Who Still Loves The Matrix Trilogy? - Page 2

Clearly they wanted it to go to a giant Agent Smith made of CARS.

My problem with the Back to the Future triliogy is that the time travelling philosophy is inconsistent throughout. If Marty McFly's tampering with the past can alter his present state of being (erase his own existence) wouldn't all the changes he creates in his parent's personalities lead to a different upbringing for him? An altered upbringing that would probably preclude his meeting of Doc Brown and, subsequently, his even going to the past?

The time travel philosophy holes are even larger in Part II. Yeah, I enjoy all those films, but it kills me that the writers couldn't be more consistent.

Not to derail this thread further, but... I've found it's best not to delve to deep into the laws of time travel as movies set them up because (a) you'll realize that the story only makes superficial sense, and (2) blood will eventually shoot out your nose. Seriously, it happened to a girl in the movie theater where I saw "Timecop." That being said, I believe Doc Brown explains, in part two, that Marty, Einstein and he are unaffected by the alternate 1985 because they're protected by a temporal bubble formed from their initial point in an alternate timeline... see? Utter nonsense. Kick back and enjoy the ride, I say.

Oh, also, I really, really like the Matrix Trilogy.

The sequels would have been a pretty good comic book. The pacing in the "slow" parts would likely have worked better, and a lot of the Wachowski's dialogue tends to sound better in your head than it does coming out of people's mouths. The Geoff Darrow/Steve Skroce visual aesthetic would probably have come off as more convincing, as well (although, the effects guys did a bang up job in that department), especially where the video game's (which I haven't played) giant Smith comes in.

That said, I still like these movies a lot. I guess that I mostly agree with Geoff Foster (except I that liked these movies from the get go), these are action movies that aim a bit higher, and I appreciate that. I also never had a problem with any of the pacing, but then again, there's a reason why I'm not a film critic.

No film addressed the mechanics of time travel better than Timecop.
"Two objects can't occupy zee same space at zee same time!"
"Ahh! I'm a pink blob now!"

I never saw the movie, but the Timecop SNES game was terrible.

It's actually a solid little action picture. It's the last good Van Damme movie.

Silliness, you say?

Sorry. Saying that a movie "certainly isn't flawless" and you've "seen worse" is incredibly vague and limp wristed. When someone quotes that and says "couldn't have said it better myself", that's just silly. If you've got a passion for the trilogy, of course you can come up with a better critique of it than that.

Now stop making me post in this thread.

I like all three of these movies. That's it, really. Now, I can go into detail about some of the things I don't like about them (and it is a list). However, as I said earlier, I have spend too much time on the Net debating with folks about the ins and outs of the Matrix Trilogy. Didn't see anything "limp-wristed" about it.

Nothing like a Matrix thread to wake the Chewers up.
Also, everyone, don't assume that I am a "Matrix freak" just because you see the nice avatar of Mega Man wearing cool "Neo-style" shades with the Matrix code in the background. It's a nice pic.

In defense of all of the Matrixes (Matrices?), they WERE able to convincingly show characters get their kung-fu on while wearing cloaks/capes/long jackets, which a whole handful of Batman directors still haven't been able to do right.

I won't argue the objective merits of the films, but as a subjective viewer I enjoy all three (Reloaded being my fave).

Who still LOVES the matrix trilogy? Love is such a strong word. I like the matrix trilogy. Its flawed but entertaining.

Ok, slightly off topic but read the first trade of Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles" and tell me the frist Matrix isnt a direct retelling of those 7 issues but with fancy computers and shiz. Im not saying they stole the idea, I'm not saying anything in the Matrix was stolen, just a nice coincidence.
P.S. Seeing Dark City before The Matrix totally ruined it for me. I probably would have actually liked it if I saw The Matrix first.

SUDDEN DEATH trumps TIMECOP and WAKE OF DEATH is quite strong though I prefer TIMECOP to that one. I'm sorry that I was not reasonable enough to let that innocent comment pass.

Oh yeah, and the first MATRIX is good and they get worse as the series goes on. But make no mistake that I posted in here only because of the TIMECOP comments and nothing else.

I can't believe there are still people out there who think Dark City is a better movie than The Matrix.

Putting aside the far superior pacing, the sharper dialogue, the innovative action sequences and FX (that has to count for something) and the fact that The Matrix doesn't give away the solution to the mystery in the fucking opening monologue, The Matrix explores its themes in a way that's so much more in-depth and coherent than Dark City that it's almost laughable.

And the entire plot of Dark City is basically covered in the first 20 minutes of the Matrix. I think that's the single point that makes The Matrix a clear winner for me: Dark City argues that the story ends when you "wake up" to the truth. The Matrix argues that "waking up" is the first step in a very long and difficult journey.

Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more that your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist

That quote sticks out in my mind so much. Neo sees the bigger pictuer. He has made choices all along. He controlls his own life.

I never loved them, but have always liked them. I've always maintained that Reloaded is the best, and I see more people agree now. I've thought it was better than the first movie since the first time I saw Reloaded in the theater, and I still can't understand why so many hate it while reserving an intense love for the original.

The story as a whole is pretty great, but I view it more as a duology since that's how it was shot, and because the second two tell one story, basicly.

Has Trinity died yet?

On the trilogy topic, I like the first film. The second and third films are a bit odd for me: I walked out of Reloaded thinking the film wasn't very good at all. Not by disappointment (I was never a huge fan of The Matrix), but because I wasn't engaged. When The Matrix Revolutions hit, I liked it as a fairly dumb action movie, especially the Neo vs. Agent Smith duel. Of course, the Battle of Zion was and still is one of the most boring last stands for human-kind ever committed to film.

But the more I watch it, Reloaded grows on me. I think I like it just as much as the first movie. Revolutions, on the other hand, is a chore to sit through.

That ridiculously long quote sums up a lot of what I don't like about the sequels. They're so terrified that the audience won't "get it", that they have to make sure they hammer every philosophical point out seventeen times. Never satisfied to allude to an idea and let the audience do the work, they spell it out, pronounce it phonetically, spell it again, ask if there are any questions, pause, then reiterate. It's tiresome, insulting, and above all, boring to listen to.

Timecop introduced us to The Car Of The Future. A 1994 car covered in a giant silver metal case.

Matrix? No car of the future. Timecop wins.

There is no spoon...

...So I will eat my pudding with my fingers.

I still really dig the Matrix Trilogy and it's probably still my favorite trilogy/series set of flicks. The first one made a big enough impression on me that I was a sponge ready to soak up the sequels, and while I think the first is probably the best, Reloaded is definitely my favorite of the three, if that makes any sense.

I'm completely aware of some of the issues people have and there are instances where I cringe too (like the Kid at the end of Revolutions...) but all in all I'm a big fan and probably always will be.

The Matrix still has me.

edit: and hopefully my little avatar up there can get across the idea that I'm a fan but also have a sense of humor about the whole thing. That comic is hilarious!

I'll see your Timecop "Car of the Future" and raise you a Robocop Ford Taurus and the 6000 SUX.

Yes, in the future, all designers will be 15 year old boys.

You want an accurate depiction of automobiles in the future? Look no further than the retrofitted Cadillac Sevilles of EQUILIBRIUM. How can any human show no emotion when riding around in one of those babies?

Couldn't stand either sequel really (although I enjoyed the eye-candy of Revolutions). And I caught the original on TV the other day and while the story is still amazing, could there possibly be a worse actress than Carrie Anne Moss? She's downright painful in places, saved only by looking good in black spandex.

After enjoying the second one,

The third one dropped off for me. I was frustrated at the choices they made. However, re-watching it and also having read the Bhagavad-Gita (and looking up some of the things at thematrix101.com) it makes more sense, the warrior fleeing the fight to transcend the battle, the notion that if neo is the One then smith is the Negative of Neo and he has to cancel himself and smith (self-sacrifice) to bring peace to all. there's a really neat part in thematrix101.com's "Oracle's Gamble" ( seen here at http://www.thematrix101.com/revolutions/meaning.php#ora) that made it a really interesting read. the entire position of the sequels comes down to 'we're here to do what we must do' can be seen as an easy way out for the screenwriting.

I'm in no way saying that the sequels are perfect. I wish there was more emotional warmth to back up the philosophical statements, and the acting could have been far better when resorting to the Zion War sequences. In the end, i find the Matrix sequels far more enjoyable to talk about than watch (as equal as say, it pains me to talk about star wars now).

With all that being said, I'd say it was a good thing that I found myself looking at literature that the matrix cribbed from--it's far more satisfying. In that respect I say shame on the movie for making me have to look up things to understand it better.

I also think that the sequels were hurt by the fact that at some point it became about being a multimedia Matrix experience. I don't want to get into an argument about the relative merits in doing things that way, but the films themselves suffered as a result of the diffusing of plot.

How about 'thank you' for making you read literature you otherwise wouldnt have if the film werent made?

Might make myself look lame but if it werent for this trilogy I might not have read the books I've read, the movies I've seen and the concepts I've been introduced to since 1999. I was heading in a specific direction at a slow pace, but the films sped up my journey and pointed me in interesting directions I might not have looked in otherwise.

The films are discourse, they sometimes dont conform to the typical movie-going wants and needs of the majority, which to some is a bad thing, but I dont think that makes the trilogy a failure. It wasnt made to please everyone, to be generic entertainment with no shelf-life. Its not perfect obviously, and stumbles here and there (seriously Trinity just die) but I think it was never primarily about eliciting emotions, it was about triggering ideas. Well, I think so anyway. I'm glad the brothers didnt explain themselves to everyone, I'm glad they put two contrasting commentary tracks on the DVDs, that they have humour and can take the piss out of themselves and their films.

As for the much maligned Revolutions, it does come in 3rd place for me but its not shit or loses the plot. One valid interpretation, my favourite, is that its the perfect culmination of everything thats gone past. A true Buddhist journey to enlightenment. Whereas in the first film Neo broke free of the illusion of maya, in Revolutions he breaks free of the cycle of Samsara itself, by losing the one thing he desires in life, that thing that keeps him in the cycle of life; Trinity.

Anyway, like AgentShaolin I've spent way too much time talking about these movies. I like 'em.

Problem is, cognizant, that a film shouldn't NEED crib notes. Plenty of movies have made me go 'wow, I wanna check out the source material' but those movies held their own - it wasn't required to understand what the hell was going on - it added a little extra something if you felt like you wanted to look into it.

I applaud the Bros for trying to put in interesting ideas into their movies - but I shouldn't have to research to understand my entertainment. The movie should stand on it's own - it can't only make sense (or hold meaning) if you 'did the research. This ain't Graduate school, right?

Just my opinion - other's mileage may vary...

I can definitely understand your view point Andrew. I guess also the novelty factor of the trilogy intrigued me alot, I hadnt experienced anything like it before, so I ended up respecting the trilogy more because of the ingenuity involved.

Same thing is going on with the TV series Lost, although the recent revelations of the channel controlling the length and therefore the content of the story have made me lessen my expectations...

1st film: nifty, entertaining little sci-fi diversion.

2nd and 3rd films: bloated, dense, self-important nonsense.

Matrix Revolutions deserves a prize for most expensive set-piece battle featuring none of the primary characters (Morpheus is pretty much redundant by EPIII).

Something else that didn't exactly ruin the 2nd and 3rd for me but that I missed from the first were the weird low-tech gizmos used inside the Matrix. Thinking of the bug scanner Trinity used to pull that thing out of Neo's belly and the manually dialing gizmo Neo is hooked up to after swallowing the red pill in particular.

I guess it is a really small thing, but for me they gave off a sense (along with the "older" sets like the Heart o' the City Hotel and the Oracle's Seventies-ish pad, and the suicide doors on the matrixmobile) that time was somehow arrested and a little arbitrary inside the Matrix. I didn't get any of that while they were inside during the 2nd two movies. A small thing, I guess, but I liked the atmosphere of it.

I dont understand people complaining about Morpheus and the abandoning of his character, or a lack of a character arc. Just because he's not in Revolutions as much as the previous two films does not mean his character arc was not resolved. Compare every line of Morpheus's dialogue in Revolutions to the first film and you will see a big change in character. His world was turned inside out at the end of Reloaded, its not unrealistic for him to take a backseat in the face of the looming threat. And his last piece of dialogue is "Is this real?" IS THIS REAL!? Coming from Morpheus!!!

"COME ON!!!" - G.O.B.

Funnily enough, I was thinking exactly the same thing at the time.

Heh, I imagine it got worse when that sunrise appeared.

I take onboard your point about Morpheus's character arc. But you can't deny his lack of involvement in the third episode (relative to the preceding episodes).

To be honest, I think it was ballsy of the Wachowskis to run such an expensive set-piece with minor characters. It certainly breaks the mould for established action movies. And I'm all for mould-breaking.

I LOVE retro threads...

I agree. It's just difficult to care who lives and dies (which is where the tension comes from) when we don't know them really.

I will say this -- there are parts of all three films that I like - either from what they tried to do (successfully or not), from a technical standpoint or from a character standpoint. And I certainly understand some of the attraction others have for it - though I do not share that attraction....

Given the absence of captivating franchises lately, I'm afraid 'retro' is all we have.

After watching the final thirty minutes of Revolutions again, a question: why would anyone choose to address a dying companion (a soul-mate in this case) by her hacker handle and not her real name?

This is not just a Matrix problem. Filmmakers have figured it's acceptable for characters to address each other by surnames for years (John Carpenter’s The Thing is a good example).

It’s totally implausible, wrong and jarring, IMO.

Well in so far as Matrix, I always figured the names they chose as their 'hacker' names became their true names - they reject the names they were given by their 'parents' as a product of the matrix - so they choose their own name. So Trinity IS her name.

As for calling people by their surnames - depends on the movie -- sometimes it's fine. I know some people who get called their last names in real life too - although it was much more common in grade school than in adulthood.

I see how you could have a problem with that kind of thing in other movies, but in the Matrix it's more than just not an issue, but actually something the filmmakers went out of their way to address. I mean, the climax of the first movie came when Smith called the hero Mr. Anderson, and he dramatically replied "My name...is Neo!"

It would have been much more jarring and inconsisent if he had suddenly called her Bridget as she was dying. But maybe he should have. Maybe that scene just needed that kind of small nudge to take it across the threshold from atrociously bad drama to surreal hilarity.

The answer is yes, there are many many actresses worse than Carrie Anne Moss, its just that she gets stuck with some of the worst dialogue (see Natalie portman in the Star Wars films for further examples). If you wanna see how good Carrie Ann Moss can be, check out Memento. I thought she was really good (if not mindblowing) in that film.

Well to play Devil's advocate, what makes a great actor is the ability to transcend crappy dialouge. Personally I think Agent's Smith's dialouge is some of the worst in the films, but Hugo Weaving just makes it sound cool. The "Why do you persist?" speech at the end of Revolutions could have easily sounded like a whiny kid throwing a temper tantrum. Instead, Weaving gave the character a little more depth and I truly felt that Smith just couldn't comprehend what was going on. And who else can make "Mr. Anderson" sound like a dirty word?

P.S., I too thought she was great in Memento.

Can't argue with you - to take the Star Wars analogy again, its the difference between Liam Neeson and Hayden Christensen. But that doesn't mean that Portman or Moss (or Christensen) are lesser actors per se, just not as experienced. No?

That's exactly how it DID sound! I dunno, I don't think the blame can be thrown at the actors' feet at all because Keanu did wonders in the first one, precisely because he had so little dialogue. And you won't catch me insulting Mr. Weaving. He has excelled in everything I've seen him in. Anyone ever catch Proof, a little film he and Russell Crowe were in in the early nineties? Crowe played a straight talking bloke who Weaving - a blind recluse - hired to describe the photos he takes because he lacks bullshit. Great film, and Weaving is outstanding in it.

Well since I have always hated it, I guess I still do.

That's an apt illustration, I think. It's always been my contention that Lucas doesn't work with his actors, and that those actors who don't require much directorial hand-holding (like Guiness and Neeson) do better than those who do (like Hammill and Christensen). It's possible that the Wachowskis have the same issue, although it's probably too soon in their filmography to make that call. Certainly, Bound had consistently good performances. But maybe those actors were all of the non-hand-holding variety.

Speaking of Bound, does anyone else really wish the Wachowskis would move on and do something completely non-Matrix related? I'd like to see what else they can do, but they seem determined to live there indefinitely.

You cant get more non-Matrixy than their 'assologue's to Shaolin Cowboy and their writing for Doc Frankenstein. If V For Vendetta is a big success I'm sure people will be begging them, comic geeks that they are, to direct Watchmen. Now that adaptation in their hands would be something...