(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

[jfb.livejournal.com]

My feeling about LOTR is that neither of the movies so far has been a great movie, but when we have the full trilogy in hand it will be A Great Movie. Sadly, I'm not going to the marathon screening tonight.

Red is a good example. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is part of a trilogy?

[dougo.livejournal.com]

when we have the full trilogy in hand it will be A Great Movie.

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I think the movies kind of suck, really, but I think the third one will suck the least (because it's the most cinematic of the books).

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is part of a trilogy?

Well, it's the followup to A Fistful of Dollars and For A Few Dollars More. None of the movies have characters or storylines in common, as far as I recall, but they're still considered a trilogy. I guess it depends on your definitions.