Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)

Isn’t it annoying when sequels try and go deeper than their predecessor and try tackling some kind of major issue while still providing a similar amount of punch and wit as the first? I think it is.

Fortunately, Lethal Weapon 2 doesn’t get too heavy handed in this common pitfall. The bad guys this time around are South African. This means nothing to the current generation but when this movie was made, South Africa was still operating under apartheid government. The bad guys are white and rather racist, which only makes sense if you are aware of history. Since Detective Murtaugh is black, some interesting point and counterpoint is played out subtly throughout the film which younger viewers won’t understand at all.

Fortunately, the filmmakers reduce this potentially heavy-handed race issue by injecting a new source of humor for the series- Joe Pesci. He plays an annoying little creep named Leo who Riggs and Murtaugh are assigned to protect. Of course, protecting Leo leads them into a larger foray against organized crime and drug lords.

Somewhat predictable, but still entertaining, Lethal Weapon 2 retains enough of the original’s magic to keep you entertained.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Lethal Weapon (1987)

You’ll be hard pressed to find a “Buddy Cop” flick with as much pop and energy as Lethal Weapon. While several cop movies incorporated riveting balances between drama and humor, Lethal Weapon makes the formula work while sharing screen time between two completely different personalities.

In a way, it’s a fish-out-of-water scenario, except that the cops are on their home turf. Their biggest issue is how to trust and deal with each other. Instead of just being a “crazy cop,” Mel Gibson brings depth to his character (Detective Riggs), making us feel compassion for him and justifying some of his antics. On the flip side, Danny Glover (as Detective Murtaugh) presents us with an older man ready to slow down. He’s very believable and very practical.

The relationship and growth each brings to the other really makes the film more than a schlocky stunt-fest like its endless number successors and imitators. Speaking of stunts, the stunt work is nearly seamless and largely believable. The plot is a bit out there, but what should we expect from a cop drama/comedy?

It’s original and creative enough to be heralded as a model for the sub-genre, which has allowed it to enter the cultural consciousness as well. Rightfully hailed as a classic, Lethal Weapon is a ride worth taking.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Scream 3 (2000)

It’s an improvement upon Scream 2, but this movie still doesn’t quite feel like it was necessary to begin with. Supposedly the Scream franchise was originally devised as a trilogy, which goes to show that thinking big isn’t always the best idea.

The best thing that 3 does is bring resolution to the series. Frankly, the first installment stands alone, with competent enough resolution and nothing left to be wondered. Scream 2 opened the book up again and left it hanging open in the midst of a weaker chapter. Scream 3 basically operates on the fact that the killer is lucky that Scream 2 didn’t end in Sidney Prescott’s death.

Scream 3 is written in a way that weaves in and out of the workings of the original. The killer in 3 is ultimately responsible for the events of the first film (I won’t explain how- see it yourself). However, no connection is established between the killer and any of the events of the sequel, essentially making Scream 2 even less important, save for the fact that a second wave of murders (Scream 2) helps the 'Stab' series of movies continue, resulting in the movie-inside-a-movie nature of 3.

While slightly better than the series’ middle chapter, Scream 3 overcomplicates not only itself, but the whole series, and leaves me wondering why we couldn’t just skip over 2 and make the Scream series a duology. (I realize the sequel vs. trilogy argument is why 2 had to occur, but my point is that they could have just been more creative about the whole thing)

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Scream 2 (1997)

This sequel to the 1996 hit misses the mark by its very own nature as a sequel. While the idea of offering a tongue-in-cheek roast of slasher sequels sounds like fun, the one thing Scream 2 can’t do is validate the existence of sequels. Scream took all the reasons critics of the genre use to explain why horror films are unnecessary but and showed us how entertaining they can be, in effect validating their existence based on the enjoyable nature of their weaknesses.

Exposing the fatal flaws in sequels is done here, but we don’t end up embracing them like we did in the first film. While boldly acknowledging that new characters in sequels are more or less imitations of or stand-ins for characters from the original, Scream 2 still doesn’t warm us up to this fact. It also doesn’t help that through the “established rules of sequels” we lose one of the series most endearing characters- Randy to movie geek. Another problem is that we don’t pick up any new characters that might come back in future installments, which some better sequels do.

Essentially, Wes Craven and his team had to create a mediocre sequel in order to poke fun at mediocre sequels. This time though, the joke is on them.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

I had some difficulty rating this film, similar to what I experienced when rating the original Frankenstein. By today’s standards, this film looks hokey and absurd at times, making it hard to keep in mind that this film was groundbreaking and set the standards for the genre.

While it’s not the first zombie movie, Night is remembered and hailed as one of the corner pieces in the zombie sub-genre’s foundation. No actual reason is giving for the reanimation of the dead, leaving the audience caught just as much off guard and as curious as the characters on the screen. The story unfolds over the course of one night, and what a night it is! Several attempts are made by the main characters to escape the wave of undead trying to break down their doors.

Some pretty bold decisions were made during the course of this film, most notably having a black man as the hero. This may not seem bold now, but consider that this film was made in 1968. Supposedly, director George A. Romero claims the black actor simply had the best audition and he never thought of the race issue. Other bold decisions are focused on who dies, when and how. The graphic content of this film certainly pushed boundaries at the time, though is now tame by comparison.

Gritty, shocking, and even heartbreaking, Night of the Living Dead is rightly hailed as a cult classic and worth a look.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5