Playing this week at Liberty Hall is that oh-so-rare of beasts, the art-house sequel. “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel,” starring Judi Dench, Maggie Smith and Bill Nighy, again sees a gaggle of distinguished British senior actors get their groove on at an Indian hotel.

Come to think of it, the only thing that makes it an art-house sequel is its level of talent and audience demographic. The “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” series — as I suppose we’ll have to call it now — is just as crowd-pleasing and formulaic as any mainstream Hollywood rom-com or action movie. It just features better actors, playing the most charming versions of themselves.

“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” also has the most self-defeating title in recent memory. (“Buck up, little sequel, you don’t have to settle for second best!”) This may not be entirely intentional, though, since young proprietor Dev Patel and Smith spend much of the movie trying to buy an actual second hotel.

What’s interesting is that “art-house” sequels have a better track record than their big-budget counterparts. Just look at Richard Linklater’s “Before Sunrise” series, which got better every nine years as we checked in with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, or last year’s “The Trip to Italy” with Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon coming to terms with the fleeting nature of life.

As a general rule, however, it’s rare that sequels aren’t second best to their predecessors. That’s why two recent Hollywood developments have me worried. After teasing proposed creature and costume designs on Instagram, Neill Blomkamp, director of “District 9” and “Elysium,” has just signed on to direct another “Alien” sequel with Sigourney Weaver. Presumably, he rushed to seal the deal on this before his new sci-fi movie “Chappie” (which wasn’t screened for critics in the Kansas City area — not a good sign) premiered this weekend.

Interestingly, Blomkamp is possibly going to ignore the much-maligned third and fourth movies in the series and pick up where James Cameron’s 1986 “Aliens” left off. It would be a bold move, and a smart one. Although fanboys have lots to complain about it, I defend Bryan Singer’s 2006 “Superman Returns”–which used a similar strategy, picking up after 1980’s “Superman II.” It would give Blomkamp an opportunity to get back to the sheer terror that made the first two “Alien” movies so potent.

The first “Alien” was directed by Ridley Scott in 1979, so it’s a weird coincidence that a sequel to Scott’s 1982 masterpiece “Blade Runner” was also just greenlighted with its original star (Harrison Ford is confirmed to return) and another director (Denis Villeneuve). This one is dicier, and not just because Ford recently suffered serious injuries in a plane crash.

“Blade Runner” is highly esteemed for its astonishing practical production design and its meditative, philosophical themes. With the prevalence of CGI and fast-paced nonsense these days, it’s almost assured that a new “Blade Runner” won’t feel like it’s in the same universe. Possible saving graces include Scott’s participation as a producer and the new story coming from original co-screenwriter Hampton Fancher.

Sound off below: What are the best and worst sequels you’ve seen? What movie deserves a sequel that doesn’t have one?

Marx Madness begins!

Vaudeville veterans The Marx brothers were appearing onstage every night in their newest Broadway hit “Animal Crackers” in 1929. By day, they could be found on the set of their debut feature “The Cocoanuts,” which was based on their 1925 stage hit of the same name. The following year they adapted “Animal Crackers,” which became their second film, and invented a genre known as anarchic comedy.

While KU basketball fans celebrate this month for the drama and unpredictability of NCAA tournament play, thanks to Liberty Hall, film fans can now delight in Marx Madness — a celebration of Groucho and company’s lightning-quick wit and visual gags, the likes of which will never be seen again.

Despite their freewheeling attitude, the Marx brothers’ brand of comedy was infinitely refined and rehearsed. This was especially important during their early films, since Hollywood was making the difficult transition from silent to sound films. The late-’20s/early-’30s movies especially were almost completely stage-bound productions because mobile sound recording was still difficult.

“What looks like random and over-the-top craziness is actually very tightly controlled,” KU associate film professor John Tibbetts says. “We’re buttering the bread on both sides because we have what seems to be anarchy in the classical Hollywood period, and yet at the same time, we’re talking about them as creative artists with [serious] intention.”

Along with the aforementioned films, Marx Madness includes 1932’s seminal “Horse Feathers,” which satirizes college sports and prohibition and contains some of Chico and Harpo’s best bits. Along with “Animal Crackers” and “The Cocoanuts,” these are three of the five classic Paramount films, before MGM got a hold of them and reigned in some of the madness. 1939’s “At the Circus,” also part of Marx Madness, was the group’s fourth film for MGM.

Marx Madness begins 4 p.m. March 15 at Liberty Hall with “Animal Crackers” and “At the Circus,” and continues 4 p.m. March 29 with “The Cocoanuts” and “Horse Feathers.” Each showing can be viewed separately or as a discounted double feature. For more info, visit libertyhall.net.