Bad movies with good sequels?

Tools    





Registered User
You could also add in Casino Royale compared to the medicore Brosnan Bond films like Die Another Day that came just prior to it (despite it being a reboot instead of a true sequel).

Or Batman Begins as a reboot to that terrible Batman and Robin film (despite having a completely different director and cast).



For me personally Nolans Batman trilogy. Didnt like first one at all.
__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."



I did (and only paying $2 for the ticket helped, admittedly). The plot is no longer trying to get Shia LaBeouf laid. The human characters are both more realistic (emphasis on more) and take a definite back seat to the robots. The Autobots themselves finally have distinguishable personalities and physiologies, making each uniquely distinct for a change. The action scenes, although overly long, were far more enjoyable than anything in the previous films. The bulkier design of the Transformers this time around make them look a lot better (unlike the anorexic robots we've had until now). Galvatron was pretty awesome, as were Dinobots and Longshot. Bay also took the plot in a surprisigly interesting direction that outshines the previous films (admittedly not very hard to do).

I unashamedly give it a solid 7.5/10.
Although I didn't like the movie, I admire someone who isn't ashamed to stick up for a movie they like! I think we all have movies we like that weren't held in high regard by most!



The movie did leave lots of interesting bits out (despite still being 3 hours long).
A book that was better than the movie...I'm shocked. Of course, this isn't the subject of the thread either.



I did (and only paying $2 for the ticket helped, admittedly). The plot is no longer trying to get Shia LaBeouf laid. The human characters are both more realistic (emphasis on more) and take a definite back seat to the robots. The Autobots themselves finally have distinguishable personalities and physiologies, making each uniquely distinct for a change. The action scenes, although overly long, were far more enjoyable than anything in the previous films. The bulkier design of the Transformers this time around make them look a lot better (unlike the anorexic robots we've had until now). Galvatron was pretty awesome, as were Dinobots and Longshot. Bay also took the plot in a surprisigly interesting direction that outshines the previous films (admittedly not very hard to do).

I unashamedly give it a solid 7.5/10.
Do you enjoy plot in a film? Because Trans4mers had none of that plot nonsense. Characters came and went without reason. No one had any kind of story arc. There were even more racial stereo-bots. The action was mind numbing. And, on top of all that, it had the most annoying and pointless changing aspect ratio ever put into a film.

It's terrible beyond belief. In fact, I'd say Transformers 4 is just unwatchable. I had to pause it half a dozen times to make it through the entire film.
__________________



Registered User
A book that was better than the movie...I'm shocked. Of course, this isn't the subject of the thread either.
I think that's unavoidable as far as films based on books goes; unless they plan on creating an 8 hour long movie.



Welcome to the human race...
Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan
Probably my pick since it fits the criteria of being a good sequel to a bad movie as opposed to just being better than an already well-liked original film like so many other examples in this thread.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.



Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan good sequel to bad ST: The motion picture
Captain America: The Winter Soldier, very, very good sequel to boring Capitan America: The First Avenger
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith - maybe not a 'good' movie but still much better than Episodes I and II.



Yeah, Revenge of the Sith was really bad. The opening scene looked just like a videogame. The crash landing with "only half a ship" looked horribly fake, to me. The acting continued to suck. Like the dialogue leading up to the climactic sabre duel ... what crap! Every line that Hayden was made to utter was cringeworthy and disconnected. Just arbitrary sentences thrown together and said with a scowling face. The lightsabre duel went on for way too long and after Kenobi wins the day, instead of doing something for Anakin, he lectures him for a few minutes, until Skywalker's a burnt crisp. It makes their famous duel in A New Hope even more hokey and absurd, when they just touch the tips of their lightsabres and chat until Ben volunteers for martyrdom. In short, I never saw any improvement in the prequels, with Episode III ... just more of the same, really.



Welcome to the human race...
Left-field answer: Troll 2 is certainly a lot more enjoyable than Troll (though the fact that it is a sequel in name only probably has something to do with that).