From Top Gun: Maverick to Crystal Skull, the 5 best—and 5 worst—legacyquels of all time
From Creed to The Color Of Money, the follow-ups that worked, the ones that didn't, and why
Film Features Top Gun
Whether the “legacyquel,” a phenomenon brilliantly coined by film critic Matt Singer in 2015, is a plague on contemporary cinema or merely the medium’s latest and most direct delivery system for nostalgia, it’s here to stay for the foreseeable future. Not quite the same as a traditional sequel, these films revisit the characters and the worlds of a commercially successful franchise, while offering a victory lap for original stars that may otherwise be reluctant—or maybe just too old—to saddle up for another adventure (or three).
Top Gun: Maverick is not only the latest of these legacyquels, but one of the best, passing the baton from original star Tom Cruise to a new generation of actors while confidently—even definitively—reminding audiences what made Cruise so goddamn great in the first place.
While there’s some debate over what differentiates a legacyquel from a run-of-the-mill follow-up—some might argue, for example, that the extraordinary Mad Max: Fury Road qualifies, while others disagree—the distance between good ones and bad ones is as big as the circumference of a Death Star (yeah, you know where I’m headed with this). The A.V. Club decided to examine five great examples of these films, and five not so great examples, as a way to explore what makes them fire on all cylinders, or end up coasting on fumes.
155 Comments
It’s interesting.
Matrix Resurrections (which is still way better than Revolutions, woof) fails in the same way that Rise of Skywalker fails: By not trusting its audience to want anything more than the greatest hits with modern special effects and actors.
But Crystal Skull fails, in part, because it honestly doesn’t seem like George Lucas understands what people liked in the original series and how tied Indy is, as a concept, to that era. There is certainly plenty to be mined in a 1950s’ era adventure with the A-bomb, aliens and the KGB, but Indy’s not the character to do it, and making him limp through a whole movie until he can hand the baton to a poor photocopy of Marlon Brando isn’t the way to do it.
Likewise, where the Jurassic World world seems to be headed in its final movie looks really interesting, but stumbling around, making two bad Jurassic Park sequels along the way wasn’t the way to do it. Both of those films could have been compressed into a 10-minute montage to the new film or, better yet, we could have just opened in media res in a world overrun with dinosaurs and let the audience catch up — think of it as 28 Million Years Later.
I never thought Crystal Skull’s missteps were updating Indy to a 50s setting, both literally and in terms of the cinematic inspirations (Russians, A-Bombs, Aliens) from the pulp films of that era. In fact, it seems like a great way to modernize the character – insisting that he needs to be hunting Christian artifacts while dodging Nazis just seems like a recipe for more of the same reheated leftovers that this article rightly criticizes in movies like The Matrix Resurrections.
I think the problem with Crystal Skull is just that it’s… bad. The worst parts are either lazy CGI, moments of stupidity that are too stupid and not fun (in the way that the more improbable moments of the originals were too much fun for us to concentrate on the stupidity), or stuff that feels like it follows a typical “Indy” template (I wonder if the faces will melt at the end of this o… yup, there they go).
The forward-thinking aspects of Crystal Skull were, for me, always the best parts. At least conceptually.
Yeah I thought the time and the 50’s atmosphere wasn’t bad at all. It was just that Harrison Ford looked old, they had some bad ideas but mostly it was the TERRIBLE CGI. That Jungle Ant chase, which was supposed to be the big action scene was beyond awful and even them getting into the Alien tunnel, it all looked so fake. If it could feel like the Amazon like it felt in that opening scene of raiders, all that alien thing wouldn’t have been that bad.
I agree Crystal Skull looks lazy, the one part of the movie that felt like an Indy movie was the college motor cycle chase. It felt real and had some energy. The problem with the mcguffin is that it just shows up and there is very little investigation of it. I’m looking forward to the new movie because Mangold might have the energy and drive to throw himself into the movie, in away Speilberg didn’t seem interested in.
Another portion of the problem is pacing. But that is a problem with doing sequels to movies from decades ago.
Of course the same can be said of “Temple of Doom”. Indy isn’t actually trying to do anything — he just randomly encounters the Thugee Kali cult and says “sure, whatever, I’ll take these guys down”. Raiders and Last Crusade were different than that, but on the other hand they were practically the same movie, only with the Jewish artifact in the first replaced with a Christian one in the third.
I like Crystal Skull more than most, but the overuse of CGI and Spielberg’s reluctance to go anywhere but Connecticut and Hawaii to film it was definitely lazy, and it shows. That’s why I’m glad he bailed and they got Mangold for the 5th one, at least now we are back to some serious Indy globetrotting, and actual filming on location.
I mean they also couldnt get decent insurance coverage for Harrison ford to go on location.
Although they actually did go to the Yale campus for filming — and even redecorated downtown New Haven to make it look 1950s appropriate. It basically shut down things down for a couple of weeks. Although I don’t think they got ten minutes of screen time in the final film.
not trusting its audience to want anything more than the greatest hits with modern special effects and actors.I kinda blame the internet for this, since the loudest parts of the discourse that are easiest for the filmmakers to see and hear are inevitably millions of nerds swapping the most obvious and direct references as memes. They’re the easiest things to talk about, and thus guarantee the referencer the biggest bang for their buck. So, everyone goes on about, say, that time Neo fought a bunch of Smiths, and so they jack that up to 11 in the sequel. See, they’ve got data that proves that it’s popular and thuse will get arses on seats.Having said that, I’ve seen people say Resurrections is actually meta-commentary on sequels, and then others say it’s meta-commentary on that meta-commentary, until it’s all just meta-meta-meta-(to the power of infinity) commentary all the way down in an incestuously self-referential death spiral of metaness.
The first 30 minutes are definitely meta in the sense that Lana is yelling at the audience, “yes, this is bullshit, but it’s better than them bringing in someone else to shit this out,” but the rest of it feels like she just went and found a fanfic that continued the storyline past the long-forgotten Matrix MMO, in which Morpheus died, and said “yep, good enough” and just went with that.
I have a hard time believing many people who loved the original movie were hoping to see what Niobe was up to, all these years later. But that’s who Resurrections was apparently made for.
This was all the cinematic equivalent of a shrug.
Matrix Resurrections was by far the worst film I saw this year.
Worse than Sia’s Music?
It’s not even millions. Social media and online forums have completely distorted the number of actual people we’re talking about. Something “blowing up” on social media might mean tens or even hundreds of thousands of retweets and the like, but there are 330 million Americans and 8 billion people on the planet. Taking your cues from social media is idiotic.
I think you have badly misread Resurrections. If it WAS that, people would have been generally a lot happier.I absolutely adore the totally unexpected take she took. It *might* be my favourite of the four. (I’m the kind of prick who wants to say “favourite of the three” as Reloaded and Revolutions are really one movie, and it would be my second favourite. The style of the first Matrix is just meaningless fluff without what was to come, and I’m not a fan of meaningless fluff. Fucking great action movie though.It goes to say that what the Wachowskis are dealing I AM THERE FOR.
I absolutely adore the totally unexpected take she took.
Once they committed to the two main leads surviving Revolutions, I don’t see much surprising in it, but I’m obviously not as big of a fan of it as you are. What are the big twists you enjoyed?
To me, this just felt like continuing a story that I felt had been told. It was incredibly well acted and looked like a million bucks, but it felt extremely unnecessary.
The Jurassic World movies exist solely to capitalize on an IP. The franchise itself ran out of steam long, long ago. Spielberg wrung just about everything out of it there was to get by the time he was done with Lost World, and everything that followed has basically been copying beats from one of the first two movies ever since.
To me, it remains the worst trajectory of a film franchise on record. It’s almost exponential how bad one movie gets after the previous one.
Nailed it. Just dead on. The Lost World book at least had some stuff that could have worked…but the execution. 3 is fucking terrible. World…..I spent the whole movie rooting for the dinos to just kill everyone. Im not as enamored with Chris Pine as everyone else. People liked Andy on Parks and Rec, and Star Lord (which is a shitty version of the comics version) and he plays the same character in everything. The second World….holy fuck was that terrible. If they did Jurrasic Park as a limited series on HBO Max…that would be cool (though I guess that would be on Peacock right?), but this is America, we cant leave well enough alone and they would drag it out.
I don’t see how a Jurassic World series works either. The whole concept of trying to extend Jurassic Park in general is just creatively bankrupt from the beginning. The idea is the park, putting humans in contact with dinosaurs, then add dinos getting loose. Taking one to the mainland gets you the T. Rex sequence from Lost World. Any more than one or two dinosaurs rampaging, and you’d just have the military called in and annihilating everything with claws. I don’t care what genetic tinkering you do, even if you splice a T. Rex with a fucking armadillo, a flame-thrower is going to kill it, and it’s not stopping a platoon of tanks.
Btw, that’s also why A Quiet Place falls apart after thinking about it for a half a second, and why it only gets dumber with the second film. Some ideas just don’t creatively stretch, even if they still put butts in seats.
Good: The Matrix Resurrections and Kingdom of the Crystal SkullBad: This list
So, I guess the overthinking it question is this: where’s the line, when the legacy sequel begets a new series? Because based on the strictest definition, or at least the one that seems to be the genesis of the article, I would argue two things: one, Rise of Skywalker doesn’t belong on a list like this, but The Force Awakens does, and I would argue that TFA works as a legacy sequel, arguably really well, regardless of what happens to the new series, which started after the success of the legacy sequel. Along those same lines, I would also argue that Jurassic World, in and of itself, qualifies as a success—ok, if things that come after it in the new series may fall short, that’s on the new movies, not the actual legacy sequel.
I agree with your first point, TFA is the legacy sequel and RoS is a sequel to that, although it does feature many (bad) legacy sequel tropes such as bringing back old characters and focussing the action on conflicts already resolved in the original films. To argue the second point, I wouldn’t call Jurassic World a successful legacy sequel but can entertain the idea that it is a successful film. To me, the success of a legacy sequel as a legacy sequel is dependent on how it matches up to the original film. All of the ‘Good’ entries on this list are either almost as good, just as good, or better than their predecessors and/or originators. Jurassic World falls so far short of Jurassic Park that it fails on this regard, and while I do not like the film personally, I can understand why some would but it is basically universally agreed to not be anywhere near as good as the original film.
I would say they would both qualify and RoS makes the most since to be included on this list because it failed the hardest. To me the trend of ‘legacyquels’ need to side-step the next generation/’should be main characters’ for artifacts and callbacks from earlier films. None of the characters in RoS got to be characters or have fulfilling arcs, but instead they are slaves to the Star Wars content machine and have to tie back to the original trilogy in the dumbest way possible. I agree the Top Gun did as great a job as you can do with this kind of movie, but all the younger characters were so completely secondary to the plot it kinda sucked out any of the stakes. Still a very fun and cool movie though that will probably make a lot of fans very happy.
I’m guessing they went with ROS because of Palpatine’s return. Yes the others featured the original actors but were trying to tell a new story (well, mostly TLJ, but at least it wasn’t straight-up Rebellion v. Emperor). ROS was a straight-up continuation of the original fight.
I both a little disappointed and also kind of relieved Tron: Legacy didn’t make the list. It was neither good nor bad.
I’ve never re-watched Tron 2, despite the original being one of my favorites when growing up. The only thing I remember from it (and hate it for) was teasing us all with that shot of a Black Hole movie poster that got us all excited that they were gonna remake it.I’m actually glad it remained a tease, because I still watch the Black Hole maybe once a year, simply because of the music and because of the batshit crazy ending. I still love how I got to see it in the cinema when I was like, maybe 4 or 5 when it came out and even got the pop-up picture book for Christmas that year. The 80’s were a weird time to grow up.
Good or bad, I want Tron: Legacy here. It’s in the name!
Mediocre movie, great music video.
Bad: Ghostbusters: AfterlifeGood: Cobra Kai (well, relatively)
Cobra Kai knows what it is — Velveeta “cheese” food — and leans 100% into it. It is the exemplar of its not at all fancy type.
I don’t get Rise of Skywalker hate. Sure, the Emperor still being alive was a stretch, but it was fairly enjoyable and seemed to make sense as a way to end things (though Kelly Marie Tran got screwed, talk about Star Wars racism!!)
I don’t get Rise of Skywalker hate.I honestly thought that hating RoS was the one thing all Star Wars fans agreed upon.
It unifies us all and brought balance to the force.
The only person I’ve ever met who legitimately enjoyed Rise of Skywalker is also someone who hated both Force Awakens and Last Jedi.
I thought RoS was… okay-ish. There’s stuff they got head-shakingly wrong, stuff that works pretty well to wrap up the Skywalker Saga, a few fun set pieces, and some “wait, why did they even bother?” moments. One of the weakest movies in the series, but I didn’t find it rage-inducingly awful.A comment I saw elsewhere summed up the attempted trilogy well: instead of “thesis, antithesis, synthesis”, we got “thesis, antithesis, THESIS DAMMIT”.
The whole Rey trilogy was a dumpster fire, not the least because J.J. and Rian were trying to tell different stories. Somebody should have plotted out the whole thing before it started. Yes, the original Star Wars trilogy worked by Lucas just writing it as he went along (despite his claims that he didn’t), but the disaster of the prequels showed that it was just blind luck that it worked in the originals, not something to emulate.
The problem with the Emperor still being alive isn’t that it’s a stretch, it’s that it’s dramatically inert. He completely changes the conflict and the motivations of the main characters without actually adding anything meaningful. Even if he made sense, he’d still be a terrible inclusion.Beyond that, the whole movie is just terribly paced and seeing Carrie Fisher propped up was ghoulish.
Yeah, say what you will about TLJ, but it opened up a whole bunch of new possibilities for where the series could go. But then Abrams threw a shitfit and went “no no no NO NO! Rey is a special destiny baby and she’s gonna go on a magic quest and she’s gonna redeem a Skywalker and she’s gonna fight an Evil Emperor because that’s STAR WARS, DAMN IT!”
Flipping over a dinner table is not the same as cooking a meal. The Last Jedi cleared the decks, storytelling wise, but it didn’t set up s***.
It set up the idea that Rey didn’t have special parents and Jedis didn’t have to come from somebody special which shouldn’t have been controversial as it was the thing before every fuckin Jedi before Anakin got Amidala pregnant.
well it was the retcon thing. Until Lucas established that the extended universe was littered with families of jedi.
It set up plenty: Ren and Rey left the sole heirs of their respective religions but both trying to forge their own paths, Ren becoming the supreme leader of a severely weakened First Order while the remnant of a rebellion barely clings to life, balance potentially returning to the Force as a new generation of Force users emerges, etc. Lots of intriguing possibilities there. TLJ just didn’t set up what I’m assuming you and Abrams wanted it to set up.
By the end of The Last Jedi, Rey has not done anything Dark and Kylo has not done anything Light. Sith overthrowing their masters is textbook Sith, and Luke even says that Rey will rebuild the Jedi. The notion that the movie sets up some bold new path forward is unconnected from the text, and TFA was just as derivative and bad.
Okay, so which is it: Is TLJ Johnson being safe and derivative, or is it him narratively “flipping over the table”?
If I might steel-man this guy’s position for a second: I think you’re right that TLJ sets up a lot of interesting directions for the franchise to go in, but I don’t think it functions as the second act of a cohesive trilogy, and it serves as poor setup for what should be the climax of a three-act story.
The problem is that it’s more or less a narrative reset: the Resistance is screwed, the big bad is dead, Luke is dead, and there’s no clear direction for things to go in from there. You’re left with Kylo Ren as the main antagonist, which isn’t great – his threat level has already been undercut because of his personality, and because of getting punked by Luke at the climax of TLJ. Ideally, there should’ve been some rising action going into the third film and a sense of what the stakes are/what the mission is, but the way Johnson set it up the beginning of the third film basically has the central Resistance vs First Order dynamic, and that’s it.
To be clear, I think RoS sucks and was the worst possible way of dealing with all this, and I think Abrams’ choices throughout the trilogy (including TFA) were poor. But I also don’t really envy him the task of going into the third film on the back of TLJ.
TLJ was safe and derivative in thematic terms, and it flipped over the table (while derivatively recycling OT plot beats) in narrative terms. As SoftSac eloquently explains below.
Disagree fully. Rey was strong in the force but wasn’t Star War hereditary royalty, implying there were probably lots of people in the galaxy that were similar but didn’t know what gave them certain abilities. Kylo had little use for the dark side hierarchy, and while he wanted to wield power was a much more complicated character that OT Darth Vader (until the end). Luke had cast off the constraints of the Jedi order and found a more direct relationship with the force, ultimately becoming one with it via a different path than Obi Wan and Yoda. Instead of seizing on any of those concepts, ROS snapped right back to a now-boring formula.
No Sith really have any interest in Dark side hierarchies.There’s nothing wrong with asking for a fantasy universe in which magic isn’t cleanly divided between evil and good sides, but that simply isn’t the Star Wars universe, and probably never will be. It wasn’t even the case in TLJ.
I’m still not sure why flipping over the table is considered such a brilliant move by so many people. It’s literally the easiest thing you can do, and it rarely leaves you anywhere to go.
It’s the improv equivalent of saying “no”, when everyone knows you’re supposed to “yes, and…”.
People seem to be so besotted with the notion of Rey and Kylo transcending the Force’s established light/dark dichotomy that they genuinely seem not too grasp the pesky details that A) that idea was Kylo’s duplicitous BS, and B) is the complete opposite of what the movie actually concludes. (Ironically, only the hated Rise of Skywalker portrays a hero using Force lightning, like, ever.) It’s as if they’re so invested in their fairy tale good vs evil universe evolving beyond that that they insist on seeing what isn’t there. It’s bizarre.
Did Abrams throw a shitfit over TLJ? Or did he just seek to completely avoid controversy altogether and end up making the blandest movie he possibly could. I’m not saying he intentionally made it bland, just that he tried his best not to make anybody unhappy and in so doing failed to make anybody the least bit happy.As one reviewer here (Katie Rife, maybe?) said, it felt like JJ was sitting next to her the whole time whispering “are you OK with this?”
Yeah, it’s hard to tell how much it’s Abrams playing it safe, or Disney/Lucasfilm mandating that Abrams play it safe, or Abrams genuinely being pissed off at Johnson’s creative decisions, or some combination thereof. I personally detect a sour undertone of pettiness–particularly with sidelining Rose–but I could be reading into things.
I doubt we’ll ever know for sure, but it shouldn’t ever have come to that. You want different directors? Fine. But the fucking storyline across a three-movie arc should have been set in stone long before production began. The fact that they were apparently feeling it out as they went is mind-boggling.
I kind of admire the audacity of their initial plan, and think there’s a universe in which it could’ve worked—one where they brought all three of their directors together from the start, and the three of them, along with firm editorial input from the studio, hashed out a general outline of where the series would go while still allowing each a large degree of creative latitude for their own installment. Unfortunately we live in a universe in which…none of that happened.
Allowing different directors to put their stamps on it could have made for a really interesting trilogy, and provided room for differing favorites based upon those styles (leading to plenty of fan discussion and debate). But my god, how they didn’t have the story mapped out first simply makes no sense AT ALL.
He didn’t. He was hired when Disney panicked after the negative fanboy reaction to TLJ and Colin Trevorrow directing a flop.
because they had no idea what they were doing. Sure Lucas made a lot of changes to the story in the OT on the fly, but one person did it. In the sequels they had the budget to do anything they wanted…and just fucked it up. Like literally you can find better versions of a sequel trilogy on most fan sites, and Im not saying those would be amazing, but just better than what we got. Kennedy should be fucking fired.
say what you will about TLJ, but it opened up a whole bunch of new possibilities for where the series could go.
Into the toilet being one such place.
A bigger problem with Palpatine’s survival is that it also completely undoes Anakin’s redemption at the end of Return of the Jedi. Retroactively, it means that “I mean, I guess you did try to kill him” is enough to bring him back to the light side.
Well, back in grade school I remember getting two grades per subject on my report card. One was the actual performance — as in, did I actually do well on the tests or not. Another was “effort” — as in was I trying even in subjects I was poor at. So Anakin got an “A” for effort in Emperor killing, but an “F” in actual emperor killing.
It was beyond a stretch. It was a total anchor sinking and all around terrible idea filled movie.
Rey falling in love with a fascist who tortured her was a pretty gross (and thoroughly out of character) way to end things. Also the forced, desperate attempt to connect Rey to an Important Star Wars Family by making her Palpatine’s granddaughter was just embarrassing. It feels like a checklist of bad fanfic ideas rather than a movie script.
It’s two hours of Disney/Lucasfilm grabbing you by the shirt and shouting “this is what you want, right? This right here? Did you like this part? Reminds you of the good times, right? Or maybe this scene? Or how about this action sequence? Pretty cool, right? You’re liking this? You’re having a good time? Right? You like this? You like this, right? This right here? Please like it, please? Please, for the love of god, JUST TELL US WHAT YOU LIKE!”
This is perfect. I’d add one thing: “Remember the EMPEROR?! You loved him, right?! Well HERE HE IS! Do you still like him?! He’s gross, right? Yeah, cool!”
LOOK AT ALL THOSE SUPERSTAR DESTROYERS! NEVERMIND HOW WE GOT THE PEOPLE AND MATERIALS TO SECRETLY BUILD THEM!!
Now I’m wondering if Kennedy was just trolling the stupid fans who hated everything about The Last Jedi. “Fine. I’ll give ‘em what they want. It’s gonna be crap, but it’s what they deserve. And it will still make a billion dollars.” Okay, probably not.
I’m not sure it was “in love,” but a giant relief that he turned against the dark side and helped save her life. It was a kiss of joy and an immediate, deep attraction to the man she always hoped he would be.
The whole trilogy is a mess. The trilogy should have been about seeking balance. The prequels would be seen as showing that the jedi had grown complacent and the hidden sith had amassed power through having limited recepticals (only two dark lords), so the force created anakin who was intended to bring balance to the force, a jedi who did not ignore his emotions, but minded the living force…the duel of the fates (which is what Ep 1 should have been called) was maul killing qui gon who was meant to guide anakin. Then the jedi are all but wiped out, and anakins offspring defeat the sith, and their empire….but that is not balance…so snoke emerged (should have not been a clone, but a resurrected plageus who cheated death and bided his time) corrupted Kylo Ren, enacted the Knights of Ren (who should all have been disaffected padawans or such) to wipe out the new jedi. Then Force Awakens, the force seeks balance…it ignites in Rey, inspires Finn to leave the New Order….the jedi end, Kylo sees half of it, disgarding the past, but he seeks the same sith/dark side goals, control. Instead you would get rey, a “grey jedi” who rejects hate and anger as controlling emotions, but seeks balance. But no one bothered thinking the sequels through.
It wasn’t boring. In that it was ahead of The Last Jedi.
Same, it’s a lot of fun.
Because Last Jedi opened SO many possibilities that ROS just utterly ignored, and pivoted right back to the suggestion that there are only two families in the entire universe that matter. In LJ Luke had abandoned Jedi teachings to find his own way with the force, you had the emergence of a heroine who confirmed what should be a common sense proposition that everyone has some amount of the force in them even if they’re not trained in it, and the possibility of merging light and dark sides to find a new path forward. Nope, someone grabbed Palpatine’s exploded body after ROTJ and cloned him! Every novel idea thrown right out the window. I don’t hate it, it was just deflating.
These series of trilogies are supposed to be the Skywalker saga, I wish JJ had just said that Kylo straight up lied, and come up with something else. I liked Last Jedi fine as a standalone movie, but it wasn’t a standalone movie, it was supposed to be the middle part of a trilogy.
I don’t hate it, it was just deflating.Hm, yeah, excellent way to put it.
RotS is, at best, mildly entertaining in the theater. It’s sure loud and full of people fighting and stuff blowing up.
If you want to know why people dislike it, there’s about a million YouTube explainers for that.
I feel like Rise of Skywalker deserves to be cut a ton of slack. I mean sure it wasn’t great, but at the same time it was a third movie in a trilogy where one of its most important stars died before filming even began. So for all the talk about Disney and Abrams not having a plan, how the hell do you plan around the death of one of your leads. Especially since it seems like from the previous two movies Leia was going to be super important in Rise of Skywalker. Carrie Fisher’s death was like if RDJ had somehow died after he completed Infinity War, but before they started shooting Endgame.
It is just awful. It caps off the awful trilogy. It moves too quickly. They jump around far too much. They have scenes for no reason. The fake out of killing Chewbacca? For what purpose? Why have lando in it at all? It served no purpose he did nothing to push the story forward. The ex storm troopers…just there. The whole movie is just some stuff with no wait. We hear how bad the New Order is, but never get shown it significantly. The whole sequel trilogy is just a mess. No coherent story. No idea what they were doing or where they were going. A trilogy plotted by committee if at all. Fuck that movie. Im not a big fan of TLJ either, but it is visually interesting, and some scenes work very well. Rise doesnt. At all.
I saw it… I am not a Star Wars person but I have seen the movies. I was okay with it. Certainly wasn’t a movie I wanted to watch more than once but then again – I am not a person that rewatches any of these movies.
Hope you enjoy reading the same posts over and over again. Also hope you enjoy people changing the subject the Last Jedi.I’m gradually watching Rise of Skywalker with my son. It’s fine. It has lightsabers and Chewbacca, so it’s better than the ones without lightsabers or Chewbacca. Adults who want their minds blown by a 45 year old blockbuster series are baffling.
Bill & Ted was turgid, but still loads better than Zoolander 2, Anchorman 2, and both attempted Ghostbustings.The Shining 2 was much better than it had any right to be. Scream # was pretty lousy.(TV bonus: Cobra Kai is dreck, Man Who Fell to Earth is fascinating, Evil Dead was greatness, and Kids In The Hall is brilliance and a total success – as was Twin Peaks.)
The movies you mention are interesting, in that I did finally watch the Bill & Ted threequel, but was not nearly as bad as I was expecting but will still probably never re-watch. I completely ignored both Zoolander 2 and Anchorman 2, as well as the Super Troopers sequel (that you didn’t mention) mainly because no one in my small circle of friends who like dumb smart comedies asked for them. I forgot that Shining 2 even existed, but may have to watch it. I forgot about Scream entirely until it popped up on my Prime list and apparently I had gotten 25 minutes into it and decided I hated it.Ash Vs. Evil Dead was absolutely great, as well as the KITH rebirth. I forgot how much I loved that theme song and just seeing those guys together again.
I had a lot of disappointments with Bill and Ted Face the Music, but my main one was the missed opportunities with its historical figures that basically don’t do anything. I also felt that even though Winters slipped back into Bill rather easily, Reeves didn’t quite have that “Ted!” energy to him.
Keanu Reeves spent years trying to get away from the “himbo” typecasting of Ted “Theodore” Logan. He clearly didn’t want to revive that. But I think it would have made a much better film if he had.
Bill was still Bill, but Ted “John Wick” Logan had turned into his dad.
Once upon a time Ted seemed to be Reeves’ actual persona (see also Parenthood). It felt like he was barely acting. He’s done a lot (mostly drama and action) since then so it likely wasn’t as second nature.
“Man Who Fell to Earth is fascinating”Yeah it’s coming along really well I think.
I’ve been very impressed and hope they stick the landing!
People don’t like Last Crusade?! It may not be Raiders, but it’s leagues better than Temple of Doom and Crystal Skull.
I know I’m in the minority as a liker of Temple of Doom, but I’ve never heard anything resembling the criticism that movie gets directed at Last Crusade. That was a real head-shake line for me too.
Indeed. That line Todd Gilchrist wrote? He chose…poorly.About the worst you can say about it is that it’s not Raiders. Indie as a youth, and Sean as his dad are great additions. Connery playing against type as a bumbling, blinkered academic in a bucket hat (with a brolly!) goes down well.
I don’t think I’ve ever experienced all that much Last Crusade Hate. I feel like it is liked a LOT more than Temple of Doom and almost (come on now, people) as much as Raiders.Although that mega fan-service flashback sequence in the beginning didn’t age all that well for me. Having Indy first wield the whip (or at least still be a novice whipper), get his chin scar, develop Ophidiophobia, AND get his hat all in the same day was awesome for me as a kid but felt very ridiculous on my last rewatch. That’s nit-pickery though. It’s still all fun as Hell.
Liking Temple of Doom puts one in the minority? Decades of fanboy message boarding has me thinking it’s the other way around. But maybe I haven’t done enough of that, which would make me feel better about myself.I really enjoy that movie with the exception the chunk that starts with escaping the airplane with the raft and ends with the stupid gross-out dinner scene. Once that’s over, I dig all of it.
I enjoyed Temple of Doom. Yeah, it’s kinda stupid but… I mean, I’m not looking for subtle and complex storytelling in an Indiana Jones movie. I want a swashbuckling adventure and that is what Temple of Doom gave me.
Agree. Temple of Doom did something very smart which was dial back the seriousness of the first Indiana Jones movie. After that the bar was lowered — in a good way — for these movies. Raiders was a masterpiece but Temple of Doom gave the franchise permission to not have to hit a home run every time. That’s why I’m fine with Crystal Skull. I like the characters and while it’s obviously the worst of the four it’s still Indiana Jones. I wish I could say the same for Star Wars 7-9 but Star Wars has always taken itself very seriously and so the failures become that much more noticeable. Nobody gives a shit, really, if Indiana fucking Jones hides in a fridge because that’s what he does—improvisational bullshit to get out of a pinch. But Star Wars set itself up to require masterpieces and when those didn’t happen it made the whole franchise worse.
Last Crusade is the best.
I thought I was misreading that, because Last Crusade is only marginally less great than the original Raiders (and that’s probably only because Raiders was such an exhilarating blast to the face). Temple of Doom was just too confined a story, it lacked the globetrotting excitement of the other two. It feels like the type of movie that today would be a side project off the main series (e.g. Solo).
I really liked Last Crusade… I thought it was great. But then again, I haven’t seen it since theaters so I have no idea how I’d react to it if I saw it again…
Last Crusade was a lazy rehash of Raiders, but its saving grace was Connery as Indy’s dad. Plus all the backstory that added — like that “Indy” was the dog’s name that “Indy” (really Henry Jones, jr.) called “himself” to make himself look cool rather than just the son of a more respected researcher than himself — Donovan may have been evil, but it is telling that he asked the father to help first and only resorted to calling in Indy when the father went missing. It takes Indy down a notch and I love it.
“Her eyes were green.” Gets me every time.
I rewatched Blade Runner: 2049 recently for the first time it came out and man…. that movie is incredible. I wish Netflix or Amazon would give him 5 seasons and a 100 million dollar check to go adapt 3 body problem next
I wish Netflix or Amazon would give him 5 seasons and a 100 million dollar checkAbsolutely not. He needs to make more movies of varying genres.
Based on how good Sicario was I would agree, but I love that there is an absolute top tier film maker committed to making prestige sci-fi with high concept twists. I’m sure he will excel in any genre he works in.
Wait, people complain about Last Crusade? Yer kidding me. What people? We need a name! Give us a name!
Blade Runner 2049 was the most tedious slog I’ve ever seen. It’s the only movie where I considered getting up and walking out of the theatre. I can appreciate a slow burn, but my god, you could cut an entire hour from the movie and not lose anything.
Villeneuve does lovely visuals, but he can be very hit and miss with pacing. BR2049 was a definite miss. Like you say, an absolute slog.
Thankfully he aced it with Dune.
Dune is such a dense story that he almost had no choice but to pack it with more than BR2049. I’m glad I saw the latter, but probably wouldn’t choose to watch it again. It’s like he watched the already deliberate pacing original and decided that’s what fans wanted even more of. It’s so slow that when things actually happen (e.g. the attack on Deckerd’s place) it’s a bit surprising.
Agreed. Visually it’s stunning and some of the parts are well acted, but it is so incredibly slow. I got the same vibes from the Ghost in the Shell movies. The pensive nature of those movies slows them down.
Though I think that the original GitS is an incredible film.
I couldn’t disagree more. People’s attention spans have been ruined by Michael Bay and Marvel.
Agree. And what the hell was up with Jared Leto’s character?
I thought it was great. My only beef was Ryan Gosling who I find annoying. They should have given a C lister, more vaguely handsome person a shot.
Blade Runner 2049 was easily the best done, also had the best source material to work withimho. It wasn’t as successful as the producers had hoped, from what I’ve read, but It’s a fantastic film. Also looking forward to the upcoming 2099 series.Not sure if Planet of the Apes fits the correct parameters, but the modern version is 100x better than the classic and especially early ‘00s attempt at a “reboot”.
It’s just REAAAALLLY slow. I liked it, but can see why the typical moviegoer might find it a yawn.
Look, say what you like about The Rise of Skywalker, but there was very little wrong in that movie that wasn’t already wrong with The Force Awakens. Pissed they brought Palpatine back? The Force Awakens gave us a Palpatine in all but name. Pissed they made Rey’s lineage important? TFA pretty much explicitly demanded we guess at what her lineage was.And, regardless of what you think about The Last Jedi, we should all be able to agree it didn’t make The Force Awakens any better or worse in retrospect. The movie that came out in 2015, especially for the purposes of this list, should be considered on its own, and on its own it was freaking garbage, albeit with a great and charismatic new cast.
I think the difference is that TFA is better made then Rise of Skywalker. Rise’s editing is a mess, cinematography is all of Abrams worst instincts of colour grading and visual noise. Exegol looks like they forgot to design anything so they just hid it in strobe lights and fog. That being said the warning signs were there in TFA, Abrams is not able to craft a movie where it doesn’t involve running from scene to scene. I like the movie but it really needed a few slower moments , particularly the scene on Solo’s freighter did not need a monster and a shoot out.
The point being, this is a discussion about legacy sequels, and Rise of Skywalker is a sequel to a movie that came out 2 years before it.
there are as many critics of … Last Crusade as there are fans.
Who are these misguided people? I want names.
Doesn’t that have to be a typo? I don’t know a single person who would say it’s anything less than a perfect companion piece to the original. I’d say there are more people who thing it’s better than Raiders than actually don’t care for it.
LAST CRUSADE is great fun. . . but it’s nearly as much of a remake-as-sequel as GHOSTBUSTERS II. Similar plot beats, another (albeit thuddingly obvious, after the more-obscure Ark) Judeo-Christian artifact, Sallah and Marcus *again* because we like them, never mind if they fit the story. In some ways, it feels like nearly as much of a retreat into safer sequel waters as RISE OF SKYWALKER was 30 years later.
I agree LAST CRUSADE is a much more enjoyable film. . . but I give TEMPLE OF DOOM major points for shaking up the RAIDERS formula. I love the idea that every Indiana Jones adventure would be set in a different part of the world and he’d have different allies/operatives he can call on as needed.
I would like to add Ash vs Evil Dead to the good list. While the series gradually became more uneven, particularly due to departures due to creative differences, and I was disappointed Sam Raimi never came back to direct after the pilot, but it was such a fun show with a great cast.I would also classify Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers as a very good legacyquel, even if it takes the original characters and turns them into characters played by actors, even if the actors and characters are basically exactly the same.As for bad legacyquels, I can’t think of anything more disappointing in this category than Star Trek Picard.
Does Mad Max: Fury Road count? That goes with Top Gun Maverick, and Borat 2 as my favorites.
I think Shaft’s biggest misstep was changing its very genre. It’s a comedy now? I’m not as high on Creed or Blade Runner 2049 as others. They’re fine, but they didn’t blow me away. Just not as good as the originals to me.So surely this gives me license to say I like enough of Jurassic World to give it a pass, lol. A guilty pleasure, I’d argue it’s the most interesting of all the JP sequels
Star Wars runs the spectrum for me. I think it’s got one Good, one Bad, and one Okay.
I’d say Fury Road counts.
This should’ve been a lengthy article instead of a ten page slideshow. There’s a lot they could cover.
Personally, I don’t think Fury Road counts, and my reason for thinking so has everything to do with what the whole intention behind a “legacy-quel” even is: which is to make a sequel to a classic film and/or film series that reverently acknowledges the iconic nature of the original in a meta sense, but in a story-sense tries to recalibrate the ongoing continuity into a “back-to-basics” approach while it passes the baton to a new generation of protagonists (which often results in it serving as a soft remake of the original).In other words, it’s “Sequel Where a New Generation Learns Why the Original Movie Was Awesome, But In-Universe.”The Force Awakens, Jurassic World, Halloween 2018, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Scream 2022, and The Matrix Resurrections are all classic examples of that. They feature a new cast of characters whose character progressions can be summarized as “how can I use the original cast’s victories and experiences as a way to quickly get up to speed for solving my current, similar conflict?” (Matrix is the only one where this new character, Bugs, isn’t the viewpoint character, but the dynamic remains otherwise the same). And in trying to copy the notes of the original cast, there almost ends up being some variation of the new cast exclaiming at one point: “Wow! You guys went through a lot/accomplished so much/are legends/that old park was legit!” (Come to think of it, these legacy-quels really seem to be about Generation X trying to impart on the Zoomer generation that the Boomers accomplished some good shit, actually).Mad Max: Fury Road does not do this. At all.It just… tells a story. There’s no “new generation” angle to it; everyone’s generations are basically flattened into “how much experience do you have in surviving?” The only members of the cast who acknowledge even remembering the World Before are (kick-ass) old women who never appeared in any prior installment. If this were a true legacy-quel, they would instead be Old Man Max, himself, played by a returning Mel Gibson, and this film’s “Max” would be revealed as the feral kid from Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior all grown-up, or something. Because it lacks both the new generation angle and the meta commentary on the greatness of the original(s), it couldn’t be further from a Legacy-quel in my mind.(I also debate whether Indy 4 truly qualifies or not, because while it has the next generation element, it really lacks that meta element of “Say, wasn’t the original just swell?” …except, perhaps, bringing back Marion and oh wait there it is. Never mind)However, something that I think absolutely does qualify, which I’m surprised wasn’t brought up? Spider-Man: No Way Home. Totally a backdoor legacy-quel.
Fury Road’s an odd duck because it doesn’t work within the timeline of the original trilogy. Max still has his interceptor, meaning it should be before Road Warrior. But RW takes place not terribly long after the fall of society, so the complex and obviously well-established cultures that rule in FR wouldn’t have had time to develop. It’s more like Fury Road: A Mad Max Story.I liked Creed very much the way I liked Maverick. They both are incredibly effective pulling from the audience’s memory of how the main characters once were and where they are today, the culmination of an implied lifetime of choices. Val Kilmer has long been one of my favorite actors, and seeing him in Maverick carrying the very real effects of his real-world illness (and having it be an important part of the plot) was wrenching.
That’s a good point about Creed.
I am a staunch defender of Jurassic World. Fallen Kingdom was not great and Jurassic World is certainly not on the level of Jurassic Park, but it accomplishes exactly what it set out to do, which is to show Dinosaur mayhem. As silly as it might be, the T-Rex & Raptor vs I-Rex fight at the end was just giddy fun. I think people forget that barring the first Jurassic Park, the series is most just a fun Dinosaur monster movie franchise and I certainly find JW a whole lot better than JPIII and a bit better than TLW.
i don’t get the Matrix hate. the new one is highly rewatchable x
I think Jurassic World is far from a failure. It’s the tightest film in the series after the first (Lost World has some great sequences but is kind of messy, and JPIII is no good), continually exciting and has one of the most fun climaxes in a recent blockbuster.
Anyone critiquing poor decision making in a film about a dinosaur theme park full of predatory species needs to check their priorities. Poor decision making is baked in.
I think where Jurassic World failed for me is they didn’t lean into exploring the working park as much as they should have. Adding in all the stuff with the military, the kids parents getting divorced, etc could have been streamlined.
Fallen Kingdom is where it’s at. You can’t go wrong with a mansion haunted by a super raptor.
The Matrix Resurrections fully rules. It’s not repeating the same beats so much as it’s re-contextualizing them, especially since it’s so much about how trapped Lana Wachowski feels by The Matrix. Also, no movie with that great a finale could never be characterized as “bad.”
Yes, it’s fantastic.
Crystal Skull has to be the worst film in this list. I love the Indiana Jones movies but that film is a complete nightmare. Stilted acting and ridiculous CGI are only a couple of flaws in that disaster of a movie. Here’s hoping that James Mangold can redeem Ford in Indiana Jones 5. Thank God Spielberg and Lucas are being kept out of it.
Scorching take: The Color of Money is actually pretty darn boring.
Texasville?
Godfather Pt. 3?
Exorcist 3: Legion?
The Two Jakes?
Haven’t seen Texasville, but the other three were close enough tot he originals in terms of release dates that I wouldn’t put them in this category.
Really?
Texasville was 19 years, Godfather 3 was 16 years, Exorcist 3 was 13 years, Two Jakes was 16 years. All less time than the Star Wars or Matrix gaps.
True, but none of those felt like a lifetime had elapsed in between. I wouldn’t have guessed Two Jakes was that long after Chinatown, but it still felt like the same guy doing the same things. Star Wars was really 22 years, from ROTJ to TFA.
Exorcist 3: Legion?
If you’re saying that then I will add Exorcist season 1 because that was damn good even though it never ties into the original Exorcist (until it does)
Oh yeah, I forgot that was even a thing. Though there were also at least two Exorcist prequels between Legion and the show.
I had a lot of hope for Resurrections, but it left me feeling disappointed. It might be because I watched it streaming instead of in the theater, but the movie LOOKED underwhelming. The story had some intriguing ideas, but it didn’t hit home.Still an improvement over Revolutions, though.
Maverick exceeded my expectations in every possible way. That movie could have been fan service cringe but hit the nostalgia element just right, and the characters felt lived-in despite not much time for onscreen development. The Maverick character winding down his career as a middle rank officer, kept in the Navy by talent but hindered by self-sabotage, hit the right balance as well.
The Bill and Ted movie was pretty bad.
I liked Jurassic World but the 2nd part was god awful like the 2nd Part of Jurassic Park.I’m a huge Star Wars Geek (went to see Part 7 in a Darth Vader Onesie in Manhattan on opening night) and my god Rise of the Sky walker is a shitshow that kills everything awesome about the Last Jedi!I think Shaft 2019 was way better than 2001 version and was funny in that I’m old like Shaft is and I hate everything about this younger generation of wimps! But I get why some wouldn’t like it but I can watch it hungover on HBO when it shows up. It’s a good late night, early morning drunk movie to laugh at/with.
Good Shaft, Bad ShaftThe Rice Of Skywalker
Who doesn’t like Last Crusade? I want names.
I seem to be in the minority here, but I absolutely despise Jurassic World. Would easily name it as the worst movie I’ve seen in the last 5-10 years. I could spend all day listing its flaws but a few spring to mind (I realize no-one asked btw, I’m just doing this for the catharsis):
1. Bryce Dallas Howard’s character is loathsome and should be the villain. The film tries to tell us that her flaws are that she’s not maternal/feminine enough and that she ‘doesn’t see the dinosaurs as people’ or whatever, but it never demonstrates those flaws in action even once. The fact that the 2nd movie goes so far as to make her a ‘dinosaur rights activist’ is hilarious.
Meanwhile, it never once questions her actual flaws: that she’s a disgusting, mercenary capitalist willing to let a park full of people die for the sake of profits. That even though she refuses to evacuate the park she sends Pratt out specifically to look for her own nephews (hello, Uvalde PD). That she sends a group of men to reclaim a 30-foot reptilian killing machine with cattle prods and a net gun, weapons that wouldn’t even work on a f-king grizzly bear.
Her character arc is that she needs to learn to listen to Chris Pratt because Chris Pratt is right about everything.2. Technical incompetency with direction/editing (particular WRT the Indo Rex).
3. The whole premise of ‘the park is open’ is squandered. The only time the park being open is actually relevant to the plot/action is during a 5-min sequence with the bird attack. The rest of the time it might as well be park staff only, like the original JP.
4. Training the velociraptors is a dumb idea and neutralizes the original movies’ biggest threats. Giving Pratt a relationship with one of them is even worse. ‘You can’t control nature’ becomes ‘Christ Pratt can tho cause he’s such an alpha.’ Great.
5. Linking with 2, 3 and 4, Chris Pratt is a boring protagonist because he’s never remotely phased by anything that happens to him or the others, and exhibits no character growth whatsoever.
6. The assistant character is treated by the script and direction as an afterthought throughout the movie. But then, during the middle of a frenzied attack with (appropriately) choppy editing, the camera then chooses to leeringly focus on her for basically a full minute so we can watch her brutally die. Also – watch the YouTube clip if you don’t believe me – literally no-one else is killed in that bird attack.
7. It uses the ‘people aren’t impressed by a dinosaur anymore’ sentiment as an excuse not to try to add any suspense or awe into the proceedings. It’s like going to a McDonalds and being served human shit in a bun and being told that ‘Well, you’re at McDonalds, isn’t this what you wanted?’8. The movie concludes with them unleashing a T-Rex to help take down the I-Rex, and then treats this as a resolution! Even though all they’ve done is swap one giant carnivorous reptile for another.9. Sexism. See points 1, 5, and 8.
Agree on every single point. I hate that film. Thanks for taking the time to write exactly how I feel about it.
If you’re in the minority I’m right there. It was written and directed by dudes who have no idea how business people, children, scientists, or women behave, so their solution is to make everyone pissy and incompetent.
I was griping about 7 almost immediately after the movie ended. Kids get excited as hell to go to zoos, theme parks, and amusement parks. There are animatronic dinosaur parks that are jam-packed. There’s absolutely zero chance that the only park in the world with live dinosaurs, located on a remote island that is difficult to get to, would have a demand issue.
Yep, exactly. There’s also the fact that the movie consistently fails to demonstrate this in action: at the mosasaur show, for instance, they show a stadium packed to capacity and an audience that goes completely nuts when the mosasaur appears and splashes them. Even the cynical, disinterested teenager appears delighted. They could’ve demonstrated their thesis (absurd as it is) by showing a few bored faces or empty seats, but no. Same goes for the rest of the park and the people we see there.
#8 in particular really irks me. T-Rex is suddenly a “good guy dinosaur” now? Why did they think it would help them fight, instead of going on a rampage of its own? And then once Indominus is defeated, good ‘ol T-Rex just turns around and walks off into the sunset, leaving everyone else alone. It’s like they took people’s nostalgia for the iconic T-Rex scenes in previous movies and made it a plot point, without bothering to understand the “why” or have it make sense within the movie.Another good example of this is the guy in the control room wearing an original Jurassic Park shirt. That’s something you or I might do IRL because it just represents a fun movie we like. But for the characters within that movie franchise, it represents a failed theme park that never opened to the public because a bunch of people tragically died there. It doesn’t make sense that anyone would be nostalgic for that. The filmmakers just went “hey people like this stuff outside the movie, what if we put it IN the movie?” without stopping to think about anything else.
#8 in particular really irks me. T-Rex is suddenly a “good guy dinosaur”
now? Why did they think it would help them fight, instead of going on a
rampage of its own? Exactly. I remember the movie tries really, really hard to justify this earlier in the runtime by constantly alluding to how the I-Rex is ‘psychotic’ and ‘kills just for pleasure’ etc, as if that makes any different when there’s a crowd of human chum still in the park.The filmmakers just went “hey people like this stuff outside the movie, what if we put it IN the movie?” without stopping to think about anything else.Yep, bang on. The whole meta aspect in the film is so shoddily executed, which is makes it all the more irritating that the creators clearly think they’re being really clever.
The idea that Matrix Resurrections ‘repeats the same story’ is just…wrong. I’m not saying that you have to like what it does (although I loved it), but I’m not sure how you could imagine that it’s a retread, rather than a somewhat bitter commentary on the notion of a retread.
I’ve heard good things about Top Gun Maverick. TBH I am not interested enough to go out to see it so I can wait until it’s on streaming somewhere. I remember the original and liked it well enough so I’ll probably watch this new one.
Rise of Skywalker is not a “legacyquel” (stupid word). Force Awakens is.
Counterpoint: Shut up. I had fun watching ROS. It’s exactly the kind of movie J. J. Abrams makes: A patchwork of fan service and cookie cutter plotting put together into a beautiful and extremely fun package. Is it good cinema? No. Is it Star Wars? Yes. *sticks tongue out at you*