The Best Sequels Ever
(at least, in my stupid opinion)
This article will come out in installments: first, the honorable mentions, which will provoke many to anger because of one of two things: 1. "Why the **&#*&$#*$ is that one the list?" and 2. "Why the *&%@#*# is that one so low?" And I can answer both of those very simply.
Because it's my opinion. Also, because it's the right opinion. Why is it the right opinion? Because I'm 19, so I'm automatically right until I turn 23 and realize how stupid I am. I'm allowed my years of knowing everything and being the smartest person on earth just like everyone else, and you will respect that fact. Or else.
First, a little bit of defining is needed. First, it's not just "how good is the film in comparison to the original." In that case, "The Godfather" sequels would be completely ineligible, because, in comparison to the original, they suck. Part II is one of the 50 or so greatest films ever made, and the underrated Part III is also an incredibly powerful film, but in comparison to the original, they both stink. Nothing can compare to the original Godfather film. On the other hand, the greatest sequels of all time would end up being Star Trek II, Batman Forever, Batman Returns, Batman Begins, From Russia With Love, and Kill Bill 2, in that order. (in all fairness, some of those films do appear on my list, but certainly not in that order) That's a little too much Batman for even me on one list, especially right in a row. (of course, my opinions about the Batman films are different than most peoples, so in most people's opinion, it would be Star Trek II, Batman Begins, and Batman Returns - more on Forever down below)
However, it can't entirely be based on just how good a film the movie is. The order would be skewed by a mixture of opinion and the fact that I cannot think of a single objective criteria on which to say whether The Empire Strikes Back is better than Return of the Jedi.
In the end, the question is something like this: how much does this film 'honor' the memory of the first film, and how good is it on its own? The mixture of the two is what makes such a list.
Before I get on with it (if you're impatiet, just scroll down already), I want to point out what a sequel really is. A sequel needs to be a film involving the same, or at least a few of the same, characters, themes, and storylines. It doesn't have to be a duplicate - in fact, it should be substantially different in some ways - but it does need to be the same people and usually the same universe. (an exception being something so out-of-left-field as New Nightmare, which still uses some of the same themes and characters as the original, but in a totally different universe) Consequently, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, which is only a sequel because of Clint Eastwood playing a similar character.
Finally, as always, this is just my opinion. If you disagree, make your own website and say so. (or, when I post up an address, write me an e-mail if you don't want to go through all that work)
Someday, I plan to put images in this particular page. But not right now.
And now I see all the people from Monty Python yelling "GET ON WITH IT!" at me, so I'll shut up and get started.
First, honorable mentions, then a handful of runner-ups (I just found too many films that I couldn't not mention), and then, the top 15, which will be implemented one at a time irregularly whenever the heck I feel like it.
HONORABLE MENTIONS:
(in no particular order) Terminator 2, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Psycho II, Kill Bill: Volume II, X2: X-Men United, A Shot In The Dark, Desperado, Die Hard 2, Rocky II
RUNNER-UP: Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome
This is going to seem like a strange inclusion, and you're probably already backing out, but give me a moment to explain. First, this isn't as good as the first two. It isn't nearly as good. The first two rank among the few best action films ever. This one is a let-down in comparison. The climax, although exciting, doesn't have the jaw-dropping, pulse-pounding adrenaline rush that the other action scenes in the series deliver. However, with that in mind, neither of the first two do such an incredible job of exploring the world they create. The atmosphere and setting of this film are awe-inspiring; it fleshes the world out in a way that's not just cool-looking, but genuinely compelling, exploring the different cultures and landscapes. As for the action, while the climax is a litle weak, the Thunderdome fight is possibly the best one-on-one mano-a-mano fistfight ever. But most importantly, it continues the development of the character of Max. It brings him almost full circle, letting him become fully human again after turning psychotic at the end of the first; in the second, he began to find his way again, but this one brought him there. And it left him where it should: still wandering, but more complete now.
RUNNER-UP: Chasing Amy/Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
Two very different films, but both showing different aspects of the same universe: the Kevin Smith Askewniverse; or, more precisely, Kevin Smith's rambling, which is the rudest, more offensive, and probably funniest rambling you'll find today, but also intelligent; a world populated by many memorable characters, but main Jay and Silent Bob. The laws of physics are not consistant here, but the characters, dialogue, and humor are. First, Chasing Amy is a compelling, realistic, down-to-earth romantic-comedy/drama. Because of the depth of the characters and level of performances by Ben Affleck, Joey Lauren Adams, and Jason Lee, and the intelligence of the script, this did a wonderful job exploring the mindset of modern-day slackers toward the world from a different perspective than Smith's Clerks. More importantly, it did it an a wonderfully entertaining, genuinely moving, and occassionally hilarious way. Everything in the film is so good that it's easy to forgive the stupid, out-of-character climax and the non-stop offensiveness. And then, there's Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. This film is not set in the real world, or anything like it. The plot is a mess. The characters (besides Jay and Silent Bob) are basically silly stereotypes. But it's very simple why this film is listed: it's absolutely hilarious.
And to answer your two questions: yes, these do count as sequels, and yes, I do feel very, very guilty for having actually mentioned that I watched and enjoyed these two films enormously. But I was brought up to tell the truth, and so I have.
RUNNER-UP: 2010: The Year We Make Contact
The fact that someone actually made a sequel to 2001 one that did stink to the high heavens for one reason or another is reason enough to mention this film. Of course, it isn't the extraordinary experience the original is, but it's an entertaining, exciting, and thought-provoking film that may not be as worthwhile as the first, but is an excellent film on its own.
RUNNER-UP: Rambo: First Blood Part II
Hey, I'm a 19-year-old guy. I like watching things blow up. A lot. This isn't an intelligent movie, or one that could exist in any sort of reality whatsoever. However, it is an absolute blast on a mindless level to watch Sylvester Stallone single-handedly win the previously lost Vietnam War, kill hundreds of bad guys, and blow just about everything up. Not only are there explosions, though; the explosions are spectacularly and thrillingly done by director George Cosmotos (who later made one of my favorite Westerns, Tombstone), and Rambo isn't the one-dimensional guy he became in the third; he has at least enough depth to be somewhat interesting.
RUNNER-UP: Batman Returns
The Tim Burton Batman movies were style over substance, plain and simple. This one didn't do quite as dazzling a job as the first in creating Gotham City, and it didn't have the dark thrill the first created out of pure atmosphere, and the action scenes kind of stink, to be honest, but it did add more than enough substance to work: four compelling characters and relationships. First, there was The Penguin, whose disturbing, unpleasant history creates a villain whom you can almost but not quite understand. You despise him, and yet, in a small way, you feel for him. His final moments are surprisingly moving. Then, there's Christopher Walken's Max Schreck, a twisted and greedy business tycoon, but not one without humanity or redemption; the moment when he sacrifices himself for his son by using his crafty, insidious ways is a wonderfully complex scene that's handled by Walken as you'd expect. And then there's Catwoman, brilliantly brought to life by Michelle Pfeiffer. And Batman, whose character becomes and exploration of someone who has intentionally become lonely, and can't react when given the chance to have a companion; more importantly, Michael Keaton makes him likeable. This doesn't explore the depths of the central character like Forever and Begins, but it does at least make him interesting. And the best element of the film - the romance between Catwoman and Batman - is a classic, unforgettable tale that redeems the film's faults.
RUNNER-UP: The Silence of the Lambs
In all honesty, this really should be higher on the list, except I'm not sure if it actually counts as a sequel. It did have a predessessor, Manhunter, and a prequel, Red Dragon, both based on Thomas Harris' book Red Dragon. However, Silence has absolutely nothing to do with Manhunter, which is a Michael Mann thriller. The one link, the character of Hannibal Lector, is played in a totally different manner by Brian Cox than Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins gave an unforgettable, scene-stealing, absolutely riviting performance by forgetting about "realism" and going for memorability. Cox, on the other hand, gave a quietly sinister, extremely subtle version of the doctor which may not be as memorable, but is certainly an excellent interpretation. It also takes place in a totally different universe. Manhunter takes place in the Michael Mann universe, where everything is stylized, slightly eerie, and with music that sustains its final note past the fade-out that gives an intense yet cathartic impression to the moments. Silence, on the other hand, has a very different style, that of a dark thriller with dramatic elements; it happens in the Thomas Harris universe. Then, there was the remake, Red Dragon, which did have Hopkins, and also happened in the Harris universe. However, it was a prequel, which also seems like a wrong reason to call something a sequel. Under that reasoning, Star Wars: A New Hope is a sequel. That just seems wrong to me. But this is sort of a sequel, and it's based on a book that was a sequel, so I'll just knock it down on the list about 12 places and call it fair.
Anyway, this is an extraordinary movie. It's the only horror film ever to win the Best Picture Oscar, and there's a reason why. A scary, riviting, and exhilerating thriller that works more because of its dramatic elements than the thriller ones. The most intense and scariest scene is not Hannibal's escape (which is the film's second-best scene, and one of the most terrifying, heart-pounding scenes in history), nor the attempts of the victim to escape Buffalo Bill's hideout, or the climax (both of which are very intense scenes). The most intense and horrific sequence is the dialogue between Hannibal and Jodie Foster's Clarice where she reveals her deepest, darkest secrets to him, explaining what the titular "silence of the lambs" really means. It's a haunting, indescribably powerful moment that will never be forgotten by a viewer.
RUNNER-UP: Batman Forever
When this film was first released into theaters, it was a big hit. People absolutely loved it. Then, two years later, Batman and Robin came out, and was shot to pieces by the critics. Compared to audiences, they were kind. What was really sad, though, was the fact that not only was it poorly received, but years later, the movie had some backlash, and it was as if Batman and Robin were the worst piece of cinematic crud of the entire 1990s. Now, no question, it's a very stupid, subpar film. The major downside, though, was that people then extended this backlash onto Joel Schumancher's previous film, Forever, and it, too, was considered tarnished. That's really sad when you really consider Batman Forever, which, for all its flaws, improves in nearly every way on its two predecessors. For the first time, Batman and Bruce Wayne are both really explored as characters. They are given depth beyond mere figures. Thanks is due to the somewhat inconsistant but underrated writer Akiva Goldsman (whose filmography goes from the heights of A Beautiful Mind to the depths of, well, Batman and Robin), but the real greatness of the portrayal goes to Val Kilmer, who, to my way of thinking, is Batman. (in fact, Batman creator Bob Kane stated that Kilmer was the best of all the on-screen Batmans). The psychological apsect of the film was part of what made it so compelling; however, the film in fact explored all its characters, giving them depth and reality. Finally, Schumancher is better at action scenes than Tim Burton. He ain't exactly John Woo, but he puts them together satisfyingly. And, because the characters are so well drawn, the scenes are more thrilling than they ought to be. And you can't beat the fun of watching Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones trying to see which one can go further over the top. (for the record, Carrey chews a little more scenery, but Jones gives a better-rounded portrayal, and only lost the scenery-chewing contest because of Carrey's wonderful delivery of the "I'm Batman!" line) This film doesn't deserve the tarnish it was given from its sequel; ignore that one, and take this for what it is: a summer action flick that's WAY better than it had to be.
bravenet.com