Given Hollywood’s debilitating case of sequilitis, you’d imagine that there was a wealth of quality trilogies in existence, but — in considering the best cinematic threesome of all time — it turned out there wasn’t a lot of competition for the coveted top spot. In fact, I’d originally planned to compose a list of the top 10 trilogies, but I came to the unsettling realization that there aren’t actually ten filmic triads that warrant making a list of “best” anything, except perhaps a list of top ten ways to sell out your soul for a few hundred million dollars and the opportunity to ruin any and all positive associations your audience had with the original installment (yeah, I’m talking to you, Gore Verbinski). Either one of two things tends to happen: 1) Trilogies deteriorate in quality as the filmmakers stretch a premise or character past its breaking point, or 2) so buoyed by the success (and cash) of a successful trilogy, the powers that be continue to run a franchise into fourth and fifth installments, or until moviegoers get their fill and retch out the foul excesses of a tired series.
So, before I’d even began compiling a list of possibilities, I first established the criteria, which helped me to narrow down the field: First, it must be a true trilogy — in other words, only three movies in the franchise can exist, a criteria that eliminated Lethal Weapon, Aliens, Rocky and the Die Hard franchises and, even if you break the Star Wars trilogies in half, Episode I-III so tainted the original triplet that it couldn’t fairly be considered the best of all time. Second, while all three films do not have to be of equal quality, each of the three must be considered a solid, entertaining stand-alone movie, which basically eliminated the Matrix, Spiderman, Naked Gun, Back to the Future, Scream, Terminator and X-Men trilogies because each had at least one unwatchable film in the series (Spiderman 3, X-Men 3, Back to the Future 2, Terminator 3, Scream 3, Matrix 2 and 3, and Naked Gun 2 1/3 and 33 1/3). Likewise, Godfather II may be the best sequel of all time, but most of us would simply like to go on believing that Godfather III never existed, thus disqualifying the Godfather trilogy from competition.
So, where does that leave us? The Mariachi trilogy was great, but it doesn’t really count because Desperado was a remake, and not a continuation of El Mariachi (and sort of makes the original unwatchable except from an artistic standpoint). I love the Final Destination trilogy, but that only merits the best so-bad-it’s-good triad of all time. You have to consider Sergio Leone’s Dollars trilogy, but it’s not a true threesome either because, while Leone directed and Clint Eastwood starred in all three, the stories are not related. Art house devotees might consider Kieślowski Trois Couleurs trilogy, but there’s not a lot of joy in that selection (and we’ve previously written about it, anyway). I dig the Ocean’s trilogy, too, but I don’t think anyone would give serious consideration to it as the best. Austin Powers? Give me a break. Shrek. Ditto. Mad Max? Meh. Pirates of the Caribbean? Sit and spin.
So, when you really get down to it, there’s only four trilogies that merit honest-to-goodness consideration, and I’m going to go ahead and eliminate Indiana Jones because a fourth is in the works, which would render this Guide moot in a year’s time (and besides, while I have no problem with anyone who considers Indiana Jones the best trilogy of all time, if you want critical validation, you’re better off with AFI or Martin Mull, whose idea of subversive is Gremlins 2).
I suspect quite a few people would consider the Lord of the Rings trilogy the best of all time, but those people are wrong. Way wrong. Really, it’s just ten hours of dazzling special effects, a mostly brilliant cast, and a bloated, lethargic story that essentially boils down to run, fight, run, fight, run, fight, run, fight, ring! It’s the same movie three times in a row and none of the three have a goddamn ounce of soul in them. However, the LOTR trilogy is, far and away, the most overrated trilogy of all time. So, congratulations Peter Jackson.
And then there is Jason Bourne. The Bourne Trilogy was the only real competition, in my mind, for title of the best trilogy of all time. All three Bourne films are excellent, adrenaline-fueled, ass-kickingly intense action flicks that hold up extremely well to repeat viewings and, in transitioning from Doug Liman to Paul Greengrass, the trilogy didn’t lose an ounce of steam. In fact, some argue (and I’m among them) that the third film in the trilogy was better than the first (and Bourne does sport the best third movie of any trilogy). I’d have a hard time arguing against anyone who chose the Bourne trilogy as the best of all time. But here’s my one minor quibble with it and what, ultimately, kept it from the top spot: There’s nothing relatable about Jason Bourne. He’s a guy you love to watch put the elbow-hurt on folks, but there’s not a lot of heart in the trilogy. Even Bourne’s relationship Marie felt cold. Granted, the emotional detachment of Bourne is part of what makes the trilogy so appealing, but while he’s certainly an action hero you like rooting for, he’s not a character you can really get emotionally invested in. He’s fun to watch, but there’s nothing in the Bourne trilogy that doesn’t evaporate the second you walk out of the multiplex.
Which, finally, brings us to the Greatest Trilogy of All Time, ultimately a pretty easy choice: Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead triumvirate masterpiece, which is not only the greatest movie threesome to ever hit the silver screen, but qualifies as one of the best horror films (Evil Dead), horror-comedies (Evil Dead II) and action-adventures (Army of Darkness) of all time, a trilogy that crosses more genres than Elvis Costello: horror, comedy, action, zombie, slasher, and — if you look really hard — romantic-comedy.
Of course, growing up, I’d seen the trilogy somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,897 times, but it wasn’t until 2002 — when I finally got to see Evil Dead II on the big-screen at a midnight screening in Boston’s Coolidge Corner theater — that I finally grasped not only the significance, but the pure, unadulterated boozy thrill of the series. To this day, I don’t think the capillary-bursting high I had witnessing 300 people leaping from their seats and — as Evil Dead’s hero straps a chainsaw onto his stumpy arm and throws a sawed-off shotgun over his shoulder — unleashing a deafening unisonic chorus of “Groovy.” All the Snakes on the Plane, Final Destinations and Black Sheeps in the world couldn’t reproduce that feeling, the gleeful symphony of roars, or the collective sense of awe that enveloped a bunch of half-drunk, stoned, or completely sober strangers as we bonded over a man who was about to go down into the cellar “to carve ourselves up a witch.” If you haven’t seen Evil Dead II in a theater, and you ever get the opportunity, don’t miss it. It’s why Al Gore invented movies.
Indeed, like a lot of teenagers who grew up in the late ’80s and early ’90s (the Fangoria era) I’d had an unnatural obsession with horror films of all stripes. But so very many of those films felt like empty pleasures — movies like Scanners that were only good for a few cheap head explosions that briefly set my heart aflutter — that I more often than not fast-forwarded through on repeat viewings, just to get to the blood and gore. And while most of those horror films focused largely on the villains, slashers, serial killers, monsters, ghouls, and zombies, the Evil Dead series did something unusual for a horror film: It introduced a hero. An actual goddamn hero, people. A Champion of the Chainsaw. His name was Ash. And he is the motherfucking King of horror films, Elvis with a Boomstick, and not just because he has a likeness to Mr. Presley (who Bruce Campbell depicted later the cult classic, Bubba Ho-Tep), but because — to this day — he’s still the greatest horror-flick hero of all time.
I mean lookit: Even after the Evil Dead trilogy, filmmakers still insist on revolving their storylines around the Bogeyman — the latest wave of torture porn being no exception. Why is it, despite the largely underground success of Evil Dead, that directors and screenwriters haven’t bothered to invest in heroes or heroines that are as dynamic and fun to watch as the killers? Even the Alien films, all of which feature Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley as heroine, are more about the aliens and who they ultimately pick off than they are about Ripley. Why must we root for Freddy, Jason, or the Jigsaw Killer, while everyone else in these films are simple prey — pretty blonde meat or chiseled abs that we’re more than happy to see suffer a gory demise?
This is why Hollywood is so goddamn dumb.
See: Because Ash Williams was the first true action hero of horror. He’s John McClaine, Indiana Jones, Rambo, and Dirty Harry, all wrapped up nicely beneath the best chin in the business. And before Rose McGowan strapped a machine gun onto her leg, Ashley J. Williams secured a chainsaw to his amputated arm. And aha: What’s so incredibly genius about Sam Raimi’s premise is that Ash not only gets to be the hero, but also several forms of the villain, be it Bad Ash, Possessed Satanic Ash, Lilliputian Ash, or even Ash’s own possessed and deranged hand.
The original 1979 film (filmed over two years on a meager $385,000 budget) in the series is the weakest, but perhaps most influential, of the three, a pre-Scream deadpan satire of slasher conventions that follows a group of college kids who go to an abandoned cabin for the weekend and discover the Book of the Dead, an evil book bound in real human flesh that dated back to medieval times. It unleashes a series of spells that awakens the zombified previous occupant of the house, though in the first half of the film, the real evil is Raimi’s wide-angle camera (or the unseen “force”) that follows around its victims with a whooshing terror. The first victim: A woman who is raped by a very amorous set of trees, one of the many graphically violent scenes that kept American distributors away from the film (it was eventually bought and distributed by a European company).
Anyway, as zombies are apt to do, one infects the others, until only Ash remains, an unwilling hero in the first Evil Dead. It was a ridiculously low-budget film, and it shows, especially in the weird stop-motion animation effects that Raimi used (and that Peter Jackson would later steal in Brain Dead). Though at the time, The Evil Dead was a genuinely scary movie, viewing it today, it’s mostly a gaseous scream, with a few legitimately frightening moments.
The first sequel, Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn is the strongest of the trilogy. It’s not quite a remake, though the first ten minutes are a streamlined version of the original. But, Evil Dead II is largely a continuation of the original’s plot with a bigger budget (secured, in part, thanks to Stephen King), better special effects, a stronger script, and a cast that didn’t abandon the film halfway through production (as all but Campbell had in the original). The tone in Evil Dead 2 also shifts decidedly toward the comedic, sort of owning up to the schlockish B-movie limitations of the original and running with it — a relentless self-parody of The Evil Dead. Nevertheless, Raimi still manages to successfully blend in the horror elements. The blood is plentiful (there’s even an unholy blood geyser), but so is the maniacal, off-the-wall slapstick, which is oftentimes reminiscent of the “Three Stooges” meets Buster Keaton in hell.
But as brilliant as Raimi’s direction is, as fun and inventive as the special effects are, and as mesmerizing as the camera work is, it’s Bruce Campbell that really sells the show with that hunky square jaw, the dumb-guy hero shtick, and the deadpan delivery. Campbell makes Evil Dead II not only the centerpiece of the Greatest Trilogy of All Time, but the best late-night drink-and-watch-with-friends movie ever put to celluloid.
The second film ends after an incantation is read and The Book of Dead (now called the Necronomicon) sends Ash through a time vortex and back into the Middle Ages, literally, which is where the third film, Army of Darkness picks up. And yes, while The Evil Dead is a bit too self-serious, Army of Darkness indulges a little too much in the comedic aspects of the franchise, traveling past “Three Stooges” and landing somewhere closer to Looney Tunes, though it does provide Ash with a huge arsenal of one-liners, including one of the best pick-up lines you’ll ever see on film, “Gimme Some Sugar, Baby,” and the macho-sublime, “This is my Boomstick!”
In Army of Darkness, which was originally conceived as the first sequel to Evil Dead, Ash fudges the incantation and unleashes a whole goddamn Army of Deadites, led by what looks to be members of Gwar! and their stormtroopers, a battalion of possessed skeletons. Initially, Ash intends to abandon the locals, but when his love interest is taken by the Deadites, he stays and engages in the sort of epic battle with the Deadites that 300 wishes it were (who needs Gerard Butler when you have Bruce Campbell, bitches!). There is substantially less blood in Army of Darkness, in part because the studio wanted a PG-13 rating (the first cut was NC-17 and no amount of edits could get is less than an R-Rating), but it’s got a considerable amount of action-comedy, including an epic sword fight with one of those members of Gwar!
There was also some controversy about the ending. The original, preferred by Raimi and Campbell, had him taking a potion and waking up in post-apocalyptic England, but I actually prefer the “Hail to the King” ending in the S-Mart the studio forced on them. It better captures Ash’s bravura and, of course, allows him one more opportunity to take on a she-bitch (who looks remarkably similar to Carol Kane in The Princess Bride). Come get some:
And that, folks, is why The Evil Dead trilogy is the greatest of all time. Built around a simple premise, Raimi and company built upon it with each successive film. And though the budget got higher with each movie (tapping out at a paltry $11 million), the movies are never overcooked, bloated, or egotistical power-trips for either the director or the star. The trilogy is a stunning achievement, remarkably influential, iconic even, and still the absolute best example of how to make an audience laugh and upchuck at the same time. And while sci-fi geeks have their Hans Solo and Captain Kirk, fantasy geeks have their Frodo, and comic-book geeks have their Batman and Spiderman, those of us film geeks who love blood and comedy in equal degrees will always have our Ash Williams. Hail to the King, baby.
When I start yelling at a girl, I call her a Pajiba | | Pajiba Love 09/12/07 |
Comments
Um, at the risk of appearing overly pretentious, might I offer up:
Ingmar Bergman's beautiful trilogy
Through a Glass Darkly
Winter Light
The Silence
Posted by: PaddyDog at September 12, 2007 1:48 PM
To be fair, Desperado is as much a remake of El Mariachi as Evil Dead II is of Evil Dead, so I'm not totally buying that criteria for knocking out Rodriguez's trilogy. But it's still hard to argue with your ultimate conclusion.
Posted by: paco at September 12, 2007 1:49 PM
Army of Darkness is still one of my favorite movies ever, one I can pop in at any time and watch all the way through.
Posted by: Kevin Longrie at September 12, 2007 1:51 PM
I agree with you, but good grief that was long.
Posted by: Katie at September 12, 2007 1:52 PM
Want...to..argue... if Desperado is really just a remake of El Mariachi, thus disqualifying it, we're splitting hairs by considering Evil Dead II to be a CONTINUATION of Evil Dead I...
Oh hell, I don't care. It's not like the Mariachi trilogy can even compare to the goodness that is the Evil Dead Trilogy. Good. Bad. He's the guy with the Gun.
Posted by: lilianna28 at September 12, 2007 1:54 PM
@paco: I'm liking the wavelength you're on.
Author's Note: Only the first 10 minutes of Evil Dead II was a remake of the original (b/c they couldn't use footage from the first one), basically providing the back story for Dead II. After the first ten minutes, however, it's a continuation from where the first left off (and you can see, around the ten minute mark of the second film, the last scene of the original.).
Posted by: lilianna28 at September 12, 2007 1:56 PM
The entire time I was watching the last Jason Bourne I was hoping against hope that Jason would smirk, just once, after he was finished with whatever amazing ass kicking he was doing. Just once. A smirk. A quiver of the lip? Anything! And I knew it would never come. I would have liked for him to show just a little bit of emotion. Just a little bit of "I know I'm the baddest ass kicker in the universe".
I know it's completely cheesy and unimportant but I feel that it would have made me a little more, what did you say?, oh yeah, "emotionally invested".
Posted by: Agent Scully at September 12, 2007 1:57 PM
I agree con paco- Desperado is much more a sequel than Evil Dead II is. Not that you'll hear me argue that THAT's the best trilogy ever. And Back To The Future II is more unwatchable than BTTFIII? I think not. Methinks you built this article from Evil Dead up... not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: ueberbill at September 12, 2007 1:58 PM
As the fourth Indiana Jones isn't out yet, the Indiana Jones trilogy is still firmly number one in my heart. I love everything about those movies and have since I first saw them as a wee tyke. Besides, my boxed set says "The complete trilogy!" and that's good enough for me.
That being said, I love Evil Dead (and company) a ridiculous amount, and would guard my Bruce Campbell autographed poster with my life.
Posted by: Lara at September 12, 2007 2:17 PM
I agree completely. In fact just yesterday I was thinking about what the Greatest Trilogoy of All Time would be and slowly came to the realization that it was, in fact, The Evil Dead.
As you pointed out, other trilogies have had dips in quality at some point, but not the Evil Dead. That just got better and better with each film.
All hail the King, indeed.
Posted by: _cG at September 12, 2007 2:27 PM
i would like to offer up Ford's "Cavalry Trilogy":
Fort Apache (1948)
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)
Rio Grande (1950)
all three films star John Wayne, the US Cavalry and Apaches. In two of the films (Fort Apache and Rio Grande) Wayne plays the same character who has been promoted in the time between the two so a continuation of storyline could be argued.
Posted by: causaubon at September 12, 2007 2:33 PM
This whole post was just pillow talk, baby. I wholeheartedly agree with you that Evil Dead is the greatest trilogy of all time, and may I express my heartbreak that my ultimate hero, Ash Williams, has been relegated to Burn Notice on USA? I tuned in when it first came on because of my undying Campbell love, but even though the man himself is awesome, the show is unbearable and I can't bring myself to watch anymore.
This will probably be the same pattern I follow when I try my first viewing of Desperate Housewives simply for the presence of the Fillion. Sigh.
Yo she-bitch: Swallow this.
Posted by: MG at September 12, 2007 2:43 PM
and while i'm at it, the Samurai trilogy, which heavily inspired Kill bill is also pretty awesome.
Musashi Miyamoto (1954)
Duel at Ichijoji Temple (1955)
Duel at Ganryu Island (1956)
i think one of these films even won a best foreign film oscar.
all three film follow the same samurai, Musashi, through his life.
Posted by: causaubon at September 12, 2007 2:48 PM
Indiana Jones would be out even if they weren't making a 4th one. Temple of Doom?? I don't think I've ever made it through that whole movie at once. Short Round's the best part of that movie...and that's not saying a lot.
Posted by: Chesnut at September 12, 2007 2:49 PM
I was with you until you accidentally claimed Scream 3 was the worst in the trilogy.
A simple typo, I'm sure, since 2 and 3 are right next to each other on the keyboard.
The correct answer is: Scream 3 is the best, for Parker Posey makes everything better.
I'd also like to submit, for your consideration, the Ginger Snaps trilogy. A modern werewolf trilogy that takes an entirely new perspective (come on, female adolescence being equated with lycanthropic scenarios in Canada? Brilliance) on the genre and features 3, count 'em, 3 great modern horror films.
I'd also say Cube, but even I'll admit that Hypercube was kind of awful.
Posted by: Robert at September 12, 2007 2:52 PM
"Only the first 10 minutes of Evil Dead II was a remake of the original (b/c they couldn't use footage from the first one), basically providing the back story for Dead II."
Maybe I've just been too out of it to notice, and admittedly, I have not had my yearly Evil Dead Watch in a long while, so I'll ask- the idea is that Evil Dead II picks up right after Evil Dead I ends then? Did the cabin survive in Evil Dead I to still be standing in Evil Dead II? Was there a part of the end of Evil Dead I that should be ignored for a smoother segue into Evil Dead II?
Posted by: lilianna28 at September 12, 2007 2:55 PM
screw it!
just started watching Musashi Miyamoto and i know i'm gonna curry the wrath of all you Evil Dead-heads, but the Samuria trilogy is definately far better.
Dustin? arguments against?
Posted by: causaubon at September 12, 2007 3:02 PM
I luh-huh-huv me some Bruce Campbell, top of my "freebies" list. But COME ON!!! You've got to be kidding me. I suppose we should expect this from the same person who dissed "Citizen Kane". What are your qualifications for movie critic again? Free time?
Posted by: jen at September 12, 2007 3:06 PM
ha ha ha. i should expect the bitchy and scathing to appear. it always does. if it's not in the piece, it's in the comments, and vice versa.
oh, and Evil Dead heads, causabon? awesome.
i love this trilogy. i love bruce campbell. i love my boomstick.
Posted by: boo at September 12, 2007 3:18 PM
[The Lord of the Rings is] . . a bloated, lethargic story that essentially boils down to run, fight, run, fight, run, fight, run, fight, ring! It's the same movie three times in a row . . .
Have you ever read the source material? While I consider the movies highly entertaining, the books made me start looking for some knitting needles.
Having seen all of the Evil Dead only when I've been whacked out of my gourd, I'm wholly unable to criticize the rest of your article. I don't even fucking remember most of I & II, and only a slight bit of Army of Darkness.
Some others for your consideration - and mocking:
American Pie *snort*
Lion King (no, I'm not serious)
Sarah, Plain & Tall - my wife would vote this one although these were TV movies.
Baz Luhrmann's Red Curtain Trilogy - Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet, & Moulin Rouge.
Deepa Mehta's Earth, Fire, & Water trilogy (never seen them)
Some critics argue that Terry Gilliams' Time Bandits, Brazil, & Baron Munchausen form a trilogy.
In theory, Toy Story 3 is in production for 2010 - if it works out as well the 2nd, that will be the all-time best trilogy.
Posted by: idiosynchronic at September 12, 2007 3:22 PM
Always appreciate the Evil Dead trilogy love. Thanks!
But when did the memo go out about the LOTR backlash? It seems like everyone got one recently but me. Are we supposed to be hating it now?
Posted by: TL at September 12, 2007 3:29 PM
YAY!!! Strictly Ballroom!!! lawdy lawdy I luv Baz Luhrman...
"Vivir con miedo es como vivir a medias!"
WOOT!
Now I gotta go dig up that dvd...
Posted by: Stella at September 12, 2007 3:33 PM
Ummm, I'm gonna have to vote for Sergio Leone's Dollars trilogy anyway and gosh darn it, I feel it was wrongly pushed aside. The Man with No Name is the same guy in the three movies, they are each entertaining in their own right, AND they fit well together as a unit. Though there is no actual plot points that travel through the three movies, I would say following the life of a badass is good enough for me! Cinematography, music (my god the MUSIC), and dialog, all phenom. And I've gotta say, there isn't much that can compare to the coolness that is Clint Eastwood in that series. Though Ash IS fucking awesome...
Posted by: JennieBella at September 12, 2007 3:44 PM
AoD is also blessed with one of the greatest movie posters ever:
tinyurl.com/2j6pse
Posted by: stu at September 12, 2007 3:56 PM
I agree (at least partly) with ueberbill. It seems like you just wanted to write an article about how great the Evil Dead trilogy is, and came up with an arbitrary set of criteria allowing you to dub it the best trilogy ever. So Godfather 3 wasn't that great; the first two are inarguably among the best films ever made. Even if you stick with the "consistent quality" requirement, I think the Bourne movies come out way ahead. Yes, he was somewhat emotionless, but only after Marie's death. (Bourne and Marie's romance was about the only tacked-on-love-story-in-an-action-movie I ever really liked.)
And TL, you're not the only one who missed the memo on The Lord of the Rings. I still love those, and I will go to my grave saying that their epic scope will never be surpassed.
Posted by: Todd at September 12, 2007 4:12 PM
Meh Dustin...you actually have the nerve to haul out some lame ass shock horror slash em ups as your top trilogy and then adding insult to gross injury call LOTR overrated? I can accept a difference of opinion when it comes to reviews, but you just lost all cred with me.
Posted by: Brite at September 12, 2007 4:15 PM
Absolutely no argument here. And I'm not even what you would call a huge fan of horror films (although really, I like anything that doesn't suck--I'm omnivorous when it comes to film), but I just adore both Raimi and Campbell (I loved Campbell's autobiography).
For some reason the scene that makes me laugh the hardest is the little throwaway scene in Army of Darkness, where the Deadites have just risen from the grave and you see one of them leading a struggling slavegirl, and he spits out "We got plans for you, girly girl!" I don't know why, but that line kills me, no matter how many times I see the movie.
Posted by: june at September 12, 2007 4:30 PM
YES. Excellent stuff. While I own all of these movies on DVD (including the limited edition tin of "ED2", thank you), I still have my old worn-out VHS copies, too. Maybe for nostalgia, maybe because I'm a horrible pack-rat, but I've got 'em. I think I was a freshman in high school when I first saw all of these; they have held a special place ever since. I even have an Evil Dead t-shirt, black with the logo in gray on the front and a picture of bloody-faced Bruce Campbell on the back. And I still wear the hell out of it. Thank you for this read (and the clips! Oh, the clips...).
And lilianna28, the cabin was never destroyed in the first one. The first ends
*SPOILER IF (for some reason) YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS*
with the force rushing through the cabin and directly into Ash's face. After the "backstory" part at the beginning of Evil Dead II is over, the film picks up at that exact moment: the force slamming directly into Ash. And Paco...wait, you and I have already had this discussion ; )
Posted by: Cody at September 12, 2007 4:32 PM
"...even if you break the six Star Wars trilogies in half..."
Damn, six TRILOGIES?? Where the hell have I been...
( Woops. Noted and corrected. -- DR
Anyway, yes, this article is 100% correct. Anyone who disagrees with it is wrong.
Posted by: madamz at September 12, 2007 4:38 PM
God bless you, Dustin. I cackled to myself while reading this, much to the annoyance of my office mates. I'm hoping for a Bubba Ho-Tep trilogy. *Sigh* Picture Elvis rising from the Mississipi swamp to battle yet another hillariously bizarre evil force.
Posted by: AllGussiedUp at September 12, 2007 4:41 PM
ok, sorry rowles...but this time you've gone too far! Back To The Future 2....UNWATCHABLE? i'm hoping what you made is a simple typo, and you merely meant to put a 3 in place of a 2. i'm beside myself, utterly beside myself.
and yet...can i, in time, forgive you because after all you did name the evil dead triology as the best? maybe. army of darkness is one of my favorite films. i don't know, i really don't. i might have to sleep on this tonight.
Posted by: citizen_cris at September 12, 2007 5:08 PM
What, no Mission Impossible, no Blade?
While I would not call MI: 2 unwatchable, it isn't very good, but I did really enjoy 1 & 3. And, I have a soft spot for Blade.
And I too missed the LOTR hate memo. I love those movies.
Posted by: Smello at September 12, 2007 5:46 PM
"It's the same movie three times in a row and none of the three have a goddamn ounce of soul in them."
I keep rewriting the same rant over and over again to somebody who would call LOTR an overrated soulless one note trilogy. Excuse me, but you must have completely missed the whole Gollum vs. Smeagol aspect of the trilogy. This was one of the best character against themselves story lines that have been done in years.
Also note other movies have come out since LOTR trying to somehow match up to it even if for only one movie and yet everyone of them have failed at it except 300. Trust me, nobody is pulling off a mass epic scale trilogy any time soon that is going to compare to LOTR.
I would say this reads like a writer with an agenda, but I think it's more letting human nature put up blinders when we talk about things we love.
Posted by: mb at September 12, 2007 5:54 PM
I'm on board with Todd; I totally dug all three Bourne movies, loved the relationship he had with Marie, and was totally bummed that she was offed in the second movie, thereby cementing the first as my favorite of the three.
Also, I found him absolutely relatable, if only on the level that he didn't make those assinine remarks a la every other movie hero. No 'hasta la vistas' here, just quiet determination. And that's fifty times hotter than a quip that gets parodied (and dare I say, cliched) as soon as the movie comes out. Boys, sometimes less is more.
And finally, he read MAPS, people. Right there, he made himself infinitely more relatable because that minute bit of realism is what sealed the deal for me.
*sigh* another dvd for me to dig up...
Posted by: Stella at September 12, 2007 5:55 PM
LOTR backlash much? Sorry, but those movies are great. Love Back to the Future, especially the second one, and my favorite trilogy would be Indiana Jones, no doubt about it.
Posted by: Gaby at September 12, 2007 6:05 PM
While I agree with most of this post and I agree that the Evil Dead series is totally fucking awesome, I have to say that I think you're wrong about LOTR. They're not for everyone but my god they are ten times more enjoyable than the Harry Potter series and the like. If ever there was an overrated series, Harry Potter would be it.
Posted by: Starbuck at September 12, 2007 6:09 PM
I know it's fashionable to bash the hell out of it, but Godfather III isn't that bad. It's slow, the Vatican plot line is confusing, and Sofia Coppola is awful, but there are a lot of great Pacino scenes, especially with Diane Keaton. I think a lot of people that say they hate it have probably never even seen it.
Indiana Jones is the best trilogy of all time. I loved Evil Dead 2 and 3 but the first was painful to sit through. Your rationale for eliminating the other trilogies was dead on except for LOTR. The last 2 movies became kind of overwrought, but Fellowship of the Ring is an outstanding movie.
Posted by: Rob at September 12, 2007 6:16 PM
Wait, Back to the Future II is a bad movie? Maybe I read that wrong but I am thoroughly confused. I love that one. Three I am not that into. I haven't seen it in a long time, but I remember being not really that impressed with mary steenwhateverhername is, but that's an old aversion. Seriously though, back to the future two being a bad movie is news to me, though occasionally I do like the terrible movie. But man, hoverboards...and roads? We don't need roads. I'm shocked.
Posted by: sw at September 12, 2007 6:22 PM
ok.
just finished watching Musashi Miyamoto and can, without a doubt certify that Hiroshi Inagaki's Samurai Trilogy is hands down the best.
i like the Evil Dead, but the Samurai is a cinematic masterpiece.
looking forward to Duel at Ichijoji Temple tomorrow.
Posted by: causaubon at September 12, 2007 6:25 PM
Booo!!! Your criteria make it impossible to crown anything but the movie you already had in mind as the best trilogy of all time. I think a more interesting exercise would be to determine which trilogy is the best PRIOR to the 2000s (pre-new star wars, Live Free or Die Hard, and Indiana Jones 4). For my money, it's Star Wars, which set the standard for how trilogies should be made.
Posted by: Boris at September 12, 2007 6:26 PM
there is a reason why Tarantino references these films so heavily:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhbCEi_Aac4
Posted by: causaubon at September 12, 2007 6:35 PM
All I have to say is: LOTR sucks balls. I hated those movies, and felt the same as Dustin about them (run, fight, run, fight, so on and so forth). Absolute rubbish. I wasn't a huge fan of the books, but remembered them to be more entertaining then the films.
Posted by: Kt at September 12, 2007 6:39 PM
Oh man, I love Bruce and the Evil Dead trilogy, but the highlight of this review was your spot-on take-down of LoTR. SERIOUSLY, people - I can't think of another set of mainstream movies more weighed down by their own unwarranted sense of self-importance. All they're leading is jack and shit... and jack just left town.
Posted by: Ashers at September 12, 2007 6:40 PM
Not sure I agree with you 100% on your police work there, Rob. I'll have to go back and watch the original Evil Dead again, but I think your point about II being a sequel is debatable at best. We're splitting hairs here, but it's a remake, not a continuation of the story. It tells pretty much the same story as the first one. (OK it expands it a tiny bit further, but it's almost a carbon copy of your El Mariachi example either way.)
Let's be realists here - by your criteria LOTR is probably going to be the clear-cut winner. I understand the fanboy backlash of the series, but come on - it's clearly the most successful true trilogy by any terms.
Posted by: bradlands at September 12, 2007 6:40 PM
"He's fun to watch, but there's nothing in the Bourne trilogy that doesn't evaporate the second you walk out of the multiplex."
That's the stupidest thing I have ever read on Pajiba.
Posted by: Seth L at September 12, 2007 7:06 PM
Doesn't Terry Gilliam consider
[b]Time Bandits
Brazil
and The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen[/b]
a trilogy about aging (youth, middle age, decripitude)?
If so, that gets my vote.
Posted by: Bucko at September 12, 2007 7:08 PM
Doesn't Terry Gilliam consider
Time Bandits
Brazil
and The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen
a trilogy about aging (youth, middle age, decripitude)?
If so, that gets my vote.
Posted by: Bucko at September 12, 2007 7:08 PM
I guess this comment debate is degenerating to an Evil Dead vs LoTR battle, with anyone that wants to bring a different trilogy in to discussion being ignored. That's a shame.
Don't get me wrong, I loves me some Evil Dead. I have even had the chance to work on the musical theatre version of the movies here in Toronto - Evil Dead pts 1 & 2: The Musical - which even had a Broadway run and has been a cult hit for years. But let's be honest. As fun and entertaining as the films are, they are nothing more than just that - fun and entertaining camp. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, just don't try to pass these films off as being anything more.
Are they cult hits? Yes. Have they been a big cultural influence? Certainly.
But when it comes down a discussion of "greatest all-time" being a cult hit and culturally influential is not enough. I'm honestly not trying to sound pretentious here, but at some point the question of artistic merit has to come in to the debate. Try to put aside your fan fervor for a second and think: can you honestly say that any of the films in the Evil Dead franchise can be discussed on the same level as any of the films from the AFI 100 Greatest Films list? As flawed as that list is, when you compare the quality of the script, cinematography, directing or acting of any of those films with any of the Evil Dead films you have to admit that the Evil Dead films really aren't that good.
Would I prefer to watch Army of Darkness over 50% of the films from the AFI list? Hell yeah. But entertainment value alone is not enough to merit "greatest all-time" honours.
Having said all that, I submit the following as an alternative for debate, assuming that it'll get ignored by the narrow-minded Evil Dead-heads (thanks, Causaubon :) and LoTR-ites commenting here - which seems to be 99% of you.
Ingmar Bergman's Faith Trilogy (as posted by PaddyDog):
Through a Glass Darkly
Winter Light
The Silence
and
Hiroshi Inagaki's Samurai Trilogy (as mentioned by Causaubon):
Musashi Miyamoto
Duel at Ichijoji Temple
Duel at Ganryu Island
Posted by: ror$chach at September 12, 2007 8:08 PM
who the FO cares about Bourne, Matt Damon, or the contrived threat they punch and kick their way through. What's wrong children, you didn't feel big enough to defend LOTR and the Bourne Trilogy? Here's a tip: You're not gonna think all this shit as cool when your hormones level off. The more you say with strong consideration will only make you feel stupid, later. Although if you would like to argue Halo as being the best trilogy of all time, I'd be very amused....
Terry Gilliam's trilogy are do not qualify. All of his movies explore those themes; and Tideland makes four specifically- -even if you could exclude 12 Monkeys or Fisher King.
Good List DR, but there is going to be a fourth Bourne Identity anyway. I think all of the major players have retired in the same community rest home, and they are trying to prevent Jason from getting on the christmas committee.
Posted by: Jackseppelin at September 12, 2007 8:15 PM
Ror$chach:
There's a more obvious reason why the Pajiba commenters are bickering between the Evil Dead and LOTR trilogies -- it's the only two they've actually watched that meet Dustin's criteria.
Sadly, many of these "best of" lists tend to fall prey to the same assumption: that which you haven't watched does not exist, unless it exists in some other prominent "best of" list.
Posted by: Colin at September 12, 2007 8:51 PM
Love, love, love this guide! Though I agree with some of the commenters above about the Bourne trilogy not leaving me cold, my love for the Evil Dead trilogy knows no bounds. Not only is it fantastic on film, but without it, perhaps the best celeb-autobiography (If Chins Could Kill) would not have nearly as much to write about. Reading that book makes me appreciate the trilogy even more.
Posted by: charlottelightanddark at September 12, 2007 9:18 PM
I know the villagers are going to come after me with pitch forks but goddamn it I did love the Matrix Trilogies. I'm not enough of a film geek (tho I'm lots of other kind of geek) to say I know what the best trilogy of all time should be but I did love Matrix and it had much more of an impact on filmmaking than the Evil Dead Trilogy (even if I want to have Bruce Campbells baby) ...
Posted by: Maria at September 12, 2007 9:34 PM
Army of Darkness is always and forever my favorite movie. Give me some sugar baby!
Posted by: Muertemaria at September 12, 2007 10:05 PM
This is the truth EVIL DEAD TRILOGY is the greatest of all time . nothing else comes close period . I mean if you want to look at obscure films from the 1920s okay but if you add mass apeall, quality, originality and sheer bad ass appeal it wins hands down .
Posted by: Gilp at September 12, 2007 10:05 PM
Since I started reading Pajiba I've been waiting for 2 things: an Arrested Development elegy and a post about the greatness of Evil Dead. Now I have to wait for the first one.
I still remember back in 2004 when I joined the Internet, lots of people mentioned Bruce Cambpell and since I didn't get the name, I asked around and eventually ended up watching Evil Dead 2 (one of my favorite horror movies)...and I loved every part of it.
Posted by: Radlum at September 12, 2007 10:16 PM
What's wrong with the Back to the Future and Mad Max trilogies? Admittedly each series has at least one slightly below par film in their ranks but I wouldn't call any of them 'unwatchable'. That's a bit hyperbolic.
Posted by: Tenzil at September 12, 2007 10:53 PM
yes. thats all i have to say. i have no disagreement with this at all. this article speaks the truth.
Posted by: jordan at September 12, 2007 11:42 PM
While I'm no fan of LOTR,I didn't find it 'souless'-hurm,no strong reaction towards that trilogy really.bourne however,gets top marks for breathtaking action and excellent direction-but...soul?PLEASE.the third film barely had any plot to it-it was basically,as you described LOTR-run,fight,whatever (this doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the film,however)-nothing substanstial cropped up.I have no idea why you idolize the Bourne series SO GODAMN MUCH (seriously,it's not THAT great)-ok sure i'm a huge fan of greengrass,damon too(& the bourne movies are pretty solid),but to call LOTR overrated & souless,then in turn dish out endless praise to Bourne-I personally find that pretentious,and silly.
Posted by: Daniel at September 12, 2007 11:54 PM
Comparing LoTR to Evil Dead is apples to oranges. LoTR is far superior in every way. This post should be best cult-fave trilogy.
Posted by: Grace at September 13, 2007 12:25 AM
Okay, I enjoy neither LOTR or Evil Dead whatever.....sorry, I know maybe it makes me less a of Pajiban....or Pajibite -- which is it?
idisynchronic -- I too love the Baz Luhrman Red Curtain Trilogy, although I think its more about clever marketing than continuity......and I hadn't heard about Toy Story 3, but I am in agreement that that might be the best trilogy ever.
Posted by: Finn at September 13, 2007 12:47 AM
You can be such a dick sometimes.
Posted by: seth at September 13, 2007 12:59 AM
Ror$chach, I loooooooove Evil Dead the Musical. I picked up the soundtrack a few months ago and it still cracks me up. My favorite songs are "WTF Was That?" and "All the Men in my Life Keep Getting Killed by Canderian Demons".
Posted by: Sheri at September 13, 2007 1:10 AM
Alright, I give up.
It really has degenerated to solely an Evil Dead vs LoTR debate, with any other trilogy brought in to the discussion being summarily ignored by one and all.
Jumping on the bandwagon and showing the rest of the hipster doofuses how much street cred you have is obviously way more important than actually maybe opening your mind to new experiences, or participating in a debate and daring to disagree with the "cool" kids.
I was going to do my best not to sound pretentious but I guess I've failed miserably at that.
If there is anyone that might be interested, I'll repeat my nominations for "Greatest Trilogy":
Ingmar Bergman's Faith Trilogy (as posted by PaddyDog):
Through a Glass Darkly
Winter Light
The Silence
and
Hiroshi Inagaki's Samurai Trilogy (as mentioned by Causaubon):
Musashi Miyamoto
Duel at Ichijoji Temple
Duel at Ganryu Island
By the criteria set by Dustin (which was obviously done in such a way to be able to justify Evil Dead and only this trilogy as "Greatest") the Bergman trilogy doesn't qualify, but Samurai sure as hell does and kicks Evil Dead's ass in all categories. True story.
...and I'm spent.
Posted by: ror$chach at September 13, 2007 5:28 AM
Great article. I was wondering when the follow-up to your "Greatest Movie of My Generation is.... Sister Act" article would arrive and you delivered.
"Greatest Trilogy of All Time... Evil Dead 'Trilogy'" is a worthy companion to "Greatest Movie of My Generation is.... Sister Act"
Posted by: JS at September 13, 2007 6:06 AM
JS, We should all bow down, as we are simply unworthy. You totally nailed it!
Posted by: rudy at September 13, 2007 7:14 AM
I have to say I don't consider Desperado a remake of El Mariachi. In Desperado (SPOILERS AHEAD)....
... it mentions how the women he loves was killed (in El Mariachi), and he also has the injured hand which prevents him playing (again from El Mariachi). Finally the guitar case filled with guns he got in the previous film. Whilst a different actor was used to play the Mariachi I'd say it's more of a continuation/revisitation (is that even a word) than a remake.
And finally I'm gonna have to stick my two pence worth in and nominate The Dollars Trilogy because as far as I'm concerned The Good The Bad & The Ugly is one of the best darn films of all times and it always gets my vote.
Posted by: BlackNike at September 13, 2007 7:23 AM
ror$sach: maybe this thread is a little more "pop culture" than "film school". I voiced my opinion on LOTR because I had an opinion on it, which is what commenting is about, non?
I've seen a few Bergman films which I did not enjoy, so I don't know that I'll be watching the trilogy, but I WILL be queuing up the Inagaki films. They sound superb--so thanks for the recommendation!
Posted by: Kt at September 13, 2007 10:34 AM
for me:
indiana jones
back to the future
lotr
etc...
..never appreciated evil dead...It's good for a couple of laughs but not compelling as a story for me.
Posted by: danr at September 13, 2007 11:43 AM
Considering how some people are stretching the definition of trilogy around here, I can now provide the correct answer.
Roman Polanski's apartment trilogy
Repulsion
The Tenant
Rosemary's Baby
Posted by: Robert at September 13, 2007 11:53 AM
So, basically, you just kept creating rules to eliminate everything that was not Evil Dead.
What you meant to say was...
STAR WARS
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
RETURN OF THE JEDI
...is the greatest Trilogy of all time.
It was a Trilogy at that time, and it continues to be a Trilogy, since the definition of Trilogy is:
"A group of three dramatic or literary works related in subject or theme."
Also, those other "movies" [and I use the term very loosley] where just extended commercials to sell products. Obviously, commercials are not movies.
Posted by: OldSchool at September 13, 2007 2:25 PM
When stacked up against the source material, LOTR is overrated. TBH, I fell asleep during the first movie, and by the time RotK came out, all I wanted was for Tolkein to come back to life and strangle Peter Jackson. God knows someone needs to. And I've said this before, but dammit, who decided that Elijah Wood was an appropriate casting choice? Between the script and Wood's portrayal of Frodo, the whole feel of the character was markedly different from the books. And don't get me started on what they did to Faramir. Jackson is a hack, plain and simple, and the sooner all the fanboys out there admit it, the sooner we can all move on.
As far as the Evil Dead triad is concerned, well, I love me some Ash. While the movies viewed individually really don't stack up, I daresay that you wont find another trilogy that's as consistently entertaining. And the Samurai trilogy: maybe it's just me, but I kinda think that it's not most people's bag. I'm not even going to address the whole El Mariachi debate, because frankly, I think the last film blew so hard that it disqualifies both of the others, and I liked the first two.
Finally, while the first two Indy movies were decent, the last one was even more of a self-parody than EDII. And for those of you who brought up the Back to the Future films, meh.
Note: I didn't address Star Wars, well, because the presence of Mark Hamill tainted the entire thing for me, and he just gets more annoying with repeated viewings. As far as Bergman is concerned, I've only seen 2 of the 3, but c'mon, can you really say that it's the most entertaining and influential trilogy of all time? No.
Posted by: Smokin at September 13, 2007 2:59 PM
Rorschach: Thanks for the support but as you can see no-one is listening. I have no problem with people taking sides over Bourne and LOTR (for my part, I liked them both), but on a site such as Pajiba, I did expect a higher level of debate.
Posted by: PaddyDog at September 13, 2007 3:13 PM
Pet peeve time re "overpraised" and "overrated" as supposedly legitimate words of critical analysis.
the highlight of this review was your spot-on take-down of LoTR. SERIOUSLY, people - I can't think of another set of mainstream movies more weighed down by their own unwarranted sense of self-importance.
Not to pick on Ashers, and somewhat off-topic, but LoTR the novels, as an artistic and cultural event, is a significant thread running through the lives of millions and millions of people. LoTR the literary achievement is probably responsible for as much of our current visual entertainment and artistic endeavor as any other single work of art of the 20th Century.
As such, a sense of importance for the LoTR films was certainly as warranted as any gravitas ever assumed by any piece of cinema. For the first 30+ years of my life, folks complained about no one ever putting the financial resources and artistic care into a cinematic version of the beloved literary masterpiece that is LoTR.
So finally someone did, and the results and reception speak for themselves. The great masses are often wrong about art, literature, and cinema, but in this case they include a huge majority of those who grew up on and loved the source material.
So, some commenters, like Dustin, don't like the LoTR films. That doesn't make the films "overrated," "overpraised," or any other code word people use to imply, "Wow, this thing is really popular, but I don't like it. I couldn't possibly be wrong, so everyone else must be crazy or mistaken."
Just say you don't like it; say why (e.g., the legitimate criticism "run, fight, run, fight . . ."); convince me with your insight. But don't try to skate around the fact that literally millions of reasonably well-educated and non-stupid people sat down, watched all three films (often repeatedly), and said, "That was really good. I really enjoyed that."
LoTR: The best movie trilogy of all time. There, I said it.
Posted by: socalledonlycousins at September 13, 2007 3:20 PM
I can't believe the lack of taste and sophistication revealed in this "best trilogy" thread. Bergman, LOTR, feh. A true connoisseur recognizes only one true trilogy: Naked Gun.
Posted by: Paulitics at September 13, 2007 3:25 PM
Guh, and I can't believe I omitted to mention the 2nd-best trilogy of all time: Metropolitan, Barcelona, and The Last Days of Disco. Thank you, Whit Stillman.
Wash, out.
Posted by: socalledonlycousins at September 13, 2007 3:42 PM
I watched the first Evil Dead movie not too long ago, and didn't see what the fuss was about (although it did help me come to the conclusion that gore + Bruce Campbell = sexaaay, which was a little surprising). From the comments here, though, I should've given the last two movies in the series a chance, which I plan to do in the near future.
Thanks to all of you who mentioned the Samurai trilogy; they sound right up my alley, I'm definitely checking them out soon.
Based on the emotional impact they had on me, my favourite trilogy is either the original Star Wars movies or LoTR. However, if I hadn't read the novels I doubt that LoTR would have had nearly the same impact, so Star Wars, I guess? I need to watch more trilogies.
Posted by: Lisa at September 13, 2007 3:55 PM
I love it when people disagree...and can't understand why not everyone has the same opinion they do.
Gimme some sugar baby!
Posted by: MRod at September 13, 2007 4:58 PM
In addition to being the best trilogy of all time, it spawned the funniest stage production of all time: Evil Dead: The Musical. Nothing beats Ash singing while chopping up Linda's head as a fountain of blood shoots straight into his mouth.
Posted by: Chris at September 13, 2007 8:18 PM
Look, it's clear DR likes the films, but did anyone else get the feeling he was taking the pi$$?
And, 'Daniel at September 12, 2007 11:54 PM' - trying to read your rubbish post fu*ked my afternoon; you are a peanut.
Posted by: Peter G at September 14, 2007 12:14 AM
I'm sorry, but if, after all that, Evil Dead was the only thing left as "The Best Trilogy of All Time", something must very wrong in the early stages. Maybe you should review the initial criteria, because this can't be serious, even if I like the movies.
Too long a text for this particular outcome.
Posted by: gargumma at September 14, 2007 4:09 AM
How can you pick on LOTR for being the same film three times over and then praise Bourne when it has the exact same flaw (though I wouldn't necessarily call it that)? P'shaw. Give me Middle Earth over Matt Damon any day of the week.
Posted by: Amanda at September 14, 2007 8:41 AM
Ultimately I think the main problem with this article is the narrow set of criteria. Why can't someone say Spider-Man was the best trilogy ever, if that's what they really think? Why is the Dollars trilogy disqualified just because they don't tell a unified story? I'd be more interested in an article that allowed every possible interpretation of "trilogy." Why can't we allow From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball?
And since no one else has even mentioned them, I'll just toss these out there:
Days of Being Wild
In the Mood for Love
2046
Posted by: Todd at September 14, 2007 11:00 AM
hey hey HEY! Not everyone who calls this trilogy the BEST EVER MADE is a pretentious, self-loving, trendy for the sake of uncool hipster.
I know. Because I am a wigger.
Posted by: boo at September 14, 2007 11:02 AM
I don't get how people say Bourne expresses no emotion. In the first film he doesn't know who he is and is going on instinct alone. Gradually, he warms up to Marie and at the end when he finds her again...he grins.
After what happens at the beginning of the second movie. He grits his teeth. Runs on instinct, but begins to figure out what type of man he once was. At the end of the movie he makes some amends...and he weeps.
The third movie. His only emotion is determination and you see that in how he carries himself and the line of his jaw. But, obviously, he is a very different person from what you've learned in flashbacks. He isn't even the same person you met at the beginning of Bourne Identity. He evolved.
Viva Bourne for best trilogy. And if there is a fourth...I'll melt.
Posted by: Soso23 at September 14, 2007 11:33 AM
Dustin,
I'll have to agree with mb on this one. This is a piece with an obvious agenda. None of us think the Evil Dead trilogy is bad. In fact, if you read Pajiba, watching Evil Dead II should be up on your list of life changing experiences.
If you made this editorial simply a "guide to what's good for you: Evil Dead trilogy is awesome and everyone should see it 400 times" then that would be one thing. Instead you had to go and make the introduction to your piece about how it's arguably better than any trilogy. That is where you've run into trouble with the readers. That is what most of the comments are about. You don't have to make it into a contest for us to appreciate it.
...
And for argument's sake, if by your logic we assume Indiana Jones 4 does not exist much in the same way we assume Godfather III does not exist, then I say that Indy's whip and jack-hammer punch will kick any trilogy's ass.
Posted by: Mark at September 14, 2007 6:29 PM
after an ode like that to sam raimi and bruce campbell, i can only say:
I LOVE YOU
Posted by: courtney at September 14, 2007 8:26 PM
Akira Kurosawa made a very loose trilogy in
Seven Samurai
Sanjuro
Yojimbo
which were remade respectively as
The Magnificent Seven,
A Fistfull of Dollars and
For A Few Dollars More.
In each Toshiro Mifune played the main character that the viewer identified with but whose name was not known because when he said it, it was obviously false. The "man with no name" was imitated in a number of movies both Japanese and western the most recent one being Layer Cake. In Samurai he was a peasant trying to become a samurai by joining in with a band of ronin hired to defend a village and in the last two he was a world weary ronin both smarter and more lethal than his evil and corrupt adversaries. In all three he left the villages or families he had saved because he realized that there was no room for professional killers in normal society.
Posted by: OscarTamerz at September 14, 2007 9:40 PM
Akira Kurosawa made a very loose trilogy in
Seven Samurai
Sanjuro
Yojimbo
which were remade respectively as
The Magnificent Seven,
A Fistfull of Dollars and
For A Few Dollars More.
In each Toshiro Mifune played the main character that the viewer identified with but whose name was not known because when he said it, it was obviously false. The "man with no name" was imitated in a number of movies both Japanese and western the most recent one being Layer Cake. In Samurai he was a peasant trying to become a samurai by joining in with a band of ronin hired to defend a village and in the last two he was a world weary ronin both smarter and more lethal than his evil and corrupt adversaries. In all three he left the villages or families he had saved because he realized that there was no room for professional killers in normal society.
Posted by: OscarTamerz at September 14, 2007 9:41 PM
I'm tragically late to the party.
The answer is Apu, and I'm not talking about the Simpsons.
Posted by: sansho1 at September 15, 2007 12:31 AM
Well, that guy Mark really hit the nail on the head for me. I LOVE the Evil Dead Trilogy and I have purchased them twice (so far) on remastered vhs & on limited release dvd. But best trilogy ever?...
They're really just crap movies with energy...I dunno...but isn't it just low rent torture porn that you profess to hate?
I fraking love Bruce any way I can get him...but best trilogy ever? And isn't ED 2 really the same movie as ED 1? And isn't it now precluded from your sweepsteaks?
I don't know man. You don't like Peter Jackson...I get it. That's fine. I don't like Michael Bay. You can't tell me that Fratformers or Transformers or whatever it's called is a good movie. But if you look at Evil Dead today it is really just torture porn...isn't it? But It's the torture porn that you grew up with.
And by the way...who gives a fuck about best anything? Doesn't this site make fun of the awards shows? Are you now gonna start slinging your own crap?
What's new from the frathouse, Dustin?
Posted by: seth at September 15, 2007 4:14 AM
Holy f**k. I'm usually not one to make fun of others,but...
socalledonlycousins- I can't believe you actually wrote this:
"Not to pick on Ashers, and somewhat off-topic, but LoTR the novels, as an artistic and cultural event, is a significant thread running through the lives of millions and millions of people. LoTR the literary achievement is probably responsible for as much of our current visual entertainment and artistic endeavor as any other single work of art of the 20th Century.
A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
WTF?! You can't be serious. This is prolly the funniest thing I've ever heard. Nerd takes himself and his favourite bedtime story waaay too seriously.
Posted by: ror$chach at September 15, 2007 10:53 PM
Oh come on Dustin. Surely you, as a Bruce Campbell fan, know that the fourth installment of the ED series will be out in the theaters very soon? "My Name is Bruce"
According to your criteria ED is not a trilogy. You just wanted to do a piece on the Evil Dead. Not that I blame you!
Now admit defeat, ignore the latest schlock from Lucas and declare Star Wars (4 - 6) the best trilogy of all time and be done with it!
;)
All right. All right. Concession made. I wanted to write about Evil Dead and, perhaps, rouse some rabble. Under very lax trilogy rules, I'd still place it third, however -- after Indy and Bourne. LoTR still sucks. - DR
Posted by: Natalie at September 16, 2007 11:42 AM
Evil Dead rocks! Horror movies take themselves way to seriously. Shaun of the Dead is a homage to this very trilogy, I daresay...
Posted by: ph at September 16, 2007 5:43 PM
Natalie - My Name is Bruce is not part of the Evil Dead series. Just wanted to set that straight.
The movie is going to reference the ED series, as he is playing himself and other characters believe that he has Ash's hero qualities (but he's just an actor...dadada). My Name is Bruce stands alone.
Posted by: SarahC7 at September 16, 2007 6:44 PM
i say it's the three colors trilogy, or david lynch's identity trilogy (lost highway, mulholland drive, inland empire) or perhaps bergman's god trilogy (through a glass darkly, winter light, and the silence).
i love the evil dead movies, but come on.
and two things i think dustin is wrong about:
1. my opinion only, but i have always found the first film to be the best
2. according to you criteria, no remakes allowed. as far as i'm concerned, evil dead 2 is a remake.
pause before flaming and consider: i am a fan. i've seen the first one at least ten times and was in the happy, delerious audience (of perhaps 50?) for AoD on opening night. i saw Darkman on opening night as well (zzzzzz) and felt like i'd watched sam grow up from a tadpole when he made the brilliant "a simple plan."
;)
Posted by: matt at September 16, 2007 10:05 PM
Sarah -
You're just trying to get Dustin off the hook. Shame on you!
Posted by: Natalie at September 16, 2007 11:34 PM
Natalie- Oh no no, I'm not trying to get anyone off the hook. Evil Dead 2 is considered a remake. I just wanted to quell any rumors about My Name is Bruce being a forth in the series.
Posted by: SarahC7 at September 17, 2007 10:06 AM
BTF2 is FAR more watchable than the third!
But I agree with the Evil Dead theory.
Posted by: k8uiuc at September 17, 2007 11:32 PM
A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
WTF?! You can't be serious. This is prolly the funniest thing I've ever heard. Nerd takes himself and his favourite bedtime story waaay too seriously.
Wow, ror$chach, that was just awesomely substantive; about what I would expect from a web troll. Any contrary examples, genius?
LoTR is responsible for essentially every fantasy film, book, and game published since the 1950s, and probably 50% responsible for half the sci-fi films, books and games published since then. Any pop culture fan born between 1960 and 1990 is about 80% likely to have had LoTR as a formative influence in his or her fictional reading.
Aside from those genres, any major historical epic made since 1970 would also have been influenced by Tolkien's storytelling guidelines and epic style.
Even people who are unaware that they are influenced by it are influenced by it, as their formative influences were pretty likely to have had Tolkien as a significant inspiration. And at this point, an entirely new generation of people are being influenced by Peter Jackson's works.
But back to the original question: It's easy to deride someone else who considers something carefully and takes a position; I didn't see any contrary argument on your part, Einstein, just an all-caps stream that you "prolly" cut and pasted from someone else's comment.
As for "bedtime stories," I was past Tolkien when you were a crusty itch in your illegitimate father's prison scrubs. The only bedtime story that occupies my time these days is your mom's complaints about what a mistake you were.
Posted by: socalledonlycousins at September 18, 2007 12:28 AM
Seth, low-budget horror flicks =/= torture porn.
Posted by: madamz at September 19, 2007 5:31 PM
Late post... I agree with Rob about The Godfather III. I used to hate it, but if you go back and rewatch it, you realize it isn't that bad. In fact, it's a good movie. It's got great Pacino scenes, the helicopter and the ending with the final murders Michael orders. Take out the "love" story between the cousins (god, I DO still hate that part), and it's a damn good movie.
Posted by: SR at September 21, 2007 7:45 PM
Since I always come late to a thread, I'll likely have the last word.
The greatest film trilogy of all time..... ...
Beastmeaster!!!
"I will call you Kodo and ... hmm Podo!"
Posted by: threadkiller at September 27, 2007 8:08 PM
Since I always come late to a thread, I'll likely have the last word.
The greatest film trilogy of all time..... ...
Beastmeaster!!!
"I will call you Kodo and ... hmm Podo!"
Posted by: threadkiller at September 27, 2007 8:09 PM
I'm so late to this party, but I'm chiming in anyway.
Bruce Campbell himself has spoken, and Evil Dead II is a remake of the first one. At one of Bruce Campbell's Q&A/autograph sessions I attended (geek alert!), someone in the audience asked him whether it was a sequel or a remake, and Bruce responded that after the first movie, Ash wouldn't be stupid enough to spend another weekend at an isolated cabin, and that the second movie is a remake of the first one.
Also, no way will My Name Is Bruce stand alone if you haven't seen the prior movies. It'll make the kind of sense that is ... not. So it's expanding to a quartet upon the release of that movies.
I love the "Evil Dead" movies like whoa, but I just had to chime in. They don't really fit the outlined parameters.
Posted by: SBN at October 16, 2007 8:37 AM
Evil Dead Trilogy = Best Trilogy Ever With The Best Ending To A Trilogy Ever! Hail To The King, Baby!
Also, according to Bruce's book 'If Chins Could Kill', Evil Dead 2 is a sequel. Sam Raimi said it was because some of the actors/actresses didn't want to be associated with it the sequel so they couldn't use past footage, which is why the opening to part 2 shows only him and Linda coming to the cabin. It then starts as the first film finishes, with the spirit coming through the cabin and getting him.
Posted by: Robin at November 27, 2007 4:59 PM
