I know that it’s early to be thinking of it, but 2006 is shaping up with some scary looking movies.
I present to the court exhibit-A, or should I say, exhibit “A-Team” over at IMDB. Other than an announcement there’s nothing else out there, so I cant show probable cause, but I ask the jury to take the facts into account.
As further evidence I would like to submit to the court the following list of sequels that should never have been considered, yet will be scaring audiences next year:
- Bean 2
- Die Hard 4.0
- Hellboy 2
- The Italian Job II
- Jurassic Park IV
- Mission: Impossible III
- The Net 2.0
In addition, members of the jury should be aware that any movie based on a videogame, or worse still a movie as the sequel to a videogame (i.e. “Resident Evil: Apocalypse”) is a virtual certainty to be bad, hence my distaste for:
Of course the court must also recognize the flawed premise of certain movies. Any work of fiction that attempts to pass itself off as fact is doomed. When such movies are as divorced from actual historical accuracy as The Da Vinci Code then I dont care if big names like Tom Hanks are in it - it’s not worth the cash to go see it.
Three more sequels that should never have been considered:
On the “questionable” list
And, just to balance things out, how could I forget
The only way that Pirates of the Caribbean II could fail is if they decided for some r