The Worst Horror Movie Sequels Ranked

As Randy from "Scream 2" would say, "Stab 2? Why would anyone want to do that? Sequels suck!" Thankfully, Randy's classmates correct his overt generalization by highlighting many sequels in history that have surpassed the original films in their respective franchises. Even in the realm of horror, sequels exist that are equal or even far superior to their predecessors. Films like "Ouija: Origin of Evil," "Evil Dead 2," and "Aliens" have bucked the trend of shoddy continuations. But for every brilliant sequel, there are several that should've never seen the light of day. The horror genre is famous for milking franchises with rapidly produced sequels that often grow worse with each incarnation. Franchises like "Friday the 13^th," "Paranormal Activity," and "Saw" even churned out one horrific dud after another annually for a period of time.

There is a rather deep well of painfully tawdry and quickly green-lit sequels that seem to only angle towards a quick cash-in for studios. While we'd hate to judge the intent of any big business whose sole purpose is to make money, the writing is on the wall. Fans will return to see the horror icons that they love, but they can only be duped for so long. Eventually, diminishing returns spell doom for a franchise not willing to take itself seriously. Let's dive into some of the worst sequels to ever grace the screens large or small, ranking them from the least horrid to the most tragically abysmal. Regardless of their position in this ranking, there's no saving any of these stinkers from the court of public opinion.

Perhaps after two films featuring a serial killer trapped inside of a doll, Chucky (Brad Dourif) can't possibly be quite so scary any more. That's the problem "Child's Play 3" grappled with. The film failed spectacularly to reinvent the horror that the first two movies started. Instead, it presented a wild premise where Chucky is once again resurrected by a greedy corporation and the devious plastic plaything tracks down Andy Barclay (Justin Whalin), who is now attending military school. The rules of the magic that put him in his current body dictate that he can possess the first person who sees his true form as a walking, talking evil doll. Andy was that boy as a young child in the original film. But in "Child's Play 3," Chucky learns that he gets a do-over since he's been recreated from the ground up.

The film found itself stuck in the rut of being more of the same. The following sequel films, "Bride of Chucky" and "Seed of Chucky," at least shifted gears toward dark humor and followed the doll as a main character. Not only did "Child's Play 3" fail to innovate, the dialogue and line delivery is abhorrent and cringe-inducing throughout the entirety of the film. Even series creator Don Mancini claims that "Child's Play 3" is his least favorite in the entire franchise (via Mandatory), feeling like the film was creatively bankrupt. Leaning into comedy gave the franchise a second wind that's still going strong with the "Chucky" TV series, but there's no mistaking that the threequel was the lowest point of the entire franchise.

If we told you that there is more milk in the "Amityville" franchise than at your local dairy farm, you might believe it. A solitary incident — involving a family reporting supernatural happenings in a home where a murder took place — has somehow spawned ten feature films. The horrific true story of Ronald DeFeo Jr. killing his family as they slept in their Amityville, New York, home is a genuine piece of American horror history. Ed and Lorrain Warren, paranormal investigators who have recently been made famous by their depictions in "The Conjuring," were also central to the case.

However, once the real story is dramatized and retold, what more is there? Well, as it turns out, there's plenty as long as ghosts are involved and the studio has the license to put "Amityville" in the title. That's precisely where "The Amityville Curse" stands. While the film seemingly takes place in the same town, it doesn't even involve the home made famous by the original film. "Curse" is simply another haunting story that doesn't really have any reason for the "Amityville" banner. This entry in the franchise was a straight-to-home-video release, and it shows. The story depicts a couple who are haunted by a priest who had previously been murdered in their home. The plot is horribly contrived and paper thin, and apparently lumping it with the "Amityville" franchise is the only way this film would have ever been seen.

We all know that the campy creature feature "Leprechaun" spawned countless sequels. Well, this time, the mischievous scoundrel appears on an alien planet threatening to upset the established order by marrying their princess. As if that's not absurd enough, space marines arrive and ultimately kill the Leprechaun. When one bold marine decides to relieve his bladder on the corpse of the Leprechaun, the little monstrosity's soul travels through the man's stream into his ... uh, body. There, the Leprechaun gestates and eventually emerges violently from the man's groin. He then begins his trademark killing spree.

To the film's credit, it's hard to imagine anyone being able to make this stuff up. Oh, and did we mention that the Leprechaun has a lightsaber? It's completely wild and incoherent, focusing solely on shock value while forgoing any sort of actual engrossing or tension-building story. The intent here is clear: Find a way to change settings while sending the Leprechaun on another murderous romp. Mission accomplished. Outer space always seems like the logical answer in these situations.

No one could've suspected that a small indie film like "The Blair Witch Project" would cause such immense excitement among the general public at the time of its release. A found footage film that propelled the eventual proliferation of the format by positioning itself as a real-life artefact, the original "Blair Witch" didn't require an expansive budget. The simplicity of the horror is the lost crew's palpable fear, exuded so thoroughly by the actors on screen that many really did believe they were seeing an authentic document. With "Blair Witch" a wild success story, it was a no-brainer to cash in on the phenomenon while it still lived in the minds of horror fans.

"Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" attempts to feed off the sensation that the first film created. It treats its own narrative as a recreation of real events, but dramatized. At its center is a tour group heading into the woods in Burkittsville, Maryland, to witness the locales seen in the original film (which is a hit movie within the world of the sequel). What ensues is a jarringly incoherent journey in which some characters are brutally murdered while others are left questioning their sanity. The characters who are indicted as likely murderers can't be certain of the validity of their own memories or whether something sinister is afoot. 

The film borrows plenty of clichéd tropes from horror films of the past, but at its core is a clever premise that could have been used to great effect, making its mediocrity all the more frustrating. Director Joe Berlinger initially had a more focused vision in mind, attempting to dissect the ideas of mass hysteria and the role that media plays in that. However, the film was subjected to major studio interference, producing the ultimately hollow film we're left with today (via Bloody Disgusting).

How could Michael Myers possibly return for another bloody adventure when Laurie Strode decapitated the man? Well, a writer's mind and pen-to-paper is all that's needed to retcon the climactic ending of the previous film, 1998's "Halloween H20: 20 Years Later" by showing that Laurie actually decapitated an innocent man wearing Michael's famous mask. And, of course, The Shape roams free once again, finally catching and killing Laurie in the opening sequence of the 2002 follow-up.

So, what do you get when you kill the series lead in the first few minutes of the film and then toss in Tyra Banks and Busta Rhymes to lead an internet horror reality show? Well, you get "Halloween: Resurrection," warts and all. So, why is this film so awful? Putting Michael Myers in a situation where he murders college kids on a reality show is about as desperate as a Leprechaun in space. As a horror film, there's no way that "Halloween: Resurrection" can be taken seriously on any level. It's no surprise that this film was the final nail in the coffin of the "Halloween" franchise until Rob Zombie's remake in 2007.

Tony Todd, the man behind the terrifying hook-handed Candyman, portrayed the character for multiple sequels. The first film carefully crafted a horror story that was immersed in pain, grief, and tragedy as well as myths and urban legends. The terror that is the Candyman is nerve-wracking when he appears on screen to gut those who tempt fate. Even his own backstory is grounded in a horrifyingly real history of racism. By the release of the direct-to-video third film, the series had lost sight of all that.

During the '90s and early '00s, direct-to-video usually — not always, but usually — was a red flag for disaster. "Candyman 3: Day of the Dead" lived up to the trend. This installment takes place 25 years after the events of the first film (released in 1999, the 2020 setting of "Candyman 3" was considered futuristic). The film follows Caroline McKeever (Donna D'Errico), daughter of two of the previous film's protagonists. Of course, she does the unthinkable by summoning Candyman during an art gallery event. This kicks off a series of grisly murders involving the brutal hook-handed fiend. The film feels every bit a rehash of the previous stories, and is entirely predictable, dull, and lacking any real inspiration. Much of the dialogue and narrative choices in "Candyman 3" are laughable, making this film the hardest entry to watch in the entire series.

One could argue that it takes a lot of effort to lose as horribly as this final film on our list has. Movies with 0% critic scores on Rotten Tomatoes aren't all that common. (Of course, most straight-to-video productions such as "I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer" don't even get many critics to bother with a review in the first place.) Teen horror was at an all-time high in the '90s, and while the Jennifer Love Hewitt-led "I Know What You Did Last Summer" may have not been a critical darling, it was immensely profitable. A sequel, the cleverly titled "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer," fared even worse with critics.

After two films, you'd think that a third would shake up the formula at least a little bit. "I'll Always Know" doesn't budge an inch. Teens are once again involved in a death which they make a pact to keep secret. One year later, they're being relentlessly taunted and subsequently murdered for their sins. Not only is this film completely lacking originality, the writers and actors barely create a narrative worthy of a middle school stage play. In short, it offers about as much depth as the title would imply. There's plenty of cringe to go around, and unlike "Troll 2," it's not at all funny. It's just 92 minutes of precious time that you'll never get back.