I loved Evil Dead 2, Halloween 2, F13 Part 2, etc. etc. but none of them come close to DOTD! When there is no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth!!!!!!!!!! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: Or so says my DOTD poster signed by Ken Foree and Tom Savini!!! :banana: :banana:
I choose Dawn of the Dead. Next would be Evil Dead 2 followed by TCM 2. I think Bride of Frankenstein belongs on the list. That was probably the first sequel in history to surpass the original. At least the most famous.
Dawn of the Dead, hands down (sorry onebyone, Bruce doesn't come even close)... My second choice would be Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 :banana: :banana: :banana:
LOL! For a minute I thought you were posting about Bride of Re-Annimater and was going to, sort of, agree with you. Until you mention Whale, you could be stating most of my opinion of the other Bride, except that, I think the major problem with the other Bride was it had way too much stuff going on, unlike Re-Annimator, which stayed more or less focused on the zombie theme. But I thought the last ten minutes, or so, where great. I think Whale's Bride is fine, though. A classic.
Thank you! The horror genre wasn't invented in the 70s... There wouldn't be any slasher cycles without the "sons" and "brides" of the classic monsters.
My vote went to Hellbound...it was a difficult call but I really liked how it expanded the Hellraiser universe.
Fun idea. Though... where the heck is Bride of Frankenstein? (Didn't Universal make several more films after both?) I've been planning to rewatch Friday the 13th Part 2 for awhile now, so I'll reserve my judgment on how that fits in here 'til later. I've always been uncomfortable regarding Inferno as a sequel in the same sort of company as what we tend to regard as sequels. The standard sequel. Argento's work invites comparison and encourages people to group his films. But, I don't believe he ever made a true formulaic sequel. As for the rest of the films: Final Destination 2 is the best film on the list. Fright Night Part 2 is also very good. Scream 2 deserved a slot. It did. Evil Dead II is probably the best of the rest. Though, Hooper's equally disappointing Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2 should have been better. I haven't seen Demons 2 in some time, but it's always been a fun little bit of over-the-top. Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge to me doesn't hold up as well as the technical sum of its parts because it just flirts with the gay stuff. Yes, it's a milestone for ultra-conservative 1985. But... the more in danger this country gets of losing gay marriage due to Trump's transition team (which is packed with anti-gay assholes who have lead big battles against LGBT rights in their various states and departments and wherever they count), the less likely I am to say every tiny step almost-forward makes a big difference. As a gay man myself, I can confirm that Freddy's Revenge never helped me in any way. It's merely an intriguing experiment. I wouldn't put much stock in it anymore. (There was a time I started leaning. 5 years ago I'd be making a different argument.) Halloween II is a ton of fun, admittedly. The more I rewatch it, the more I want to admit I love it. But... I'm nothing if not a slave to my principles. And, holy crap- the Loomis portions of this film make it an extremely tough sell. Donald Pleasance's performance here should be held up as a definitive How-Not-To, and his interactions with hair-down Nancy Stephens are some of the most poorly written stuff in the franchise. (Though, sure, it's nice to see her return.) That scene where he goes on about "one of their number was butchered" after the neighbors start throwing bricks and stones at The Myers House should also be studied ("this is a wake!")... What. The. Fuck? And he's too stupid to even think about the fact that Michael was wearing a stolen Halloween mask- so... ya know, the local store he robbed to get it might have sold more than 1 of the same mask... What an idiot!! Just shoot blindly at a totally confused acting person. (And, sorry, a teenager is going to fool Loomis as having Michael's same build? Really?) So many problems just like that. Hellbound and House 2 suck majorly. Sleepaway Camp 2 is the worst.
I love Halloween 2, but voted for ED2, because it blew away my expectations of what a sequel could do. Dawn is in another league, however.
Evil Dead 2 for me. As much as I loved the first one, there was always an bit of inconsistency in the tone, likely due to the amateurishness of some of the acting and effects. While those are certainly part of the charm of the film, they do require a bit of acceptance of the limitations in order to appreciate. ED2, however, has everything sewn together perfectly. Though, I will admit that I really WANTED to pick either Hellbound or Blade 2 due to how well both expanded their respective worlds and improved on shortcomings or limitations of the originals. And, as much fun as Dawn of the Dead is, it will always pale compared to Night... for me.
I agree with this, but Dawn is still my favorite sequel. As I tried to watch the recent Italian 4K disc, I was surprised at how immersed in the film I still was after all these years until I couldn't take the botched restoration anymore.
My vote went to Friday the 13th part deuce...... I love that flick. It's funny thinking of Dawn of the Dead as a sequel. It is...but it isn't. It's a better film than F132, no question about it...... but I'll watch F132 twenty times before watching Dawn twice. For all the "sequels suck" talk that's been around for our entire lifetimes, there's some pretty badass flicks on this list.
Does it really have to pale to the original to be a milestone... of a different kind? The whole approach to the material is different because the material has to be completely different as well; it's reflecting the anxieties of a different time and place. America in the late 70's had a completely different boogeyman than America in the late 60's. The amateurishness of the acting in The Evil Dead is directly comparable to the likes of Halloween and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Both of which have moments that are downright squirm-worthy... if you're judging them for the acting. Did either of those horror milestones have the kind of prep that went into De Palma's Carrie? (For example.) I like to think most inconsistencies that people might raise issue with are due to budget or the director's relative new-ness to the process. (Also, low budget seems always a gamble to me. The idea that Raimi and Co. somehow had it mastered by the time they got to a Part 2 is a little hard to believe. Wes Craven had 11 years of experience going into A Nightmare on Elm Street and I've heard that shoot described as hellish.) As for tone, well... look at the sequels. Are they even horror films? Is a valid question one might ask on behalf of both. Why would/do people insist on Hellbound, for example, being the same world as the original? Almost any sequel is going to take character consistencies from the original and stretch them until they wear them out / take them to places that the original should never have gone. Etc. Also: Pete Atkins wrote the screenplay on Hellbound and he had nothing to do with the original. Atkins sucks as a writer and did nothing directly before or after until Hell on Earth and Wishmaster. Why would anyone support trusting a guy who barely writes at all for film when the main reason the original worked so well was because Barker could actually write?
it was a toss up between dawn of the dead & final destination 2, I suspect a lot would vote for dawn, so thought add a number to the final destination camp.
