Take 4: Attack of the Sequels

Sequels have always fascinated me. The idea of taking an existing story...that, for all intents and purposes, is over...and running with it a few yards more, taking it in new and unexpected directions. Too bad most of them stink to high heaven. In this issue of Take 4, I let four sequels you probably didn't know existed rake me over the coals a few times. Enjoy!

Recommended Reading: Take 4: The Sequel Project

---------------------------------------------------------

The Net 2.0 (2006)

Which Came First?: Prior to this, there was The Net, starring Sandra Bullock, in which a reclusive software engineer stumbles upon some top secret information. Bad guys then erase all electronic traces of her identity, and give her a new name and police record.

The Saga Continues: A new victim, this time a computer systems analyst, moves to Istanbul to inspect the security system of an overseas banking company, whereupon her identity is stolen and she is accused of masterminding the hijacking of some major electronic funds. Other than the "identity theft" premise, this in no way links to the original film.

Things to Look Out For: 1) All the production value of a made-for-TV movie, without the pleasant diversion of commercial interruption. 2) Stupid characters. The mark of a good thriller (in my book) is you see the character in a certain situation, and struggle trying to figure out how they will extricate themselves from it. Here, you solve their dilemma for them in a matter of seconds and spend the time wondering how they were stupid enough to get themselves into the situation to begin with. 3) Some pretty terrible chase scenes. And it's hard to mess up a chase scene. It's pretty formulaic. But here, the characters kind of just run into and bounce off of random objects that appear in their path for no particular good reason.

Random Trivia: Charles Winkler, director of this sequel, is the son of Irwin Winkler, director of the original film. I'm hoping he's been disowned.

And I Quote: Hope: "My name is Hope Cassiday. Sometimes all you have is your name...Hope."

Curt's Take: Run in Fear - Wow...this was pretty bad. It was like some strange hybrid between an afterschool special on identity theft and a cheap travel documentary financed by the Turkish Board of Tourism. The closing credits, for example, played over random shots of beautiful, scenic Istanbul. Very random. I did recognize a couple folks in this, which was strange...but we're not talking big name stars. We're talking a girl who dies in Final Destination 2 and a guy who plays Charlie's older brother in the flashback sequences of Lost. The acting was pretty poor, and as I mentioned above, there was absolutely no effort to tie this back to the original (which wasn't a theater-packer, either). Steer clear. Steer way clear.

---------------------------------------------------------

House of the Dead 2: No Guts, No Glory (2005)

Which Came First?: This movie was spawned from the rather horrible House of the Dead, which I covered in my "Surreal Estate" review not too long ago. In that film, a group of twenty-somethings go to a remote island to attend a rave...an island that happens to also have on it a mad scientist trying to bring the dead back to life. And it was one of the few films I reviewed in 2006 to receive a "Run in Fear" rating (the only thing worse than "Don't Bother").

The Saga Continues: You don't really know it at first, but this does pick up the storyline where the original film left off...sort of. Here, an epidemic turns a college campus into a playground for zombies, and a crack team of soldiers and scientists move in to contain the threat and discover the "Generation Zero" zombie that started it all. Which turns out to be the one chick who was rescued at the end of the first movie. I'd normally keep this info to myself, or set up a "spoiler alert" warning, but I told everyone not to see the first movie. Trust me, I ruined nothing...the first movie does a good job of that on its own.

Things to Look Out For: 1) You have the typical "if bitten, you turn into one" undead scenario, which is pretty consistent with the zombie film genre. 2) To their credit, this movie pretty much does away with the whole "I can't bring myself to shoot my friend" dilemma. These are soldiers and scientists...they won't even blink when putting you out of your misery. 3) A completely random and bizarre opening sequence that made me wonder if I had the right movie in my DVD player. Don't worry...sadly, you do.

Random Trivia: This is one of the very few zombie movies where the word "zombie" is spoken. "Zombie" is said about 15 times.

And I Quote: Nightingale: "Just because it's your turn to have an idea doesn't mean you can't wait for a good one."

Curt's Take: Don't Bother - Shocking, I know...a horror sequel to avoid. Although, it did grow on me a little toward the end when it became more of a "true" zombie flick...by which I mean the characters were just running from location to location chopping and shooting and bashing their way through undead masses. However I'm still stumped at how a single zombie can tear out the neck of a trained soldier, but when you have a couple scientists pressing through a crowd of fifty zombies, who are all latching on to them and preventing them from running any further...not a single zombie even gets a nibble. I mean, come ON...the person is standing still, there are ten of you grabbing at them...but not a single bite? This might rate a little higher if you're a zombie film fan, but be warned...it still ain't great.

---------------------------------------------------------

Hollow Man II (2006)

Which Came First?: Kevin Bacon, Elizabeth Shue and Josh Brolin all starred in the original Hollow Man, in which a team of molecular biologists explored the scientific possibility of a human invisibility serum. Bacon tests the serum on himself, he freaks out, and ends up killing a bunch of people.

The Saga Continues: This isn't a direct continuation of the story, as much as it continues the quest for human invisibility. After the events of the first movie, the invisibility research project is shut down...but in the sequel, a government agency re-opens the project, desiring to create the ultimate secret weapon: an invisible assassin. Once again, though, things quickly spiral out of control, and the main scientist behind the project finds herself squaring off against the test subject.

Things to Look Out For: 1) Christian Slater. And you really do have to look out for him, as he's invisible in most of the movie. A good thing, in my book, since following Alone in the Dark and Broken Arrow, he is now at the top of my list for "Least Favorite Actor Ever." 2) Some decent special effects...for a sequel that I don't think made it to theaters. 3) Less clever protagonists. At least in the first movie, the good guys would use everything from steam and fire extinguishers to sprinkler systems and bags of blood to track the movements of the invisible enemy. Here, they tend to rely on night vision goggles and the random discharging of firearms. Which makes me wonder...why would night vision goggles work? Thermal-imaging devices, sure...but night vision?

Random Trivia: The character's name "Michael Griffin" is a direct reference to the character of "Griffin" from H.G. Wells' 1897 serial novel "The Invisible Man". In Wells' story, Griffin was driven insane by his invisibility - much like the character in this movie.

And I Quote: Maggie: "I worked in research. The 'Department of Killing' was done the hall."

Curt's Take: Not a Priority - I really don't know what to say here, other than "Meh." It was an okay story, that was somewhat engaging, but nothing stellar. The first one was a bit more fun to watch, and you didn't have to deal with Christian Slater's smug voice (even though you only actually see him in two scenes in this film). The special features gave me the option of going "Inside Hollow Man II," but I opted against it. Which leads me to wonder...did they number their sequel "II" instead of "2" because they thought it lent the film more credibility? If so, maybe they should have thought about what effect casting Christian Slater would also do to that credibility...

---------------------------------------------------------

American Psycho 2 (2002)

Which Came First?: The film American Psycho, starring Christian Bale, was based on the book of the same name by Bret Easton Ellis. It followed the story of Patrick Bateman, a succesful young stock executive...who happened to engage in a little serial killing on the side.

The Saga Continues: This sequel, starring Mila Kunis of That 70's Show and The Family Guy, picks up about ten years after the first movie left off. Kunis stars as Rachael, a young woman studying behavioral and criminal sciences in college. See, when she was young, she and her babysitter were held captive by Bateman (from the first movie), and she managed to free herself...killing Bateman in the process. She escaped the crime scene, and nobody ever traced her bac to it. Her goal now is to enter the FBI, where she can work to stop serial killers like Bateman...and she'll let nothing get in the way of that goal. Nothing.

Things to Look Out For: 1) William Shatner. I was pretty surprised to see him in this (as well as Kunis), as I didn't think I'd recognize anyone. He does a pretty good job. 2) A more tongue-in-cheek film that the first one. While the first one was pretty graphic and gruesome, this one was more like Heathers. Though not as good. 3) A decent, if predictable, story.

Random Trivia: The entire film was shot in twenty days...just two more days than it took to shoot House of the Dead 2.

And I Quote: Rachael's Mom: "Sweet Jesus, it smelled like someone died in here!"

Curt's Take: Worth Considering - I just want everyone out there to be fully aware that my rating of this film comes after having watched three other not-so-stellar sequels, so take this with a grain of salt. It's probably, in all actuality, more of a "Not a Priority." The movie moved along at a pretty fast pace, Shatner is always fun to watch, and it didn't take itself too seriously. That having been said, I didn't bother watching any of the commentaries or deleted scenes, although I did watch the outtakes section (which was pretty weak). So out of these four, watch this one...but only if you're limited to these four.