Worst to First: Ranking the Sequels of 1988


10. Critters 2: The Main Course
Rotten Tomato Score: 33%
Domestic Gross: $3,813,293

Place in Franchise: 2 of 2
Years Since Last Movie: 2
Actors Replaced: Dee Wallace, M. Emmet Walsh and Billy Zane are gone but Scott Grimes (no, you have never heard of him) is back
Summary: The first Critters was released in 1986 and was generally viewed as a rip-off of Joe Dante’s Gremlins.  Cowriter and director Stephen Herek denies this.  He claims the script was written well before Gremlins went into production and that they rewrote Critters to reduce similarities between the two movies.  Critters was Herek’s directorial debut.  He went on to some success with Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, The Mighty Ducks and Disney’s live action remake of 101 Dalmatians.
The first movie got surprisingly decent reviews and performed well enough at the box office to warrant a sequel.  Mick Garris who had previously worked on Steven Spielberg’s television show, Amazing Stories, made his feature film directorial debut with Critters 2.  Garris is probably best known for having directed several TV adaptations of Stephen King novels including The Stand and The Shining.
Roger Ebert, who liked the first movie, panned the sequel.  He wrote that “[Critters 2] lacks all of the style and sense of fun of the original Critters and has no reason for existence.”  Audiences signaled their agreement by staying away in droves.  But that didn’t prevent producers from turning out two more direct-to-video Critters sequels in 1991 and 1992.

Next: Big Top Pee-wee

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jeffthewildman
6 years ago

None of the sequels were anywhere near great. A few were passable. I did like Rambo III better than First Blood Part 2, because it wasn’t overrun with all the jingoism that was so prevalent in that one.

jeffthewildman
6 years ago
Reply to  lebeau

Right. Although I did like it better, It’s not a movie I feel the urge to go back to. Of the four Ramboes, First Blood is the only one I re-visit every once in a while.

jeffthewildman
6 years ago
Reply to  jeffthewildman

You are correct about it being off the charts in terms of violence. It wasn’t the comic book violence of the 2nd and third either. It was stretch that R rating violence. I’d rank it lower than First Blood and very slightly ahead of III. But on the whole, Rambo could’ve stayed retired. Yeah, the speech at the end of First Blood is one aspect that should’ve been left out. It did indicate that jingoistic cartoon direction the series would take from that point on. ,

robbushblog
robbushblog
6 years ago

The only sequel in this whole thing that I like is THE DEAD POOL. What a year of stinky sequels!

robbushblog
robbushblog
6 years ago
Reply to  lebeau

I count 15 sequels from 1998, with slightly better choices overall. There are quite a few stinkers though.

robbushblog
robbushblog
6 years ago
Reply to  lebeau

I can’t wait until we do 2017 and cover its 40 sequels!

robbushblog
robbushblog
6 years ago
Reply to  lebeau

Ha ha! Lebeau, Jr.?

robbushblog
robbushblog
6 years ago

2017 had 21 sequels in the top 50 of highest box office grossers.

jestak2
Editor
6 years ago

Now this is a really thin crop of sequels. The Dead Pool is watchable, and some people find it at least better than the previous Dirty Harry film. I will probably get to Return to Snowy River some day, as I have always liked the first film in the series. Since I’m not really into horror films none of the horror franchise installments are familiar to me. And the remainder are mostly films that would induce me to turn the TV off if I stumbled into watching them—there aren’t even any of them that qualify as cheesy-fun movies.

Craig Hansen
Craig Hansen
6 years ago

This might be the worst batch of sequels that I have ever seen – and the fact that they all come from the same year is mindboggling. I would agree with what a couple other readers stated before, The Dead Pool is the only film on this list that is at least watchable. Far from great, but at least watchable. Oh, that reminds me, the bandmembers of Guns N’ Roses make a quick cameo, in the funeral scene if I remember correctly. You cannot miss Slash’s black tophat in the crowd.

Craig Hansen
Craig Hansen
6 years ago
Reply to  lebeau

A better year, sure, but no Guns N’ Roses cameos in funeral scenes either.

Craig Hansen
Craig Hansen
6 years ago

I have a deep, unbiding love for the original Arthur film; it’s such a sweetly charming comedy, and Dudley, Liza and John Gielgud are delightful in it, the Oscar wins and nominations (Gielgud, Dudley, Best Song and Screenplay) were all well earned in my eyes. Its one of those personal favorites that I always return to every few years. To be honest, I’ve always heard what a lousy movie Arthur 2: On The Rocks was and have just always avoided it like the plague. I figure why tarnish my appreciation for the original? Would it be hyperbole to suggest Caddyshack… Read more »

Craig Hansen
Craig Hansen
6 years ago
Reply to  lebeau

I didn’t learn about the original plan for Ramis to write and Rodney Dangerfield to star until more recently, and I have to admit at least on paper I kinda do wish that had happened. Who knows, maybe it would have worked, maybe it wouldn’t have. But I do know that Dangerfield was on fire in the original Caddyshack. Also, nothing could ever be worse than the actual Caddyshack II that we got, so there’s that too. What do you think Lebeau, could a sequel starring Rodney, written by Ramis, have possibly worked? What’s your opinion on that?

robbushblog
robbushblog
6 years ago

The only good thing about CADDYSHACK II was Dyan Cannon. She was sexy in it. That’s it though. It has no other quality.

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x