Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Where did they go wrong?
The first was good the 2nd, and 3rd were horrible...

i know, i really liked the first and the second was ok, but i hated the third one...i didn't like neo dying...

They were all bad. Can you prove that eo died thouigh?

I thought he died when Smith killed him and the machines dragged his corpse away.

They said in the first Matrix commentary that they really hate that movie because they'd never be able to work up to it. And it's true. The first was so good and sequels (which can't be as good) are destined to be compared with the original.

you have horrible taste in movies

By making it too complex for people like you to understand it.

well i liked them and it kinda hinted something at the end of 3 but i guess i understand to a good extent about and my fav-fav was part 1

number 2 was good.. 3 sucked.

I think they sucked so much because they were drastically different in style and story. I guess it's kind of the same reason so many people have problems with the Star Wars prequels, the style, the story and the writting just completely tangents from the original trilogy and the same is true of the first matrix and the second and third.

i thin neither sucked, i just think that the first was better then the 2nd, and the 2nd was better then the 3rd

^ ya well said

Too Complex?
Simple minded twit.. Tommy Boy was more complex then that horse dung put on film Matrix 2, and 3...
Such a fool you are for even trying to say that it was too complex..
I swear you children online now a days... You worry me....

I really liked 2 and 3, I thought they were a great extension to the original. My favourite characters were probably the Twins, I thought they were brilliant, and I liked the Merovingian as well. I liked how they expanded on all the Matrix philosophy as well....

but I spose its all a matter of opinion - some peopl liked it, some hated it ((like marmite! ))

*sigh* this type thread has been done to death!

they so didn't suck they added to the story, I think you would have been complaining anyways if there werent any sequals

Keep this on topic!

first had best story.
second had best action scenes.
third all around sucked.

Well, considering I could go through 3 different levels of interpretation of the movies and meanings, I'll save you the trouble and just say you are gonna miss a lot of things if you are that ignorant about everything.

sry, im gonna have to disagree, but when you say the 2nd had the best action scenes. the 2nd had better graphics, but when it came to the burly brawl, and some other action sequences in that movie, it was just too fake looking to me. i really liked the highway scene though, i will admit. but the first movie's action sequencses were better in my opinion because it looked so real, mainly because it was almost all real, but with strings attached and stuff. i say first had best story AND action sequences, 2nd had better graphics (and the highway scene kicked ass) and the 3rd just wasn't as good as the first 2

The second and third films were bad for two reasons:

The first film was philosophical whereas the latter two films were theological.

The division between the latter two films seems arbitrary.

obviously from ur dumbwitted reply, u dont know this movie at all. The theology is overused to a point where my nextdoor neighbor who is a religious freakshow of some sort couldnt quite put together all the meaning of the sequals. All i think that matters is that Blue=Raw Life, or the body, Green= the mind, and Light/Gold= Spirit or Soul. It took me a while to figure that out, but how it ended with the colors of blue, green and goldish light, i finally understood it. u saying these films are not complex compared to Tommy Boy is like saying a rubrics cube should only be used by children 5 and below becus it is so easy. thats like saying the crap that comes out of my a$$ is more complex than ur face. hey, if thats the way u think of these films, fine. I like thinking feeces to be more complex than somones face.

true about the burly brawl, but i think the highway scene and the others were cooler then the first. but the first matrix was by far the best movie of the three.

i totally agree there

Because of Hollywood's greed. They should've just left it to one movie but they got greedy and dragged it out to three movies. They could've easily made it into one long kick ass movie, I definitely didn't see the need for part 2 at all, it was clearly just something done for the sole purpose of having something in between the first and the third film...crap...pure unadulterated crap!

You know to this day it's amazing to me how some people still haven't figured out what the Matrix is really all about. The clues and hints and the overall symbolism used throughout all 3 movies is so obvious. If you can figure out the symbolism used in this movie and what it relates to then you should be able to figure out whether Neo really died or not.

Hints: Neo is referred to as the 'one'. One is an anagram of Neo. Neo's real name Thomas Anderson translates to 'Son of man'. Neo is touted as the messiah or the one who will bring salvation and freedom, the chosen one. Morpheus refers to the prophecy coming true many times throughout this movie, he himself is also on a mission to 'set his people free'.

Other hints: Trinity, Nebuchadnezza, Zion, Logos, father figure, theme of betrayal, redemption, two worlds-one visible and one not...etc..etc.

Anyway, it's pretty obvious to me and most people but some people still have yet to figure it out, believe it or not.

RZA> I was under the impression that they wanted to do a trilogy before the first film was even made. It was on one of the documentaries....

They didn't suck, IMHO. Reloaded was my least favorite, but it was still a very good movie.

Okay, good, I'm NOT the only person that thought Reloaded was the weakest of the trilogy.

Like Koz said. Reloaded was my least favorite of the three, but it still was very good. I thought the end to Revo was great...tied up loose ends while still leaving questions out there, which is very much the style of the Matrix trilogy to do. These movies are supposed to make you THINK.

I dont want to be a prickly prick, but Matrix Reloaded didnt suck.... Revolutions was a letdown.... they should have made a 3 1/2 hour Matrix movie instead of making two two hour ones..... There was too much pointless filler in Revolutions for my taste... but I did enjoy most of the Smith/Neo fight till they starting flying like Superman, that was stupid.... but the rest was f**king awesome.... I love that rain fight. The fight in Reloaded was too silly.... 100's and 100's of Smith's fighting Neo... looks ridicious and well it was ridicious...

Yeah, what I meant was that when they came up with the initial concept of doing this movie it should've been ok let's make it one long kick ass movie. But they decided to make it a trilogy why because it meant more $$$$ching!....ching!. It was clear that a lot of the stuff in these movies, especially Reloaded was filled with a lot of filler crap that we really didn't need. In contrast, when you compare it to a trilogy like 'LOTR' each of those films while integrated into the overall structure of the story, stands on its own and quite beautifully I might add. Part two was clearly a pointless bridge just done for the sole purpose of dragging it out to 3 films to make more money, and I didn't appreciate that.

You can't say it was or wasn't meant to be a trilogy because no one outside of the Wachowski bros. know that, and since they never talk about the movies we'll never know. I always heard that it was meant to be a trilogy, but who knows.

All I have to say is that the second and third matrix movies are not as bad as you guys say they are and shoulde't be slandered.

same here You guys just didn't get the story

The first matrix was in my opinion the best movie out of the three. Now that is not to say that teh other two sucked because they didn't but they lost fans because there was something lacking from the other two.

You see the first had a surprise element which once out there could not be recaptured. We had never seen anything like it before in terms of story, kung fu or special effects.

Secondly and most importantly, it posed a question 'what is the matrix?'. Remember the trailer "no one can be told what the matrix is you must see it for yourself". Now this film actually got it the viewing audiance questioning whether their very reality was real or not "what is real? How do you define real? If real is what you can see, touch or taste then real is just electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

You see in the end there is truth in the saying that "it's the question that drives us" in the first film that was 'what is the matrix?'. It was what drove us to see it in the cinema and it was the driving force behind the film. This question was answered in the first film. A new question need to be posed in the following two films there wasn't and that I believe is what turned SOME people of them.

The best thing about 2 was that Siro from Mortal Kombat Conquest was in it. His names bernard or something like that. I can't believe how awesome he was. Why'd they get rid of him?

3 I own on DVD along with 1. 2 wasn't worth it really. I like the overall action and underlining message of the one's existence. How Neo was merely a part of a whole that required him to choose the fate of both his 'enemy' and his loved ones. That was bitchin. And Agent smith, hugo weaving, was excellent. I felt Reeves did a better job getting beat up in the first matrix though. He's still cool too.

Smell ya later strangers.

I don't know why everyone hates the hell out of the sequels. I enjoyed Reloaded thoroughly (with the exception of that retarded sex scene/rave in the cave!).

I loved the first. My favourite movie ever.

If Reloaded was just a bridge, it did well. Revolutions just....I dunno. It wasn't even a Matrix movie, felt more like an overhyped Star Wars (if there was such a thing).

-AC

Revo was a lot better than Reloaded, IMO....

Whoa Wesyeed really cool which scene is he in and the reason he got killed in mortal kombat conquest because he was a crap fighter.

well i really liked them all i mean like there r on 2 other movies with sequals i can think of that i thought were as good and thats lotr trilogy and (very corney but ...)Teenage Muntant Ninja Turtles lol i love those movies man plus i grew up with them dey funny as sh*t

OOOOO AND STAR WARS those were genius and there prolly is never gonna be a bad star wars movie till george lucas dies

The Matrix Trilogy is far more complex than you know, probably more than anyone knows except for the Wachoski's. I am not talking about the obvious religious connections like Neo to Jesus, the Nebuchadnezzar, Trinity, etc. There are many more layers than alot of people know and what many people don't want to know. I think that alot of people didn't like 2 and 3 was because it wasn't as simple as 1. Humans=Good, Machines=Bad. As the story progressess in 2 and 3 you see that machines are not so much fault as we were led on to believe. They were probably more innocent then humans. The second and third films were alot more complicated than the first. At first I didn't like them but as I watched them more and more I grew to like how the story progressed and how all the philosophy fit into the story and how the films fit in to the stories in many religions.(not just christianity)I don't claim to be a philosopher or even that smart really but the only really ignorant people are the ones who don't want to learn and who will look at something once and make judgements about it. That is just my opinion.

I was a big fan of the first Matrix. The second one I liked because it was so epic. The fight scenes in M2 were godlike on screen, like inside the Marivingin's(however you spell his name)strong hold. The burly brawl was fun although I will admit the animation was a bit over the top. Fruits hit the nail on the head with the freeway chase though. That was one of the coolest(and most brutal)car chases I've ever seen. It was like Lethal Weapon on acid. One thing that I kept noticing though is how uneven alot of the non action scenes were. The tone was confusing at times, but the action and visual sort of forced me to shake it off. When the third one came out I realized that the movie was looking more like a sappy war movie. The dialoge was almost non existent. Morpious zen drenched speeches were now petty and useless, Neo and Trinity's love seemed awkard and forced. Only Smith kept me in the theater with a character that he seemed to have mastered with fun. Honestly I think it was because the game Enter the Matrix had alot of elements that should have been incorporated into the movie. It would have given us a break from all the sappy melodratic scenes in Zion. I realized that Ghost and Niobe were the main focus in the game but it had alot of action scenes that would have made up for M3's lack of plugged in matrix screen time. They could have given some scenes in the game to Neo or the others. What saved the second film from everbody hating it was the fact most of it took place in the Matrix! In m3 the battle for Zion should have been more of a background piece to more battles within the Matrix, that sureal land every fan has been dreaming about since 1999. I did think the ending was smart, but didn't pack the punch it should have with all the shallow characters within the walls of Zion. The machines can have Zion. I'll take the Matrix and a steady job within it. I wonder if Neo's old office is hiring.

Someone in here said that the sequels should have never been made and I agree. I do like m2 but honestly I think the first one was great because it left it open for the imagination. Sure the sequels were more in depth but some mysterys are better left alone. The first one was the best I think because it had such a linear storyline. Neo was to become the one. True it has some christian elements like god coming down in human form to fight for us, but the first film is more about awakening, like Neo finally becomes the one is almost hauntingly similar to Budda trancending the mind. Neo seeing in code is a clever example of what happened to Budda at the moment of his enlightenment, or the Christian take would be Jesus after being baptised and then realizing he was God incarnate. Then you throw in the whole fish out of water element you got yourself a tight story. The first one saved us from the worn out end of the world battles that to many movies have pumped out since god knows when. That's what made Terminator effective too. Why waste money on giant battle scene when you can just suggest it and the audience own imagination will do the rest. It safe and smart. I thought Neo becoming the One was enough to stop the war(system failure? what's with the reloaded crap?). I did like the second one but still feel the reason why we all liked the first was because in our minds the movie never ended and it never should of. But it did end and we found out that Zion looked alot liked Star Trek filmed in the local sewer systems. Like I said, some enigmas are better left untapped. Star Trek sucks.

ok the matrix 2 and 3 didnt suck they were just different, they take us deepr into that world, the onl beef i had with it was there was less acctuall human fighting, i eman nothing can beat the fight between neo and agent smith in the subway station but the fights in 2 and 3 as cool as they look, theyre too over drawn especially the burly brawl in 3 and the smiths vs neo barrage, but the movies are well written you have to pay atention to everything in them in number 1 you only had to listen to the origins, so theyre not bad, theyre just following greatness like godfather part 3 followed godfather part 2, now number 3 wasnt bad it just followed a piece of perfection, same with 2 and 3 in the matrix set

Originally posted by RZA
Because of Hollywood's greed. They should've just left it to one movie but they got greedy and dragged it out to three movies. They could've easily made it into one long kick ass movie, I definitely didn't see the need for part 2 at all, it was clearly just something done for the sole purpose of having something in between the first and the third film...crap...pure unadulterated crap!

You know to this day it's amazing to me how some people still haven't figured out what the Matrix is really all about. The clues and hints and the overall symbolism used throughout all 3 movies is so obvious. If you can figure out the symbolism used in this movie and what it relates to then you should be able to figure out whether Neo really died or not.

Hints: Neo is referred to as the 'one'. One is an anagram of Neo. Neo's real name Thomas Anderson translates to 'Son of man'. Neo is touted as the messiah or the one who will bring salvation and freedom, the chosen one. Morpheus refers to the prophecy coming true many times throughout this movie, he himself is also on a mission to 'set his people free'.

Other hints: Trinity, Nebuchadnezza, Zion, Logos, father figure, theme of betrayal, redemption, two worlds-one visible and one not...etc..etc.

Anyway, it's pretty obvious to me and most people but some people still have yet to figure it out, believe it or not. The two sequels were planned from the get go.

I think the first had the best story, and i agree about the kick @$$ highway scene... and the smith clone fight i suppose was ok, but it was hard to believe which made it cheesy. I also agree about the whole symbolism thing. The second two weren't as good as the first and it would be awesome if the brothers finished it off with a kick@$$ fourth movie.

Don't understand why people keep up this facade of Revolutions being anything but a disaster.

They could have taken a million great, philosophical, intelligent paths after the first one AND after Reloaded. They just decided to cop out and give us the giant battle, CGI fest that they think we wanted because all the dullards didn't "get" Reloaded or the first one. The ending sucked, didn't tell us anything. Well, it told us something stupid. The easiest, simplest way out of the trilogy. As a friend said to me on the train the other day, you can just tell that the Wachowski's were always gonna make the last movie about Neo Vs Smith. Not for any plot reason, just because they were the two main characters.

Revolutions was just horrid. Makes me cringe thinking about it.

-AC

How the hell is Thomas Anderson an anagram for Son of Man, for starters there's no 'f' in Thoman Anderson, and secondly Son of Man has 8 letters whilst Thomas Anderson has 14. You can get 'son' and 'man' from the name but that leaves you with Tho and Ander which don't mean 'of'

3rd one is crap, but 2nd and first was good, i thought the 3rd one was boring.

The first one was great the problem with the two part sequel was it was drawn out and to many boring scenes or to long. If the dross was cut out of this two part sequel down to a single one you would have had a good sequel.

matrix 2 was actually good. But yeah, the third one sucked...

Regression to the mean killed the second and third movies. The Matrix was so good, they had to move towards sucking. There was no hope for them to be as good as the first. I actually like all three quite a bit. I think Reloaded was the worst, and it actually came up a bit with Revolutions.

They relied too heavily on the audience following complex philosophy and theology was their main problem, brain in a vat is a rather easily understood concept compared to the concepts presented in the other two. Also language and symbolism, people are lazy, they don't want to research the material to understand the movie, and unless they possessed a lot of theology and philosophy background people did not get it.

I'm so ****ing tired of people saying they sucked because they don't have minds of their own. Critics have their head's shoved up their ass... take a look at what they thought of the Butterfly Effect, only because it had Ashton Kutcher in it.

The Matrix Reloaded is probably the worst of the trilogy. Oh well. It is full of action and that's all well and good, but it includes quyite a few philosphical elements and the beauty of this film is you have to watch it several times to catch everything. Everything is incredibly detailed... excellent foreshadowing on all parts. Symbolism is rampant and I enjoy that, and I enjoy unravelling the secrets of the Matrix. It's a film built to generate discussion and it does a damn good job of it.

The Matrix Revolutions is no different.

They do not suck.

Originally posted by Stinky_Bottoms
Where did they go wrong?
The first was good the 2nd, and 3rd were horrible...

I don't think the 2nd or 3rd movies suck. I didn't like the fact that ALL the main bad guys NEVER got their due. we were all hoping for humanity to somehow defeat the machines not just postpone the inevitable. people did not win anything. mero did not get his due. architect did not get his due, trainman did not get his due, smith kinda did and neo died. too many questions without answers. why was seriph "wingless"?

this is a matter of opinion, but if i must answer the question, the original is usually better. they start with there best idea, and then they use their second best idea, and it continues like that

The third one was great, I loved the ending ! It seems I'm the only one though...

nEo kinda reminded me of superman with all the flying he did in Matrix 2.

Originally posted by freemind
The Matrix Trilogy is far more complex than you know, probably more than anyone knows except for the Wachoski's. I am not talking about the obvious religious connections like Neo to Jesus, the Nebuchadnezzar, Trinity, etc. There are many more layers than alot of people know and what many people don't want to know. I think that alot of people didn't like 2 and 3 was because it wasn't as simple as 1. Humans=Good, Machines=Bad. As the story progressess in 2 and 3 you see that machines are not so much fault as we were led on to believe. They were probably more innocent then humans. The second and third films were alot more complicated than the first. At first I didn't like them but as I watched them more and more I grew to like how the story progressed and how all the philosophy fit into the story and how the films fit in to the stories in many religions.(not just christianity)I don't claim to be a philosopher or even that smart really but the only really ignorant people are the ones who don't want to learn and who will look at something once and make judgements about it. That is just my opinion.


Originally posted by VanillaCocaCola
I'm so ****ing tired of people saying they sucked because they don't have minds of their own. Critics have their head's shoved up their ass... take a look at what they thought of the Butterfly Effect, only because it had Ashton Kutcher in it.



^This is why I'm convinced that the Matrix sequels will be considered under-rated in around 5-10 years.I do believe both movies will withstand the test of time,and will be a lot more appreciated later on.

And on the otherhand,crap like the Kill Bill movies will be considered over-rated.*nods* As VanillaCocaCola said,critics don't know what the hell they want.




Anyway,I'll copy and paste one of my old posts regarding the Matrix and it's sequels.

(I'd post a link to my old my post,but apparently I can't post links yet...)


Ever since the sequels came out,I've always said that it's unfair to compare them to the original.


Think about it,just what *was* the biggest revelation in The Matrix? It was the Matrix itself,the fact that people are wired in to this fantasy world was the biggest shocker in the storyline,and they had already given that away in the 1st movie.Not to mention the movie itself was IMMENSELY groundbreaking in terms of direction,concept,action,special effects,etc.


Reloaded and Revolutions in essence was just going to be the expansion of the story that was started in the 1st movie.Expecting the sequels to live up to the original was unreasonable.



And as others have said,the world of the Matrix is just that interesting.Let's take another trilogy like Lord of the Rings for example.All three are good movies,you sit down,you watch them.....and that's pretty much it.But with the Matrix,you sit down,you watch them,and you can go on and on dissecting it's mythology.

Originally posted by Stinky_Bottoms
Where did they go wrong?
The first was good the 2nd, and 3rd were horrible...

NOT ENOUGH BULLET TIME AND BACK BREAKIN MOVES. Sorry. I couldnt control myself.

The first Matrix was my favorite as well. There wasnt enough action in the others. And the sex scence for me totally killed it in the third one!

Can somebody please explain to me how 2 sucked?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Can somebody please explain to me how 2 sucked?

I dont know why people believe reloaded was so bad. infact, as far as movie sequals go, i think Reloaded is one of the best sequals out there if not the most satisfying as far as story advancement goes. This next comment may sound pretentious, but that is not my intention. I think that reloaded and the matrix films in general are action movies for intellectuals. you have to actually pay attention to reloaded and revolutions to get the full effect out of them. Most people went to reloaded to see a popcorn movie, but saw a film with substance instead. Many people think the movie is to smart for itself. The movie's are not even that hard to follow. The action is outstanding and groundbreaking, the filming techniques were innovative, the dialogue and acting were very fine and the story itself was a mixture of many genre's and interests much like star wars. the only fault i found with reloaded was the ending. i think the segway between films could have been executed better.

because at the time th wachowski brothers presented reloaded and revolutions as one movie broken up. On top of the in depth content i think this was to much for people to absorb. People complained about the ending so much. but pirates of the carribean is doing the same thing, but people embrce t because it offers no intellectual value what so ever just big bangs and pretty colors.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
I dont know why people believe reloaded was so bad. infact, as far as movie sequals go, i think Reloaded is one of the best sequals out there if not the most satisfying as far as story advancement goes. This next comment may sound pretentious, but that is not my intention. I think that reloaded and the matrix films in general are action movies for intellectuals. you have to actually pay attention to reloaded and revolutions to get the full effect out of them. Most people went to reloaded to see a popcorn movie, but saw a film with substance instead. Many people think the movie is to smart for itself. The movie's are not even that hard to follow. The action is outstanding and groundbreaking, the filming techniques were innovative, the dialogue and acting were very fine and the story itself was a mixture of many genre's and interests much like star wars. the only fault i found with reloaded was the ending. i think the segway between films could have been executed better.

because at the time th wachowski brothers presented reloaded and revolutions as one movie broken up. On top of the in depth content i think this was to much for people to absorb. People complained about the ending so much. but pirates of the carribean is doing the same thing, but people embrce t because it offers no intellectual value what so ever just big bangs and pretty colors.

Yeah I think your right if people go to an action movie and they have to think too much it puts them off.

I think the bit where Neo was talking to the arhitect probably put people off for starters.

The 1st one was the best while the other two were not needed since it should have stayed with just one Matrix movie.

Originally posted by DarthLazious
The 1st one was the best while the other two were not needed since it should have stayed with just one Matrix movie.

Bullocks. Number two rocked.

I like SW, Matrix, & Terminator

I think that because the first movie was such a big hit they wanted to make the other two movies to make m ore money.THey should had stop while they were ahead because the last two were infact horrible.Shame that they have to ruin movies like that.jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I think that because the first movie was such a big hit they wanted to make the other two movies to make m ore money.THey should had stop while they were ahead because the last two were infact horrible.Shame that they have to ruin movies like that.jm

Dont know about that, i personally thought that the brothers took great care in the story and character development in the sequals. Of course they were made to make money...name me one sigle movie or sequal that comes out of hollywood that isnt made to gross money. Im fcukin sick of people saying "aw they just made that movie to make more money" WELL OF COURSE NUMB NUTS. Im not attacking you, just the general person who never has anything else to say.
Seeing how reloaded and revolutions were basically one movie, i thought they were one of the best sequals that enhanced the original story. The continuity on neos abilities and character wasnt erratic or inconsistent. There was also a great mixture of philosophical concepts and ideas sparsed through out the entire film which i appreciated. I know these movies are not appealing to many people, but atleast give a better reason on why the movies were shit other than saying they were made just to make more money.

All of them are aim to make money.But it would be nice if the movie is worth the money we spend to see the movie.jm

I think the Matrix Sequels will go down as the most misunderstood sequels in the history of movies. Now I am not a huge Matrix fan, but I respect that they tried like hell to put a story in there, and I think that story went right over peoples heads, especially where Neo finally meets the Architect. I remember being in the movie theater and thinking that was the best part of the movie, and most of my friends were like ????????, we want more action like the car chase!!!!!

I get tired of people throwing around box office numbers to say how good a movie is. I think the Matrix movies arent for everyone, and that is just the way it is, just like SW, LOTR, etc, but the movies are well made, and sure the sequels aren't as good as the original, but when was the last time that happened, The Empire Strikes Back?

fact is, reloaded and revolutions were very well written, acted, and directed films. Not many other movies have such solid and consistent character development. I truly believe most people were un able to keep enough focus to understand what was going on. People like the plots to movies spoon fed to them. The wachowski brothers however took a chance in the audience that were smarter than they actually were.

Personally i think that reloaded was a better movie than the first. The action was more intense and epic. The story unraveled into a new revalation as well as many sub plots. The dialogue was more philosophical and diverse. however, the orginal was the most fluent and darker of the three.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
All of them are aim to make money.But it would be nice if the movie is worth the money we spend to see the movie.jm

Speak for yourself partner. Atleast the matrix had more thought put into than the last dozen blocbusters.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Speak for yourself partner. Atleast the matrix had more thought put into than the last dozen blocbusters.

This is so true, and for all the hoopla of the summer blockbusters, they are just pure popcorn flicks with really no substance.

Now if that is what you want in a summer movie, then Spiderman 3 and POTC 3 are perfect for you, cause the movies rely on the big action sequences and special effects.

The Matrix atleast tried to have a story to challenge people, have characters that have some depth, and in the end, didn't have the happiest endings to all the major characters. When was the last time a movie did that to its major charcters? Empire Strikes Back? Wraith of Khan?

Summer movies don't take any chances anymore, they are all about the franchise and play things safe. That is the reason why i don't go see the summer blockbusters much anymore, but they are still making loads of money, so my opinion is irrelevant until people stop coming.

Originally posted by chewy16
, but they are still making loads of money, so my opinion is irrelevant until people stop coming.

Assuming that box office result determine quality, which it doesnt

I would say your in the clear with your statement there chewy.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Can somebody please explain to me how 2 sucked?

I wouldn't go so far as to saying it sucked. Alot of it was just...slow, and that's not from a standpoint where I'd say "the whole movie had to be all action." Not true. The first movie, even when the action wasn't there, had a very interesting storyline and was fun to watch. Reloaded just made things more complicated to me. Everytime there was an explaination, there were 3 more explainations to followed it and that annoyed me. It wasn't a bad movie, I just don't think it had the same touch that number 1 had.

How did they suck?All 3 were great films with good plots,good acting,good effects,and everything else.What sucked about?Neo died.What did you think was gonna happen?They were all great movies(2nd was my fav though).You either watched the movie for it's philosphy,in which case you got a buffet, or it's action, 3rd was kinda slow on the action,but it was in no way lacking

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
fact is, reloaded and revolutions were very well written, acted, and directed films. Not many other movies have such solid and consistent character development. I truly believe most people were un able to keep enough focus to understand what was going on. People like the plots to movies spoon fed to them. The wachowski brothers however took a chance in the audience that were smarter than they actually were.

Personally i think that reloaded was a better movie than the first. The action was more intense and epic. The story unraveled into a new revalation as well as many sub plots. The dialogue was more philosophical and diverse. however, the orginal was the most fluent and darker of the three.
exactly