This page was inspired by the claim made in the film Scream 2 that sequels are, by definition, inferior. I've taken as many films as I could think of and have tried to determine whether the sequel comes out on top or not, then wrote a few things about why sceptics might disagree to give what I hope is a balanced argument.
First things first - a prequel is, as far as I'm concerned, a type of sequel - it is not something altogether different! Also, just because a film series becomes a trilogy doesn't stop the second one from being a sequel. I simply define a sequel as the second film.
SEQUELS THAT MAY BE BETTER THAN THE ORIGINALS
American Pie II
Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
Back To The Future Part II
Dawn Of The Dead
The Empire Strikes Back
Evil Dead 2
Friday The 13th Part 2
From Russia With Love
Ghostbusters II
Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets
Home Alone 2
Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom
The Matrix Reloaded
Psycho II
Rocky II
The Silence Of The Lambs
Spider-Man 2
Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan
Terminator 2: Judgement Day
SEQUELS THAT MAY BE WEAKER THAN THE ORIGINALS
Airplane II: The Sequel
An American Werewolf In Paris
A Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge
Basketcase 2
Battle Royale II: Requiem
Beneath The Planet Of The Apes
Bride Of Re-Animator
Candyman 2
The Devil's Rejects
The Fly 2
Gremlins 2 - The New Batch
Halloween II
Jaws 2
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers
Men In Black II
The Naked Gun 2 1/2: The Smell Of Fear
Predator 2
Rambo: First Blood Part II
Resident Evil: Apocalypse
The Return Of Jafar
Return Of The Living Dead Part II
Robocop 2
Scary Movie 2
Scream 2
Speed 2: Cruise Control
Tremors 2: Aftershocks
28 Weeks Later
CONCLUSION
On this page originals do seem to come out slightly on top of the sequels. This wasn't rigged - every single sequel I'm familiar enough with to put against the original and reach a firm conclusion is included. Aliens, Dawn Of The Dead, Spider-Man 2 and Star Trek II are the four examples I'd pick out where there is little argument that they're sequels and they are regularly seen as better than the originals. The claim that sequels are inevitably inferior is clearly nonsense as a film should be judged on its own merits - the fact that many of the elements were laid down in a previous film doesn't stop the sequel from being better in itself! The "lazy sequels" are the worst, usually indicated by having the old cast minus key star names, where no attempt is made to beat the original. Some might say that sequels are just cash-ins but the whole movie business is based on profit anyway so this doesn't make much sense either! Without sequels, the world of cinema would be a far duller place, and that's the one point that I feel this exercise has made. Does anyone believe we'd all be better off it all of the above had been single movies, rather than developing into longer sagas? I doubt it.
Perhaps the ultimate sequel, Aliens takes a totally different approach to the first film, keeping Ripley and the regular aliens but adding so many new elements that nobody can dismiss it as a rehash. Whereas the original provided heart-stopping suspense and real shocks for the first-time viewer, this is all-action and is totally different in tone. Both Alien and Aliens are brilliant, but I think I speak for a majority when I say this film is the better, although I accept there is room for argument based on personal preference of style. No doubt many of the people who claim that Alien is better do so because they refuse to acknowledge sequels though!
A personal choice, I quite simply laughed more at this than during the original. Although lacking the plot of the first film (which couldn't really be got around anyway), there are more jokes here that are hilarious, even if the funniest humour is totally shallow - i.e. toilet gags. But what can I say? I found this film funnier and therefore better.
If ever there was a sequel with so many elements taken from the original I have yet to see it. The original was outstanding but the sequel features improved versions of many jokes (worthwhile repetition rather than a lack of imagination) plus plenty of new gags. The plot is the main problem - towards the end it threatens to ruin the film by being so weak. It also is pretty silly but for the most part gets away with it. Where this film really improves is in the characters - all the memorable ones return plus Mini Me and Fat Bastard - they are so hilarious that they make this the better film by quite a way in my eyes. Although there is a trade-off involved, these brilliant characters brighten up the film so much that, given a choice, most would pick Austin Powers 2, which is enough for me to declare that this is the better film. Indeed the only thing I don't like about Goldmember is that it differs too much from the Austin Powers formula, demonstrating that repetition makes this film what it is!
Admittedly this is a bit of a debatable one but I do prefer this to Part I! Some say the plot is confusing but I found it easy enough to follow and I loved how they squeezed so much into it. The alternate 1985 and journey to the future both proved very satisfying and the trip back to 1955 - going through parts of the first film from a different viewpoint - was sheer genius! But perhaps some people prefer the more focused first film and would argue that the fact many of the locations are reused suggests this film doesn't add enough to the mix. Indeed most of the ideas were laid down in the first film. I still consider this an excellent sequel that competes with the original in most respects, and I enjoyed it much more personally.
Due to the bizarre worship of all black-and-white films as automatic classics, Night Of The Living Dead is regularly seen as the great one whereas the gorier sequels are ignored. Although the original provides brilliant suspense it is time for the older generations to accept that black-and-white is a bad thing that never ever makes a film better!! This film is wonderful - the idea of zombies in a shopping centre is genius, the atmosphere is astonishing and the gore will only be dismissed by conservative people as a bad thing. Although the feeling of terror in the first film made it pretty powerful, the extra scope gives this film an enormous advantage - colour or not. I get the feeling that most people who don't automatically favour black-and-white will agree this is a superior sequel. On a similar note, the remake of Dawn Of The Dead is better than the remake of Night Of The Living Dead, but you could argue that Dawn was a remake of a sequel as opposed to a sequel of a remake. Either way, the fact that Dawn Of The Dead was deemed worthy of a remake speaks volumes about its quality.
Here we reach a film where there is a widespread belief that it is better than the original. Although A New Hope provided better uniforms and perhaps more memorable images, the darkness, unpredictability and, most of all, the shock ending, combine to make this the Star Wars film by which all others are judged. Whatever silly reasons were given in Scream 2 why this isn't a sequel, it is and it rules. I would also argue that Revenge Of The Sith has now knocked The Empire Strikes Back from its pedestal as best Star Wars film, but that's another story.
Often seen as the stand-out of the brilliant Evil Dead trilogy, the sequel does often feel like a remake but plays it very differently - the emphasis being on humour rather than horror. It also features far superior acting by Bruce Campbell who puts in a truly great comic turn. Although The Evil Dead is widely acclaimed and a classic in its own right, anyone who favours humour will enjoy this sequel more. I also believe that Army Of Darkness is even better, making this (and maybe Austin Powers) a rare trilogy of continually improving quality.
Astonishingly this is a slasher sequel which isn't just a dubious attempt to cash-in in the original! Unlike Halloween and A Nightmare On Elm Street, the characteristics of Jason weren't fully defined in the first film and it took until part 3 for the series to become the formula some of us know and love. This sequel just seems to pump everything up and actually manages to be truly scary, like a more intense version of Halloween. It is this genuine effectiveness as a scary movie that nudges this slasher ahead of the original, and it is one of the few films that has managed to scare me to any degree.
I'd originally excluded this from here, both for being part of a series and originally coming from a novel. However I thought it was a worth a mention as From Russia With Love is the film where James Bond came together, and the rough edges of Dr. No were polished off. Sean Connery puts in an outstanding performance, Q was introduced and so was the pre-title sequence. Dr. No had its moments but doesn't compare, and the fact that a persistent minority continue to proclaim Dr. No as the best Bond film is a typical example of people blindly disregarding sequels. The only question mark is if you'd call it a sequel or not, but this was definitely the Bond series taking a massive step forwards.
This is another personal choice but nobody seems to give this sequel the credit it deserves. Many scenes are hilarious and I always slightly prefer watching this to the original, largely due to the energy of the performances. However, the two films are similar and it takes a lot of thought to separate them in your mind. Highlighted by a classic turn from Bill Murray in his greatest ever role, Ghostbusters II fares well against the original, and I'd argue it is better, or at the very least is a worthwhile sequel.
Harry Potter always divides opinion. The books are imaginative and entertaining and due to the sheer amount of money and effort thrown at the films they've all turned out well. I think that everyone who claims not to like it is simply put off by the absurd hype surrounding what is effectively a series for children which appeals to adults (much like Star Wars). I preferred the second film as it featured a great turn from Kenneth Branagh and the kids had grown and so were acting better. In fact production values and acting across the board improved so this goes in as a good sequel, although you may wish to be awkward and describe it as the second part of a series instead.
I can only comment on this one from the point of view of being a child, and I always found this one far more satisfying than the original. The critics may not had given it credit and, admittedly, originality is lacking, but I found it better when I was little so therefore it's included.
Here we have an astonishing sequel (technically a prequel but the time span has very little relevance in this case) which is undermined by many when it should be considered at least equal to The Raiders Of The Lost Ark. Indeed some have dismissed it as the worst of the original trilogy when there can be no doubt it's miles ahead of The Last Crusade - an inferior film distinguished solely by Sir Sean Connery. Although lacking in real depth (probably the reasons for the criticisms), The Temple Of Doom is perhaps the greatest adventure film ever made - a series of very memorable scenes (the mine carts and the bridge especially) which are backed up with enough plot to make it worthwhile. Nobody can argue that the parts are easily the best of the trilogy but, in considering the whole, then perhaps there is no clear-cut winner between this and the original.
Why the complaining? This is an excellent sequel which has some astonishing set pieces, most notably the awesome Agent Smith fight. The original was never as good as it was made out to be and this film was a vast improvement and decent progression. Much better than the third one too which let the side down, and I don't understand why nobody else accepts this sequel as the classic that it is.
Without doubt this is the most controversial inclusion on this list. I'd argue that it's only pro-Hitchcock freaks who completely ignore the very competent sequels of Psycho. The original was rather slow and, the first time I watched it, an age seemed to pass before anything happened. Basically Psycho was just one murder with another one tacked on towards the end. Although being the Godfather of many modern slashers, it simply has little worth today beyond being a historical curiosity with a few good scenes, great acting and ideas. The lack of action can't possibly satisfy anyone who's grown up with more excitement in cinema. Being in black and white is also a serious problem and, although the remake tried to rectify this, it lost the unbeatable presence of Anthony Perkins. Anyway this sequel just seems far more compelling and the performance of Perkins is quite superior. As a relevant film for today, Psycho II is the one that stands out and at the very least it should be accepted as a very respectable sequel.
Here is another case where many will disagree but I think, without doubt, that this is a better film than Rocky. Although Rocky had all the well-shot scenes that make Oscar winners, it was pretty boring in parts, although it deserves credit for the original ending. With this film the climax is unfortunately totally predictable and absurd - in reality Rocky would have been knocked out immediately! But its strength is that it is even more feel-good than the first movie despite the impossibility of Rocky overcoming it all. It also isn't boring for a second - the non-fight scenes are very compelling and never get dull like they did before. If you can just take this as the impossibly uplifting, exciting and ultimately happy film it is and ignore the lack of plausibility or new elements, this is a better film.
If any more evidence that sequels can be better than originals is needed, this entry should satisfy you. The Silence Of The Lambs is actually a sequel to Manhunter - a very mediocre conversion of the first Hannibal book. Indeed this is the only entry involving a poor original with a great sequel! So what's the catch? Both films are based on novels thus some might say that this is a novelisation of a sequel rather than a true sequel. I'd argue this is nonsense as this is based on a book that is a sequel which, by the Scream 2 definition, should be inferior anyway but isn't. I have heard quite a bit of bizarre opinion trying to argue that Manhunter is a classic but I cannot see where the praise of this mediocre and dated film comes from. I liked its remake as Red Dragon though.
The original Spider-Man was OK from top to bottom, but its best attribute was that it managed to entertain whilst so clearly keeping many of the best ideas under wraps for later films in the saga. Spider-Man 2 had Doc Ock as the baddie and effortlessly pumped things up to eleven. Although you could argue that Sam Raimi wasn't "going for it" on the original film as much as he could have done and that this is the second part of a series rather than a sequel, I'd say pish posh and argue this to be a prime example of a superior sequel. The third one was a bit too ambitious though, cramming in more villains than was healthy.
Absolutely no argument here, I mean come on!! This film is not a prequel, it cannot claim to be (relatively) lacking in imagination because it was based on the original series rather than the first film and, although Star Trek IV has its plaudits, it is commonly named as the best Star Trek film of the lot. Star Trek: The Motion Picture featured astonishing sets and was brilliantly epic but is widely seen as slow and a bit dull. This sequel is far more exciting and should be appreciated even by non-Trekkies (like myself!). If there's one film to name when arguing the merits of sequels, this is it.
Taking advantage of the massive budget and generally updating the first film, Terminator 2 is superior to the original. The presence of the T1000 is perhaps the largest advantage and, although the middle does drag, everything seems better in my eyes. Critics would argue that this film is more of a remake than a sequel, using so many elements from before - particularly towards the start - that the film can hardly be seen as original. Either way, although lacking the harder edge of the original, many think this is a superior sequel, and I love it. Turning Arnie into a good guy could have fallen flat, but in fact gave this movie the personality it needed to become such a massive hit.
The first time I saw Airplane! it just drifted past me and I couldn't see what the fuss was about. The second time it did make me laugh and I now officially "like it", albeit not as much as Hot Shots!, The Naked Gun or Scary Movie 3, which have taken the genre of spoof movie to far funnier heights. It may still be overrated, but it is amusing. The same can be said of its sequel, but not quite as much, largely because Leslie Nielsen wasn't involved.
Although not as bad as many people made out, this is still inferior to An American Werewolf In London, which itself was hardly a classic. Style is emphasised over anything else and, after so many years, making a sequel is simply redundant and this is just a cash-in on the original film's name.
A simply inferior sequel and there's really not much need to explain why. The cast is weaker, there's no real feeling of horror and it never seems to go anywhere worth going. The lack of effort here nearly killed off the franchise, which surprisingly was saved by the return of Wes Craven for part 3.
Basketcase is an extremely strange movie, seemingly designed to appeal solely to those who value quirkiness above all else. Having seen it a few times I do like it, as it's original and compelling, but I could never love it. The sequel was made eight years later and was fortunate enough to have the same director and lead star, but it didn't measure up. It was a bit too conventional and the focus on the freaks took the story away from Duane Bradley where it belonged. Both films are reasonable, but the world hasn't gained anything from this sequel.
I normally find subtitled films require too much concentration to keep me interested but I liked Battle Royale very much. I was taken to see it on the premise that it was hilarious and cheap. I thought the exact opposite, considering it shocking and very well made, but the idea fascinated me. I'd expected more of the same from Battle Royale II but the characters weren't as good and the battle royale element was almost ignored to make it all tedious social commentary on terrorism and teenage rebellion. I can barely stand to watch Battle Royale II - sorry.
The original Planet Of The Apes had an astonishing introduction and ending but is let down by the title which ruins the surprise and just the general feeling of disappointment when considering the limitless possibilities of what could had been on this planet after the awesome atmosphere of the opening scenes. Also the impact of the ending has been completely destroyed by the very strange decision to publicise it on the front cover of the artwork! However, the original is still strong and is almost certainly better than this sequel, which expands on the original story but fails to be as exciting as it should be. Once this sequel goes away from apes and towards evolved humans it becomes muddled. A brave attempt to follow up Planet Of The Apes but few would argue it is an improvement, even if it did kick off an interesting franchise.
I love the Re-Animator trilogy! Jeffrey Combs always puts in a manic turn as Doctor Herbert West and all three movies are both shocking and hilarious. The sequel may have given the characters a bit more personality and had lots of fun with the formula but wasn't quite as good. Perhaps Bride Of Re-Animator is one of the very films on the list which loses out simply because it isn't the original rather than because it is worse.
Lacking the depth and horror of the original, this is a shallow sequel which just doesn't measure up. It did help establish The Candyman as a great character though.
House Of 1000 Corpses was a very rare thing - a worthwhile cultural contribution from somebody in the world of metal music! I was hugely entertained by its random jokes, crazy characters and descent into utter insanity for the climax. The sequel is certainly pretty good, the use of Free Bird by Lynyrd Skynyrd being a highlight. However, I didn't enjoy it as much, finding the characters just too damned unlikeable to deal with. I don't want to complain too much though - I like both movies in their strange and twisted way.
I can't pretend there's much difference in quality between these films, with this sequel being a logical advancement. However, it lacks the two main cast members of the original plus the direction of David Cronenberg. It's nice to see John Getz back though. After The Fly brilliantly updated the original film, this sequel doesn't quite do as much and, although it's better than many have said, it's still the weaker film.
Gremlins is an extremely dark film seemingly aimed at kids. Mogwai is a classic character, the music is ace and everybody knows the three rules. The sequel features Christopher Lee in a near-anonymous role and some funny post-modern jokes poking holes in the three rules. It has next to no emotional resonance, is a bit of a mess and Mogwai isn't as cute. It's tolerable but a bit of a waste of time.
The original is a true masterpiece of horror. It takes place on one Halloween night and, although it ends on the same night, the "action" has reached a logical ending. This sequel immediately shoots itself in the foot by continuing straight after, taking the story right through to the morning. The element of surprise is gone and the film just feels like a tacked-on ending when the story had reached its perfect conclusion already. Few would argue this is a superior sequel because it just isn't. Some believe this is better than all of the Halloween films that followed it but I would disagree with that also, pointing towards the fourth, seventh and eighth instalments. It is still interesting to see the story being continued though, even if the second part is less fascinating.
This is an underrated sequel but it still doesn't match Jaws, which nudges ahead thanks to the superior cast, music and build-up. However the climax is probably stronger and this doesn't drag like the original did once they got onto the boat. Jaws 2 is also based on the absurd notion of the same thing happening again to the same people, which immediately makes it lose out in the credibility department, albeit not as much as Jaws - The Revenge, which was so awful it killed the franchise dead.
This is a close one but Jurassic Park is slightly better. The original was revolutionary in creating the effects and had a stronger cast. Here we almost get two films put together and the escape to the mainland should certainly have been saved for part 3. There are also more memorable scenes and sets in the original and there seems little to argue this film is any better. Nevertheless, Jurassic Park continued its monopoly on dinosaur films and this is a competent, well made sequel.
Although more of a continuation than a sequel, this film lacks the magic of the original. Action scenes are overlong and this just doesn't have the character of The Fellowship Of The Ring, which was far more effective. Sandwiched between two astonishing movies, this movie is good as part of the whole but isn't as good as an individual effort. I think the key problem is that Frodo makes no progress in the course of the film, so you are ultimately left with the feeling that little has happened.
When I watched this one I must say I didn't hate it or anything - I just felt overwhelming indifference. The problem is that there's just nothing here at all that remotely registers. The opening credits look cheap and tacky and there are practically no jokes at all - just a few things that make you smile a bit, although all of these moments are just ideas from the original film expanded. The film ends and you feel you've watched nothing but a gaping hole. It never gets out of first gear and it's all over before anything's happened. To have to wait five years for something that adds so little to the original is very sad.
It was definitely The Naked Gun rather than Airplane! which established Leslie Nielsen as an accomplished comic actor. There's something so definitively American about the humour in it, which no doubt being at a baseball game added to. This sequel is less coherent and never lives up to its hysterical opening sequence. In some parts it just isn't funny at all. No competition really.
Although this isn't as bad a sequel as it is often considered, Predator 2 is still behind the original film. Moving action into the city was a good idea and there's nothing much wrong here. The simple flaw is that this film is without the presence of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Although it's hard to have imagined him fitting into the action, losing the main actor is regularly a fatal blow for a sequel and this is no exception.
Rambo was a nice little movie which bared little resemblance to the one-man-war movies that followed it. In theory, the action-packed sequels should blow it out of the water. However I find that Rambo II is a bit too messy and overblown for its own good and that it doesn't have the heart of the original movie. However it was still worth it for helping to inspire Hot Shots! Part Deux and the concept is great, even though it doesn't quite pull it off.
Resident Evil should never have worked so well but managed to be painfully mainstream and also to have enough genuine gore and action to keep people like me happy. For a computer game conversion it's almost as good as you can get. Resident Evil: Apocalypse takes the action out into the streets and despite my high hopes just doesn't make the most of it. Being outdoors should make things better but in reality the opposite is often true. Also Alice is gradually becoming a mutant herself which takes away most of our empathy with her character. Finally it's a shame that Michelle Rodriguez was killed off as she added a lot to the first film.
The sequel to Aladdin. Disney didn't even try to create something with the scope of the original, using bog standard animation and not even having Robin Williams voicing the genie. Everything isn't as good - the songs are weaker, the story's weaker, the jokes are weaker... Sequels that don't even try to match the originals are the worst, and this is a key example. Not bad though - just clearly worse.
The Return Of The Living Dead series has a distinctly bargain basement feel to it but still entertains me. Perhaps its main flaw is that the movies barely sit together, linked by the military/zombie theme and little else. This one replays the original film but with less style and humour. Bringing back two of the cast of the original movie and putting them through exactly the same experience was a masterstroke however, and writing about it now is making me smile. Still, given a choice, I'm afraid the sequel loses out in my mind.
Here we see another totally competent sequel but it just doesn't quite match the original. There just seem to be less memorable elements in this film, although there isn't much of a difference.
The makers of Scary Movie promised there wouldn't be one, but the sequel came along astonishingly fast, was OK but unarguably less entertaining, and inevitable passed by most people due to zero publicity. The film itself is patchy, but does get better on repeated viewings. Relocating the action to a haunted house was a good idea but it feels like the film was rushed out to meet demand before the script was up to scratch. However the averageness of this film made the utter brilliance of Scary Movie 3 a complete shock!
It's very satisfying to see this film trip up in its own smugness. After having the audacity to dismiss sequels as inevitably inferior (hence inspiring this page), Wes Craven failed to make a good follow-up to Scream. Was it to prove his point? The original had a great cast and some good moments but this tries far too hard and fails to be as memorable. Almost all the new characters totally fail to register at all, let alone as suspects, and that's the problem. Some have argued that this is a better film. In reality, it's a totally inferior sequel to follow a film that was mediocre in the first place!
Hated by critics, this is another OK sequel but it is still behind the original. Of course this film was doomed the moment Keanu Reeves refused to do it and any sequel without the original star is almost always destined for failure. The film lacks the strong male lead and doesn't match the original for excitement. There can be little argument that this is a prime example of a weak sequel.
The inferiority of this sequel is largely because of the fact that Kevin Bacon isn't in it. Also the creatures in the original were distinguished by being subterranean. Although bringing the creatures to the surface seems a logical development, it takes away what made them special and scary and just turns them into regular animals. The humour is good but not as good as before. This is basically an impossible sequel - the evolution of the creatures seems unavoidable but at the same time it takes the whole point away, and the comic pairing of before wouldn't really had worked again anyway so the script was always going to be worse. A totally passable but pointless sequel.
This movie makes me very angry. For once the critics were in arms, proclaiming this to be an outstanding sequel and all the rest of it. Then I went to see it and was overwhelmed by how mediocre it was. 28 Weeks Later passed me by, making little impact. The beginning decided to declare that the zombies in the original had simply died, thereby resetting everything back to zero rather than carrying on properly. Apart from a few deserted shots of London that were a bit like 28 Days Later but only a fraction as memorable, this was the archetypal poor sequel.
