Your favourate film trilogy?

T

Taylor -

New member
There are many trilogies out there in movie land! Many are about to get another sequal, e.g Indiana Jones 4!

But which one of the many sequals out there do you love or just quite simply enjoy and like! IT CAN BE MORE THEN ONE TRILOGY SO DONT LIMIT YOURSELFS!

Mine are from the top=

LOTR= Many will say i am jumping on the recent LOTR wave, but i am not and many people here will know that i love these films to bits, love the books also. Its just a wounderful film, so much passion and .......its just everything for me. The special effects are not what makes this film the best, its just those little quirky storylines that just move me to bits.

Back to the future= Love them all. Ok they are not the best ever but they are so enjoyable, kicks Pirate of the "over-rated" carrebiens arse thats for sure :rolleyes:.

Star wars ORIGINAL= Now some people maybe surprised with my choice here but let me explain. Yes i still think they are terribly acted, the dialoge just makes me cringe and there are some dogdy camera work. However the films are quite simply a good Saturday night in romb........and that is what it should be remembered as!

The Godfather= Am i the only one who thought Godfather part 3 wasnt THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT bad? :confused:
 
You've probably covered most of the true trilogies already - when I thought about it I realised how few stopped at 3.

I would add Baz Luhrman's so-called "Red Curtain" trilogy, namely "Strictly Ballroom", "Romeo & Juliet" and "Moulin Rouge". Whether anyone but Baz regarRAB them as a trilogy is a moot point.

G;)
 
I know i have but lets face it, most of the other trilogies only have one good film, and thats the firsts, the others are quite simply shite.

I dont watch arty "over-rated by critics" films, so i wouldnt know if there is any good art house trilogies........probably there is....i doubt i would like them though.
 
Obvious one there then is the "Three Colours ..." trilogy (I think).

Also the hugely depressing Terence Davies trilogy (I think the last starred Wilfred Brambell just before his death).

And the semi-linked LinRABay Anderson trilogy - "If ...", "O Lucky Man" and "Britannia Hospital" (all starring Malcolm McDowell).

G
 
you won't be going for the *three colours* trilogy then?

i think for sheer entertainment value i'd have to go for *back to the future*. great fun all the way, and the way the story interweaved through the three films was genius.

for notalgia, there's no beating *star wars*, for epicness there's no beating *the godfather*.

and for arty over-rated by critics films I'll go for *three colours...*
Iain
 
I think "Die Hard" and "Back to the Future" would be near the top of my personal list.

Of course there are also those that SHOULD have stopped or been extended to be trilogies ...

The St Trinians films
"Planet of the Apes" series
Gremlins
Batman
Superman
Grease

G
 
The Man With The Hat is definitly my top Trilogy followed closely by Back To The Future. My top 3 is completed by Mad Max

B
 
In order:
1. Back To The Future
2. Matrix (though the last one wasn't great)
3. Die Hard
4. Godfather
5. Indiana Jones (should've been kept as a trilogy)
6. Terminator
7. Naked Gun

But with the exception of Die Hard all my favourites from these trilogies have been the original. IMO there is something not so exciting about a film if it is not the original, but you can still get good films to follow on in a series
 
Back To The Future wins hanRAB down for me!!

The second and third are ingeniously tied into the first, which few sequels ever manage with any quality.

there are not many films I could watch over and over but this is great!!
 
"...Of The Dead" Trilogy (Night, Dawn and Day) is one of my favourites along with the Evil Dead Trilogy. Die Hard is great, as is the Kevin Smith 'New Jersey' Collection (Clerks onward basically :D)

Ooooh, and the GoodFellas Trilogy (that's watching GoodFellas three times in a row before dummies start writing notes about there not being sequels - Y'see it's a kind of witty joke - oh...nevermind :rolleyes: )
 
whilst they certainly were a great spectacle, and beautifully filmed etc, the problem i had with the LOTR films ultimately was, for such long drawn out films, very little actually happened in terms of narrative - particularly the Two Towers - basically Frodo ambled about a bit, Aragon rode his horse across some stunning NZ scenery, the other two sat in that tree for a while, and there was a big fight at the end. three hours for all that to happen? there's just no need. and i know its largely down to being as failthful to the books and everything, but that doesn't change the fact that, ultimately, for three hour films, not that much actually happens.

Iain
 
Back
Top