5 More Abused and Misunderstood Sequels
Earlier this week we shared a list of totally underrated sequels. Today, we want to bring you our thoughts on five more movies that we think are a bit "abused." Your dislike of a derided sequel might be directly tied to how much that sequel is already derided. Because the more something gets smack-talked, the more you start to believe the anti-hype. This list then, is like pro-hype, and kind of antidote to help save a few overly abused sequels from permanent doom as punch-lines. We're not here to make you think these movies “totally rock,” but instead, to just consider that these unpopular sequels might be a little misunderstood.
Tron: Legacy (2010)
Released 28 years after the first Tron, this sequel was rapidly forgotten, despite the great visuals, Daft Punk score, and presence of Cillian Murphy. What was the problem with Tron: Legacy? Did it try to make you care a little too much about a movie you maybe didn’t ever even see? It’s a fairly likely answer, but the real reason it didn’t connect was probably because the idea of computer programs being alive is old news now, but it wasn’t in 1982. But, just because the idea is old doesn’t mean it isn’t awesome. Tron: Legacy makes a lot of mistakes, but it’s still more thought-provoking and fun to watch then any movie starring The Rock.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Before Mark Webb’s Spidey-flicks, there was the previous decade’s Sam Raimi films. Most agree the first and second installment of these movies are decent. But, don’t bring up number three at a party, because somebody will get really, really pissed. Yes, Spider-Man 3 is a bad Spider-Man movie, but it’s still a Spider-Man movie, and every single actor in it is great. Plus, there are two types of people in this world: people who can love a Spider-Man movie where there’s a long omelet-making sequence, or people who hate it. Who you want to be?
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
When the book came out, people freaked out because of certain big questions about a certain professor being either good or bad. Plus, someone really, really important dies in this one. The movie has often been thrown under the night-bus as being the worst Harry Potter movie, when really, it was just trying to cram all the stuff from the book into a movie as quickly as possible. Saying “the book was better,” is a forgone conclusion here, but it doesn’t mean this movie didn’t try. If this had been the only Harry Potter movie you saw, ever, you’d think it was awesome.
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
More of a direct sequel to Star Trek: First Contact, this TNG-era Trek movie was poised to usher in a new era of kick-ass Star Trek movies. Instead, it recycled a few heady story concepts from the TV show and featured a scene in which Data sings. Here’s the deal though, if you like the TV show, this movie was great. Did I mention Data sings and they rehash some awesome ideas from the TV show?
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Because a new X-Men movie is almost upon us, the hand-wringing about the terribleness of The Last Stand is definitely already starting. Yes, the final X-Men movie of the original run is not that great. Yes, it’s hard to deal with the preposterous plotlines. They messed up the Phoenix! But, this movie has Kelsey Grammer as Beast and has so many awesome X-Men visuals, that to write it off completely seems like you’re just listening to other people too much. This X-Men movie asks bigger philosophical questions about what it means to be a “mutant,” than any of the other films. If the mutants could give it all up to be “normal” would they? Should they? And while The Last Stand might not answer those questions satisfactorily, it does at least ask, which is something you're not going to get out The Hangover III.
What’s your favorite “bad” sequel?