Highlander 2 is our first example of things NOT to do with a sequel, and that's change what we know. You can add to it, or delete some previous knowledge and say it was a lie, but you cannot alter a movie's universe (literally, in this case). In no way did the first film let on the monumental differences that this one is based on. And the first film was better for it. Bad, bad movie. Doesn't matter if you watch the theatrical or director's cut versions. They both suck big time. Unfortunately, it was written, directed, and stars the same people. What the hell were they thinking?
Robocop 3...oh, boy. Where to begin? Okay, to be honest, I thought the second one was stupid. Not that it doesn't have its good parts, but it was dumb, and every single thing that people say about action movies having idiotic plotlines, and drawn-out pointless, and excessively violent, action scenes, etc, I personally believe it's Robocop 2's fault. With that said, Robocop 3 is one hundred times worse than anything I could've possibly imagined. They couldn't even get Peter Weller to come back for the role, and with the exception of Screamers he hasn't made a decent movie since... Robocop. So, there it is. This movie blows, and even though the first one wasn't great, I feel sorry for it to have to sit next to this pile of crap on the rental shelves.
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, I'm sorry to say, was a movie that I rushed out to see opening day at the theatre. Wow, what a disappoinment this was. Lets take away the only shred of plot we have (people beat each other senseless at a tournament on a mysterious island where cool looking characters live) and replace it with CRAP! Let's take the cool characters the fans of the game (who are basically the only people who would pay money for a movie like this anyway) have all grown to love, and turn them into CRAP! In fact, lets just ball everything up and throw it out, and we'll just CG everything. The characters, the fights, the plot, the screenplay, the ideas that we should make money off of this, everything. Oh wait, I forgot. CGI isn't reality, so then what are we left with. CRAP! The acting sucks, not that it needed to be great, but still. The special effects look too much like special effects, with the exception of the big centaur guy (I can't remember his name now... Motauru?). And the fights were either too short or too long, and had no bearing on that tiny little thread the filmmakers referred to as the plot. One second the characters are walking along underneath the world (for some unknown reason) and suddenly a fight breaks out between some other character (who came out of nowhere, for some unknown reason) then about 30 seconds go by, the fight is over, the techno song fades down, and they walk about ten feet and it all repeats on and on and on (for some unknown reason you may still watch it after this to see if it gets better). Nothing good came from this movie. The "MK" franchise went from near global domination to non-existent, and the film killed many of the actor's careers (Robin Shou who played Lui Kang was doin' good after the first film, and made Beverly Hills Ninja with Chris Farley... funny, I haven't seen him in anything else). "MK" is just now getting back on it's feet after close to 6 years of nothing... all because of this lousy movie.
Batman & Robin, written by Academy Award winner Akiva Goldsman, ended what should have been a series that had no end. There are plenty of great Batman villains to use, plenty of original storylines and storylines to adapt. But with the help of the sometimes okay director Joel Schumacher, they blew it. The dialogue is horrible, even "Spongebob" has more intelligent lines than this. The acting is horrible, with the exception of Clooney, (if you go back and watch closely, you can almost detect a little bit of frustration as he says his lines, like he knew it sucked and was forced to do it) and Michael Gough (Alfred). Goldsman followed up this brilliant attempt at trying to write by himself (two others helped write Batman Forever) with the incredible writing job on Lost in Space, which probably wouldn't have been that bad if the script were better.
Jaws 2 is not as bad as some of the others on this list, but it's on here because, in a way, this movie started it all. Just as Jaws set the standard for the big summer blockbusters and the Hollywood action no-brainers, Jaws 2 set the standard for trying to capitalize on the first film's success by repeating the movie, almost exactly. This is the second example of what not to do with a sequel. Don't just make the same damn movie all over again. Do something original besides make it a little bit "bigger & better." Like I said, it's not bad, I'll watch it when it's on TV when there's nothing else better on, but I wouldn't go out and buy it or anything.
Nightmare on Elm Street 2 was different than Friday the 13th Part 2 and Halloween II, and that's why they are not on this list and it is. Jason was introduced in the second one, and while the rest are nowhere near as good as the first one, Jason made his debut in 2 and so it was decent. Michael Myers was set in a more realistic atmosphere, and that sequel wasn't bad either because it tried to explore more of the past history between him and the family. But Freddy needed sequels. Without the rest of the series, Freddy wasn't much. The first one only opened a door to a very interesting character with unlimited powers. You could take this character in any direction, but they chose this one. Nightmare 2 is the beginning of 'funny' Freddy, who takes cheesy lines to new lengths, and tried not to, under any circumstances, be scary. The third film saved the series by trying to at least throw some kind of a plot back into it, but this one is beyond any kind of redemption.
Superman IV is near the end of the list (making it not as bad as the ones listed before it) only because the actors are good in the roles. Gene Hackman is a good actor, and when you put him in a bad movie he's still gonna be a good actor. Reeves stayed true to character even under the most ridiculous circumstances, and Margot Kidder and Jon Cryor are great, too, considering. This is just a really dumb story with a new villain that makes no sense. The third Superman may not have been what the first two were, but it at least tried to keep the same feel, tried to bring in new villains that were somewhat thought-through, and it had that really cool fight scene between Clark and 'Evil-Superman,' so it deserves some credit for trying. This one tried not to be a good movie, and it's no surprise that they never made another one. Just like Batman, Supes had no shortage of villains, I'm not sure why they didn't pick one that worked.
Hellraiser III is yet another exaple of changing storylines when you should really just leave them the way they were. First of all, Pinhead was not the 'leader' of the cenobites, they were all equal, and the fact that he comes back (which was impossible anyway) and the others don't was just because he had become a hit with the fans. Second, this Pinhead comes from a stereotypical version of Hell, the place where the Devil lives, ya know. Nope, I read the book by Clive Barker, I'm not even sure it says the word Hell at all. They are demons, yeah... of a sort, but they come from their own hell, the hell of pleasure and pain, and the first and second films were careful not to get into the details of this for a reason. Hellraiser III however turns Pinhead into Julian Sands from Warlock with some personal vendetta against God and the world. Whatever, he's a cenobite, which means he works for The Box, that's it. He gave up his personal life when he became Pinhead, which totally negates the other fumbling storyline involving his human-side, which made no sense at all anyway.
And finally we come to The Crow: City of Angels... okay, for those that don't know, The Crow is my favorite movie. So when this came out, and I heard it had James O'Barr (the creator)'s approval, I said cool. I saw it and I had a mixed reaction that turned sour the more I thought of it. I think the film is stylish, (though most don't agree) with the gritty look of the film, mostly because the first one was so clean in its portrayal of darkness, and this set it apart. The dark tones of the second were made dirtier, applifying the dirty setting and the street-drug storyline. However, the stylish approach to seperate itself from the first was the only thing it did on that front. The storyline is basically the exact same thing, with the exception of the end, which is retarded. The film managed to make real an idea that came about when the first one hit theatres. The Crow is a superhero, I mean, he's based on a comicbook character, right? Batman, The Flash, The Green Lantern, The Crow... wait, what do you mean the title is a reference to the bird that brings the people back? No, the previews said it: "Brandon Lee is The Crow." (Actually, the previews said, "Brandon Lee IN The Crow.") So people thought (and some still do... until right now, and now they feel dumb) he was a dark avenger called The Crow, similar to Batman. But he wasn't, he was just Eric. However, the ending of the second film uses that idea of a superhero, and gives him power to use the crows (the birds, I mean) and somehow harness their power through him. Uh, no. They have the power, he doesn't. The whole plot has holes in it, and it's partly the first film's fault for changing the storyline of the comicbook. (The crow (the bird) has the power, and the whole thing where Top Dollar and his sister try to kill the bird to make him mortal is BS, he only got hurt when he strayed from his path of vengeance to help out Sarah, because it wasn't why he was there). Speaking of which, why is Sarah in the second one? It makes it seem like these things happen all the time, all over the place. It kind of takes away from the whole "...and sometimes, just sometimes, the crow can bring that soul back..." If it's not 'just sometimes' (meaning rare) it's 'all the f**king time' (meaning almost everybody comes back, or maybe it's just when a person and a loved one are brutally murdered by a gang of drugged up thugs in black leather (one of which has a cool trenchcoat The Crow can take and use as his Superman cape), and then he can come back and try to kill them only to get involved with some big drugged up self-proclaimed lord of his messed up little inner city, which he rules over in his cool yet weird apartment above a nightclub with a girl that knows the future). Whew! So that's both movies, but the first one did it much, much better. The only reason this one is not further up the list is, compared to the rest, this one is at least a well structured film, with some pretty good action scenes (even though unoriginal ripoffs of the first film) with some really good actors (playing characters that are ripoffs of the first film)... so they get points for making a film that many people enjoy (probably because they haven't seen the first film) and was a bigger box office success than the first one. So I guess to soemone the movie is just fine... but not me.
Okay, that's it, I think. Later.
Garth
Page design by GARTH-ART.
Salty Cracker Pictures c. 2002. All rights reserved.
Contact The Salty Cracker Team