Good sequels to bad movies?

MakeEmLaugh

Can anyone think of an example of a terrible film which nevertheless produced a sequel that happened to be of some value?

I am not talking about sequels which are better than their already decent predecessors (so no The Godfather Part II, The Empire Strikes Back, Terminator 2 and so on...)

So, for example, V/H/S, the found footage horror film from 2012, is 55% rotten on Rotten Tomatoes. However, it's follow up V/H/S 2 is generally considered to be a big improvement, with 70% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

Another obvious example is Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. Star Trek: The Motion Picture from 1979 is generally considered, in the words of Kevin Smith, "a boring f-cking movie", whereas The Wrath of Khan is considered by many to be the best Star Trek film.

Any other examples of good films which happen to be sequels to bad ones?

Mickeroo

The Devil's Rejects, was the sequel to House of a 1000 Corpses. The first was pretty crap but the 2nd was great fun. Probably the only half way decent thing Rob Zombie has done.

I said

If the 1st one was crap why bother going to see the sequel

antodeco

D2: The mighty ducks

FortuneChip

I thought the first Hunger Games was pretty poor. The second one was a massive improvement.

Skerries

Mad Max? I know people love it but I much preferred 2 and 3
and if you include remakes then Dredd

Mickeroo

I said wrote: »

If the 1st one was crap why bother going to see the sequel

Word of mouth, reviews etc.

brianregan09

The 1st wolverine was terrible but the sequel was alot better still not amazing but definitly a solid movie

mdolly123

FortuneChip wrote: »

I thought the first Hunger Games was pretty poor. The second one was a massive improvement.

Yeah much better movie the second one. Looking forward to part 3

Mike Litoris

Skerries wrote: »

Mad Max? I know people love it but I much preferred 2 and 3

Interesting thread.


For me, Mad Max also, its is the only one I can think of. 1st one just didn't do it for me.

krudler

Mad Max for me too

X-Men 2, the first movie is rubbish, it hasnt held up well at all, aside from the opening scene in WW2 that was great.

K4t

Inbetweeners.

Zubeneschamali

I loved Aliens from the first time I saw it at the cinema. Alien scared me, but I didn't really like it, and it annoys me on rewatches with all the horror movie "split up and look for the cat" stuff.

Skerries

I don't think you can call Aliens a like for like sequel as the first was a haunted house in space film whereas the 2nd was a balls to the wall action film, and so you have to base your opinion on the two separate genres which they succeed at very well

_Kaiser_

Skerries wrote: »

I don't think you can call Aliens a like for like sequel as the first was a haunted house in space film whereas the 2nd was a balls to the wall action film, and so you have to base your opinion on the two separate genres which they succeed at very well

But it follows on (directly) from the original and the change in genre makes it all the better

Hence, a better sequel

Right Turn Clyde

I think that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a bad movie. It's disjointed, badly paced and with a script that needed tightening up. Given the budget, the cast-list and Jackson's previous success with the LOTR trilogy, I can't think of it as anything other than a failure. The 48 fps issue only added to it woes; it looked like a HD morning television show.

Its sequel, The Desolation of Smaug, was better. It's not a great movie. It's not even a very good one. But it was good. It moved along at a better pace and its set-pieces were better constructed. Crucially, it done what a first sequel in a planned trilogy ought to do - leave you wanting more. The first movie didn't do that.

e_e

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

I think that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a bad movie. It's disjointed, badly paced and with a script that needed tightening up. Given the budget, the cast-list and Jackson's previous success with the LOTR trilogy, I can't think of it as anything other than a failure. The 48 fps issue only added to it woes; it looked like a HD morning television show.

It's sequel, The Desolation of Smaug, was better. It's not a great movie. It's not even a very good one. But it was good. It moved along at a better pace and its set-pieces were better constructed. Crucially, it done what a first sequel in a planned trilogy ought to do - leave you wanting more. The first movie didn't do that.

I feel exactly the opposite.

Right Turn Clyde

e_e wrote: »

I feel exactly the opposite.

Haha, that's the movies for ya.

One of my favourite films is You've Got Mail, so feel free to disregard every word that comes out of my mouth. :P

TheBrinch

I would say 'The Raid 2' was extremely good compared to the pretty awful 'The Raid'.

At the same time, everyone else I know that has seen the first one said it was amazing.

Right Turn Clyde

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

But it follows on (directly) from the original and the change in genre makes it all the better

Hence, a better sequel

Yeah, but this thread isn't about 'better' sequels. It's about good sequels to bad movies. You don't like Alien, fair enough, but would you really call it a bad movie? Not many people would.

Deano7788

TheBrinch wrote: »

I would say 'The Raid 2' was extremely good compared to the pretty awful 'The Raid'.

At the same time, everyone else I know that has seen the first one said it was amazing.

:eek: The Raid was brilliant!