You know what its like when you watch a good movie - you savour every minute, not wanting it to end, then you think about it for days afterwards. Its a little piece of visual perfection for you to treasure. Sometime later a sequel is released. A fan of the first film, you check it out, but it sucks. It basically pisses all over its predecessor and you ask the question, "Why, oh why, couldn't they have just left it the hell alone?!" Why do movie bigwigs feel the need to drag the life out of successful films? The answer is

simple - money. All too often quality is compromised, the original concept effectively drained of all life.

A perfect example of this is, in my opinion, 'The Terminator' franchise. The first two films were groundbreaking and instant classics of modern cinema. A few years later the Terminator once again rose from the ashes this time with the gimmick of a female Terminator (added sex appeal = huge success right?). But instead of being a fitting addition to the previous two films it failed to set the box office aflame and was

a flop critically. You'd think that this would have been the end of the line for 'Terminator', et al, but, sadly no. 'Terminator Salvation' reared its ugly head earlier this year, this time with Christian Bale (who is in part credited with breathing new life into the latest Batman prequels) leading a fresh cast (minus Arnie, were they mad?). Once again this failed to reach the dizzy heights the original Terminator films so effortlessly scaled. However, already there are rumours of yet another

Terminator follow up...

'The Matrix' films, although visually awe-inspiring, start to run

out of steam from the opening credits of the second film. The script was poor, Keanu Reeves started to grate and the whole thing was void of

the first Matrix's unique charisma. It seemed as if The Wachoski Brothers

had set a bar so high, even they were unable to reach it again.

Still, on occasions, franchises can, in an odd way, prove to be strangly satisfying. Ridley Scott's 'Alien' is one of the greatest sci-fi horror's ever committed to celluloid. 'Aliens' was a worthy follow up. Directed by James Cameron, it was a testosterone filled gung-ho film, a different kind of adrenaline ride to Scott's venture, but still credible. Just in a different way. Similarly, 'Alien 3' still proved there was some mileage left in Alien. By the fourth film it was all starting to wear a little thin (Winona Ryder was in it for god sakes!),but it was still worth a watch to see how the Aliens had once again evolved and for the exhilarating Alien underwater sequence.

The Japanese 'Ring' series also works. The prequel and sequel aren't nearly as horrifying as 'The Ring' but they do give an insight into the story as a whole and therefore have a purpose rather than a predictability to them, adding to, rather than diminishing, the main feature.

Now, I should probably mention that I was inspired (if that is the word!) to write this after learning that ANOTHER Saw film is going to be made. The first Saw was an event, it captured public attention, it was a refreshing newbie to the horror genre. Quite a feat these days! But, rubbing their hands with glee at this unexpected cinematic triumph, Hollywood came up with a few more twists and stomach turning death scenes and gave the green light for not one, not two but five more films (and counting, how i admire their dedication)! It has thus become a piece of mainstream culture, losing its original, gritty, disturbing charm . Oh look, there's someone being hideously tortured. Who cares? I don't!

Perhaps I'm being cynical, perhaps in the future we will look back on The Saw films with a kind of endearment. After all, The Nightmare on Elm Street Franchise now has cult status - "You have to own the whole collection!" The thing is, its lazy film making and while millions of dollars are being wasted on these regurgitations, people are becoming ever more desensitized to what makes movies so cool - originality.

sophia