The Matrix Resurrections (with Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss and Lana Wachowski)

Kermit.de.frog · 12-09-2021 12:04pm

Was a huge fan of the first Matrix movie.

The sequels are what stopped it being a Sci-fi cult classic.

For example, I can watch the first two Alien or Terminator movies and separate them from the dross that came next.

I don't feel the same way about the Matrix. In my mind the sequels harmed the whole thing in a way they didn't for other franchises. I'm not sure why. Maybe it is simply they are so god damn awful, messing up and confusing the whole premise, in every possible way? 🥴

So I have no expectations here as the franchise is ruined. I'll give it a try though.

jill_valentine · 12-09-2021 12:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117879888#Comment_117879888

For me a big chunk of that is that the first did some really fascinating stuff framed around the idea that we, the viewer, might be in the Matrix. Neo was in our world, how would *we* know our world isn't a simulation? It was 1999 then - but were we sure it hadn't been 1999 for years?

When the sequels came along they abandoned that. The world the movies were in was clearly not the one I was living in, this wasn't all taking place just out of sight of my day to day life, and that made some of the questions M1 posed way less interesting.

The other part is that in M1 we're told "the one" would be able to essentially rewrite reality once they understood the nature of it. But, again, once the sequels come along they narrow that down into "Oh he can stop bullets and fly".

EltonJohn69 · 12-09-2021 11:41pm

Just watched the first again today… and it really holds up.. the pacing is relentless… just non stop tension and action…. Plot constantly moving forward…edited perfect… all killer no filler

currently watching the second…. And jaysus… they really blew it… this whole 40 minute trip to Zion can be cut or at least cut in half….

Also they all look noticeably older.. must have been a 5 year gap between filming

B.A._Baracus · 13-09-2021 10:38am

Just looked it up and Matrix 1 filmed March 1998 to August 1998. Matrix 2 and 3 filmed March 2001 to August 2002. 3-4 years difference.

expectationlost · 13-09-2021 10:45am

the Matrix Rethread?

pixelburp · 13-09-2021 10:59am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117880032#Comment_117880032

I think that was just the classic problem of a story never intended to be written into sequels, despite what the authors might have claimed. As you say the framing of the first made it fairly clear Neo would become a functional god by the film's end, and did! That end was that perfect little encouragement for the audience to take the story onwards into their heads. But then the studio said more!, along came the sequels, the original cast coming back but there would be little tension if its returning hero had no limits. Really, it was a problem familiar to anyone who wrote a Superman story. Instead the Wachowkis Sisters got lost in their own script and overcomplicated everything (huh; I wonder is that where we can blame the modern blockbusters trend towards convolution?)

Maybe a better sequel story would have been one that emphasised just how vulnerable and brittle Neo was outside of the Matrix; his fight with "real life" Smith in #3 was a good example of this working well, albeit briefly. The ostensible god struggling cos in our world, he's just a man. Instead the Matrix scenes had to sideline Neo at every turn, with the actual fights became deeply bleh. Or perhaps better again, had Neo just disappeared after the first film, the sequels an attempt to continue the fight while also searching for Neo; then he'd have been a literal Deus Ex Machina.

It's funny cos had The Matrix remained a single film, maybe even underwhelmed at the box office and became a cult classic instead: perhaps now we'd be getting a true second film, rather than a fourth after the creator's struggle with their follow-up projects.

Penn · 13-09-2021 11:11am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117883894#Comment_117883894

I think another issue with the sequels was they went the wrong way with Agent Smith. Rather than have him becoming more powerful in a way that complimented the fight scenes, they just made a whole lot more of him. The fight scenes then had to go from well choreographed fights to CGI-fests. By the time the final fight in Revelations comes around, they're gone so far past fights that it's just two Supermen bouncing off each other (and doing the "impact from flying at each other causes strong force which dispels rainwater" about three times).

The best fights in the sequels were Trinity's, and maybe Neo's fight in the Merovingian's mansion.

Sad Professor · 13-09-2021 11:32am

I do think they planned for sequels. I just think that because they didn't know for sure if they would get make them they ended up concluding a lot of the story in the first movie. I recall an earlier draft of the script in which Smith wasn't destroyed at the end and Neo didn't become all powerful. It was fairly close to the final version too.

That many feel the sequels hurt the first film is interesting and shouldn't really be the case. I suppose the sequels made obvious that the Wachowskis weren't as smart as people gave them credit for and unlike SW there was no Gary Kurtz or Irvin Kershner to hold up as the actual geniuses.

Fysh · 13-09-2021 11:40am

The other half stuck on Reloaded last week, and I ended up watching most of it (missed the first 40 minutes, lucky for me).

The Merovingian is really a terrible excuse for a character, the sort of assembly of clichés that would have the writers of 'Allo 'Allo pause and say "no, that's a bit too much". And yet, the Mansion fight was great. But the other Neo fights were just dull, particularly when contrasted with Morpheus and Trinity fighting agents or the Virus Twins. Morpheus on top of the truck was a great fight, full of tension becauase we know he can't possibly win against an agent, and yet what else can he do to try and buy time for the others to rescue the Keymaker? By contrast, the Burly Brawl was boring because there wasn't really any tension, it was just Neo-As-Goku beating up a load of Smiths, with neither side displaying any inventiveness to their fighting technique.

I am in two minds about wading through Revolutions again, I remember it being long and boring, but perhaps time will have softened some of the harshness of being compared to the original film.

johnny_ultimate · 13-09-2021 12:01pm

What surprised me about Revolutions on a revisit was how high the stakes are. There’s a desperation to the fights, and a sense that none of the characters are safe. Obviously it’s being a convoluted Matrix film on top of all that - wrapping up all the lore and adding more jargon - but every victory in the thing feels hard-won and even bittersweet.

Fysh · 13-09-2021 12:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117883894#Comment_117883894

Funny thing, but the comparison with Alex Proyas and Dark City comes to mind. It's a great little film (though the theatrical cut was meddled with and given an opening voiceover that spoils half the story) that got swept away by The Matrix on release, and while Proyas had previously had success with the Crow his subsequent films haven't done so well. Then earlier this year we got word of a new short film by Proyas which is set in the Dark City universe, and which may be followed by a series.

jill_valentine · 13-09-2021 12:06pm

Imho Revolutions is better than Reloaded, and has aged significantly better than it too. Not least because there is some actual tension in some of the fights now you don't know if people actually *might* die.

The focus on the real world makes for some fresh visuals too. The knock down drag out brawl with Bane/Smith is a really lively contrast to all the Dragonball zooming etc because there's a sense that somebody actually could - and then does! - get seriously hurt, and seeing our heroes scramble around trying to fight with real world physics for once is great. The first movie has a grimeyness at times than Reloaded lost, but there's a touch of it back in Revolutions.

I also think Trinity getting to see the sun for the first time is lovely.

johnny_ultimate · 13-09-2021 12:15pm

While the ‘Super Burly Brawl‘ or whatever it’s called does double down on the ‘more Smiths / no gravity’ approach of Reloaded, it also gets away with much more because it’s at night and set against rain and lightning. The harsh light of day isn’t present to accentuate the two-decade old CG (that wasn’t even good two decades ago). And ultimately it’s a one on one fight, despite the scores of Smiths on display.

Also, it’s some of the wettest, squelhiest cinematic rainfall you’ll find this side of Back to the Future 2 ☔️

sekiro · 13-09-2021 12:47pm

I already hate the trailer so I don't think I'm going to have much fun with this movie.

The idea of Neo taking blue pills is just daft. Taking what is really a throwaway thing in the original and turning it into a plot point in the sequel is so typical of these blockbuster movies trying to hard to wink and nod to the audience.

The Alice in Wonderland references? Oh, please. Subtle.

Check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGgCqGm_6Hs

For me the original has a very distinctive style. Maybe that's just a part of the time when the movie was made but to be honest the new movie looks like it was made by someone who has been told about the original Matrix movie and is trying to copy it. It feels inauthentic. Which kind of makes no sense as it's the same directors? Maybe they are less involved in the creative process or something.

New one looks too clean, too formulaic, too much winking and nodding to the audience. Trying to tell a story that has already been told. Or trying to needlessly add to a story that has already been fully completed.

The new Star Wars trilogy ended up really feeling like fan fiction rather than an authentic expansion of the Star Wars universe. This kind of feels like it will be the same. Maybe they have some massive surprises to drop. We'll see.

Penn · 13-09-2021 2:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117884459#Comment_117884459

The trouble with comparing the new trailer/film with the original is that the original was an unknown, whereas now going into the new movie, we know so much about the world already. I think the mirroring of elements of the first film is just how the movie will start off, then it'll become its own thing in a somewhat new direction since it is following the events of a previous trilogy (and possibly the extended universe in terms of the games too).

So things like the Alice in Wonderland stuff (which seems more obvious in this trailer than the first movie which still had similar references in terms of follow the white rabbit etc) or the blue pills are designed to show familiarity, but also allows them to create a jumping-off point as to how the new movies are going to be different. For me the most interesting shot of the trailer is Trinity screaming and the kind of reverberations coming out of her. It strongly signifies it's not just "old character returns", but significantly differently.

The new Stars Wars trilogy ultimately failed because The Force Awakens emulated A New Hope too closely and didn't deviate enough from it, but did leave the potential to do so in the following films. The Last Jedi went in a brand new direction (and was the best of the three imo but let's not start that debate), and when there was backlash to it, the studio decided to then just erase the changes and emulate Return of the Jedi for the third film. So long as Matrix Resurrections uses the framework of the first Matrix movie but to then take things in a brand new direction, I don't mind rethreading some old ground.

pixelburp · 13-09-2021 4:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117884898#Comment_117884898

You could write a whole book on that new Star Wars trilogy: but for all its faults, that new series showed the ultimate dead-end of indulging in a vocal, sometimes rabid fan-base for creative directions. Last Jedi wasn't such a story swerve that even if it wasn't popular, couldn't be "corrected". I loved its choices but yeah, that war gas been fought.

Instead, episode 9 was the apotheosis of Fan Service; a chaotic combination of franchise self-immolation and masturbation. It took a spin-off TV show to restore some faith in the series (and even it's own second season has seen a pronounced increase in nostalgic wànkery).

The Matrix has none of that cultural baggage really; it can spin off into any direction it wishes, because there's no cabal of fundamentalists with purchasing power, waiting to sabotage things if (say) it turns out The Matrix isn't even on Earth or whatnot.

jill_valentine · 13-09-2021 5:47pm

They can justify a lot of fan service with the meta angle they seem to be going for anyway, imho, without that necessarily restricting whatever new story they're trying to tell overall.

EltonJohn69 · 13-09-2021 10:17pm

How did the same people make matrix 1 and matrix 2 ???

Their first film Bound was amazing… then the matrix was even better… one of the best films of the decade… and matrix 2 is like they lost all objectivity… too much drugs ? Too much money ??? What the hell happened ? Is their an explanation ? There are some good moments in it but huge chunks are like a really bad episode of Star Trek…

matrix 3 tomorrow

Markus Antonius · 13-09-2021 10:19pm

I can foresee little more than cameo roles from Keanu Reeves and Trinity with 95% of the film featuring the oracle and morpheus

2smiggy · 14-09-2021 8:11am

I watched the original Matrix and loved it. Never bothered watching the next 2 after seeing all the negative reviews. Any reason to watch them now ?

Penn · 14-09-2021 8:43am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117888108#Comment_117888108

They'll definitely lead into the new one. They both have a lot of great scenes and moments, and a lot of the more practical-looking fight scenes are amazing. Some great new characters too. But there's also a lot of big expositional scenes talking about the concept of the Matrix, free will etc etc, and a lot more of the real world/Zion side of things which doesn't always work.

I'd say if you're interested in watching the new one, best off just watching 2&3 to be on the safe side. If anything, trying to just read a Wikipedia synopsis or short video recap of them to try and catch up would probably leave you more confused.

loyatemu · 14-09-2021 9:58am

I doubt you'll need to know anything about the sequels - the producers will be fully aware that most people watching this new one won't have seen 2&3 (probably plenty of people will go to see this without having even seen the first film).

Sad Professor · 14-09-2021 10:24am

There's shots in the trailer that clearly deal with the aftermath of Revolutions. I really don't see how this is going to make sense unless you have watched the sequels. Even if it is a soft reboot and/or they spend the first 20 minutes reminding the audience what happened in the previous 3 films, there's no reason not watch the sequels. They are fine, they just don't live up the ridiculous level of hype, praise and analysis that was heaped (undeservedly imo) on the first film which was far too popular to ever be a cult film.

Chris_5339762 · 14-09-2021 10:30am

IMO The first Matrix film was an excellent, standalone film that was perfect for its time. It wouldn't work now as CGI can do everything that made THAT film special.

Reloaded and Revolutions aren't as good, but I always feel people are two harsh on them. The 40 minutes in Zion at the start is a bit long and the music bit there is stupid, but if you consider the 40 minutes as part of a 4+ hour film is not too bad. They are still a good watch, and the Architect never gets enough praise

EltonJohn69 · 14-09-2021 11:08am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117888663#Comment_117888663

That so much of it ( matrix 1) isn’t cgi is what makes it special and still hold up and unique…. The 2nd has way too much cgi… all those cgi agents and and cgi flying Keanu reeves/superman… cgi does not age well

pixelburp · 14-09-2021 11:15am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117888813#Comment_117888813

Matrix 1 had loads of CGI, it just had the smarts not to lean on it as a crutch for every stunt the production wished to perform. If they could, they would do it as a practical, on-set moment then accentuate with CGI. As always with this topic, the tool itself is not the problem - David Finchers movies often contain dozens (hundreds?) Of CGI shots - but it's never used to distracting excess. And you'd never think of him as a CGI heavy director either. Conversely, the MCU films positively swim in post production as a fist response (via the infamous pre-vis method of production).

jill_valentine · 14-09-2021 1:11pm

Yeah. M1's budget limitations made for some tricks that made for a more visually creative movie in a lot of ways too.

Shots of people morphing into Agents are far less interesting imho than clever little set ups where the camera work alone has to make it clear that a random person in a cardigan who was there a second ago is a suited and booted Agent now, eg the old lady in the last foot chase.

EltonJohn69 · 14-09-2021 11:17pm

All the Zion stufff should have been cut from 2 and 3 it’s like a completely different (generic and awful) film. I think if you combined all the inside the matrix stuff from 2 and 3 you might have a decent movie. All the new characters in Zion are awful.

it’s like they tried to cram an awful aliens/terminator clone movie into the matrix…

i hope matrix 4 has no Zion