Matrix: A
Reloaded: B-
Revolutions: A/B ( they started giving this out in my PS class, like +/- grading wasn't enough distinction)

Animatrix: Ranged widely from A+ (the histories) to C (The forgettable ones that I can't remember right now)

Honestly, I think that the last two could probably have put a little LESS drama and more focus on the sci-fi/hyper-realistic aspects. I don't care that much about neo/trinity, and I think the Wach. Brothers (brother/sister?) got a case of Luca$ epic romance fever.

Action/Sci-fi/concept movies like the matrix need to remember that we get connected to the characters through action, and to explicity talk about it gets a little tedious.

I loved the oracle/one/creator/doomsday themes of both movies. Ending was superb.

If you're going to bitch about the scientific impossibilities of using humans as an energy source, you're obviously missing the point.

For the Animatrix, there were some average shorts, but as a whole, I enjoyed it. My favorite short was Kid's Story. Great animation and imagery. Beyond and Detective's Story are close seconds.

Actually, it's a valid argument, beefjerky. Though the blame does not rest on the Wachowski Bros. but rather with Warner Bros. Or perhaps Joel Silver. I say this because I recall that the original concept was that humans would be used as a giant parallel processor or some such (I'm not too computer savvy so I might be naming it incorrectly) but the studio figured audiences wouldn't understand it at all so they were asked to change it. Thus they had to use the battery idea that the studio felt was more pallatable for general audiences.

idiot reloaded question regarding the very last shot. who is the man with the qhotee?

No, you're still missing the point if you're going to complain about some scientific aspect of the movie. It's the equivalent of bitching about LOTR because Gandalf uses magic or because mophologically infeasible creatures walk around. It's fiction, these devices are used to further the story of human suffering, not to be completely scientifically sound. Stop focusing so much on the "how," and start paying attention to the "why."

It's like the "why don't the machines use cows as an energy source?" argument. The people who bring that up say it like they actually think a movie about machines sapping cow energy would be interesting.

You wouldn't?

The Matrix A-
The Matrix Reloaded A
The Matrix Revolutions B+
The Animatrix B

After watching reloaded I found myself saying, "wow, this was cool"! I know that there are a lot of people out there who say that's the worse one, but I mean it wasn't suppose to finish anything, that is what Revolutions was for. I really liked Revolutions, and thought it ended the trilogy well. Sure there are still questions but I think that it was left to be that way. I remember hearing that the Matrix was suppose to be one movie but was broken up because there was so much content. So in a way you really can't judge any one of the movies by itself, they all go together like LOTR. Something that I have asked myself over and over is, "if peple hadn't had hyped everything up then it would have pleased more people"? Almost all the people I have talked to or know whether they like the films or not is "it was confusing". I personally didn't get confused from the films but I can see how one could but to not like a film because it's complicated is sort of dumb. These films are science fiction and do have a deep plot structure, and are not just another michael bay film. I'm sure I'm going to get burned but I feel that the Matrix trio were great movies, even with the holes!

Just saw Revolutions for the first time, but took the time to read through the original two threads from when it first came out in theaters. Just a few comments on parts that people seemed to do the most complaining about.

1) Why weren't there more EMP's in the dock? Well my understanding is that the EMP's are electronic components, and if you let one off it would disrupt all the others, so why have more than 1? Some suggested having shielding on the EMP's- if that were possible I would think the machines, a far more technologically advanced "species", would have that same technology and all EMP's would be useless.

2) Neo having physical powers in the real world, and the only explanation given was that he was "one with the source"- Now I've only watched the movie once, but did he ever show any physical control over the squiddies in the real world? I don't recall seeing lightning shooting from his fingertips or anything like that. Here's my take on it:

The Source is the collective consciousness of all machines, and has absolute power over them all. The golden vision that Neo was able to "see" with was in a sense looking through the Source's eyes. Since Neo was a part of the Source, he also had control over the machines (albeit limited, he was after all "still a human"). The squiddies Neo stops at the end of Reloaded were disabled by a surge of power, sent from the Source which he was tapped into. By the time Neo and Trinity were attacked on the way to Machine City, Neo was more in tune with his "sight" since he lost his eyes, and therefore was more powerful. He was able to stop the thousands of squids launched at him more dramatically, or possibly even by sending them a self-destruct signal. Again, he was still only human (and obviously not very good at multitasking ), so he could not send out a single command to disable every machine at once.

Well that's my take on it. I'm sure someone will point out a scene in the film that proves me wrong, please feel free if you know of one because I've only watched the thing one time and am going from memory and from others posts. But that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

I enjoyed this movie, but nowhere near as much as I did the original. After reading some of the posts in the other two threads, I do agree that this was the perfect ending to the movie. I'd like to see someone suggest a better ending that would have satisfied me more.

By the way- the older, gray-haired captain at the beginning, was a horrible actor! My god he made Keanu Reeves look like Sidney Poitier.

I think that any sci-fi movie that can spark as much debate as these have must be doing something right.

I heard someone make the most ridiculous argument for not liking Reloaded on another board. They said Reloaded was too much like Anime, and they didn't like Anime because it was "weird", and this didn't like Reloaded. That was all, they didn't like something because it was weird. A pathetic reason to not like anything.

1.) This one you could argue to death, and if you want an explanation I think it was because having an EMP just to protect the dock would have left it too vulnerable to a second attack. In the Matrix world, it seems like resources would be scant, and with so many more important things to build (ships, weapons, etc), they probably didn't have enough resources to cover shield everything in the dock. Same with the machines. The sentinels were probably expendable drones, and at the number they're built at, the machines probably didn't want to spend the resources necessary to shield every single one of them. Then again, it all comes down to if they had EMPs, there wouldn't be much of a story to tell.

2.) His connection with the Source was to symbolize his connection with heaven, with the divine. There was no doubt that Neo was the son of god, and thus he had a connection with god. That connection was Neo's ability to tap directly into the Source. Now what's interesting is the fact that the Source runs off power from the humans connected to the Matrix. We see three power lines leading away from the power plants to the machine city and the Source. Humans in the Matrix are conscious, they aren't in a continous vegetative state while the machines sap their energy. These humans are aware and able to feel inside the matrix, so what the machines end up getting is not just power, but emotionally charged power. The machines are sapping the emotions and feelings of the humans, and in a way, the machines are able to experience the things that they themselves would never be able to understand or do. The golden energy glow of all the machines not only signifies that the machines are truly divine, but also shows that they also have the divine power of humans coursing through them as well. This is an interesting aspect of how the divinity of both man and machine keeps each other going.

Now back to Neo. When he's tapping into the Source, he's tapping into all the glory and power of heaven. When he first touches the source, he's not spiritually/mentally ready for the connection, and descends into limbo (read my thoughts on Mobil Ave here: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...5&pagenumber=3). Once he has embraced his divinity, the connection between him and the Source grows stronger, and he's able to manipulate the human emotional energy that runs throughout all machines. His powers in the real world are just limited to this manipulation of power, so no, he doesn't have any "physical control" over the machines, and he doesn't fly around or do bullet time kung fu in the real world.

As for the grey haired captain, are you talking about Roland, captain of the Mjolnir Hammer? I liked Roland. I didn't think he was a bad actor.

I love all the people who still cling to the thought that the Matrix trilogy was all written at once, and then try to make excuses for any of the movies by saying, "Well, you can't let it stand on its own." Well, the first one definitely can stand on its own, and even if you look at Reloaded and Revolutions as one movie, it's one long movie with a good first half and a very disappointing second half.

As for the whole trilogy being written at once thing, I highly doubt it. It seemed clear that The Matrix was a sleeper hit and suddenly WB had this hot property and called up the Wachowskis and said, "Give us more! We need the money!" And the Wachowskis, who had written the first Matrix to stand on its own, were stuck in the unfortunate position of having to write two sequels to a film that was never meant to have any.

Oh come on. While I doubt the W bros. had it all planned out from the beginning, The Matrix was a movie that SCREAMED out for a sequel. Why is it so hard to believe that the sequels were something thought out before hand though? I mean, while I can understand criticisms that you don't like what they did, anyone who wants to claim that they didn't at least put any thought into the film is out of their mind. I mean, I understand these latter sequels are not loved by everyone, but do you honestly think what was made was just a shallow attempt and grabbing money? I mean, seriously, just watch the movies. It's obvious that these films and NOT typical Hollywood sequels, and definately not something somebody just came up with 20 minutes before a script was due.

I think what has happened here is that the W Bros. were given the opportunity to make whatever they wanted. And they made something far less commercial than what the Matrix was. I'm sorry, but the original Matrix was groundbreaking in only ONE way...style. It's story, it's drama, it's acting, were nothing new, and nothing remarkable.

Reloaded and Revolutions were never meant to stand on their own. The first film was. So what if they didn't have the whole story planned out? Does anyone? Do you think Tolkien knew what happened in the end of his LoTR trilogy when he was writing the beginning? Geesh, that's not how a lot of writers work.

I think these Matrix films are a fascinating collection of sci-fi films, doing something very different than your typical American blockbuster and giving us some real sciece fiction. Sure, the movies suffer from some slow pacing and goofy drama, but you know what? ALL THREE MOVIES DID.

Seriously, I just have no idea what people wanted to see in these sequels, but it sounds like nothing I'd want to watch.

I agree with the view that there really was only enough story in Reloaded and Revolutions for one good sequel, but it was instead stretched out into two mediocre films. Now there are some worthy action-scenes, such as the "freeway chase", and the "walking-on-the-ceiling fight", in the two sequels, but ultimately neither movie comes close to living up to the original film.

And here are two very good reviews that really get to the heart of the issues with Revolutions (the first is negative, the second starts negative and then gets positive):

http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/m/...olutions.shtml

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/matrixrevolutions.php


.

Not really. If the whole thing were planned as a trilogy from the start, Neo would not have become the One so early on. And it didn't scream out for a sequel. It ends with the messiah-figure returning and telling the robots he's going to destroy them all. And then...GASP!...it leaves the rest for the audience to imagine. Perfect ending. No need for a sequel at all.


The reason I feel they were not made as a trilogy to start with is because the last two are so overly convoluted that it feels like the Wachowskis were intentionally making things confusing to cover up for the fact that the sequels were never actually meant to exist. Again, I point to Neo becoming the One so early on. If you look at each movie as one act in a three-act story, Neo wouldn't have become the One until much later. It would have been like Aragorn becoming the King of Gondor at the end of Fellowship. It doesn't make dramatic sense. And then, suddenly, they have to make two sequels where, even though Neo can now do whatever he wants in the matrix, the humans still haven't won.

Neither were the stories, drama, or acting in the two sequels. What's so different about the sequels?

Why do people keep using the argument about the sequels not standing on their own as a defense? Did I ever attack the ending of Reloaded or the opening of Revolutions? No. I don't care that Reloaded ends on a cliffhanger and Revolutions jumps right in. That's not my problem with either sequel. And I didn't say they had to have the whole plan in place from the beginning, but if they're going to do sequels, they should make them work.

Real science fiction? What's your definition of real science fiction? I'd lump The Matrix in the action category before the science fiction category. I don't want to turn this into a "Anything in the future/outer space is science fiction!" vs. "Science fiction uses future scenarios/technology to reflect on society as it currently stands" debate, but your claims of it being "real science fiction" seem to make it the only course I can take.

The Matrix is the same kind of science fiction that Star Wars is. It's an action/adventure that takes place in the future/outer space. It only has a surface similarity to science fiction works such as Blade Runner, Gattaca, The Man Who Fell To Earth, etc. that uses science fiction to examine our present culture, and make people reflect.

Maybe something that actually had something to say, instead of mindless drivel posing as deep philosophy. That would have been the best case scenario. Realistically, I was just looking for two good action films, which is what I got from the first Matrix, but the Wachowskis got so bogged down with the overly-convulted plot and senseless, jumbled half-baked philosophy that the action sequences failed to work because the context was so wrong.


Edit: That DVD Journal review gives a good summary of the problems with the film.

What's so hard to accept about a story of a messiah's journey? It's not like Jesus turned into the Son of God the moment he was nailed on the cross. There was a long journey as the messiah to get to that point. There's very Buddhist theme in the trilogy about how the enlightenment that you thought you've reached was actually not true enlightenment at all. It works, and it provides something more interesting than the good guy single handedly annhiliating all the bad guys.

If people were so satisfied with such an open ending from the first movie, why did they expect such a concrete one from the sequels? Even in the first movie, there was a lot to be said about good vs evil, and the line was obviously blurred. People couldn't see that maybe the humans were evil too. They just looked at the movie in a completely one dimensional manner with concrete good and evil, and expected Neo to wipe out every single last machine and free all the humans and celebrate with cake. I say kudos to the Wachowskis for making a trilogy that wasn't a Michael Bay spectacle, and actually posed some interesting themes and ideas.

Why do people complain about the lack of original movies, but then complain when a movie does not follow a formula? The same formula that's used over and over again to pander to the lowest commmon denominator and make predictable movies?

What was original about this? Was it the way that the third film completely failed to deliver on the promise of the first two? Was it the way that the Wachowskis threw in everything they could remember from philosophy 101 in a horrible mish mash that made no sense, or was it the way that they took themselves so seriously that they sucked out all the fun?

As for the Buddhist theme about enlightenment, hey, Buddhists don't have messiahs. This is completely indicative of the way the Wachowskis just threw anything handy together in a way that doesn't fit at all. The movie espouses Buddhist philosophy but when the hero dies a cross of light shoots out from his chest? Come on.

What did the first two movies even promise? You expected Neo to wipe out the machines just because he said he would? So he has to stick exactly to his plan because straying would displease the audience?

Buddhism is about a love for all creatures and the want to free them from a world filled with desire and hurt and sadness. That's a pretty messiah-like goal to me. Come on, Neo gives up everything and is moved only by himself at the end. He walks the path between good and evil into complete nothingness. It's very Buddhist.

No, it's not the deepest film in the world, but it's well put together in terms of philosophical and theological ideas.

While I still disagree that it's well put together on those terms, even if you were right, it still does not excuse the third film from failing to really conclude most of the plot points introduced in the second film.

See, I actually liked the way they took things with Reloaded. It was interesting. The problem is that if Reloaded is a film made with a fine quill pen, then Revolutions was made with a big, fat sharpie marker. It completely blots out the intricacies of the second film in favor of big action and grand gestures. That's the big problem with it.

matrix: A
reloaded: B-
Revolutions: D

revolutions was too sappy. neo disappeared for a long part of the movie. i was more satisfied with the ending of the first one as it seemed that neo was going to free everyone and expose the machines. a fight between seriph and mr. smith would of been cool.