Poor Sequels

In the first film - a fun, cool, action-packed film with a great Queen soundtrack - when Connor asks Ramirez how they're immortal, the Spanish Peacock replies, "Why does the sun come up, or are the stars just pinholes in the curtain of night?"

Well, Highlander 2 tells us they had actually forgotten they were aliens sent from another planet.

The ending of the first film didn't leave much room for a sequel (Connor wins the Prize, gaining vast amounts of knowledge, and becoming mortal) so this film was always at a shaky start. But I'm sure they could have come up with something better.

Oh, and it turns out Ramirez has the ability to come back to life when Connor really needs him. What?

I've relaxed about the Star Wars prequels over the past couple of years, but I still don't like this one at all. I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said a million times.

Hey, let's make a movie that introduces several continuity errors with the previous films and has no plot connections whatsoever!

Honestly, this should have been a completely original film. It still wouldn't be a good movie, but at least it wouldn't be able to have the 'bad sequel' status.

Gone is the satire, graphic violence, and everything else that made the first film (and the second, to a lesser degree) work.

Feels like a completely different film than the first. The eponymous Delta Force is almost entirely neglected in favor of a primarily solo operation by Chuck Norris' character.

I like this movie. I don't think it's great, but I like it. But it's not a good sequel to First Blood. The first film was a psychological thriller about a Vietnam veteran tormented by the horrors of the war who snaps when he is unjustly incarcerated by a small town sheriff, and ends up turning the town into a warzone.

Yeah, let's change Rambo's characterization to a generic tough guy and throw him into a full-on action adventure.

Pretty much the same reasons as Rambo 2. I like it, but not a good sequel to First Blood. Honestly, I don't think First Blood needed a sequel at all.

The 2008 film isn't on here because I actually enjoyed it. I didn't think it was necessary, but I don't consider it poor at all. As for Last Blood...

The poorly written plot (which itself was a rejected idea for the fourth film) is pretty derivative of both Taken and Home Alone. It also didn't feel like a Rambo movie. Finally, it wasn't good enough to warrant bringing the franchise back after 11 years, especially since the fourth one was a pretty decent send-off for the character.

Bringing back the original film's director was a good idea... if only he had been given a good script. The only thing that could have made this worse is if they had gone with the original ending that had Rocky die. It would have gone down as the worst conclusion to a series in film history.

Given the ending of the previous film, this would have been the best opportunity to make a full-on Bond revenge film.

However, not only do we get no references to the previous film, but it turns into a campy mess with Connery's worst Bond performance front-and-center. Perhaps this film would have been better had Lazenby stayed in the lead role?

Luckily, we did get a Bond revenge film... 18 years later.

This film basically rehashed the first two while making the efforts and sacrifices by John, Sarah, Uncle Bob, and Myles Dyson in T2 all for naught.

Uncle Bob did not die for this.

Okay, the soundtrack isn't bad...