About 3 weeks ago I went to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and initially planned to write a review of the film. I have decided against that, and will instead write about how some movie franchises have gotten the sequel thing right, and others should have stopped. I will say that the I feel that the latest Indiana Jones movie was better than Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, but not by much.
Hollywood is a machine driven by money. I know, and reluctantly accept that. Movies that come out of that factory are not being made simply to enlighten and entertain the masses, but to make a rather immense profit. If a by-product of that process is the enjoyment of said film by the public, so be it. Now, in the pursuit of these ends, there sometimes are films that are released as a stand-alone entity, and when the film performs well enough, a sequel is greeenlit, as the studios hope to keep on sucking the money out of our pockets. Sometimes this is a good thing, as you want to see a particular story continue. Other times, it’s more of a “Are you serious!?” thing, as they should have stopped with the second, third and sometimes the first movie. I’ll be venting in two parts, as the post would be rather long, since I plan to cover six franchises.
Die Hard
What’s Right: The first 3 Films (Die Hard, Die Hard 2: Die Harder Die Hard with a Vengeance)
Why: The first three films in the series were by no means perfect, and yes they did stretch the realms of believability, but they were fun movies. Bruce Willis smirked his way through all of those films, and we went happily along for the ride.
What’s Wrong: Live Free or Die Hard
Why: The first thing wrong with the movie was the title. This movie was called Die Hard 4.0 overseas, but here, because it was released on a holiday weekend, some genius decided to call it Live Free or Die Hard. The title is horrible, and the person that thought of it should be banned from title-giving. The other problem was that while Bruce was back, and another terrorist was up to no good, the movie just didn’t feel like a Die Hard. Maybe it was the rating (PG-13 instead of the traditional R) or that the setting (traversing all over a city under siege) gave it a been there, done that feeling. While not a horrible blight on the legacy, the series was better left alone.
Rocky
What’s Right: Rocky, Rocky II
Why: The story was simple; underdog does good, reaches for the stars, eventually wins it all, gains respect. The end. That story was told in the first 2 films, and told extraordinarily well. If you were to tell me that those movies were filmed back to back, I’d believe it, since they fit together perfectly as sequels should.
What’s Wrong: Every Rocky that came after (Rocky III, IV, V, VI)
Why: Enough was enough. By this point, you knew that no matter who the obstacle was, Rocky was going to over come it. He would beat the Angry Black guy in III, the Russian commie in IV, the brash young punk in V and the… brash young punk in VI. You never got a sense of “oh, he’s gonna lose this one” that you got from watching the first 2 films. In the first two movies, you wanted him to win. In these other "things", I wanted somebody to throw in the towel, or maybe just have had him taken out on a stretcher. If you are asking yourself why did I punish myself 4 times, all I can say is… I don’t really know….
Spider-Man
What’s Right: Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2
Why: That quality of film was not expected from the director of the Evil Dead movies. The thrill of discovery that Peter Parker experienced as he explored his powers, his struggle to find a way to win the girl, and the loss of his uncle which drove him to the role of the hero in the first movie was a great ride. The second film (which should have been called The Amazing Spider-Man instead of Spider-Man 2… hey, I’m just sayin’) Peter is comfortable with his powers but was still trying to find a balance with life as both Peter Parker and Spider-Man. The film works because not only are the performances once again stellar, but the overall theme of just wanting to be happy and the choices/sacrifices that you make doing so I believe is universal. Maybe a little heady for a superhero flick, but it works.
What’s Wrong: Spider-Man 3
Why: The title for this should have been The Spectacular Spider-Man (again…just sayin’) but that’s not all. I liked this movie, but on a second viewing, I did have some issues. The first and biggest one was that there was just not enough Venom. There was a lot written how the director of the franchise (Sam Raimi) hated the character of Venom, so much so that he didn’t really want to do a movie with him in it. But whether he caved to studio heat or just wanted to give the fanboys something, Venom ended up in the third movie. A better choice of villain would have been the use of Kraven or possibly Electro. Raimi seemed to like the classic villains best, and I feel that he should have stuck with them. To me, his dislike of Venom showed on screen. The second issue I had was that while the Sandman was ok, he just whined a little too much for me. Maybe if he was only in half of the movie, where it opened with him as the villain and resolved itself midway, that would have been better. Finally, the character of Gwen Stacey. She should have been the love interest in the first film, and Mary Jane should have been brought in at the end. This was comic book Spidey’s first love, and she should have been treated better than the “other woman”. Most people complained about the dance scene and Peter’s strut in the film, but I felt that those were two of the best scenes in the movie, as it showed his corruption by the alien.
