MGM
There's obviously a market out there for sequels — just look at the summer movie release schedule and you'll find at least one a week. And hey, sometimes a film leaves us wondering what happens next.
But sometimes there are films that had no need for a part two, where audiences left the theater the first go-round and said, "I'm good." And in the case of these ten films, we've got the numbers to prove it!
Hollywood, heed our wisdom: Sometimes it's best to just leave well enough alone.
10. 'Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights' (2004) — Sequel to 'Dirty Dancing' (1987)
Lionsgate
• "Dirty Dancing": $62,811,299
• "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights": $14,140,215
So you had the time of your life in 1987? Big deal. You can't relive the magic 17 years later by conceiving a half-hearted retread set against the backdrop of revolutionary Cuba. Really, this film has nothing to do with the original, save for a brief Patrick Swayze cameo. And God bless him: anybody who could listen to a line like "I'm flowing, and being free, and I'm making a circle and I'm not an ironing board any more" with a straight face deserves some kind of medal.
9. 'Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd' (2003) — Sequel to 'Dumb & Dumber' (1994)
Warner Bros.
• "Dumb & Dumber": $127,175,345
• "Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd": $26,214,846
1994 was a good year for Jim Carrey: "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective," "The Mask" and "Dumb & Dumber" all lit up the box office, propelling him to super-stardom. Unfortunately for audiences, the actor decided only to continue with "Ace Ventura," thus leaving the door open to not one, but TWO Carrey-less sequels. As bad a film as "Son of the Mask" (2005) is, at least it can say it's better than "Dumb and Dumberer."
8. 'Blues Brothers 2000' (1998) — Sequel to 'The Blues Brothers' (1980)
Universal
• "The Blues Brothers": $54,200,000
• "Blues Brothers 2000": $13,979,599
Had John Belushi lived, there almost certainly would’ve been an immediate sequel to the wildly successful “The Blues Brothers” (1980). Instead, we were treated to this nearly twenty-years-too-late retread with John Goodman trying his best to fill some very big shoes. By the way, why is this movie called “Blues Brothers 2000” when it was released in 1998?
7. 'The Whole Ten Yards' (2004) — Sequel to 'The Whole Nine Yards' (2000)
Warner Bros.
• "The Whole Nine Yards": $57,262,492
• "The Whole Ten Yards": $16,323,969
During the "Friends" craze of the mid-'90s, there was a concerted effort to make movie stars out of the cast members. Thus came "The Whole Nine Yards" with Matthew Perry starring alongside Bruce Willis in a mobster-next-door comedy that had the misfortune of coming out after "The Sopranos" and "Analyze This." Maybe they thought they’d have better luck the second time around? Anyway, you know you’re in trouble when the most clever thing about a sequel is its title.
6. 'Speed 2: Cruise Control' (1997) — Sequel to 'Speed' (1994)
Fox
• "Speed": $121,248,145
• "Speed 2: Cruise Control": $48,068,396
For those of you who think Keanu Reeves is an airhead, remember this: He was smart enough to turn down "Speed 2: Cruise Control," something that can’t be said for his Academy Award-winning co-star Sandra Bullock. Twentieth Century Fox must've had a hard-on for sinking ship movies in 1997: they decided to green-light this hugely expensive film at the same time they were making "Titanic." Can you guess which one made its money back?
5. 'Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2' (2000) — Sequel to 'The Blair Witch Project' (1999)
Artisan
• "The Blair Witch Project": $140,539,099
• "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2": $26,421,314
"The Blair Witch Project" can best be described as a fluke, a micro-budget production that rode unbelievably strong buzz all the way to a small fortune. So intense was the hype that exactly one year later we were treated to the sequel, and the same audience that made the first film such a success stayed away in droves. The low grosses are more frightening than anything in the movie.
4. 'Caddyshack II' (1988) — Sequel to 'Caddyshack' (1980)
Warner Bros.
• "Caddyshack": $39,846,344
• "Caddyshack II": $11,798,302
What makes "Caddyshack II" such a bad sequel? The fact that it forgot what made the first film so memorable: (1) Bill Murray; (2) Rodney Dangerfield; (3) Ted Knight; (4) Chevy Chase. Chase barely making a cameo isn’t enough to retain the magic. Replacing Dangerfield with Jackie Mason only makes matters worse. And with all due respect to Dan Aykroyd, you can’t just swap out one SNL player for another and expect it to work. As for Robert Stack stepping in for the deceased Ted Knight …’nuff said.
3. 'Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo' (2005) — Sequel to 'Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo' (1999)
Columbia Pictures
• "Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo": $65,535,067
• "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo": $22,264,487
Remember when Rob Schneider was a leading man? Ten years of therapy and we still haven't forgotten. For the seven or eight people out there clamoring for a tour of Europe starring the world’s most uncharismatic male prostitute (or, in the words of his pimp Eddie Griffith, 'man-whore'), you got your wish. For the rest of the world, your grandmother's slides of the Eiffel Tower would probably be more entertaining.
2. 'Basic Instinct 2' (2006) — Sequel to 'Basic Instinct' (1992)
MGM
• "Basic Instinct": $117,727,244
• "Basic Instinct 2": $5,851,188
Of all the Michael Douglas sexy-psycho-serial killer thrillers that came out during the '80s and '90s, one of the most popular was "Basic Instinct," and for good reason: Sharon Stone flashing her private parts became one of cinema’s most iconic nude scenes. Given that, you’d think Douglas not returning for the sequel would do little to deter it. But then you see David Morrissey struggling to fill the big guy's shoes, and you realize you thought wrong.
1. 'The Sting II' (1983) — Sequel to 'The Sting' (1973)
Universal
• "The Sting": $159,600,000
• "The Sting II": $6,300,000
Let's compare more than just the numbers here: "The Sting" starred the indelible team of Robert Redford and Paul Newman, featured a catchy ragtime score by Scott Joplin and was the recipient of seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture. "The Sting II," meanwhile, starred the totally forgettable team of Jackie Gleason and Mac Davis, featured no-such catchy score and won not a single Oscar. So you tell us: Was this sequel truly necessary?
