It felt like it did much more with the concept. The first Purge wasn't bad but didn't go all-out with the urban setting like the sequel. Which in all fairness is no doubt due to the much smaller budget.

I've always preferred Hannibal to Lambs. To watch Hannibal unbound in Florence is a treat. So, better setting, better Hannibal, better investigation, better variety of threats, etc.

Long time since this thread was last active. Time to bring it back.

The Conjuring 2 is one I'd definitely add to my list of Horror sequels that surpass the original. Blade II is another, though it and the original are very close for me.

I'm not alone!

Also

Aliens > Alien

I remember not much liking Hannibal but it's been so long since I last saw it I feel I need to give it another go to give it a fair shake. At the time it came out it didn't help that it'd been ten long years since TSOTL and expectations were impossibly high.

I'm with you... it's been a long time since I saw Hannibal... I remember the Ray Liotta scene, and not liking the film much compared to Lambs. Just kinda felt unhinged to me... and not in a good way. I don't remember being scared, just more grossed out... horrified? meh...

Actually, I really liked Red Dragon (2002) a lot more -- with Edward Norton and Anthony Hopkins -- thought it was an effective thriller. I mean Hannibal is an intelligent psychiatrist... that's the distinctive spice of the character. I don't remember the film Hannibal using that aspect.

I still haven't seen Red Dragon, though I have seen Manhunter, which I like a lot. I like TSOTL the best of the Hannibal films but Manhunter is surely in second place.

Manhunter was cool, though the loud background music was rather odd at times.

Manhunter is very 80s, which I think is part of it's charm. Excellent score and music as well.

Another Horror sequel I personally prefer to the original and very controversially so is The Fly II. While the Cronenberg remake is excellent I always enjoyed the sequel just a little more. Objectively the Cronenberg film is probably better from a filmmaking and story perspective, but I find the sequel a little more entertaining overall. Always been a big fan of the MartinFly creature as well which I always felt was an underrated monster and still a terrific creature design.

Not to be a contrarian... I saw The Fly 2 twice, shortly after it came out, and then some 10 years ago. I really didn't like it either time. There's just something wrong about it... I want to say it's incoherent... but it's not that I don't understand it, just that something is off as a film. Peaking at Rottentomatoes.com over 21,000 audience 23%, 15 critics 27%. Pretty universally disliked. *shrug*

It's never been a well-received film, but it's one I've always enjoyed. It's more of a traditional monster movie in contrast with the original which is more of a tragic love story. Both are radically different films and with the sequel they were probably going for the splatter/monster movie crowd who were more interested in seeing gruesome special effects.

Can't argue that They probably should have called it "The Fly: Transformation", or something like that -- rather than calling it "The Fly II". You know, if you're going to hook yourself the original so directly like that, you're courting expectations. When not met, people feel ripped off and fooled. Darn marketing executives! ::big grin::

I give them credit for at least trying something different with the sequel as I don't think doing the original's plot all over again would've worked then. I also think the infamous dog sequence plays a big part in people disliking the second film, I recall it got quite a bit of backlash for that sequence. Nearly 30 years later it's still quite a disturbing and upsetting moment.

It's a prequel, but last year's Ouija: Origin Of Evil is definitely much better than the original. I actually didn't dislike the original like so many did but it was ultimately pretty forgettable and not something I'd want to see again. the prequel on the other hand felt old-school and had much better atmosphere and suspense, and more interesting characters.

I like to be open to sequels but horror is one genre where it doesn't seem to make sense to me to make one.

However there are indeed horror sequels I thought were better than the first one though I still find Saw I is the only one in the series that doesn't annoy me.


I thought Cube 2: Hypercube was definitely better than the first, partly because it adds a new dimension it the gameplay (both figuratively and literally) and doesn't have the same scrips problems.

I though Paranormal Activity 2 was the best of the series back when it was still fresh but didn't give things away as easily as the first so you feel the characters are actually in danger.

I also thought Revenge of chucky was better made than the child's play.

Hostel 2 is better than the first one? The first one is like my 2nd favourite horror movie... though I vowed to never watch the 2nd in case Eli Roth was enough of a jerk to invalidate the ending of the first movie. And we all know he is capable of trolling the audience in the worse way (Knock Knock).

There's no Child's Play sequel called Revenge Of Chucky so far, I think you have it mixed up with another.

Ya, isn't the sequel called, "Romancing the Chucky" or something?

HAHAHAH.

Is that real? You never know these days.

Ha, no. Not yet anyway, who knows if we won't get that as the next sequel.

I thought the sequel to "The Crow" was pretty darn good...I also liked the sequels to "Candyman"--just awesome!!! ::devil::

not really a sequel (sort of an odd spin off) but targets

I'll re-post from years ago... There aren't many sequels I liked better than the original.

The Road Warrior (mad max 2)
Spider-man 2 (2004)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Evil Dead 2
Last Crusade>Temple (going by my theater viewings)
Goldfinger>From Russia with Love/Dr No

These aren't Horror, although Temple Of Doom does toy with Horror-y aspects. I recall saying you saw TOD again years ago and you might've liked it more than Crusade. I definitely far prefer it. Crusade is fun but I felt too campy at times and too deriative of Raiders.

Too true, I didn't follow the thread title specification for horror films. ::stick out tongue::

And you have a great memory... yes, I do like Temple of Doom better than Last Crusade, particularly because TOD is fully engrossing, suspension of disbelief is well maintained, and it's just flat-out fascinating. Whereas Last Crusade feels much too self-aware, like it knows it's being watched by an audience, often feels like a parody, and it's less engrossing and less believable as a result.

However, comparing the first viewings at the theater of both films, Doom was a let down to the long shadow of 'Raiders' (certainly a difficult act to follow, especially via a prequel that must ignore the character changes Indy earned through Raiders), but I really enjoyed Crusade. I think seeing Crusade in the more forced engrossing confines of a theater, and the big screen, quite simply helps Crusade mightily.

No worries there, mix-ups happen :D

I wasn't born yet when the first two Indy films were out (I was 2 when Last Crusade came out), but I can imagine TOD at the time being so hot off the success of Raiders probably had massive expectations and probably didn't meet them for a lot of people, and moreso with it in terms of the story and tone being a big change from Raiders. TOD is so much darker and at times goes into some uncomfortable territory such as human sacrifice and child slavery, which I felt just added to how evil the villains were and made you want to see Indiana Jones succeed that much more against them. People probably weren't expecting such a dramatic tonal shift and the movie to get as dark and grim as it did at times.

Last Crusade is entertaining but at times way too goofy and comical, and definitely far too deriative of Raiders at times. Spielberg has even said when he made the film he had the idea to basically have it be Raiders but with Sean Connery in the mix, which at times it very much feels like. It played it too safe much of the time and also suffered from dull villains, a somewhat underwhelming climax and really hurt both Sallah and Brody's characters. Still a fine film, but a sizable stepdown from the first two for me.

TOD is the closest the series ever got to Horror and I'd like it if the next film was more Horror-oriented. Indy is a character who lends himself well to Horror scenarios for sure. Funny enough, one of the earlier concepts for Last Crusade involved a haunted castle, which I would've liked to have seen.

Well said. And really Raiders plays a great deal with fear and other elements of horror. TOD was darker and added even more horror elements, but I wouldn't say those were the things that made it a step down from Raiders. There was less awe and wonderment, and also less surprise and suspense.

Ultimately the subject matter is certainly going to make its mark on the film. Going from the Ark of the Convenant tug-of-war with Nazi Germany to an extremely isolated cult in India is going to take its toll.

TOD is a hell of an Indy film, I think it pushed into the TV serial much more than Raiders did, which was really the inspiration for both, but the Raiders story just went for epic and hit it, whereas TOD had no such aspiration.

And so true, Crusade had one of the weakest villain(s) in film. For the most part Crusade lacked the omni-present visceral fear that Raiders and TOD carried throughout. There were dangerous thrilling moments in Crusade, but along with lacking an arching continuity, the goofiness of the humor-for-humors-sake as opposed to seamless comic relief, and the sense of parody, left the audience feeling much too safe and aware of the "film".

TOD is definitely the one that most felt like the vintage adventure serials that inspired the series in the first place. That with the darker mood and borderline Horror feel make it a standout of the series. I've had it a couple of times in my Horror marathon viewings and it's definitely not out of place in a Horrorthon. The closest the series ever came to Horror. I'd love for Indy 5 to be more like it.

That's very true about Crusade as well. It never had that feeling of danger and foreboding the first two had. There was that feeling Indy could die at any moment and maybe things might not work out so well. With Crusade it felt much more by the numbers.

It's a prequel, but another more recent Horror follow-up I found better than it's predecessor was Annabelle: Creation.

Re: Horror Sequels Better Than The Original
 

I'd have to say I enjoyed the re-release of The Babysitter more than the original. I have no idea if that counts due to it not being the original movie maker not making the sequel or remake I should say, but I thought I should include it for those interested in one better than the original. It was hilarious too.

The Babysitter (2017) was pretty good until after the big reveal. But, ya, I'd agree with you, it doesn't count because I don't see any previous films that have anything to do with this film. Well, I guess I should ask you, Stone, what prior "The Babysitter" film did you see that you thought might be related to the 2017 film? There are a lot of films with that name.

That film sounds familiar somehow, but I've yet to see it. Consider my interest piqued.

The Secret Window is a great thriller with horror elements. I think the last version with Johnny Depp is better than the one of 1987. Really appreciate Depp as an actor and basically all the movies he plays at are memorable. There was this story about a mysterious dark house he worked at, looks quite like his own old villa in France which he bought in 2001.

I like Bride of Chucky a lot more than the first three Child's Play films. In fact I'd go as far as to say that it's one of my favorite horror movies of all time.

I also liked George Romero's Day of the Dead a lot more than I did the previous movie Dawn of the Dead. I really don't get why most people preferred Dawn of the Dead because the make-up for those zombies sucked. The zombies looked so much better in Day of the Dead and even the original Night of the Living Dead.

The only legitimate sequel better than the original is New Nightmare > Nightmare. I can't think of one other. I don't agree with most posts in this thread haha

Maybe Romero's "Dead" series got better as it went. Dawn was certainly better than Night haha

I disagree I think Night of the Living Dead was better. The zombies in Dawn of the Dead looked so bad but at least in Night of the Living Dead the movie was in black and white so you couldn't even see the make-up very well. They were more believable as zombies.

I agree with you, Luv. I liked both, but I think Night of the Living Dead is much better film, having so many levels to it. If you just want to see heads blown up and people being bit, Dawn is your film, but after it's made it's point about zombie consumerism, Dawn is a fairly repetitious film.

Yeah and I feel like Night of the Living Dead showed a very realistic glimpse of what the apocalypse would really be like. I can picture people everywhere hiding in their homes and turning on the news trying to figure out what to do during all the panic and confusion and eventually whatever it is killing everybody else outside would make its way into their houses and kill them too. The horror in Night of the Living Dead touched me in a very real way because there was such a realism to it that other zombie movies just don't seem to capture. It's no wonder that it became an instant classic despite the low budget!

Well said! It was riveting... people would board up their house and watch the TV news. When I saw the naked zombie woman (from behind), I thought it was so sad and horrible, she didn't know she was naked... Then you have the fight for control, and the little girl at the end... so many dimensions of horror.

Yeah the naked female zombie was shocking. It made me wonder why she was naked when she died and came back as a zombie (of course now when I rewatch the movie I notice the tag hanging from her wrist so she must have come from a morgue).

BTW another horror sequel I thought was better than the first two films in the series was Leprechaun 3. That movie has some funny deaths like when the leprechaun made a woman's breasts and buttocks explode and when he literally sawed a magician in half lol.