5 Most Underrated Film Sequels of All-Time

Post Reply New Topic

Dredd - Better in every department than the Stallone pile of rubbish. No annoying comedy, Karl Urban snarling, Olivia Thirlby kicking arse and grimy and grungy ultra violence.

^ Dredd isn't a sequel, and considering the good reviews it got, I wouldn't call it underrated either.

After watching A Good Day to Die Hard, I can now add this movie to the topic.

15% on Rotten Tomatoes. Absurd. It's very good, better than Die Hard 2 and Live Free or Die Hard.

Another one to add:



I enjoyed this one just as much as the original. The reviews were terrible, but they mostly centered around the fact that Paul Newman and Robert Redford didn't return. Putting that aside, it's a terrific sequel.

Dominion: Prequel To The Exorcist


28 Weeks Later


Hellboy II: The Golden Army



Monsters University


Toy Story 2

I don't see why Hannibal gets so much hate...

Visually, 'City of Angels' is stunning; I love the look of the film and I really can't fault anything which stars Iggy Pop. However, neither the plot nor the characters are as engaging as the original. I've only fallen asleep during two or three movies throughout the entirety of my life and 'City of Angels' was one of them. I'll stick by the original, but the second definitely deserves a little more respect than it gets.

The fact that you call 'The Blair Witch Project' "brain dead" immediately puts us at odds with each other seeing that I consider the original one of the best horror films of the latter half of the 20th century (and I happen to own one of the largest 'BWP' memorabilia collections on the west coast). The second gets a lot of hate, but I think it has its merits. The first problem was that the original directors declined to participate in the sequel, the second problem was that the studio took the film away from director Joe Berlinger (who intended to make the film more psychological and story-driven) and re-edited it into a more generic teen horror film with lots of jump scares. I definitely love the metafictional direction that it started to take, but it devolves too quickly into formula. Honestly, there were so many 'Blair Witch' books, comics, computer games and mockumentaries which delved deep into the fictional mythology that it's better to just stick with those.

I'll second you on 'Predator 2'. I like it just as much as the first.


'Street Fighter' is a lot of fun. Dumb fun, sure, but dumb fun is still fun.


It got good reviews, but it tanked at the box office. Thankfully, it found its audience on DVD, but the possibility of a sequel seems pretty slim.


Not absurd. I'd argue that 'A Good Day to Die Hard' is as bad as the original 'Die Hard' is good, and the original is one of the top five action films ever made. I loved the first 'Die Hard' and I was seething through the entire duration of part five. It was an affront to the entire series which has absolutely none of the suspense, engagement and charisma of the first two films. An awful, hole-riddled plot. Forgettable, generic action sequences. Forgettable, generic characters (and having Jai Courtney accompany Bruce Willis was about as welcome as Shia LeBouf accompanying Harrison Ford in 'Indy 4' (which is to say, not at all)). What bothers me most of all, though...I just hate how they removed all traces of humanity from John McClane. Remember in the first film, in which he spent most of it injured? The bare feet on the glass? Remember the human elements of John McClane, a stark contrast to the invincible one-man war machines that Schwarzenegger and Stallone were in their own films? Well, forget that: in 'Good Day', Bruce Willis can crash through windows and survive explosions without a single scratch. As far as being in relation to the first installment in a series, it's one of the worst sequels I've ever seen, and that's no exaggeration. 15% seems generous. I just can't see why anyone who liked the first two 'Die Hard's would find any merit in part five. Part four was bad, sure, but at least it had some fun.


I don't know if it gets hate, it's just that it's tonally very different from 'Silence' and 'Manhunter'. It's nowhere near the quality of those two, but I think it's kind of fun in its own right. I heard someone describe it once as "a giallo which Hannibal Lecter just happens to show up in", and I think that's quite apt. It's still a heck of a lot better than 'Hannibal Rising', though. I've yet to hear anybody stick up for that one.

As far as my own picks, I'll have to work on that.