Movies in Two Parts

MakeEmLaugh

I'm trying to think of films which are divided into two parts. Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac is coming up, and is divided up into Volume 1 and Volume 2.

Other obvious examples are Kill Bill Volumes 1 and 2, Mesrine: Killer Instinct and Mesrine: Public Enemy Number One, and Che Part 1: The Argentine and Che Part 2: Guerrilla.

Are there any others?

And I'm thinking outside of obvious examples like Back to the Future Parts II and III, or Twilight: Breaking Dawn Parts 1 and 2.

Mickeroo

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I'm trying to think of films which are divided into two parts. Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac is coming up, and is divided up into Volume 1 and Volume 2.

Other obvious examples are Kill Bill Volumes 1 and 2, Mesrine: Killer Instinct and Mesrine: Public Enemy Number One, and Che Part 1: The Argentine and Che Part 2: Guerrilla.

Are there any others?

And I'm thinking outside of obvious examples like Back to the Future Parts II and III, or Twilight: Breaking Dawn Parts 1 and 2.

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are more or less a 2 parter.

MakeEmLaugh

Mickeroo wrote: »

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are more or less a 2 parter.

Interesting theory, but I am thinking more of films that are shot at the same time. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were shot and released a couple of years apart, with different directors and crews.

Mickeroo

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Interesting theory, but I am thinking more of films that are shot at the same time. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were shot and released a couple of years apart, with different directors and crews.

Quantum picks up literally minutes after CR's ending though, but yeah I get what you're saying.

johnny_ultimate

It's not a new practice, even if the cynic in me says there's not always artistic motivations behind some recent examples (particularly the likes of The Hobbit, Twilight, Harry Potter and the Hunger Games). Fritz Lang's Die Nibelungen was released in two separate parts (Siegried and Kriemhild's Revenge). Same with Kenji Mizoguchi's version of 47 Ronin.

Sad Professor

The first two Musketeers and Superman 1 and 2, both produced by the Salkinds. As a result of the payment fiasco over The Musketeers, all SAG contracts now include the "Salkind Clause" which states how many films is being made.

delbertgrady

Smoke and Blue in the Face sort of qualify.

DMcL1971

Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima.

Two films made back to back telling the same story from different perspectives.

DMcL1971

I find the new trend of making movies into two parters quite annoying. It seems like just an excuse to milk even more money out of the public.

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay and Twilight: Breaking Dawn are all the last instalments in successful money making franchises, yet seem to have been broken into two parters solely for the purpose of dragging out the end of the franchise unnecessarily in order to make more money from one extra film.

The Hobbit is the worst offender. In order to cash in on the success of The Lord of The Rings trilogy, let's make The Hobbit. No let's make two Hobbit movies, no let's make three of them. It should have just been one great Lord of The Rings style movie and not dragged on to three films.

fluke

DMcL1971 wrote: »

I find the new trend of making movies into two parters quite annoying. It seems like just an excuse to milk even more money out of the public.

.

I get what you're saying with the like of the last Harry Potter book adaptation and Twilight's Breaking Dawn but I would like to see more films akin to KIll Bill i.e. Part 1, and Part 2. Some stories can last the course of a trilogy but I think two parters might be the way to go for some stories of that scale - they would allow for less padding. I imagine it'll only be a matter of time before some successful two parter paves the way.

Staying directly on topic Che was a two parter. oh that was mentioned... the recent animated Dark Knight Returns was a two parter.

Sad Professor

I can’t think of many successful two-parters, especially ones that were originally intended to be one film. Kill Bill really didn’t justify being split. The second part is particularly drawn out. I’m generally not a fan of Harvey Weinstein’s scissorhand-like editing practices, but that film is one instance in which it’s a shame he wasn’t let loose.

Trilogies have the potential to work better than two-parters since the middle film is free from the burden of having to set-up or resolve the story. Even if this comes at the expense of the third film, it usually means a cracking middle act.

FloatingVoter

Lord of the Rings works because it is based on a trilogy of large books. In the same way the Hobbit doesn't because it is based on one average sized book.
Godfather 1 and 2 work because of the addition of Vito's early life in the second part and the study of Michael's decay. Lets just pretend for this thread alone that Godfather is a two parter. As indeed it was for 16 blissful years.