Super (or not) sequel bowl

By Melinda Mawdsley
Friday, February 3, 2012

If this year’s Super Bowl seems familiar, that’s because it is.

The New England Patriots and New York Giants will meet in the big game at 4:30 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 5, on NBC in not only a rematch from Week 9 of this NFL season, but a rematch of the 2008 Super Bowl.

The Giants won both games by a combined seven points.

Although Patriots’ and Giants’ personnel noticeably have changed from the 2008 Super Bowl, there are several key holdovers: both head coaches, starting quarterbacks Tom Brady and Eli Manning and other noteworthy names such as New England’s Wes Welker and Vince Wilfork, and New York’s Ahmad Bradshaw and Osi Umenyiora.

There’s also a similar story line: New England won the AFC’s regular season while New York barely clinched an NFC-playoff spot.

It all works to give this Super Bowl the feel of a sequel, which brings us to Hollywood, where movie sequels are viewed as cash cows.

And, generally, movie sequels fall into one of three categories:

1. Super. The sequel was better than the original movie.

2. Subpar. The sequel wasn’t as good as the original movie.

3. Shocking. The script for the sequel should never have been written.

Just like a movie sequel, the 2012 Super Bowl will fall into one of the above categories.

The 2008 Super Bowl, which New York won 17-14, was memorable because the Giants’ striking win spoiled New England’s chances of finishing 19-0.

If Sunday’s game surpasses the 2008 game’s dramatics, it could be considered a “super” sequel.

If it doesn’t, well, we can categorize it Sunday night.

(Gentle reader: Spare me the emails complaining that this Super Bowl is different, and New England and New York deserve to be there. I know. I watch football. Sure, the Pats’ offense has changed since 2008 with the subtraction of Randy Moss and the addition of Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez. In addition, Manning now arguably has the best receiving trio in football. But let’s not pretend that this game doesn’t come down to the same issues as 2008. In other words, how Brady handles the Giants’ pass rush, and how Manning handles, well, everything.)

For now though, let’s take a look at some of the best and worst movie sequels ever made. In movies, as in sports, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but seriously ...

SUPER

1. “The Godfather: Part II.” This 1974 classic, starring Al Pacino and Robert De Niro, won six Academy Awards, including best picture and best screenplay. It is, perhaps, the film by which all other sequels should be measured.

2. “Toy Story 2.” This 1999 animated movie, sequel to the popular “Toy Story,” has an essential element needed for a successful sequel: the same stars playing the same characters. In this case, it was voices, but the movie continued to follow Woody and Buzz Lightyear in a different but memorable plot.

3. “The Bourne Supremacy.” This 2004 action movie starring Matt Damon as Jason Bourne is a sequel, but the entire “Bourne” series is one to be watched. This sequel was every bit as good, if not better, than the original, “The Bourne Identity.”

4. “Aliens.” James Cameron directed this 1986 movie starring Sigourney Weaver that begins after the planet from the original “Alien” was colonized. This is another sequel that got Academy Award buzz.

5. “Spider-Man 2” This 2004 sequel had a bigger budget and better special effects than the original, but, according to Amazon.com’s review, the “dynamic, character-driven plot” put it a notch above “Spider-Man.” Character plot in a superhero movie? Go Spidey.

SUBPAR

1. “Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde.” Starring Reese Witherspoon, who returns as Elle Woods, this sequel’s plot was a little boring as compared to the original, which was comical and endearing. It’s cute but not necessarily a movie to own.

2. “The Matrix: Reloaded.” The first won Oscars. This won a Teen Choice Award. Released in 2003, this sequel to “The Matrix” was, although I can’t prove it, probably made because the first was so successful. “Reloaded” isn’t terrible, but it’s not the “The Matrix.”

3. “Jaws 2.” It’s watchable sequel. But “Jaws,” which was released in 1975, was so iconic, and probably scared generations out of the ocean, thanks to John Williams’ brilliant score. In the sequel? You knew what was coming every time Williams’ two-note melody was heard.

4. “Father of the Bride Part II.” The plot for the first one, starring Steve Martin and Diane Keaton, was believable. The same can’t be said for the sequel released in 1995. Really, I’m supposed to believe Keaton’s character goes into labor at the same moment as her 20-something daughter, and the wedding planner is in the labor wing?

5. “Die Hard 2 — Die Harder.” This seems to be a fact: successful action movies spawn sequels. It should come as no surprise that the popular “Die Hard” movie was followed up with this. Although “Die Hard 2” also starred Bruce Willis, it was not as great as the first.

 

SHOCKING

1. “The Lost World: Jurassic Park.” As one Amazon.com watcher wrote in a review, “...The biggest problem for ‘The Lost World’ is that it is impossible to recreate the sense of awe and wonder that was inspired by Jurassic Park’s groundbreaking effects work.” That’s an understatement. The first movie was so spectacular that it is difficult to fathom how anyone thought this was a good idea. I’m upset even writing this.

2. “Sex and the City 2.” Never mind. I’m more upset. Of course, the fashionable Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte and Samantha drove the estrogen-laced ecstasy of “Sex and the City,” but you know what else did? NEW YORK CITY! So for this 2010 sequel, the producers took the women to Abu Dhabi?!? Whatever. Moving on.

3. “Grease 2.” I was wondering what happened to John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John’s characters after they fled the Rydell High senior carnival in 1978, but this sequel wasn’t even about Danny and Sandy. The first musical was cast so perfectly and featured such iconic songs I can’t believe someone thought a sequel would work. Or was necessary. Or would make money.

4. “Scream 2.” Released in 1997, this movie, although it features the same basic plot and characters as the first “Scream” movie, was dumb. One “Scream” was enough. In fact, sequels to horror movies, or alleged horror movies, could have their own lame category.

5. “Speed 2: Cruise Control.” Even Keanu Reeves knew to stay away from this 1997 stinker.