


The original Tomb Raider was a colossal bore and a complete waste of potential. As one of the few video game franchises that actually made sense as a film, the Angelina Jolie vehicle none the less featured a stunning lack of action and a complete absence of adventure. You had a weak villain, a convoluted storyline that existed mainly to cram Jolie's estranged father Jon Voight in the narrative, and a picture where the majority of the action scenes were comprised of Lara Croft emptying her twin handguns into robots, statues, and CGI monsters. While no masterpiece, Jan de Bont's would-be comeback vehicle was a marked improvement. For one thing, the story actually made just a touch more sense. Plus Jolie had far more chemistry with the male lead (Gerald Butler) than she did with the boring 'insert a dude' in the first film (played by, shockingly, Daniel Craig). Most importantly, the film was an actual action film. It had real chases, real fight scenes, and real shoot outs and stunt work with actual stuntmen being beaten, shot, and falling off cliffs. While the original was an example of everything wrong with tent pole film making, the sequel (which was actually $20 million cheaper to make) was a pleasant B-movie throwback that worked as a rough and tumble action adventure movie. Alas, its relative box office failure ($66 million vs. $132 million for the first Tomb Raider) led to what I call the 'Tomb Raider trap' rule, which states that a sequel to an unloved but successful film will bomb even if it's better, because audiences won't risk getting burned again.

I was in the minority in that I rather loathed the first Saw picture. Aside from its grotesque moral compass ('oh no, he's actually helping people... and he's not really killing anyone'), the film was terribly acted, ridiculously plotted, and inanely staged. Just why was Dr. Gordon forced to listen as Amanda told her story of terror in the head cage? Because that scene was what got the film made, and it was the prime attraction of the marketing campaign, so they needed to stick it in there somehow, right? The whole film feels like an interesting first draft that never got polished after it was sold. Since one of the costars was one of the writers, you had the unique pleasure of watching a lousy writer/bad actor deliver his bad dialogue poorly. And Danny Glover delivers one of the worst performances of his career to boot (at least, unlike Shooter, you don't need hearing aids to understand him).


Despite opening to $24 million and staying above $20 million in weekend two way back in November 1991 (a second-weekend feat surpassed only by Batman, Home Alone, and Terminator 2 at the time), the original Addams Family film earned the scorn of critics and the passive acceptance of audiences (despite the two massive weekends, it quickly flamed out after Thanksgiving and ended with $113 million). While perfectly cast and gamely performed, the first picture and its 'fake Uncle Fester tries to con the family' plot did little to endear the franchise and the film just wasn't all that funny. But the sequel that followed just two years later was a genuine comedy classic. Everyone in the cast felt at home, Raul Julia and Angelica Houston were obviously having the time of their lives, and Christina Ricci was rewarded for her scene-stealing turn as Wednesday Adams in the first film by massively increased presence in the sequel (in terms of screen time, she's actually the star).


The original Scream is not a bad movie, but it is a slightly overrated one. Yes, it's gamely acted and contains a knockout of a curtain raiser. But, once you get past the 'wink-wink, we're openly discussing the very cliches we're indulging in', it's a pretty generic 80-style slasher picture. But the sequel umped the ante in a number of ways. For one thing, the picture feels huge in scope, as if it's the first 'epic' slasher film. The cast feels more comfortable in their characters' skin, and they are all suffering from various forms of post-traumatic stress disorder, which lends a gloom over the whole show. Leiv Shreiber gives a star-making performance, while the picture finds time for two completely appropriate musical interludes amidst the carnage (plus, David Warner is an upgrade from Henry Wrinkler). Most importantly, the violence in this one really stings, as Wes Craven boldly kills the most popular character in the series at the halfway point, and then allows the characters ample time to grieve his murder. If for no other reason than the scene where Dewey and Sydney try to determine who gets to call Randy's mother after he is killed, Scream 2 is a more potent piece of pop entertainment.
A few popular sequels that will not be on this list:

Superman II (1981) - It's not a bad movie at all, but this critically overpraised sequel is still inferior to the grand myth making in Richard Donner's original picture. The climactic throw down with the Kryptonian super villains is still fun and there is still some drama in the fortress of solitude moments with Superman and his respective parent (his mother or his father, depending on which version you watch), but the film has never been as engaging as the epic gold standard of superhero origin stories. Neither film is perfect, and both have issues with villainy (Gene Hackman's Lex Luther is a little too campy, while General Zod and company are all bark and little bite due to the family friendly nature of the franchise), but the first Superman picture is still the very best one yet made.

Spider-Man 2 (2004) - As confused as I was by the critical pass that Transformers received, I was flabbergasted by the critical orgasm that greeted this vastly overrated Spidey sequel. The film follows the idiot plot through and through (IE - most of Peter's problems would be solved in five minutes if he wasn't an idiot), and Alfred Molina's cartoonish Dr. Octopus can't touch the multi-layered performance of Willem Dafoe. Once Octavius becomes Doc Ock, all humanity and subtlety goes out the window until the very end. Like Superman II (to which it owes much of its plot), stellar action scenes allow the picture to escape narrative scrutiny. It fails for the same reason Superman Returns failed - it's 2+ hours of self pity because the girl who he cruelly and selfishly abandoned won't take him back.

Angels & Demons - Yes, it's a much more fun than The Da Vinci Code, but neither are 'good'. One is terrible and dull. One is terrible, but stupidly fun and entertaining. I'll take dumb over dull anytime.

Any I missed or any you disagree with (I'm sure there are plenty of both)? Feel free to share.
Scott Mendelson
2 comments:
As much as I think Spider-Man 2 is the best of the bunch by a mile, I'm glad I'm not the only one who realizes that Pete's problems could have been solved by simply opening up to MJ at the beginning of the film. No angst whatsover....
As much as I think Spider-Man 2 is the best of the bunch by a mile, I'm glad I'm not the only one who realizes that Pete's problems could have been solved by simply opening up to MJ at the beginning of the film. No angst whatsover....
Post a Comment