Top 10 Worst Movie Sequels

"Staying Alive" (1983)

Why a sequel? "Saturday Night Fever" made $237 million worldwide at the box office, never mind the multiplatinum soundtrack album (to this date, the "Saturday Night Fever" album has sold 15 million copies). Travolta was still a young star, and hot talent Sylvester Stallone was attached to direct. What could go wrong?
Plot: Travolta's Tony Manero has left Brooklyn for Manhattan and left the nightclub world of disco for Broadway's modern dance productions. As Tony tries to make it on Broadway in a show called -- and I wish I was kidding -- "Satan's Alley," can he keep his love of dance alive?
Why it sucks: Because you don't have to be a genius to observe that the gritty, glam world of 1970s disco is very, very different than the gleaming, phony Broadway that Tony is plunged into. "Saturday Night Fever" had a dark, urban moodiness to it; "Staying Alive" gleams and glimmers like the oil smeared on Travolta's conspicuously displayed six-pack. "Staying Alive" made money; it just didn't make any sense.

"Blues Brothers 2000" (1998)

Why a sequel? "The Blues Brothers," released in 1980, was a transcendent comedy hit, fusing great musical numbers with crazed slapstick as Jake (John Belushi) and Elwood (Dan Aykroyd) Blues reunited their band to save the orphanage where they grew up. Eighteen years later, Belushi was dead, but director John Landis and Aykroyd needed a hit.
Plot: Elwood gets the band back together. And mentors an orphan boy. And hires a new singer (John Goodman). And ropes an Illinois cop (Joe Morton) into the group for a "Battle of the Bands." And there's a lot of singing and some great musical performances surrounded by a few jokes and some overdone crashes.
Why it sucks: Never mind the fact that, technically, with Belushi dead, any follow-up film is by definition "Blues Brother"; "Blues Brothers 2000" is an overstuffed cash grab full of extraneous characters (like the plucky orphan and Morton's cop) that bloat the movie until it bursts in a great demonstration that more isn't always better. Also, with an 18-year gap between original and sequel, the audience that roared for "Blues Brothers" had grown up and moved on, while their kids had no idea what the fuss was about.

"The Sting II" (1983)

Why a sequel? "The Sting" earned 10 Oscar nominations in 1973, won seven Academy Awards (including Best Picture), gave Robert Redford and Paul Newman terrific roles, and featured Robert Shaw as a classic bad guy. Ten years later, "The Sting II" gives us the substitute con team of Mac Davis and Jackie Gleason against Oliver Reed. Uh, what?
Plot: Gleason and Davis try to take down nightclub owner Karl Malden for murdering a friend, without knowing that the first film's nemesis, Doyle Lonnegan (Reed), is behind the dastardly doings. With Davis posing as an up-and-coming boxer and Gleason pulling the strings, the con is on.
Why it sucks: You can find reviews of "The Sting II" claiming it's not that bad, or, rather, it wouldn't feel so shabby if it weren't following in the footsteps of Redford and Newman. But it did follow in those big footsteps, and followed along 10 years after the first film's success. It stumbled: "The Sting" made $156 million at the box office, while "The Sting II" made $6 million. Ouch.

"Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde" (2003)

Why a sequel? After "Legally Blonde" made $141 million at the box office, a sequel seemed inevitable. Reese Witherspoon's transformation into a Hollywood star also meant the actress was looking for a cash cow.
Plot: Witherspoon, as the freshly graduated lawyer Elle Woods, goes to Washington, where she learns about democracy, makes jokes about consumerism, and sponsors a "Million Dog March" to stop animal testing, demonstrating once again her brilliant instincts under her glossy exterior.
Why it sucks: Not only is "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde" impossibly lazy -- yes, Witherspoon's Elle is smarter than she looks, we get it -- but it also offered the weird sight of millions of fictional people marching against animal testing, and succeeding, at a moment in American history when, on the news, millions of real people were marching against the just-begun invasion of Iraq, and being ignored. It's hard to imagine worse timing for a fluffy, funny political comedy than the ain't-politics-funny, mistimed, misshapen "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde."

"Highlander II: The Quickening" (1991)

Why a sequel? Look, regardless of merit, "Highlander" has a certain style, a certain charm, and a certain dimwit joie de vivre as immortals clash with broadswords in modern Manhattan, Queen roars on the soundtrack, and Sean Connery plays a Spaniard. Did it make sense? No. Was it fun? Yes.
Plot: In "Highlander II: The Quickening," we learn that Christopher Lambert and Connery's mystical immortals are actually space aliens. And that Connery, who died -- not-coming-back-even-though-he's-a-mystic-immortal, we-mean-it-for-keeps, he's snuffed it -- in the first film, apparently got better. Connery and Lambert then run around the future trying to stop the bad corporation that controls the big, man-made shield that replaces the ozone layer.
Why it sucks: Plenty of sequels forget what made their predecessor good. "Highlander II: The Quickening" actively reverses and refutes almost everything in the first film while larding on unnecessary backstory and completely changing the tone of the saga. The DVD "Renegade Version" (wisely) excises all the space alien stuff. But listen to the commentary track; it's a celebration of rationalization as the producers defensively apologize for goofing up the franchise.