We've all been there; Browsing in Blockbuster, the HMV sale or the bargain-DVD section in Sainsbury's, and we come across a plastic case which gives us an involuntary tingle of excitement. Someone's made a sequel to that movie we like! How did this slip under our radar? Why wasn't this on at our local cinema? Why are we only hearing about this now? Well, there's only one way to answer that question; it involves spending the requisite £3 and usually ends with the question 'Why did this get made, never mind how?'.
The rules for selection are as follows: 1) The film needs to be a poorly received sequel to a generally successful film (so no crap sequels to crap originals, and no crap remakes of originals), 2) Films from longer series are fine, but the choice needs to be part two of that line, 3) I'm not intending to watch any of the associated part-ones as part of this run (whether I'm familiar with them or not), so there'll be extra pressure on the crap sequel to work on its own terms. So join me as I delve into some of the crappest, most unwarranted follow-ups of all time (hopefully with a couple of underrated, misunderstood gems thrown in).
How bad can it be, right? I mean, the original was good…
#CrapSequels: Cannonball Run 2 Cert: PG / 106 mins / Dir. Hal Needham
Year: 1984 (3 years after the first movie)
The general feeling: RT Score: 13% / IMDB Score: 4.7
This film was released in the same year as Ghostbusters. Think about that for a second.
Apparently the first Cannonball Run film was so groundbreaking, so unprecedented, so genre-redefiningly successful that a sequel was commissioned forthwith, reuniting the very best of the cast of the original whilst drafting in fresh new talent on both sides of the camera to keep things bitingly dynamic throughout. I imagine so, anyway, since I haven't seen the first movie. It can't have been as shit as this one, otherwise only an imbecile would want to draw attention to it by following it up.
The film spends 45 tedious minutes (re-)setting up the Cannonball Run race and its comedically disparate contestants, before finally becoming a live-action version of The Wacky Races re-imagined by the SNL writing team (which I assume is the point, to be fair). Hal Needham's cinematic disaster features the mannerisms and timing of jokes, but with none of the actual jokes. I know that comedy is subjective of course, but the phantom-punchlines to each setup here seem to have been pencilled-in with a side note reading "Come back to that one in next draft". The cast look bewildered and embarrassed in equal turn, with the exception of Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise, who (to their eternal credit) are actually playing the roles as if they're in a proper comedy film. But still without the actual jokes, of course.
With glib generalisations and sarcasm at the expense of Arabian, German and Chinese characters, it's the most casually xenophobic film I've seen for quite some time. Although caucasian Americans don't exactly come out of it smelling of roses, either. That said, I'm probably taking the whole thing far too seriously, on account of it consuming just under two hours of my actual life. I will never get that time back.
Cannonball Run II is a remarkable achievement, being a racing-comedy sequel that won't satisfy fans of racing, comedy or sequels.
Loses a point for having the sheer fucking audacity to show an out-take reel during the end credits. Like comedy films do.
Warning: features an ongoing lazily-written pastiche of The Godfather, starring actors who were actually in The Godfather. Do not watch if you like The Godfather.
I haven't.
I haven't.
Well it's not rocket-science, but I imagine the shit-ness of this sequel would be lessened slightly if you'd already sat through the first installment.
Reynolds and DeLuise return, as do Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr, and various others old, wise and ugly enough to know better.
A third film (Speed Zone aka Cannonball Fever) was made in 1989, featuring none of the cast of this or the previous film (from what I can tell). It was critically loathed on largely the same level as its predecessor(s).
What kind of state would your life need to be in, where you'd consider watching this film now?
Not that I heard.
Was Dean Martin always this an atrocious an actor, or was he in a particularly difficult place in 1984? He looks like he's about to start crying in every scene he's in...
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
We've all been there; Browsing in Blockbuster, the HMV sale or the bargain-DVD section in Sainsbury's, and we come across a plastic case which gives us an involuntary tingle of excitement. Someone's made a sequel to that movie we like! How did this slip under our radar? Why wasn't this on at our local cinema? Why are we only hearing about this now? Well, there's only one way to answer that question; it involves spending the requisite £3 and usually ends with the question 'Why did this get made, never mind how?'.
The rules for selection are as follows: 1) The film needs to be a poorly received sequel to a generally successful film (so no crap sequels to crap originals, and no crap remakes of originals), 2) Films from longer series are fine, but the choice needs to be part two of that line, 3) I'm not intending to watch any of the associated part-ones as part of this run (whether I'm familiar with them or not), so there'll be extra pressure on the crap sequel to work on its own terms. So join me as I delve into some of the crappest, most unwarranted follow-ups of all time (hopefully with a couple of underrated, misunderstood gems thrown in).
How bad can it be, right? I mean, the original was good…
#CrapSequels: The Crow - City of Angels Cert: 18 / 85 mins / Dir. Tim Pope
Year: 1996 (2 years after the first movie)
The general feeling: RT Score: 12% / IMDB Score: 4.5
This film was released in the same year as Trainspotting. Think about that for a second. File alongside Texas Blood Money as one of Miramax's poorer franchise-extending / money-grabbing decisions, unable to let a great thing just be. City of Angels follows Sarah from the first film, now a world-weary adult working as a tattoo artist in a decayed Los Angeles, apparently burdened with being the only nice person left in the city and with a script that stinks so much it can be classed as an environmental hazard. But fear not, supernatural fantasy fans, the combination of pretentiousness and hammy acting will soon make the script itself pale into insignificance, as the themes and events which made the story of The Crow so affecting*1 are rehashed and cheapened like a bargain-bin rip-off rather than an actual sequel.
Only fifteen minutes shorter than its forebear, the screenplay feels the need to rush through the exposition nevertheless, and Sarah's main purpose as a character seems to be to explain the story-mechanics to our new Crow, Ashe Corven; y'know, rather than have the impatient audience have to sit through another gradually unravelling plot as if this was some sort of film, or something. Plus that leaves plenty of time for The Soulful Pouting™ and more candles that you can wave a joss-stick at, which all the 1990s goths love even more than a coherent screenplay, if I recall correctly. Other than that it's dimly-lit setpieces and a lazy, uninspired retreading of the first film.
Ian Dury and Iggy Pop both star in this film. Badly. It's as if, not content to vomit down the back of early 1990s alt-culture cinema, 1970s rock is is going to get its trousers splashed as well. But at least Iggy has something on his CV that's more embarrassing than a series of insurance adverts, eh?
The film's fight-sequences have all the grace and co-ordination of a scrap in a pub car park, the wannabe-subversive sex and drug scenes play like a Da*ly Mail description of an orgy they were never at, and Vincent Perez's titular Crow channels more of Frank N. Furter than he does Brandon Lee. Oh, and our hero's calling card of a crow-shape around each bad-guy he vengefully dispatches looks more like a duck, half the time. Throw in the obligatory 1990s band-cameo from the Deftones and this is an all-round embarassment.
In the visual dictionary of Humanity, the entry for "Crap sequel" will simply bear the poster for The Crow: City of Angels. Thoroughly needless on an artistic and narrative level, such a transparent attempt to re-create the lightning in a bottle which was 1994's The Crow should be applauded.
Well, you'd applaud the film if it wasn't so transparently shit.
Many moons ago, duped by a video rental store in a swindle which was partly the inspiration for the opening ramble of the #CrapSequels posts.
I have; many times back in the day, but not for a good few years, now. The last time I checked in, it wasn't ageing too well.
You sort of do, because City of Angels makes a pretty shit job of explaining what the hell's going on and why.
In front of the camera, none; but producer Jeff Most and composer Graeme Revell both returned to the well (in Revell's case, to bastardise his earlier work), and Bob and Harvey Weinstein are guilty by association with the Miramax tag on the film.
No, but they did anyway. A TV series and two more movies followed..
Just don't pay to watch it, for fuck's sake.
I didn't hear one, but I was crying for a lot of the film, so…
Narrowly avoids bottom marks because some of the photography is quite nice, and also because I actually know people who enjoy this bullshit. I mean, they're people with appalling taste obviously, but at least I know the film's got some purpose…
The only thing I'm questioning after this is my fucking sanity...
*1 At the time, anyway. Like I said, I don't think the original's aged particularly well either, so this bag of shite had no chance.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
We've all been there; Browsing in Blockbuster, the HMV sale or the bargain-DVD section in Sainsbury's, and we come across a plastic case which gives us an involuntary tingle of excitement. Someone's made a sequel to that movie we like! How did this slip under our radar? Why wasn't this on at our local cinema? Why are we only hearing about this now? Well, there's only one way to answer that question; it involves spending the requisite £3 and usually ends with the question 'Why did this get made, never mind how?'.
The rules for selection are as follows: 1) The film needs to be a poorly received sequel to a generally successful film (so no crap sequels to crap originals, and no crap remakes of originals), 2) Films from longer series are fine, but the choice needs to be part two of that line, 3) I'm not intending to watch any of the associated part-ones as part of this run (whether I'm familiar with them or not), so there'll be extra pressure on the crap sequel to work on its own terms. So join me as I delve into some of the crappest, most unwarranted follow-ups of all time (hopefully with a couple of underrated, misunderstood gems thrown in).
How bad can it be, right? I mean, the original was good…
#CrapSequels: Shock Treatment Cert: PG / 91 mins / Dir. Jim Sharman
Year: 1981 (6 years after the first movie)
The general feeling: RT Score: 40% / IMDB Score: 5.8
This film was released in the same year as Raiders Of The Lost Ark. Think about that for a second. Shock Treatment is the 1981 sequel to 1975's cult classic The Rocky Horror Picture Show and, it would appear, Richard O'Brien's flailing, last-jab insult to everyone who'd asked breathlessly for a sequel in between. At least I assume so, because if I was an established musical-writer with a stage and screen hit under my belt, and this is what I came up with after six years of anctip… …ation*1, I'd probably be embarrassed into just pushing Rocky Horror on to tour for the rest of its natural lifespan while trying to forget that Shock Treatment ever happened, as well.
In the film's opening scene, Janet Weiss (now Majors)'s badly overdubbed "It's alright Brad, everything's going to be alright…" effortlessly sets the scene for an ill-judged sequel which is oddly reticent and half-arsed, considering Rocky was a firmly established hit. The opening acts callbacks and Easter-eggs to RH are presented with the subtlety and tact of a surprise prostate examination, and the clunky script is delivered as if it's a first read-through in a dimly lit room. By pissed people.
Structurally mirroring its predecessor, the camp exuberance and otherworldly charm of Rocky has disappeared, replaced by a heavy-handed and laugh-free pastiche of consumerist television and the mental health of a generation. Presumably the sterility of the hopsital-like TV studio is artistically intentional, although I'm pretty sure that wasn't supposed to extend to the rest of the film as well. Enforced wackiness to the point of incoherence, this is more like a light-entertainment nightmare than the satirical O'Brien could have ever intended (unless of course he'd only planned to send up himself). The musical numbers also feature some of the worst lip-syncing you'll ever see in a finished film, as well as some of the dullest songs you'll ever see in A Musical™.
Lead actor Cliff De Young at least tries to act a little like Barry Bostwick in his scenes as Brad Majors (even if he seems to come off more like Alan Carr), whereas Jessica Harper's rendition of Janet suggests she hasn't even heard of Rocky Horror, never mind seen Susan Sarandon's performance in it. Not helping matters is the fact that Harper's singing voice is deeper and richer than anyone else in the cast, including the men. Compare this to Sarandon's reedy-soprano, and it would have been easier to just write a different character, surely? The whole thing's so desperately shoehorned into production that it's hardly depending on Brad and Janet for narrative clarity…
Warning: Stars Ruby Wax and Barry Humphries, demonstrating that they really should know better.
Oh, and weirdly, Sinitta.
Oh, and criminally, Rik Mayall…
I haven't.
Rocky Horror? Countless times, LOVE that movie/show.
The film continues the story of Rocky Horror's Brad and Janet, but quite frankly it's going to seem like gibberish whether you're familiar with that or not.
Richard O'Brien's back (he did write it, to be fair) and Jim Sharman resumes directing duties. Also returning are RH mainstays Patricia Quinn, Nell Campbell, Charles Gray and Jeremy Newson as Ralph Hapschatt. The characters of Brad and Janet return, but Barry Bostwick and Susan Sarandon couldn't be tempted to come with them. I'm going to assume they read the screenplay.
*1 Sorry.
*2 And for those of you reading these words and thinking 'oh come on now, it isn't that bad', you're wrong. It is.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
We've all been there; Browsing in Blockbuster, the HMV sale or the bargain-DVD section in Sainsbury's, and we come across a plastic case which gives us an involuntary tingle of excitement. Someone's made a sequel to that movie we like! How did this slip under our radar? Why wasn't this on at our local cinema? Why are we only hearing about this now? Well, there's only one way to answer that question; it involves spending the requisite £3 and usually ends with the question 'Why did this get made, never mind how?'.
The rules for selection are as follows: 1) The film needs to be a poorly received sequel to a generally successful film (so no crap sequels to crap originals, and no crap remakes of originals), 2) Films from longer series are fine, but the choice needs to be part two of that line, 3) I'm not intending to watch any of the associated part-ones as part of this run (whether I'm familiar with them or not), so there'll be extra pressure on the crap sequel to work on its own terms. So join me as I delve into some of the crappest, most unwarranted follow-ups of all time (hopefully with a couple of underrated, misunderstood gems thrown in).
How bad can it be, right? I mean, the original was good…
#CrapSequels: Speed 2: Cruise Control Cert: PG / 125 mins / Dir. Jan De Bont
Year: 1997 (3 years after the first movie)
The general feeling: RT Score: 3% / IMDB Score: 3.7
This film was released in the same year as Good Will Hunting. Think about that for a second. The re-recorded 20th Century Fox fanfare tells you that something is deeply amiss here well before it slides into the ominous yet camp opening score, and we're dropped into the action as slick supercop Jason Patric plays second fiddle to a Ducati and Sandra Bullock provides a verbal catchup session interwoven with comic relief as she fails her driving test (even though there's nothing to comically relieve, yet*1). Anyway, nine minutes into the film and all the backstory you'll need is done and dusted; Bullock's Annie apparently has a mental age of 12 and is now seeing Patric's Alex (who has a mental age of 16), and they're off on a cruise. Because of… plot reasons? Cue shot of cruise-ship and jaunty faux-calypso music…
Well, the script is fucking atrocious, but at least Bullock seems to autopilot into it (which, in fairness, says more about Sandra's CV than her acting abilities); Patric manages to make dreadful lines sound even worse by apparently not having read them before the cameras rolled. And before eleven minutes are on the clock, Willem Defoe steps out of a cabin and announces himself as The Baddie™ by not smiling (other than the wry grin he sports when he's fiddling with a set of Bond-esque computer/bomb golf clubs, which also seem to be ideal for beating cabin-crew members to death).
And just when you think you're settling into the overbearing sub-standardness of the whole, torrid affair as Jason Patric practices sign language with a little girl in a clear case of The Screenwriter's Boomerang™, UB40 have a cameo appearance as themselves as the ship's entertainment. The 1992 horror flick Hellraiser 3: Hell On Earth had Armored Saint. 1994's comedy Ace Ventura: Pet Detective had Cannibal Corpse. So naturally, 1997 action-thriller Speed 2: Cruise Control would have UB40. This particular factoid serves as an allegory for the entire film. The one upside of this is, of course, that at least the deaf girl wouldn't be sitting listening to UB40. Every cloud…
And so Defoe's physically and psychologically unstable megalomaniac, John Geiger, then creeps around the ship, planting handily beeping bugs and setting computer overrides, from which point onwards it's Action Thriller By Numbers as nothing can stop the inevitable, horrifying collision between Die Hard and The Poseidon Adventure. Normally of course, you'd have likeable characters or a coherent plot to thwart the antagonist, but like I said nothing can.
The script drags its way through the three-act structure in exactly the way that a film with the word 'Speed' in the title shouldn't, and naturally is way too fucking long, with three apparent ending points; the last of which involves a speedboat, two jetskis and a seaplane. And an oil-tanker. I'd like to actively hate the film as much as the actual critics apparently do, but quite frankly I sat through worse in the 1990s, and I've sat through worse since. That doesn't change the fact that Speed 2 should never have been made, of course, but it should really have starred Seagal or Van Damme and gone nowhere near a cinema. Not utterly without merit I suppose, but loses a point for having characters frequently explaining the actions of a protagonist which they wouldn't be able to fucking see. And after all of that, the villain is brought down by his own poor driving skills, which could be irony but I wouldn't credit the film with that much self-awareness.
A d-list thriller with a c-list cast, the only thing Speed 2 should have powered its way to is the bottom shelf in a video-rental store. It's not that you want a cruise-ship full of holidaymakers to die at sea, it's just that there's a good chance they'd take UB40 with them, so…
I have not.
Yes, but not since about 1995.
Not really, it's largely the same as every other 90's action movie.
Director Jan De Bont has dragged back Bullock (obviously) as well as a depressing number of the first film's bit-part players for the land-based scenes.
Fuck, no.
If you're going to watch this, I'd advise being in An Advanced State Of Refreshment™.
Not that I heard, but I spent much of the film crying, inwardly at least…
But you know, don't you, you just know that the writers (all fucking four of them) thought of that title with a view to getting Tom Cruise on board? Come on, they're bound to have…
*1 Although by the time everything's gone tits-up on The Good Ship Lobotomy, Sandra's comic interjections arrive with the welcome appropriateness of a dick-joke at a eulogy...
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
