The Matrix films...
 

The Matrix (1999)

Re-watched the original last night. The splendid special effects and "wire fu" techniques still hold up today beautifully, and the story is interesting enough.

Of those of you who admire the 3 film series, are the other 2 nearly as good, or worth watching?

Re: The Matrix films...
 

The second is really impressive/exciting, and sets up a lot of tantalizing possibilities for the third that aren't really met there.

I'd enjoy the first as standalone, mentally, and watch the other two just for the spectacle, without expecting it to be as satisfying or coherent in a narrative or philosophical sense.

Not remotely as good as the 1st. I regard The Matrix as the best science fiction movie made since 1990.

You might be right. My personal favorite is Inception (2010). The Matrix is certainly a stand out, but I must admit to a certain weariness of the "cyberpunk" idiom. Though I think I would have flipped over the style when I was in junior high school.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

I recently rewatched The Matrix for the 22nd HoF and was impressed...and I hadn't seen it for decades. My write up for The Matrix.

I haven't watched the other two sequels as I wasn't sure what I would find there? So I guess I'll keep reading this thread and see what everyone's opinions are and maybe I'll check them out someday.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

First two are solid... third is overly long and convoluted.


I think the only thing about the second movie, is the CGI.
WHat was is about CGI in that period?
Early 1990s, CG was pretty good... but from the late 1990s, around 1997, to almost 2010, CGI was absolute garbage.

My first experience with The Matrix was a damaged copy from Blockbuster. And Reloaded and Revolutions was split between 8th and 9th grade so I thought they were awesome, especially since the game Enter the Matrix expanded the experience. Then I majored in philosophy in college and tore them apart again. Late fall nights, fires, and beer. Lots of beer.

So yeah, great memories all around.

The Neo/Smith CGIs in the second and third films were dated when they released and have not aged well. But those dock scenes have aged extraordinarily well.

I'm guessing it has something to do with how the early innovations had already been handled so people felt they could start getting wild with it, using it excessively when pre-1997 films tended to use it in a few brief shots that were buffered by practical effects and had to be carefully planned around. I'm curious as to why you think it seemed to get better around 2010, though.

As for the Matrix sequels - I'll respect and defend them up to a point, but can't deny that they are severely flawed pieces of work in one way or another. It's less that they're out-and-out terrible but that you can just tell that they could've been so much better if certain adjustments were made - I'm reminded of this video here (which admittedly indulges in the "what should have happened" mode of criticism that I do tend to find a questionable way of evaluating a film's flaws) that actually gets into how and why certain minor details can make all the difference between a satisfying and dissatisfying trilogy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqhhy0yGAX4

I think around 2005, studios began to realised the limitations, so they began hiding the CGI instead of blanketing their movies with it... from 2000-2005, movies looked awful. Like you said, CGI was easier to fall back on and easier to access, but the tech itself hadn't been perfected. Was still jerky and plastic-looking.
Studios were simply trying to push too far beyond the limitations, and it always came out looking sh*te.



... but by around 2010 there were some leaps made in tech which meant CGI was becoming a little more photo-realistic and we got stuff like the De-aging tech.
Ok De-aging was kinda crappy the very first time it was used in X-Men 3... but the second time it was used in Benjamin Button it was already pretty damned close to getting perfected.
TRON Legacy did a decent job too, and it really pushed the envelope as to how close to photo-real the tech could get.


Sadly, The Matrix 2 and 3... were just far too grand a vision for the available tech.
The 100-Smith-Fight was exciting on first watch, but even back then, when Neo is flipped to a CGI character, it looked like crap.
Part 3 with the CGI fists hitting CGI faces in slow-motion, in extreme close-up, with CGI rain... it was all just too much for the technology to render.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

I kind of feel like Revolutions is more relevant than Reloaded, because at least Revolutions brought the story to a close where it feels like a lot of the events that happen in Reloaded could have been removed from the plot and it wouldn't matter. Without giving away too much, the only thing that matters in the Reloaded plot is what Smith does, concerning one of the bodies he takes over. But even that doesn't really go anyway where much in Revolutions, and could have done without perhaps? Unless I am wrong, and there are more relevant plot points in Reloaded?

Or perhaps you could view this differently as if you are seeing Reloaded in theaters for the first time, and Revolutions has not come out yet. Would you judge Reloaded as a good movie, because you expect these plot points to pay, even though most of them do not by the next movie, and therefore, it's the next movie's fault that they do not? Or do you view it the other way, and it's Reloaded that's the weaker one for them introduced plot points, not paying off later?

Re: The Matrix films...
 

I think if it's the kind of trilogy where the second and third parts are planned out together (as is the case with Star Wars or Back to the Future), then all the set-ups in part two should be resolved in part three.

Regarding Reloaded plot points, the other major development involves

Re: The Matrix films...
 

I think it was pretty clear that they had no intention of making a trilogy. They made a groundbreaking film and due its massive success they were sort of forced to make 2 more. I think that's why the last 2 aren't of the same quality or feel. That being said, the wachowski's gave us 2 pretty good sci fi flicks.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

If they had no intention of making a trilogy, then why did they have that to be continued ending on the first one, where Neo says he will find them and beat them?

Re: The Matrix films...
 

I don't think the question really follows, because that works fine as an ending for a standalone film. It's also kind of necessary, since the entire film is setup as a Neo/Smith confrontation, and Neo coming to accept his position as The One. There isn't really time to have him take down the whole thing, but they can't really ignore it, either. The ending has to quickly and efficiently indicate what has now become inevitable, and that's what it does. It leaves room for a sequel, but it doesn't necessitate one.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

Even if it doesn't necessitate a sequel, if the first movie is all set up, what's the point then if it was meant to be one movie? Why make an all set up movie then, with a lack of closure?

According to Wikipedia, there is a 4th film scheduled for release 4/01/22.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

Or better yet, if the first one was not meant to have sequels at all, then why didn't they just have the first one end, with the ending of Revolutions? Have it end with Neo going to the machine city, and doing what he did at the end, instead of the climax being rescuing Morpheus?

I always defend the 2nd one, an amazing follow up. The 5 second clip of Morpheus fighting the ghost twins in the garage with a samurai sword is worth the price of admission.

The 3rd one was a bit of a mess;

-Too much time in the real world not enough Matrix.
-The misfortune of the Oracle actress dying and having to be replaced, there was great chemistry between Neo and the original Oracle.
-The end fight was a bit of a letdown after 2 legendary fights in part 2 (Neo vs Smiths and Chateau). Neo and Smith flying into each other causing rain bubble shockwaves....sigh. Doesn't even come close to the original subway face off.
-Morpheus sucks in part 3.
-Underwhelming club lobby shootout when compared to the first one.
-The big Zion battle isn't great, CGI looks really bad in some parts. Has an air of a futile movie filler while we wait for Neo to inevitably sort things out.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

Other people have complained about the battle of zion too, not being the best, but I thought that that was possibly the most impressive spectacle of the whole series. And as for not enough of the story taking place in The Matrix, isn't Zion more impressive though along with all the Earth tunnels and all? I mean The Matrix, is just Sidney, Australia pretty much, isn't it?

Nobody said it was "all setup." I said the first film was set up for a Neo/Smith confrontation, which is what we got. And there is no lack of closure because the story is about him, not about the whole world of the movie.

The end is there because it signals what will happen without having to depict it, because it would take away from the self-contained story to rush through it.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

Agreed. Let me put it this way . . . First one, I've seen countless times. 2nd and 3rd? Just bits and pieces here and there. When the first one is on TV, I watch it. The rest, I ignore.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

Yeah, it's not like it really hints at a cliffhanger ending or anything like Back to the Future sort of does.

Oh okay, I guess I just felt there was a more interesting big boss villain behind the curtains that we never get to meet in the first one, and Smith feels more like a lackey henchman in the first one, and doesn't really go beyond that for me.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

Did you watch the first knowing there were sequels? If so, I daresay that might have changed your perspective, compared to the people who saw it and didn't know sequels were coming when it was released.

Anyway, of course Smith is a lackey, but that doesn't matter. He's an Agent, and we're told early on that nobody stands up to them and lives. So the climax of the film is the moment Neo turns to face him in the subway station, instead of running away like he (and everyone else) does before. If anything the film leans into this too much, because there's a big, slow, dramatic turn, and he throws his arms out defiantly, and the music even swells at the same time, making it painfully obvious that this is what the film has been building towards.

There are also lots of indications that Smith is going rogue compared to the other henchmen. He expresses anger and resentment (the others are consistently stoic), and during the Morpheus torture scene you can even see the other Agents come and say "what are you doing?" That Smith is a lackey, but not acting like one, is the whole point. That Neo is not acting within his constraints, either, mirrors this. They're both trying to break free of an oppressive system for different reasons and in different ways.

The only reason to find this disappointing is if someone watches the film and simply refuses to accept what the movie is telling us it's about the whole time.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

Yes I saw the first one way back when it came out and no sequel was announced yet. I guess I just found it somewhat anticlimatic in the third act for some reason, that just left me wanting more, but it's still a good movie overall.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

I think that happens disproportionately with sci-fi, because a lot of people watch sci-fi for the ideas. They're often fans of "hard sci-fi," which is about concepts and mechanics and things. A sci-fi story can leave them wanting more when they're watching for those kinds of reasons, rather than treating it simply as a story that happens to be about sci-fi concepts.

Anyway, disappointment is inevitable when the movie is telling us it's going to be one thing and we, for some reason, disbelieve it and hope it becomes something else.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

Yeah that's true. One movie I thought of now is Dark City, because I read The Matrix used some of the same sets if that's true, but I found Dark City to be a lot better, with a more satisfying third act, but The Matrix went on to be a much bigger hit.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

Both films were shot in Australia, so yeah.

I'd have to watch Dark City again to be sure, but

That's good to hear. Will check out "Matrix 2".

Exactly. I think that The Matrix works perfectly as a stand-alone film. I went to watch the first sequel at some point, but I turned it off about 10 or 15 minutes into it. I just didn't like the vibe and the first film ended in a great way.

I love both films almost equally (okay, maybe I give Dark City a bit of an edge), so I don't bring a strong bias to this:

I don't think that

2 isn't perfect like the Matrix, there's an awkward 20-30 mins at the start culminating in this weird porno dance to show the machines "we ain't afraid", interlaced with the least erotic sex scene of all time between Neo and Trinity.

However once that's out the way the last 90 minutes as far as I'm concerned are basically a masterpiece.

Oh maybe. Perhaps I was too excited about the twist in the third act of Dark City, where as The Matrix doesn't really have any surprises much in the third act, other than Neo is the one, but we kind of saw that coming anyway.

https://movieweb.com/the-matrix-transgender-metaphor/

Well, this explains why I was obsessed with these flicks in college. I must have watched them 40-50 times.

I thought Matrix 2 was pretty good. It needed a good edit, but it had enough good scenes to work. The conversation with the Architect is my favorite scene in the trilogy.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

I feel like that in the article, that the co-creator only says it's an allegory for publicity and that it was not intended that way originally. I feel like she is just saying it is, just because others are saying it.

However, I would hardly say it's a metaphor for that from my interpretation of the movie.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

Or it could just be that she's glad that so many people have picked up on the subtext that was always in the film and that the culture has shifted enough in the past couple of decades that it can be acknowledged more openly (especially considering that the Jumanji sequels actually did manage to have characters change genders while in virtual reality and nobody really cared). Certain aspects of the film also play much differently in light of this particular interpretation, like how Agent Smith's persistence in referring to Neo by his old name of "Mister Anderson" is akin to referring to a trans person by their deadname (especially when there's a gendered honorific like "Mister" involved).

Yeah, this.

And I always got the vibe that Switch was supposed to be trans in the Matrix. Now I know that was the original intent I could see that would not have gone over well at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dXTLJut_jc

1:13 "There’s a critical eye being cast back on Lana and I's work through the lens of our transness. This is a cool thing because it's an excellent reminder that art is never static."

This was in 2016, so what Lily's saying now isn't publicity; It's being more open about the film's intention (or one of its intentions anyway)

The general feeling, which I also have is the two sequels are huge let downs but I'll admit they can be pretty to look at...


Not seen in a long while but most memorable scenes from the sequels for me, is the action scenes on the motorway

I just can’t ever forgive them for totaling that Oldsmobile Aurora.

What did it ever do to them?! :bawling:

Re: The Matrix films...
 

The idea that they mean it, and that it's for publicity, are of course not mutually exclusive. For me the weirder thing is how many people who usually believe in Death of the Author are suddenly taking a director's interpretation of their work as canonical. As is so often the case, ideological coherence takes a backseat to the needs of the political or cultural moment.

Anyway, the tougher question is how conscious either of them were of this at the time. It's easy to imagine this was all deliberate, but it's also easy to imagine that it was subconscious, or that it wasn't in their minds at the time but the film's themes are sufficiently broad enough to reinterpret in light of new facts (if they told us in 15 years it was really about slavery the whole time there'd be tons to support that, too). Also fits that making a film like this gets you interested in the philosophy of identity, which prompts questions, which...et cetera.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

Oh okay. Well one is, is that fans have been looking at The Matrix as an allegory for transgenderism, as early as the early 2010's from what I remember, so it feels like the director may be saying this now, because the fans have been saying that, or at least it comes off as curious as to why she held off on saying it long after the fans have been.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

All of the movies, but especially the 2nd and 3rd ones will make much more sense and will be much better if you know one simple, key fact (sorry, but I don't know how to hide text): Neo is not "The One"; Agent Smith is "The One". Watch it with that knowledge and it will make so much more sense.

Re: The Matrix films...
 

Except Third one, wonderful movies!
3? Terrible movie.

Given the way they have talked about their own identities and the process through which they came to them I would say it is a healthy dose of both.