Film Worst Sequels

Nani Nana said:
die hard 2

then die hard 3

and then die hard 4
Click to expand...

:eek: No!

:nono:

MockneyRevil said:
Certainly not Die Hard 3 with Jeremy Irons sterling German accent and hard nosed warrior woman!....Sam Jackson & Bruce Willis for crying out loud. It's like Pele & Maradona both playing on the same team, orgasmic!
Click to expand...

Yeah, 'Vengeance' was great. Samuel L. motherfecking Jackson was in the motherfecking movie for crying out loud.

And Die Hard 2 was good as well... I love the bit where he blows up the plane at the end - I personally think that's the best use of 'yippie-ki-ay' of all the films.
 
HTG said:
Which one? The second one is really good.
Click to expand...
The second one was utter garbage. It is over-the-top nonsense with plotholes large enough to fly that plane through and a complete disregard for physics, procedures, any realism really.


I'm surprised nobody has brought up the last season of Scrubs yet. Such a beloved longrunning series with a perfect ending, and then they desecrate its memory with that spin-off that was marketed as another season.
But if we're just talking movies, I'mma toss the second Independence Day in the ring. Not like the first one was a timeless masterpiece, but the second was such a bloody awful and forgettable cashgrab on the franchise...
 
Die Hard 2 is decent enough. Imo the third film is just as good as the first one(Both are directed by action master John McTiernan).
 
G3079 said:
The second one was utter garbage. It is over-the-top nonsense with plotholes large enough to fly that plane through and a complete disregard for physics, procedures, any realism really.


I'm surprised nobody has brought up the last season of Scrubs yet. Such a beloved longrunning series with a perfect ending, and then they desecrate its memory with that spin-off that was marketed as another season.
But if we're just talking movies, I'mma toss the second Independence Day in the ring. Not like the first one was a timeless masterpiece, but the second was such a bloody awful and forgettable cashgrab on the franchise...
Click to expand...
It’s not like the first part is that realistic. That’s why I struggle with criticism like that.
 
HTG said:
It’s not like the first part is that realistic. That’s why I struggle with criticism like that.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between not being very realistic and beating any trace amount of realism to death with a shovel, hacking it into tiny snippets with a meat cleaver, burning it up and pissing on the ashes.
And even if you ignore the lacking realism, then the awful pacing and ginormous plotholes still claw your eyes out. It also has by far the worst, most forgettable generic baddies of the first three movies.
 
G3079 said:
There's a difference between not being very realistic and beating any trace amount of realism to death with a shovel, hacking it into tiny snippets with a meat cleaver, burning it up and pissing on the ashes.
And even if you ignore the lacking realism, then the awful pacing and ginormous plotholes still claw your eyes out.
Click to expand...
I just think the action is cool and like the airport setting. The dialogues are also fun. I really don’t want anything more from a movie like that.
 
Die Hard 4 and 5 are utterly horrendous (well, 4 is just rubbish, 5 is an abomination).
 
HTG said:
I just think the action is cool and like the airport setting. The dialogues are also fun. I really don’t want anything more from a movie like that.
Click to expand...
The airport setting really just made it worse for me. It added so much utter nonsense that in no way made any sense when you know just a little bit about airports or aircraft. Airports are an interesting and underused setting, but they've made the worst of it in this movie. They're somehow treating the setting like it's on planet Hoth, just a few policemen holding the fort and there's nothing but a vast ice desert out there and not as Washington-Feckin-Dulles Airport, in the capital of the country with thousands of policemen and nearby military bases including Andrews AFB, and as if there weren't three or four other airports with functioning ATC and runway lights in a 15min radius that Holly's aircraft could easily divert to.

If you like McDonald's that's fine, but don't mistake it for actual good food.
 
G3079 said:
The airport setting really just made it worse for me. It added so much utter nonsense that in no way made any sense when you know just a little bit about airports or aircraft. Airports are an interesting and underused setting, but they've made the worst of it in this movie. They're somehow treating the setting like it's on planet Hoth, just a few policemen holding the fort and there's nothing but a vast ice desert out there and not as Washington-Feckin-Dulles Airport, in the capital of the country with thousands of policemen and nearby military bases including Andrews AFB, and as if there weren't three or four other airports with functioning ATC and runway lights in a 15min radius that Holly's aircraft could easily divert to.

If you like McDonald's that's fine, but don't mistake it for actual good food.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call it McDonalds. It’s a solid burger joint, clearly above McDonalds. Like the movie before. Which has the same issues the second one has. The first one is also full of issues like these. They way the police acts for example is completely illogical.

But I’m curious now, what kind of movies do you consider haute cuisine?
 
Deadpool and Wolverine was terrible. If there is any sanity in the world (which seems unlikely) this will kill any future Deadpool films.
 
Last edited:
Wibble said:
Deadpool and Wolverine was terrible. If there is any sanity in the world (which seems unlikely) this will kill any future Deadpool films.
Click to expand...

Well, usually it doesn't kill a series if the latest film made 1.3 billion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.