Films with no sequels that really should...

Closed Thread Subscribe

Thread Tools

Sep 19th 2014 | 3:33 am

#16

happyhammers

Forum Regular

Joined: Dec 2013

Posts: 278

From: Regina

happyhammers has a reputation beyond repute

Re: Films with no sequels that really should...

Quote:

Originally Posted by geedee

Brilliant film but wasn't the ending fairly wrapped up?

Nearly , the monster comes out of the back of Kurt Russell's truck when he is driving at the end of the film, but I think its open for another, its got cult status now.

Its all in the reflexes Chang !

Sep 19th 2014 | 10:41 am

#17

sharkus

Resident Maple Leaf Lush

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 1,761

Re: Films with no sequels that really should...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlantic Xpat

Layer Cake: Daniel Craig survives being shot and decides not to get out of the drugs/crime business but take over from Michael Gambon.

He does survive

It is based on a book, and there is a follow up called Viva La Madness. I would highly recommend reading both if you enjoyed the film.

Sep 20th 2014 | 1:22 pm

#18

Bleepedy Bloops

BEER Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2009

Posts: 587

From: Riverdale

Bleepedy Bloops has a reputation beyond repute

Re: Films with no sequels that really should...

Drive

Sep 22nd 2014 | 10:38 am

#19

Hawk13

Up Your Kilt

Joined: Mar 2012

Posts: 1,621

From: 1313 Mockingbird Lane, Mockingbird Heights

Re: Films with no sequels that really should...

The Thing (1982 version)

Scientists in the Antarctic are confronted by a shape-shifting alien that assumes the appearance of the people that it kills.

Great movie.

Sep 22nd 2014 | 10:45 am

#20

sharkus

Resident Maple Leaf Lush

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 1,761

Re: Films with no sequels that really should...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawk13

The Thing (1982 version)

Scientists in the Antarctic are confronted by a shape-shifting alien that assumes the appearance of the people that it kills.

Great movie.

There is a prequel to it.