 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good the bad and the ugly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good the bad and the ugly
That wasn't really a "sequel". It's just a stand alone western by Sergio Leone that is part of the "Dollar" trilogy because of its leading man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good sequels, or sequels that are better than the originals? If the latter, it's mostly a short list - Aliens and Mad Max 2 are usually the most frequent responses along with The Empire Strikes Back; some say The Godfather Part II though personally I wouldn't want to come down on either side of that one as I haven't seen it in a long time. Some also say Terminator 2 but I disagree. And there are probably numerous MCUs that are better than the first Iron Man but I cannot be arsed to wade back through them.
One of my favourite movies is Dawn Of The Dead, though it's arguable whether that's an actual direct sequel to Night Of The Living Dead. (It's also arguable as to how many of the Bond films count as sequels.)
Most horror franchises go on maybe two films too long, but within those series, there are certainly a few Friday The 13th and Elm Streets that are perfectly alright, though they're clearly not better than the first ones. (There aren't any Halloweens that are better than the original.) Some of the Resident Evils are good fun. I have a fondness for Phantasm 2, Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 and Psycho II, and even The Fly 2. Predator 2, Poltergeist 2: The Other Side and I Still Know What You Did Last Summer are also great fun and solidly well made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examples for really good sequels (in the sense that they were roughly as good as the original movie) were:
THE GODFATHER, PART II
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
THE DARK KNIGHT
TOY STORY 2 + 3
I don't count "Bond" movies or the like as sequels; first, they are basically stand alone movies, and secondly, the character already is a "serial" character, so the movies aren't really "sequels". (Likewise THE LORD OF THE RINGS is basically one conceptualized movie, not one movie and two sequels.)
I think it's more interesting to look at good sequels that weren't already "planned". STAR WARS, THE GODFATHER, and TOY STORY only got sequels after the first movie was such a hit, and the stories were basically conceptualized after that fact, these are "pure" sequels. One might argue of course that BATMAN (which I included above), like James Bond, is a "serial" character. And of course, the A QUANTUM SOLACE was a "real" sequel to CASINO ROYALE. So it's not set in stone. But I guess it's more interesting to look at "real" sequels and not "serial" characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good the bad and the ugly
That wasn't really a "sequel". It's just a stand alone western by Sergio Leone that is part of the "Dollar" trilogy because of its leading man.
Well, if you want to split hairs- it's actually a prequel to the other two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good the bad and the ugly
That wasn't really a "sequel". It's just a stand alone western by Sergio Leone that is part of the "Dollar" trilogy because of its leading man.
Well, if you want to split hairs- it's actually a prequel to the other two.
In the sense that THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY takes place during the civil war and the others after, yes, though Leone never considered the Eastwood character to be literally the same person in these movies, and there is absolutely no narrative connection to these films at all. No character or event refers to anything that appeared in any other movie, nor is there any type of story connection. In fact, Eastwood's "man with no name" actually does have a different name, and a different one, in each movie, (Joe, Manco, "Blondie".) Of course, "Blondie" is more a nickname that Tuco gives him, so he really does indeed not have an actual mentioned name in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY. It's more that Eastwood played a variation of the same western archetype in these three films.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think George Miller's THE ROAD WARRIOR is a good sequel, better and more interesting than MAD MAX.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALIENS wins.
I think ALIENS is a good movie, but I think ALIEN is far better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
And it's "good" in the sense that it doesn't suck balls, Jurassic Park II. I guess I could say the same thing about Spider-Man 2 as well -- got some good set pieces, like the train battle an stopping it, which ends with a surprisingly touching moment when New Yorkers comes to the aide of Spider-Man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good the bad and the ugly
That wasn't really a "sequel". It's just a stand alone western by Sergio Leone that is part of the "Dollar" trilogy because of its leading man.
Well, if you want to split hairs- it's actually a prequel to the other two.
In the sense that THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY takes place during the civil war and the others after, yes, though Leone never considered the Eastwood character to be literally the same person in these movies, and there is absolutely no narrative connection to these films at all. No character or event refers to anything that appeared in any other movie, nor is there any type of story connection. In fact, Eastwood's "man with no name" actually does have a different name, and a different one, in each movie, (Joe, Manco, "Blondie".) Of course, "Blondie" is more a nickname that Tuco gives him, so he really does indeed not have an actual mentioned name in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY. It's more that Eastwood played a variation of the same western archetype in these three films.
Didn't say you were wrong and I knew all the above(naturally, as it's one of my top two ever) 
Just think of him like a comc book character- new adventure each week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Going under the idea it's the same guy, could just be Clint's character is a bit of a drifter/loner and just changes names here and there to keep anonymity to some degree, so some people know his by one name, others another name. His name, after all, doesn't really seem to matter anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
