^ Just thought of the Man With No Name films.
It's called "Back to the Past".
Less-Than-Popular Movie Trilogies
- Thread starter Joe Washington
- Start date
My favorite is the "Cavalry Trilogy," which is not a continuing story but three army-centered Westerns made consecutively in Monument Valley and southern Utah by John Ford and starring John Wayne:
Fort Apache (1948)
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)
Rio Grande (1950)
I've definitely repeat-viewed that more than any other trilogy, since I don't really care about watching Return of the Jedi or The Godfather: Part III.
Fort Apache (1948)
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)
Rio Grande (1950)
I've definitely repeat-viewed that more than any other trilogy, since I don't really care about watching Return of the Jedi or The Godfather: Part III.
I've got to nominate The Matrix Trilogy, the second and third installments of which are, IMO, infinitely better than they're perceived to be and that I feel get criticized largely because general audiences and critics didn't/don't understand what the Wachowskis were actually intending to do with their narrative.
Although I've not yet seen the trilogy in its entirety, I know enough about where it ends up and have seen enough of the second and third films to confidently call the saga a genius subversion of the typical "hero's journey" narrative trope and the /"Western Superhero film" genre (not to mention a Transgender allegory, a Biblical allegory, and a Philosophical treatise as well), offering a hero who FAILS to accomplish what he's been told he's going to do/sets out to do and, consequently, something that is far more interesting than the myriad of other superhero films we've seen come out in the past 20+ years.
Although I've not yet seen the trilogy in its entirety, I know enough about where it ends up and have seen enough of the second and third films to confidently call the saga a genius subversion of the typical "hero's journey" narrative trope and the /"Western Superhero film" genre (not to mention a Transgender allegory, a Biblical allegory, and a Philosophical treatise as well), offering a hero who FAILS to accomplish what he's been told he's going to do/sets out to do and, consequently, something that is far more interesting than the myriad of other superhero films we've seen come out in the past 20+ years.
Reposting from the other thread:
I think the Matrix sequels had a lot of interesting ideas in them, but the writers got so obsessed with twisting it all up in surprising and 'sophisticated' ways that they pretty much ruined it. Especially after going to so much trouble trying to top the action of the original that they basically made the story feel completely secondary to the ridiculous car chases and cartoonish martial arts sequences. Also, in the first movie Agent Smith was an amazing villain and Neo's victory was awe inspiring. In the third movie, Smith was a bad cliche and Neo's victory was entirely dependent on his enemy being a complete idiot.
I was going to post this reply in the other thread, but I disagree with the notion that the Wachowskis became "obsessed" with twisting up the story of the trilogy in "surprising and sophisticated ways", for the very simple reason that, if you pay attention, there's actually a pretty large clue imbedded in the first film - specifically in the Oracle's conversation with Neo - that points to where the story is ultimately going to end up going in Reloaded and Revolutions.
Again, it's about ideas vs. execution. The fact that they went the direction they planned to does not mean they did so well. "Became" obsessed is perhaps not the right term - more that the sequels (by virtue of not being the introduction) gave them more room to digress and they showed themselves completely incapable of keeping the story on the rails.
I would very much argue that the Wachowskis told the story exactly as they intended to, perceptions to the contrary notwithstanding, and that it actually holds together very well.
