Top 10 Sequels That Did Not Do Well

1 2

Most film directors that make good films end up making sequels as well. However, these do not always do well and sometimes fail miserably at the box-office.


1. The Sting II

The Sting did exceptionally well when it released in 1973 and the main reason was that it starred the likes of Robert Redford and Paul Newman. Universal decided to make a sequel which was pretty drab and it was mainly because they replaced the two legendary actors.


2. Return to Oz

Return of Oz was released 46 years after the immensely successful The Wizard of Oz. Prominent characters like the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion were not given too much importance for some absurd reason. The film was a colossal failure and was hated by the fans of the original film.


3. The Last Days of Patton

This film was as good as the original, Patton but unfortunately, was given the status of a TV movie instead of a mainstream film. The plot revolves around the General who is reminiscing about his past with his wife. It is shocking that it did not do well especially because it starred George C. Scott, the protagonist of the original.


4. Return from the River Kwai

This film is The Bridge on the River Kwai’s sequel and came out in 1989. The plot is based on those workers who are shipped off after the bridge is blown up. The action is mundane and the acting is decent but the film is nothing compared to the 1957 classic.


5. A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia

A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia was also shown only on television and starred Ralph Fiennes. The actor was compared to Peter O’Toole who starred in the original, Lawrence of Arabia and the former was considered to be more authentic and real.


1 2

About The Author

  • HJRO

    just pointing out Sahara wasn’t a sequel to Raise the Titantic
    and The Queen, was one of the most successful films of 2006, and did great at the box office and in the reviews, not to mention the long list of awards it won

  • wtf

    It Runs In The Family had NOTHING to do with A Christmas Story. it was a movie about a family with dysfunctional patriarchy. the family is JEWISH, so why would this be a sequel to ACS??? there was no one in the movie that had any connection with A Christmas Story- there wasn’t even a character named Ralphie in the story- because the movie was COMPLETELY unrelated to ACS! what… have you ever seen the movies you’re talking about??
    (oh, and it wasn’t that bad of a movie, kind of “meh”, but not bad.)
    and, as previously stated, Sahara wasn’t a sequel. i think it was a remake, but i may be thinking of another crappy matthew mac movie.
    the queen was a well-received, critically acclaimed movie, which deserved every ounce of praise it got. not sure what you’re basing your measurement of success/failure on, but your system is flawed. fail.
    and who the hell is Ralph fiennes? you mean RALPH fiennes? if you want credibility, at least know the name of the actor you’re referring to.

  • Jerod T.

    Return to Oz was not a sequel, in the sense you are thinking. Most people don’t realize that L. Frank Baum wrote the Oz series many years before the original Wizard of Oz movie came out, which was only loosely based after the first Oz book.

    Return to Oz was “based on the second and third Oz books, The Marvelous Land of Oz (1904) and Ozma of Oz (1907). The element about Tik-Tok being “The Royal Army of Oz” derives from Tik-Tok of Oz (1914)” (Wikipedia)