With two of the biggest film trilogies of the modern era wrapping up - The Matrix Revolutions is out now, and Return of the King comes out December 17 - I thought it would be useful to take a look at some of the most important cinematic threesomes in film history. This is because I define "useful" as "useless."

Donut Trilogies: They're empty in the middle
We watched Raiders of the Lost Ark at my house last weekend, and I'm amazed at everything they managed to pack into a relatively short film. The screenwriters pulled out all the stops. Raiders speaks to primordial fears: snakes, spiders, being trapped in dark places and, of course, Nazis. Indiana Jones himself is one of the all-time film icons. He's got a sardonic sense of humor, he mistreats Marian even though he loves her, and he's got a true respect for archaeology. What's especially great about Indy, and what's not mentioned enough, is that he's not fearless. He is, in fact, scared shitless as he takes on the entire Nazi army, but that's no reason to give up. Throw in some exceedingly dangerous stunts, all accomplished without the aid of CGI, keep everything moving at a breakneck pace, and you've got a classic. No wonder they made a sequel.

But what the hell happened with Temple of Doom? It's just not very good. They took the "disgusting creatures" aspect to a whole new level. I think we all know I'm talking about the dinner scene, which is topped in cinema only by the dinner scene in Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The thing is, it's a fine line between terror (giant, furry spiders on one's back) to gross-out tactics (cutting open a snake to reveal more, smaller snakes, and then eating them). Probably the biggest step down from Raiders to Temple is the female lead. As Marian, Karen Allen was a tough broad who is introduced drinking a fat old man under the table. Whereas Kate Capshaw as Willie Scott is a mewling, helpless wench and I root for her death every time she's onscreen. This movie doesn't even have Nazis to keep it honest.

The Last Crusade was almost the equal of the original, fortunately. The Nazis returned, as did the focus on Judeo-Christian iconography. There's also a nifty origin story, and, best of all, Sean Connery as Indy's dad. There's a lot more going on here, character-wise, than in the first two films, and the action is just as good. For years, we've been hearing rumblings of a fourth Indiana Jones film, this time taking place in the 1950s with Indy battling Commies. Spielberg and company would have a lot to live up to.

The Die Hard trilogy is a personal favorite of mine. The original is an exercise in pure tension, as everyman John McClane battles a team of Eurotrash terrorists in an LA highrise. As portrayed by Bruce Willis, McClane is a foulmouthed, blue-collar guy with an unflagging sense of duty. Die Hard is perhaps the film most responsible for the shift from Schwarzenegger-type superheroes to the more realistic action stars of the 1990s. You may remember the film Commando, where Colonel John Matrix single-handedly destroyed an entire army without once taking cover. John McClane, on the other hand, spends the entirety of Die Hard getting his ass beaten into the ground, only barely coming out on top of each battle. It's intense.

Die Hard 2 was the best-reviewed of the three Die Hard films, and in retrospect, I have absolutely no idea why. It blows. The performances are universally awful, but special mention must be made of Art Evans as Chief Engineer Barnes. He delivers all his lines like a news anchor. It's as if he doesn't know what the next word will be until he finishes the one he's on. Throw in a ridiculous subplot involving his wife's plane, slap on the subtitle "Die Harder," and you've got a waste of a movie.

Die Hard with a Vengeance marked the return of director John McTiernan to the franchise, and added some forced racial tension with Samuel L. Jackson as McClane's unwilling sidekick. The first car chase in the series occurs in this movie, and it's one of the best of the 90s, as McClane commandeers a cab and drives it through Central Park. Maybe because the series was in serious danger of growing stale, Die Hard with a Vengeance contains some overt comedy, not to mention McClane beating a German with a chain. Awesome.

Trilogy Most Resembling a Premature Orgasm
The Matrix Trilogy: Admit it. You bought your ticket in advance for The Matrix Reloaded. You probably stood in line to see it. Then, about thirty minutes into it, you started to get that sinking feeling. You felt like one of the four people who doesn't win the Oscar, trying desperately to put a happy face on one of the worst moments of your life. Maybe you even tried to rationalize the movie to yourself. Maybe, after a day or so had passed, you even convinced yourself you liked it.

Did you even see The Matrix Revolutions? I did, but that's because my dad bought me a ticket to see it on Imax. And, to be fair, it was better than Reloaded, but only because the centerpiece, a half-hour long battle sequence involving giant mechs, was one of the coolest things I've ever seen. The rest of it sucked.

What happened? The original was so good. None of us even expected it. "That looks kind of interesting," was the prevailing sentiment around my high school until it was released. And then it was all anyone could talk about. It was appropriate to see this movie at the age of 17, because the whole trilogy has ended up resembling that first awkward sexual experience. It blows your mind almost immediately, and then you realize there's all this other stuff that's supposed to happen, but you're no longer interested.

The Holy Trilogy
I don't think there's anything I can say about Star Wars that hasn't already been said. No matter what side of the fence you come down on regarding the Ewoks, we both know it doesn't get much better than this.

The Unholy Trilogy
Oh, wait, there are these other three Star Wars movies. George Lucas, you're dead to me, and Episode III hasn't even come out yet. I could harp on the myriad awful decisions Lucas made with these films. The lack of chemistry between Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman, for example. Lucas's burning desire to give an origin story to every minor character from Episodes IV-VI. Jar Jar Binks. But I will focus only on one thing that I think sums up everything that's wrong with the latest Star Wars films.

Remember in A New Hope when Luke brought R2D2 and C3PO back to his farm? He pries a tracking device off of R2. The spot where it was attached is clean, whereas the rest of R2's hull is filthy from the desert sand. What attention to detail! Who would ever think to add that touch? That sort of thing is all over the original trilogy. The houses look lived in. The spaceships look like they've got some serious light years on them. Characters look like they could use a shower.

The easy defense is that the equipment is all new in Episodes I-III, since it took place earlier. That would make sense, if the pre-Clone Wars galaxy existed in a vacuum. Think about going to the car wash. By the time you get home, your car already looks like it's been rolling around in a lint trap. The CGI gleam of the new Star Wars movies embodies everything wrong with them.

Not a Trilogy
Kevin Smith's Jersey trilogy. Seriously, Kev, it's over. Stop.

1.21 Gigawatt Trilogy
Back to the Future is special for many reasons. It's one of those movies that never shows up on any "Best of" lists, but find me one person who doesn't like it. Then kill that person, and there will be no one in the world who dislikes it. Back to the Future meets all the requirements: It's quotable, it's funny, and it surprises me every time with how affecting the story really is. I get the stinging eyes when George McFly knocks out Biff Tannen. Hell, I'm getting them now, just writing about it.

People argue the merits of the two sequels. Back to the Future 2 is more of a fun romp through alternate realities, and Lea Thompson's fake cleavage wields a strange power over me to this day. It lacks much of the poignancy of the original, but as an exercise in the butterfly effect, it's great fun. Plus the Delorean can fly. Then Back to the Future 3, widely regarded as the weakest of the three, takes place in the Old West. If nothing else, you can't accuse Robert Zemeckis of repeating himself. Each movie has its own feel and style, even as it continues previous storylines. Very few people have forgotten about the Back to the Future movies, but I feel they deserve a place in the pantheon of the all-time greats.

Under Appreciated Trilogy
George Romero's Dead trilogy. This is one that never seems to come up. Maybe that's because it took seventeen years to complete, compared to, say, six for Star Wars. Or maybe it's because the storylines have little, if anything, to do with each other. I don't know, and I don't care. You will not find a finer series of films at your local video store. Night of the Living Dead deserves props for doing more with less than any other movie I can think of. Ninety percent of the movie is five people in a house yelling at each other, and the zombies are just people in torn clothes. Some of them don't even look like they're wearing makeup.

Ask anybody on the street what the five best horror films of all time are. When the tenth person you ask actually has an answer, his (yes, it will be a "he") list will likely include Dawn of the Dead. Dawn takes everything that was great about the original - people imploding under pressure, a tight screenplay, zombies - and adds biting social satire and headshots. It's a horror movie that's actually about something.

Day of the Dead, the final film in the trilogy, is not quite up to the standard of what came before, but it does feature zombies ripping a guy in half, lengthwise, like one of Kung Lao's fatalities from Mortal Kombat II. That alone is worth the price of admission.

The Lord of the Trilogies
I realize this may incur some hate mail, especially because the third movie hasn't even come out yet, but I'm going to come out and say it: Lord of the Rings is the best trilogy in movie history. Better than Star Wars. Were I judging solely on the basis of its scope, its sweep, its battles, its story, and everything else, I'd say it was the equal of Star Wars. There exists, however, one crucial difference that pushes LOTR over the top.

When George Lucas made Star Wars, he didn't know if it would be successful enough to allow for any sequels. As a result, he had to make it in a hermetic way. The ending left room for a sequel, but no more than any other movie ever does. The leap from A New Hope to Empire was pretty jarring. On the other hand, Peter Jackson made the entire Lord of the Rings series at once. That means the actors don't spontaneously age between films, and he had the luxury of ending each movie where the next one began. Rather than being three films that work well together, these movies segue into one another.

All indications are that Return of the King is even better than Fellowship and Two Towers. How that can even be possible, I don't know. I do know this: Once this trilogy is completed, I can die in peace.