• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

films: Another Friendly Debate thread about the "Matrix Trilogy"

Tech Kinetics

Tech Kinetics

Bluelighter
Joined
May 9, 2001
Messages
3,064
Looking at some of the previous threads for part 1, 2, 3 of the Matrix.
I still had to find out why some people preferred the 1st one over part 2.

In my opinion, I thought Matrix 2 had the most action sequences out of all three films. And a very creative style of special effects and choreography.
I tried to go back and watch the 1st one to see the comparison to part 2 and 3, and I found it to be very sluggish in the beginning.
Did anyone else notice this???

It basically took almost 45 minutes for NEO to learn how to understand and survive fighting in the matrix.
I mean, don't get me wrong..........Part 1 still had its moments of excitement.
My favorite part which I think was the most climatic part of the movie was when Neo and Trinity saved Morpheus from the "Agents".

But I'm still hooked on watching Matrix 2! I think that it has very high replay value and it is worth watching over & over again.
Instead of having 1 or 2 major climatic scenes like part 1 & 3.
It had climatic, "edge-of-your-seat" excitement all over the film.
The Fight scene with the Smith Clones & The Traffic rush with the "Twins/Agents" had me hooked.
I just wish the "Twins" had more screen time in the Trilogy!
 
basically I'm hearing from you what I'd imagine the Wach. brothers would want to her from a satisfied fan. Yes, I thought the action in reloaded was top notch. However, I think the philosephy/theology present in the first one was altogether missing. They added some very muddled explanations, but it seemed tacked on. I think this is where alot of matrix fans felt short-changed.
 
Re: Another Friendly Debate thread about the "Matrix Trilogy"

er...well, my problem with your analysis of the series is this:

Originally posted by Tech Kinetics
In my opinion, I thought Matrix 2 had the most action sequences out of all three films. And a very creative style of special effects and choreography.


i almost agree (though i actually prefer the matrix's special effects and innovative techniques, i can see how some people prefer reloaded), but what does that have to do with the quality of the film? sure, creative special effects and choreography, plus interesting action sequences can add to a film, but when a series purports to be far more intelligent than the average action film, then it can't rely on these sequences - and that's effectively what reloaded did. it was essentially a two-hour long special effects-fest, with a bit of self-indulgent and ott philosophising (which firstly tried *way* too hard to be complicated, and secondly should have been spread over the film's entire narrative more than it was) tacked on the end.

and what you see as a problem with the first film is what i see as one of the best parts - for me, the first forty-five minutes wasn't "sluggish", rather, i found its slow revelation of the alternate universes that mr. anderson/neo had been a part of an extraordinarily interesting concept, explored perfectly.

if "edge-of-your-seat excitement" is the most important factor for you in a film, i can see how the two matrix sequels could be satisfying. personally, i prefer to think a little more :)

[edit: lol, atlas, i didn't mean to echo you - i think i was writing out my response just as you were posting yours :)]
 
What ruined Matrix Reloaded for me was the shitty computer-graphics that appeared from time to time. It would go from being realistic looking to like XBOX/PS2 type graphics where Neo or an agent turned all video-game-like and after seeing it I couldn't concentrate ;( I know, I know, i'm just a perfectionist, but a film hyped up as much as this shouldn't have flaws in computer graphics - I thought they were pretty obvious anyway. I think the general consensus with Reloaded was that it didn't live up to the hype, the highway scene was amazing though.
 
That scene where he was fighting all the agents looked way too fake for my liking and dragged on for way too long.
 
I think that the first one was better simply because of better story! It made more sense, it was just a better movie.

i didn't find reloaded and revolutions to be all that engaging. sure, there was a lot of action, but i didnt care about the characters the way I did about the first one..
 
i thought the story in the first one was much better. the second one did have great fight and action sequences, but they were waaaaaaaaay too drawn out. some of those scenes got boring towards the end.
 
The Matrix Part One was the most ground-breaking of the trilogy and, IMO, the public's preference for it is due largely to that. It took you to an alternate universe that was completely new and had never been done before. In addition, the fight scenes also broke new ground and opened up a whole new method for action movies.

I did enjoy the second one despite its overreliance on CG. I went in realizing that it could not be as mind-blowing as the first one since all they could do was expand on the Matrix-as-alternate-reality theme. Recognizing this, I found the movie quite fun, but it was most certainly nowhere near the epic adventure that the first one was.

Now, the third one was the least enjoyable of the whole trilogy. While there were some decently cool parts, I was just all around disappointed. The speeches were quite lame and it did not produce the same feeling of anxiety and awe that I felt in either of the first two installations. I almost wish that I had waited for it to come out on video instead of cramming into a packed theater for it.
 
RollNRave said:
I did enjoy the second one despite its overreliance on CG. I went in realizing that it could not be as mind-blowing as the first one since all they could do was expand on the Matrix-as-alternate-reality theme. Recognizing this, I found the movie quite fun, but it was most certainly nowhere near the epic adventure that the first one was.
Click to expand...

^^^
I have to totally disagree with you on that one.
I think the reason why everyone thinks the 1st Matrix was mind blowing was because "AT THE TIME" it was a fresh idea for sci-fi movies.
And for the WA Brothers to come back 3 years later with a sequel, it's like they took it to another level like never before!!!

The idea of Programs fighting programs was a remarkable idea!
The 2nd Matrix film was very complex and it was a very special gift for true Sci-fi fans such as myself.
I do have to agree about the 1st one having a good story line but it just seemed to me like it was in Black & White. Like there had to be more to it, which I'm glad that everything was explained in other Matrix Films.

I still think part 3 was good but not memorable.......
Where everyone said "end it already" in part 2......... I said that in Part 3.

On a last note.....
I've noticed that most people on this board didn't like the battle between Neo and the many clones of "Smith" in Reloaded.

Why didn't anyone like that??? Sure it was 80% CGI, but you have to expect that in Sci-Fi movies. It's a acceptance with today's technology.
You will rarely find a Sci-fi movie in today's generation that will not use a single CGI effect!
 
^^^ i hope most of you realise that the matrix's sci-fi ideas really weren't that original at all. there's a helluva lot of science fiction literature on very similar subjects, and the film dark city had only been released a couple of years earlier too, drawing on pretty similar issues.

the first film was succesful because it was good (and the sequels not so much), not because it was necessarily innovative. actually, it really just took many of the issues that dc was attempting to address and made them a little more digestable for the hollywood-fed public.
 
I don't remember Dark City all too well, saw it late at night so I can't really comment.

Also, I did enjoy the Neo vs. Smith Clones battle in spite of its reliance on CGI.
 
I felt that the fundamental problem was that they went away from the actual Matrix. What was so great about the first one was that when they were logged into the Matrix the characters could do literally anything. But in the last movie they hardly spend any time in the Matrix world at all.

I know that Gloria Rueben (I think that's her name), the actress that played the Oracle, died a little while ago. Does anyone know if that was why they changed her character in the film, or had they already finished shooting when she died?
 
Initially, I loved the first two movies, but really disliked the last.... but then I thought, how else can you end this trilogy, without making it cheesy, predicatable and lame.

It might not have been the greatest ending to the trilogy, but it ended in a way that is somewhat realistic, I guess.
 
yep, that was why - she died either *during* shooting, or just before.
Click to expand...

Then I think that contributed to the overall crappiness of the third movie, since they would've had to alter the original storyline to explain her absence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top