Whats wrong with the Matrix Sequels?

[Baron Khaine]

Personally, I don't like how preachy Reloaded and Revolutions get. The blatant religious references get pretty irritating.

Those didn't bother me so much until he was carried away while laying cross-wise, that just seemed like it was designed to punch you in the face with "amg he's like christ".

 

[Shapoolaman]

What I always say about movies like the Matrix sequels and Alien 3 and Resurrection is this, they are far better then 80% of the sci-fi movies out there. Between the sci-fi channel presentations and the countless straight to DVD movies, and then those like the current "Repo-Men", the last two Matrix films are completely awesome and well done... and solid actions films to boot.

 

[He_Is_Legend]

I would say it is welcome and MORE! Neo; being the One, has a goal to achieve. After CHOOSING the wrong option, he ends up fixing the problem anyway, mainly by grasping power in the REAL world and not only the Matrix. The power of the One extends outside the Matrix, but Neo seems to be the only one who has ever actually done it... A welcome change, If you are a free child of Zion ;p

 

[Acidwell]

The reason for the dislike of revolution in my opinion is less matrix and more "real world". It was the best part of the films were the bits in the matrix.

The reason people don't like the second one is that it was hyped so much and it didnt live up to the awesome factor of the first.

 

[Shapoolaman]

And all humans are geniuses compared to monkeys, what's your point?

Considering the difference in funding between the 2 Matrix sequels, and the low budget sci-fi straight to DVD movies you mentioned, of course reload and revolutions are better. Never the less, that doesn't make them good (although, I don't so much mind reloaded, which was decent, but revolutions was just utter drek).

Nope. You are wrong my friend. Budget has nothing to do with making a good movie. Absolutely nothing to do with it what so ever. Sure you can hire more people and have better special effects, but that doesn't make a movie good by any means. A good movie is a good movie, regardless of cost. I've seen countless movies that blew my mind that were made on a budget less then $1000, and countless more that were complete shit that cost millions. The bottom line is that some people are talented and some are not, some movie are good, others are not.

A good example? Take Sergio Leone's epic genre inventing "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". It took him two equally (if not greater) films before it in order to secure a budget of roughly one million dollars. Three years later, 1969, Clint Eastwood does a western (not directed by Sergio Leone) that cost roughly $20,000,000. That movie? "Paint Your Wagon". (for those who are not familiar with the film, it was a musical starring good ol' Clint, where he does in fact sing. Hey, everyone makes a mistake once in a while.)

Budget has no relevance in movie critiques.

 

[Shapoolaman]

And all humans are geniuses compared to monkeys, what's your point?

Considering the difference in funding between the 2 Matrix sequels, and the low budget sci-fi straight to DVD movies you mentioned, of course reload and revolutions are better. Never the less, that doesn't make them good (although, I don't so much mind reloaded, which was decent, but revolutions was just utter drek).

Nope. You are wrong my friend. Budget has nothing to do with making a good movie. Absolutely nothing to do with it what so ever. Sure you can hire more people and have better special effects, but that doesn't make a movie good by any means. A good movie is a good movie, regardless of cost. I've seen countless movies that blew my mind that were made on a budget less then $1000, and countless more that were complete shit that cost millions. The bottom line is that some people are talented and some are not, some movie are good, others are not.

A good example? Take Sergio Leone's epic genre inventing "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". It took him two equally (if not greater) films before it in order to secure a budget of roughly one million dollars. Three years later, 1969, Clint Eastwood does a western (not directed by Sergio Leone) that cost roughly $20,000,000. That movie? "Paint Your Wagon". (for those who are not familiar with the film, it was a musical starring good ol' Clint, where he does in fact sing. Hey, everyone makes a mistake once in a while.)

Budget has no relevance in movie critiques.

I would still rather watch Sharktopus than Revolutions.

And it is because of people like you that so many shitty movies fill our theaters and line the walls of Blockbuster.

 

[manythings]

The first was sold in the office of a producer using a DVD copy of Mamoru Oshii's Ghost in the Shell (not a fan boy comment the Wachowshi brothers/sister said it themselves) so the matrix can't be called original (Still one of my movies of forever and the first movie I personally owned). The second was ok had interesting action and good set pieces, the third was terrible and I can sum up why in one phrase:

They tried to make a movies that were cleverer than they are.

In the first one if you go back and watch them again there are a lot of little things said ad done that pay off later on down the line in great and interesting ways. The oracle's dialogue was one of the best uses for this idea. Then they went batshit crazy on their own hype and started thinking it was clever because they were writing it not that they should try to be clever when writing. Come on... he has magic real world powers because he... is the guy? No magical implants to tap into the matrix remotely, no explanation as to why he can just destroy everything because he Wants to, it's ridiculous. Also why in shits name is Agent Smith suddenly stronger than him? He took on dozens of him without issue now one guy is a fucking super saiyan... Tell me where that makes sense.

 

[manythings]

I would say it is welcome and MORE! Neo; being the One, has a goal to achieve. After CHOOSING the wrong option, he ends up fixing the problem anyway, mainly by grasping power in the REAL world and not only the Matrix. The power of the One extends outside the Matrix, but Neo seems to be the only one who has ever actually done it... A welcome change, If you are a free child of Zion ;p

It's not a welcome change, because it makes Neo all but invincible. In the original Matrix Neo was flawed, he was human, he was relatable. In the second movie, he might be god in the matrix, but he's still just a normal man in reality, despite what his worshipers might think. The problem arises when he becomes a god in both realities at the end of reloaded and throughout revolutions. Who the hell wants to watch a movie where the protagonist has no weakness? This is the same reason that Batman will always be more popular than Superman, despite the fact that he has no powers.

Once the character is no longer relatable the movie becomes stale, especially considering Reeves' stoic, wooden acting, which fails to make a connection with the audience.

Superman as a character is pretty wooden anyway...

 

[mip0]

I think the first is better 'cause there was so much new, like the dodging bullets part. The second and third movie feel more like pointless action.

 

[Drakmeire]

There were a few inconsistencies in the sequels which really ruins the movies as well as too much talking but there is a theory circling around online that makes the sequels make tons of seance, it basically states that Zion is part of the matrix created by the machines as a fail-safe in case the humans realize the "real world" is a program, in a nutshell, the machines programed ways for humans to escape the matrix and find themselves in a new world that they believe is the real world but is still a program within the matrix so the whole concept of "THE ONE" is just a lie made by the machines to give them false hope and distract them. This theory explains Neo's powers in the "real world" in matrix: revolutions, so in the end the humans thought they won but are really still stuck in the matrix.

 

[Queen Michael]

In my opinion, Reloaded is excellent. But Revolutions was too tricky to understand at some parts, and at other parts it was too stupid. (Oh, look. Squid robots. Let's shoot them. Let's say Goddammit! a lot.)

 

[WINDOWCLEAN2]

Agreed to all lol, Reloaded i didn't mind at all. But the thing that really got me about Revolutions was the happy happy lala ending.

Happy Lala?
Neo = DEAD
Trinity = DEAD
Zion = WRECKED
MATRIX = UNTOUCHED
Machines = INVINCIBLE

And the fact that it says at the end of the film that they know the peace won't last so really humanity lost.

 

[ranasan]

I liked the Matrix Sequels as well, Reloaded had my favorite action sequence of all time, the fight between Neo and all the Agent Smiths. I'm particularly glad that I'm not the only one who is confused by all this hate for the sequels

 

[akapellah21]

They stretched the story way too much between 2 & 3. If they had made Reloaded and Revolutions into one movie, it woulda been gold.

Oh and did Neo really wake up from The Matrix, or did the machines create a Faux-Zion. (remember the end of Reloaded when Neo destroyed the sentinels with is "The One" powers...

 

[foxlovingfreak]

Actually this seems to be happeing a lot lately a movie like the matrix reloaded comes out evrybody sees it talks about how awesome the movie is one year later I bring say rembere how awesome the matrix reloaded was and the same pepole who where telling me how good it was now say it sucks saddly a recuring true story.