Cinematical Seven: Movie Trilogies

by Mark Beall Nov 2nd 2005 // 1:09PM

It has been observed recently that any movie which achieves any small degree of success is immediately considered fertile grounds for a sequel- sometimes several sequels. And as often as not, the sequel falls far short of the original and feels like nothing more than a halfhearted grab at more money in an attempt to capitalize on the success of the first. At the same time, some big films have been rolling out some highly successful sequels- Spiderman and the new Star Wars films come to mind. In the contemplation of successful franchise movies, I’ve decided to put together a Cinematical Seven list of trilogies. In order to do full justice to this list, I’d really need at least a top ten, but “Cinematical Ten” just doesn’t have the same alliterative flare. So without further ado, Cinematical presents the Top Seven Movie Trilogies (in ascending order).

Musashi Miyamoto- The Samurai Trilogy. Based on the epic novel by Eiji Yoshikawa, the Miyamoto trilogy is a sweeping epic in the finest tradition of Japanese storytelling. The scenery of the film is gorgeous and the story is of truly epic scope, perfectly capturing the part-historical, part-mythological legend of Japanese sword master Musashi Miyamoto. Eastern narrative (in storytelling, literature, and film) has a style to it that is unlike anything you can find in the west, and these films are a great example of that style.
Evil Dead- The B Rated Trilogy. Don’t you just love how I can go from sounding all pretentious and discussing the nature of epic Japanese literature to talking about bad zombie flicks? Well that’s just the kind of skill that I bring to the table. I realize that the Evil Dead films are sheer B movie quality, but they also represent what is possibly the biggest cult success in cinematic history. Bruce Campbell with his chainsaw is a fantastically recognizable icon- moreso than a thousand characters and images from a thousand “higher quality,” more successful films; and the tremendously cheesy one-liners (particularly those of Army of Darkness) are pure quotable gold.
Back to the Future- The 80s Trilogy. Michael J. Fox is just pure fun to watch. His boundless energy and enthusiasm give powerful life to any character he plays, tops among them Marty McFly. Add to that a convincingly zany mad scientist character played by the marvelously eccentric Christopher Lloyd and you’ve got a fantastic on-screen chemistry carrying a hilariously fun story.
The Godfather- The Mafia Trilogy. The paradoxical nature of the Corleone Family is a work of narrative genius. They are warm and loving, while at the same time vicious, violent, and cruel. The balance between these two disparate natures is achieved to perfection, and it pulls on the emotional strings of the audience like a world class puppet master.
Lord of the Rings- The Fantasy Trilogy. The beauty of these films is still freshly imprinted on the minds of all movie-goers. In his novels, Tolkien crafted an enormous, masterful, gorgeous world that anyone who happened upon the books immediately and irrevocably fell in love with; and the movie translation was nothing short of brilliance (go away Mr. Gimli’s-Beard-was-two-shades-too-light, I don’t want to hear from you). A flawless story presented with stunning visuals results in a top notch trilogy.
The Dollars Films- The Western Trilogy. When Italian director Sergio Leone gave the world the man with no name he not only redefined the nature of the Western, he played a huge part in transitioning the traditional American concept of a movie hero. Cowboys were no longer happy-go-lucky guitar toting minstrels of the plains; they had become wry, gritty, and edgy, with a strong capacity for violence. The influence of the films’ complete lack of sentiment, open acceptance of serious violence, and often unlikable heroes can be obviously seen today in modern cinema. I don’t want to overstate the case and suggest that these are the only films responsible for this trend, but they certainly deserve a great deal of the credit.
Star Wars- THE Trilogy. I don’t think it can be denied that Star Wars has had a more profound impact upon American culture than has any other movie trilogy in Hollywood’s history. It simply engulfed the entire country in its mythos and never released its grip. “Jedi,” “Death Star,” “The Force,” “wookie,” “Millennium Falcon,” “lightsaber;” these words are all immovable parts of the American lexicon, as familiar to most people as words like “spoon” and “chair.” The story is truly epic in scope, the characters are intense and appealing, the scenery is imaginative and vivid, and the musical score has no equal. All together, Star Wars created a movie marvel that stands as one of the greatest cinematic feats in American history.

So there you have my not so humble opinion on the seven best movie trilogies. I’m sure you disagree on a few (or perhaps all) of them, and are ready to let me know just where I went wrong. As I said in the intro, there are several movies I really felt should get mentioned, but I just didn’t have room for them all. Get to commenting, kids, and let’s hear your lists!

(p.s. Please don’t kill me, Matrix people. Maybe some day I’ll write a top seven list of the worst trilogies, and then it can be on the list, I promise!)

11 Comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

11-02-2005 @ 1:16PM

Ralph Krawczyk Jr said...

I hope the Star Wars trilogy you speak of is the ORIGINAL trilogy that was released in theatres back in the 70's and 80's and not the 'special editions'. Han shooting first? Please.

11-02-2005 @ 6:27PM

long time reader, first time commenter said...

Um, three colors trilogy?

11-02-2005 @ 1:41PM

B said...

I like to think of the LoTR trilogy as "The Trilogy where the third one doesn't suck." Although maybe Dollar and Miyamoto fall into the same category.

11-02-2005 @ 1:55PM

The Jeremy said...

Amen on the Matrix comment. Matrix fans should drop their pretentious attitude about those films and recognize that they are just the bastardizations of *Johnny Mnemonic*-meets the special effects of *Blade*-meets the plot of *Dark City*-meets the mythos of *Doctor Who - The Deadly Assassin*.

The Hack-o-skis and their legion of non-spooners just got OWNED.

1337 represents in tha hizzle.

11-02-2005 @ 2:24PM

Alex Chinn said...

No offense to the first two picks on your list (havent seen the Samurai ones, and I do enjoy the Evil Dead movies) but how on Earth is the Indiana Jones series not on this list? I realize Temple of Doom was relatively weak, but so was Back to the Future 2. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one the prototypical action movie for the 80s, and is still being copied to this day (see Sahara). Last Crusade may be the best blend of action and comedy in decades. You're unlikely to find many more iconic characters than Indy - show him some love!

11-02-2005 @ 2:40PM

cel said...

how about krzysztof kieslowski "three colors" trilogy: "white," "blue," and "red"?

and, although i'm not a big fan of films two and three, where would we place the "indiana jones" trilogy (not top seven, perhaps)?

cel

11-02-2005 @ 2:42PM

Andrew said...

As a Matrix-liker, but not lover, I feel I can offer some differing perspective on this.

What The Matrix (and following sequels) lacked in originality (concept of the Matrix vs. Zion taken in part from the "brains in a vat" hypothesis, character model taken from Jesus, bullet time taken from Asians, etc.), was made up for in its cultural influence. The second wasn't even close to the first and the third wasn't even close to the second in quality, but Keanu Reeves found a role where his acting without the use of facial features was a positive rather than a negative, Laurence Fishburne played the hardcore warrior/uncompromising apostle character very well, and I think I saw Carrie-Ann Moss look attractive for a second or two. Granted, after the first movie they settled into the convenient "we can make this as lame as we want because our fanboys will watch anyway" mindset, but overall I found all three of the Matrixes to be much more fun as movie experiences than the Lord of the Rings movies were.

And here's why:

1. The Lord of the Rings trilogy had Elijah Wood in it. Now, I understand that this is far from objective, which I'm trying to be, but man do I hate Elijah Wood as Frodo. Seeing him on screen that much, always with that troubled cokehead look that he froze on his face for 10 hours worth of movie made me want to kill myself. I thought the other hobbits were well cast, but man do I hate having to look at Elijah Wood.

2. On a second casting note: Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler. No and no. Those two characters are supposed to be so ridiculously beautiful that it almost knocks you off your feet to look at them. Cate Blanchett is pretty -- for a woman in her 30s who looks like she's over 40, anyway -- and Liv Tyler is just plain old horsefaced. I don't know what's wrong with everyone who loves her so much, but she looks like a horse, guys.

3. The Lord of the Rings trilogy wasn't true to the books. Call me a purist, but they made a lot of shit up and left a lot of shit out. Granted, I understand the need to make The Two Towers, a book comprised mainly of walking (the characters) and sleeping (the reader), more interesting than it was. And I understand the need to wrap things up without the random end story at the end of The Return of the King. What I don't understand is why they just did random things like making The Return of The King end like fifteen times. Every time it faded out at the end and you thought it was over, there was another scene!

4. The Lord of The Rings, visually, did exactly what was expected of it. The only place where it really stood out in the fantasy genre was in its mastery of the huge battle/siege scenes, which they did arguably better than anyone else, ever. However, The Lord of the Rings was nothing unexpected. The world was... typical. Middle Earth, being at least a nominally enchanted land, wasn't anything special. I mean, you had your Tolkein-created characters, and that was it. The Matrix drew a lot of its popularity from the surrealism of everything in the Matrix world, from the concept of people stepping out of reality brought into the mainstream and done well (by today's standards, that mostly means "with guns"). Of course, it also had that cool-looking trenchcoat + sunglasses thing going, and that didn't hurt either... not to mention bullet time, which The Matrix brought into the mainstream. It also helps that the Matrix wasn't directly modeled on anything else, so they got to do exactly what they wanted -- and that turned out to be scenes like the car chase scene in Reloaded, which was one of the most interesting action scenes of any movie in recent memory.

So, basically, I think that The Matrix was more deserving of a place on the list than The Lord of the Rings, and to call it one of the worst trilogies ever is completely unfair to a movie that revolutionized action as Hollywood knows it.

I look forward to the list you make in 2008, once there are three Sin City movies out.

11-02-2005 @ 3:11PM

eggman said...

isn't it widely held that the back to the future sequels are some of the most disappointing follow-ups to a great film of all time? agree totally with the indy questions. and as for the matrix, after the giant disapointment of the 2nd, everyone i knew just went to the 3rd out of some weak sense of hope. even the names of the sequels were a disappointment. it's like buying a pearl jam album--all you do is hope that maybe this time they'll make an album as great as the first one. i'm waiting for rocky balboa to come out so we can all herald 4-6 as the great trilogy of our time.

11-02-2005 @ 4:52PM

Scott Weinberg said...

Solid choices, IMO, but if you'd place The Matrix in the "worst trilogies ever" bin, you need to get to the video store and do a lot more rentalizin'. ;) Also, your omission of the Indy trilogy is kinda surprising. Howzabout Die Hard? Naked Gun? Terminator? Scream? Blade?

....and is the Matrix trilogy better than, say, the Porky's trilogy? Rambo? The NeverEnding Story?

11-02-2005 @ 6:37PM

Matt said...

Here's the thing about the Matrix: as a movie, the first Matrix was good. It was fun, it had a big cultural impact, great style and effects, etc. But as a trilogy it was awful. To be a great trilogy, the movies need to all be awesome by themselves, but exponentially cooler in the context of the other two. I never just want to watch A New Hope, I always want to watch all of the original Star Wars trilogy. The Matrix, as a trilogy, just doesn't have sort of quality. Most people that I know, even big Matrix fans, are only willing to excuse the second two movies due to the quality of the first one; but very few people (that I've met, at any rate) really liked them.

The fact that the Matrix was a trilogy actually serves to sully to quality of the first movie; the second two installments cast a shadow over the first one. So, not only do they not make it a great trilogy, they actually hurt the only quality movie in the series by association. That should land it a spot on a "Worst Trilogies" list.

11-02-2005 @ 10:42PM

Starlen said...

No Romero Dead trilogy? Really? I like the Evil Dead films (a lot), but let's face it: Evil Dead 2 is essentially a remake of Evil Dead, and Army of Darkness doesn't hold up so well.

And yes, I realize there are now four Dead films, but really ... it's a trilogy.