A while back, I made a post about sequels and re-makes. I made that post because I felt there needed to be some clarification on what sequels and re-makes actually are. My opinion was, and still is, that I generally don’t really have an issue with sequels or re-makes as long as they’re done well and at least try to add something new to the franchise or world or whatever. One could say that no sequel or re-make is necessary. To a certain extent that point of view is not entirely invalid. While I personally feel that most of these sequels/re-makes are harmless, there are a bunch out there that really have no reason to exist. For my post today, I’m going to go over what I feel are the most unnecessary sequels and remakes. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that not all of these movies are actually bad movies, they just feel like they really don’t belong. So, let’s get this party started.
Alien Resurrection
This one kind of hurts, because I rather enjoyed this one. It was a totally off-the-wall, B-level sci-fi movie. I generally love those kinds of movies. But that’s also the reason why I feel that it’s completely out of place within the Alien franchise. The tone of the film is so vastly different from the previous movies that it doesn’t feel like a real sequel. You’ve got some top-notch talent here, with some pretty solid writing from Joss Whedon, but the campiness of the film really works against it. Besides, clones? Really? Even in 1997, clones were already cliche. This version of Ripley, played brilliantly by Sigourney Weaver, isn’t the real Ripley. Instead, she’s a clone/alien hybrid. Alien Resurrection is visually distinctive and has some pretty crazy ideas, but it takes the ending of Alien 3 and throws it out the window. The first two Alien films are near and dear to my heart, and I hold as equals. Alien 3 for all the narrative and script problems, felt like a solid conclusion to what is otherwise a bleak, brutal and ultimately fascinating series of movies. As I said, I don’t hate Alien Resurrection, but it’s too different for it’s own good.
A Good Day To Die Hard
As much as I felt that Live Free or Die Hard was unnecessary, it still felt like a Die Hard movie. Die Hard 5 is just….NOT Die Hard. For one, they took John McClane out of New York City and put him in Russia. That was their first big mistake. Second: Not having a memorable villain. Part of what made the first THREE films so spectacular was their bad guys. The first movie had the late Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber, and Jeremy Irons as the brother in the third film. McClane was almost ALWAYS outnumbered and could be hurt or possibly die. He was human. In Die Hard 5, he’s superhuman. Don’t get me wrong, the action is pretty damned good, but it feels more generic than anything else. Sorry folks, A Good Day To Die Hard was not a good day for audiences.
Taken 3
Now, THIS is what I call a shameless cash-grab. The first Taken was a pretty solid action-thriller with some really intense moments and a solid performance by Liam Neeson. It opened and closed just fine and didn’t call for a sequel. But we ended up with Taken 2. Okay, it’s not half-bad, with a kind of a logical follow-up story. Taken 3, though, was absolutely uncalled for. Basically, Liam Neeson’s character is framed for the death of his wife and is on the run from the authorities. I stated in my review, that this was basically a watered-down version of The Fugitive. I meant it. Taken 3 is not the worst movie in the world, but it tries to take a concept that could only work for one movie and stretch it to three. The result is an incoherent mess of a movie. Neeson just looks like he’s here for the paycheck.
Terminators 3,4 and 5
The intention of a film’s ending should always be considered when making a sequel. The original Terminator’s ending deliberately left it wide open, because of the whole Future War with the machines. As a result, we ended up with Terminator 2, one of the best sequels and science fiction movies ever made. The ending to T2 was left vague on purpose, because the future was not set, even with the destruction with the Terminator and Cyberdyne. They wanted you to feel that maybe something could happen, but left it for the audience to determine that. In 2003, we get Terminator 3 which throws that ending out the window and ended up being an unnecessary entry that just happened to have a ballsy ending. I loved that ending. Salvation ended up being a generic post-apocalyptic film that lacked Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not terrible, just….meh. Terminator Genisys, at least attempted to try something different, even if it didn’t particularly succeed. Ultimately, though, I feel that Terminator 2 was where the movies should have ended. The books that followed in the early 2000’s were phenomenal and set up the future war LOGICALLY. In T3, it’s assumed that Judgment Day is inevitable. In the T2 books, Judgment Day happens, because Cyberdyne had more than one building and multiple back-ups. A company like that SHOULD have back-ups in case of a situation like Terminator 2. The movie sequels past number 2, just don’t make any kind of sense. They’re fun to watch and not terrible movies, but they didn’t really need to be made.
Ip Man 2
This one is painful, because I really loved the first and third movies. The problem with this one is that we have an over-the-top, mustache-twirling western boxer who is bullying the Chinese. I’ve seen this kind of kung fu movie before many times. We have the West that thinks they can walk all over the Chinese and they have only person who can stop the foreigners. It’s not a terrible set-up, but Ip Man comes across as a superhero here. The fight choreography is also problematic, especially during the fight between Ip Man and Sammo Hung’s character. The whole movie seemed like a step backwards from the first Ip Man.
Martyrs(2016)
I’m only assuming that this film was made because the film-makers felt that the original Martyrs was just too brutal for American audiences to sit through. The original French film was brutal and unrelenting. It was also a completely unforgettable experience. It’s not exactly one that I would watch over and over again, but it was extremely intense. The re-make lacks the complete visceral punch that the original film had. The new movie, while following the original film for the first half, takes a different turn afterwards and feels like your typical “victim fights back” ordeal. The original film was very bleak and mostly hopeless. This one has an ending that seems hopeful. It’s not even as violent as the original movie. Most of the violence is heard and not seen, and while that has an artistic merit of sorts, it robs the film of its potential power.
Ben-Hur(2016)
This one pisses me off, and it’s not even out yet. Why is it that you would take one of the greatest movies of all-time and remake it for a modern audience? I would have thought that the original Charlton Heston film would have been enough. Yeah, it was 3.5 hours long, but that’s part of what made it an epic. It’s a huge sprawling story with themes of vengeance, forgiveness and redemption. What we have here appears to be a CGI-infested action film. The original film worked because it was all done for real with the exception of some miniatures, especially that chariot race. Nobody had done anything like that before, and no one has attempted it since. I could be wrong, and this could end up being a good movie, but from what I’ve seen, it looks cheap. Ben-Hur deserves better than this. This one hits theaters in August.
There are many more unnecessary sequels and re-makes out there, and they will continue to be made. These are just some of the ones that I tend to take issue with. As I have stated, most of these really aren’t terrible movies, they just don’t feel like they belong anywhere. Anyways. Those are my thoughts on the subject.