Thrill-logy

With the Star Wars Trilogy, I realized that I grew up loving several worthwhile movie trilogies. Excluding the more-than-three franchise movies (example: the James Bond movies, the Star Trek movies), I’ve listed the trilogies that mattered to me and rated them according to: [a] mind (a critical look at the movies) [b] heart (their emotional impact on me). The first answers the question, “Were they great movies?” and the second answers the question, “Did I like/enjoy them?”

And so, may I present The McVie Top 6 Movie Trilogies!

[1] The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy
Rating: mind (4) / heart (5)

When I reached the end of Tolkien’s books, I was deeply saddened. The characters were so real to me that I wanted the tale to go on and on. Peter Jackson and company’s triumph is that I was also saddened when the movies ended. The movies were so fully realized and so engaging, you believed in the story and characters in every single frame. As a filmmaker, Jackson didn’t break new ground with Lord Of The Rings (though he pushed the CGI-character envelope further); his achievement is his singular and consistent vision, combined with a masterful sense of storytelling on a massive and personal scale. That he was able to shepherd three magnificently-crafted mega-movies (check out the extended DVD versions to see just how much effort and film the whole team spent) in a span of several years is his towering triumph.

[2] Star Wars Trilogy
Rating: mind (4) / heart (4)

George Lucas pushed moviemaking and the movie-going experience into hyperspace with Star Wars, a pop phenomenon which, on closer look is a zippy-fun hodgepodge of conventions from other classic movies. But by placing it in outer space and expanding the story further, Lucas was able to craft the Skywalker family saga that at once felt familiar yet was so groundbreaking (remember, most sci-fi movies before then were far too serious from the popcorn level where Star Wars operates.) I remember seeing Star Wars on the big screen in Circle Theater; when the huge Star Destroyer (chasing the smaller Rebel ship) flew across the screen during the opening shot, that image took my—and countless others’—breath away. The first movie was a joyful rollercoaster ride; seen today, the excitement is lessened but the fun and giddy joy is still present. I find The Empire Strikes Back the most complex film of the three, at once technically better and emotionally richer (“I am your father!”) than the first film. Return Of The Jedi suffers greatly because of the Ewoks, a Lucas weakness that will reach its pinnacle with JarJar Binks.

With Episodes 1 to 3 the collective Star Wars will technically not be a trilogy anymore. But I’m treating the whole Skywalker saga as two trilogies; how the first set will end with Episode 3 still remains to be seen. Until then, I will refrain from further Binks-bashing.

[3] Indiana Jones Trilogy
Rating: mind (4) / heart (4)

Raiders Of The Lost Ark is still a hoot to watch; I still marvel at how Spielberg’s staging, pacing, and fluid camera movements were all put to efficient and entertaining use in this Saturday-matinee kind of movie. What’s lost is the sense of excitement and discovery I felt when I first saw them on the big screen. The Last Crusade wisely doesn’t top the first movie’s kinesis; instead, it adds emotional depth—the father-and-son relationship of Indiana and Henry Jones. Temple Of Doom is the black-sheep of the three; darker and more malicious in tone, it also features a Spielberg weakness—kids.

Seen again today, these “fluff piece” movies lose a certain amount of excitement; gone is the giddy pleasure of being surprised for the first time. Once lost, innocence cannot be regained. The joy of watching this trilogy is to revel in the joy of filmmaking and to remember how overwhelming and larger-than-life these movies once were.

[4] The Godfather Trilogy
Rating: mind (5) / heart (3)

Two of the greatest Hollywood movies of all time (Part I would even eclipse Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane in several critics’ list) plus one vanity project. Two towering cinematic achievements and one family picture. Well, to be fair the first two were also family projects—Francis Ford Coppola’s sister and father were also involved in all three movies. But Coppola was critically chastised for casting his daughter Sophia (definitely better behind the camera than in front) to replace Winona Ryder who had to bow out of the cast. Funny thing is the third movie was the very first of the three that I watched in full; it was also the only one I saw on the big screen (when Parts I and II were first released I was too young to be allowed to watch the R-rated films.) And dang it, I loved it! I wasn’t even bothered by Sophia’s limited skills; though her performance wasn’t exceptional, her inexperience gave an innocence that was enamoring. When I saw the other two movies, I realized what amazing achievements Coppola pulled off. But truth to tell Parts I & II are not “fun” movies to watch; the weakest of the three still had the most impact on me. So while I recognize the greatness of the first two Godfathers, collectively the trilogy only comes in fourth place.

[5] Back To The Future Trilogy
Rating: mind (4) / heart (4)

Like the Godfather, the crown jewels in this trilogy are Parts I & II. Part I was an inventive, exciting piece of time-traveling yarn that had was also full of heart. But Part II upped the inventiveness ante by adding another layer of complication on the first movie’s plot; it was the first movie twice-over (but minus its emotional heft). Personally I find Part II one of the most comically inventive movies of all time. The third movie is a step back in time and in quality. It had the “how-do-we-get-back-to-our-time?” plot of the first movie minus the parent angle plus the addition of a tepid love angle for the Professor. In other words, corny.

The reason why Indiana Jones ranks higher than Marty McFly for me is simple: on their own and collectively, the former movies are more fully realized, more consistent in quality and inventiveness. Marty had a great first and second movie—unfortunately, director Robert Zemekis and producer Steven Spielberg really don’t know when to stop.

[6] The Matrix Trilogy
Rating: mind (3) / heart (4)

The first movie, The Matrix, is really the revolutionary one of the three. Bullet-time, for better or for parody, slapped jaded audiences awake from their cinematic stupor. And its video-game-slash-apocalyptic-movie hybrid made Keanu cool, Carrie Ann-Moss a lesbian icon, and the Wachowski Brothers the darling directors of the decade… until they unloaded Reloaded and Revolutions. Thank god for DVD! I only watch the Tea Room fight, the mansion melee (Neo versus goons on a sprawling staircase), the freeway car chase sequence, and the Burly Brawl (Neo versus the Smiths) in Reload, while in Revolutions I only watch… hmmm, the 20-minute attack in Zion is as tedious as it is full of metal, and the Neo-Smith slugfest ala-Dragonball is actually ho-hum.

Much ado has been made about technologies behind the freeway sequence, the Burly Brawl, and the Neo-Smith final battle. But why did these scenes not capture the imagination of the audiences unlike bullet-time? Were the audiences super-jaded by that time? Were the scenes too visually complicated? My theory is simple: at that point in time, the audience didn’t care. In the second and third movies Neo was almost omnipotent; it’s difficult to emotionally connect or care for characters that aren’t in any real danger. Even Neo’s death in the end had no emotional impact on me at all. (Heck, I didn’t even blink when Trinity died.)

Still I’ll give The Matrix its due: when the camera whirled 360+ degrees around Neo as he dodged bullets, for a brief moment, a film was able to visually flip me out the way the opening scene of Star Wars did; for a brief moment, I was a kid staring in wonder at the big screen of Circle Theater.