Most Consistent Trilogy

[CollinPhillips]

In terms of quality, style, and enjoyability, which film trilogy do you find to be the most consistent? I am of the opinion that it would be the Underworld trilogy in that all three films are equally horrible.

[Jan Mattys]

I wouldn't underestimate the Blade trilogy, either...
(as in "it was consistently horrible")

[Zom B]

Would it count to say the Oceans n movies went consistently downhill from the first?

[Redpieper]

I'd say The Lord of the Rings movies were all pretty good.
The old Star Wars trilogy as well. (except Ewoks, damn teddy's :smallmad:)
Oh oh and the Evil Dead trilogy! :smallcool:

[Boo]

Hey, the first one was pretty good. The next two... they don't exist. Same goes for Underworld...okay, no. That series was bad.

Shrek had two good movies, and the third was crap.
The Mummy gradually went from fun to "AUGH!".

I'd say the original Star Wars trilogy was pretty damn good and consistent. Nothing else comes to mind.

When the next Twilight film comes up we can talk about how that trilogy is bad.

[Optimystik]

Probably Back to the Future for me - they were all interesting and quite varied. Though I'm sure I'll come up with a better one, given some time to think.

I also kind of liked the Alien trilogy, though I understand I may be in the minority on that one.



When the next Twilight film comes up we can burn it with fire like the rest and never look back

Fixed that for you

[golentan]

I also kind of liked the Alien trilogy, though I understand I may be in the minority on that one.

Trilogy? They only ever made 2. *Plugs ears* LALALALA, I can't hear anything else you say on the matter, LALALALALALAAAAAAAAAA....

Going to put in a plug for Pirates of the Carribean. It's pretty consistent, and Johnny Depp as Cap'n Jack Sparrow never gets old.

I'd say Indiana Jones, but the Temple of Doom was weak and there are 4 now...

[Oregano]

The man with no name Trilogy is pretty consistent I'd say.

[YorickBrown]

Indiana Jones Triology... yes, Temple of Doom is definitely a dip in consistency between Ark & Crusade but it's still a C+/B-

Alien/Aliens/Alien3 is a good trilogy too

edit: oh, and Nolan's Batman Trilogy is going to OWN



Going to put in a plug for Pirates of the Carribean. It's pretty consistent, and Johnny Depp as Cap'n Jack Sparrow never gets old.

FALSE!!!

[Optimystik]

*slaps forehead*

I knew there was one I was forgetting - how could I have omitted Indiana Jones? Yes, that is definitely one of my favorite trilogies.

[Grumman]

Using "Movies I Watch Repeatedly" as a metric, only Blade qualifies. I don't like Back to the Future II, Alien3 or X-Men 3 enough to rewatch them.

[Optimystik]

X-men 3 was awful.

Awful.

[YorickBrown]

X-men 3 was awful.

Awful.

can't believe Bryan Singer left the franchise to make that POS Superman movie

[JonestheSpy]

The most consistent trilogy I know of is the Mad Max series. All great films (I actually like each successive movie better than the preceding), and they cover a great arc of history, showing civilization fall apart and then beginning to claw its way back up again.

By reputation, lots of folks say the Godfather series holds up very well, but I haven't seen it.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with a lot of the others mentioned.

The first Star wars trilogy took a pretty big nosedive with Return of the Jedi, in my opinion. None of the Indiana Jones sequels were anywhere near the quality of Raiders. Alien 3 was decent enough in and of itself, but I was so pissed off at what was to me its total betrayal of the second movie that I couldn't enjoy it - to me, the series ended with Aliens. And tragically, I thought Jackson's LOTR movies also dropped off steeply, Fellowship absolutely blowing me away, and Return of the King being terribly disappointing.

And not a trilogy, but the Harry Potter series has been pretty consistently decent throughout, actually getting better after the first couple. Not great, but decent.

[comicshorse]

You know there were 4 Alien movies ( and I liked all of 'em, so there )

[WalkingTarget]

By reputation, lots of folks say the Godfather series holds up very well, but I haven't seen it.

First two were excellent. The third was... ok at best (and a severe letdown after the first two).


You know there were 4 Alien movies ( and I liked all of 'em, so there )

I liked them too (4 was a letdown at the end, but a good chunk of it was solid), but the feel from one movie to the next was inconsistent (especially the jump from the atmospheric horror of the first to the action horror of the second, IMO).

[Otogi]

can't believe Bryan Singer left the franchise to make that actually pretty alright Superman movie

O hai, I fix for u :smallbiggrin:

[Tirian]

By reputation, lots of folks say the Godfather series holds up very well, but I haven't seen it.

Heh, nobody sane says that. The first two movies won back-to-back Oscars and highly deserved them. The third movie was ... well, it's clearly much worse than the predecessors, but it probably would have slid past the critics if it hadn't been called Godfather III. It's like when I say that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the second-worst Indiana Jones movie; there are a million movies that wish that they were deserved that kind of praise.

I agree that Back to the Future was a fine trilogy even though the middle sagged a little bit, and I feel like Lord of the Rings stayed solid for the entire run. To throw in another idea, I wonder if people would agree that the first three Bond movies were consistent in quality, even if the remainder have been a total roller coaster.

And just because I like the sound of my own voice, I'll also mention Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, and Key Largo. Not a trilogy in the sense of telling a continuing story, but three excellent movies with a lot of cast in common.

[chiasaur11]

O hai, I fix for u :smallbiggrin:

As Luthor said...

WRONG!

It was pretty much not good.

[Wreckingrocc]

Going to put in a plug for Pirates of the Carribean. It's pretty consistent, and Johnny Depp as Cap'n Jack Sparrow never gets old.Uhh, what? The first was terrific, the second had no character (In the sense that it was bland) and just acted as a bridge to set up the third, and the third was gimmicks-galore. Such a pity the second two had to pave the way for the atrocity that was Indiana Jones KotCS, too...

[Dienekes]

By reputation, lots of folks say the Godfather series holds up very well, but I haven't seen it.

Let's put it this way. Godfather 1 and 2 are possibly my two favorite movies, Godfather 3 is the only movie I have ever fallen asleep during.

But really man, go watch the first two.

[Seraph]

the atrocity that was Indiana Jones KotCS, too...

calling KotKS an atrocity is like calling a broken finger a life-shattering disability.

[golentan]

I stand by my Pirates claim. Sans Sparrow, yes, they're flat, sad, gimmick movies. With Sparrow I never tire of watching them. He is a magnificent, flirtatious rogue who specializes in derailing the sanity of anything he's around without becoming absurd for it's own sake, and with so much ambiguity and so many possible interpretations that I never. Tire. Of watching.

[Kneenibble]

I've only seen the first Pirates of the Caribbean, but Johnny Depp's work is absolutely the gem in that ring.


And just because I like the sound of my own voice, I'll also mention Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, and Key Largo. Not a trilogy in the sense of telling a continuing story, but three excellent movies with a lot of cast in common.

I can stand behind that suggestion! Key Largo is not so well known as the other two, sure, but it's hard to think of one Bogart et alii film without the rest. Although (as fantastic as it is) I might suggest The Big Sleep instead of Casablanca for thematic continuity... even though Key Largo isn't exactly detectivey, it's more detectivey than Casablanca.

[Killer Angel]

The Bourne trilogy is pretty good and with an acceptable consistency in quality.

Obviously, i agree with the original SW.

[UncleWolf]

The man with no name Trilogy is pretty consistent I'd say.

You're talking about A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, right? If so, then yeah, I agree. Each one is utterly fantastic, and personally, my favorite Clint Eastwood films other than Pale Rider(For those of you who don't know, he's a preacher and beats up a bunch of hooligans with an axe handle :smallbiggrin:).

[WalkingTarget]

You're talking about A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, right? If so, then yeah, I agree. Each one is utterly fantastic, and personally, my favorite Clint Eastwood films other than Pale Rider(For those of you who don't know, he's a preacher and beats up a bunch of hooligans with an axe handle :smallbiggrin:).

"Nothing like a good piece of hickory." :smallamused:

They're good great films. They have similar themes along with a shared director and star, but it's debatable whether they're about the same character (at least, he's referred to by different names in all three and kills Lee Van Cleef twice).

[UncleWolf]

"Nothing like a good piece of hickory." :smallamused:


They're good great films. They have similar themes along with a shared director and star, but it's debatable whether they're about the same character (at least, he's referred to by different names in all three and kills Lee Van Cleef twice).

Best. Line. Ever. :smallbiggrin:

My understanding of it is that he's Death in each part of the trilogy and that in For a Few Dollars More, Lee Van Cleef is Vengeance. And the three different names are all just generic ones. Blondie(for the blond hair in G.B.U), Manco (meaning One Armed in Fistful), and Joe( which is just a name to call any unknown guy, For a Few Dollars More). And yeah, I know wikipedia says this, but I heard it from my grandfather who is a big Eastwood fan.

Now, as for other Trilogies, it's a pity they never made any sequels to The Matrix. As for the Aliens series, it's odd because it goes Alien, Aliens and then to Aliens: Resurrection.

In regards to Back to the Future, the first and third were great, but the second one is painful for me to watch.

And finally, for Underworld, the first was pretty good, the second not nearly so, but I could understand why they made it, and as for the third...

Lets say the only reason I watch the movie is to see vampires running and screaming like little girls before being torn to shreds by werewolves. :smallbiggrin:

[bosssmiley]

Terry Gilliam's 'ages of man' fantasy triptych (Time Bandits, Brazil, Baron Munchhausen). Each of those films is a jewel by itself, but each also echoes, comments on and subverts the others. :smallcool:

[Shyftir]

Bourne Trilogy was really good. Then I read the books. (The ones actually by Ludlum.) Now I can't watch Bourne without thinking, "The guy in the books would eat this guy for lunch."

As for LotR, the first one was so amazing because we'd never seen anything like it before. By the time the third on was out, we were used to the style, also they changed more details as the series went on, most of which involved removing/changing some of my favorite characters. That said, I'd still do the marathon.

As for KotCS, dude, Indiana Jones movies are about crazy fun action stories built around creepy old ruins and strange supernatural events. and "Snakes! Why'd it have to be Snakes." KotCS delivered that to me. Sure there are some utterly ridiculous things that happen, but seriously a guy reaching into somebodies chest and puling out another guys still beating heart? you let that pass and you think ducking into a fridge and surviving a nuclear test is far-fetched?

If they make another Transformers movie I'll bet on it being pretty consistent. Horrible plot. Mediocre acting. Awesome giant robots beating the everloving crap out of each other.

BTW, yeah some more Matrix movies would have been awesome. That short flick anime tie-in was after all.

[Jerthanis]

Now, as for other Trilogies, it's a pity they never made any sequels to The Matrix. As for the Aliens series, it's odd because it goes Alien, Aliens and then to Aliens: Resurrection.

Oddly, Alien 3 was my second favorite of the series. It's the slow, creeping hopelessness that pervades the movie that does it for me. Themes of hope and faith juxtaposed with hopelessness, sacrifice and human frailty. I thought it had a lot more to say than Alien.

It uh... also had bald Sigourney Weaver.

It was Alien Ressurection that I would strike from existence, but even that with less force than some others would.

[WalkingTarget]

My understanding of it is that he's Death in each part of the trilogy and that in For a Few Dollars More, Lee Van Cleef is Vengeance. And the three different names are all just generic ones. Blondie(for the blond hair in G.B.U), Manco (meaning One Armed in Fistful), and Joe( which is just a name to call any unknown guy, For a Few Dollars More). And yeah, I know wikipedia says this, but I heard it from my grandfather who is a big Eastwood fan.

Hmm, an interesting theory about Death. Like I said, it's debatable (though you have Joe and Manco listed for the wrong movies). :smalltongue:


In regards to Back to the Future, the first and third were great, but the second one is painful for me to watch.


I thought the Future parts of Part II weren't very good, but I quite enjoyed the parts where he had to sneak around behind the scenes of the first film.

"He's in a '46 Ford, we're in a DeLorean. He'd rip through us like we were tinfoil." :smallbiggrin:

[truemane]

My understanding of it is that he's Death in each part of the trilogy and that in For a Few Dollars More, Lee Van Cleef is Vengeance. And the three different names are all just generic ones.

The Dollars Trilogy ("Man with No Name Trilogy") was made by an untested director starring two actors who couldn't get work in Hollywood on a shoe-string budget in an operation so shady and shaky that Eastwood's agent begged him not to do it.

And without the benefit of hindsight anyone would agree. It just so happened that Leone was a genius and it just so happened that Eastwood was practically made for the big screen and the story just happened to reinvent the most Western of genres (the Western!) just in time for a generation tired of heroes to take it up and use it to change the cinema forever.

Had any piece of that puzzle been missing, there would have been no trilogy, no Leone, no Eastwood, no Man With No Name.

Which is all fancy way of saying that I don't think the series has any deep resonance beyond 'gotta make this work before the money runs out.'

Also, the stories for Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More were 'borrowed' (essentially cut-and-pasted) from the Kurosawa films Yojimbo and Sanjuro. You ever want to have an entertaining afternoon, watch them all in a row.

Anyway, in each film the main character is asked his name and in Yojimbo he says 'Thirty-year Old Mulberry Field' while he's staring out a window at some Mulberries and 'Thirty year-old Camellia Tree' in the second ("But I'm almost 40").

So the application of the differing generic names to the recognizable archetype is part of the game.

I mean, I'm not Leone, so I don't know. But personally I don't think he intended the guy to be Death. Just awesome.

[Killer Angel]

Can we say that the Die Hard trilogy, has a trend similar to Indiana Jones'?
A very good trilogy, both with the second movie slightly interior to the others, then a significative gap of years, and a fourth film, funny but "meh" respect to the first three.

[WalkingTarget]

Also, the stories for Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More were 'borrowed' (essentially cut-and-pasted) from the Kurosawa films Yojimbo and Sanjuro. You ever want to have an entertaining afternoon, watch them all in a row.

And there's and argument to be made that Kurosawa was inspired by the works of Dashiell Hammett (The Glass Key and/or Red Harvest). What goes around comes around. :smalltongue:

Good points, though.

[truemane]

And there's and argument to be made that Kurosawa was inspired by the works of Dashiell Hammett (The Glass Key and/or Red Harvest). What goes around comes around. :smalltongue:

Good points, though.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that Kurosawa was working in a vacuum, or that Leone's accomplishement was any less for having been a transposition of earlier ideas (after all, the Joker is just Conrad Veidt's Gwynplaine from the film The Man Who Laughs, but that doesn't make the Joker any worse a character, or Kane any less the writer).

Merely that Kurosawa's 'nameless' samurai employed two different, equally generic names for his movies. And so therefore so did Leone's 'nameless' gunman employ three, equally generic names for his movies.

[Dienekes]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that Kurosawa was working in a vacuum, or that Leone's accomplishement was any less for having been a transposition of earlier ideas (after all, the Joker is just Conrad Veidt's Gwynplaine from the film The Man Who Laughs, but that doesn't make the Joker any worse a character, or Kane any less the writer).

Woh now, slow down. They have the same image. They're not the same in personality in any remote sense of the word.

[Raiki]

Yeah, I was going to mention how cool it would have been to have sequels to The Matrix, but I came to the thread too late.

Too bad that the Wachowski brothers died in that horrible plane crash...y'know the one that killed Anne Rice right after she wrote 'Body Thief' and Harrison Ford right before he was going to shoot some movie about a plane?

There were a lot of other Authors/Actors/Producers with tickets to that plane (Joss Whedon was issued one when he started writing Angel) but not all of them made the flight.

~R~

[CollinPhillips]

Yeah, I was going to mention how cool it would have been to have sequels to The Matrix, but I came to the thread too late.

Too bad that the Wachowski brothers died in that horrible plane crash...y'know the one that killed Anne Rice right after she wrote 'Body Thief' and Harrison Ford right before he was going to shoot some movie about a plane?

There were a lot of other Authors/Actors/Producers with tickets to that plane (Joss Whedon was issued one when he started writing Angel) but not all of them made the flight.

~R~

Plane crashes are not a joking matter.

The problem with The Matrix is that since we've seen The Matrix, Andy and Larry can never recapture the novelty of The Matrix.

Also, what is with all you Reloaded/Revolution deniers?

[Dienekes]

Plane crashes are not a joking matter.

The problem with The Matrix is that since we've seen The Matrix, Andy and Larry can never recapture the novelty of The Matrix.

Also, what is with all you Reloaded/Revolution deniers?

It was bad, so instead of having it mar the great first movie with knowing what comes later it's just easier to believe they never occur.

Happens with a lot of things. You know, like that travesty trilogy that people sometimes try to link with the original Star Wars for some ungodly reason.

And everything can be a joking matter, it all depends on the audience. Whether it's appropriate or not is another matter, and begs the question if jokes are really supposed to be appropriate.

[Gaelbert]

Personally, I've always enjoyed the Blades of Glory-Anchorman-Talladega Nights trilogy. I mean, Anchorman is obviously better than the other two, but that's not saying much. Anchorman is amazing.

[Winthur]

Trilogy? They only ever made 2. *Plugs ears* LALALALA, I can't hear anything else you say on the matter, LALALALALALAAAAAAAAAA....


Pshffff. Alien 3 has a pretty nice atmosphere to it, even though it isn't as good as the first two. Still, it wasn't a bad movie.

Now, if we are talking about Ressurection...

Trilogies, hm? Maybe the "Star Trek Trilogy", as the Star Trek films from Wrath of Khan to Voyage Home are sometimes called?

[Tirian]

Also, what is with all you Reloaded/Revolution deniers?

Eet's a joke (http://xkcd.com/566/).

[snoopy13a]

Lord of the Rings was fairly consistent (and unique) in that they filmed all three at the same time (they did go back and reshoot a few scenes later). Return of the King also won an Oscar while the first two were merely nominated, so it was consistent from a critical standpoint as well.

Personally, even though I'm a Tolkien fan, I'm not a huge fan of the movies. I liked them in the theater but I don't have any of them on DvD nor am I interested in purchasing any.

No mention of the three Spiderman movies? I did like the first two (never saw the third).

[Oregano]

Wow, I completely missed the discussion that sprung off from my comment but yeah I'd consider them a trilogy even if they aren't straight sequels because of the overarching themes and characters(even if they aren't the same people I mean) and of course the actors and directors.

About the whole Kurosawa mention, I think they did acknowledge at some point that a firstful of dollars is an "unofficial" remake of Yojimbo and I'm sure Clint Eastwood said his favourite film is Yojimbo too.

[Lord Seth]

No mention of the three Spiderman movies? I did like the first two (never saw the third).The bolded is probably the reason you don't understand why people aren't calling it a consistent trilogy.

I'll say Lord of the Rings, both book and movie, is the most consistent in quality trilogy I can think of.

[YorickBrown]

and Nolan's Batman Trilogy is going to OWN

needs to be repeated

[The Extinguisher]

Can we say that the Die Hard trilogy, has a trend similar to Indiana Jones'?
A very good trilogy, both with the second movie slightly interior to the others, then a significative gap of years, and a fourth film, funny but "meh" respect to the first three.

I disagree. Die Hard 4.0 was probably one of the best Die Hard films, as long as you watch the unrated version.

[Drakevarg]

Lord of the Rings, definately. It manages to avoid the problem that alot of other "triolgies" have, where the first movie is standalone and the next two are so intertwined they seem more like a single two-part movie than two seperate movies.

I liked the Alien franchise (Resurrection notwithstanding), but I can't call it CONSISTANT because while both of the first two movies were masterpieces in their own right, they're thematically entirely different. An impressive stunt, no doubt, and I will love both 'til the end of time, but they aren't consistant.

The third on was not a BAD movie, but nowhere near as good as the first two. Their failed experiement with CGI is probably a big part of that.

The Star Wars original trilogy was good, too, but also loses brownie points for the problem mentioned with LotR. If the original movie had flopped, narratively it would have been capable of making sense by itself. Then entire conflict that occured within it was wrapped up by the end. If the Empire Strikes Back flopped and they never made a third, it would've been a mess narratively thanks to the dozen or so loose plot threads left hanging.

By comparison, if you stopped making LotR at any point down the line (Fellowship is the only one ever made = Merry and Pippin are still kidnapped, ring isn't destroyed, Sauron's armies are still curbstompping the planet. Series stopped with Two Towers = well, at least Merry and Pippin are safe. But the ring still isn't destroyed, Gollum plans to betray Frodo, and theres still the small matter of the Legions of Doom over yonder.), you'd be left with an unfinished story.

I know that the standalone first movie makes alot of sense financially, since you can't guarantee funding (or audience interest) for three whole movies. However, it also makes the flow of the narrative inconsistant, consistancy being the name of the game in this thread.

Alternatively, if Nolan's third Batman film is like the other two, it will be on my list for "most consistant trilogy" for an entirely different reason. Thing is that while LotR is consistant in the sense that "remove one part and you have an incomplete narrative", while Nolan's trilogy so far has been good in that both of the films have an entire compelling narrative self-contained within them. You can watch the Dark Knight without watching Batman Begins, and it'd still be a great movie.

[GoC]

And everything can be a joking matter, it all depends on the audience. Whether it's appropriate or not is another matter, and begs the question if jokes are really supposed to be appropriate.
And about whether whatever you post is actually said to everyone or just the people in this thread/the person you are quoting/the people on the forum ect.

In general, on the internet assume that people are never trying to offend but are very easily offended.

[Tirian]

edit: oh, and Nolan's Batman Trilogy is going to OWN

It sure will ... in the parallel universe where Heath Ledger survived to make it. In our universe, it will continue the usual superhero formula of two pretty good films followed by an embarrassing hot mess because Nolan lost his story. Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Batman (if you were to pretend that the second movie was "pretty good"). Even the Diniverse Batman movies turned out hit hit miss.

[Moglorosh]

Would it count to say the Oceans n movies went consistently downhill from the first?
No, because the third one was AMAZINGLY better than the second one.

[GeeVee]

For a trilogy to be consistently good, it needs to be envisioned as such from the start. Most aren't, but are instead just two sequels made to capitalize on the success of the original.

My memory fails me as to if the original Star Wars trilogy was conceived like that, but in any case the third doesn't quite have the punch that the previous two have, although it's still close. The Lord of the Rings is as close to a balanced trilogy as it gets for me. For a work envisioned as a singular whole, it works remarkably well cut into three. Both the movies' and the books' way of dividing the story works quite well in terms of pacing. Even in its extended form, the first movie is absolutely gripping (I admit I've yet to see the extended versions of the latter two LotR movies).

[truemane]

For a trilogy to be consistently good, it needs to be envisioned as such from the start. Most aren't, but are instead just two sequels made to capitalize on the success of the original.

Except of course for the Mad Max trilogy, each film developed and conceived as a stand-alone and each film better than the last.

Watch your categoricals.

[Tirian]

My memory fails me as to if the original Star Wars trilogy was conceived like that, but in any case the third doesn't quite have the punch that the previous two have, although it's still close.

Your memory wouldn't help, because Lucas has changed his story on that several times. FWIW, my bet is that he had some very vague senses of how things might progress but the story about having all nine movies mapped out was a great exaggeration. Frex, I think he knew while making A New Hope that Darth Vader was Luke's father, but I don't get the sense that he knew that Leia was his sister. (At least I hope not.) I think it's the normal pattern where the final two movies of the trilogy are written at the same time after the original success.

By contrast, I'd have to imagine that the prequel trilogy was actually sketched out as a single unit because Lucas knew that there was no question about getting all three made.

[Piedmon_Sama]

I liked the Alien franchise (Resurrection notwithstanding), but I can't call it CONSISTANT because while both of the first two movies were masterpieces in their own right, they're thematically entirely different. An impressive stunt, no doubt, and I will love both 'til the end of time, but they aren't consistant.

Having thought about it, the Aliens Trilogy is my answer. I just read somewhere that "Alien 3 is a decent movie, but a bad sequel" and that's pretty much my feeling. The tone, music, and set design were all great, the FX only fail once (the CGI when the alien explodes, it was made in 1992 and... yeah). This is especially true in the Director's Cut, which massively fleshes out the supporting cast of prisoners and makes it a much better film as a result. Unfortunately, killing Newt and Hicks right at the start after everything in the second film was just a terrible decision, and it mars the movie. You have to give David Fincher massive credit; this was his first time directing a feature-length film, and he inherited an enormous mess of a movie with almost no script and massive studio interferance.

I might be bias in the film's favor because I read the novelization as a kid. The aliens trilogy were all adapted by the same writer (Alan Dean Foster) and he managed to give them at least some consistent themes, wrote the characters well and made the story creepy (to my 11-year old self, anyway).

If not those, then the Road Warrior trilogy. Although the first is a no-budget film and in no way related to the second two (except you see how Max injured his leg), and Beyond Thunderdome was way more campy than Road Warrior. The Mariachi/Mexico trilogy deserves a mention, but Once Upon a Time in Mexico was too self-indulgent--you could tell Robert Rodriguez was having a blast, and it was fun to watch the first time, but the third movie doesn't hold up to repeat viewings at all.

[Hyooz]

The Bourne Trilogy, hands down. The second movie was the weakest entry, and it was still a fantastic movie. All three have great pacing, great action, and a great stories that build on each other to make a brilliant trilogy-spanning tale.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Chalk me up in the Batman crew. Yes, Ledger died. But you know what? So far, Chris Nolan has been a brilliant adapter of Batman. He expressly took time off from writing, took a BREAK from writing the movie, didn't even originally commit to writing a third movie, just so he could do a good job of it. The guy cares about the story.

Batman will be an utterly glorious trilogy.

[warty goblin]

Chalk me up in the Batman crew. Yes, Ledger died. But you know what? So far, Chris Nolan has been a brilliant adapter of Batman. He expressly took time off from writing, took a BREAK from writing the movie, didn't even originally commit to writing a third movie, just so he could do a good job of it. The guy cares about the story.

Batman will be an utterly glorious trilogy.

I quite agree. I found the first movie downright soporific, didn't bother to see the second one, and don't care if there's a third. Remarkably consistent performance...

Sorry, I just don't do superheroe movies.