Jump to content

Thegun

Thegun's 50 Worst Sequels Ever Made (#15)

Recommended Posts



Didn't know there are so many that passionate about JW lol. 

 

It was a bore for me. No excitement, paper-thin plot, no interesting nor likable characters. It wasn't terrible, but it's nowhere near good either. I'll take the other two JP sequels over it personally. 

 

By the way, great idea and good list! I really enjoy it so far, both the write-ups and the outrage over the choices of course.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I think it's about time I watched the whole Matrix trilogy again.  I have The Matrix on Blu Ray, Reloaded on DVD and I only ever saw Revolutions once in the theatre and never since.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I take back the "no interesting character" part.  I very much enjoyed asshole Vincent D'Onofrio. Shame that he got killed by the raptor. Should have been Pratt/Howard/the kids instead, that would make any of them more interesting to me for sure. 

 

I love Pratt, he's charming. But he was so dead in that thing. I blame the poor characterization, he probably tried. 

Edited by Sam
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



It has always been my theory that the Matrix sequels make perfect sense in the heads of the Whachoski siblings, like every single frame, shot, vfx shot and line of dialog has a purpose & meaning of grand designs.

 

Lots of people forget they are true intellectuals , well versed in philosophy, theology, arts & literature & nerd culture etc

 

A trilogy was always a part of the plan and what is said in the first Matrix is really not the point the Wachos are trying to make.

The first movie was probably basic in their minds, fit for mass consumption, a basic riff on Joseph Campbell and the plan was always to deconstruct & subvert it, destroy it even.

 

I ve read many fascinating things about Reloaded & Revolutions, even shot by shot explanations and analysis  and it really boggles the mind how complex & layered the two sequels  are.

 

So in this case, despite behind the argument of some people to defend their favourite, supposedely "complex" films, I would argue that we are really too dumb & ignorant to truly understand Reloaded & Revolutions.

 

Are we going to pretend the average movie goer (guys like me) can have a 3 hours conversion about Jean Baudrillard ?

 

The first movie is an efficient, spectacular (the bullet time effect was so Warholian tho) & basic movie, the sequels, with warts & all, are the most fascinating sci-fi films this side of 2001 & Akira.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by The Futurist
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



34. Be Cool (2005)

 

More like Get Shorty Lite.  There's nothing worse than the remake/rehash sequel.  Be Cool is almost the same film as Get Shorty, but they take away the R rating, better cast and quite frankly the music business while can be good for satire, is just painful here. The movie industry setting seemed much more fresh.  Chili was a master film buff, all of a sudden he is an expert what makes a good musician.   None of the songs are memorable, and everything else just came before.  Travolta's hair is ridiculous and he is definitely sleepwalking to his paycheck. The only thing I will give it credit for is The Rock finally had a breakout performance. He is the only thing to like about this movie. Outside of that you have gangster Vince Vaughn, uninteresting Harvey Keitel, Uma really only there to dance with Travolta as a Pulp Fiction reference. Not to mention the unbearable Cedric The Entertainer, trying some sort of comedic drama. This is a sin against Get Shorty.  Was the novel as bad as this?

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Are we going to pretend the average movie goer (guys like me) can have a 3 hours conversion about Jean Baudrillard ?

 

Riffing on his concepts doesn't constitute a "conversation", and in any case, if the Wachowskis weren't able to tell their story in a way that was satisfying to their audience, then in many ways the expanded story is a failure. (This despite my enjoyment of RELOADED).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

 

I doubt NEMESIS, INSURRECTION, and FINAL FRONTIER have many hardcore defenders.

Insurrection isn't worthy of this list.  It's worst sin is that it can be described as "meh".  At least it has some enjoyable scenes.

 

Nemesis is just awful though.  It's been described as one giant middle finger to both ST and TNG and I find it hard to disagree.  Say what you will about Final Frontier, and I have plenty to say, but at least it didn't actively hate the source material.  Or at least, that's what it looks from the outside.  Maybe I'm being too hard on it, or at least the motives of the people who made it.  Fair enuf. Regardless, it was just bad bad bad.

 

Final Frontier's greatest sin is that it took all the wrong lessons from TVH (Let's ramp up the comedy through the roof!!! WHHHEEE!!) and control was given to William Shatner, who....  wasn't good choice. :ph34r:

 

But it too has at least one or two good scenes.  The campfire scene, for one.  And the central plot of the film is pure Roddenberry (even if the 'go to the center of the galaxy' idea was HORRIFICALLY stupid).  In fact, even though the whole idea of getting to the center of the galaxy in the way they did to this day still makes my teeth ache, it did give a great line (What does God need with a starship).

 

So it isn't as horrible, no.  Don't get me wrong, it's far worse than Insurrection, but it isn't as bad as Nemesis

 

The other great sin of Final Frontier was that TNG was airing weekly by then, and it suffered in comparison.  That it managed to be WORSE than early TNG says something,:ph34r:

 

As for this list, the drop off from IV to V is almost certainly more than either VIII to IX. Or IX to X.  So that's the one which will probably make it, though X is the one that killed the franchise as we knew it, so that has an outside chance.  One could look at it as the difference of going  from a 5 or 6 to a -10*, if you will, opposed to going from a 10 to 3.

 

* I MIGHT be exaggerating for effect. ;)

 

Edited by Porthos
VIII not VII.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

 

I doubt NEMESIS, INSURRECTION, and FINAL FRONTIER have many hardcore defenders.

 

Well I don't hate Nemesis and actually like a lot about it (though there's still a lot of frustrating things about it), but I've made that clear several times at this point.

Edited by Daniel Dylan Davis
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Porthos said:

Insurrection isn't worthy of this list.  It's worst sin is that it can be described as "meh".  At least it has some enjoyable scenes.

 

Nemesis is just awful though.  It's been described as one giant middle finger to both ST and TNG and I find it hard to disagree.  Say what you will about Final Frontier, and I have plenty to say, but at least it didn't actively hate the source material.  Or at least, that's what it looks from the outside.  Maybe I'm being too hard on it, or at least the motives of the people who made it.  Fair enuf. Regardless, it was just bad bad bad.

 

Final Frontier's greatest sin is that it took all the wrong lessons from TVH (Let's ramp up the comedy through the roof!!! WHHHEEE!!) and control was given to William Shatner, who....  wasn't good choice. :ph34r:

 

But it too has at least one or two good scenes.  The campfire scene, for one.  And the central plot of the film is pure Roddenberry (even if the 'go to the center of the galaxy' idea was HORRIFICALLY stupid).  In fact, even though the whole idea of getting to the center of the galaxy in the way they did to this day still makes my teeth ache, it did give a great line (What does God need with a starship).

 

So it isn't as horrible, no.  Don't get me wrong, it's far worse than Insurrection, but it isn't as bad as Nemesis

 

The other great sin of Final Frontier was that TNG was airing weekly by then, and it suffered in comparison.  That it managed to be WORSE than early TNG says something,:ph34r:

 

As for this list, the drop off from IV to V is almost certainly more than either VIII to IX. Or IX to X.  So that's the one which will probably make it, though X is the one that killed the franchise as we knew it, so that has an outside chance.  One could look at it as the difference of going  from a 5 or 6 to a -10*, if you will, opposed to going from a 10 to 3.

 

* I MIGHT be exaggerating for effect. ;)

 

 

Yeah, but they're all bad. Really bad, IMO. ;) 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



8 minutes ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

 

Yeah, but they're all bad. Really bad, IMO. ;) 

 

Heh, the Final Frontier's greatest sin for me, is that it's basically Shatner's own vanity project. You could name it Captain Kirk: The Movie, and it wouldn't have made a difference.

Edited by Daniel Dylan Davis
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites







4 hours ago, Thegun said:

Totally rewatch Tremors II.  Whoever was the Grady substitute in III and Jamie Kennedy are not any better.  And turning Burt into a wuss in part 4 takes almost all of the fun out of it.

 

Oh, I liked making Burt's ancestor a wuss, it was the best part. And I'll fully admit to a soft spot for Kennedy that probably isn't deserved. And the guy from 3 never grated on me the way Grady did. 

 

I'll have to add it to my pile. It's been a few years since I've seen any of the movies, and while I own the TV series on DVD, I know there are some I missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 hours ago, The Futurist said:

It has always been my theory that the Matrix sequels make perfect sense in the heads of the Whachoski siblings, like every single frame, shot, vfx shot and line of dialog has a purpose & meaning of grand designs.

 

Lots of people forget they are true intellectuals , well versed in philosophy, theology, arts & literature & nerd culture etc

 

A trilogy was always a part of the plan and what is said in the first Matrix is really not the point the Wachos are trying to make.

The first movie was probably basic in their minds, fit for mass consumption, a basic riff on Joseph Campbell and the plan was always to deconstruct & subvert it, destroy it even.

 

I ve read many fascinating things about Reloaded & Revolutions, even shot by shot explanations and analysis  and it really boggles the mind how complex & layered the two sequels  are.

 

So in this case, despite behind the argument of some people to defend their favourite, supposedely "complex" films, I would argue that we are really too dumb & ignorant to truly understand Reloaded & Revolutions.

 

Are we going to pretend the average movie goer (guys like me) can have a 3 hours conversion about Jean Baudrillard ?

 

The first movie is an efficient, spectacular (the bullet time effect was so Warholian tho) & basic movie, the sequels, with warts & all, are the most fascinating sci-fi films this side of 2001 & Akira.

 


Their stories aren't complex, they're convoluted - often dragging out what is very simple and torturing it into near incoherence in a failed attempt at depth. 

 

Bloated self important hooey propped up by a couple of really good action sequences.

 

IMG_1555.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





A little side benefit to The Matrix is that I like spotting all the external locations. Pretty much all the external locations are in areas where I've worked around Central Station and in the CBD. 

 

I'm watching it again and realised his office at the beginning is in the Westpac building near Wynyard Station. 

Edited by DeeCee
Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.