The Matrix trilogy - should they have made all 3? 22 replies

Please wait...

Oblivious

I tawt I taw a puddy tat...

50 XP

30th December 2002

0 Uploads

2,806 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

Please take the time to rate the movies (you can vote on all 3). I'm curious if I'm in the minority on this.

Disclaimer: This is a non-scientific poll with a 99% chance of error.

So I sat down to watch the Matrix movie trilogy the other day. I must say that the first movie is easily one of my all time top 10 fav's. The other ones? Well, that's why I sat down to watch them again to see if perhaps they would be more appealing to me now, a couple years later. Well, umm... yeah... I tried to like them, but they still suck. More specifically, I love The Matrix, Reloaded is alright, Revolutions just plain sucksass.

To me, the 2nd and 3rd movies were very thin on plot depth. It could have been so much better if they'd just made one movie out of the material they had instead of milking us all for profit by making two (or not make them at all). Reloaded was alright, mainly due to some really good action scenes and a small amount of plot. Revolutions was just plain horrid, and the ending was unbelievably stupid/disappointing. I have a tough time believing that anyone over the age of 14 (no offense kids) could love Revolutions as much as the original.

Don't get me wrong, there were definately some great action scenes and effects in the sequels, but to me, that's not enough to make a movie a classic like the 1st Matrix is.

I think that some (err, most) movie sequels should just never be made. These were so bad that it almost tarnishes the original movie.




Unifermius Matty

I fly. Do you fly?

50 XP

9th February 2005

0 Uploads

785 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

The first film is 'arguably' a classic. But if it isnt, it came pretty close. A very well directed and well written film.

Matrix reloaded didnt have the sense of mystery or rebellion that the first film had. Not to mention that some things were slightly cheesy (such as the smith clones) and the rather boring talks about things like purpose, and the montage leading up to the part where Neo, Morpheus and Keymaker break into the building.

Matrix Revolutions - The only thing i didnt like about this film was how Morpheus's character sort of changed a bit, and how there really wasnt alot of focus on what Neo and Trinity were doing until the last 25 minutes.




VOP2288

I'm Bill Pardy...

50 XP

19th August 2004

0 Uploads

640 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

What makes the very first film so great is that while giving enough background info and philosophy for the film to function most of the movie was spent in the middle of action...it was as long as most sci-fi action movies and it was the first real big use of the bullet-time

Then reloaded came along...while i still liked it (but voted sucks) Reloaded instead gave us 2 + hours of philosophy and discussions of existence and being...dont get me wrong all that stuff is really interesting and part of the draw to the matrix but come on....2 + hours worth of it when you really just wanna see Neo punch through someones face?

Finally Revolutions...for some reason a lot of people didnt like this movie. I liked it just fine (giving it an alright). It effectively wraps up what the series started without boring the hell out of you and who can really hate the battle for Zion?




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#4 11 years ago

The fist one was great, it had a very good mixture of mystery, martial arts, action and philosphy. The other two suffered from the sequel-problem: you already got used to the idea. I voted "alirght" anyway because they managed to get people interested in philosphy, which is something not many action-movies manage to do.




Griffin_NL

El-Producto

50 XP

24th July 2005

0 Uploads

2,172 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago
ObliviousMore specifically, I love The Matrix, Reloaded is alright, Revolutions just plain sucksass.

That was what I thought.

The first is (nearly) a classic, it was new, inventive and the bullet time was an awesome effect. Had a good concept, and same execution.

Then, after a few years, Reloaded suddenly came. You could guess why... money. I mean, it's easy just cashing in on the previous movie's status. Reloaded was OK though. I liked the fights, as they were bigger, smooth and neatly choreographed. It wasn't nearly as inventive and new as the first one. The third.. blah. I didn't like it. Also, as the primary focus was on the battle of Zion instead of in the 'Cyber-world' (how'd you call it?), it was 'just' shooting some bots. I didn't like that nearly as much as Neo kung-fu'ing down a couple of agents a time in slow-mo! And the Architect and so on... it could have been let out.

So, I think the sequels were a shame to the Matrix. It severly damaged the name/status of the original Matrix, as well. The sequels gave us some more of the same, nice fights, but nothing more.




Nusentinsaino

A new sense of nuisance.

50 XP

8th December 2003

0 Uploads

12,881 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

The poll options are confusing. What if I like both Matrix and Reloaded? You can't vote two options. :)

Anyway, I think the Matrix is the the most intriguing one, however Reloaded is a tad bit better than revolutions. I like dystopian themes, and the third film was a little too optimistic. :uhm:




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago

You can vote for as many as you want, they're check boxes so you can select more than one.




Unifermius Matty

I fly. Do you fly?

50 XP

9th February 2005

0 Uploads

785 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago

Strictly speaking, its really hard to pick out which of the sequels is more appealing. Sure, Revolutions might have been almost totally off the focus of the matrix, and reloaded might have been dull with all the talk about purpose - But really, when it comes down to it, they both offer the same amount of entertainment.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#9 11 years ago

For me, the first film is the best of the trilogy and always will be.

It introduced you to the whole scenario and had you on the edge of your seat with awesome action sequences and a brilliant plot. Unfortunately, Reloaded was a 'filler' and 'repeat' of everything we'd already seen. It was boring, and a waste of the two hours you spent watching it. Then Revolutions came along and tied up all the loose ends whilst attempting to keep the viewers hooked. The only notable scene from Revolutions was obviously the final fight between Neo and Agent Smith but even that was pretty cliché drawing inspiration from Superman and Dragonball Z. I mean, c'mon, Dragonball Z for God sake. The punching and dodging bullets in bullet-time was immense, but then having them charge up and fly around like Son Bloody Goku is friggin' ridiculous.

They really should have kept to the formula from the first.




21st July 2005

0 Uploads

2,308 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

I thought the Matrix was obviously a modern classic. I thought the next two were tolerable, though completely unneccessary. I mean, you saw all the cool stuff in the first one and you could figure out what would happen next. With the four years they had, you'd have thought they could have come up with something better.