Much like the “What sequels are superior to the original?” debate, another staple of movie geek discussions is “Which is the greatest movie trilogy of them all?” So we pose that question to you today.
Which trilogy (or longer movie series) has more consistently delivered the goods than any other? The Godfather, The Matrix, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Lord of the Rings, Terminator, Harry Potter, Evil Dead, Toy Story, Back to the Future, The Bourne films, Jurassic Park, Big Mamma’s House? There’s also a lot more we haven’t listed, so make the case for your favourite.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Critical Hit as an organisation.
Last Updated: April 18, 2012
Mark Ainsworth
April 18, 2012 at 10:44
Well, my nerdy analysis of scores from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes makes it Star Wars, which has the highest average score across the trilogy of all time.
http://ainsworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/is-toy-story-the-greatest-movie-trilogy-of-all-time/
Having said that, in some ways I think Toy Story has a good case too. Many trilogies have one relative dud (e.g. Return of the Jedi, Godfather 3, Temple of Doom). Toy Story is an exception – if you go by the rating of the lowest-scored film of the trilogy then Toy Story is the best of all time.
And if you focus just on the average scores on IMDB from the general public, Lord of the Rings comes out on top (this one not having a dud either). But then I think that tells you more about the proclivities of the average IMDB fan than anything else!
Ask again in 4 months and I wouldn’t be surprised if Nolan’s Batman trilogy is triumphant…
Mark Ainsworth.
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 13:44
Star Wars is not a trilogy – it has six films.
Kervyn Cloete
April 18, 2012 at 10:44
I think it’s been made abundantly clear on several occasions how much love Star Wars, Indiana Jones or Lord of the Rings. But the thing is that as much as I love those trilogies as a whole, I can still easily point out several flaws in the individual movies that detract from the overall opinion.
When it comes to holistic greatness, for my money it would have to be a tossup between either the Godfather – which is about as dramatically and technically perfect a crime/family epic as you can get – or Back To The Future – where there is not a minute of footage that doesn’t have me grinning like an idiot just because of the sheer fun of it all.
Anonymous
April 18, 2012 at 11:42
I’ll second Back to the Future trilogy. They are unashamedly fun-faires and the cookyness of some of the scenes are just awesome.
Noelle Adams
April 18, 2012 at 11:56
Hmm, I think for me personally it would be a toss-up between Back to the Future and Indy 1-3 for sheer craftmanship, energy and enjoyability.
Justin Hess
April 18, 2012 at 11:58
I watched Back to the Future Part three recently and found it a bit lame, actually.
Part 2 is the underrated one for me. Many found it dark but I thought it brilliantly subverted bits of the story from Part 1. And Alan Silvestri’s score for the trilogy is absolutely fantastic.
I’m thrilled that he’s scoring the Avengers
Kervyn Cloete
April 18, 2012 at 10:49
Oh and just a disclaimer: I can barely recall seeing Toy Story 2 and have never seen Toy Story 3. They’re on my shame list, which I’m steadily working through currently.
Christo Kruger
April 18, 2012 at 10:55
Rambo. There is nothing else to discuss. This is the pinnacle of film making.
Kervyn Cloete
April 18, 2012 at 11:54
For some strange reason, First Blood and Rambo 3 are stuck in my head like I had just watched them yesterday, but I can barely recall a scene from Rambo 2.
Christo Kruger
April 18, 2012 at 12:13
Rambo 2 isn’t just the best Rambo in the Quadriligy, but probably one of the best movies ever. It’s the one with the explosive arrows.
Noelle Adams
April 18, 2012 at 13:00
Doesn’t Rambo 2 have Rambo shooting down helicopters single handedly, as well as the famous, “Ho Chi, Nooooo!” cry of anguish (or something like that)? Super cheesy.
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 14:51
Pft. He had explosive arrow tips in Rambo 3.
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 14:51
Didn’t his explosive arrows surface in Rambo 3 only?
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 13:44
There are four Rambo movies…
Christo Kruger
April 18, 2012 at 15:28
Nope, we first saw them in Rambo 2. I think he also had them in 3 but they first appeared in Rambo 2.
And yes, Rambo was the best trilogy in the world. And then Rambo 4 came out. Now it’s the best Quadriligy.
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 15:54
Damn straight. Though if you watch the new Rambo, you saw more insanity than the other three combined…
Justin Hess
April 18, 2012 at 11:00
For my money, The Indy Trilogy. There is no fourth film. Only three. And I love them all. Even Temple, which, for some unfathomable reason, some people actually hate.
Then the Bourne Trilogy following that
Kervyn Cloete
April 18, 2012 at 11:44
I most certainly do not hate Temple, I love that movie so damn much. But crud, I want to strangle Kate Capshaw in that movie. Spielberg went from the incredible and capable Marion Ravenwood to this screeching, useless, walking cliche?
Justin Hess
April 18, 2012 at 11:48
It’s interesting that he went through varying shades of love interest for Indy. The self reliant Marion, the useless dim-bulb in Willy and the duplicitous backstabbing Elsa.
Oh and The Godfather Trilogy would be in the my list too if it weren’t for Part 3. Part 1 and 2, genius. Part 3, flat and by the numbers even if it does have that tragic ending with Intermezzo from
Cavalleria rusticana
Kervyn Cloete
April 18, 2012 at 13:16
Maybe I should watch Godfather part 3 again, as it’s been ages and I really can’t remember it being as bad as some make it out to be.
Tracy Benson
April 18, 2012 at 13:36
The best theory I heard about the 4th movie was that Indy was actually hallucinating about aliens and crystal skulls while slowly dying of radiation poising after being trapped in a fridge. It makes more sense than the movie did.
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 13:45
you can’t pretend it away – Indy has four films. Not a trilogy.
Justin Hess
April 18, 2012 at 14:29
I like you to know that I’m shoving my fingers in my ears and shouting “LA DE DA DE DA” at the top of my lungs. Well, not at this very moment as I’m typing….
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 14:52
I feel like that about Robocop 3. But, sadly, it exists.
Kervyn Cloete
April 18, 2012 at 15:05
But but but… Robot Ninjas?
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 15:55
It’s as if the makers of 3 were simply out to make the second movie look good…
Noelle Adams
April 18, 2012 at 11:03
Oh, one I should put in that list in X-Men… if you only count the ones with Singer involvement (like the Matrix sequels I don’t believe X-Men 3 was ever made).
Gavin Mannion
April 18, 2012 at 11:15
Some solid answers here, easily one of my favourites is the Ice Age trilogy. Yes 2 and 3 don’t even come close to the first but they are all hugely entertaining.
But as for the greatest of all time… James Bond… yes it’s far more than a trilogy but every single movie is watchable and hugely enjoyable.
I can’t think of a single dud out of the entire lot
Theunis Jansen Van Rensburg
April 18, 2012 at 11:36
I actually think Ice Age 3 is the best of the bunch because of Buck. There are so many witty jokes in there that I found not a lot of people understood. It was brilliantly funny!
Noelle Adams
April 18, 2012 at 11:54
I can. Moonraker! Awful, awful, awful. I was not a fan of the Moore run.
Gavin Mannion
April 18, 2012 at 12:11
Roger Moore is one of the lesser bonds in my opinion but he was still good enough to happily sit through the movie.
Kervyn Cloete
April 18, 2012 at 13:18
I have never in my entire life, managed to walk into a room/randomly channel surf, find a Bond movie on TV, and NOT watched the entire thing again. It’s simply impossible.
Even Moonraker, which is by far the most ludicrous Bond ever made. I must have seen it at least 15 times already.
Theunis Jansen Van Rensburg
April 18, 2012 at 11:44
Other than the usuals, like LOTR, Godfather and Star Wars, what about:
DIE HAAAAARD! Or the Alien trilogy!
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 13:46
Die Hard had four movies, so did the Alien franchise.
Theunis Jansen Van Rensburg
April 19, 2012 at 14:11
Read the article. “Which trilogy (or longer movie series)…”
James Francis
April 19, 2012 at 15:38
True, but I’m starting to feel that the headline is misleading. There is a difference between a trilogy and a series.
Theunis Jansen Van Rensburg
April 18, 2012 at 11:45
The Dollars Trilogy, which ended with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly!!!
Kervyn Cloete
April 18, 2012 at 11:50
This. A hundred thousand times this!
Justin Hess
April 18, 2012 at 11:55
Damn freaking straight. How could I forget the Dollars Trilogy.
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 13:48
Though to be technical, they are not a trilogy as much as three movies directed by Leone and starring Eastwood. There is absolutely no connection between the three tales, other than that they are Westerns and that Eastwood’s character never gives his name.
Geoffrey Tim
April 18, 2012 at 12:48
It’s really a pity there were only two Bill and Ted movies. 😉
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 18:31
Yes! And the maker of Milk & Cheese wrote two kick-ass graphic novels continuing their adventures. Would have made for great movies. Sadly, everyone’s too old and George Carlin is dead.
mornelithe
April 18, 2012 at 13:26
Evil Dead
The Dollars Movies
The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo trilogy
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 13:48
I’ll second the Evil Dead films, though the second was technically a reboot of the first.
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 13:43
Many films here are not true trilogies – simply three films. Indy is no longer a trilogy – it has four. Same for Star Wars – it has six.
Back To The Future, though, is not only three – but all three are written to tie in. There are several plot threads and events that jump between the films, as if the entire thing was written before a single frame was shot. That, in my opinion, defines a proper trilogy.
Geoffrey Tim
April 18, 2012 at 14:09
Though I agree (mostly about) Back to the Future, to be fair Noelle did say ”
Which trilogy (or longer movie series)” So I think their inclusion is fair.
mornelithe
April 18, 2012 at 14:18
Unfortunately, for the vast vast majority of movies that WERE trilogies and then added more movies after, the end result was nowhere near the first 3 movies. Star Wars, Indiana Jones etc… There’s no way I can put Star Wars up there in the face of episodes 1-3, or Indiana Jones 4.
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 14:47
Except you kinda have to. The new Star Wars and Indy movies were not reboots. They involved the people who created the originals. Hell, I’d love to pretend some terrible stuff in entertainment didn’t happen, like the last 30 minutes of LOST. But you can’t. All you can do is to keep sending death threats to those involved.
mornelithe
April 18, 2012 at 14:57
No, I really don’t have to. The question was Best Trilogy+ of all time. And I don’t believe Star Wars, or Indiana Jones fall into that category because of recent additions to those franchises. It’s my personal opinion, of course, so other people may believe differently. But Indiana Jones 4, and Star Wars 1-3 were piles of garbage. Hell, even the Alien series was ruined by Resurrection (Otherwise, I thought 1-3 were done very well). The Predator series was ruined by AVP etc… The Xmen series was ruined by bad acting and an obsession with rewriting the already well documented history of the franchise etc… The Batman series may have done well with the reboot, but that doesn’t erase the aweful Clooney, and Pit entree’s to the franchise. Etc….
I place a value on the trilogy+ as a whole, not just the first couple movies, or the last couple. And thus far, the only trilogies that are without question are Lord of The Rings, Evil Dead, and even moreso than the previous two, the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (absolutely amazing trilogy…the originals, not the remake w/ Daniel Craig).
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 16:08
Well, if we can just massage the concept of a trilogy as we please, then my favourite trilogy is the Tarantino Los Angeles one: Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and his bit in Four Rooms.
mornelithe
April 18, 2012 at 16:24
Noelle didn’t say they had to be just trilogies, and I’m certainly not ‘massaging’ the concept of a trilogy, or quadrilogy. In fact, I find it more of a ‘massage’ to simply take 3 movies out of a string of them and say yep, that’s a trilogy. Because it’s not. It’s 3 movies out of a 4+…. I’ll certainly agree that all three of the movies you mentioned were awesome, but they definitely weren’t a trilogy+.
I did explain this pretty well though, and I don’t think I really left any room for this supposed massaging as you call it. Not that I’m offended or PO’d, but I think you should maybe reread what I said, because I don’t think I’m doing what you’re saying I’m doing.
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 18:30
I’m saying you choose to pretend there is no fourth Indiana Jones, clearing your way to call it a trilogy. Did I get that wrong?
mornelithe
April 18, 2012 at 19:22
No no no, I remove the Indiana Jones franchise from the discussion, because it sucked. Ergo, you can’t have the ‘best trilogy+’ when one of the movies is terrible. That’s what I meant =) It’s why Xmen, Terminator, Alien, Predator etc… don’t register for me, because they all have sequels that are godaweful.
camper2020
April 18, 2012 at 16:03
You got me thinking how few trilogies actually stayed that way, the Spiderman trilogy was one which wasn’t bad, but also not in the same league as some mentioned on this site. As for series of movies that were enjoyable, I’m a sucker for the old Terrence Hill & Bud Spencer movies as well as the Herbies of yesteryear.
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 14:49
Ah, okay, I just read the headline. It’s a pity they are bunched together, as there is a huge difference between a trilogy and a film series. Compared to a well-crafted trilogy, any idiot can make a series of films. All they have to do is make money.
Gavin Mannion
April 18, 2012 at 15:30
I swear the Internet stopped reading articles years ago and now just react to headlines 😉
I can’t think of many pure trilogies though to be honest. What makes a trilogy so much better than say 4 movies or 6?
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 16:05
It’s not that they are better, just that there was a specific intention in their execution. You cannot really watch just the one Lord Of The Rings or Back To The Future and feel satisfied. And not an urge to want to see more – a good trilogy mimics much of the three acts found in movies. This is why the middle part is usually more sombre and laden with detail and character development, not to mention tragedy. Three movies that simply follow each other – like the Nolan Batmans, don’t really exploit this. I can watch either Dark Knight or Batman Begins and not feel compelled by design to see the other.
So it’s really a technical thing for me. Star Wars actually does qualify, as there are two specific trilogies. I just like annoying Star Wars fans. Indy does not – all those movies operate independently. In contrast, Harry Potter should be watched in completion or not at all.
Speaking of which, as we’re not talking about trilogies specifically: Harry Potter! You will not see that any time soon again: a well-executed, well-rounded octology… Just the sheer achievement alone gets my vote.
Gavin Mannion
April 18, 2012 at 16:10
I have to agree with Harry Potter, I loved the books and while the movies were obviously not as good they were a great long running story that I can’t wait for my kids to see.
I see what you are saying about a long running story and I agree with that I just don’t think Harry Potter is worse than Star wars (first section) simply because it has more than 3 sections
mornelithe
April 18, 2012 at 14:28
Hahah, Noelle, I have the same shirt that you’re wearing in your Blogger profile. Warlocks FTW!
James Francis
April 18, 2012 at 14:50
Well, since this is about film SERIES and not TRILOGIES, which are different categories, we have to tip our hats to Carry On, which has the most movies. Yes, even more than Bond.