- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I thought it was pretty good.
The first film was best, second wasn’t particularly good (in terms of being able to understand what was going on – but the DVD was great and after the third of forth viewing all became clear) and the special efects were over the top. But the third was more of a story and rolled along nicely (except for the overly long scene at the end with Trinity).
What did you think?
I’d personally argue the 2nd was the best.
I don’t think I’ll ever see a better action movie than Matrix Reloaded. The fight scene with Smith in the playground was the ultimate in direction. 360 degree view, CGI that would make a supercomputer CPUs cry, brilliant stuff if nothing else than for it’s innovation. The music during the fight scenes is fantastic especially the first.
The 3rd movie is my 2nd favorite. Lot less action, but Hugo Weaving steals the show with his newly found range in acting.
And did anyone notice how many Farscape actors were in these movies????
First you have Stark playing the Agent opposite to Smith in Matrix.
Then you have Lt. Bracca or Cpt. Bracca as the Host in the Merrovingians building!
I’m sure I’m missing some too!
WoW! So are you saying that you liked the first movie least of all?
I understand about the effects in the second being superb, but they were (IMHO) un-subtle, in-yer-face, ‘look at me ac can do computer graphicy stuff!’ effects.
I would say that the Lord of the Rings (both films so far) have had more impressive graphics, (or even Harry Potter).
Or maybe it’s because I saw the second Matrix film with peeps who didn’t like it at all (tends to put you off a bit).
with you Saddy.
I feel really strongly that they should have left the Matrix as one movie.
Still, as a long time hard core anime fan, I am upset that they didn’t go closer to the matrix comics, and shown that the machines are actually more peaceful than the humans.
It was the humans that started the war, and the machines that wanted to live in peace.
None of that came through in the movie.
I tend to find the graphics of part two and three to be too fake. I often think that the more understated graphics are the way to go. Like with Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter. (Although the wolves scene in The Two Towers looked cheap). I think the more time the crew can spend on graphics the better. Reloaded reminded me of Star Wars 1 & 2… fake and crappy looking. With Harry Potter its hard to see where the difference between graphics and sets/props are.
SadGeezer wrote:WoW! So are you saying that you liked the first movie least of all?
Don’t get me wrong, on a scale of 1-10 the Matrix was a 9, and Reloaded was a 10+ and Revolutions was a 10.
But for me the first movie was kinda like “Been there, done that”. Mainstream movies even like the Lawnmower Man, Disclosure, Hackers all deal with the subjects in the original Matrix movie. Virtual networks, neural networks are all the foundation of what they called “The Matrix”.
Hackers has a scene where two arms are fighting over control of a TV station. The same symbolism was used in the Matrix except they battle it out ‘mono y mono’ using martial arts.
But personally I was more interested in the machine world and their Avatars which we don’t deal with in the first movie. Smith and the other Agents are servants of the Architechs design. I figured the Oracle was a Machine, but she turned out to be a Program too.
It’s not until Reloaded we meet the Merrolvingian, and even more extraordinary is how they integrated legend and myth into the old ‘agents of the system’ by making them vampires, werewolves, wraiths, etc…
Even the names of these Avatars are names from ancient Sumer, Greece, Rome, Carthage, etc…
Matrix was just a warm up for me when looking at all 3 films.
Another reason Reloaded is my favorite is simply because when I think about watching an “action film” like Die Hard or something, I think why bother? M:Reloaded has far better fights, a better plot, more action, etc….
I really like the Matrix films, particularly the way the second film turns the first one on its head…and then, how the third brings everything to a head and/or full circle. but alas – almost everyone I know seems to hate the Matrix films second One onwards. I think the problem is the way the salvation narrative has been reconfigured and how Reloaded transfers the focus from an enslaved species to a besieged community.
Its bizzare, because the sequels are cited as being either too overstated or obvious and/or obtuse and incomprehensible. Most people seem unwilling to even bother discussing their mixed and/or confused (or confusing) response to the films.
I can’t help but feel that 2 and 3 are particularly audacious and worthwhile , but the box office reports (and lack of interest in this thread) speaks for itself.
Like a sinking ship, The Matrix Revolutions is falling sharply at the box office both in North America and internationally. The Matrix Reloaded fell 58% in its third weekend over the summer and a similar fate looks to result for the final chapter in the sci-fi saga giving Revolutions just $7M for the frame and $126M after 19 days of release. Overseas, the Zion epic has amassed just under $200M for a worldwide haul of $311M, but suffered second weekend declines of 55-66% in such key markets as Germany, France, Australia, and the U.K. On a global box office scale, Revolutions should end its run in the vicinity of the first Matrix film’s $456M total rather than approach the $736M of Reloaded.
I enjoyed all three movies, but there is no question that the second two don’t approach the original in terms of the story and the characters.
Some of my complaints:
I for one got bored in 2 and 3 with the saintly portrayal of all of the humans. The character of Morpheus, so interesting it the first, becomes so uninteresting in 3 that he could have been dropped from the movie! The programs Smith and the nightclub owner (the frenchman?) were the only three dimensional characters left. I like Keanu Reeves, but even he was getting a bit dull.
I even think that they did Smith a disservice in the end, making him a big evil antichrist instead of what he was: a sentient program trapped in a matrix, interacting with humans that he has come to find repugnant. Smith didn’t enslave the human race (the other computers, or the architect, did that) and he didn’t make the planet unihabitable (humans did that– remember they “scorched” the sky), So how is he the ultimate villian? Because the actor playing him had so much charisma that they had to make him the focus????
By becoming a complete fantasy battle of humans vs machines this movie took the blue pill
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.