Imagine the big party dance sequence in 3D smellovision!
The Matrix 4?
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Reloaded had its great action moments, Revolutions tried to match up to the first movie's philosophical undertones and attempted to be epic in action, but was comparatively disappointing.
The Matrix still holds up and is one of the best sci-fi action movies and still one of my favourite films.
The Matrix universe is vast and has unlimited good storytelling potential, so another sequel? I am totally on board with it.
The Matrix still holds up and is one of the best sci-fi action movies and still one of my favourite films.
The Matrix universe is vast and has unlimited good storytelling potential, so another sequel? I am totally on board with it.
Last edited:
El Duderino
Sr Member
I liked them all personally, I'll see a 4th one.
Rotwang
Sr Member
I guess being physically assaulted by a Matrix fan kinda took the fun out of it for me. I dared to suggest that any person in reasonable physical shape picked off the streets could perform the Matrix stunts after a few weeks of training. And it didn't help when I burst his bubble concerning the notion that you could die in the Matrix and that it had been done ages ago in a Flash Gordon comic. He then flew into a blind rage, grabbed me by the throat and hit me several times. My neck and throat were sore for months afterwards.
I did bump into his page on Facebook a while ago and his portrait showed him wearing a monk's hood and looking ominously deranged.
I did bump into his page on Facebook a while ago and his portrait showed him wearing a monk's hood and looking ominously deranged.
Never understood the hate for 2 and 3. My personal theory is that people saw more than was really there with 1, and over-invested in it.
2 and 3 delivered more martial arts posing, cool costumes, gritty future battle scenes, bullet time silliness, talking-heads faux philosophizing and religious allusions than you could poke a stick at. If you thought that stuff in the first movie somehow made it meaningful and deep, then I could see how an overdose of the same could be disappointing in the sequels.
On the other hand, if you thought that stuff in the first movie was just a lot of window-dressing for a flashily updated big-budget Hong Kong martial arts movie, then you'd probably have walked in expecting pretty much exactly what 2 and 3 delivered. I'm good with them.
2 and 3 delivered more martial arts posing, cool costumes, gritty future battle scenes, bullet time silliness, talking-heads faux philosophizing and religious allusions than you could poke a stick at. If you thought that stuff in the first movie somehow made it meaningful and deep, then I could see how an overdose of the same could be disappointing in the sequels.
On the other hand, if you thought that stuff in the first movie was just a lot of window-dressing for a flashily updated big-budget Hong Kong martial arts movie, then you'd probably have walked in expecting pretty much exactly what 2 and 3 delivered. I'm good with them.
cayman shen
Master Member
Yup. I actually caught the first one on TV again, and it reminded me of what a fabulous, eminently re-watchable film it was, and what a let down the sequels were. I more or less pretend they don't exist. It's not that I think they're AWFUL, and if the first had been a lesser film, I might have enjoyed them, but the original was so damn good anything else was almost bound to be a disappointment. I find them watchable, and they have their great moments, but those moments are way overshadowed by the dull, ponderous, silly, cliche, over-extended, and pretentous crap that packs the other 90 minutes or so of each sequel.
dualedge
Sr Member
Amen to that... not that Hollywood will ever learn that lesson.
Solo4114
Master Member
My problem with the second one wasn't that it "didn't live up to my expectations" because, aside from seeing Neo kick a bunch of ass, I had no idea what to expect, really. For me, the big problem is that the balance between the philosophical stuff and the action is WAY off. Long long scenes of jabbering, interrupted by even longer scenes of kung-fu. The overall pacing is just off for the film. I actually got bored with the fighting, in much the same way that I did while watching The Transporter. Oh, look. Another action sequence. >yawn< Maybe that was so the philosophical stuff would be more welcomed, given how much more dense it was in the second film than in the first, but regardless, by the time they were entering the, what, eighth new scene for yet another kung fu fight after a car chase which was preceded by a kung fu fight...I dunno. Just didn't do it for me. Plus, the burly brawl looked like crap then, and looks even worse today.
With #3, I had pretty low expectations, and knew most of what was going to happen going in, so I wasn't really disappointed as much as underwhelmed by the utter pointlessness of so much of the film, which I guess is really the point anyway.
I think the problem with the series is that the message of the first film either didn't get through or changed between 1 and the sequels. The end of the first film seems to suggest that there's gonna be this big apocalyptic fight between Neo and the Machines, which hints at the idea that the humans (with Neo on their side) will win their freedom. In #2, you introduce the cyclical nature of the Matrix and the suggestion that Neo is some sort of, I dunno, hybrid of machine and human technology? Since he keeps coming back. Or something. And by 3, he just has to sacrifice himself to alter the pattern, and let humans and machines live in harmony because fighting will prove pointless.
So, whereas the themes of the latter two movies are perhaps more about cycles and repetition and altering cycles rather than breaking out of them entirely, the first one (with all it's "Rage Against the Machine" sensibilities) sort of sells itself as a "final battle between Man and Machine." So, when they then say "Ah ha! But that's not really it! You have to live in harmony and balance and whatnot," I think audiences felt misled.
Mostly, though, I just find the second one boring and the third one sort of "meh." Both of which manage to sully my enjoyment of the first film.
With #3, I had pretty low expectations, and knew most of what was going to happen going in, so I wasn't really disappointed as much as underwhelmed by the utter pointlessness of so much of the film, which I guess is really the point anyway.
I think the problem with the series is that the message of the first film either didn't get through or changed between 1 and the sequels. The end of the first film seems to suggest that there's gonna be this big apocalyptic fight between Neo and the Machines, which hints at the idea that the humans (with Neo on their side) will win their freedom. In #2, you introduce the cyclical nature of the Matrix and the suggestion that Neo is some sort of, I dunno, hybrid of machine and human technology? Since he keeps coming back. Or something. And by 3, he just has to sacrifice himself to alter the pattern, and let humans and machines live in harmony because fighting will prove pointless.
So, whereas the themes of the latter two movies are perhaps more about cycles and repetition and altering cycles rather than breaking out of them entirely, the first one (with all it's "Rage Against the Machine" sensibilities) sort of sells itself as a "final battle between Man and Machine." So, when they then say "Ah ha! But that's not really it! You have to live in harmony and balance and whatnot," I think audiences felt misled.
Mostly, though, I just find the second one boring and the third one sort of "meh." Both of which manage to sully my enjoyment of the first film.
dualedge
Sr Member
I don't mean this to argue with your opinion, per se, but I view it rather differently.
I'd say that what makes many movies groundbreaking is the fact that they're showing you something in a new way. It's not so much that it's a story concept or characters you've never seen the like of before. It's more about the way it's shown... Like music arrangement for example. We've all heard all the same musical notes over and over again but how you arrange and present them can make for something you haven't experienced before.
It's not the individual technical tricks that made the made the first film what it was but rather it was the WHOLE of it that made it what it was. Yeah, "bullet-time" by itself would have been gimmicky but in the context of the film I'd argue it became something far more than that.
Star Wars did the same thing... took some "gimmicky" new technology and incorporated it in a way that was groundbreaking. And then it had one good sequel (some would argue two or more but for me it was downhill after Empire.)
The first time I saw most of my favorite films I simply walked out of the theater thinking "what was that all about?" Then after it sunk in, I started to get excited.
The open-ended philosophical elements of the story combined with the visual style and technological advances did make the Matrix nearly (but note quite) as groundbreaking as Star Wars in my opinion.
That said, following up an arrangement that is THAT good is nearly always impossible. For me, Star Wars had Empire but then Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Matrix and many more films that became franchises haven't had a decent sequel yet in my own personal opinion. A large part of that is that subsequent franchise films whether classified as "sequels" or "prequels" are simply just more of the same and aren't capable of that original revolutionary magic. Following up on something SO successful is just nearly impossible to do.
Anyway, that's just my ramblings on the subject in case anybody is interested...
Who do they think they are? George Lucas?
2 was OK, the Matrix wasn't a mystery to us anymore so I cut it some slack, 3 was a case of I clearly thought way too hard about what the Architect said in 2! Way too hard, I was pondering some crazy stuff and reading the internets about all the theorys. It was not a worthy follow up to the second at all, a third act that fell hard on it's face. The fans were coming up with better ideas.
I think you can only pull that Matrix rabbit out of the hat so many times and he starts looking pretty long in tooth.\
But hey,
REMAKE!
Megan Fox as Trinity, Abrams to direct!
Come on, this is not your big brothers Matrix!
2 was OK, the Matrix wasn't a mystery to us anymore so I cut it some slack, 3 was a case of I clearly thought way too hard about what the Architect said in 2! Way too hard, I was pondering some crazy stuff and reading the internets about all the theorys. It was not a worthy follow up to the second at all, a third act that fell hard on it's face. The fans were coming up with better ideas.
I think you can only pull that Matrix rabbit out of the hat so many times and he starts looking pretty long in tooth.\
But hey,
REMAKE!
Megan Fox as Trinity, Abrams to direct!
Come on, this is not your big brothers Matrix!
niennumb1
Master Member
#3 supposed to be being the end of the Trilogy made it a terrible movie. If it was a mere CHAPTER leading to another film (NOT GAME) then I would have been okay with it.
Revolutions was terrible to me because I felt like the movie ended before it could explain ANYTHING and I think many people felt robbed in the end. To make a 4th film would really be cool if it helped tie in and explain more.... and actually wrap it up.
I'm all for Matrix 4!
Revolutions was terrible to me because I felt like the movie ended before it could explain ANYTHING and I think many people felt robbed in the end. To make a 4th film would really be cool if it helped tie in and explain more.... and actually wrap it up.
I'm all for Matrix 4!
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Your personal theory is fine. I just however feel that where the first one was a coherent and meaningful tale, the second and third were just all over the place with silly nonsense and pointless battles. What I had expected Neo to be able of doing in the Matrix in the sequels was basically visualized in that one dream sequence in Inception - that he would be able to do just about anything... we are even told that in the first movie. But... what we got was just more of the same... dragged out to absurdity of speedy action mirrored by dialogue scenes that slowed everything to a crawl. Much like the issue with the Star Wars prequels - the disjointed narrative of pointless events that ignored what was set up in the first one.
You beat me to it!
It makes me wonder though, who would make a rumor like that and why?
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Are you ****ing kidding me? False rumors are made to poke fun at those arguing about the contents of the rumor. So... job well done, eh!?
Similar threads
