(no subject)

[jfb]

In Roger Ebert's Answer Man column this week, a reader states that "the third installment of all trilogies is either a disappointment or just terrible, even if the second film was great." He goes on to ask why people make third installments, but my immediate thought was: Are there counterexamples? Trilogies where the third film is really good and/or better than the first two?

Ebert gives a couple of examples (and ignores the question as stated). Can you guys think of any others? I've mentioned that I liked the third Matrix best, but that wasn't saying much, and anyway I know nobody agrees with me. A good third movie in a series that went on beyond three would be fine, too. Was the third James Bond movie the best one? I don't even know what it was.

Comments

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

Damn, I was going to say The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. I'd forgotten about Red, that might have also been my favorite.