-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Favorite Matrix Movie
- Thread starter Ixidor
- Start date
No one seems to have much to say about the sequels beyond "they sucked", I'd like to hear exactly why they were so poor.
I can see why people were disappointed by them, they were expecting what they'd experienced from seeing the first film to be repeated for them. Twice. I'm glad the Wachowskis didn't do that.
The first film was a great setup for the second two. It told us of Neo's origin, within the space of a simple (yet deep) story showing us a mere corner of the huge world the Wachowskis created for the Matrix. It hinted at larger things but all we got was a simple story with a few characters representative of the rest (ie all we saw of freed humanity was the crew of the Neb, and all we really saw of the Matrix was a few sentinels & a few agents). It gave us a nice, clean, one sided view of what was going on. This isn't a bad thing, it's exactly what people needed for the first film.
With 2 & 3, they blew things right open. It was like a child stepping in to the real world for the first time. We discover not everyone believes what Morpheus does (Locke with his utilitarianism, Merv with his causality etc). We discover not everyone in the Matrix is working toward the same purpose, and neither is everyone outside the Matrix.
A lot of Christians I've talked to didn't like the fact that the very strong Christian symbolism in the first film got "diluted" in the second two. This isn't really the case. Instead what we saw in the trilogy was the truth being discovered in the first film, then it being tested in the light of other half-truths in the next two. Many of the characters & situations tried to pull the truth we learnt from the first film down, but at the end of Revolutions, what prevailed? We see Neo, stretched out like a cross, becoming Smith (sin?) for humanity, and conquering it. The machine says "It is done," a phrase very familiar to anyone who's read the gospels.
First Matrix gave us the black & white of it, Reloaded & Revolutions introduced us to the real world, where there is doubt, confusion, and many shades of grey.
Anyway, I could rant about them for ages. I think it's a fantastic trilogy as a whole despite a few small problems here and there, and I think the Wachowskis did a brave and brilliant thing with the two sequels. Unfortunately for them, a lot of their audience didn't understand where they were going, which I suppose could be a fault on the Wachowskis part, but for me they did the job just fine.
I can see why people were disappointed by them, they were expecting what they'd experienced from seeing the first film to be repeated for them. Twice. I'm glad the Wachowskis didn't do that.
The first film was a great setup for the second two. It told us of Neo's origin, within the space of a simple (yet deep) story showing us a mere corner of the huge world the Wachowskis created for the Matrix. It hinted at larger things but all we got was a simple story with a few characters representative of the rest (ie all we saw of freed humanity was the crew of the Neb, and all we really saw of the Matrix was a few sentinels & a few agents). It gave us a nice, clean, one sided view of what was going on. This isn't a bad thing, it's exactly what people needed for the first film.
With 2 & 3, they blew things right open. It was like a child stepping in to the real world for the first time. We discover not everyone believes what Morpheus does (Locke with his utilitarianism, Merv with his causality etc). We discover not everyone in the Matrix is working toward the same purpose, and neither is everyone outside the Matrix.
A lot of Christians I've talked to didn't like the fact that the very strong Christian symbolism in the first film got "diluted" in the second two. This isn't really the case. Instead what we saw in the trilogy was the truth being discovered in the first film, then it being tested in the light of other half-truths in the next two. Many of the characters & situations tried to pull the truth we learnt from the first film down, but at the end of Revolutions, what prevailed? We see Neo, stretched out like a cross, becoming Smith (sin?) for humanity, and conquering it. The machine says "It is done," a phrase very familiar to anyone who's read the gospels.
First Matrix gave us the black & white of it, Reloaded & Revolutions introduced us to the real world, where there is doubt, confusion, and many shades of grey.
Anyway, I could rant about them for ages. I think it's a fantastic trilogy as a whole despite a few small problems here and there, and I think the Wachowskis did a brave and brilliant thing with the two sequels. Unfortunately for them, a lot of their audience didn't understand where they were going, which I suppose could be a fault on the Wachowskis part, but for me they did the job just fine.
Upvote
0
funyun
aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse
The first was a masterpiece. The second was ok, thought the script wasn't too great, and the architect scene (the only redeeming thing about the second, apart from the Merovingian's causality lecture) led us to believe we were going to find some awesome secret in the third one. Unfortunately the lack of such a thing in the third, along with the lame death of Trinity, who I believe deserved to die fighting a sentinel, makes the second look bad as well.
Upvote
0
The First one was good
The Second one was better
But the Third one was the worst....Neo dies...That Sucks
The Second one was better
But the Third one was the worst....Neo dies...That Sucks
Upvote
0
Imblessed
Reformed Baptist with a Quaker heritage
The sheer originality of the first one was totally mindblowing. The only movie I actually paid to see 4 times!! Amazing!
The second one was pretty good too, although by then the whole 'idea' had been copied and used over and over again. I was hoping for some "new" stuff, groundbreaking like the first--too much to hope for though.
The third one? Well, I'm just sorry to say I went, I just knew I shouldn't go and I went anyway, HOPING that they'd finish strong, but I left the theatre dissapointed and more than a little confused. I just don't think they wrapped it up very well, and I though Trinity could have died better, it just all seemed very anti-climatic.
But, all in all, besides the Lord of the Rings, probably the best trilogy out there.
The second one was pretty good too, although by then the whole 'idea' had been copied and used over and over again. I was hoping for some "new" stuff, groundbreaking like the first--too much to hope for though.
The third one? Well, I'm just sorry to say I went, I just knew I shouldn't go and I went anyway, HOPING that they'd finish strong, but I left the theatre dissapointed and more than a little confused. I just don't think they wrapped it up very well, and I though Trinity could have died better, it just all seemed very anti-climatic.
But, all in all, besides the Lord of the Rings, probably the best trilogy out there.
Upvote
0
Jadis40
Senior Member
- Sep 19, 2004
- 963
- 192
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Having seen all three, I was really excited about the premise of the first movie, which I thought was excellent, in some of the ideas and concepts that it brought up - especially the idea of reality not being based on fact, but purely created as a computer program.
The problem with this trilogy is that I think the creators focused so much into falling into the old stand by of just turning the franchise into nothing more than action flicks.
Oh well. The only part of that trilogy I'll ever own is probably the first movie.
The problem with this trilogy is that I think the creators focused so much into falling into the old stand by of just turning the franchise into nothing more than action flicks.
Oh well. The only part of that trilogy I'll ever own is probably the first movie.
Upvote
0
The problem with Matrix is that the first matrix was too good. After that, it's success cannot be duplicated. The first one is by far the best. Revolutions was agonizing to watch. I wasted time and money for that movie (what a disappointment).
Upvote
0
I didn't care for the second or third at all. I just didn't like all the Zion stuff. Morpheus.... pffft.
Upvote
0
Has to be said i was the biggest fan of the matrix (and still am of the first movie) but the last two were such let downs i know how huge star wars fans must have felt like when the phantom menace came out.
both of them had no where near the storyline of the original. the original was deeply philisophical without even trying but the second two seemed like they tried to get it in just because they felt like they should rather than it naturally coming out. all they seemed to talk about was the concept of choice - there's only so much you can say about it!
admittedly the action sequences in the second two were good but that is not the thing that i loved most about the original. the story is what made the matrix and i felt they let that slip so they could make as much money as possible because they spread themsleves too thin. they did the two films, the animatrix AND enter the matrix trying to convince us that they were doing it to deepen the story but they were obviously doing it for the ££$$£.
i was dissapointed by the second and thought that it was needed to set up an amazing finale so it would be good if you watched it one after the other. then i saw revolutions..........oh dear.
also WHAT were they thinking having that 5 minute dance sequence in zion!!!? that (after HULK) was the most boring cinema experience i have EVER had in my life!
AND overuse of the word "ERGO"
AND the Merovingian and his cake???! (what was that about)
the only really good part of either films was the bullet time punch - sooo funny, made most people in the cinema laugh when it happened!
both of them had no where near the storyline of the original. the original was deeply philisophical without even trying but the second two seemed like they tried to get it in just because they felt like they should rather than it naturally coming out. all they seemed to talk about was the concept of choice - there's only so much you can say about it!
admittedly the action sequences in the second two were good but that is not the thing that i loved most about the original. the story is what made the matrix and i felt they let that slip so they could make as much money as possible because they spread themsleves too thin. they did the two films, the animatrix AND enter the matrix trying to convince us that they were doing it to deepen the story but they were obviously doing it for the ££$$£.
i was dissapointed by the second and thought that it was needed to set up an amazing finale so it would be good if you watched it one after the other. then i saw revolutions..........oh dear.
also WHAT were they thinking having that 5 minute dance sequence in zion!!!? that (after HULK) was the most boring cinema experience i have EVER had in my life!
AND overuse of the word "ERGO"
AND the Merovingian and his cake???! (what was that about)
the only really good part of either films was the bullet time punch - sooo funny, made most people in the cinema laugh when it happened!
Upvote
0
ChrisLockhart
Well-Known Member
- Oct 18, 2004
- 803
- 20
- 48
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Similar threads
