These 7 sequels to classic films are incredibly bad

It has now become common practice in Hollywood to spin the idea of ​​a successful film until there is really no more money to be made from the topic. However, this does not necessarily mean that those responsible will make the necessary effort. And so are somereally bad sequelsthat we would prefer to forget. Therefore: If for some unknown reason you feel the urge to watch one of the films listed here, we have warned you!

It has to be said, however, that film sequels are now often less bad than they were years ago. But the cinema could no longer afford that. After all, up to eighty percent of all films in the cinema today consist of sequels, remakes and.

Despite all the logic and connection errors that come with this fast-paced action thrillerSpeedfrom 1994, you have to give it credit: the film is quite rightly an action classic with incredible speed, great actors and lots of explosions. It's understandable that director Jan de Bont wanted to try to repeat the success of the first film, but the result was a mess? literally, because it takes place on a busSpeed 2including on a boat. The story is totally flat, the characters are one-dimensional, sometimes something explodes, otherwise there is a lot of unintentional comedy and Sandra Bullock definitely wasn't in her strongest phase either?already suspected the disaster and wisely didn't even take part. Without questionSpeed 2one of the worst sequels of all time? and has that in 1998won.

What an outcry it was back then, when the erotic thriller came out in 1992Basic Instinctcame to the cinema with Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone. How much of a stir the famous scene caused at the time in which Stone crossed her legs and (mainly) excited men discussed whether they could really see between her legs (resolution: there was absolutely nothing to be seen) , one can hardly imagine today. Apart from all the boheiBasic Instinctof course a fantastic thriller that has long been one of the great classics of the genre. Here, too, it is entirely understandable that they would like to continue the success story, but: Did it really have to be this way?! 24 years later, they should have returned with a bang, if at all. But the sequel wasn't even a blast. The score is okay, the set design is right, but otherwise: A completely bloodless attempt with bland actors to revive the successful recipe of the first part, albeit completely uninspired. Really bitter.

The story ofThe Exorcistfrom 1973 is probably well known: the well-behaved 12-year-old girl Regan (Linda Blair) begins to behave strangely. She becomes increasingly abusive and aggressive. The medical examination produces no results. When strange, otherworldly things begin to happen, a doctor recommends an exorcism. And he should be right: because Regan is possessed by the devil. The film changed the (horror) film world forever, sparked heated discussions and is one of the. So you couldn't have left it at that? No, of course not. Four years later it would continue again. In the meantime, Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair) has matured into a teenager, but the shadows of the past catch up with her again: terrible nightmares plague the young girl, and the devil makes a second attempt. The Vatican then sends Father Lamont (Richard Burton) into the fight against the dark forces? and the loser is good taste. Because here too, the sequel is nothing more than a bland attempt to recreate the successful recipe of the successful classic, albeit with such a bad script that nothing could save the film in the end. This lousy sequel could have safely been given away.

There aren't that many, but one of the absolute classics is the legendary oneSaturday Night Feverfrom 1978? the quasi-film adaptation of the disco wave of the time. To the legendary soundtrack of the Bee Gees, John Travolta dances himself like a wolf and achieves legendary status? and should have just left it at that. But for whatever reason, Sylvester Stallone then wrote the script for a sequel, took a seat in the director's chair and in the process made perhaps the worst film of his career:Staying Alive. AtThe film received an impressive zero percent, i.e. the worst of all possible ratings. There's probably nothing more that needs to be said about this lousy sequel.

And while we're on the topic of dance films: the musical comedy in 1980 took a similar approachBlues Brotherswith John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd? also an absolute classic of its time. But the sequel under the titleBlues Brothers 2000, which was released in cinemas in 1998, could easily have been a gift. Ultimately, the original story is more or less retold, so it's completely unnecessary and more boring than anything else. It's logical that the film was a total flop at the time.

There originalHighlanderfilm from 1986 is an absolute classic and one of THE films for fantasy fans. It was a shame what followed, because every subsequent attempt to revisit the Highlander theme was a failure. All the sequels, an action series, even an animated series still existed? all of which are absolutely irrelevant and purely used for leftovers. Apart from the first part, you don't have to watch anything else. Point.

Dirty Dancingfrom 1987 was an absolute hit at the time, but is completely overrated as a film. In it, 17-year-old Baby (Jennifer Grey) spends her vacation with her parents at a holiday resort. There she meets the dance teacher Johnny (Patrick Swayze), falls in love with him and at the end of the film they both perform a wild dance? to the distaste of Baby's parents. And yes, the film is actually just as boring as it sounds in this short description. Both in terms of content and formDirty Dancingan incredibly staid and completely overrated film that tries to combine its slight disreputability with sentimental morality through the supposed sexiness of the dance scenes? and therefore has a similar level of quality to the two main players in the legendary dance scene. Only the sequels are worse, especially the unspeakable oneDirty Dancing II. All conflicts in it seem artificial and the political background has no function. Mau.