Angry Video Game Nerd Wiki

James Rolfe: There's something there has to be said about movie sequels; they just aren't as good as the originals. Of course there are exceptions but most the time sequels just can't live up to the hype. Either they follow the same formula and suffer from being too predictable or they try something new that deviates from audiences' expectations. Audiences go to the extreme and give movies a reputation for being worse than they actually are. So I'm picking out sequels that all have their flaws but I think have been judged unfairly. It's Cinemassacre's "Top Ten Sequels That Aren't As Bad As Everyone Says".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#10 - The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)[]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

James: The reaction was kinda mixed but I think anyone would agree it's not as good as the first. It just doesn't have the same feel. I think it feels a bit more like a remake of the classic "The Lost World" from 1925, where explorers encounter dinosaurs in an uncharted land and bring one of them back. It's the basic formula for a monster movie. It seems like Spielberg was trying to recreate that. In this regard it works, but as a sequel to "Jurassic Park" it falls short. The human characters are boring, but the dinosaurs are still fun to watch and the action scenes are thrilling. When the T-Rex got loose in San Diego I thought that was pretty cool. Overall it's good entertainment. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#9 - Ghostbusters 2 (1989)[]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

James: Whenever this movie comes up in a conversation everybody is quick to dismiss it. It's definitely not as good as the first but that was a tough act to follow. There was no way they could've matched the same level of charm and delicate humor a second time around. It just couldn't be done, but they sure tried. The only criticism I have is that it borrows too heavily from the original. It plays it safe and takes no risks. But it's just as epic as ever. A river of slime flowing underneath the city feeding on everyone's negative emotions, a carpathian spirit that's gonna bring about the end of the world on New Years Day. 

Egon: Ray!? Uh, we would like to shoot the monster. Could you move, please? 

James: There's plenty of great gags, like when the Titanic arrives. And the humor is still on cue with the original. Ray and Egon spit out enough technical jargon to keep you laughing. 

Ray: You think there's a connection between this Vigo character and the… slime?

Egon: Is the atomic weight of cobalt 58.9?

James: And Peter Venkman is just as funny as ever.

Dana: So what do you think? 

Peter: Well, he's ugly. 

James: And Louis Tully hasn't lost one ounce of his humorous persona.  

Louis: My guys are still under a judicial restraining order. The blue thing I got from her, they can be exposing themselves. 

Peter: And you don't want us, exposing ourselves! 

James: If you like the first one I say give the second one a chance. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#8 - Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)[]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

James: "Terminator 2" was one of the best movies ever made, so I can't even believe they made a third movie. The second one ended the story; they destroyed Cyberdyne, wiped out all traces of the Terminator and prevented Judgement Day. James Cameron tied that knot so tight that when the third movie came along they had no choice but to cheat the mythology a little, just so a third movie would even be possible. 

John Connor: But we stopped Judgement Day!? 

The Terminator: You only postponed it – Judgement Day is inevitable. 

James: I think the main problem with this movie is that it copied the same format as the other films. It doesn't do anything new. But as an action movie it's a blast! The scene where the Terminator is hanging on a crane is one of the best action scenes from the past decade. It's meant to be seen on a big screen with a good sound system. In other words it was destined to theater. The Terminator can be really funny too. 

The Terminator: Your levity is good. It relieves tension and the fear of death. 

James: And it's not like there was no comic relief in the second movie either. 

The Terminator (in "Terminator 2"): Chill out, dickwad. 

James: If you enjoy it for what it is, it's entertaining as hell. 

The Terminator: You are terminated! 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#7 - Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990)[]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

James: I'm not sure why everyone disapprove of it so much. I guess because it's so wild and crazy, but to me that's what a "Gremlins"-movie is supposed to be. It obviously doesn't match the subtle charm of the original and may were aware of it, so instead they sort of spoofed the original. They make fun of the 'Don't feed them after midnight'-rule, there are gremlins attacking film critic Leonard Maltin, there are parents complaining in the theater lobby and there's Hulk Hogan yelling at the gremlins to turn the projector back on. With the gremlin characters they raised the bar this time; there's a spider gremlin, an electric gremlin, a bat gremlin and many more. There's an Al Lewis wannabe playing a Dracula-host and speaking of Dracula there's Christopher Lee playing a mad scientist – you can't go wrong there. 

My favorite character is a business tyco named Daniel Clamp who's obsessed with modern advancements. He's the opposite of the old man from the first movie who hated technology. Clamp is the head of this huge futuristic office building. Every room has some kind of voice speaking to you, there's revolving doors moving on their own. It's all just unnecessary technology and it's such a pleasure to see the gremlins destroy this place. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#6 - Psycho 2 (1983)[]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

James: You don't even have to watch it to determine its fate. You're probably thinking the same thing I did; "Psycho 2?! Are you kidding me?". It's in color, it's made 23 years after the original and 3 years after the death of Alfred Hitchcock – sounds like they just waited for him to die. Well, the author of the original novel actually wrote another book too. It was after Hitchcock's death but before the movie was made. In the novel sequel Hollywood is making a movie based on Norman Bates. Apparently the studio hated the book because it was making fun of all the slasher movies that "Psycho" had spawned. So the screenplay was written without any input from the author. 

"Psycho 2" is really not that bad a movie. Anthony Perkins returns to his signature role as Norman Bates and he still does a good job. He's sympathetic this time around, playing an insane character that's trying to fit back into society. The plot contains enough twists to keep it interesting and the suspense is high. It's definitely better than lots of the other slasher sequels that were going on at the time. But if you compare it with the original it's doomed. Good sequel, but "Psycho 3" and "4"; forget about them. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#5 - Back to the Future Part 3 (1990)[]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

James: I admit that when I first saw this movie I didn't really like it. I guess because the first two are so tightly wrapped together it made the third seem more distant. Taking place in 1885 with a wild west theme made it stick out like a black sheep of the series. But it's grown on me and now I think it's pretty good, so I say give it another chance. Sure that Clara character was a little annoying… 

Clara: Golly! 

James: But the Doc is just as fascinating as ever. It's interesting to see him try to work in such an old-fashion time period. He has to built an enormous machine just to produce one ice cube. 

Doc Brown: Ice tea! 

James: The dialogue between Doc and Marty is still just as funny and intriguing as always. It wraps up the trilogy nicely and presents a satisfying closure to the story. Every time I watch it I notice something new, like that… 

(A kid on the train uses weird handsignals)

James: What's the kid doing? 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#4 - Rocky 5 (1990)[]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

James: I haven't heard anyone say one good thing about this movie. Even Sylvester Stallone despises it and gave it a rating of 'zero', which is hilarious.

TV host: "Rocky 5"?

Sylvester Stallone: Uh, zero.

TV host: That-- Was it that bad?

Sylvester Stallone: Yeah, it was bad.

James: It's definitely the worst of the series, but come one – it's not that bad. They at least gave it a good shot and tried really hard to recapture the spirit of the original. John Avildsen returns as the director, they bring Rocky back to his humble roots, he's wearing his old clothes, Adrian is working at the pet shop again and Mickey returns for a flashback. Still it didn't cut it, I know, but they tried.

Drinker: Yo Rocky, you need some help?

Rocky: No, guys. It ain't no pie eating contest.

James: I think the biggest flaw is the meat-headed attitude it portrays where fighting is the answer to everything. Rocky's son gets picked on by a bully and the solution is to hit some bags, come back and punch the kid out. And the street fight at the end, Rocky versus Tommy Gunn – even though I love this scene, there's no reason for it. It doesn't solve anything. Rocky is still broke and Tommy is still the champ. But you gotta admit it is exciting to see Rocky get into a real fight outside the ring for once. Bottom line; crappy movie but great ending.

George W. Duke: Touch me and I'll sue.

(Rocky uppercuts Duke)

Rocky: Sue me for what?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#3 - Spiderman 3 (2007)[]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

James: When I saw this movie in the theater I really had no idea it was gonna be one of those kind of movies that everybody hates. From what I gather the big issue was Venom. "Spiderman"-fans were really looking forward to this character. Sam Raimi had no intention of using him, so Venom was thrown in at the last minute just to satisfy the fans but only to have them backlash. To me the main villain of the movie is actually Spiderman. He's arrogant, he's vengeful and basically he's going mad. So when he's tearing off the black suit it's like he takes out his inner demon into an external form that he can actually face. So it wasn't really about fighting Venom, it was about fighting the thing that corrupted him.

Other than that it's all nitpicking; Spiderman goes emo, and there's a few dancing scenes – it's all everybody talks about. Did everyone fall asleep during the good parts? What about when Spiderman is fighting Sandman in the subway? That was awesome! Everyone says they cram too much into this movie. Maybe so, but that's what I enjoyed about it. It's fast paced and there's lots of shit happening. It's a story of revenge. Spiderman blames the Sandman for the death of his uncle and Harry Osborn blames Spiderman for the death of his father. In the end they all have to learn their facts and forgive each other. I think that's pretty cool because it's not often you get to see a hero and villain come to an agreement. I think it's a satisfying finale to the trilogy. It has its faults, it could've been better. But 'horrible'? I don't think so.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#2 - Halloween 3: Season of the Witch (1982)[]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

James: I have not once ever heard anyone criticize this movie without focusing their entire criticism on the fact that Michael Myers is not in it. I'm surprised no one complains about 'Season of the Witch' – there's no witches in the movie. Let me start off by saying the "Halloween"-series should've ended right after "2". The first one was an accidental masterpiece and stands alone. But it ends on a cliffhanger, so if you really wanna see what happens that's why we have "2". It continues the story and wraps it up. To put it bluntly they kill Michael Myers. Both he and Dr. Loomis are blown away in a fiery explosion. The last we see of Michael he's a burning corpse. That's deader than he's ever been in the whole series! That's should've been sequel-proof.

So they decided to take the series in a different direction and make it an anthology series – each with a different halloween-themed story. Imagine all the things that can happen on halloween. I think it would've been far more interesting if they continued in this direction instead of rehashing the same Michael Myers story over and over again. Yeah, looking back with all the sequels that've come after it, it doesn't make sense to call it "Halloween 3" anymore. Especially when they stopped numbering the sequels after "5" anyway. And it's even more confusing for most people that the first two movies had Michael Myers. They both take place the same night and are very much like a two-parter, so the third movie sticks out like a sore thumb.

So forget that it's a sequel to "Halloween" because it really isn't and don't think of it as a slasher movie because it's not. It's about an evil mastermind who wants to return halloween to its sacrificial origins.

Conal Cochran: The festival of Samhain. The last great one took place 3000 years ago, when the hills ran red… with the blood of animals and children.

James: This is a guy who celebrates halloween hardcore. The synthesizer music is really creepy and gives the movie its haunting atmosphere. The death scenes are really grotesque. Tell me this movie doesn't have balls – it shows kids getting killed! It uses halloween as a consumer device; a corporate giant that literally devours all the children. It's a different kind of "Halloween"-movie that should be appreciated in its own right.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#1 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)[]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

James: In recent years I have never heard so much hatred for a motion picture. The gofers, the fridge, the monkeys, the alien… I get it. With the gofers and the monkeys it's only a few seconds. The fridge… Yeah okay, it went a little farfetched – as if nothing farfetched ever happened before in an "Indiana Jones"-movie. Of course you can't survive a nuclear bomb, it's just a fucking movie. You also can't survive flying off a cliff on a tank or dropping out of a plane on a rubber raft and sliding off a mountain slope. It's common knowledge that Spielberg is inspired by the "James Bond"-franchise; the guy who escapes near-death scenarios all the time. That's what it's all about.

About the alien; did it really come as that much of a surprise? It's practically in the title 'Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'. Did anyone do their homework? Did anyone know that the crystal skulls are believed to be extraterrestrial? There were tons of documentaries on TV in preparation for this movie's release. I guess nobody watched them… The only thing I hated about the alien was that it was CG. The design of the alien is obviously a tribute to the 1950's B-movies like "Invasion of the Saucer-men". And since this movie takes place in the 50's I can see what they're going for. But there was no CG in the 50's and that's what makes it look so out of place. Either make it look classic or do something entirely original.

The audience's consendence went further to say that aliens simply don't belong in an "Indiana Jones"-movie. I wouldn't go that far. Aren't the "Indiana Jones"-movies all about fantasy? We have ghosts that come out of an arch that melt and explode people's faces, voodoo dolls, hearts being ripped out of people's chest and a knight who sits in a cave for hundreds of years guarding the Holy Grail. But there's a 'no extraterrestrial'-policy?! People back up their argument by saying that the rest of "Indiana"-movies all focused on a religious artifact.

Mutt Williams: No, no. God's head is not like that!

Indiana Jones: Depends on who your god is.

James: Exactly! Depends who your god is. It's all about a higher power. I mean, he found the Holy Grail already – how do you top that? I don't know what everyone expected. The only reason you see a movie like this is for the nostalgia factor. After 20 years I never thought they would make another "Indiana Jones"-film, so it was just a nice little treat to be able to see one on the big screen. The way they reveal Indy I thought was really cool – the way they keep you in suspense. First you see his hat, then his shadow and then welcome back my man. Take Harrison Ford out of the picture and it's just your average shitty action flick. Everyone seems to forget what "Indiana Jones" was all about in the first place. It was a tribute to B-movies and old adventure serials. You check your brain at the door, sit down and enjoy. I got a genuine impression that Spielberg and Lucas were having fun with it. I got a carefree feeling that I was sitting at an old-time Saturday Matinee.

Bottom line; the movie was okay. It's not a masterpiece by any means and it's nowhere near as good as "Raiders" or "Crusade", but who would expect it to be? The old "Indiana Jones"-movies were classics.

There was a "South Park"-episode in which Spielberg and Lucas rape Indiana Jones. "South Park" is a clever show and it wasn't just making fun of the movie but the audience's reaction as well.

(The kids in "South Park" run out of the movie theater in disgust)

Clyde Donovan: God, what've they done?!?

Stan Marsh: Why aliens? Aliens don't belong in a "Indiana Jones"-movie!?

Jimmy Valmer: Do you remember that scene with Indiana in the refrigerator? It didn't make any sense, Stan.

James: It's so true! Is that how we critique movies nowadays by just ranting and nitpicking about all the individual moments we hated? Or do we look at the big picture as a whole? There's a positive and negative way here. Some people seem to follow whatever opinion seems the most popular. This is Cinemassacre saying: Think for yourself.