“Spider-Man 3” (2007)
Franchise: Spider-Man
How Threequel-y Was It: Where to begin with Sam Raimi‘s “Spider-Man 3? And what to say that hasn’t already been said by hordes of disappointed geeks? “Spider-Man 2” ably balanced character-driven drama with effects-driven action (see the subway showdown between Tobey Maguire‘s Spidey and Alfred Molina‘s Doc Ock for the perfect melding of the two in a single scene), but “Spider-Man 3” tried to cram way too much into its two-plus hours. Instead of one stellar villain as its predecessors had, “3” takes its title too literally and offers a trio of sub-par baddies in the form of Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), Venom (Topher Grace) and Harry Osborn (James Franco). Adding to all that weight, the dialogue isn’t nearly as much fun as it was in the two previous outings, causing each joke to land with a thud. As if all of that weren’t bad enough, it also features Emo Spidey, Kirsten Dunst singing *and* Bruce Campbell‘s worst cameo in the series, as a French maitre d’. “Spider-Man 3” certainly left things open for “Spider-Man 4,” etc., but creative issues and multiple script rewrites of the fourth installment ensured that they wouldn’t make Sony‘s release date. Raimi and the cast pulled out, making room for Marc Webb‘s reboot “The Amazing Spider-Man” in 2012. That one is gearing up for its second outing now, so only time will tell if it can get to, or perhaps beyond, Raimi’s tally of three.
Where does it rate in its franchise (to that date): 3/3 Worst.
“Superman III” (1983)
Franchise: Superman
How Threequel-y Was It: Richard Donner promoted “verisimilitude” in his directed portions of the “Superman” series. But Richard Lester, who directed portions of “Superman II,” including a few comic bits, was seen as the future of the franchise. What resulted was a clash of two brands, “Superman” and Richard Pryor, the comic legend who was utilized in a dubious fashion to provide needless merrymaking as a contrast to Christopher Reeve‘s earnestness in the title role, something that clearly the execs thought would not be enough of a draw on its own. While the first films have a timelessness to them, this picture’s threat of computers spelling our doom is definitely a product of eighties genre filmmaking, right down to the horrific and completely inexplicable robot lady threat of the third act. Even the villain leaves much to be desired: without Gene Hackman‘s grizzled Lex Luthor, the story pivots on the machinations of Ross Webster, an apparent last-minute addition in place of Brainiac (an idea nixed by the studio) that simply repeated the irritated-billionaire-villain routine that we’d seen in the last two films. The jokes don’t land, the action doesn’t work, and “Superman III” ends up being a typical threequel, over-stuffed with plot lines, like the subplot involving Clark returning back home to Smallville and reuniting with a childhood sweetheart, which is rendered an afterthought by Pryor’s dubious PG-rated shucking-and-jiving.
Where does it rate in its franchise (to that date)? 3/3 Worst. At least until “Superman IV: The Quest For Peace.”
“X-Men: The Last Stand” (2006)
Franchise: X-Men
How Threequel-y Was It: One of probably many films literally hate-fucked into existence, this franchise extension, teased at the end of “X2: X-Men United,” was the product of Fox utilizing an accelerated shooting schedule and an orgy of completed scripts in order to beat Bryan Singer‘s “Superman Returns” to the big screen. They didn’t have a director, script or cast when they started promoting the release date, a good two months before “Superman Returns,” which meant they eventually had to approach Brett Ratner, the Guy Fieri of directing, to bring back the merry mutants. What resulted was even more busy than the usual threequel, with Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) resurrected as the Phoenix, Magneto (Ian McKellen, pimpin’) joining up with underground mutant Morlocks, and a weaponized cure to turn our heroes into regular citizens. The first two films had a distinct sexuality, while this one features a cuckolded Rogue (Anna Paquin) trying to get her cheating man back by taking the cure, a de-powered Mystique (Rebecca Romijn) somehow going turncoat on best friend Magneto, and a Phoenix that is so hyper-sexual it turns off horndog Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) until she finally has to be put down by his claw. Along with kooky gender politics, there was also the needless deaths of several characters, the suggestion being that this installment would change everything, despite those deaths immediately being called into question before the end of the film. Just in case.
Where does it rate in the franchise (to that date)? 3/3 Worst, though slightly more competent than “X-Men Origins: Wolverine.”
“Ocean’s Thirteen” (2007)
Franchise: Ocean’s Eleven.
How Threequel-y Was It: While the first two films had style and wit to spare, they were open acknowledgements that director Steven Soderbergh took these as a paycheck in order to fuel his independent experiments, and by the third film, no one was in doubt that this was just for the money. But as far as threequels go, this one isn’t bad, still suffused with the bright colors and sexy movie-star glamor that made the first two cable favorites. And while almost literally every side character from the first two films is back, the picture never feels bloated or overly complex, defaulting to that boozy, laid-back vibe provided by George Clooney and Brad Pitt in the leads. But there’s certainly no tension here: the crew unite to take revenge for ailing buddy Elliot Gould after his casino is shut down by villain Al Pacino. But Pacino is decidedly dialed-down as the baddie, and driving him to financial ruin doesn’t have the same feeling as it did knocking off Andy Garcia‘s sniveling jerk in the first two films. Moreover, Gould casually mentions his casino being eliminated by Garcia in the first film; why repurpose one minor motivation for the first film, and turn it into the major, and only, driving force in the third? This merely cemented the feeling that the gang was simply in it for the cash this time around.
Where does it rate in the franchise: 3/3 Worst, though they’re all around the same level.
“Rocky III” (1982)
Franchise: Rocky
How Threequel-y Was It: This was the point where Sylvester Stallone was the biggest star in the galaxy, and the line separating star and character had almost vanished. Taking on directing duties for this installment, Stallone tells you everything you need to know in an opening montage that rivals Eisenstein. Glimpsed are sequences of Stallone-as-Rocky (and possibly Stallone-as-himself repurposed for “Rocky III“) filming advertisements and appearing on kids’ shows, Rocky enjoying the spoils of fame as he makes sweet love to wife Adrian (Talia Shire). Meanwhile, a new challenger is rising, and in snippets we glimpse supervillain Clubber Lang (a peerless Mr. T) laying waste to his opponents, loudly crowing about his desire to dismantle the Italian Stallion in the ring. The sheer force of Lang’s jabs seem to almost rattle the frame, dislodging the domestic bliss of Rocky and Adrian, as Survivor‘s “Eye Of The Tiger” wails on the soundtrack like you’re hearing it for the first time (which moviegoers were at the time). The montage closes in on Adrian’s drunk brother Paulie (Burt Young) as he stumbles into an arcade and hurls a flask at a real-life Rocky pinball machine, sending the glass crashing to the floor in slow motion over the credit “Directed by Sylvester Stallone.” Sublime.
Where does it rate in the franchise (to that date): Controversially ranked by Gabe 1/3 but probably 2/3 to everyone else.
probably i\’m alone here, but Rises is the weakest of Nolan\’s Batman trilogy.
And Back to the future 3 might not be perfect, but it\’s so damn entertaining
My apologies for the spam my internet just went on the fritz. Hopefully they get deleted soon.
I have to say that "Return of the King" is my favourite of the Lord of the Rings, and "Dead Man's Chest" left me excited to see "At World's End", which I was quite disappointed with, but I still enjoyed. "Dark Knight Rises" disappointed me, because it lacked the visceral darkness, and intellect of "The Dark Knight", and the excellent pace of "Batman Begins", and my hat goes off to "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" for the performance of Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor, and the consistent "appropriate use of a shotgun." T:3" lacked the character arcs I love so much about the second, which really are what made it for me.
I have to say that "Return of the King" is my favourite of the Lord of the Rings, and "Dead Man's Chest" left me excited to see "At World's End", which I was quite disappointed with, but I still enjoyed. "Dark Knight Rises" disappointed me, because it lacked the visceral darkness, and intellect of "The Dark Knight", and the excellent pace of "Batman Begins", and my hat goes off to "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" for the performance of Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor, and the consistent "appropriate use of a shotgun." T:3" lacked the character arcs I love so much about the second, which really are what made it for me.
I have to say that "Return of the King" is my favourite of the Lord of the Rings, and "Dead Man's Chest" left me excited to see "At World's End", which I was quite disappointed with, but I still enjoyed. "Dark Knight Rises" disappointed me, because it lacked the visceral darkness, and intellect of "The Dark Knight", and the excellent pace of "Batman Begins", and my hat goes off to "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" for the performance of Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor, and the consistent "appropriate use of a shotgun." T:3" lacked the character arcs I love so much about the second, which really are what made it for me.
I have to say that "Return of the King" is my favourite of the Lord of the Rings, and "Dead Man's Chest" left me excited to see "At World's End", which I was quite disappointed with, but I still enjoyed. "Dark Knight Rises" disappointed me, because it lacked the visceral darkness, and intellect of "The Dark Knight", and the excellent pace of "Batman Begins", and my hat goes off to "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" for the performance of Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor, and the consistent "appropriate use of a shotgun." T:3" lacked the character arcs I love so much about the second, which really are what made it for me.
I have to say that "Return of the King" is my favourite of the Lord of the Rings, and "Dead Man's Chest" left me excited to see "At World's End", which I was quite disappointed with, but I still enjoyed. "Dark Knight Rises" disappointed me, because it lacked the visceral darkness, and intellect of "The Dark Knight", and the excellent pace of "Batman Begins", and my hat goes off to "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" for the performance of Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor, and the consistent "appropriate use of a shotgun." T:3" lacked the character arcs I love so much about the second, which really are what made it for me.
This is probably a franchise that most don't think about, but The Transporter 3 might have been the first time I really thought the third installment of a series was outright the best. They are thoroughly dumb movies to be sure, but the whole series is a lot of fun, and the third one really gets it right – enough that I'd love to see a 4th.
Also, Identity might have a much smoother plot, but Ultimatum is still the superior film. It is pure, genius cinema, and cemented the trilogy's influence over the entire action genre.
The muddled and weirdly dark (but still reasonably enjoyable) Back to the Future II and At World's End better than the breezily entertaining Dead Man's Chest and Back to the Future III? Definitely not. Also, John McClane and Samuel L. Jackson chemistry raises Die Hard 3 above 2.
Of the five "threequels" pictured at the top: "Return of the Jedi" (although I'm the only person in the world to prefer it to "Empire") is considered the "bad one" of the original Star Wars Trilogy; "Spider-Man 3" got a lukewarm 63% on Rotten Tomatoes and was basically derided by fans; "The Matrix Revolutions" was despised by critics (36% — even though I personally liked it more than "Reloaded"); "Return of the King" was not a true sequel, because it was the third part of a 9-hour-long film that was all planned out and SHOT in advance, based on the last third-and-a-bit of a single book that had been released 50 years earlier. Of these five, "Iron Man 3" seems to be the only one that critically might (at present we can't tell) outstrip EITHER f its predecessors. But then, like RotK it's also kind of an exception: it's actually the seventh film in a series, four of which had previously featured the character Tony Stark/Iron Man. Going by production/release order, "Iron Man 2" was actually the third film to feature the character, and also the third film in the franchise. In terms of story continuity, the third film in the timeline to feature the character was 2008's "The Incredible Hulk", which was both critically and commercially a disappointment (until "Iron Man 3", which I can only say I LIKE right now, it was my third favourite in the franchise after "The Avengers" and "Thor", though).
Wow. Almost every one of these films got the worst of the series rating, and the few that didn't (Toy Story, Dark Knight Rises etc) should have. I must admit the only real flaw I see is ranking BTTF 3 as the worst. Oh and btw, saw Iron Man 3 last night and it is easily the worst too. Regenerating fire people, really???
TDKR was the worst of the three, by far.
So many of these are wrong.
Jurassic Park III was better than Spielberg's overlong, preachy 2nd film.
Terminator 3 was better than Terminator 2 because it fixed T2's time travel errors and had the balls to end the way T2 should have ended!
FOOLS!
Back to the Future III was the best film in the trilogy!
Glad you liked MI: 3 but the only time I saw it I thought I was watching a soap opera with some action beats thrown in which was why that was the only time I've watched it. I understand trying to give nuance to our action heroes but I greatly preferred the high caliber, over-the-top action that John Woo put on the screen for MI: 2. I may even go so far as to rate the sequel higher than the original because it accomplished in spades what it set out to be much more than 1 and 3 which was fun, summer action movie.
Also, MI: 2 IMO still holds the title for the best hand-to-hand fight in a Hollywood movie between Tom Cruise and Dougray Scott. Great, great action.
Also, Nivola is a terrific actor, and the only reason he didn't "happen" was because Kenneth Branagh's super-ambitious Shakespeare/musical-hybrid 'Love's Labour's Lost' failed at the box office. It's the same reason why Adrian Lester also didn't "happen". The making of a star is the result of MANY FACTORS, not just the actor's talent. So be offended that a rising star took a chance that didn't come off: no one else gives a shit.
"The Bourne Identity is easily the best one of the bunch" That's some ridiculous statement right there. That movie is good, but not even near the greatness of Supremacy. Identity lacked the exciting action and so much more.
'Lethal Weapon 3' might not be the best film in the series, but it is THE GREATEST FILM EVER MADE. Not only does the film an opening titles sequence featuring Fire, Sting and Kamen, but the threequel also features STUART FUCKING WILSON as JACK TRAVIS. Not only does the character have the awesome backstory of a COP GONE ROGUE, but he's pulling THE LATE '80s/EARLY '90S REAL ESTATE SCAM TO END ALL REAL ESTATE SCAMS. Herzog in 'Jack Reacher' had NOTHING on this guy: whether Wilson's shooting JACOB FROM LOST in police stations with ZERO CONSEQUENCES, driving forklifts at people for some reason or sporting the most awesome 'tache this side of Kurt Russell in 'Tombstone' (or Sam Elliot in 'Tombstone' or Bill Paxton in 'Tombstone' or EVERYONE IN 'TOMBSTONE'), Wilson is THE MAN. Nothing stops this guy.
Two Towers is the weak link in LOTR. Yes, Helm's Deep is the action pinnacle of the trilogy, but the rest of the film is filled with an inordinate amount of filler and bloat. From Aragorn's love triangle to superfluous warg attacks to the interminable Entmoot that ends with the Ents pussing out then being tricked into war by a hobbit trick that doesn't make one iota of sense, Two Towers is the entry most in need of some judicious trimming. It also committed the unforgivable sin of turning valiant warrior Gimli into Jar Jar Binks, with a lame, sophomoric slob / height / clumsy / hermaphrodite / out-of-shape joke virtually every time he's onscreen. ROTK may need 3 fewer endings, but on the whole it's a tighter, better film.
The Matrix Revolutions is the biggest, giant steaming turd of a threequel ever made. Fact.
Return of the Jedi is, in terms of sheer let down, the worst film I have ever seen. The new films are nearly as bad, but at least if you knew nothing about them whatsoever and heard only the vaguest outline of what the story might be, they could sound promising. But no matter how you slice it, Jedi is an utter mess, missing every single cue set up in Empire, and collapsing into a repetitive, grating, pointless hash.
I agree that Prizoner of Azkaban is by far the best film in the franchise, but…you should've mentioned David Thewlis's performance. His Lupin is the heart and soul of that movie.
Ocean's 13 is in my opinion way better than 12, and Die Hard 3 is much better than 2, and I have no idea why I'm wasting my time stating this. Stuck in the office. Nothing else to do, but nerd rant, I suppose.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Last Crusade over Temple of Doom? Surely you jest.
This weekend? Hasn't Iron Man 3 already made about $300m?
Michael Caine took his Bahamas holiday for Jaws 4, not 3.
… Well, I hope the next Tron will be as least as cool as Legacy… ##dream##
YES Rocky III getting the love. Fantastic montage sequence which ends with Rocky & Creed jumping up & down in the ocean. Also a brilliant ending, the fight we don't get to see.