The Matrix films...

Tools    





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?



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



You ready? You look ready.
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.



Welcome to the human race...
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.
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.

__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



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.



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.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
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?



Welcome to the human race...
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

WARNING: "Reloaded/Revolutions" spoilers below
the Architect revealing to Neo that the One isn't meant to save all the enslaved humans from the Matrix and that the One is not a genuine rebel but actually part of the Matrix's entire method for perpetuating itself (the Architect says something about how Neo is actually the sixth version of the One since the Matrix was originally created), effectively throwing the idea of him being an actual chosen one into question - if not destroying it entirely. This also sets up the idea that the humans and machines are more or less forced to live in a kind of stalemate where both are dependent on one another and the Matrix itself to survive, an equilibrium which Smith - by effectively becoming a virus within the programming of the Matrix - threatens by corrupting human and machine alike to the point where seemingly everyone in the Matrix has become a Smith by the time of the final showdown (and also why Neo ventures into the heart of the machines' territory just to make a deal with the main machine to defeat Smith and free the humans).



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.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
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?



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.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
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?



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



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
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?



We've gone on holiday by mistake
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.
__________________



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
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?



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?
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.