The Matrix Trilogy: Revised

Flamed Diving

Just last week I discovered that my girlfriend had never seen this trilogy. So, seeing as I hadn't watched any of them in years, I thought it was the perfect opportunity both for her to see them, and for me to revise them and see how I receive them now.

When I watched this trilogy the first time, I probably had the same reaction as most people did. The first was great, the second was ok and the last was poor.

However, I had a different reaction this time. Maybe it was due to watching all three in the space of a few days, but I actually liked all three of them. My only gripe about all three of them is that some of the dialogue is cheesy (Neo, I believe!), but the same could be said for many great action movies. However, what the Matrix provides as something of an apology is one giant philosophical experiment. If you knew the truth, would you choose The Matrix? What is choice anyway? Many profound questions appear throughout this series, especially during the infamous Architect scene at the end of Reloaded. Perhaps what I love the most is the relationship between Smith and Neo (and Weavings performance). The positive and negative. Perhaps the nature of this relationship went over peoples heads too, but it was just another equation solving itself. But I like maths, and I loved it. The final act is let down by the Defence of Zion, with the cheese phasers set to overload, in my opinion. Otherwise, the film is fine and ties things up nicely, but perhaps confused the general public, once more.

Anyway, I don't want to deliver a block of text. It doesn't surprise me that people are fawning over Avatar and not The Matrix Trilogy. Avatar is just The Matrix (lots of effects), but without all those annoying thinky bits.

You know it's true.

bonerm

I agree that the two sequels aren't as bad as people recall but when an adventure movie like the Matrix comes along the only way people are going leave satisfied is if the sequel is actually better than the original (see Empire Strikes Back) and this was not the case with Matrix Reloaded (and certainly not Revolutions.)

However once again I do agree that the defence of Zion sequence was tedious and excessive. Perhaps if the sequels had been braver and had delved further into the philosophy of that universe instead of just throwing all the money at the screen then they wouldn't have left fans feeling so dissatisfied.

Flamed Diving

bonerm wrote: »

I agree that the two sequels aren't as bad as people recall but when an adventure movie like the Matrix comes along the only way people are going leave satisfied is if the sequel is actually better than the original (see Empire Strikes Back) and this was not the case with Matrix Reloaded (and certainly not Revolutions.)

However once again I do agree that the defence of Zion sequence was tedious and excessive. Perhaps if the sequels had been braver and had delved further into the philosophy of that universe instead of just throwing all the money at the screen then they wouldn't have left fans feeling so dissatisfied.

Yup, all good points. I was speaking about this with a friend and we agreed that they probably made The Matrix with no intention of making a sequel. After all, the movie does wrap itself up quite nicely, in the end. It seems like it was meant to stop there (notably, they leave it open at the end of III). Perhaps the Hollywood suits saw an opportunity to cash in and told the Wachowski Bros. to make big-action sequels?

Tusky

My opinion.

The first was a fantastic action movie, with revolutionary special effects and a mind blowing story. It created such an interesting and creative premise and if you cast your mind back, there were so many theories on where the sequels would go. Unfortunately, all of those theories and predictions turned out to be far more creative and interesting than where the story actually went.

Reloaded stands alone as a great action movie. Its mindless popcorn munching stuff, but entertaining. I was massively disappointed that it didnt even begin to live up to, or expand upon the premise and storyline the original created. Its very rewatchable though, as it looks great and the action is fantastic.

The problems with Matrix revolutions are many. Again, it didnt send the story in any interesting directions, completely failing in regards to plot. However, the difference with Revolutions and Reloaded, is that the action just isnt good enough in Revolutions to make it stand alone as an action movie. In fact, I think its the poorest of the 3 both in regards to action and storyline. You could probably forgive it for the poor storyline seeing as the writing was on the wall after the second one, but in that case it has to raise the bar action wise.

Also, the defense of Zion was way overlong and tedious, with those bloody turrets chugging way endlessly. I also think its the least interesting of the 3, visually. Its very dark and murky, and while I thought the first two looked gorgeous, I didnt like the third ascetically. Ive seen it 2 or 3 times and have no intention of ever watching it again.

jaykhunter

^^^ Completely agree with this on everything, except that I found Matrix 2 to 'open up' the World of the Matrix; enjoyed it tremendously, even though a sequel to Matrix 1 couldn't possibly live up in terms of philosophy and themes.

I think it's pertinent here : Some time ago I saw a 'fan-edit' of Matrix 2 & 3 called Matrix Dezionised (and reviewed it here!). They basically trimmed all the fat from the two sequels (i.e. most of the 'Zion' storyline : the final war itself, Morpheus's love triangle story, GI Jane etc) and the sequel films are much more cohesive unit. Besides a couple of rough transitions it's really worth checking out; it really puts the sequels in a much better light.

I loved the first Matrix, and I really enjoyed the sequel (apart from the Zion scenes) but I don't like most of Revolutions (The whole Train-man storyline, Merovingian's bit part, the Architect's role, pretty much all of Zion, the hairy indian girl saying 'Nayo'...CGI scenes weren't as 'awesome' as the 2nd film). I think Revolutions makes perfect sense, i just don't think it's that good.

It was a great idea having Smith out in the 'real' world; but kinda lame since it was a different actor playing him. So i felt it was kinda lame. i've no idea how you'd overcome it, though. Hated the way Morpheus was reduced to pretty much nothing by the 3rd film. Shouldn't he have died for Neo? It stands to reason why the leader of the robots should mimick a child's face, it just looks a bit silly. Making peace with the robots and living together makes sense...it just kinda sucks. I didn't feel the sense of completion at the end of the film. (and the worst line of the whole film is delivered - "What am I, human?") Also I never get the sense that Smith is anywhere near as powerful as Neo and the way he was defeated was a bit lame in my eyes... The final fight was cool, but I much prefered the Burly Brawl or the Chateau from the 2nd film...

I guess my biggest stickler is that the 3rd film (as already said) spends a lot of time in Zion, it's just dirty humans fighting in boring gun battle...I love the slickness and sheen of the Matrix itself, seen beautifully in Matrix 1 & 2.

Anyway I'm glad other people can appreciate it more than me but wow I don't care for it much at all.

I always thought that after the Architect mentioned 'you are the 6th Neo' that we were looking at a possible 5 prequels! I'd like to see at least one, anyway, where a Neo becomes The One, fails to save the day, and the matrix is reset. Could be done well! :pac::pac:

Flamed Diving

I quite liked the characters liked the Trainman and the Keymaker. It reminded me of the 2000AD comic series.

krudler

The biggest crime of Revolutions is that it reduces Morpheous to a co-pilot, and Neo and Trinity are barely in it during the middle segment of the movie, those three characters along with Smith are the emotional core of the trilogy, they're the people we care about. Instead we get to watch Marvin Gaye's daughter, a kid you wouldnt know the backstory of unless you watched the Animatrix, a grumpy old guy and loads of crusty hippies fight against endless swarms of sentinels, which become less intimidating the more of them they are. Joel Silver was proclaiming the Zion action sequence as "genre defining" and "pushing the bar so high that now there is no bar" instead its just a cgi mess, full of drawn out, and dare i say it, boring sequences and events.

There are parts of the sequels I love, the car chase in Reloaded is still magnificent if overbloated in parts, there are some brilliant concepts such as the train platform that goes nowhere and the club hell sequence is very cool, but the rule of "bigger is better" doesnt always apply to sequels, take the climactic fight between Smith and Neo, its basically two videogame characters duking it out in expensive and elaborate cgi setpieces, the subway station fight from the first movie was so much more engaging because it seemed so real, it was just the hero and villian scrapping in a dingy train station, not flying around like Superman in an apocalyptic Matrix world, and it worked so much better, I think that the final act of the first movie from as soon as Neo says "guns,lots of guns" until the end credits roll is the finest extended action sequence in cinema history, its just relentlessly paced and brilliantly engaging, the first time I saw it the audience were gasping and people were raving about what they'd just seen as soon as it ended, none of that happened with Reloaded or Revolutions.

Savman

The first one was unsurpassable to be fair, a standalone classic. They almost tried to be too clever with the sequels. Still good popcorn flicks tho.

Richard Dower

I'd like to see a Matrix prequel...explore the origins, detail what was touched upon in the first film, the rise of AI, making the sky dark....lots of plot and storylines could be had.

bonerm

Richard Dower wrote: »

I'd like to see a Matrix prequel...explore the origins, detail what was touched upon in the first film, the rise of AI, making the sky dark....lots of plot and storylines could be had.

There was a little-remembered Matrix origin movie made in the 1980's starring Freddy Mercury. It was kind of like "Terminator meets Top Gun".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApaEPazjYAc

L31mr0d

I've said this elsewhere before, but they nuked the fridge with the first Matrix. Obviously they didn't know if it would be successful or get a sequel so they had to end it with some form of finality and crescendo and they did this by turning Neo into a demigod.

When it succeeded, they where left with the problem of trying to tone back Neo to make him more human and vulnerable again. In Reloaded the highway sequence only worked because they took Neo out of it. Trinity and Morpheus where in real danger only because Neo wasn't there to fly in and then fly them out again.

But, like the OP, watched back to back, the trilogy is fairly competent and enjoyable. Revolutions is really only a last act and doesn't really stand on it's own as a separate film, but watched immediately after the explosive and fast paced "Reloaded" it works well.

Also, I only really came to truly appreciate why the trilogy had to end the way it did when I watched them 1 after the other. I wanted the humans to destroy the Robot city and for the matrix to be shut down. But this could never happen. You really need Reloaded fresh in your mind to truly understand why Revolutions had the best of all possible endings.

krudler

Richard Dower wrote: »

I'd like to see a Matrix prequel...explore the origins, detail what was touched upon in the first film, the rise of AI, making the sky dark....lots of plot and storylines could be had.

you mean like they did in the Animatrix?

delly

^^^ Eh, ok :rolleyes:

What you need to watch is The Animatrix which will give you some of the answers your looking for. Even the dark sky's are explained.

At a summit of political and military leaders from around the world, unanimous approval is given to a plan code-named "Operation Dark Storm", which aims to cut the machines off from the sun, their primary energy source. The plan is executed in 2095, with high altitude bombers dispersing sky-darkening nanomachines into the air, while the human armies simultaneously launch a ground offensive against the machine forces.

/EDIT Sorry, I took so long to post the reply, others did so in the meantime. The :rolleyes: was intended for bonerm.

bonerm

^^ It took you 14 mins to put those 7 lines together (4 of which you didn't even compose) and yet I deserve the ":rolleyes:"? ok.

krudler

I dont think he got the Commando reference

Owen

For me, the first was incredible. I remember the moment, barely into the movie in the cinema when Trinity ran along the walls, and we had bullet time for the first occasion in cinematic history. The entire cinema just said wow all at one time, and everyone looked at everyone else in a 'did you see that?' kinda way.

The second was great too - I loved how Neo now knew his strengths and was able to take on agents, and effortlessly. It was very enjoyable to watch him deconstruct the Matrix in his mind. The battle with all the Smiths was great fun to watch - but they overdid the CGI in a number of places, you can clearly identify the scenes where it's Reeves, and where it's a rendering - even the trencoat he wears when rendered lookes suede instead of the leather he normally has on.

The third? Meh. And a bit more Meh. Could have been better. Must try harder and all that.

Hank_Jones

I actually tried to do this a couple of months back. Of course I enjoyed the first one, it is one of the best action films of the past 20 years.
It just oozed a style that hadn't really been seen done like that before in movies, had amazing effects (bullet time wooo!!) and the writing was fairly top notch and the basis for the story was something that people could somewhat relate to (which often doesn't happen in sci-fi related films).

When I started to watch the second one.....the whole thing just falls apart for me....the characters just seem to become fake.
I just felt the whole thing became unnecessarily convuluted, they added to many characters to quickly and had quite a few supporting characters that probably weren't needed. And then they just tried to push the effects too far, it just didn't work, things don't actually look realistic.

I stopped watching about half way into the second one, so I don't really want to comment on the third one (having not seen it for quite a while).

delly

bonerm wrote: »

^^ It took you 14 mins to put those 7 lines together (4 of which you didn't even compose) and yet I deserve the ":rolleyes:"? ok.

Yes indeed.

Flamed Diving

PaintDoctor wrote: »

even the trenchcoat he wears when rendered lookes suede instead of the leather he normally has on.

Small gripe, but he isn't wearing leather at all. I don't even think it is suede. It would appear to be some composite fabric. You get a real close up view in the very final scene between him and Smith. Memory is fresh, and all.

Owen

Leather/Suede/Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to, I just meant that you can see the CGI because the coat is rendered so badly.

MickShamrock

Have never watched the final movie, Matrix Revolutions.

Mackman

The first one is an absolute classic. One of the greatest action movies of all time. The other two do not live up to the first. Although, if you watch them back to back, the whole storyline makes sense. (it took a few viewings to understand some of it though:o)
Overall i love them, great series of movies IMO. better than a lot of the crap thats out there.

Penn

Upon watching them again about 2 months ago, one thing really bugged me even though its a small thing. In Reloaded, when they're entering Zion, it shows a woman at some sort of computer terminal opening the gates for them



How come the rest of Zion looks so dreary and drab? I mean, the stuff in the picture is clean and crisp, futuristic technology, she's wearing a nice clean uniform. After seeing this, I was expecting Zion to look pretty cool. But they're all wearing rags and stuff. And I think this highlights a bigger issue with the second and third films. The writers didn't know what to do with the real world.

L31mr0d

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

How come the rest of Zion looks so dreary and drab? I mean, the stuff in the picture is clean and crisp, futuristic technology, she's wearing a nice clean uniform.

Eh... lol :rolleyes: you need to watch it again. They are in a local version of their own Matrix (i.e. "The Construct" in the first Matrix) It clearly cuts to a scene to show the people controlling the gates plugged into their chairs.

jaykhunter

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

How come the rest of Zion looks so dreary and drab?

Agreed man. I hate the filthy look of Zion. I guess no white people survive in the future :pac::pac: (besides Neo, Trinity, that kid and the old guy) I'm pretty sure that this woman is plugged into the matrix; there's a shot of her jakked in in a chair, pretty sure.

Penn

L31mr0d wrote: »

Eh... lol :rolleyes: you need to watch it again. They are in a local version of their own Matrix (i.e. "The Construct" in the first Matrix) It clearly cuts to a scene to show the people controlling the gates plugged into their chairs.

Oh sh*t, you're right, just watched a clip of it on Youtube.

In a way, thats even worse. How are they controlling stuff that happen in the real world (gates opening) through the Construct? And why are they doing that? Why not just sit at a computer? Could they not have controlled other things from the Construct when the machines started attacking? I think my general point still stands

Flamed Diving

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I think my general point still stands

No. In fact, it has completely changed. That's what you meant.

jaykhunter

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No. In fact, it has completely changed. That's what you meant.

Don't get so snippy, man. His general point is :

How come the rest of Zion looks so dreary and drab? I mean, the stuff in the picture is clean and crisp, futuristic technology, she's wearing a nice clean uniform. After seeing this, I was expecting Zion to look pretty cool. But they're all wearing rags and stuff. And I think this highlights a bigger issue with the second and third films. The writers didn't know what to do with the real world.

I don't see a reason why they're using 'the construct' and not using just using the computer in the 'real' Zion. I think the answer is "because it looks cool". :PAC His general point is that Zion is ugly, dirty and everyone's sweaty and wearing rags.

Penn

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No. In fact, it has completely changed. That's what you meant.

The basis of the example I used has changed, my general point hasn't.

Why throw in that Construct scene? Why use it? Why do they get to work in a nice bright reality opening gates and everyone else in Zion walks around in raggy clothes and robes? What bearing did it have on anything else which followed? Why could they not control other things from inside the Construct during the attack by the Sentinels rather than give random people like Link's wife missile launchers?

Why show us that cool computer interface to open the gates other than the fact that it looked cool?

Flamed Diving

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

The basis of the example I used has changed, my general point hasn't.

Why throw in that Construct scene? Why use it? Why do they get to work in a nice bright reality opening gates and everyone else in Zion walks around in raggy clothes and robes? What bearing did it have on anything else which followed? Why could they not control other things from inside the Construct during the attack by the Sentinels rather than give random people like Link's wife missile launchers?

Why show us that cool computer interface to open the gates other than the fact that it looked cool?

There are far more profound oddities to question in that movie than which you have pondered.

Penn

Flamed Diving wrote: »

There are far more profound oddities to question in that movie than which you have pondered.

Okay