Photo: Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare / New Line Cinema

16 Horror Movies With Sequels So Bad, They Almost Ruined The Original Movies

Voting Rules
Vote up the awful sequels that you vow never to watch again.

With the exception of Aliens, it's generally a terrible idea to create a sequel to a beloved property, especially when the original filmmakers are no longer involved. But sure enough, Hollywood producers expect us to rush to the theater with money in hand just to see a movie that may be connected to a better film by title only. For every genuinely great horror sequel, there are at least three terrible ones. 

Here are some horror sequels that are so bad, they may actually ruin our enjoyment of the original films.

Photo: Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare / New Line Cinema

  • It's never a good sign when the director of a film uses the alias "Alan Smithee" to distance themselves from a project so bad they don't even want their name attached to it. That's exactly what happened with director Rick Rosenthal, who directed The Birds II: Land's End, a sequel to the classic Alfred Hitchcock film The Birds almost 30 years after the original. 

    Basically, the film was so bad that it ended up premiering on Showtime, saving Hitchock fans the horrible experience of having to see this film in theaters. Despite the lack of killer birds in a film about, well, killer birds, the most bizarre thing about the film was the casting of Tippi Hedren - who actually played the lead role of Melanie in The Birds - in an entirely different role. Her character was named "Helen" and actually referenced "similar events" that happened 30 years prior but failed to explain much else. The entire film is just bizarre and poorly made. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.

    180 votes
  • 2
    162 VOTES

    S. Darko is a sequel to the beloved cult classic, Donnie Darko, following Donnie's sister Samantha eight years after his death at the end of the original film. Despite being a direct sequel to the events of Donnie Darko, S. Darko shares nothing with the original film except for the character of Samantha and a very terrible iteration of Frank the Bunny. Not even the original writer/director returned to helm this project. 

    It's a real shame, because Donnie Darko introduced one of the most interesting concepts of any sci-fi/horror film, and it could've been intriguing to see that lore expanded on. Instead, we got a lousy teen drama that just vaguely resembles the film we know and love. Everything that was unique about the original film is absent in the sequel - which barely manages to justify its own existence. Hopefully, the ship hasn't sailed on getting a proper new installment in the Darko universe.

    162 votes

    Available On:

  • Perhaps the most misleading horror sequel since Halloween III: Season of the WitchAmerican Psycho II: All American Girl is by far one of the most bizarre sequels ever green-lit by a major studio. After the success of American Psycho, Lionsgate decided to cash in on the Patrick Bateman hype and release a "follow-up" that had virtually nothing to do with the original film whatsoever - except for the title. 

    Seriously, the film was adapted from an older script titled The Girl Who Wouldn't Die and was reworked during production to tie into the American Psycho franchise, similar to how 10 Cloverfield Lane came to be a Cloverfield film. American Psycho 2 embodies absolutely nothing that the first film is admired for. It follows a college girl named Rachael (Mila Kunis) who develops a taste for murder after encountering "Patrick Bateman" (no, not Christian Bale). The movie was quite horrible and has since been disowned by Mila Kunis and pretty much everyone else involved in either film.

    237 votes

    Available On:


  • Jaws: The Revenge is the fourth and final installment in the Jaws franchise after Universal Studios decided it was time to finally put the shark out of its misery. Jaws: The Revenge inexplicably ignores the events of Jaws 3-D (not that anyone cares for Jaws 3-D) and follows Chief Brody's wife, Ellen Brody, because apparently, they've run out of characters that we care about. 

    The film manages to kill off Martin Brody and his son Sean Brody instantly, forcing us to follow Ellen as the film's protagonist. Apparently, the shark has sworn vengeance against the Brody family (despite dying at least three times in previous films) and follows Ellen all the way to the Bahamas using its internal GPS system. Jaws: The Revenge may have ruined the legacy of a once-great film franchise, but at least it wasn't in 3-D.

    245 votes
  • You know a film is awful when people advise you to skip it entirely when going through The Exorcist catalog. "Watch the first and the third film," they say. To be fair, The Exorcist III is a genuine work of art, directed by William Peter Blatty himself, AKA the writer of the original Exorcist novel. Meanwhile, Exorcist II is regarded as one of the worst films ever made. 

    Warner Bros. intended to pump out another Exorcist film after the success of the first, but director William Friedkin wanted nothing to do with it. Despite Linda Blair and Max von Sydow reprising their roles from the first film as Regan and Father Merrin, respectively, the film turned out to be so poorly made that it only grossed $30 million in theaters compared to the $440 million the first film earned. Friedkin was only able to get through 40 minutes of the film but referred to it as "talentless" and "a disgrace," citing it as the worst film he has ever seen.

    279 votes

    Available On:


  • You may ask yourself, "How can Silent Night, Deadly Night get any worse?" But the answer is right in front of you: Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2. If the previous film left you wondering, "Whatever happened to Billy's little brother, Ricky?" then this film is definitely for you, but if you find yourself wondering, "Who the heck is Ricky?" then probably avoid watching this installment. 

    Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 picks up four years after the events of Billy's killing spree, focusing on little Ricky Chapman, who is now 18 and in a mental institution. But don't worry, if you really can't recall Ricky's character, the film offers a ton of flashback sequences to the first film - about 40 minutes in fact, just in case you happened to suffer from amnesia between watching the two films. Also, Eric Freeman's performance as Ricky is genuinely hilarious - and not at all scary.

    178 votes

    Available On: