With the release of the new “Pirates of the Caribbean: Johnny Depp’s Paycheck” movie this weekend (what, that’s not the title?), we officially enter the 2011 summer blockbuster season. This is traditionally when the Hollywood studios roll out their big-budget, CGI-packed, mass audience-targeted action movies. In other words, a lot of really awful movies with lots of crashes and bangs are about to start drubbing us over the head like cavemen with clubs (I’m still regretting the time of my life wasted during the first “Transformers” movie). And there will be sequels. Lots and lots of sequels, which Hollywood routinely favors over originality.
There is one I’m looking forward to, and that’s the final Harry Potter film. This series has defied the odds by being creative and bold with excellent special effects and good acting on top of it. Usually by the time a series hits its eighth installment it features a slasher like Jason, Freddy or Michael Meyers that become punchlines rather than sources of fright. Instead, the HP series is completely unique in that it has kept people interested with high-quality installments all the way through.
I will of course see “The Hangover 2,” mostly because the first is one of my all-time favorites. I have high hopes for it, but I am dubious as to whether it can be as good as the first. Of course, allow me to state the obvious and say sequels rarely are. Most of the time they throw the cast and the script together, often on the fly and hope something good comes out, knowing there is little pressure because fans are inclined to see it anyway. Some have been so bad they never happened. Do you hear me? Never happened. “Ghostbusters 2,” “Caddyshack 2,” “Another 48 hours” and “Godfather Part III” never actually happened. They were just bad dreams. Move on, nothing to see here.
Still, there have been a few examples of that rarest of cinema finds, a sequel that improves on the original. Please feel free to point out ones I may have missed.
Lethal Weapon 2: Mel Gibson and Danny Glover had their chemistry down pat for this one. The villain was strong and the action was better than the first (which is saying something). Plus, they had gotten Gibson’s character straight after spending a lot of the first movie as a depressed potential suicide case. Most importantly, they pulled a house down a mountain, for real, not CGI. Very cool.
Star Trek II: I firmly believe Wrath of Khan was the best of all of the Star Trek movies, no matter which generation’s cast was involved. The first Trek was a bit plodding and the special effects look extremely dated (which is curious because it was made years after Star Wars and those effects still look fairly fresh). I’ve come to appreciate the first Trek a little more over the years, but the classic bad-guy battle in Wrath of Khan was far better. The plot was grittier, the sets were brighter and the acting fit more in the line of the “western in space” that Star Trek was always supposed to be. Speaking of Star Wars…
Empire Strikes Back: Allow me a moment of full disclosure: I am not a Star Wars fan. I think "Star Wars" is okay, again a western set in space (not knocking that as it’s fairly well done) and I have always felt "Return of the Jedi" stunk. Add in the three more recent disasters and I think the franchise is batting only 1.5-for-6 in the quality department. Empire is the one good one. It has the dramatic effect of the second act of an opera, complete with the bad guys winning in the end and the best single scene in the series, the Luke vs. Vader battle that cost Luke his hand. Add in the scenes with Yoda (who knew the guy that did Fozzy Bear’s voice could be so effective?) and this one stands strong.
The Dark Knight: Christopher Nolan hit this one out of the park. I don’t have to go too deeply into this one. While “Batman Begins” was good, this was amazing. It got a huge acting upgrade with Heath Ledger and Maggie Gyllenhaal (much better than Katie Holmes in that role), the action was relentless and the plot tense. For my money, it’s the best superhero movie of all time.
The Godfather, Part II: It’s worth mentioning as the only sequel that has won Best Picture, as did its predecessor. But is it better than “The Godfather?” It’s tough to say. I’ll try to break it down. Marlon Brando created an iconic character in the first movie, but I think De Niro’s younger version of Don Corleone was enough to cancel it out. The second had a brilliant performance from John Cazale as Fredo, which was a little better than James Caan in the first movie. Pacino’s was great in both, but his intensity in the second as Michael lost what little humanity he had left puts the second movie over the top for me by just a touch.
Side Note: The first two Godfather movies are in a second rare category. Movies based on books that are actually better than the books. In this case, better by far. Mario Puzo was a hack.
Will "Hangover 2" join the list of sequels better than the original? I’d like for it to, but really I’m just hoping to get a few laughs out of it and enjoy the characters again. If that happens, I’ll consider my admission money well-spent. If it gets tacked on to this list, I’ll consider it a nice bonus.
No comments:
Post a Comment