie a chance until years later in fact, almost a decade later. And it was about what I thought it'd be crap. Perhaps it was for the sole reason that I hold the original in such high regard as well as not really being in need of a sequel that I loathed City of Angels so much, as I've heard some people stand up for the film but I refuse to like it. The third film, Salvation, I've seen as well, and I can honestly say that I remember NOTHING from it, except for the main character riding a motorcycle. That's it. And finally, just the other day in fact, I had the pleasure' of watching the fourth film, Wicked Prayer, for the first time, starring Edward Furlong and Tara Reid and that should be all I need to say about that, though I will say that Furlong looked totally unconvincing as a bad-ass undead guy.
The Matrix trilogy
Whatever trepidations that I may have felt after watching Matrix Reloaded was quickly shunted away a month or two later, after the direct-to-DVD release of The Animatrix, a compilation of nine short films that deal with the universe and continuity set by the films. Almost of its own accord, The Animatrix was enough to really sate my interest in further learning about the universe surrounding the Matrix, as the short films really lent the continuity of the films a truly epic feel in terms of storytelling, particularly the two shorts that dealt with the Second Renaissance. By the time the third film, Matrix Revolutions was released, I was incredibly giddy to see it, mainly on the strength of the Animatrix compilation, and I was there on opening night yet again. And like a lot of other people who've seen the movie, I left feeling a little under-whelmed. Actually, I left feeling a LOT under-whelmed.
First off, allow me to address how I myself view The Matrix films. I do indeed understand and recognize a lot of the philosophical elements that are contained within the films. I've even read one review on the internet (though it escapes me where it was that I read it, or who wrote it), where the reviewer claimed that the transpirings during the Matrix series was so high-brow, so beyond normal intelligence levels, that those who didn't recognize the greatness of the issues raised within the movies were simply just not smart enough to enjoy it. However, I never, EVER bring it up when I talk about the films, for the sole reason that those philosophical elements hold very little interest for me personally. I'm more interested in good, original stories that can keep me enthralled all throughout a certain film, or even a certain franchise as a whole. When I initially watched the first film in the series, I can remember talking about the story with my friends, wondering about the many certain twists and turns in the plot that the subsequent films to follow would hold. And in my honest opinion, they held none whatsoever. Sure, there were a few revelations here and there, such as the Architect's big reveal at the end of the second film, but on the whole, what at first started off as a plot that would seemingly harbor a mind-bendingly complex and intricate plot was, in the end, as straightforward as could be so that was a disappointment for me. As well, during Revolutions, there were several sub-plots that were raised that ultimately went nowhere. For example, at the beginning of the film, it's revealed that Neo can plug himself into the Matrix without actually being physically plugged in. That's great too bad it doesn't really go anywhere or mean anything in the broad scheme of things, as he never does it again, nor is it really addressed. I mean, to me, that'd seem like a fairly big development in the power level of Neo, but it never happens again. One of the more intriguing characters introduced in the second film, The Merovingian, makes an appearance in the third film as well, though his brief role only feels as though it serves the purpose of having Trinity and company put on a super-stylized confrontation with the Merovingian's lackeys. None of the Zion stuff every really caught my attention, and though the attack on Zion in Revolutions looked exceedingly cool with well-done CGI visuals, ultimately I could've cared less about Zion. And as for the ending? I really can't recall a more anticlimactic end for any kind of big-time franchise such as this. The fight between Neo and Smith was by far the highlight of the film, but after being enslaved for God-knows-how-long by the machines, they just have a truce? You can either remain in the Matrix and serve in the same capacity as you did before (i.e. human battery), or you can leave it and eke out an existence on a barren and toxic world? Sounds like the EXACT same situation that they spent three movies fighting.
The original Batman franchise from Tim Burton and later, Joel Schumacher needs to be on the list. So does the "Jaws" franchise and live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles films.
