Terrible Twos: MSN's The 10 Worst Movie Sequels

[The Apatow Crew]

MSN movies has up a list of what they think are the all time worst sequels.

Terrible Twos: The 10 Worst Movie Sequels


We call out those that greedily double-dipped when they should have left well enough alone

By James Rocchi
Special to MSN Movies

In 2006's wholly unnecessary "The Pink Panther," Steve Martin stepped into Peter Sellers' shoes as Inspector Clouseau and promptly fell down in an ... moreunfunny heap. And, as blasphemous as it was to imagine remaking a comedy classic like "Panther," the worse news was that this new version had done well enough to spawn a sequel.
Sure, the 2006 "Panther" was universally despised (with a 38 ranking at Metacritic -- and that's out of 100), but it did make close to $160 million at the box office worldwide, and that kind of money is its own rationalization. Sequels don't have to be wretched exercises in pure greed; "Spider-Man 2," "The Godfather: Part II," "Toy Story 2" and even "Before Sunset" are all great films that follow previous installments. But many sequels are horrible: too late, too weird, too different, or too lazy. With that in mind, here's a hall of shame naming the 10 worst sequels imaginable. For the purposes of this discussion, we only went with second installments (you can relax now, "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" and "The Matrix Revolutions") and for films that actually had theatrical release.

Staying Alive (1983)

Why a sequel? "Saturday Night Fever" made $237 million worldwide at the box office, never mind the multiplatinum soundtrack album (to this date, the "Saturday Night Fever" album has sold 15 million copies). Travolta was still a young star, and hot talent Sylvester Stallone was attached to direct. What could go wrong?

Plot: Travolta's Tony Manero has left Brooklyn for Manhattan and left the nightclub world of disco for Broadway's modern dance productions. As Tony tries to make it on Broadway in a show called -- and I wish I was kidding -- "Satan's Alley," can he keep his love of dance alive? Why it sucks: Because you don't have to be a genius to observe that the gritty, glam world of 1970s disco is very, very different than the gleaming, phony Broadway that Tony is plunged into. "Saturday Night Fever" had a dark, urban moodiness to it; "Staying Alive" gleams and glimmers like the oil smeared on Travolta's conspicuously displayed six-pack. "Staying Alive" made money; it just didn't make any sense.

Blues Brothers 2000 (1998)

Why a sequel? "The Blues Brothers," released in 1980, was a transcendent comedy hit, fusing great musical numbers with crazed slapstick as Jake (John Belushi) and Elwood (Dan Aykroyd) Blues reunited their band to save the orphanage where they grew ... moreup. Eighteen years later, Belushi was dead, but director John Landis and Aykroyd needed a hit.

Plot: Elwood gets the band back together. And mentors an orphan boy. And hires a new singer (John Goodman). And ropes an Illinois cop (Joe Morton) into the group for a "Battle of the Bands." And there's a lot of singing and some great musical performances surrounded by a few jokes and some overdone crashes. Why it sucks: Never mind the fact that, technically, with Belushi dead, any follow-up film is by definition "Blues Brother"; "Blues Brothers 2000" is an overstuffed cash grab full of extraneous characters (like the plucky orphan and Morton's cop) that bloat the movie until it bursts in a great demonstration that more isn't always better. Also, with an 18-year gap between original and sequel, the audience that roared for "Blues Brothers" had grown up and moved on, while their kids had no idea what the fuss was about.

The Sting II (1983)

Why a sequel? "The [URL="http://movies.msn.com/artist/?artist=16074923"]Sting[/URL]" earned 10 Oscar nominations in 1973, won seven Academy Awards (including Best Picture), gave Robert Redford and Paul Newman terrific roles, and featured Robert Shaw as a classic bad guy. Ten years later, "The Sting II" gives us the... more substitute con team of Mac Davis and Jackie Gleason against Oliver Reed. Uh, what?
Plot: Gleason and Davis try to take down nightclub owner Karl Malden for murdering a friend, without knowing that the first film's nemesis, Doyle Lonnegan (Reed), is behind the dastardly doings. With Davis posing as an up-and-coming boxer and Gleason pulling the strings, the con is on. Why it sucks: You can find reviews of "The Sting II" claiming it's not that bad, or, rather, it wouldn't feel so shabby if it weren't following in the footsteps of Redford and Newman. But it did follow in those big footsteps, and followed along 10 years after the first film's success. It stumbled: "The Sting" made $156 million at the box office, while "The Sting II" made $6 million. Ouch.

Legally Blonde 2: Red,White & Blonde (2003)

Why a sequel? After "Legally Blonde" made $141 million at the box office, a sequel seemed inevitable. Reese Witherspoon's transformation into a Hollywood star also meant the actress was looking for a cash cow.
Plot: Witherspoon,... more as the freshly graduated lawyer Elle Woods, goes to Washington, where she learns about democracy, makes jokes about consumerism, and sponsors a "Million Dog March" to stop animal testing, demonstrating once again her brilliant instincts under her glossy exterior. Why it sucks: Not only is "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde" impossibly lazy -- yes, Witherspoon's Elle is smarter than she looks, we get it -- but it also offered the weird sight of millions of fictional people marching against animal testing, and succeeding, at a moment in American history when, on the news, millions of real people were marching against the just-begun invasion of Iraq, and being ignored. It's hard to imagine worse timing for a fluffy, funny political comedy than the ain't-politics-funny, mistimed, misshapen "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde."

Highlaner II: The Quickening (1991)

Why a sequel? Look, regardless of merit, "Highlander" has a certain style, a certain charm, and a certain dimwit joie de vivre as immortals clash with broadswords in modern Manhattan, Queen roars on the soundtrack, and Sean Connery plays a ... moreSpaniard. Did it make sense? No. Was it fun? Yes.
Plot: In "Highlander II: The Quickening," we learn that Christopher Lambert and Connery's mystical immortals are actually space aliens. And that Connery, who died -- not-coming-back-even-though-he's-a-mystic-immortal, we-mean-it-for-keeps, he's snuffed it -- in the first film, apparently got better. Connery and Lambert then run around the future trying to stop the bad corporation that controls the big, man-made shield that replaces the ozone layer. Why it sucks: Plenty of sequels forget what made their predecessor good. "Highlander II: The Quickening" actively reverses and refutes almost everything in the first film while larding on unnecessary backstory and completely changing the tone of the saga. The DVD "Renegade Version" (wisely) excises all the space alien stuff. But listen to the commentary track; it's a celebration of rationalization as the producers defensively apologize for goofing up the franchise.

Clerks II (2006)

Why a sequel? After the critical and commercial drubbing of his labored labor of love "Jersey Girl," Kevin Smith needed a hit, and figured that going back to the low-rent, minimum-wage workers of his breakout hit "Clerks" would be a good place to return to his... more roots.
Plot: Following up "Clerks," "Clerks II" brings back motor-mouthed Randal (Jeff Anderson) and sad sack Dante (Brian O'Halloran) after a 12-year hiatus. Now working at a fast-food place, Randal and Dante try to find real work and true love. Why it sucks: Smith should have known that the potty-mouthed bravado of his debut was the kind of lightning in a bottle that can't be reproduced, and that making a career out of screeching, swearing sex talk isn't the wisest choice. Also, taking Dante and Randal out of their grubby, real convenience store and video shop and plopping them into a gleaming, overdesigned fast-food place just highlighted O'Halloran and Anderson's limited acting skills. "Clerks II" was about people on dead-end, humiliating career paths; it might be one of the most autobiographical things Smith has ever done.

^^^^I Have to diasagree with them on this one righr here.

Weekend At Bernie's II (1993)

Why a sequel? Because America had already laughed at the sight of two underachieving leading men (Jonathan Silverman and Andrew McCarthy) contorting a corpse into various positions and dragging a dead man from Point A to Point B in 1989's "Weekend... more at Bernie's." Add in surprising profitability on home video, and a sequel became a -- ahem -- dead certainty.
Plot: Silverman and McCarthy, just as in the first film, have to drag their dead boss (played, surprisingly well, by Terry Kiser) around in the pursuit of safety and riches. Why it sucks: The first film kind-of-sort-of got every possible joke out of the dead-man bit, while the second film adds a vaguely insulting voodoo subplot. Add in the fact that "Weekend at Bernie's II" picks up the action the day after the first film while McCarthy and Silverman both look four years older and terribly, terribly tired, and the entire movie feels like, uh, beating a dead horse.

Grease 2 (1982)

Why a sequel? "Grease" turned a little-known musical into a cult-favorite sing-along smash; why wouldn't you want to try to recapture that? Add in a $394 million take at the box office, and going back to Rydell High is a no-brainer.
Plot: "No-brainer" might,... more in fact, describe the plot, as "Grease 2" simply inverts the first film's romance between bad boy John Travolta and virtuous transfer student Olivia Newton-John, as English exchange student Maxwell Caulfield embarks on a risky romance with bad girl Michelle Pfeiffer. This isn't a sequel; it's the same movie in drag. Why it sucks: Directed by "Grease" choreographer Patricia Birch, "Grease 2" even has lame songs, like a rousing anthem to the pleasure of bowling ("Let's Score") and another number set in a sex-ed class ("Reproduction"). Pfeiffer has a certain scrappy appeal, but Caulfield might as well not even be there; he's blond, bland and disposable. Plus, "Grease" was an exercise in nostalgia; "Grease 2" feels like it's asking us to get nostalgic over nostalgia, and that's the most depressing thing imaginable.

Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997)

Why a sequel? "Speed," with Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, became the little action movie that could, with a bus rigged to blow if it dipped below 55 mph thanks to mad bomber Dennis Hopper. Who wouldn't want to bring that team back?
Plot: ... moreApparently not Fox, who subbed Jason Patric when Reeves refused to come aboard, and plopped Patric and Bullock into a danger-at-sea plot as Willem Dafoe hijacks a cruise ship. (Rumor has it that the original script was intended as a possible "Die Hard" installment.) Why it sucks: Patric isn't Reeves, and the decision to move ahead with a sequel without Reeves made the film feel like even more of an empty exercise in money-mad marketing over storytelling. The plot also lacked the original's pure pitch -- if the bus slows down, the bus goes BOOM! -- offering fairly generic action stunts instead.

What is the worst sequel ever made and why? Write us at [email protected]

http://movies.msn.com/movies/galleryfeature/worst-sequels/?photoidx=1

 

[Boom]

Uh. Clerks II was awesome. What the **** are they talking about?

 

[The Apatow Crew]

Uh. Clerks II was awesome. What the **** are they talking about?

I know right?

 

[Batman]

I prefer Clerks II over Clerks I.

 

[K.B.]

I like it better then clerks 1 as well.

 

[CFE]

I don't like it better than the original 'Clerks,' but it still has no business being mentioned here.

 

[Bim]

I actually enjoyed Grease 2 , Staying Alive and Clerks II out of that list

 

[Jennifer Walters]

The first Grease sucked let alone the second one.

Clerks 2 doesn't deserve to be on this list. The rest are pretty accurate. Though I do enjoy the Legally Blonde sequel, it's just a little too over the top of a situation for Elle to get in to and succeed.

 

[CFE]

For those counting only 9 films in the OP, Apatow left off "Caddyshack II" ... for some reason

It's #4 on the list.

 

[Steyin]

Both Clerks sucked IMO.

 

[The Sarge]

Add me to the list that liked Clerks 2 better than Clerks.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Both Clerks sucked IMO.

-roll eyes- Then oh wise one, what is a good comedy? Cause both of the Clerks are two of the most funny recent comedies in recent eras/time.

And they accurately portrayed employee rapport at the places they were set in I find.

 

[The Apatow Crew]

For those counting only 9 films in the OP, Apatow left off "Caddyshack II" ... for some reason

It's #4 on the list.

I knew I forgot one. it yeah thats on there also.

I knew i forgot one, but was too lazy to look back.

 

[thejon93]

How about 'Dumb and Dumberer'?

 

[K.B.]

And they accurately portrayed employee rapport at the places they were set in I find.

Maybe the second one but def not the first. No one actually talks like that let alone any 21 year olds. Even Smith himself has said so over the last few years.

 

[CFE]

How about 'Dumb and Dumberer'?

Well that's technically a prequel...not sequel...

 

[I'm Old Greg]

i Couldn't even watch Clerks 2 so I agree with them there.
I used to be such a Kevin Smith Fan...he hasn't made a good watchable flick since Chasing Amy, everything from then on really lacks...

 

[Eggyman]

That list is complete dogsh**.

I'm not even going to give it enough credit to comment on any of the films mentioned.

 

[thejon93]

Well that's technically a prequel...not sequel...

I don't care. It's that bad.

 

[Drizzle]

That list is complete dogsh**.

I'm not even going to give it enough credit to comment on any of the films mentioned.

Actually, I'd say that list is pretty accurate except for Clerks II.

 

[Eggyman]

Actually, I'd say that list is pretty accurate except for Clerks II.

Cool. Gets my heart pumping when someone disagrees with me.