Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Ask JKM a Question: Which sequel would you replace?

This morning, a reader, Randal Graves, noted in the comments section for “Ask JKM a Question: What Sequel would like to see?” that he would like to see a replacement for Conan the Destroyer (1984), the sequel to Conan the Barbarian (1982).

That funny yet interesting remark got me thinking of a great question, which I know pose to all of you.  Which movie sequel would you like to see replaced, and why? 

And even more: what would you replace that (bad) sequel with?

For me, the answer at the top of my list has already been provided by another reader, Carl, also this morning. 

Carl mentioned Return of the Jedi (1983), and that’s also the very first sequel I would like to see replaced, in part because it features a rerun central threat (another Death Star), in part because it represents the beginning of crass commercialism aimed right at children (The Ewoks) in the franchise, and in part because Harrison Ford gives the worst, most checked-out performance of his career as Han Solo. 

Also, the love triangle is wrapped up all neat and tidy in ROTJ by the revelation that Luke and Leia are siblings. Yet we never see the emotional weight of this revelation in terms of Luke’s feelings.  Leia may be his biological sister, but it is clear from Star Wars and Empire that he has romantic feelings for her.  Does he feel guilty about his romantic feelings now?  Does he merely suppress them?  Do those feelings make him realize he can't understand love or human connections, and must therefore practice Jedi-style asceticism?

Return of the Jedi’s answer?  Next scene!

Anyway, there’s this pervasive by-the-numbers or superficial quality to Return of the Jedi that makes it -- for me, anyway -- a crushing disappointment.  I would “replace” it as a sequel with a Star Wars entry revealing a new technological menace from the Empire, and featuring Wookies (already established in the universe) rather than the Ewoks.  I'd also grant Harrison Ford something – anything – to do, that might engage his interest.  I know the actor wanted Han Solo to die heroically in the third film, and I believe that fate would actually have been a good call, adding a layer of tragedy and “balance” to the rebel victory over the Empire.

Although I can argue all day the artistic merits of Alien3, I fully realize a number of readers here would disagree with me on that particular film, and replace that sequel too.  They would do so, I imagine, with a film that allows Newt, Hicks and Bishop to survive, and thus form a kind of nuclear family with Ripley.  I’m not unsympathetic to this desire, but I still appreciate the searing nihilistic artistry of Alien3 and the last-temptation of Ripley/Passion of Joan of Arc imagery.  If I had to replace any Alien sequel, I’d actually replace Alien Resurrection (1997) instead, which always plays like a grossly unsubtle -- and French -- cartoon.

So, after Return of the Jedi, here are my three choices for sequels to be replaced:

Species II (1998). When I watched the original Species (1995) for the first time, I had the distinct impression that the film – while not perfect – might legitimately launch a great genre franchise and also a “movie monster” that would achieve the same level of popularity as The Terminator, the Predator and the Alien.  More so, it would present the first female “monster” in that new pantheon. As an otherworldly beast, Sil looked great (thanks to the Giger-inspired design), and as a human she was...smoking hot.  A good sequel could have introduced more information about Sil and the alien race that sent her DNA “recipe” to Earth.  It could have deepened the Species universe significantly.  Instead, the 1998 sequel was cut-rate and bargain basement: poorly edited and acted, and utterly lacking any degree of charm.  And charm – in other words, Natasha Henstridge – is one quality that made the original more than your average creature feature.  A great opportunity for franchise-building was sacrificed at the altar of gore and special effects.

Halloween II (1981).  I know a lot of people enjoy this horror film, and rightly so. It’s not that it’s a terrible horror film, by any means.  However, it is this franchise entry that adds the “reason” or motivation behind the Shape’s relentless pursuit of Laurie Strode.  And that's the thing I'd like to replace.

Turns out, according to this sequel, that Laurie is Michael Myers’ long-lost sister, and that Michael is hell-bent on killing family members.  After Laurie is out of the picture, Michael even goes after his niece, Jamie, next. 

As a critic and as a viewer, I always enjoyed Michael much more as a villain when we had to speculate about his reasons for being “The Shape.”  Was he a developmentally-arrested kid playing trick or treat pranks? An embodiment of Laurie’s Id? Just a psycho?  Or actually, a supernatural force let loose on Haddonfield? 

With that creepy white Shatner mask cloaking his real visage and true motivations, we could project upon Michael any idea that scared us the most. When Michael in Halloween II simply because a murderer of his own family members, ambiguity and terror were sacrificed. “The Shape” became much more understandable, and thus less scary.  The remakes by Rob Zombie – while commendable as the personal vision of a unique film artist – traveled further down this (unnecessary) road of humanization, making Michael an abused child.  If I could replace Halloween II (1981), I’d make a similar film, but one that omits the Myers back story and motivation.

Superman III (1983).  I will readily acknowledge that this Superman film boasts some intriguing and fun moments, especially the duel between drunken Superman and wholesome Clark Kent, now split into two.  But Superman II (1981) was an epic adventure pitting Superman against Kryptonian criminals, and featuring an emotional love story between Clark and Lois. 

Following up that particular tale with Richard Pryor’s comedy antics and Robert Vaughn’s “coffee magnate” villain results in massive disappointment. The comic book universe of Superman was rich enough that a new direction could have been vetted, but one which didn’t play as so damn insulting and even inconsequential.  I would have liked very much to see the next chapter of the Lois/Clark relationship, definitely. Instead, Margot Kidder had a cameo appearance at the start of the picture, and was then unceremoniously shuffled off.  Finally, if a comedic villain was absolutely necessary, why not feature Mr. Mxyzptlk?

Return of the Jedi, Species II, Halloween II and Superman III. 

Those are my choices of the moment.  Now you’re up. Which sequels would you replace, and more importantly, what would you replace them with?


  1. Totally agree about Jedi, parts of Halloween II and Superman III. Also agree about Alien3 and Alien Resurrection.

    Sequels I'd replace:

    Conan the Destroyer and Red Sonja. Now, Red sonja is not technically a sequel, but it is a third Hyborian age film, more of a spin off, but I'd replace these two with an actual, Arnold Schwarzenegger/John Milius Conan trilogy; say, Conan the Barbarian, Conan the Warrior, culminating in King Conan.

    Return of the Texas Chain Saw Massacre - replaced with 90 minutes of white noise, ha.

    Superman IV - Take the first half, re-do it only a bigger budget (ala the first two movies) then take it in a more interesting direction than NUCLEAR MAN.

    Jurassic Park III - replace with another film. perhaps Sam Neill and Jeff Goldblum return to Isla Nubla to recover the DNA from part 1, only to discover it's repopulated with dinosaurs somehow? There should definetely be some underwater dinos in this one.

    The Thing - Now, I know this is a prequel (or, truthfully, a "premake") but I really, really hate these kind of films. It's not like it's telling the vital story of what happened before a classic, it tells us nothing compelling we didn't already know, but it rudely budges in front of a classic continuity, so in future people may mistakenly watch it first and impair enjoyment of a really great film.

    1. Hi The Horror! Addiction!

      We see things very much alike, here. Red Sonja was so dreadful, and I like your idea of a Milius Conan trilogy. I love the idea of Conan the Barbarian, Conan the Warrior and King Conan...all with Milius at the helm to create a sense of artistic consistency. I love the first Conan. But after that...yikes!

      I agree with you about Superman IV and Jurassic Park III too. Those are both "small time" sequels to epic films, and rather unsatisfactory.

      I reviewed the 2011 The Thing not long ago here and I didn't hate it. In fact, I rather grew to enjoy it somewhat, and yet I cannot disagree with you that it feels largely unnecessary, and may preclude one from enjoying the surprises of the vastly superior John Carpenter 1982 film. Well-said!


    2. Oh, one I forgot and it's a big one: Mother of Tears/La Terza Madre. Even Black Cat/Demons 6 was a better sequel than that one!

  2. I would say "Temple of Doom" in the Indiana Jones series. Kate Capshaw's constant screeching makes the film completely unwatchable for me. The unexplained presence of Short Round is just bizarre and totally unnecessary. I'd say keep Marion in the adventure and keep the always-missing object a biblical icon. It would have made for a tight three-piece series.

    1. Hi Terri,

      I have mixed feelings about Temple of Doom. I remember it being a real roller coaster ride...when I was fourteen. So I do have some nostalgic feelings about watching it. But, yes, Capshaw's character grates on the nerves. I would have loved to see Marion in her place. I remember the film as being frightening and ultra-violent, but I haven't seen it quite a few years. Sometimes I think it's underrated, sometimes overrated. Now I just feel I need to see it again...

      Great comment!


  3. I agree Terri. And short round is, erm, a bit stereotypical. My choice, the 2nd Matrix film. The "Rave" scene...Urgh. The third film is actually interesting, but does plod along at times. The end of the trilogy is thought provoking, but lacks some serious momentum.

    1. Hi Jane,

      I'm so glad to know that you are a fan of the third Matrix film. I reviewed all three of these films last summer and I actually found a great deal of value in all of them, even Reloaded. The part of that film I especially groove on is the confrontation with the Architect.

      I agree with you that Revolutions is thought provoking, but doesn't quite work. Ambitious as hell though, and I always try to laud ambition.

      Great thoughts on these films. By the way, I always tell people I would take all the Matrix films any day over the Lord of the Rings films....which I despise! I fear the day someone asks me to review those films for an Ask JKM Question, because I'm afraid I'd have little nice to say after the first film. I guess that series offers two sequels I'd like to replace, or at least merge, or re-edit (down to about 90 minutes...).

      Excellent remarks. Thank you for adding to the discussion!


  4. Robert6:38 PM

    INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. Horrible in every way. I would replace it with whatever Frank Darabont came up with. If they needed a younger sidekick in the movie, why didn't they just bring back an adult Short Round?

    1. Hi Robert,

      Another Indiana Jones sequel to be replaced!!!

      I must admit, I had a lot of fun with The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (horrible title, though...). I saw it with my wife back in the summer of 2008, and remember enjoying it.

      Even nuking the fridge didn't bother me!

      But I totally get why you would replace it. Shia Le Beouf? Aliens?

      Great comment,

  5. Great question, John. I'd agree on all of these (especially since you already know my thoughts about Alien 3 ;-)) . Richard Lester, who I'll always have his back for A HARD DAY'S NIGHT and HELP!, really dropped the ball with SUPERMAN 3 (no doubt helped with his initial success with SUPERMAN II, though Richard Donner still deserves a good amount of the credit before he was let go). Of course, S3 is light years better than SUPERMAN 4. You already know I'm not too crazy about JURASSIC PARK: THE LOST WORLD, so I'd replace that one, too.

    As well, I'd want them to just film what Joss Whedon originally scripted for ALIEN RESURRECTION -- Ripley's character still shines through enough for me to actually care about this film, and in a way more than Fincher's take with the third installment (though to be fair, studio interference really damned that movie). And I do blame that French director for ruining RESURRECTION with those cartoonish aspects you mention about it.

    Okay, my top pick for a sequel that I'd LOVE for someone to replace is: THE GODFATHER PART III!!!! The original and the first sequel are simply masterworks of cinema. Part III could have capped the trilogy perfectly, but Coppola inanely recast his daughter (when you-know-who dropped out), she a good filmmaker but woefully under equipped as an actress, for the role who,along with her father Michael, are the crucial roles of the entire film. Sheesh! Plus, not wanting to pay Robert Duvall enough to bring Tom Hagen back was another bad move. I think even Francis Ford Coppola sees it as a supreme lost opportunity.

    I'll get off my soap box now ;-). Thanks, John.

    1. Hi Le0pard13,

      I wrote that paragraph about Alien 3 just for you, my friend. It just goes to show you how people have their own tastes about sequels. I know a lot of folks absolutely love Return of the Jedi, and yet it always disappoints me. It's always interesting to read what other people feel about movies and sequels, in particular.

      Superman IV was terrible, due in large part to budgetary problems. It was nice to see Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder and Hackman again, but Nuclear Man was terrible, and the scene where Superman re-built the Great Wall of China with his x-ray vision was horrible!

      Lost World was mediocre, definitely. They could have stayed with the novel by Crichton, which I believe you pointed out, very ably, when I reviewed the film earlier this year.

      And, my friend, I am a gigantic fan of the Godfather films. I love, love, love, love them. I can even see the beauty in Godfather III, which isn't always easy. But my wife and I have this tradition (well, we did until we had Joel), of always watching the three movies back-to-back over Thanksgiving weekend. Don't ask me why, but we did it for three or four years, and it was marvelous. Somehow, run as a giant "epic," the third film felt more a piece with the other two.

      That said, there was a big casting problem there with Sofia Coppola, as you rightly acknowledge, and George Hamilton didn't exactly make a good replacement for Duvall. So I agree that the film is flawed.

      And yet...I love it as part of the saga. One of these days, I should review all three films on the blog...

      Great comment, my friend. Thank you for adding so much to the discussion.


  6. Anonymous9:04 PM

    John I absolutely agree with your changes to ‘Return of the JedI’[wookies, not ewoks and new a weapon, not another death star], ‘Superman III’[brilliant John, yes Mr. Mxyzptlk] and ‘Alien3’[Newt, Hicks and Bishop to survive with Ripley]. Now for ‘Alien:Resurrection’ I would replace the entire plot instead with the safe arrival of Newt, Hicks, Bishop and Ripley at the Earth orbiting Gateway space station that we saw in Aliens(1986). However, an alien/egg arrives with then and causes chaos on the Gateway station they must not let the alien get to the Earth below!!!


    1. Hi SGB:

      I remember reading some reports of early drafts of Alien 3 (by William Gibson?) that involved that idea of Aliens on Gateway station. It was the promise of a whole different direction for the Alien series. And as much as I do adore Alien 3 intellectually and visually, I can't deny that branching off in that direction may have served the franchise more in the long run. To have four strong characters, adult and child, marine and android, vetting the saga might have given the screenwriters more options.

      Excellent idea. And I would have loved a Mxyzpltlk Superman III!

      Great comment, as usual!


  7. If there's one film I despise more than Return of the Jedi, it's Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. I find so much wrong with this film that my it's hard for me to single out just a few things that rub me the wrong way. But let me try...

    1: Big digital clocks on the bridge: When were these installed and why? Were they there to let everyone know when their 8 hour shifts were over? No, they are there to provide (in a hamfisted way) a sense of impending urgency.

    2. Shakespeare spouting Klingons: Why was Chang always spouting verses from Shakespeare? Was it just to annoy the Enterprise crew? It sure annoyed me. It doesn't really make any sense? It makes Chang look foolish rather than ruthless like the Klingons of the past.

    3. Silverware in Spock's quarters: When did Spock go all fancy on us? I always imagined that he lived a rather spartan and ascetic lifestyle but here he's having drinks with Valeris from silver goblets as they make thinly veiled lovey-dovey glances at each other.

    The cast looked old, and acted old: Everyone just looks like they want to retire already. Kirk is grumpy and downright prejudiced against the Klingons. Chekov's wig is more outlandish looking than Shatner's and Checkov is equally unhappy. At least in Star Trek V, the cast looked old but they ACTED young.

    The Mind Rape Scene: I know there's a reason to force the information from Valeris, but it's done in such a overtly forceful way. Spock is restraining Valeris and she's clearly experiencing anguish. I guess the needs of the many really do outweigh the needs of the one.

    The Scooby Doo ending: Why the assassin isn't a Klingon at all! All we have to do is pull off the mask and the assassin is a right wing conservative Colonel (I'll grant that this is only on the DVD and not in the original release but still...). And why is the bridge crew beaming down to stop the assassination rather than a well armed team of security guards? It's so that everyone can applaud the original crew's good deed and set up the ending when we say goodbye to our good old friends.

    If I were writing the original crew's swan-song movie, I would have returned to Roddenberry's original mission of exploration, letting the crew of the Enterprise face "space, the final frontier" for one final time.

    In the original series, the Enterprise was a cutting edge piece of technology, on an important mission of exploration. In the films, it's as if the ship were permanently parked in the Federation parking lot in Earth orbit, waiting for the crew to arrive and start their next short term mission.

    I would have given the Enterprise crew one last opportunity to "seek out new life and new civilizations and to boldly go where no man has gone before". I would have rather seen them go out in a blaze of glory rather than sail into the sunset as the ending of Star Trek VI so mundanely gave us.

    Sorry for the harsh criticism but Star Trek meant so much to me growing up in the 60's ad 70's. It was difficult for me to see these characters evolve into something so different than the ideals of Roddenberry's original series.

    1. Pierre,

      I'm a pretty big admirer of Star Trek VI, so I don't agree with you, but I find your point of view fascinating and intriguing.

      Of all your points, the one I share most fully is the mind-rape scene. It's a dark moment for the Spock character. Certainly, the peace of the galaxy is at stake, but it feels wrong for the pacifist, altruistic Mr. Spock to engage in this behavior, and furthermore to do it before a live (on the bridge) audience.

      Very interesting reading...


  8. Little Mike Myers, you used to be a force, then they made you a cheap slasher. Sad.

    Wasn't Milius planning (or at least had mentioned it in passing) that after the success of the first Conan, to do a couple of more but development hell resulted in those hideous blights?

    Couldn't agree more about Jedi, but before they shuffled off to the next scene, we did get some pretend tortured faces from Fisher and Hamill. Maybe their hearts weren't into it that much either.

    Despise the LOTR flicks? Blasphemy! They've issues (surfing elves, for starters), but so much less CGI than certain other filmmakers would have used.

    I don't think I answered your question, but everyone covered all the obvious bases. I suppose I could throw in a bunch of Nightmare on Elm Street sequels. The second has kind of a stupid charm about it but, aside from the fourth walling of New Nightmare, I could do without Freddy delving so far into camp. The first was legitimately scary.

    1. Hi Randal,

      The acting in ROTJ is pretty bad, as you indicated in your comment. The whole feeling of the film is that it is rushed, in my opinion.

      Hey, I though Randal Graves called the LOTR flicks "Bored of the Rings!" in Clerks 2! :)

      I also agree with you that the first Nightmare on Elm Street was legitimately scary but that some of the later films (namely Freddy's Dead) went to high camp and replaced special effects with real terror.

      Thank you too, my friend, for starting off this thread and this segment with your remarks on Conan the Destroyer. Your comment sent off a really great discussion of sequels here!

      I only steal from the best! :)


  9. Here's a few I'd replace:

    The Final Conflict- A lot of trilogies don't have a satisfying ending and this is no exception. There's all this build up and then we get an ending that kind of falls flat. As told in the Book of Revelation, Christ returns and the Anti-Christ is there to face him, but then where's the battle? Instead we get an anticlimax for a series that started so well.

    Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare- There is so much wrong with this one. Making it so over-the-top and cartoonish really clashes with the rest of the series. Ok, 4 and 5 have some of that too, but not to this extent. Visually the film is impressive and there are some good ideas. Seeing some of Freddy's past was nice, but some of it executed poorly. They should have focused on coming up with a better story and the darker side than elaborate effects and set pieces.

    Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later- I actually quite like this film, but would change a few things. One, that lame title has to go. Sounds like they were trying to be hip, but it just sounds silly. Two, acting as if the past three sequels didn't happen was a mistake. Initially they intended to not disregard them, but for whatever reason changed their minds. And three, they should have hired someone else to play Myers. They used stuntmen in the past, but those guys brought more to the table.

    Hellraiser: Bloodline- Another case of studio interference. The story is great and Kevin Yagher, an amazing effects artist, had tons of genre experience. However, word has it that the suits wanted Pinhead to show up sooner and for there to be more blood and gore. So what did they do? Had some scenes reshot and some new ones added behind the director's back. The result isn't awful, but is quite a mess. Would have been something to see how Kevin would have realized Peter Atkin's original script.

    Jaws 3- They had a great setting in this one. Unfortunately, the script is lousy, the effects cheap and there's almost not tension. Had they focused more on improving these things instead of on the 3D this may have turned out more than decent.

    1. Hi Aaron,

      Some fine choices for replacement there. Final Conflict is bad just for the reasons that you describe (though the scenes that describe the Anti-Christ's uhm, preference, for certain sexual, uhm, behaviors, is always a hoot).

      And Freddy's Dead is the worst of the Nightmare sequels by a long shot, and that's saying a lot. I actually like Dream Child a lot. It's not a perfect film, but I feel like it tried to pull back from some of the campiness and humor. Freddy's Dead is just silly and inconsequential, and then it ends using the same gimmick (bringing Freddy into the real world) that failed to work for Nancy in the original 1984 film. Whatever! Best part: the montage of Freddy kills over the end credits. Very nice.

      And yes, yes, to Hellraiser Bloodline and Jaws 3, both painfully bad movies.

      I can't disagree with any of your selections!


  10. Anonymous3:53 PM


    Here's my shortlist for sequels to replace.

    2010. As far as it goes, it's not a bad science fiction film on it's own. However, it's a straight narrative film that doesn't have one-tenth the symbolic or thematic resonance of 2001. Further, it unwittingly dates itself by imagining a future "Cuban Missile Crisis," while 2001 referred to events on Earth in as oblique a manner as possible. 2010 also makes the mistake of trying to directly answer questions that the original posed, instead of expanding the universe that 2001 created.

    Star Trek: Nemesis. It would have been far more honest if Paramount and Rick Berman had called it a direct remake of Star Trek II. Nothing in Nemesis has any of the literary depth or grasp of character that Wrath of Khan has, and the theme of twins or doubles is not well expressed visually. My sadness at the end wasn't that Data dies, but that his death was so unecessarily dumb and meaningless.

    AVP:Requiem. Paul W.S. Anderson's AVP is actually underrated, in a campy, comic-book way, but Requiem is like a drunk 16 year old boy's idea of what would make a good Alien / Predator film. The film also has all of the wit, intelligence, and visual acuity of said drunk 16 year old boy. If your means of attacking the audience is fetishizing death to children and pregnant women, you're not edgy or tough, you're just a bully (I'd call you a hack, but that gives hacks a bad name). Just a horrendous feat of non-filmaking.

    Spider Man 3. A classic case of too much equals not enough. Sandman, Venom, or Harry Osborn by themselves would have been more than enough. But with all three at once... no single threat materializes long enough to make an impact. And worst of all, the most interesting threat - Venom - is given the shortest shrift of all (it's also a waste of perfect casting in Topher Grace, and the thematic Id to Spider Man's Ego).

    Batman and Robin. Very simply, considering the talent involved and the money spent, the worst sequel I've ever seen.

    -Jeffrey Siniard

    1. Hi Jeffrey,

      I concur with you about 2010. It's not terrible or incompetent by any means. Some of it is quite good. But the Cold War conflict does date the film, now, and you're right that it's hard to go from Earth-shattering revelations (and brilliant symbolism) in the Kubrick film to just a kind of quasi-Star Trek in the near future sort of film.

      Star Trek: Nemesis is a terrible film for a lot of reasons, but I hate the way it gives you a ready-made replacement for Data in the first act, just so you won't feel too sad when the real one dies. Oh look, we've got another android...


      AVP: Requiem is one of the worst films made in the last ten years. I agree with your description, and described it similarly in my review, back in 2007 or 2008. It's like some teenage kid hepped up on chips and Mountain Dew wrote the script, trying to be "cool." A horrendous feat of non-filmmaking is a good description of the film. And the lighting was so goddamn terrible. You couldn't see anything very clearly, even if you could clearly sense it was all nonsense. And I'm with you about the sick fetishizing of children deaths. Really unsavory stuff.

      I'm a huge Sam Raimi fan, but Spider-Man 3 was not his finest hour as a filmmaker. No doubt about it.

      Batman and Robin was disastrously bad, and low point for George Clooney. He was a really, really terrible Batman. I'm sure he regrets making the film, especially considering all the fine work he's done in his career.

      Fascinating reading, Jeffrey! Thanks for sharing it.


  11. Oh, one more. Though I don't hate Fire Walk With Me as most folks it seems, I'd replace that in a second with a third season of Twin Peaks. Season two is criminally underrated.

    1. Randal,

      I'm with you that the second season of Twin Peaks is criminally underrated. I love that season.

      Of course, I also really Fire Walk with Me. I reviewed it here in 2008 or 2009 and gave it four stars in my Horror Films of the 1990s book. I thought it was amazing, and amazingly sleazy at the same time. Perfect!

      I don't know that I could let it go, but it would be a hard choice if I knew the replacement was a full season three of the series.


  12. Oh yeah, agree with a lot of choices.

    People have mentioned so much that I already agree or disagree with. I don't want to repeat stuff.

    Now, Mission: Impossible 2, I could do without. I haven't seen Ghost Protocol. I liked the first one and third one (don't really get the hate it sometimes get). I thought the 2nd one was a bit over the top, Thandi Newton didn't do much for me and the same could be said about the villain. Nothing about it really didn't surprise or thrill in the same ways as the first and third.

    I've probably seen all the Rocky and Rambo movies (except the fourth one) so I can safely say that Rocky V and Rambo III could be replaced. I'm on the fence between the last three Dirty Harry sequels...I can't really decide which one of them to replace.

    Die Hard 4.0 aka Live Free or Die Hard, there's a better story for John McClane than they came up with, if he can't say Yippe-Kay-Yay without gunshots, what good is a Die Hard without that?

    And I think Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles is an easy replacement....although I haven't seen it.

    Strange, I'm trying so hard thinking of trilogies or more I forget singular sequels. The Descent Part 2, is okay but could have been stronger, if only the sheriff wasn't so stupid and didn't end it on that note that they did (not really against it but in this case, why?)

    I can't think of anything else.


McClane Binge: Die Hard (1988)

Die Hard  is the movie that launched a hundred cinematic knock-offs or so.  John McTiernan’s blockbuster 1988 so dramatically and t...