What would you all consider the "holy trilogies" of movies? (1 Viewer)

[StephenA]

To me it would be The Godfather, Star Wars, Alien, Indiana Jones, and Back to the Future series. Do you think others like Jurassic Park, Scream, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc will be remebered like the ones I mentioned?

 

[Vickie_M]

To me it would be The Godfather, Star Wars, Alien, Indiana Jones, and Back to the Future series. Do you think others like Jurassic Park, Scream, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc will be remebered like the ones I mentioned?

Is this a trick question?

Almost certainly The Matrix. Its fans will keep it alive.

Definitely The Lord of the Rings. How could anyone doubt it? Its fans and its place in film history will keep it alive.

 

[Matt Stone]

I agree with your picks, aside from Alien, which isn't a trilogy.

I definitely thing Lord of the Rings will be included on the all-time Holy Trilogy list. The Matrix trilogy will always be holy in my mind, but maybe not in the court of public opinion.

 

[Sean Campbell]

Star Wars ( originals of course! )
Back to the Future ( I even loved the second one )
The Dollars trilogy
The Mad Max Trilogy
The Samurai Trilogy ( Inagaki - although I thought part 2 was a bit weak )
Sergio Leone once said that he considered Once Upon A Time in the West, A Fistful of Dynamite and Once Upon A Time in America to be a trilogy about the shaping of the 20th Century. If so, then I add them to the list

 

[Guy_K]

Indiana Jones doesn't really count anymore though, with the upcoming fourth movie

 

[Seth--L]

Let's not group Godfather: Part III with I and II.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

In time, LOTR will be at the top of the heap.

 

[Anthony Connor]

Once Ster Wars OV is on my system I will be at true peace.

Err until then next purchase

Regards

AXE

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

Unfortunately neither does Star Wars, since it is (whether many of you like it or not) a 6 film series now, NOT a trilogy.

It's hard to name a trilogy comprised of 3 truly unforgettable films...there's always one (or 2) crappy ones in most trilogies (even the highly regarded ones!)

-Dennis

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Were The Godfather Part 3 a bit better that would be the trilogy to beat.

As it stands, it seems that either Lord of the Rings or the original Star Wars trilogy would hold the crown. Or of course the Indiana Jones trilogy...or Leone's western trilogy. And The Matrix trilogy will probably rank kinda high. If and when there's a third X-Men I expect good things. Damn, it would have been something if the third Superman was half-decent. Or the third Batman.

I wouldn't argue against the Mad Max trilogy...although I really dislike the third one. Back to the Future is another good one, but (again) the third one's a bit iffy in my book. Ditto the Die Hard series. The Evil Dead trilogy is pretty well-regarded by genre freaks, as is Romero's Dead trifecta.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Let's not group Godfather: Part III with I and II.

Why not?? It is Part III, right?

Godfather Part III gets less respect than it deserves. Other than the performance of Sofia Coppola, I think the movie is quite good and serves a very valid purpose in ending the Godfather saga.

I had heard so much negativity regarding part III before I saw it, that I definitely had low expectations. That being said, I don't deny that it doesn't live up to the first two. But let's not forget that the first two movies were two of the best movies EVER made (IMO and many critics lists), making it difficult to impossible to match the quality of those first two movies.

The bottom line is that The Godfather Part III, while not living up to the first two, is still better than 90% of the movies being released today.

 

[ThomasC]

Thanks to Scott for mentioning the Die Hard trilogy, although it's not going to last. Best trilogy behind Star Wars OT IMHO.

 

[Chris Will]

The Lord of the Rings...All time best!!!!

nuf said.


Well that's my opinion anyway.

 

[Seth--L]

There should never have been a Part III since Part II had the perfect ending to the saga. Michael finally defeats his enemies, only to leave himself totally alone in the world.

Sofia Coppola ranks as one of the worst casting choices of all-time. They could have at least gotten a hack actress that didn't have a monotone voice! It's one of the few cases of a single actor managing to drag down an entire film because it is so painfully obvious that she shouldn't be in it.

I find the plot to be a mess in places, sometimes even downright goofy.

 

[Chad R]

"The Godfather Part III" also ruins the tragedy of the piece. In the first Michael insists he'll never become like his father, by the end of part II, he's actually become worse.

The attempted redemption in Part III is silly, because he doesn't deserve it. And the tragedy that befalls him at the end of Part III isn't as terrible as what HE DID in part II. III was totally unnecessary.

I also couldn't inlcude Jurassic Park as a holy trilogy as the third part to that was a complete waste of time. And although serviceable "Lost World" isn't that great either.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Sergio Leone once said that he considered Once Upon A Time in the West, A Fistful of Dynamite and Once Upon A Time in America to be a trilogy about the shaping of the 20th Century. If so, then I add them to the list

Wasn't A Fistful Of Dynamite also called Once Upon A Time In The Revolution? Yes, I understand Leone considered them a thematic trilogy.

Put me down as one of those who liked Godfather III. Is it the equal of I and II? No, but it is a good film (Sofia excluded - and don't forget she was a last minute replacement for Winona), and I think it provides a good conclusion to the end.

In I, we got to see Vito as an old man facing his death and trying to decide who to leave the business to. We also see Michael as a young man falling from an idealistic person who hates the family business to a person who is head of that business.

In II, we get to see Vito as a young man building up the business, and Michael as the inevitable result of that business. By the end of II, Michael has completely abandoned the person he was, and the decision he makes at the end is a betrayal of the old Michael.

The reason I liked III is that it basically sees Michael when he's at the place where Vito was in I. But in addition, he has the knowledge that he has fallen, that he did become worse than his father, that he is now what he once hated. It is in my view an accurate portayal of where Michael would be at the end of his life. It doesn't ruin the tragedy - the tragedy is what he became. it just shows him trying (and failing, in my view) to gain redemption, and try to stop the next generation from becoming what he has become.

So it brought a nice symmetry to the series - we see both Vito and Michael at the start and end of their lives, and we can see how each of them responded to their impeding deaths according to who they are and who they were.

Certainly if III had been set a couple of years after II, that would have been an unnecessary movie. But being set with Michael at a different stage in his life really makes it a valuable addition. And it may not be the equal of the first two films, it is certainly a good movie.

Anyway, that's my view.

I'll also say that the Jurassic Park films will not be a holy trilogy. The first film was great, the other two were fun to watch, but wouldn't deserve to be in the list.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

I suppose I should mention the director's trilogies here too. There is the Lean trilogy (Bridge/Lawrence/Zhivago) and the Kubrick trilogy (Strangelove/2001/Clockwork). These are the two greatest film trilogies.

 

[Angelo.M]

Red, White and Blue

 

[Rob Tomlin]

The reason I liked III is that it basically sees Michael when he's at the place where Vito was in I. But in addition, he has the knowledge that he has fallen, that he did become worse than his father, that he is now what he once hated. It is in my view an accurate portayal of where Michael would be at the end of his life. It doesn't ruin the tragedy - the tragedy is what he became. it just shows him trying (and failing, in my view) to gain redemption, and try to stop the next generation from becoming what he has become.

Well said Matthew!

Thanks for saving me the effort!

Also, here is a link to a review by Roger Ebert: Godfather III

 

[Matt Pelham]

I personally feel Godfather III isn't just the weakest of the trilogy, it's one of the worst sequels of all time.

My best trilogies:

Star Wars IV-VI
Lord of the Rings (assuming ROTK is of the same quality)
Evil Dead

Romero's Dead trilogy almost makes the cut.