Movies That Were A Sad Low End To A Trilogy

It's often said that a bad sequel can never truly diminish the quality of its predecessor — a great movie should stand on its own no matter how good or bad the follow-up may be. And that may be true to some extent, but when it comes to trilogies, an awful third film can suck a lot of the air out of the room. In some cases, where the second film was even better, it turns what could otherwise have been an absolute classic series into a letdown. In other cases, such as where the second film was a disappointment and the third couldn't redeem it, it makes a mockery of the first film's greatness. In the end, a bad third film, regardless of how good or bad the first two were, leaves audiences upset to think what could have been.

Over the years many trilogy enders have been revisited and scrutinized more with fresh eyes, like the much maligned "The Godfather Part III" that has seen renewed appreciation with a recent director's cut. But some third and final movie chapters have only gotten worse with age, and will forever be held as the disappointing, limp endings to their trilogies — sequels that took a good movie series and brought it to a sad, lowly conclusion.

We've sifted through the annals of film history, and put together a list of films that ended trilogies on the worst possible note.

"Beverly Hills Cop" is remembered even today as one of the greatest action comedies of all time. It grossed a whopping $316 million worldwide (about $621 million adjusted for inflation), and so a series of sequels was immediately drawn up. The first followup, "Beverly Hills Cop II" met with mixed reviews, but was nearly as big of a financial success as the first film, so of course Paramount wanted to plow ahead with a third installment. Murphy wasn't sold on the idea however, telling Rolling Stone in 1989, "There's no reason to do it. I don't need the money and it's not gonna break any new ground. ... The only reason to do a "Cop III" is to beat the bank, and Paramount ain't gonna write me no check as big as I want to do something like that. In fact, if I do a "Cop III," you can safely say, 'Ooh, he must have got a lot of money!'"

Well the studio apparently backed up the Brinks truck because Murphy returned in 1994 (his paycheck topped $15 million, per Entertainment Weekly). Unfortunately, what audiences were treated to was a movie that Empire wrote "manages to be at once boring and make no sense whatsoever. To put it mildly, utter tosh." Audiences were equally unimpressed, and the film flopped at the box office. Perhaps Paramount should have listened to Murphy before making him an offer he couldn't refuse.

"Major League" was an irreverent, almost slapstick comedy, and a classic '80s misfit sports team movie. A perfect blend of "Bull Durham" and "The Bad News Bears," it was a madcap caper about a wayward baseball team that comes together to win the big game, with the added twist that their own management was betting against them. The sequel, which brought back stars Charlie Sheen, Corbin Bernsen, and Tom Berenger, was met with harsh reviews, with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 5% and a consensus that calls it a "lazy sequel." 

When it came time for a third film in the series, Sheen and Berenger knew better and stayed far away, but Bernsen returned, with "Quantum Leap" star Scott Bakula in tow. We'd call it a "cash grab" but the previous film hadn't exactly been a big money maker. With a mostly new cast headlined by an out-of-work TV star and a stale premise, it lacked all the charm of the original, and as a second sequel, offered nothing new or unique. Instead of feeling like a blockbuster motion picture, it comes off more like a sad backdoor pilot to a TV series that never happened.

"Meet the Parents" was a huge surprise comedy hit for Ben Stiller in 2000, taking in over $300 million on a relatively modest $55 million budget. It earned positive reviews that praised the film's humor and heart, as well as its strong cast that included Robert DeNiro, Blythe Danner, and Owen Wilson. The sequel, "Meet the Fockers," was met with a lot less enthusiasm, but outdid its predecessor at the ticket counter, while adding Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand to the series.

But even after the relatively cold reception to "Meet the Fockers," the second sequel, "Little Fockers" went ahead. The studio may not have any regrets since it almost equaled the first film's box office take, but it got an even worse response than the second film. Doubling down, the series added even more big names like Jessica Alba, Laura Dern, and Harvey Keitel, but that didn't  make it any better. The film has the dubious honor of being nominated for three Razzies, with both Barbra Streisand and Jessica Alba dueling it out for Worst Supporting Actress (Alba would take home the trophy). The film is filled with so many childish sight gags and endless puerile potty humor, it feels like a movie aimed at toddlers. Running on empty by its third entry, not even a cast of Academy Award winners could save it.

It's rare that a comedy earns massive box office bucks, but in 2009 "The Hangover" certainly did just that, while raising the bar for raunchy dark comedies at the same time. It's understandable that Warner Bros. would want to capitalize off its huge profit margins and give the audience more of what it seemed to really like. But the first sequel, "The Hangover Part II," disappointed fans and critics. Yet plans for a third film in the series were underway even before the release of "The Hangover Part II," which could account for some of the problems in the threequel. 

Reviewers hated the movie, critical of its even darker tone, with Time calling it "aggressively nasty," in contrast to the simple black comedy of the first two movies in the series. Critics called out its rehashing of old ideas rather than trying something fresh with the brilliant cast, while Business Insider wrote that it was the "unfunniest of the trilogy." Even star Ed Helms seems to have acknowledged that "The Hangover Part III" was a bust, telling US Weekly that there was no chance of a fourth film because the series had "ran its course." 

Perhaps "The Matrix Redemption" would be a better title for the upcoming relaunch of "The Matrix" trilogy, because we're hoping the new film will redeem the utter mess that was given to us in 2003's "The Matrix Revolutions." The third film was an underwhelming final bow for the original trilogy. The Wachowski's overpromised and spectacularly underdelivered, with dull action sequences and neutered villains that had seemed so terrifying in the earlier films. Overloaded with expository philosophy and religious symbolism that would have been better served as subtle allegory, the film, put succinctly, was a flaccid conclusion that hobbled to the finish line.

Warner Bros. choice to film "Revolutions" back-to-back with "The Matrix Reloaded" may have seemed like a shrewd cost-saving measure at the time, but the decision was ultimately part of its downfall. Working on them at the same time prevented the filmmakers from refocusing and fixing issues that audiences had with the first sequel, something that successful trilogies like "Indiana Jones" or even the "Star Wars" prequels had been smart to do. Releasing both in the same year was an even worse decision, as movie-goers had soured after "Reloaded" and weren't ready to head right back to theaters barely six months later.

 What it all boils down to is put best in a review from Rolling Stone, which bluntly opens with "'The Matrix Revolutions' sucks."

There's no beating around the bush here: "Robocop 3" took one of the best, most beloved '80s action films, and spat out a watered-down, nonsensical mess of haphazard schlock. After the disappointing "Robocop 2," the third film had the chance to redeem the trilogy, but instead fell flat on its face. Empire said it best: "For what was a promising debut, ['Robocop's'] reputation was quickly tarnished with the drivel such as this that followed." 

It's hard to even put into words how low this threequel sank and how pathetic it truly is in comparison to its towering first entry (so low that even original Robocop Peter Weller refused to return). The film lacks all of the intensity, unrelenting violence, and political allegory that made "Robocop" a hit and instead devolved into a cartoonish farce. 

The film actually boasts an interesting starting premise (evil corporation attempts to buy the entire city of Detroit), but completely undercuts it by regressing to old tropes and kid-friendly gimmicks. What's more, director Frank Dekker had the impossible task of somehow recapturing the magic of the classic first film within the confines of a PG-13 rating. Ultimately what we got came across more like one of the "Robocop" copycats introduced by OCP in the original movie: a weak, ineffective, ugly imitation of the real thing, that barely got off the ground before collapsing under its own weight and being put out of its misery.