When it comes to sequels in Hollywood, in general you reap what you sow. But sometimes it’s a bitter harvest indeed, as this week’s “Alice Through The Looking Glass” proves (our review here). The sequel to the Tim Burton -directed 2010 “Alice in Wonderland,” itself a garish 3D CGI-fest presumably hate-watched across the $1bn marker at the worldwide box office, the fact that ‘Looking Glass’ will be poking eyes out in theaters from Friday is as unsurprising as it is depressing. Sequels are not predicated on critical reaction, after all, or even a generalized sense of an audience’s fondness for the “product,” but on $$$ and Burton’s first assault on the senses certainly made enough green to warrant a return to Wonderland.
Whether it’s a matter of timing (the 6-year gap having surely cooled the ardor of even the most enthusiastic ‘Alice’ fan) or due to the many, better, 3D-ier, CG-ier tentpoles that have arrived in the meantime, ‘Looking Glass’ feels even more surplus to requirements than the average sequel. The day-glo rainbow of indifference on which it arrives, however, has given us the excuse to delve into ten other instances of unasked-for sequels (theatrical releases only — direct to video would be too much like fish in a barrel). Whether they came about far too long after the event, revisited stories that appeared to be self-contained and finished, or simply sequelized a film that no one had particularly liked in the first place, here are the stories of ten other times Hollywood has given the public what we apparently did not want.
“Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem” (2007)
A film so ill-lit that you start out wondering if you’re going blind and so ugly that you end up kind of wishing you were, it’s not like the special-effects-boffins-turned-directors Strause Brothers had a particularly high bar to clear with Paul WS Anderson ‘s “original” 2004 “Alien Vs Predator.” That film, a long-mooted mash-up of two massively popular but individually ailing franchises was most famous for gifting a capsule review to all its critics in the form of its tagline “Whoever wins, we lose.” But Anderson’s first murky monster mash seems a model of subtlety and clever characterizations contrasted with ‘Requiem’ — a substandard B-movie in plotting that is borderline unwatchable in execution. It is perversely unrestrained in who it’s willing to kill, but then it’s not like any of the characters are developed enough that we care if they live or die (especially the standard-issue imperiled hot teenagers, played in time-honored tradition by actors in their mid-20s). It incoherently follows a “predalien” — a hybrid of the two monsters that bursts from the chest of the first film’s victorious Predator at the beginning of this one — coming to small-town Colorado with a bunch of face-huggers and proceeding to wreak havoc with only John Ortiz ‘s overwhelmed sheriff and another lone Predator standing in its way, but it adds literally nothing to the mythology of either creature. Unless it does and it’s just too damn dark to make it out. Many sequels represent a rebuke to the memory of their predecessors; but if you factor in the original franchises that spawned this unholy mess, this one’s an actual travesty. Most terrifyingly, it made money, so there’s no guarantee we won’t lose all over again a third time in the future.
“Wrath of the Titans” (2012)
It’s difficult to remember in which film the Titans are Clashing, and in which they are Wrathing, but a handy marker is that ‘Clash’ is the one with MVP Mads Mikkelsen in it, and ‘Wrath’ isn’t. Part of a glut of heavily CGI-ed mythologically-inclined swords-and-sandals epics that came along like echoes of each other from 2010 onward, Louis Leterrier ‘s “Clash of the Titans” was itself already a remake, and its muddy 3D post-conversion and general journeyman familiarity saw it widely panned. Yet still it sailed to nearly $500m worldwide, prompting this desultory Jonathan Liebesman sequel. Totemic nearly-man Sam Worthington returns as the dogged, muscly Perseus, and Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Danny Huston all phone it in a second time as Zeus, Hades and Poseidon respectively, with Rosamund Pike replacing Alexa Davalos as Andromeda, a characters who replaces Gemma Arterton ‘s Io as love interest. The visuals are better (it was also post-converted but was at least shot with 3D in mind), and the climactic battle with lava monster thingie Kronos is actually fairly impressive. But with a story that is essentially Perseus having to track down 3 special gizmos to make a powerful doodad that can then kill off the Big Special Effect, no amount of 3D pizzazz could make ‘Wrath’ feel anything but drab, and, especially coming on the heels of “Immortals” and ‘Percy Jackson‘ and even “Prince of Persia,” hopes for the continuance of the franchise were thankfully scuppered by a box office reception that, while respectable, fell nearly $200m short of the haul of ‘Clash.’
READ MORE: Review: ‘Wrath Of The Titans’ A Barely Memorable, Lifeless Sequel
“Son Of The Mask” (2005)
After “Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls,” Jim Carrey seemingly swore off making further sequels to his comedy hits, leading to an awful mini-trend of films like “Dumb & Dumberer” and “Evan Almighty” that attempted to continue their successful series without their signature star, and failed miserably. The worst, and this is really saying something, was “Son Of The Mask,” which made the thunderingly wrong assumption that any human being acting under their own will would want to see a baby-centric sequel to “The Mask,” a decade on, with Jamie Kennedy standing in for Carrey. Retaining only wingnut game show host Ben Stein from the cast of the original film, and with director Lawrence Guterman at the helm, it sees the mask finding its way into the hands of cartoonist Tim (Kennedy), who conceives a baby while wearing it, making the child the target of Norse God Loki ( Alan Cumming, giving a chilling alternate glimpse of the Marvel Cinematic Universe). It has the same physics-free, cartoon shtick as Guterman’s previous film “Cats & Dogs,” but with a slack, almost legendarily unfunny script tying the whole thing together. The effects are positively nightmarish (particularly the dead-eyed CGI baby who dominates the second half), and the performances, particularly Kennedy who simply attempts to imitate Carrey despite playing a different character, just irritating. Chuck Russell’s 1994 original isn’t the greatest film ever made, but the sequel is so deeply awful that you secretly suspect it was made just to make the original look like “Tootsie” and boost nostalgic DVD sales.
“Horrible Bosses 2” (2014)
None of the films on this list have any reason to exist, but “Horrible Bosses 2” might break new ground for the unnecessary sequel, in that it was denounced by its own star barely six months after it opened. The first film, directed by Seth Gordon, was a blend of “The Hangover” and “9 to 5” that saw three ordinary guys (Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, Charlie Day) flirt with the idea of killing their awful employers, and finding themselves in a murder plot. Thanks to some successful stunt casting with Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston and Colin Farrell, and an easy-sell concept, the film was a surprise hit despite not being very good at all. The follow-up sees the three friends going into business together, only for villainous industrialist Christoph Waltz to steal their idea. To seek revenge, they decide to kidnap and ransom Waltz’s son (Chris Pine, game if never quite funny). Co-written and directed by Sean Anders (“That’s My Boy”), the film does everything it can to replicate the fratty, amoral vibe of the original, but it’s just joylessly following in its footsteps (Spacey, Aniston and Jamie Foxx all return to no effect), sloppily put together and almost devoid of jokes. And at least one of its stars agreed. “A lot of people saw the first one,” Jason Bateman told Marc Maron last year , “but there are plenty of films that made a lot of money where no one is interested in seeing another one.” Thankfully, there are no plans for “Horrible Bosses 3.”
“Blues Brothers 2000” (1998)
In theory, the death of the key, signature star of a movie would make a sequel impossible to make in any good conscience. In practice, money always trumps good taste, which is why we get a “Pink Panther” movie with Roberto Benigni, or something like “Blues Brothers 2000,” a belated sequel to the beloved ‘SNL‘-derived comedy classic that hit theaters sixteen years after the passing of original star John Belushi. That one of the two titular brothers was now dead, possibly making the entire exercise seem pointless to the audience, didn’t seem to be an obstacle to Dan Aykroyd and John Landis, who reunited for a script that saw Elwood (Aykroyd) trying to put the band back together. John Goodman and, uh, Joe Morton are meant to fill the gap left by Belushi, but while they’re both fine actors and welcome presences, they hardly possess the pure charisma and chaotic energy of the late star, and the film can never ignore the vacuum left by Jake Blues’ absence. But that’s hardly its only problem: it’s like the Jeb Bush of comedy sequels, low-energy, going through the motions, displaying a lack of chemistry with anything, and giving out a general vibe of not even wanting to be there. A getting-the-band-back-together movie where it’s impossible to get the band back together, and where not even the band members care anymore. Cameos from Erykah Badu, James Brown, B.B. King and especially Aretha Franklin provide the highlights, but on the whole, this is a good argument that we shouldn’t be mourning the Bill Murray -free “Ghostbusters 3” that Aykroyd wanted to make.
