Sequels: From shameful to satisfying

Sequels always are a risky proposition. Even the surest of bets from a financial standpoint can suffer from artistic sacrifice, and films that may have a natural continuation to the story could be ignored by audiences.

And that’s why most film franchises just go for more. More stars, more explosions, more budget, more mayhem – anything to draw viewers back. It’s no secret that sequels generally make less than their predecessors, but the theory of more continues unabated, as we’ll see in these three recent releases.

TRIUMPHANT 'TERMINATOR'

The “Terminator” series is one of the most unique franchises in Hollywood. I can’t think of another consistently profitable set of films that has bounced from studio to studio, seen its quality vary wildly and struggled to maintain its foothold in the public eye.

For example, the rights to the franchise recently went up for sale because the production company behind TERMINATOR SALVATION (R/unrated, *** 1/2 *) went bankrupt after the expected summer blockbuster only reached $125 million.

It’s too bad, because I thought this entry was the best since “T2: Judgment Day,” providing the right mix of Terminator mythology, wall-to-wall action and surprisingly strong acting.

Trying to follow what’s been going on in the Terminator world with all the sequels and spinoff TV shows can give anyone a headache, but basically, the fourth film in the series boils down to this: Resistance leader John Connor (Christian Bale) is battling Skynet robots in the year 2018 while maintaining a needle-in-the-haystack search to find his father, a young Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), to fulfill his mother’s prophecy.

At the same time, a Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) awakes years after his supposed death by lethal injection to the new world, a wasteland populated by Terminators and a few scavenging humans – one of them, the teenaged Kyle.

When Kyle is picked up by a Skynet transport shipo, Marcus and John must join forces to free the hostages and avert changing history – this despite Marcus coming to grips that he is not all that he appears to be.

Of all the people to helm a “Terminator” film, the briefly monikered McG would have been my last possible choice, but he keeps the proceedings moving briskly, never allowing us to get too caught up in the labyrinthine plot by focusing on the action elements.

The Blu-ray version of this film is reference quality, with unbelievable, speaker-rattling sound and a pristine picture. It qualifies as a must-buy, especially if you’ve got a new system to show off.

Bale caught a lot of flack for his tirade during filming, but the intensity he brought to the role is evident on screen. It’s another great performance for an actor who rarely makes a misstep. Here’s hoping he returns for the inevitable fifth film.

CASHING IN ON THE KIDS

Family films are considered the holy grail in Hollywood. If you can mount a successful one, then you can keep going back to it for perpetuity as a money-making enterprise.

And so, when its predecessor made more than $250 million it was only a matter of time before we got the sequel. NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM: BATTLE OF THE SMITHSONIAN (PG, * 1/2 ***) is the perfect example of the theory of more, starting with its unwieldy title and continuing through more than 100 minutes of over-the-top antics seemingly designed for the sole purpose of one-upmanship.

Ben Stiller returns as harried security guard Larry, this time faking his way into a job at the Smithsonian to rescue some of his friends from the first film before they are put into storage.

Of course, this means using the magic tablet from the first film to create another night full of madness – Larry teams up with old pals Teddy Roosevelt (Robin Williams) and Jedediah the cowboy (Owen Wilson), and joins forces with a spunky Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams, in the film’s best effort) to defeat the evil Kanmurah (Hank Azaria).

I’m sure the actors all had a great time on the set, but that doesn’t translate here. It all just feels like a loud morass of half-baked ideas. Kids may enjoy seeing large things crash around a museum, but I would imagine that even they will get tired of it after awhile.

I guess that there’s some lesson in here, but since all the historical figures are painted in the simplest of terms, there is really nothing to be gained from the “moral uplift” the film purports to show us.

Stiller does his manic thing, but he is often pushed to the background as the special effects take over. Skip this one, and take the kids to a real museum for a much more entertaining afternoon.

HOW DUMB DO YOU THINK WE ARE?

“The Da Vinci Code” was better than its source material given the simple fact that it improved the work of a hacky writer who crafted his best-selling tome with all the subtlety of a Hardy Boys mystery.

The worldwide box office success ensured another go-round for symbologist Robert Langdon, but since Brown hadn’t written a sequel yet, they had to go back to the first book in the series, ANGELS & DEMONS (PG-13, ** 1/2 I *) and add on to create a “more” experience.

That’s why, from the opening credits, you get the dramatic Gregorian chants and uber-serious voiceover – just the start of an almost-laughable attempt at creating heft to this overblown film.

On the surface, I don’t have a problem with the basic plot of the movie – Langdon (Tom Hanks) being called in by the Vatican to help solve a papal crisis thanks to his expertise in ancient symbols – and I can live with Langdon instantly assessing a situation and figuring out whatever obscure relation it holds to the mystery.

What bothered me was the ham-fisted way in which this is all presented to us – breathless dialogue, swelling music, expository speeches, knowing looks and obvious red herrings – making us all seem like dupes who have never seen a movie before. We all knew the black priest was going to get killed! It’s not a surprise!

Langdon is joined by a pretty scientist (Ayelet Zurer), who served the same purpose as Audrey Tautou did in the first film – give Langdon someone to bounce his ideas off of so he doesn’t look like a crazy man talking to himself.

Look, everyone loves Tom Hanks, and he brings his Everyman presence to the role, although watching him go through the recitations of his stilted dialogue makes me hope he’s planning to move on to other, more challenging things in the future.

Elliott Smith is a former Olympian reporter who lives in Seattle. He can be reached at ejsteeler@hotmail.com.