Matrix Revolutions - just watched it again

[Villano]

I object to people disliking the movies because they didn't understand the first thing about them and are convinced that they understand everything, and what they understood is garbage.

Then it's a good thing that you understand everything and can correct them on their opinions. Those arrogant fools!

And on that ironic note, I'm done...

 

[Maraxle]

Personally, I'm not much of a fan of the series. I was lukewarm on the first one. Interesting concept, kind of pretty, but I don't like sci-fi, so it wasn't my cup of tea. I hate Keanu too, as I can only picture Bill & Ted when I see him. I went to the second movie on a whim and found it to be one of the worst I've seen in a while. Timeline beat that one as the crappiest I've seen in recent memory. It was all action, no plot, and tried to fake depth. I was dragged to the third one, and wouldn't have gone at all if I didn't have a free ticket. Strangely, I found this one to be more enjoyable than the second one. It was back up to the lukewarm feeling the first one gave me. Kind of pretty, a reasonable mix of action and plot, but still sci-fi hour with Bill & Ted.

 

[Eosin the Red]

On Villino's note - I think that discussing if someone "got it" as a critera for validity of their critism is not exactly correct. The Madonna example is good but I think it is like not being able to critique a comic cause you did not get the jokes.

If you did not get the jokes....is that your fault or the comics fault? What if half the audiance did not get the jokes? Or what if everyone got the jokes but can't agree on what they mean? IF you sat through the movie or read the book then your critism has been "earned" as long as it is something more than "X sucks."

That ain't critisism.

 

[Spatula]

I see all three as a trilogy that tells a complete story. Saying you don't think that the second or third film should have been made is like saying that its a good idea to start telling a story but never finish it.

No story is ever finished. Stories are usually stopped when there's little to no point in continuing, but that's not the same thing.

When I first heard there would be sequels to the first Matrix movie, I said that it was a mistake. The first movie's story is that of the "birth" of the One. It tells that story and is finished. The details of the One's triumph over the machines is left untold, but that's not important. There's actually no real point in telling the "rest" of the story because the One is effectively a god and can't be stopped. He can manipulate the very fabric of the matrix. He comes back from the dead. We go into action movies knowing that the protaganist will defeat the bad guy and probably survive, but the suspension of disbelief that he might get taken out along the way still needs to be there. When the protaganist is invincible there's no suspension of disbelief and consequently no action.

The highway chase scene in Reloaded is a great action scene. Coincidentally, Neo is not involved until the very end, when he swoops in and saves the day in a very deus ex machina fashion. The Neo/Smith fight in Reloaded, on the other hand, is ***boring***. There's no danger, no excitement, and it just drags on and on.

Now, in Revolutions Neo has been removed from the matrix, which improves the situation immensely. And I actually like Revolutions as an action flick. The disappointment comes from the fact that it's pretty much just an action flick. All the interesting possibilities raised by Reloaded are completely ignored or dismissed out of hand (is the french guy a former "one", is the real world merely another level of the matrix, etc.).

Regarding the Oracle in the first film, I don't see how her presence is any harder to swallow than that of a messiah-figure. If you accept the existance of a super-powered savior, how is a fortune teller any different? As takyris says, the trappings are sci-fi but the character archtypes are straight out of fantasy stories.

But she's a program. She already was a program in the first movie, not some mysterious soothsayer.

There's nothing in the first film that says she's a program. That fact, along with her motivations, is handed out in Reloaded. In the first film, what is she if not a mysterious soothsayer?

 

[ASH]

I did not love the first movie. It was okay, but just not great to me. The second movie rocked. I adored it.

The third movie was a great ending to a trilogy that i feel was a bit above average, but nothing to write home about. I liked the third film alot, I liked the second film the most.
I liked all of them, I want to own them, but they are not the best things I have ever seen. THat would be the DnD movie.. Yes, I am kidding about the DnD movie.

 

[TracerBullet42]

I object to people disliking the movies because ...

Ok, now that's just funny. Should we ask your permission before forming an opinion next time?

Revolutions was about as deep as a toilet. And that's where it belongs. Unfortunately, Reloaded is clogging up the drain.

I'd take that analogy further, but it's yucky.

 

[FCWesel]

And I still hate it.

Preach it, Brother Wickett, preach it!

 

[Thanee]

There's nothing in the first film that says she's a program. That fact, along with her motivations, is handed out in Reloaded. In the first film, what is she if not a mysterious soothsayer?

Hmm... I'm pretty sure, that after seeing the first movie I thought, that she must be a program and found that weird, because during the movie I thought she is someone from Zion who is guiding the others, altho that's equally weird.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

I see all three as a trilogy that tells a complete story. Saying you don't think that the second or third film should have been made is like saying that its a good idea to start telling a story but never finish it.

In that specific case... yes!

My bias is that I liked it better than 1 or 2 because more of tha action took place in the real world. It delivered on the promise of a butt kicking war that was made in the first movie.

If it were the real world... but it wasn't.

It was just a stupid game played between two programs...

It's just like the revelation at the end of the Men in Black movie... only difference... there it was cool!

No degree of underlying philosophy can raise that (IMHO) crappy movie above the low level I place it on in my opinion (which doesn't mean others cannot do so, of course). It even sucked as an action movie, except for very few scenes (like the flight back to Zion, where Niobe steered the ship through the tunnels).

I place Matrix 3 on one level with Highlander 2 on that behalf.
The world would have been better, if they never made those!

In a review of the Terminator 3 movie, someone said it very well... a great action movie (well, not that I really agree with that part ) that does not suffer from the underlying philosophy of the Matrix series!

Bye
Thanee