My memory could be failing me, but I seem to remember Ocean's Twelve being worse than Thirteen.

Spiderman 3 should be there as a bad sequel, as should Rambo: First Blood Pt. 2 (or Rambo 3, really).

FRENCH CONNECTION II was a good sequel.

BEST:

ALIENS
INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

LETHAL WEAPON 2 holds a special place for me. It actually added canon that we typically think of when we think of the Lethal Weapon series.

Riggs' dislocated shoulder. The exploding toilet. The high speed car chase opening. These were all sequel additions.

Best sequels is a very short list :p. And inversely, worst sequels are a very long list. Sequels tend to be horrible.

BEST:
Road Warrior

WORST:
Star Wars 1, 2, 3

Crystal Skull was way better than Last Crusade. WAY better.

I hated Ocean's 12 with every bone in my body. The Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts schtick was plain insulting.

Evil Dead II
The Empire Strikes Back
Spider Man 2
Superman 2

District 9, Menace II Society, Se7en...

Oh wait, my bad.

BEST
Toy Story 2
Spider Man 2
Terminator 2
Aliens
Empire Strikes Back
Return of the Jedi
The Two Towers
Return of the King
The Last Crusade
Godfather Part 2
The Road Warrior
The Good The Bad and The Ugly

WORST
Most sequels suck. Especially The Dark Knight, which is just a piece of shit and a pathetically written custerfluck of a story. Not even joking. Also, Terminator Salvation is among the biggest of reasons why I would ever want to do bodily harm to myself or others.

Cat in the wall?? Now your talking my language?? I'm thinking about putting in a third maybe a fourth??.... honestly I am really suprised on how many peopleare hating on the original cat/dog rules... who doesnt want a little freind?

Dude how could you actually talk shit about the Dark Knight screenplay... it's one of the best of the last ten years...you obviously know nothing about the art of writing then...

Spiderman 3 is the closest I've ever come to walking out of a movie in theaters.

And I'd ditto Ocean's 12 being worse than Ocean's 13. I actually really liked Ocean's 13. Not as good as 11, but I thought it was pretty damn good. 12 is the worst of the three but not as terrible as everyone says it is.

Crystal Skull > The Last Crusade? Hm. I can't say I agree. Dreams of Darabont's version of that movie getting made color my Crystal Skull experience, but I still enjoyed it just because Harrison Ford stopped doing Hollywood Homicide and Firewall for a little bit there.

Worst sequel: Chronicles of Riddick. I LOVE Pitch Black, but that sequel did not work.

Great sequel: First Blood.

I agree that "The Dark Knight" was wayyyy overrated. Too many characters. A secondary character (Two Face) AND antagonist (Joker) more interesting than your protagonist. Choppy editing, too long, a fourth act (similar problem that occurred in "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.)

Don't even GET me started with the boat scenario. In real life, one of those things would've been blown up quicker than the World Trade Center. Trust.

Crystal Skull had me thinking "Are you serious?" from about the middle of the Second Act one. Out loud. That's how shocked I was about how bad the movie was.

@Chris: Insulting someone by telling them they don't understand the "craft" because they don't like a movie is a poor show. "The Dark Knight" had its detractors from the beginning and that group has only grown since then. Everyone was caught up in the Heath Ledger aura to really give a proper review.

i have to veto anyone putting Two Towers and Return of the King on either list. Because they aren't really sequels. Although split up, it is really one giant film, one story.

and I agree that Ocean's 12 was total shite while 13 was decent.

by the same token. Highlander 2 dear lord. 3 was a little better. in part because it pretended 2 never happened.

and what about Temple of Doom. That movie yakked monkey brains

Don't know anything about the art of writing films? Talk to Chris Nolan, buddy.

Read this:

I'm going o be flogged for this, but I disagree on The Dark Knight. It's a pretty poor film if you ask me. Here's why:

I believe that people see this film as something better than it
actually is when viewed against the dull backdrop of 2008 cinema, but
even so, how can anybody forgive, let alone PRAISE, a story with so
many elementary errors and rookie mistakes? I find it funny that
classic masterpieces can stand up to decades of close scrutiny
and still retain their standing among the greatest films of all time
when flaws in today's films are immediately evident upon first viewing.

- Lack of internal
information. We don't know much about anybody's motivation.

Where was the scene that told us why Bruce Wayne desperately wanted to
put down his cape and stop being Batman? Where was the scene that told
us Bruce Wayne was desperately in love with Rachel but couldn't be with
her because he was too busy being Batman? Where were the two scenes
that told us 1) Bruce believed his only hope for no longer having to be
Batman rested in Harvey, and 2) Bruce felt all hope was lost for his
goal of no longer being Batman when Harvey vanished from the Hospital
to become a psychotic killer? Any information we receive is too little
and too late. There's the letter to Bruce from Rachel, but that comes
AFTER her death, which is too late to serve the function of telling us
there was a great romantic bond between them that necessitated Bruce
stopping his crusade as Batman so they could be together. Plus, it only
tells us HER feelings and not Bruce's. Because the scene is done the
way it is, it is impossible to tell if Batman is amping his assault
because of Rachel or Harvey or the threat of their immanent death. We
have absolutely NO idea why Bruce does anything. We are left to assume.

If that is indeed the scene that tells us Bruce is deeply in love with
Rachel, it is handled very badly to the point that it is virtually non
existent and comes far too late in the story to function properly. We
should have known long before this that Bruce Wayne was deeply in love
with Rachel and that his crusade as Batman was preventing him from
being with Rachel.

This is a common mistake in Nolan's films. He keeps his characters at a
distance from his audience so we can't possibly know what they're
thinking.

- The scene with the mayor being shot was completely unbelievable. It
was all part of a grand scheme to get the Joker to chase Dent to get
him out in the open so he can be caught. But the problem with that is
in order for the plan to succeed, they needed to know the mayor was
going to be shot at from the ground and who was going to do the
shooting in order for Gordon to jump in front of the bullet. If they
knew that much about the Joker's plan, why not just stop him? Plus,
it's one of the cops who pronounces Gordon is dead after checking him
for a pulse. This wasn't Gordon's trusted partner with a shady past.
This was an ordinary patrol officer. Since they already know much of
the force is on the take, it seems ridiculous to make the plan hinge on
trusting a random cop to be honest and play along with the plan.

Also, since Batman knew Gordon was actually alive, why did he need
to go to Gordon's house to watch his wife and son learn the cops think
Gordon is dead. That made no sense and was an obvious deceit to fool
the audience, but severed no logical purpose for the character.

Continued...

- Too many superfluous subplots. The expedition to Hong Kong to kidnap
some random guy in a way that would make James Bond roll his eyes is
one. What purpose did this guy serve in an already overlong film? He
wouldn't be missed if that scene was cut. Then there's the nerdy guy on
TV that says he knows who Batman really is, but that goes nowhere. Come
on, how hard is it to realize that it would take a billionaire to
afford his own personal, state-of-the-art, custom tank? And the ferry
boats. Don't get me started on the ferry boats.

- The ferry boats. Nobody noticed the THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF FLAMMABLE
LIQUID IN THE ENGINE ROOMS?! Come on! Not only that, it's a huge
departure from the main action to a bunch of random, unknown characters
late in the story that served no previous purpose and just ended like
that. Where did that come from? I'd rather see what the main characters
were up to at the climax of the film and not a bunch of anonymous
strangers.

- The cell phone gag was a joke and felt totally out of place in a film
where the director was attempting to create a level of realism.

- Too long for it's own good, yet simultaneously not long enough for
the amount of material crammed in. It's another common mistake that
Nolon keeps making over and over again with every film and he still
hasn't learned. His stories have too much going on and not enough time
devoted to each part.

- What happened to the Joker crashes the party scene? That just ends before it's over and leaves me wondering what the hell happened afterward.

- The climax felt completely out of place because it did not build from
the narrative. It was manufactured. Everything about the end of this
film is just wrong.

How does Batman "sacrifice himself" for Gotham in the end? The only way
for it to be tragic and a sacrifice is if you believe that Bruce
Wayne's goal was to stop being Batman. A man who is already an outcast
and despised by the police that agrees to continue to be an outcast and
despised by the police is not a sacrifice.

For me, the ending only works if Bruce wanted to stop being an outcast
only to be forced to continue to be an outcast in order to protect the
greater good.

But where are the scenes that show us Bruce Wayne's desire/need to put
down the cape and live a normal life? I don't understand why Bruce put
down the bat suit in the first place. We were never given that
information. And if he wanted to so badly, wouldn't now be the perfect
time with all the police on the lookout for him? Seems like an
unnecessary risk for him and a nice deterrent for petty criminals -
having the police on guard as well as the idea of Batman being a
murderer. But instead, Bruce keeps going as Batman even though Gordon
knows that Batman is innocent? The ending of this film makes absolutely
no sense what-so-ever.

Best screenplays of the last ten years??!?! Not even among the top 10 of 2008.

I await your rebuttal.

Weekend At Bernies II
He's back and he's still dead.

Best.

Wow, sorry I missed this. I'm not sure what version of The Dark Knight you guys watched but methinks thou dost protest too much.

They handled the ensemble cast very well. I don't suspend my disbelief EVER and nothing raised any flags.

It was a complex story and I saw all plot threads cleaned up nicely.

The Joker stole $82M from the mob so he could grease some palms for a lot of things. If you look at what happened before the boats, everyone was on lock down with the hospital threat. If the ship starts, it's not really necessary to go below.

Never mind.