Another year of sequels starts to rear it’s head once more, and once again we see mixed reaction from the movie-going public as to whether it’s going to be worth it.
 To start 2006 off, we had Final Destination 3 and we won’t go in to what reviewers thought of that, as I’ve yet to see a review which gives it any praise. Now, Basic Instinct 2 is due to hit the UK cinemas on 31st March. It sees Sharon Stone reprising her role as the novelist Catherine Tramell who, despite relocating from San Fransisco to London, once again finds herself on the wrong side of the law. Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey), a respected London criminal psychiatrist, is brought in by Scotland Yard detective Roy Washburn (David Thewlis) to perform a psychiatric profile and evaluation of Tramell following the mysterious death of a top sports star. Physically drawn to Tramell and mentally intrigued by her, Glass, against the advice of his mentor, Dr. Milena Gardosh (Charlotte Rampling), is quickly sucked into her web of lies and seduction. The professional boundaries between Glass and Tramell are obliterated when she uncovers his basic instincts.
There are already mixed reactions being levied toward this sequel to the hit thriller of 1992, some good but most of them not so good! This seems to be because critics feel (and I agree) that the original thriller was one that didn’t need a sequel, as it finished in a way that left you thinking. Despite this, both Hollywood and Sharon Stone herself have been talking about a sequel to the steamy thriller for a while, and now it’s here, it’s up to us to decide if it was worth the effort.
Final Destination 3 and Basic Instinct 2 are just the first two in a long line of sequels due to be released this year. We can also expect to see;
|
 Ice Age 2: The Meltdown |
 Scary Movie 4 |
 Mission Impossible 3 |
 X-Men 3: The Last Stand |
 Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest |
 The Grudge 2 |
 The Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift |
 Garfield 2 |
 Jackass 2 |
 The Santa Clause 3 |
Whether they’re made to continue a storyline, to “cash in” on previous ventures, or to just plain and simply entertain a devoted audience, it is clear that movie sequels, whether you love them or hate them, have been around a while and are here to stay!
 A lot of people live by the philosophy that, if the original is a classic, then don’t mess with it. It is often said by critics that sequels are quite simply made for the purpose of “making money for the sake of making money,” and when you consider that at least half of the films mentioned above will probably come with a review saying; “not as good as it’s predecessor” or “why did they bother”, it makes you realise that the reviewers might have a point!
As a parent you could be forgiven for taking your children to see a sequel to what is considered a classic tale, and coming out feeling like you’ve been robbed of over £10 of your hard earned cash. This is, of course, because you realise that the film you’ve just taken your kids to see was either rushed together, developed with a television budget or failed to get any of the original actors to reprise their roles. This inevitably leads to you finding that those “classic characters” are portrayed by unknowns, who are nowhere near as good as the original cast, and thus ends in disappointment.
 So why do we bother? Well, after that little rant you may be surprised to hear that this writer is in favour of sequels! Why? Because if sequels were never made, you wouldn’t have the chance to see the rare gem sequels which are actually very good, and in some cases surpass the originals. Examples I hear you say; well, how about The Empire Strikes Back, Terminator 2 (yes I know, I’ll not mention the third instalment), Toy Story 2, Aliens, and, although I haven’t seen them personally, The Lord of the Rings movies… and may I point out how much I liked the Bourne Supremacy and how I’m looking forward to Mission Impossible 3!
 Fair enough, more often than not, sequels are not better than their predecessors, but when people love a film & it’s characters, they tend to want to see more. It is because of this that they are prepared to take the risk that it might not be as good, in order to see how the story continues/unfolds. The Matrix Reloaded is probably a good example. The first Matrix film was widely loved and considered fresh and entertaining, but when Hollywood announced a sequel were there mass shouts of “oh no, don’t do it!” – No there wasn't! Maybe from certain corners, but on the whole, people were excited by the proposition. Fair enough, it didn’t turn out to be as good as the original, but did that stop people going to see it… box office takings say; no – definitely not!
 When you consider that Hollywood is so quickly running out of fresh ideas that they resort to re-making old classics or converting TV series’ to the big screen (badly), why not just spend longer working on sequels to try and get them right. On the whole, sequels tend to be flawed in one of two ways: either so much effort is made on making the sequels bigger and better that Hollywood goes over the top in trying to achieve it’s goal, or corners are cut, unacceptable compromises are suddenly acceptable and the quality of the sequel starts to spiral ever downwards.
 I feel that the making of sequels isn’t the problem… it’s the lack of time and money spent on them! What do the successful sequels I mentioned have in common? Well, sticking to plan for a start, any compromises are kept acceptable, attempts to make them “bigger & better” are either more subtle or are carefully considered and overall, the original cast reprise their roles!
Obviously, this is a widely debated topic with pros and cons to every side of the argument. There is one thing though that both sides can hopefully agree on… whether you are a fan of sequels or not, admit it; once you accept that that the sequel is being made, if you liked the original movie, we secretly keep hoping the sequel will be a good one!
Basic Instinct 2 is released in Uk cinemas on 31st March.
|
HAVE YOUR SAY!!
Cinemas Online Forums
|
|