Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

  • Advertisements

Liked the movie, loved the sequel!

Follow-up movies usually adhere to the laws of diminishing returns - both artistically and at the box office. So why are sequels this summer a smash with audiences and critics alike?

(Page 2 of 2)



  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions

Whatever your view of this season's batch, it's a film-historical fact that sequels have often appeared in successful, seemingly unstoppable, cycles.

Examples include the "Frankenstein" films of the '30s, the "Thin Man" mysteries of the '40s, the "Francis the Talking Mule" fantasies of the '50s, the early James Bond epics and "Pink Panther" comedies of the '60s, the "Godfather" and "Star Wars" movies of the '70s, and the first "Mad Max" pictures in the '80s.

In some cases, the sequel was actually better than the original. This is certainly true for "The Bride of Frankenstein" of 1935, and "The Godfather Part II" of 1974, beautiful blends of the familiar and the unexpected.

"The Bride of Frankenstein" let the monster speak and added two great characters, the creepy Dr. Pretorius and the bride herself. "The Godfather Part II" was both a sequel and a prequel, oscillating between the title character's early life and the later experiences of his son and heir. "Spider-Man 2" also combines old and new ingredients, retaining the hero and heroine while adding a subtler, scarier bad guy played by Alfred Molina.

Some have suggested that hiring a new director is the surest way to keep a series fresh, especially when multiple sequels are in the picture. In a recent column, Todd McCarthy, chief film critic for Variety, notes that big-name auteurs have often failed to revive franchises - as when John Boorman made "Exorcist II: The Heretic" in 1977 and Richard Lester took on "Butch and Sundance: The Early Days" in 1979. At the same time, though, Mr. McCarthy gives "real credit" to Warner Bros. for recruiting Mr. CuarĂ³n to "rethink the ['Harry Potter'] material from the ground up."

Not everyone thinks sequels are having a new golden age. "I normally loathe sequels," says Gerald Peary, a Suffolk University film professor and a reviewer for the Boston Phoenix. "I must be the only critic in the world who stopped going after the first 'Rings' movie. And even a talented filmmaker couldn't stop me from bolting from the latest 'Harry Potter.' "

Even a skeptic like Dr. Peary has soft spots, however. He calls "Spider-Man 2" a "lovely surprise" and praises "the other really fine recent sequel: 'Terminator 3,' dark and genuinely weird."

My favorite sequels include "Addams Family Values" and "Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home," which are at least as good as the originals. I also think "Exorcist II" is an underrated gem, although director Boorman's artful twists and turns confused the movie's own studio so much that Warner Bros. recalled it for an instant reediting job after it had been released.

"Bourne Supremacy" director Paul Greengrass recently said "The challenge with sequels is to take the story into new territory, not leave the characters in the same place or redo the first movie."

If only it were that clean and simple!

Still, high-quality sequels may have a future. "Hollywood producers can be savvy if not innovative about nurturing and extending the brand," Jacobson says. "It's good business - even Detroit figured out it had to build quality cars!"

Page: Previous Page 1 | 2

  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions