Wirehead Studios

WARNING: Doesn't really contain any spoilers, but I'm warning just in case someone does want to bitch, hehe...


...Just for you Phoenix...

1. Horribly done CGI, used at totally inappropriate times to ultimately degrade what began as a rather realistic looking series. Within the original, there are maybe two or three scenes that I can pick out as being horribly done when it comes to CGI. In the sequels, however, every other sequence yielded to a copious amount of just plain yucky effects, which in turn pulls the viewer right out of whatever state of mind they may have been in and destroys any suspension of belief that existed prior to aforementioned events.

2. There were enough slow motion sequences to make John Woo blush. In the first installment of the series slow motion (and bullet-time, to a lesser extent) was used sparingly in seemingly appropriate times, where in the sequels it is used to a disgusting degree only to prolong scenes and allow us to ogle at the ass-ugly CGI.

3. The sense of personal conflict within the first film was pushed to near extinction, as the writers decided to replace it with some clich? cosmic conflict. Granted, the original had a cosmic conflict as the back drop, but in the foreground it stayed very much about personal struggles. The abundance of idiotic characters which seemed to randomly appear and disappear for no reason in the sequels counts under this category as well, I would say.

4. Jada Pickett-Smith? She?s related to Will Smith, need I say more?

5. The hokey love scenes, which lacked any chemistry between the two actors (and don?t give me that bullshit about Keanu not being able to act, because he?s really not that bad) and ultimately felt very Hollywood-ish in general.

6. Neo being omnipotent. This alone managed to destroy any suspense which certain scenes could have held, as well as killed various plot devices. This was admittedly due to the flight ability, but other powers presented themselves as stupid as well. In the end of the original film, where he destroys Smith (the most lovable character in the series), it fits, because it makes for a nice ending. However, creating a follow-up with such a powerful character was arrogant and idiotic.

7. The ?in-depth? way the computer world was portrayed seemed to be a complete rip-off of Tron, in just about every conceptual way of thinking. Humanization of programs, physical ?back doors? (among other things)? The list goes on.

8. The lack of a perfect mesh which was present within the original film. In the sequels you either have long, drawn-out fight scenes or long, drawn-out speeches. In the first movie, such things seemed to flow in and out of one another flawlessly, creating one seamless experience for the most part.

?More shall be added as I think of them?

dev - I think you need to put the spoiler tags on that .

I put a big warning up so hopefully I could get around that, as it is a lot to highlight in order to read, you know.

No excuse.

How about...

9) Poorly done action scenes. The action scenes were crappy, even though they were the focus of the movie. In the first movie, the action was relatively novel, and well choreographed. In Revolutions, they just pour poorly CGI-ed  sentinels out of a hole like a swarm of flies for an hour with randomly intersperced cuts of people screaming and shooting machineguns and call it an epic battle. You also have repro lobby scene where the directors didn't know what to do, so they just rendered the badguys upside down. Instead of showing a rapid exchange of fire and acrobatics, the characters just pace across the room pointing at stuff, and to top it off, they do a stupid cliched crane kick in slomo, and make us laugh by sticking the guy in the wall. Finally there's the fight with Smith, which was copped from Dragon Ball Z, but with no choreography. Instead of punching and kicking at super-human speeds, they just fly around striking superman poses and occasionally swoop over to hit eachother and or make a cgi explosion. The part where they both simultaneously punch eachother and go flying is hilarious,

... This just added...

Why The Matrix Sequels Rocked

1. It gave me a trilogy to watch that wasn't as bad as The Lord of the Rings.

...More may follow in the merits category...

I think the big-ass red waring at the top was enough, since everything he said was general.

Now if he had said that would have been a big specific spoiler.

Nope, you're wrong.  Wrong wrong wrong.  And wrong to boot.

Thanks for posting a new topic on this as requested.  <3

Ok, I'm going to rip this to shreds right here Devlar-style, since I happen to like all three movies.


Why thank you, I'm flattered.  ^_^


This I think it nothing but subjective nitpicking.  The CGI sequences are not as easy to pick out as that unless you're expecting something to be CGI to begin with.  From the director's point of view, and I agree with this, CGI allowed them to do things that could not otherwise have been done cinematically.  This includes camera work, fight sequences, and  Not only that, but [/color]


I again disagree here.  The slow-motion sequences allow you to grab an unreal sense of what is going on, and some things the actors did happened at full speed while the ENVIRONMENT was in slow-motion.  This has everything to do with how The One is able to manipulate the Matrix and is on par with the first movie.


This limited sense of scope is a result of not accepting the trilogy at face value.  As well, if you read the link I posted on the stickied topic, no character existed without meaning.  You've just missed delving deep into this meaning because, as you've stated, you've already dismissed the second and third installments out of opinion.  The trilogy DOES grow in scope because it's about more than just Neo kicking butt on Agent Smith.  I recommend renting The Animatrix if you wish to see some background on this.  Neo is at the core of all of this, but what happens, and what he does, affects everyone in both the human AND machine worlds.  As for the writers "replacing" anything, this entire thing was scripted to be a trilogy from the beginning, as I've said before.  They did not replace anything - you merely narrowed your field of view to "tree" size and got lost in the forest.


Which one was that again?  So personal dislike of an individual who is not even in a central role is a reason to dismiss two installments of a trilogy?


Well, I didn't see anything hokey except [/color]


I sense a lot of personal resentment in here in regards to anything with "deity-like" status.  I think you can take that a bit too far at times.  As for it destroying the movie, you forget that with the scene with Agent Smith in Revolutions  I'm sorry that you let your expectations interfere with how the authors chose to write their own story.[/color]


Again, you need to see The Animatrix to understand why the machines are so humanistic in some respects and not others.  You forget who designed the machines.  Does God not create things in His own image?  And if mankind was the creator "god" of the machine world, then machines were originally made in the image of man.  This is not a rip-off of Tron directly.  As for humanization, good grief.  Does Disney not humanize animals?  Humans humanize EVERYTHING because humans cannot relate to anything but themselves.  I can see a lot of people liking a movie they can't understand because it's 100% esoteric as well.


This again is the filter of expectation talking.  Is flow more important, or is telling the story?  I've read good stories that did not flow, and stories that flowed that are not good.  This again is subjective.  What you may like I may despise, and vice-versa.  This does not make it good or bad, it just means tastes differ.  This is also why I always recommend to people - see for yourself, and don't take someone else's opinion on whether a movie is good or bad.  I've been given bad advice before about some very good movies, art, and literature, and more often than not I find it is just narrowmindedness of a difference of opinion, not the subject matter, that is to blame.

Reading Dev's post leads me to believe hes talking mainly about the flaws in Reloaded. I think its a bit overboard to say "The Matrix Sequels Suck".

While I think that Reloaded was a tad bloated and pointless, Revolutions really saved the day (to me). It had the intensity and emotion of the first Matrix. The action sequences were also more meaningful (and goddamn if the SM club shootout scene wasn't great).    

I think its hard to compare the sequels to the original film, to begin wtih. The Matrix really blew everyone away in 1999 ( I don't think it'd be too far off base saying the original Matrix was one of the best Action films of the 1990s (yes, it had heavy Sci-Fi elements in it, but when it comes down to it, its action/adventure))., but four years later, both sequels got pretty "meh" responses after so much build up and hype.

I remember thinking about how The Twins were going to kick tons of ass, since Time interviewed the actors, they were sprinkled all over the posters and trailers...but when I watched the film...they had about as much screen time as Boba Fett in Return of the Jedi and served as much of a purpose as JarJar did in the prequels.  The Twins are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of sequences/characters that were going to be huge/cool and turned out to be nothing.


As far as splicing the action sequences and dialogue, or how both dragged on a bit too long - I agree. Thats more the fault of the editors, though.  Alot could have been trimmed.  

Honestly, the CGI was horrid in places. The plastic Neo in the and the were absoutely horrible.

HEY!  I loved that punch!

Freak.

JELLO-FACE! :D

Hey, that was hilarious!

My only nit-pick about the Matrix sequels was all of the references to the Animatrix and Enter the Matrix. The bits about and was imo a bit of a cop-out.

Other than that, they ruled.