A-List: Unnecessary Sequels
By Josh Spiegel
August 27, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Two such sequels appear on the horizon this week, both horror films: The Final Destination, a truly brilliant bit of title craftsmanship, let me tell you; and Halloween II, the 1981 movie starring Jamie Lee Curtis...oh, whoops. Wrong movie. No, this Halloween II is directed by Rob Zombie, and features Malcolm McDowell, lots of creepy clowns, and a wrestler-cum-serial killer. Of course, I haven't seen either of these movies, so I shouldn't judge. But I will (it's just who I am); my guess is that both films will have excessive violence, heaving breasts, lowbrow characters, and even dumber dialogue. Moreover, neither film is necessary. The former features no characters from the original; the latter is just an unkillable villain killing people.
Sure, people will see the movies (though District 9 and Inglourious Basterds may draw some of the audience away), but probably only because they're there. Unnecessary movies, of course, are not uncommon in the multiplex, but that doesn't mean there are some films that are far greater offenders of being completely unnecessary, aside from the prospect of making a quick buck. One of the entries here won't be very specific, as the entire genre can go under the virtual magnifying glass (and you won't have to think hard to figure out what genre I'm referring to). Other than that, let's look at this week's A-List of unnecessary sequels.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I know, it's a bit easy to pick on this movie, but...come on. This is a bad movie. It's a bad movie in comparison to the rest of the Indiana Jones series, and it's a bad movie in general. Moreover, it is completely unnecessary. The third film in the series, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, ends with a shot of the titular hero literally riding off into the sunset. How else should a movie series end than with our beloved star ending up as happily ever after as possible? Of course, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas couldn't ignore all the fervor from fans; to be fair, as a fan of the series, I wouldn't have been against a fourth film, if it were good. Is this as major a misfire as the new Star Wars films? No, thankfully; as bad as this new movie was, it was only one, not three. Sadly, though, as awesome as Harrison Ford is, and as good of an idea as the movie have been, the film was unfortunate and unnecessary.
Horror Sequels
Yes, as mentioned above, this is the one entry that doesn't deal with one movie, but lots and lots. From the new Halloween and Final Destination films to the rest of the series, to almost every Friday the 13th iteration, to the Nightmare On Elm Street series (yes, I know there's a remake starring Jackie Earle Haley in the works, and despite my admiration for Haley...I'm willing to bet it's just a wee bit unnecessary), horror movies inspire mindless and unnecessary sequels. One of the better sequels was Scream 2, if only because it did keep its wits about it, specifically with the character of Randy, who manages to be film-literate even when getting attacked. Still, that film was made only because the first made enough money.
True, sequels in general are made because of money, but some either manage to not seem unnecessary or are just forgettable enough. Most specific horror sequels are forgettable, but the entire genre is hard to ignore. More than any other, there is a glut of movies that are made to make only a little bit of money. The most recent and egregious offender is the Saw series, which has already got a seventh film in production. A seventh Saw movie. To be fair, I've only seen the first two, but this is a series that has now eclipsed so many other series so quickly; frankly, at this rate, the series might surpass the James Bond series in terms of quantity. I'm willing, though, to make the guess that the films are unnecessary, as are most other horror flicks.
Spider-Man 3
And, perhaps, if the rumors become true, we can add "Spider-Man 4," and "Spider-Man 5," and "Spider-Man 6." Apparently, those sequels are in the works; sure, the first three films have all been wildly successful. However, the third film was so spectacularly disappointing and, even more, incredibly unnecessary. Think of it this way: the second film ends with Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson getting together, once and for all; Spider-Man takes down Doc Ock, and all is right with the world. Okay, Harry Osborne not only unmasks Spider-Man, but vows vengeance. This is a thread that could possibly take up an entire movie. Instead, Sam Raimi chose to bring in two other villains, Venom and the Sandman, and also make Peter a bit of a bad guy. Oh, and throw in a romantic subplot, too. Yikes. The movie is not only overlong, it's overloaded.
Aside from the Harry storyline (which is cheaply thrown away with a helpful bout of amnesia), Spider-Man 3 is bloat for money's sake. Again, as with the fourth installment of the Indiana Jones series, there was plenty of demand; moreover, the second film was widely considered one of the best superhero movies ever made. For it to fail so badly was a bad start to the summer of 2007, and a major black mark on the Spider-Man series. Tobey Maguire will have to do some heavy lifting, particularly, if he wants people to forget the disco scene. Oh...the disco scene; I'd almost washed it out of my mind.
Lethal Weapon 4
It's been over a decade, but don't tell me you forgot about this movie, dear readers. Here is the movie where we are supposed to accept that, in its climactic showdown, Mel Gibson not only fights Jet Li, but he beats Jet Li. Only in a movie, only in a Hollywood movie targeted at people who are either unaware or unfamiliar with Li's work, would such a ridiculous situation occur. Only here would Chris Rock and Joe Pesci engage in a battle to see who can be the most obnoxious without being funny at all. Only here would Danny Glover wear a chicken suit to distract a criminal. Only here would Mel Gibson and Danny Glover goof off with laughing gas and an evil Asian dentist. All those memories are rushing back, aren't they?
The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions
Sigh. If only Andy and Larry Wachowski had stopped at one. Again, here are two movies that followed up a phenomenal, influential, awesome sci-fi action movie. And, again, here are two movies that follow up a film with a clear and simple ending. Did there need to be a sequel? Sure, we are told by Keanu Reeves at the end of the first "Matrix" movie that the good guys are going to continue to bring down the Matrix, but...do we need anything else? The guy gets the girl, the bad guy is taken down, the mentor is saved...what else is there? Apparently, we needed action scenes taken straight from video games, muddy dancing, long and pretentious monologues from bearded wise men and...oh, it's almost too painful to think about. I should just go back to pretending that the first film was the only film in the series.