Top Ten Good Sequels to Bad MoviesBKAllmighty Sometimes a movie comes out and it's crap. It happens (a lot). Then they announce that they want to make a sequel and everyone thinks "WHY? ". Of course, typically a sequel to a much-disliked movie is also bad, but in some cases the funniest little thing happens... IT'S ACTUALLY GOOD! This list compiles the best movie sequels that followed a horrible predecessor.
The Top TenXW
While it wasn't really a stellar film, this movie was leaps and bounds better than episodes I and II. Episodes one was just dull and disappointing on the whole, and two was essentially just filler for 3 (which makes it even worse.)
Three, though, was the first prequel Star Wars movie that actually felt needed, showing the rise of the empire, anakin's transformation into Vader, and features some of the series best fight scenes. It also had a much more coherent and enjoyable story, essentially ignoring the other two movies (thank goodness).
Bottom line, Lucas really pulled himself together for the final prequel, and he did a pretty great job.
Absolutely. The prequel trilogy would just have been a poor bore that fans of the original trilogy would "just get over with", if it were not for this incredible thriller. - PositronWildhawk
This one followed 2 pretty bad movies (although the nostalgia I get from 'Episode I' keeps me from really disliking it). The main thing that still bothers me about episodes II & III is Anakin. Hayden Christensen just annoys me. But, besides that, Episode III was far superior to the prior 2 movies and was generally considered to be on par with 'Episode VI' (although I'm not sure I like it THAT much). - BKAllmighty
Unlike most people, I actually liked revenge of the sith. But the first two were boring.V2 Comments
The original 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' wasn't terrible, but it sure was dull. It had a massive budget and what was it used on? Never ending sequences of space patterns and reaction shots of the Enterprise crew members (over and over and over again). It took 20 stinking minutes just to get the ship out of space port. So the sequel didn't exactly have anywhere to go but up. It may have had a smaller budget (wonder why) but the action was more frequent and more exiting, the story was better executed, and Khan, himself, made the movie brilliant. - BKAllmighty
I Like Star Trek I But Star Trek II Is Better - VideoGamefan5
'Fast Five' wasn't the first movie in the 'Fast and the Furious' series to be good. The first movie is pretty well respected (especially in retrospect), while '2 Fast 2 Furious' can be thanked for the introduction to series regulars Roman and Tej. Then we get to 'Tokyo Drift'. There was nobody in it (except for a cameo at the end by Vin Diesel) from either of the first 2 movies, and the whole "drifting" thing means cars don't drive as fast (see a problem? ). Of course, the 4th movie brought back most of the original cast members from the 1st movie, but didn't quite perfect the whole "cars are not the main focus, just the tools used to do other stuff like perform heists and undercover busts" concept, so the movie ended up being another hot (albeit inspired) mess. So it's a good thing 'Fast Five' came along. Otherwise the series would have probably died a painful "straight-to-DVD" death. - BKAllmighty
Fast And The Furious Was So Cool, 2 Fast,2 Furious Was Okay, Fast Furious, Tokyo Drift Was Bad, F4st And The Furious Was Kinda Bad, Fast Five Was Pretty Good - VideoGamefan5
It's a bit confusing since there are currently 7 movies in the 'X-Men' series (and 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine' is sort of a stand-alone prequel movie) but 2013's 'The Wolverine', being the second Wolverine solo movie, basically acts as a sequel to the 2009 disappointment. It made more sense, didn't screw around with the continuity like the first movie did, and took place in Japan (which is awesome). - BKAllmighty
No, the original Addams Family wasn't terrible, but it wasn't exactly great. The sequel really raised the bar, however, and added more macabre humour and added a few interesting new characters. The scenes where Wednesday and Puglsey are at summer camp are equally funny and surreal to watch. - BKAllmighty
The first installment in the series was decent, albeit slow and pretty dialog-heavy. The sequel was a lot more of a mess. I've seen it, maybe, 4 times and I still can't remember what the plot was about. Then #3 came out in 2006 and BOOM it was awesome.J.J. Abrams' first directorial effort proved to be a smashing success and led him to become one of the biggest action movie directors on the planet. Thankfully, the series has continued on its righteous path of getting bigger and better with each new entry. - BKAllmightyV1 Comment
The first movie was not as much bad as it was over-kitschy. The tone of the film is miles away from every other MCU movie and, in retrospect, it has sort of become that "ah crap I have to see the 1st one before I can get to the good one" movie that everyone quietly resents. Plus, 'The Winter Soldier' kicked butt on so many levels that it made the original film look underdeveloped and uninspired. I still like 'The First Avenger' but I'd toss it in a second if I had to choose between 1 and 2. - BKAllmighty
The First Avenger most certainly wasn't bad, but Winter Soldier blew my mind. But this still shouldn't be on here
The first Captain America movie was awesome, this one was even better. - letdot52
I know the original 'Night of the Living Dead' is considered to be a classic but when you have 'Dawn of the Dead' on the screen in front of you you'll sort of forget the retroactively tame original film. If 'Night of the Living Dead' premiered tomorrow it would not be given good reviews while 'Dawn of the Dead' is still just as watchable as it was back in 1978. - BKAllmighty
The first one was borderline bad, I think. It wasn't nearly self-deprecating enough. It tried too hard to be a serious action film and the few giggly moments left the audience wanting more. The second movie, however, took things to a whole new (and better) level with the humour thrown in. One-liners are everywhere and the chemistry between the many memorable faces is wonderful to watch. '3' lost a bit of the magic, but let's hope '4' picks itself back up. - BKAllmighty
A million times better than the first film. - Jackamalio
Though it didn't perform as well at the box office as the first one, this movie was a big improvement over the first one. This movie focuses more on the turtles themselves and their development, unlike the first film where they were essentially plot elements for April. It also took itself way less seriously and had more humor, making feel more like a ninja turtles movie than the cookie-cutter blockbuster that was the first film. It actually FEELS like a ninja turtles movie.
Overall, this is what the first movie should have been, and is recommended; funny, action packed, and super fun as a result. - Jackamalio
The first movie was crap I didn't like it it was over cliche and it had a boring plot which was a cliche. But the second movie was good it had a great plot and funny
Related ListsTop Ten Good Movies With Bad Sequels Top 10 Good Movies with Bad Rotten Tomatoes Scores Best "So Bad It's Good" Movies Top 10 Bad Movies by Good Directors Top Ten Bad Movies With Good Special Effects
List StatsUpdated 7 Dec 2016
1 year, 184 days old
2. Fast Five
3. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith