HEY, WOMAN! ...BRING YOUR PRETTY LITTLE SELF OVER TO MY APARTMENT TONIGHT, AND I'LL SHOW YOU A REAL MAN: Lou W, in the comments:
I'm pretty damn sure [Toy Story 3 is] the best 3rd movie of a series ever.
Here's a decent top ten threequels list, though I don't see any films listed there which involve Richard Pryor as a zany computer geek. Yeah, I think Lou's right.
TS3 may well be the best. I'd put Azkaban and Bourne Ultimatum up there, too, as "movies that were the third and the best in the series," but probably not as "best movies that happened to the third in a series." TS3 falls into the latter category.
I happen to be really fond of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It's better than Temple of Doom. But it's nowhere near Raiders -- then again, nothing is. But it's a worthy threequel.
I would argue that Return of the King is less of a Threequel and more of a continuation. I would argue that mainly because I love it so much, and loved TS3 so much as well that it is hard to decide between the two.
But among the best threequels? That is, I think, a stretch (and I'd vote for Benner's overlooked suggestions ahead of it) - entertaining as it is, it's really not much more than a Raiders reprise, with the addition of Connery.
I think Last Crusade is a better standalone movie than is BttF 3, even with its not recognizing that the right ending was for Connery to become the new grail-protector. A reprise of the best action movie ever is not a bad thing to have.
I think it's fair to say that IJ&tLC is a better standalone than BttF3, but that's because the BttF sequels were very consciously designed to intertwine heavily with, and build upon, and Mobius strip back on, the storylines of each other and the original. The Indy movies just aren't designed that way, though callbacks abound.
Am I the only one who found BttF 3 beyond tedious? And I loved the original and liked the second one reasonably well, and like Mary Steenburgen (even when I have a hard time seeing her as anything but H.G. Wells's girlfriend threatened by Jack the Ripper). BttF 3 seemed to just run the same jokes from the first two (manure dump, etc.) while not adding much, and not working on its own very well.
Now Last Crusade, I find a marvelous standalone movie and an even better threequel. The River Phoenix prequel was genious, and Sean Connery as Indy's dad added so much - the way Indy straightened up and said "Sir!" as soon as his dad called his name, even though his dad had just bonked him over the head with a vase . . . the way Connery was upset, not about Indy's head, but about the shattered Ming vase, then relieved when Indy said he was OK, but really just relieved because the vase was a fake.
Looking at the list, I realized that I kind of thought that both Return of the King and Prisoner of Azkaban are, to me, a bit of a different situation. There, you had a preexisting set of books (one 3 books long, one ultimately 7 books long), as opposed to many other threequels, where the filmmakers are continuing the story from the movies.
I mean, don't get me wrong---if we're defining "threequels" to cover any "third movie in a series," then I definitely think that RotK and PoA should be on there.
I agree with basically every single word Genevieve wrote there, other than I think I liked BttF2 a little more than she did. Otherwise, total co-sign. I absolutely love Last Crusade.
Ditto Genevieve and CW, except that I probably liked BTTF3 less than you both did. Last Crusade is a wonderful film in its own right, and a fabulous redemption after the awful second movie.
Notable omissions from the list: Back to the Future III, Red.
ReplyDeleteI was blown away by that movie. As soon as my Fisher-Price phone showed up, I was in too deep to get out.
ReplyDeleteClubber appreciates the shout-out, fool.
ReplyDeleteTS3 may well be the best. I'd put Azkaban and Bourne Ultimatum up there, too, as "movies that were the third and the best in the series," but probably not as "best movies that happened to the third in a series." TS3 falls into the latter category.
Hard to argue with Army of Darkness being on that list, even if you are a primitive screwhead.
ReplyDeleteI happen to be really fond of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It's better than Temple of Doom. But it's nowhere near Raiders -- then again, nothing is. But it's a worthy threequel.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that Return of the King is less of a Threequel and more of a continuation. I would argue that mainly because I love it so much, and loved TS3 so much as well that it is hard to decide between the two.
ReplyDeleteBut among the best threequels? That is, I think, a stretch (and I'd vote for Benner's overlooked suggestions ahead of it) - entertaining as it is, it's really not much more than a Raiders reprise, with the addition of Connery.
ReplyDeleteI think Last Crusade is a better standalone movie than is BttF 3, even with its not recognizing that the right ending was for Connery to become the new grail-protector. A reprise of the best action movie ever is not a bad thing to have.
ReplyDeleteI think it's fair to say that IJ&tLC is a better standalone than BttF3, but that's because the BttF sequels were very consciously designed to intertwine heavily with, and build upon, and Mobius strip back on, the storylines of each other and the original. The Indy movies just aren't designed that way, though callbacks abound.
ReplyDeleteBttF 3 isn't nearly as woven into its predecessors as 2 is; it's a cute standalone Western with familiar characters.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one who found BttF 3 beyond tedious? And I loved the original and liked the second one reasonably well, and like Mary Steenburgen (even when I have a hard time seeing her as anything but H.G. Wells's girlfriend threatened by Jack the Ripper). BttF 3 seemed to just run the same jokes from the first two (manure dump, etc.) while not adding much, and not working on its own very well.
ReplyDeleteNow Last Crusade, I find a marvelous standalone movie and an even better threequel. The River Phoenix prequel was genious, and Sean Connery as Indy's dad added so much - the way Indy straightened up and said "Sir!" as soon as his dad called his name, even though his dad had just bonked him over the head with a vase . . . the way Connery was upset, not about Indy's head, but about the shattered Ming vase, then relieved when Indy said he was OK, but really just relieved because the vase was a fake.
Second PoA as the best in the series.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the list, I realized that I kind of thought that both Return of the King and Prisoner of Azkaban are, to me, a bit of a different situation. There, you had a preexisting set of books (one 3 books long, one ultimately 7 books long), as opposed to many other threequels, where the filmmakers are continuing the story from the movies.
ReplyDeleteI mean, don't get me wrong---if we're defining "threequels" to cover any "third movie in a series," then I definitely think that RotK and PoA should be on there.
I agree with basically every single word Genevieve wrote there, other than I think I liked BttF2 a little more than she did. Otherwise, total co-sign. I absolutely love Last Crusade.
ReplyDeleteDitto Genevieve and CW, except that I probably liked BTTF3 less than you both did. Last Crusade is a wonderful film in its own right, and a fabulous redemption after the awful second movie.
ReplyDeleteI know that I'm late to the party, but I just saw TS3 tonight and I readily (and happily) admit that haven't cried that much at a movie in ages.
ReplyDelete