Mean Streets Review

I think I am just going to have to admit I don’t get the appeal of some films. Not just the appeal but why films are lauded as “masterpieces” or “classics.” It’s not even like I have a “type” of film that I like watching and can put it down to that. I will watch anything and have favourites in almost every genre of film. It’s just that films where I am preparing myself for a classic or a new favourite, almost always leave me disappointed.

Mean Streets is now added to the other disappointments this year, alongside Raging Bull and The Big Lebowski. To its credit, this film wasn’t even overly hyped to me, although I had heard very good things, but I’d done the most to build my own expectations. You can hardly blame me though, a Scorsese directed film starring both Harvey Keitel and Robert De Niro. I thought this film would be brilliant, or at the very least decent.

Raging Bull, another “classic” I just don’t get.

Instead, I found myself getting bored. I found myself wondering what the point of the film was or what story it was trying to tell. I’m all for a film where nothing really seems to happen but you at least have to put something engaging on the screen. I’ve said it before, a great performance does not make up for a poor film. The decent performance in this being Robert De Nero.

De Niro is the saving grace for the film but it’s not enough!

In fact I’d go as far as saying that De Niro is the only good thing about the film. He gets to play a character much more like Travis from Taxi Driver, unhinged, slightly crazy and unpredictable, and it adds a great spark to the film when he is on-screen. Unfortunately though, the film is centred more around Harvey Keitel.

This adds a new conundrum because as I was thinking about this review and what to say about the film, I realised that the more films I watch starring Keitel, the more I don’t like him. I genuinely think he adds very little to a film and doesn’t deserve his “legendary” title that he seems to have obtained. He’s never the best part of a film and although he has some great moments in films like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, he’s very forgettable compared to others. The films where he’s taken the lead, like this and Bad Lieutenant, I haven’t enjoyed. I just don’t get the appeal.

 

Seriously beginning to think Keitel is over-rated!

 

Mean Streets is also turning me against Scorsese too, or at least early Scorsese. I have now been under-whelmed by Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Mean Streets. The saving grace for Scorsese is King of Comedy which was quirky and unusual enough to interest me and his later films, The Departed being one of my absolute favourites.

Apart from the acting, the story in Mean Streets just didn’t engage me. I just wasn’t interested enough in what was going on and even the final moments of the film, when a little bit more excitement and action was injected, didn’t do enough to raise my opinion of this film. It came too late and by that point, I just wanted the film to end.

Overall, another Scorsese film that didn’t impress me and another “classic” that I just didn’t get. There will probably be people reading this that think I’m crazy but I just didn’t get the appeal or why people regard it so highly. Apart from the great performance from Robert De Niro, it was too slow to keep me interested. Maybe I should stop watching classics and watch more films starring Channing Tatum.

Rating 4.1

(1-3 – awful/avoid. 4-6 – average. 7-8 – good. 9-10 – fantastic.)

Scorsese still has that magic though…

Viewsday 6 – Why film fans should pay attention to what Mark Millar is doing

Film fans don’t pay enough attention to who devised the initial story or wrote the screenplay. When it comes to films we care more about the director and actors but never really pay attention to who wrote the words and story they are using. Some writers have managed to buck this trend, Aaron Sorkin, Joss Whedon and Kevin Smith being some exceptions but we never really pay as much attention to the screenwriter in the way we do for television or comics.

I’m as guilty of this as anyone else. I can tell you who wrote specific episodes of Doctor Who and who the show runner on The Office is but couldn’t tell you who wrote John Q or District 9. The exception with me is that I also didn’t pay attention to who wrote the comics either. I’m a huge fan of comics, especially mainstream, superhero comics like Batman, Superman and Spiderman and while I knew who some of the writers were, it never occurred to me to pay that much attention. That was until I started reading much more independent stuff.

Love Kick-Ass, both the film and the comic!

This is where the comic writer really gets to show off his talent and it seems the front-runner in independent comics at the moment is Mark Millar. I became aware of Millar when I first saw Kick-Ass and loved it! It was a brilliant, modern and unique take on a superhero film, so when I read the comic and realised the film didn’t come close to touching some of the more dark, quirky and amazing moments of the story, it occurred to me how brilliant Millar was as a writer.

If you’re a comics fan, pick up Clint, it’s a brilliant way to read independent writers work!

It also helped that Millar launched a comic anthology magazine called Clint. I found this by chance, the big “Kick-Ass 2 starts here” on the front of the first issue when I was in Tesco managed to catch my eye. Ever since then I have stuck with the magazine, getting to read Kick-Ass 2, Superior, Nemesis and American Jesus (alongside other independent writers and their comics). All four of these stories are incredible and a great, engaging and clever read but it made me more excited when I realised that more than one of these is being turned into a film in the next couple of years;

Kick Ass 2

I loved Kick-Ass, both film and comic but I never imagined that Kick-Ass 2 would manage to go even darker. How much of that will actually be transferred to film is another story (it really goes dark) but the story is great, the action is brilliant and the first part of the film is also solely a Hit Girl story which most would argue was the best part of the first film/comic.

Nemesis

As dark as Kick-Ass 2 gets, its nothing on how dark Nemesis is. A book about a supervillain who causes havoc and terror, ultra-violence and twisted acts as he goes up against an old-school police detective. This would look amazing on the big screen and already has Tony Scott attached to direct.

Superior

Mark Millar is great at taking something familiar and mainstream and twisting it. He already did this once with the superhero genre when making Kick-Ass but with Superior he goes in a different direction. A boy with Multiple Sclerosis gets the chance to become his favourite (superman-like) superhero, Superior. What he doesn’t realise is that he will be going up against some dark, twisted forces and have to make some difficult decisions. It’s a clever, unique and very cool story that again, will be amazing on-screen.

American Jesus

Different story completely. This book centers around the second coming of Jesus and how a small boy copes with the fact that he may in fact be the son of God. It’s a lot subtler, more withdrawn compared to other Millar books but is, again, a great story which would make a great film.

Secret Service

We are now in unfamiliar territory because I’ve only just begun to read these comics (I’m not sure they are even finished yet) but off the story alone, Millar has got film deals. Secret Service is linked with Kick-Ass director Matthew Vaughn. It’s about a London-rioting teenager who gets drafted into the Secret Service by his spy Uncle. Seems a bit “ordinary” but when Millar features Mark Hamill in an amazing opening sequence, you realise that he doesn’t really do “ordinary.”

Supercrooks

This is another comic I’m still quite new too as I only started reading this yesterday. This is another book that Millar is developing as a film alongside writing the comic but has a much cooler premise than Secret Service. When a gang of supercrooks get tired of being caught by superheroes in America all the time, they decide to take their superpowers to Spain and pull of a heist in a country where there are no superheroes. Could be an amazing idea, realised really well in a movie.

That is just a glimpse to what is up and coming but they are all really exciting film prospects and so far I haven’t been disappointed with what I’ve seen from Millar. He is credited with being one of the writers to bring life back into the Avengers comics with his Ultimates series and he has such a unique, witty and often twisted way of creating a story that his comics (and subsequently his films) should be brilliant.

Overall, I’m a huge fan of Millar and with every film announcement and every brilliant comic I read, I get more and more excited about the prospect of seeing his stories on the big screen. I really recommend picking up a copy of Clint magazine, especially if you’re a comics fan, and checking out the comics before these films emerge. Mark Millar is a key example of why film fans need to start paying attention to who is writing the films they are seeing, as well as who is behind the camera and acting in front of it.

Even Hit-Girl gets her own comic (which you can read in Clint incidentally)

Batman Returns Re-View

Whatever your opinion of Tim Burton, his style fits Batman perfectly. The dark, gothic, whites and blacks that made up Batman Returns gives Gotham, Batman and his villains, Catwoman and Penguin, the perfect look that was much more in line with the comics than anything Joel Schumacher ever did. In fact Tim Burton pretty much got everything spot on with his interpretations of Batman, both the original, with Joker played iconically by Jack Nicholson, and this sequel, where again he cast the two villains perfectly.

Ever since Spiderman 3, it has always worried me when a film decides the way to up the peril for a superhero is to add two villains rather than one. I know Spiderman wasn’t the first superhero movie to do this but a lot more added to the death of the initial Batman franchise than just the strange combination of Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy. Spiderman 3 had a great villain in Sandman who could have held the film on his own. Venom could have done the job even better and should always be treated as the sole villain. Instead, Raimi managed to sidetrack both villains! Burton doesn’t do this.

Two villains who actually get a fair amount of screen time

In fact, Burton manages to flesh out both Penguin and Catwoman, giving them loads of screen time and huge development, something that would be repeated later with Nolan’s treatment of both Joker and Two Face in the same film. Both Catwoman and Penguin get origin stories, even though both seem pretty silly compared to the actual comic book version of the pair. That would actually be my main criticism of the film. Burton’s versions of both Catwoman and Penguin are too silly.

Best version of Catwoman yet and ticks the “sexy lady for the review” box nicely!

Catwoman is a cat-like thief. She’s obsessed with cats and even has loads of them but she doesn’t actually have the powers of the cat! It’s not a major gripe but it feels out of place having Selina Kyle suddenly get nine lives from her being bitten by cats. The same with Penguin, he is a business man who resembles a penguin. He doesn’t actually have a huge obsession with fish and spew oily gunk when he speaks. I can overlook the trained penguins but only just…

It’s a shame because the casting of both these characters is brilliant. Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman is an inspired choice and the only way that Anne Hathaway can even compete is by taking the character in a completely different direction (something I’m sure Nolan would want to do anyway.) The same with Danny DeVito as the Penguin. The make-up and mannerisms of the character are superb and I don’t think anyone else could ever play this character as well (even though it would have fit Nolan’s “realistic” Batman perfectly.) In fact the design of both the characters, as well as Gotham itself, is what adds to the appeal of the film.

Can you imagine anyone else as the Penguin?

The story isn’t great but Burton’s Batman film’s were never really about story. They could have very easily played on the “framed Batman” story much more and fleshed that out alongside the Penguin for Mayor to a larger extent but Burton makes up for that shortcoming by creating a visual spectacle. The penguins marching, the opening set-piece against the circus gang and even the bat-boat chase through the pipes are all very cool and considering it was made way ahead of Nolan’s chase over the rooftops in the Tumbler, it does a decent job. I’d even say that the Bat-Wing crash from Burton’s original Batman rivals anything Nolan’s done for cool Batman film moment.

Alongside the great casting of Pfeiffer and DeVito, Michael Keaton, for me as a kid, was Batman. He could do the voice while wearing the cowl much better than Bale does and played up to the millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne much more naturally. It’s a shame he never got to make Batman Forever as I actually remember that film quite fondly (I am re-watching it soon though so that could change.) It’s a shame he isn’t used more in this film compared to how well he is used in Burton’s first Batman film.

Keaton – A totally under-rated Batman

Overall, Tim Burton does overuse the same style, something he is proving with Dark Shadows, but that style fit Batman perfectly. It was dark, moody and gothic which was a great style to show off his also brilliant interpretations of both Catwoman and Penguin. It was silly in places but at least it stayed on the much more faithful side of Batman, especially compared to what Joel Schumacher will do with his second try at a Batman film.

Rating 9.0

(1-3 – awful/avoid. 4-6 – average. 7-8 – good. 9-10 – fantastic.)

The best Batmobile of the films – until Nolan introduced the amazing Tumbler!

Notorious Review

The issue with biopics is that in some cases, they will only appeal to a handful of people. The same can probably be said about all films, but for biopics in particular because it is a rare case that someone will want to know more about the individual’s life being put on film if they haven’t got some idea of who that person is and why they are interesting. I suppose you then have to make the judgement as to whether you are making the film for the general public or just for the fans who you know will flock to see it.

There are some exceptions. A sure-fire way to guarantee people see your film is to cast someone major in the lead role. That seemed to work with A Beautiful Mind, a film about mathematician with mental issues, because it starred Russell Crowe and was directed by Ron Howard. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t have been that bothered about seeing it. The same can be said for Sylvia, the biopic about Sylvia Plath, unfortunately I don’t believe they should have made that film, regardless of whether Gwyneth Paltrow and Daniel Craig star, but you can read my reasons for that in my review. Notorious, the biopic about rapper Notorious BIG, is a film worth making because there is a story to tell but as I was watching, couldn’t help thinking, “if you weren’t a fan, would you care?”

Casting a star is a sure-fire way to gain interest in a relatively specialist story.

Luckily, I used to be a fan. I grew up loving rap music and listening to all the artists featured in the film, from BIG himself to Tupac and Puff Daddy (as he’s named in the film). This is why I watched the film, with my interest peaked as to how they were going to tell the story of this great musician and his turbulent life. Due to the fact I used to be a fan (I’ve lost touch with rap music since) I knew a lot of the story, particularly the parts of the film that focused on the feud with Tupac that began and ended with a shooting.

The feud itself is a contentious issue, with a lot of differing reasons and theories behind it and it seemed like Notorious was blatantly taking the side of Notorious BIG. I’m British and was about 10-11 years old when the feud was actually taking place so it’s not like I actually have a side to take (though I do prefer Tupac’s music) but seeing as this was the most interesting part of the film, in my opinion, I kind of expected something more balanced. Instead we get a theory that Tupac was paranoid, over-reacting and BIG didn’t actually do anything wrong. It just felt a bit easy and a bit cheap.

The feud with Tupac should have been the backbone of this film

I think another reason it disappointed me so much was because this aspect, the feuding rappers, is the most interesting part of Notorious BIG’s story. The filmmakers could have very easily justified a whole film based on this story alone, going into a lot of detail about what happened, maybe portraying more than one, biased side to the story but this aspect of BIG’s life is only part of the film. That’s why I think that this film is for fans only because there isn’t anything amazing here. It kept my interest because I was a fan and already remotely interested but for the casual viewer, it won’t offer a story really worth telling.

Jamal Woolard does a great job of playing Chris Wallace, but the story is nothing really remarkable

The only film I could compare it too, that fits in the same sort of vein, is 8 Mile. 8 Mile is a very loose Eminem biopic, with him playing a version of himself in a story that resembles his life, but there is a lot more for the casual viewer in that film. It is an interesting underdog story with a very satisfying payoff at the end. Notorious never really gets that. It tells the story of Chris Wallace and how he became Notorious BIG very well. The actors playing each part, from BIG’s Mum to Tupac Shakur, are all excellently cast and do a brilliant job. It’s just that the story they are telling would only appeal to rap fans.

Overall, I’m not sure how to rate this film. If I was viewing it as a casual viewer who knew little of Notorious BIG’s life, in the same way I viewed A Beautiful Mind, I would have to say that the film is very average. The story won’t appeal to everyone but then should it? As a movie about a rap superstar, made for fans of his music and his story, it’s a brilliantly acted, excellently realised portrayal of his life, even if it’s biased towards Notorious BIG in places and not really telling an exceptional story.

Rating 6.9

(1-3 – awful/avoid. 4-6 – average. 7-8 – good. 9-10 – fantastic.)

The films excellently cast, including Naturi Naughton as Lil’ Kim

Iron Man Re-View

Iron Man had to be amazing. It had so much riding on its shoulders that it had to be both critically approved and audience approved to stand a chance of fulfilling what Marvel was planning. Luckily, it was exactly that. It was a perfect superhero origin film and even though we’ve seen the formula plenty of times before, it felt fresh because Iron Man, to the general public at least, was a relatively unknown character.

That’s why DC’s take on Green Lantern was so infuriating because Marvel has shown, three times now, how to present a character that the general public don’t really know and keep it interesting. It comes down to two key ingredients, story and cast. With Iron Man they hit it out of the park on both accounts.

Can you imagine Tony Stark being played by anyone else?

Tony Stark is an arrogant billionaire who, at the beginning of the film, has very few morals, very little responsibility or remorse for his actions but ultimately is very cool. The whole section with Tony Stark in the military convoy is a perfect way to introduce a new character or show the die-hard fans that the character they love is being treated properly. Casting Downey Jr in this role was a stroke of genius.

I didn’t care enough about Iron Man to really have an opinion on the casting of Downey Jr. I was more bothered about Chris Evans as Captain America but by the time they cast that part, there was so much more riding on it. Downey Jr (and the whole Iron Man film) has the advantage that there was very little expectation for the film. People still view the movie as a surprise hit because people went into it thinking “just another superhero film” and instead got a very enjoyable, cool, fresh comic book movie. Downey Jr benefitted from that too. People didn’t have the expectation as to whether he could deliver and because of that, he looks hugely comfortable and his Tony Stark is effortless. Three films down the line, I wouldn’t ever want anyone else playing that role.

Sticking really close to the comic and the source material is what helped Iron Man become such a success.

As well as a brilliant lead, the story they chose was key and ensured success. Green Lantern made a “school-boy error” with their choice of story. Damsel in distress, massive villain and ultimately, a rushed development of the character. Iron Man does it differently. They take time to build the origin of Iron Man, we don’t see the finished suit for a good forty minutes to hour of the film. The villain is big and worthy of the hero but not huge! He’s not game changing or so big that trying to out-do him in later films would mean introducing multiple villains instead. Rather than try the same, regurgitated origin film we’ve seen many times before, Iron Man does something that is more in-line with what Nolan did on Batman Begins. Story first, superhero and action second.

A decent enough villain and not so big that the sequel would struggle to surpass it.

The other advantage that Iron Man had was that its director, Jon Favreau, is clearly an Iron Man fan. The story is closely linked to the comics. I knew of Iron Man, though I wouldn’t say I was a massive fan, and I could see that this was a comic book film. They’d nailed the origin story of the comics, the story that made this character so popular in the first place. It was a rule that would ensure all of Marvel’s film, though not all as good as this, would be a success. They trusted the source material.

At this point we’d already had three Spiderman films, Batman Begins, Superman Returns and Fantastic Four. Iron Man managed to reset superhero films. Nolan was creating something realistic, a darker, grittier (and brilliant) Batman series so Iron Man could comfortably take up the “comic superhero” mantle that Spiderman had destroyed with it’s third outing. It was light, funny and as close to watching a comic as we’d come since Spiderman 2.

Gwyneth Paltrow adds a sexy feminine touch to the film… and this review!

The final piece of the puzzle that made this film so successful was the twist. I was one of many people who heard about the post-credit scene after I’d left the cinema and had to watch a grainy, you-tube version afterwards but I can remember how ridiculously excited I got when I heard the words “Avengers Initiative.”

Overall, my love for the Iron Man film has grown since I saw Avengers Assemble. Watching where the idea for this project began and seeing how brilliantly they pulled it off actually adds a new dimension to the film. Whether they were actually thinking about Avengers as they shot Iron Man or whether it was a clever afterthought, I don’t know, but regardless, Iron Man had to be brilliant to launch the series and it did that effortlessly.

Rating 9.1

(1-3 – awful/avoid. 4-6 – average. 7-8 – good. 9-10 – fantastic.)

Remember how excited you were when you found out this scene actually existed!

Green Lantern Review

DC made Green Lantern about six years too late. Rather than make a superhero film at the beginning of the superhero craze, alongside Raimi’s Spiderman, Fantastic Four and even Iron Man, they decided to throw their contribution amongst the others when we were at the height of the genre. The problem with doing this is that if you are going to make a film that belongs to genre that is already highly saturated, you have to do it with something original… and Green Lantern isn’t original!

It could have been though. DC have Superman and Batman and with those two characters they are pretty much guaranteed box office success, even if the film is below par (though if either can do Avengers numbers is yet to be seen) but with Green Lantern they could have brought something to the table that was brand new, suitably unknown and actually a rival for what Marvel were doing. Instead they create a standard, average, “seen it all before” origin film.

There is loads of potential here…

It could have been so different. Green Lantern is a character which literally has limitless possibilities. His imagination is the only thing that holds him back so whatever he thinks about, he can use. Imagine the film they could have made and to be fair, this has its moments. The battle in the Green Lantern corps. is a glimpse of how cool it could be and when Hal Jordan first uses his powers properly, to save a crashing helicopter, he does use the “whatever I think of comes to life” to decent effect but it just feels tame.

The whole film feels like its going through the motions and has the “set-up for the sequel” syndrome that drives me mad. It’s like they referred to the origin story checklist – Cocky, unworthy hero (check), Damsel in distress (check), Hero born out of ”against-the-odds” situation (check), Wasted the biggest villain this hero has in the first film (check), Set up potentially decent villain for the non-existent sequel (check). This formula would have guaranteed you success six or seven years ago but we have literally seen it about four or five times, and that’s Marvel alone.

Ryan Reynolds fits the role really well.

It is a real shame because I think the ingredients are all here for a decent franchise. Ryan Reynolds is great as Hal Jordon. He has the cocky but likable character down to a tee while still being able to do heroic and serious when the situation calls for it. He carries this film effortlessly. There are some great support characters that we get a brief couple of scenes with and the potential within this universe is limitless. Mark Strong is fantastic in this and the role he would inevitably play in the second would make it even better.

By getting a glimpse at what they wanted to do with the sequel, Mark Strong’s character could have been brilliant.

There are too many films that feel like a pilot for a television show. A glimpse at a characters potential and in some cases a “bare with us, we have loads of stuff to show you” but rather than just show us what can be done with these characters, we end up with a film that nobody really got excited about so consequently will fall to the wayside with the other “almost franchises.” It annoys me because DC have two weapons in their arsenal that Marvel will never be able to compete with in Superman and Batman, so they should use their heroes like Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Flash, Martian Manhunter and Green Arrow, to try something different with the superhero genre.

This villain was very cool but seems wasted on an average origin story!

DC successfully relaunched all their heroes in the comics with 52 so they have some sort of decent creative power and if they want to compete with Marvel at all, they are going to have to bring something different to the table in the films too. In my opinion, like I’ve already said before, that has got to be a Justice League film. No origins, no single films building up to one, just go straight into a JLA film, with Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern and without Superman and Batman.

Overall, Green Lantern was a huge disappointment. DC have a lot of decent superheroes that they can really do a lot with but if they making basic, average origin films then we will never get a franchise to rival Marvel’s outside of Batman and (hopefully) Superman. This film has a lot of potential and there are some great moments but its lost amongst ingredients we’ve seen before, lots of times!

Rating 6.7

(1-3 – awful/avoid. 4-6 – average. 7-8 – good. 9-10 – fantastic.)

The world is ready for a (sexy) Wonder Woman in a Justice League film

 

Viewsday 5 – Stop making unnecessary sequels!

Peas, cards that mark occasions (birthdays, anniversaries etc), Daniel Bedingfield, Liverpool Football Club and Unnecessary Sequels – I hate them all! Before I can go any further, I need to clarify what an unnecessary sequel is. In my opinion, an unnecessary sequel is any sequel to a film that is originally self-contained with a story that is finished. Usually the film is much more story or event-driven than character driven so superhero films and horror films don’t have unnecessary sequels but an event-driven film like Speed does!

Unnecessary!

These sequels are usually straight to DVD rubbish that is clearly some studio executive seeing the popularity of the first film and then getting carried away with how much money they could actually make. Imagine this conversation; Studio Exec; Fight Club was brilliant. When we making Fight Club 2. Writer; Fight Club 2? We sorted out the story with the first one. Great twist, banks exploded. Job done? Studio exec; Great job. So Fight Club 2 will be on my desk by the end of next week? Writer; The story is finished sir, nothing else to tell. Studio exec; I hear you… see if Brad Pitt will do it! If not, see if Nathan Fillion will.

Luckily, that conversation never actually happened but one similar must have when they decided to make a sequel to Donnie Darko! A sequel to a film that was self-contained, nicely wrapped itself up at the end and is considered a cult classic. A sequel that wouldn’t star Jake Gyllenhaal, wouldn’t be written by the visionary writer Richard Kelly. In fact as far as I know, it has nothing to do with the original film at all, except it stars Donnie’s sister (you know, the sister, from the first one, key to the whole plot of the original film?) and is called “S Darko.”

Love the original!

This isn’t even the worst of the unnecessary sequels. The one that actually makes me laugh with rage is Walking Tall 2. This speaks for itself;

Synopsis of Walking Tall 1 (courtesy of IMDB) – A former U.S. soldier returns to his hometown to find it overrun by crime and corruption, which prompts him to clean house.

Synopsis of Walking Tall 2 (again, IMDB) – A man goes back to his hometown that is now overrun with crime and single-handedly takes justice into his own hands.

It’s the same film!!!

If I want to watch a film where a guy goes back to his hometown and cleans up crime and corruption again, having seen Walking Tall, I’ll put the Walking Tall back into the DVD player! Unnecessary sequel!

Even the poster looks the same!

Disney are worst for this than anyone else! The Lion King, Aladdin, Mulan, Cinderella, Jungle Book! All classic Disney films that on their own are pretty much perfect but are then plagued by straight to DVD sequels that in my opinion, are literally an attempt to squeeze as much cash out of children as possible. I did not watch the credits roll on Lion King and think “I really want to see if Simba is a good king or if his children are plagued with the same issues that faced his eventful rise to power.” I’m also pretty certain that the original story of Cinderella ends with “…and they all lived happily ever after.” So where’s the drama in that sentence? Unless I completely misunderstood what “happily ever after” actually means!

They even look like cast a different animated character in the role of Cinderella!

There are some high-profile unnecessary sequels that are even worst. Speed 2 should never have been made, they got lucky with the original concept but trying to recreate that would never have worked. The Blair Witch Project is brilliant because of the ”found footage” style and its groundbreaking (for the time) technique. Don’t then change the only element of the film that makes it stand-out from the rest! Cruel Intentions 2, Basic Instinct 2 and Son of The Mask are just a few more but I know there are loads I haven’t named. Not to mention when it goes slightly too far with sequels and we end up with four Shrek films when they should have been lucky to get two!

Unnecessary!

This isn’t to say some unnecessary sequels don’t end up being a success. Die Hard 2 should never have existed. The first film is a story, event-driven film which doesn’t lend itself to a sequel but Bruce Willis and the writers of the original had created a brilliant character in John Mclane so turned Die Hard into a decent franchise. The same with The Hangover. Some would argue this didnt;t work and the second film was certainly unnecessary but I for one enjoyed it. I think it just about manages to get away with it. You’d also have to put the Toy Story sequels in the unnecessary category but the characters make them work!

It’s not a fast and simple rule of thumb but my argument would be, start creating new films and new ideas. Develop new, stand-alone films to go amongst the franchise sequels we see every year. For every new superhero film, studios should be taking risks on something like Inception. Don’t drag down the profile of a brilliant film by then having its name muddied by a collection of five, straight to DVD sequels which are thinly linked at best.

Overall, this is just a silly rant and me venting my frustration. I could have gone on for much longer as I haven’t even mentioned Butterfly Effect 2, any of the American Pie sequels, both with major cast and without, or the film I only realised existed yesterday, More American Graffiti. I’m also shooting myself in the foot slightly because every film I’ve criticised here for being an unnecessary sequel, I haven’t seen, because they are unnecessary. I’m just hoping Taken 2, Anchorman 2, Blade Runner 2 and Bill and Ted 3 end up more like Die Hard with a Vengeance than S Darko!

Unnecessary but I’m still excited!