No Threequel is Better Than A Sequel.

There are sequels to movies that I think are better than the original. 'Empire Strikes Back' was better than 'Star Wars.' Many argue 'The Godfather Part 2' was better than the original. 'Superman 2' was better than 'Superman: The Movie.' Just saw "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan" yesterday for the millionth time, and that sequel rocks all other Trek movies. But can you really name a 'threequel' that's better than the sequel? 'Godfather Pt. 3' was awful. 'Return of the Jedi,' don't get me started on those annoying Ewoks. 'Superman 3,' what the heck was Richard Pryor doing in that mess? 

'Beverly Hills Cop 3'-better forgotten. My point... I am now convinced, more than ever, that no movie should ever have the number 3, 4 or 5 in the title (and by the way, Mission Impossible movies don't count, as they're "technically" stand alone films, and James Bond movies are exempt, because they're part of a series, not sequels, and are all good...well, except maybe 'Moonraker,' and 'Live and Let Die' wasn't all that great either...and 'A View to a Kill' showed Roger Moore was way past his prime as Bond...but that rant is for another day).

Dan Mitchinson

Dan Mitchinson

Want to know more about Dan Mitchinson? Get their official bio, social pages & articles on NewsRadio KFBK! Read more

title

Content Goes Here