One Time Too Many

While it's common for lackluster sequels to be helmed by different directors, there are certainly examples of directors returning to damage legacies they helped build

Sequels suck. That is less a direct quote and more of a general consensus. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly follow-up films that do justice to their originals and even rarer examples of them upstaging their predecessors. However, those are exceptions and not the rule. Why is this the case? Well, there are several factors that can lead to subpar sequels, but typically, it starts when the director does not or cannot return. On the other hand, is it possible for a director to return and the film is still a huge disappointment? Yes, indeed.

Rick Rosenthal ("Halloween II" and "Halloween: Resurrection")

After "Halloween" became one of the most successful independent films ever made, John Carpenter was naturally asked to return to the director's chair for a sequel. When he declined and his handpicked replacement, Tommy Lee Wallace, dropped out as well, Rick Rosenthal was the tertiary choice. He stepped in and delivered a solid slasher in its own right, given all of the circumstances. 39 years later, it's arguably still the franchise's best film after the original and a personal favorite of mine. So, imagine my shock when I learned Rosenthal also directed the abomination that is "Halloween: Resurrection". A shining example of everything wrong with early-2000's horror, the film reeks of a spec script with "Halloween" branding simply slapped on top of it to sell tickets. It killed the franchise for five years, making Rosenthal the only man to successfully stop Michael Myers twice.

Ridley Scott ("Alien" and "Alien: Covenant")

The British auteur's 1979 classic, "Alien", is a masterclass in horror, science fiction and tension building. "Alien: Covenant" is none of those things. Conceived as a back-to-basics entry after a mixed reception to the ambitious, albeit underwhelming "Prometheus", "Covenant" lacks originality and nuanced storytelling. Instead, it operates similarly to a generic slasher film; a string of gory kills tied together by a loosely functioning plot. It's almost as if Sir Ridley said, "You want a real 'Alien' prequel? Here's your bloody 'Alien' prequel!". While some of the carnage is admittedly entertaining, the film is such a far cry from the original's brilliance, it's hard to believe a man who helped birth the franchise could make something so derivative. It almost made me miss "AVP". Just kidding.

Russell Malcahy ("Highlander" and "Highlander II: The Quickening")

I'll be the first to admit the original "Highlander" isn't great, but it does have a certain kind of magic. Energized by a rocking soundtrack from the legendary Queen, the cult classic has the right mix of action, fantasy and world building to make it appealing. Its story of dueling immortals who've battled across centuries is relatively digestable and easy to follow. Do you know what isn't easy to follow? Transforming these immortals into aliens from a distant planet who can bond their souls and are Earth's only hope in being freed from an artificial ozone shield in the future. That's exactly what the sequel does. Not only was Malcahy behind both projects, but one of the original writers (Peter Bellwood) returned for "The Quickening" as well. The film's production issues are infamous, but that still doesn't excuse the movie's head-scratching retcons. A director's cut cleans up some of the mess, but it's still inferior.

Rusty Cundieff ("Tales from the Hood" and "Tales from the Hood 2")

1995's "Tales from the Hood" remains largely underrated in the widespread horror landscape. An anthology film featuring a primarily African-American cast, the tales of terror were directed by Cundieff and co-written along with his friend, fellow filmmaker Darin Scott. For added gravitas, the movie was executive produced by Spike Lee, who Cundieff worked under while filming "School Daze". While it certainly has its cheesy moments, "Tales" mostly succeeds with its blend of pointed social commentary and nightmare fuel aesthetics. 23 years later, Cundieff and Scott returned to the well for "Tales from the Hood 2" and it's quite a mess. The first film's allegories weren't subtle, but this film beats you over the head with its messages, in addition to its poor acting, effects and cheap production values. The fact the two movies are made by the same writers and director is scarier than anything "Tales from the Hood 2" has to offer. A third film was just released last month and while I have yet to see it, I wouldn't hold my breath betting it can hold a candle to the first entry.

Tobe Hooper ("The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2")

"The buzz is back". After directing the seminal horror classic, Tobe Hooper returned to direct its first sequel and they couldn't be more dissimilar. Hailed for its notoriously low budget and guerrilla-style filmmaking, "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" is gritty and grungy to a fault. It's grindhouse personified and while it doesn't have any explicit gore, it's visceral and still feels like you're seeing something you shouldn't be watching. The sequel is campy, cartoonishly violent and virtually devoid of any atmosphere or tension. Hooper purposely made the film a "comedy", much to the chagrin of distributor Cannon Films and audiences didn't quite know what to make of it either. It became popular on home video and later established a cult status, but if you watched the two back-to-back, your head might explode.

The Wachowskis ("The Matrix" and "The Matrix Revolutions")

Crafting one of the most influential movies of the past two decades is no easy feat, but that's exactly what The Wachowskis did with their sophomore directorial effort. Their 1999 cyberpunk action-thriller became an instant pop culture sensation and was imitated ad nauseam. When the time came to complete the trilogy, the decision was made to shoot the sequels back-to-back and the final products had mixed results. "The Matrix Reloaded" is a step down, but ultimately amounts to an enjoyable action flick. "The Matrix Revolutions" however, is just bad. Its muddled narrative, ugly cinematography and convoluted exposition make it a chore to watch. While the first was a breath of fresh air with its fusion of science fiction, Hong Kong sensibilities and jaw-dropping visual effects, "Revolutions" fails as a dazzling spectacle and its few positive qualities are far outweighed by its shortcomings.