There's a familiar feeling in the cinema this year.
A kind of nagging deja-vu. A persistent thought of: have I seen this before? And it's because this is the year of the sequel. Star Trek II. Scary Movie V. Paranormal Activity V. All I can say to comfort you is that not all sequels are bad. In fact, some were better than the original.
l Godfather II: The bloody main course of the trilogy (the third is blacmange for pudding). This is the film where Michael Corleone turns properly bad. And the most frightening thing? The sympathy you feel for the devil.
l Superman II: Terence Stamp was camp in Priscilla Queen of the Desert but this is camper. Stamp plays the head of a triumvirate of baddies who conquer the earth and the best bit is they are terribly bored by the whole thing. They flick at humans like crumbs on the table.
l Beneath the Planet of the Apes: The first film, not the recent remake, suggests what might happen to man after a nuclear war (we end up the slaves of animals and quite right too) but the 1960s sequel is even more disturbing: what would the human survivors of a nuclear holocaust be like and what would it have done to their minds? Show this to your children and they'll be good forever.
l Scream II: The serial killer is back but this is the follow-up so all the controls have been turned up a little bit more. In some ways, this is the ultimate sequel because it knows it's a sequel and so does everyone in it.
l Return to Oz: The original film has been ruined for admirers of Margaret Thatcher so why not watch the superior sequel? There are no cheery songs. No dance routines. Just what it would really feel like to be transported to another world: absolutely terrifying.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article