What's one movie that didn't need a sequel? My pick: “The Exorcist” (1973). Never mind the brilliance of the film or that’s it’s a complete, self-contained story, what I feel most don’t consider is how the film came out at the right time, which tapped into the fears of the milieu. That in itself can never be replicated.
What's one movie that didn't need a sequel? My pick: “The Exorcist” (1973). Never mind the brilliance of the film or that’s it’s a complete, self-contained story, what I feel most don’t consider is how the film came out at the right time, which tapped into the fears of the milieu. That in itself can never be replicated.
For those chiming in about “Exorcist III”, I’m a big fan of the film and have championed it many times on here. However, “Legion”, the novel it’s based on, is more of a spin-off and works well enough on its own IMO. The scenes that the studios ordered reshoots on to make it an “Exorcist” film are among the only flaws the final film has. In short: it didn’t need to be an “Exorcist” film, just a straight adaptation.
@realshawnhunt Well, there was the sequel novel Legion that got adapted into Exorcist 3 and was written/directed by the author William Peter Blatty, so...
@realshawnhunt My pick is JAWS. I really do enjoy JAWS 2 but overall there was no need for a sequel to JAWS at all
@realshawnhunt Highlander. The whole point was that he was the last immortal. They tried hard to make sense for the sequels but none of it did.
@realshawnhunt Terms of Endearment. Marion Ross as the maid was superb but other than that a complete waste of celluloid.