Movie series where the first one was the worst one.

I haven’t in a hot minute, I’m just going by general consensus which I think Rotten Tomatoes is the best tool for. Obviously there’s no “correct” answer as it does come all down to the individual.

I forgot that one existed.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

As long you're not saying each sequel is better than the last, the original Star Trek movies apply. In my opinion, the first was the worst

Did you see the one directed by Shatner, Star Trek V: The O'Hura Fan Dance? It was so very, very awful.

I would rank it as second worst because it did have some interesting or exciting parts while the first was very dull.

Good answer. I think the first in a series can often suffer if it has to tell an origin story. As such, especially in the case of Harry Potter, it spends a long time introducing all the characters, rules, magic, history etc of Hogwarts, that then the main story of it is a bit slapdash.

Id go for Toy Story. That's not to say Toy Story is bad because it isnt. It was just the first film not just of a series, but of a studio in a revolutionary new kind of animation, so I think it was a little limited in what it could do in 1995. The advances in technology that had come by 99 when 2 came out allowed them to improve the technical aspects of the film and do a lot more, do more exciting things with the animation, and therefore expand on the story. They built on the characters and the emotions involved in 2 and 3 as well, the things that made the first so good.

I like the first flick (the 2002 Director's Cut, though) more than the fifth film, which I have trouble getting through these days.

__________________

I like the John Woo one better than the first one myself. Why do so many people hate John Woo, is he really that bad of a director?

who hates him? I think hes great and have never heard of him being bad mouthed.

Don't know why Rambo even got mentioned at all here.
First Blood is by far and away the best of the series. Rambo 3... I have a copy of all the movies, and Rambo 3 is still in the cellophane It's awful.
1. First Blood
2. Rambo
3. First Blood: Part 2
4. Rambo 3


I can see how Star Trek The Motion Picture could get a mention considering it does drag in places. The 90 minute introduction sequence for the ship kinda halts the film before it even starts.
But, well, The Final Frontier is definitely the worst one.


Mission: Impossible... yeah, the second one is easily the worst. Watchable, but not much rewatch value.


My own input:
If you discount part 3 onward (most people do), the Terminator series maybe?
T2 is far better than The Terminator.

__________________

Any series with a prequel

__________________
Letterboxd | ReverseShot | SlantMagazine

Count me in with the folks who think First Blood is the best of the Rambo series.

Oh, think I got one...


Universal's new Monster-Verse...


Started with Godzilla
Second film is Kong: Skull Island


Godzilla was an editing mess, had almost nothing redeemable... Skull Island was a fun popcorn flick.
Let's hope the sequels "Kong Vs Godzilla" and "Godzilla King Of The Monsters" aren't as bad as the first movie.

Universal are also working on a "Dark Universe"


Dracula Untold was the first one... and it was so bad they then removed it from canon.


They then decided that Tom Cruise's The Mummy would be the first one.
And look how that turned out.


Doubt the sequels will be as bad as that load of garbage tbh.

Ok I third that. First blood is by far the best. Rambo 3 is nonsense!

I think first blood was the best of the series. I think. Is that the first one. I lose track of the names. I prefer episode numbers.

Because he's considered one of the ultimate style-over-substance directors - the more distinct (and over-the-top) a director's style is, the easier it is for them to divide or alienate audiences. It also doesn't help that his best-known Hollywood movies already tend to be some rather absurd-looking projects like Hard Target or Face/Off so Western audiences come away with this impression of him being a borderline Michael Bay kind of director (and they might well get that impression from something like Hard Boiled anyway).

Besides, I think you can definitely make the case that M:I-II wouldn't have been significantly better (if at all) with a director other than Woo anyway.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Just thought of one...Captain America

Pretty much this.


Woo's trademark is slow motion.
Slow motion walking shots
Slow motion high-kicks
High octane chase scenes that are bookended by slow motion vehicle stunts
Slow motion doves taking flight in any shot that's leading to a slow motion action scene
Protagonist jumping through the air, firing two guns, in slow motion

And sparks. Sparks everywhere when there shouldn't be sparks: Whenever anyone shoots anything at any time with any kind of weapon, the object that is hit, no matter what it's made from, throws off showers of sparks, in slow motion


And pan shots and crane-zooms. During a fight between protagonist and antagonist, the camera always zooms in... from miles away, and 150 feet up...

Though both movies are lovable, I'll throw my hat in the ring and say Clerks II was noticeably better than the first.