Everywhere I go people rag on Reloaded as being a bad movie, and Revolutions for being 'not as good as Matrix 1'. I want to know why? I thought all three were great movies, maybe not the pinacle of movie-making, but so much better than a lot of the crap hollywood is spewing out these days. I thought Reloaded was a good movie, it got a lot accomplished story-wise, had some great fight scenes, an amazing car chase scene etc. Sure it wasn't as good as the original, but in a trilogy that hardly ever happens anyway. Maybe that's why I liked it, I wasn't expecting it to out do The Matrix. Anyway, back to my original question. Anyone?
The first one was very fresh and original both directing and writting with some very good special effects. The second one was nothing more that the first one as far as special effects, they were about the same, and writting. The actors were not very different and the plot dragged. I didn't go to the third for if the second was about the same as the first then why pay a third time to see a continuation of this same story being retold over and over.
Xelios Because people like whining instead of just enjoying the movie for what it was, because people have nothing better to do than over analyze a movie.....A MOVIE. It wasn't an answer to your lives...it was a fucking movie.....
The first one was okay. Up until Neo takes the pill, the movie is actually pretty sweet. Then it starts to suck, with stupid lines, like "buckle your seatbelt, dorothy, 'cause kansas....is goin' bye bye." (thunder flash and roll) The second one was less than okay. But the third one totally sucked. It made the second one look pretty good by comparison.
1st movie: Revolutionary. Great movie. Non stop action. Trinity high-kick-rotating-suspended-animation and Neo vs. Agent Smith scenes were awesome. 2nd movie: Best single action sequence of all 3 movies (Highway scene). More of the same as 1st movie. Unfortunately, Neo vs Smith fight scenes became tiring. Too much soft filler between action scenes. 3rd movie” Enough already with the neo vs smith fight scenes. 3rd movie Had a better plot than 2nd movie. At least they die – or do they? I have 1st & 2nd DVD and probably going to get the 3rd. I've seen the 1st several times (even after #2 & #3 came out) #2 & #3 will probably never come out of their wrappers.
It’s not a story. It’s not a philosophy. It’s a global marketing experiment that’s all about control. And George Orwell saw it coming. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think this explains it all nicely.
Each Matrix movie is progressively worse. ANYONE could do ANYTHING by the end, which was too much - quite ludicrous.
I don't understand why people don't like the Matrix Triology. The story is an excellent one and the films themselves have fantastic special effects. They pioniered bullet time, and how many films use that now? The Matrix: Little action, heavy on story, why? Because Keanu had just had an operation to stop him from being paralysed. He couldn't do any fancy fight scene untill he had mostly recovered which is why he has only got a few scenes where he is jumping around and kicking. Reloaded: Much more action than the first one obviously by this time they had more money and their actors were all fit enough to do these things. The story is the same but that *should* be the same being as it IS a continuation. More things are shown to the audience and the plot thickens, they now have a few hours to save Zion. Revolutions: 'The One' completes his mission to save Zion from the machines but dies in the process. Lots of actions and special effects. Too many 'last words' (EG/ "dodge this"). But all in all it's a good film. To understand why the matrix is as it is you should watch the making of the matrix. They explain how they started with relatively little money and how the film incorporates Japanese animation styles, philosophy, and standard film techniques. The Wachoiski brothers made a great trilogy, just don't expect each film to be completely different and you won't be dissapointed. Unless you just don't 'get' what the films are about.
It should have stopped after the first movie. The idea was new. The special effects were new. The later movies were just a continuation, without anything sufficiently interesting to be worth it. The first movie ended perfectly. A second and 3rd was not needed. You knew what was going to happen (although they changed the path in the 2nd movie).
Persol, I think the difference is that somepeople prefer to finish the film using their own imagination and others want to see the creator's story fully. I still think the brothers did a good job. The film is partly based on comics, you have to expect some daft stuff.
I've not looked at them but it wouldn't surprise me if they did as the brothers seem to like comics.. aren't they comic writers or something?
Not that I know of. I thought they wanted to base them off comics and anime though... hence the spinfoffs.
wow you reply fast... I don't know about the comic activities of the bros... all I know about them is what it said in the making of the matrix, and I didn't watch all of that.. goes on for ages.
Hey, you replied just as fastPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Does 'the making of' say they write comics?
Not that I remember exactly but from the way they were going on I got the feeling they did something like that. Very few people go from doing nothing to being directors.. and they did storyboards to the whole script. I'm not sure if they did that themselves or got someone else to do it but it sounded like they did it themselves so that'd show they have some comic drawing ability at least.... I'm too tired to think, night.
