150 replies to this topic

[PaulZ108]

I'm in the minority here that liked Reloaded. Parts of it I dislike (when I got the DVD Zion got skipped entirely), but for the most part I liked it. Can't wait to see Revolutions this weekend (which, judging by this thread, probably won't be nearly as packed).

[jwheels]

Over at AICN, Harry gives a great review, and about half way down, he explains what the movies are about.

Here is the link: http://aintitcool.co...ay.cgi?id=16436

[Blue Eyes]

My God, people who hate the Maxtix!

This is heaven.

Everyone I've talked to in Australia, bar my better half, has only ever expressed a love for the film (sic.) series.

I watched Matrix and found it one of the most mediocore, and over-rated films in recent memory. Possibly even surpassing ID4, no scrap that, definetley surpassing Independance Day.

The story line just felt like the Terminator series re-hashed, and the good special effects that were in the film were completely ruined by the shoddy 'saturday morning TV' ones placed throughout the film.

I refused to see the second one (whether it be Revolutions or Reloaded - I'm not sure) solely based on the sheer boredom I found with the first. And I'm sure the third won't be all that different.

One day I may bother to catch them on DVD, but that'll be long after they hit the weekly section of the local video store.

[Bondian]

I agree with you Daniel.

We turned the movie off half way through it.

With no disrespect to the people on this site who like it I really cannot see what the fuss is all about. Either that or my brain cannot handle the wierd action that is in the movie.

Can someone explain it to me?.

Cheers,

Ian

[Blue Eyes]

Surely the only explanation is a weak plot held together by some clever CGI and filming work?

[JackChase007]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
Surely the only explanation is a weak plot held together by some clever CGI and filming work?

I would hardly consider it clever...

[Blue Eyes]

Well I haven't seen it all, so I can't comment to the full level. But from what I've seen there is some that is clever, but in the sense that it would require an apt mind to technically output such material.

Just depends on the definition of clever really.

[JackChase007]

I will give them that their work with the first MATRIX was clever. My only real problem with it was that the fight scenes were WAY TOO CHOREOGRAPHED. They just LOOKED rehearsed. But otherwise, I did respect the directors in their vision (I don't want to say their names as I'm sure that I would do nothing but butcher them).

However, with RELOADED, I can only say one word about the entire film - PRETENTIOUS.

[freemo]

2.5 hours of fortune cookie philosophy and dodgy CGI action. I'll pass. All my friends are obsessed with it, but with the explaination as to why being simply "because".

[Blue Eyes]

I'm looking forward to its release this Thursday I have to admit, as it means all the other screenings will be nice and empty. Few films I need to see.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by JackChase007


I would hardly consider it clever...

Well haven't seen the first one but from what I saw of the second one it didn't seem to have a plot...just a bunch of people going around fighting each other.

[JackChase007]

What is wrong about the beginning of the second one is that one of the major plot developments (the appearance of an army of sentinals - is that what you call them? - preparing to hunt down/attack Zion) is presented in one of the short films from THE ANIMATRIX, which was tacked onto the beginning of the horrible film DREAMCATCHER. If you didn't see that, then you're definately a little behind. Also, if you hadn't seen the first one, then you're.....well, definately WAY behind. But whereas the first film can really be summed up in a sentence or two (it would sound weird, but it's not really all that hard to grasp), the second film would take a person longer than RELOADED and REVOLUTIONS combined, I feel - mostly due to the incredibly dull amount of pretentious mumbo-jumbo (especially present in the end of the film).

Although I wasn't a huge fan of the first one, I was able to at least enjoy certain aspects/scenes of it, enough that I bought it on DVD and even THE MATRIX REVISITED (which is does show a great, in-depth look of the making of the film - I love that kinda stuff). I will not, however, consider buying either of the sequels.

[Genrewriter]

The first one was alright but seriously, there are films from Hong Kong with action more engaging and entertaining that werte released ten years before Matrix. As for Part 2, it commits the main cardinal sin of the second part of a trilogy. Think of Empire Strikes Back and how the story flowed perfectly and camer to a logical ending that left enough open to make you want the third film but closed enough of the story to satisdfy the audience. Matrix Reloaded does none of this. The Wachowskis were more concerned with the CGI stuff and the pseudo-metaphysical horse manure masquerading as dialogue to worry about that sort of thing. I might check out Revolutions on dvd, providing there is something else I want to rent that same night that I know is good.

[Athena007]

I'm going to see it on Wed at about 12:30pm
So I'll let you all know what I think of the third installment.

I wasn't too impessed with Matrix: Reloaded. I mean tehre were a few great moment's but some thatwere dragged out tooooo long. The original is starting to seen so far off from the new ones, it's really a shame.

[JackChase007]

Well, my theory is that the directors (again, it's not that I refuse to type their names - I just don't want to butcher them) got Lucasitis - early success means that they think they can put all the deluded crud into their later films they want and get away with it.

Seriously. Look at the original STAR WARS trilogy (no special edition), and then compare with the prequels.

Now, look at THE MATRIX (although, I'm not saying that it's anywhere near as amazing and as classic as the first three SW movies), and compare with RELOADED (I can't say I saw REVOLUTIONS yet, so...).

Actually, that does bring me to one small flaw in my plan of not seeing REVOLUTIONS - if I don't see it, then I can't really criticize it too much, now can I? Damn semantics...

[Blue Eyes]

Interesting comparison with Lucas.

While having a great story to tell, his prequels are lost in his insistance to use CGI in every frame of the film. It has both its purposes and needs to appear in a Star Wars film (it's not all bad and allows for some very neat stuff to appear on screen) but it quite often detracts from the film itself.

Same goes with the Matrix I guess. But I'm not sure exactly how much film would be left if you took out the CGI. Lucas has the advantage of some story line merged with the CGI that would remain.

[JackChase007]

A good point.

Also, I would like to mention the huge question on the mind of every MATRIX sequel basher:

Since when did Neo become SUPERMAN???

I mean, I understand that he is able to bend the laws of reality within the Matrix and everything - I can buy the jumping from building to building, the super-strength, speed, etc. But seriously - the flying just REALLY seems (at a risk of sounding repetitive) REALLY out of place.

[Oddfeld]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow



Triton....I am not going to sit through "The Matrix" so that it might explain "Matrix Reloaded" which I thought was confusing and completely incomprehensible. That's surely like saying "Gee I didn't really get 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' so I guess I need to see 'Raiders of the Lost Ark').

No, its not the same at all.
'Matrix Reloaded' continues the story of the first film the same as 'The Two Towers' continues the story of 'Fellowship of the Ring'. Would you see TTT without seeing FOTR?
'Temple of Doom' took place before 'Raiders' and was not a continuation or even a sequel...it was a prequel.

I didn't see "The Matrix" but thought I would give "Matrix Reloaded" a shot when I noticed a friend of mine had rented it. As I said earlier I turned it off in 10 to 15 minutes unable to follow what was going on. Why should I sit through 2 hours of something else so I can understand the 10 to 15 minutes of something that made no sense??

Same reasoning here.
Reloaded isn't just a sequel, its a continuation. You answered it yourself...you didn't understand Reloaded because you didn't see the first one. I know many sequels don't demand attention from an audience....this one did. Its a bit like hearing a joke from the middle and wondering why everyone else is laughing.

Having said that I completely agree with urhash's comments earlier.
I found it overly self indulgent and very poorly paced.

[Blue Eyes]

Ah, the flying! It was Neo's (let's step out of a phone booth and fly) flight at the end of Matrix that was the decisive moment for my low opinion of the Matrix. It was filmed bad, but its implications were bad. If he can do most anything, and fly off like Superman, who is really that capable of fighting him? In all of the sequels (and not seeing them here) why doesn't he just fly away, or where they saving that ring-making guy, why do they even get in cars? Why can't he just pick him up and zip off at lightspeed?

[Oddfeld]

He did.
He had to get there first.
He was several hundred miles away to begin with.

[Blue Eyes]

But how long does it take to fly several hundred miles when you can travel close enough to the speed of light?

Lets work that out, 330,000 kilometers per second (that being the speed of light as our mean)... Gee, a whole mili-second? Let me guess, he was held up? If that's the case then held up by what? Possibly by 10 billion Agent Smiths? Or maybe he was handcuffed to some bed by Trinity (oh isn't romance in those films so cliche?). So again, why didn't he just fly there?

Okay, yes I'm supposed to suspend disability and all that other mother jazz. But for me the Matrix went too far in too many fields.

[Oddfeld]

Where do you get that he flies at - or even close to - the speed of light?

Fast? Yes.
Speed of light? Noooo.
Speed of sound? Maybe. Eventually.
But thats considerably slower.

[Icephoenix]

Originally posted by Triton
I will see this movie just to figure out what was going on in Matrix Reloaded.  Who is the mother of the Matrix? Is it Persephone?  What did the Architect mean when he said that they we extremely efficient at destroying Zion? Is Zion and the "real world" another manifestation of the matrix? Is Neo a program?

Who is the mother of the Matirx? It's the Oracle. It was clearly explained during the Neo/Architect talk. And the whole "efficient at destroying Zion" thing, means they had destoryed Zion before, 4 or 5 times to be exact. But they simply rebuilt again. Destroyed again. etc... etc... nay take a few viewings to understand, ergo, you will have to rent it out. Vis-

[JackChase007]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
But how long does it take to fly several hundred miles when you can travel close enough to the speed of light?

Lets work that out, 330,000 kilometers per second (that being the speed of light as our mean)... Gee, a whole mili-second? Let me guess, he was held up? If that's the case then held up by what? Possibly by 10 billion Agent Smiths? Or maybe he was handcuffed to some bed by Trinity (oh isn't romance in those films so cliche?). So again, why didn't he just fly there?

Okay, yes I'm supposed to suspend disability and all that other mother jazz. But for me the Matrix went too far in too many fields.

Exactly. If he really needed to get away from the Smiths so urgently, what stopped him from just bolting out and flying away?

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Oddfeld

Reloaded isn't just a sequel, its a continuation. You answered it yourself...you didn't understand Reloaded because you didn't see the first one. I know many sequels don't demand attention from an audience....this one did. Its a bit like hearing a joke from the middle and wondering why everyone else is laughing.

Having said that I completely agree with urhash's comments earlier.
I found it overly self indulgent and very poorly paced.

But they made no attempt to explain what was happening for those of us in the audience who had not seen the first movie. Really, if its a continuation they should release the movies all at once rather than breaking it up into three parts so they can milk as much money out of the audience as possible.

[Oddfeld]

When they made the first movie it had to be relatively self-contained in case it flopped and the sequels never appeared. It was planned as a trilogy, but the first film was shot as one film. The final two were shot back to back.

And the final two films will be about 5 hours + in length.... breaking it in two instead of editing it down is a logical thing to do. Audiences won't rush to see nearly six hours in one go.
Same reason Tarantino broke "Kill Bill" into 2.

Anyone going into the second film not having seen the first should at least have a basic idea of what the story gist is...otherwise why see it? But its story is not one that could be quickly summed up.

TTT had no re-cap at the beginning either.
"Previously....in Middle-Earth...."

[Jim]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
[B]

But they made no attempt to explain what was happening for those of us in the audience who had not seen the first movie. [B]

Yes they did - it's called "the first movie".

The Empire Strikes Back would similarly confuse, no doubt.

[urhash]

No, Zion's not a 'matrix in a matrix'. Neo represents a statistical flaw in the design of the Matrix - 99% of the people "believe" in the Matrix world so long as they believe they have free will. The other 1% (I'm not sure if this is meant to mean Neo or all of Zion) naturally don't, and if left unchecked would grow larger and larger and threaten the machines hold of humans. Since this flaw was predicted the machines have time and time again kept it under control by repeatedly destroying Zion and "deleting" the latest iteration of "The One", who would agree to the process since he could not accept the other choice (the death of every human being hooked up to the matrix).

Yea, so whoever it was that said Reloaded takes a lot more than one sentence to explain got that right.

I have some beef with the choreography too. Yuen Woo Ping is talented but I really can't stand the Jet Li style of fighting that's emerged in the 90's with the wild circular hook punches. If you actually watch the path of the fist they look as though they are never intended to make contact to actually HIT the person, it's just some fancy movement so that the other guy can make a nice block. I really wish movies would get away from this style of fighting.

[JackChase007]

Originally posted by urhash
No, Zion's not a 'matrix in a matrix'.  Neo represents a statistical flaw in the design of the Matrix - 99% of the people "believe" in the Matrix world so long as they believe they have free will.  The other 1% (I'm not sure if this is meant to mean Neo or all of Zion) naturally don't, and if left unchecked would grow larger and larger and threaten the machines hold of humans.  Since this flaw was predicted the machines have time and time again kept it under control by repeatedly destroying Zion and "deleting" the latest iteration of "The One", who would agree to the process since he could not accept the other choice (the death of every human being hooked up to the matrix).

Yea, so whoever it was that said Reloaded takes a lot more than one sentence to explain got that right.

Oof! Well, just think of it this way: try explaining it to someone who has never seen any of the films before, and see how many questions they ask. That conversation could go on for awhile, I'd wager.

[gkgyver]

No, urhash, you have should believe it: the first Matrix has to be seen if you want to know what's going on in Reloaded.
Unfortunately, this makes it only more awful ...

The death of Trinity would fall under the category "obvious surprises".

And there's another thing that bugs me hugely about Reloaded. On the DVD, they really say that you have to see ALL of the Animatrix films AND play the video game AND watch the first one, in order to fully understand Reloaded.
Are they serious? Is there a more blatant way of soaking the money out of people's pockets?

I beg you, if you want me to be satisfied after seeing Revolutions, they better let the earth explode along with all the Characters of these "films".