When mentioning greatest sports movies, we’re pretty sure we can all agree on a few titles: "Caddyshack", "Bull Durham," "Rocky," "Raging Bull," "The Natural," "Major League," "Slap Shot" and "Hoosiers."
Sometimes Hollywood, in an effort to continue churning out money, decides to make sequels to somewhat successful sports movies. Oftentimes, we ask, “Why?”
This is not a look at the worst sports movies or movies that were remade (for example, "Bad News Bears," "Karate Kid" or "The Longest Yard"). This is a look at truly horrendous sequels.
(Note, none of these films received more than 4.7 stars out of 10 on IMDb.com)
We feel kind of bad starting off this list with a made-for-TV movie and something produced by Disney. However, "Angels in the Endzone" is not only ridiculous, it also has a ridiculous title. "Angels in the Outfield" was a passable kids movie that had a few somewhat-respectable actors in it (Danny Glover, Tony Danza and Christopher Lloyd). Even with Disney printing money, they couldn’t get this flick green-lighted for the big screen.
It’s OK to make a sports movie once a decade that features an animal. It sells. It gets kids excited. It keeps them focused on something for 90 minutes. As a society, we don’t like it, but we accept it.
Movie execs should just be happy to get actors to go opposite a dog or a primate, let alone trying to sell it to the public.
One thing we all hate is sequels that try to sell us new actors playing old characters. As Mike Myers points out in "Wayne’s World," the audience does recognize two different actors playing Darrin Stephens in "Bewitched."
We can give a pass to "The Karate Kid II" and "The Karate Kid III" because Daniel-San and Mr. Miyagi are still the main characters, even if the story sucks. So, when Ralph Macchio says no to a Karate Kid IV, you have to understand how bad it was. (Think about it, what else has Ralph Macchio done in the last decade?)
So, they turn to a young Hilary Swank. Mr. Miyagi teaches her karate, we have a story and therefore, we have a movie! Ugh.
Taking the cue from the above movie, "The Sandlot 2" doesn’t take the same lovable troupe from the first one or reuse their names—since the first one did a great job of preventing this from happening by telling us where all the kids end up when older.
However, if you look at the movie cover, there is a lot of similarities in the characters. A fat catcher, an African-American kid, a nerdy one, the star and a pair of brothers. When you rely on the fake myth of an animal to carry a movie, then you’re in trouble.
It’s bad enough they made a second one and incorporated a bunch of new characters to try to keep it afloat. We want to know how a third one was given the green light. For those keeping track at home, that’s three Disney franchises on this list.
Let me get this right, 25 years after the original, ground-breaking movie came out, they decided to make a second one. How does this happen? Was Citizen Kane 2 already in pre-production? Then, they replace an acting legend in Paul Newman with Stephen Baldwin?
As Bleacher Report writer Sam Westmoreland put it, the trade “is like trading Sidney Crosby for a flaming bag of dog poop.” So, how come they called it "Slap Shot II" and not something else, like "Bad Hockey Movie?"
The first one was great. The second one was tolerable. The third one? Wow. Just wow.
Taking the description of the movie from IMDb.com, it says “Tony Curtis plays a small time promoter/hustler who takes the pint-sized baseball team to Japan …” Hang on a second. A small time promoter/hustler is running a group of kids and taking them to another country? Does anyone else see something wrong with this besides us?
Sure, "The Bad News Bears" are no angels, with their beer-drinking and cursing under the not-so-watchful eye of Walter Matthau, but to take that role model to a different level? And then make it the third in a franchise? Whose brilliant idea was this again?
Any time there is a movie sequel with a catchphrase as the subtitle, it should never be watched.
"Slap Shot II" had “Breaking the Ice.” Instead of "Back to the Minors," it should have been “Back to the Drawing Board.” Better yet, perhaps "Back to the Trashcan," which is where we’re pretty sure this idea was fished from. To think that two fairly large original members of the fantastic first one are still involved (Cerrano and Roger Dorn) makes us shudder.
A lot of people would call this not only one of the worst sports sequels of all time, but one of the worst sports movies of all time. How does such a classic movie franchise—in fact, one of the best all-time movie franchises—put out such a giant turd? How can someone act worse than punch-drunk Rocky Balboa?
Well, we hadn’t seen Tommy Morrison on screen. Usually movies have an actor who can act a little, then assume they played some form of sports as a kid and have them get coached into looking like a pro. "Rocky V" took the opposite when they asked a pro boxer in Morrison to act. Not as easy as it looks. Watching this movie as a youngster when I liked pretty much everything I watched, I decided this movie was awful. That’s how bad it was.
This movie takes all of the classic wrongs in sequels and still tries to pay it forward.
They take a title and make a second without the original cast (not good, but done before); it came out way after the original did (eight years); they try to replicate iconic characters (no Rodney Dangerfield, no Bill Murray) with a bunch of hacks; the movie features an animal; the movie features a fake animal; and the movie is not made by the original writers or producers.
Otherwise, though, great stuff! What makes this movie even worse is the fact that the original was so good. Not just sports movie good, but one of the top movies ever. Why even try to do it again? Why push Chevy Chase into obscurity? Why, God, why?!
Matt Hurst is the editor and founder of Throwback Attack. Read more at throwbackattack.net.