18. Braddock: Missing in Action III
Rotten Tomato Score: n/a
Domestic Gross: $6,193,901
Place in Franchise: 3 of 3
Years Since Last Movie: 3
Actors Replaced: Chuck Norris is all you need
Summary: Ah, the Cannon Group. You gotta love these guys! Norris originally tried to pitch them on a movie in which he would star as a prisoner of war. They loved the idea and signed him up, but they had their own script they wanted to make. In fact, Cannon wanted to shoot two movies back to back. In the first movie, Norris would play a POW who leads an escape from a war camp. Then in the sequel, which was shot immediately afterwards, Norris’ character would return to Vietnam to free fellow soldiers who were still being held prisoner ten years later.
After the first two Missing in Action movies were completed, Cannon took the first one to Warner Brothers with whom they had a first-look deal for distribution. They weren’t interested. Cannon decided that the movie in which Norris rescued the prisoners was better than the one in which he escaped the POW camp so they released the intended sequel first. When Missing in Action was a surprise hit, Cannon rebranded the original movie as a prequel titled Missing in Action 2: The Beginning.
The first two movies were released a mere four months apart. In the three years between MIA 2 and 3, Norris starred in other Cannon releases like Invasion U.S.A. and The Delta Force. Eventually, the decision was made to revisit the Missing in Action series. Like the Rambo movies, Norris’ character’s name, Braddock, was put front and center. Joseph Zito, who directed MIA II, clashed with his star and was replaced by Norris’ brother. What’s a little nepotism in a low budget action movie?
Braddock grossed just over half what the previous movie made signaling the end of the Missing in Action series.
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.
My memories of Rambo III are very vague. My brother was a huge Stallone fan at the time. He couldn’t find anyone who wanted to see Rambo III with him, so he offered to pay my way in. I went, but I fell asleep. It just wasn’t my bag.
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.
I never got around to watching the 4th one. Heard it was off the charts violent. I’ll catch bits of the second one and watch along for a while to kind of laugh at it. The first one, for the most part, is a pretty good movie. But Stallone’s speech at the end is a howler.
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. ,
The only sequel in this whole thing that I like is THE DEAD POOL. What a year of stinky sequels!
It really was. When I did this last year, there was at least one redeeming entry to offset all the crap. Not so in 1988. We’ll see how 1998 holds up in comparison.
I count 15 sequels from 1998, with slightly better choices overall. There are quite a few stinkers though.
Several weeks ago, I compiled a list for both years and then accidentally deleted them both. So now I get to recreate the 1998 list. From memory, it wasn’t a good year for sequels, but it was at least marginally better than ’88.
I can’t wait until we do 2017 and cover its 40 sequels!
Theoretically, that’s at least 20 years off. It may be someone else’s problem by then! 😉
Ha ha! Lebeau, Jr.?
Well, I have two daughters. I can’t imagine either of them taking this thing over though. Maybe I’ll be a rambling old man still compiling lists of awful sequels twenty years from now. We’ll see!
I’m looking forward to the Movies of 2017 bracket game. My money is on Wonder Woman to take it all!
2017 had 21 sequels in the top 50 of highest box office grossers.
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.
When I was a kid, I watched the edited-for-TV versions of all the Dirty Harry movies up to that point. I think by the time The Dead Pool was released, I had moved on from that phase. I know I have seen bits including the remote control car chase, but I don’t think I have ever sat down and watched it from beginning to end. As I said before, my brother dragged me to Rambo III and I think I have him to thank for Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street. I saw Hellraiser 2 because a couple… Read more »
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.
It’s a bad bunch. 1998 is better, but still pretty lousy.
A better year, sure, but no Guns N’ Roses cameos in funeral scenes either.
Not that I am aware of anyway! 😉
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 »
Caddyshack II is an abomination. There was just no reason to do a sequel. What made the original movie work was the incredibly talented cast. If you replace Ted Knight, Rodney Dangerfield and Bill Murray, you are no longer making Caddyshack. Not to mention Harold Ramis. Not a lot of directors can hold together a movie as loosely structured as the first Caddyshack was. You can’t just pull some guy off the streets and expect him to male it work.
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?
Back to School turned out all right. A Caddyshack 2 from the same writer, director and star could have been in the same ballpark as that movie. I have no doubt it would have been a big improvement over what we got.
The only good thing about CADDYSHACK II was Dyan Cannon. She was sexy in it. That’s it though. It has no other quality.