The Matrix as a stand-alone movie?

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 5:59 am

I was talking to my friend the other day, and I told him that the Matrix sequels really doused the enjoyment I used to get out of watching the original, and he said "On the other hand, the original didn't provide enough closure in the story".

I'm thinking maybe every movie doesn't always have to have TOTAL closure. Maybe it makes a better movie when all the loose ends aren't tied up, so that it leaves more to the imagination. Nowadays it seems like the "imagination" is all but being eliminated as a factor of watching a movie.

Your thoughts?

Post by **Retlaw83** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:03 am

The Matrix always seemed like a stand alone movie to me. I was frankly shocked when I learned they were making sequels.

brillo · Post by **brillo** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:06 am

Retlaw83 wrote:The Matrix always seemed like a stand alone movie to me. I was frankly shocked when I learned they were making sequels.

Same here. I really like walking away from a movie thinking and talking about what happened. What really happended. What it means. Whatever. And the Matrix was one of those movies. The sequels just seemed tacked on to me.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:16 am

I think we've discussed this when you USED to go on Yahoo Franz. The matrix itself was actually a pretty good movie in my opinion. However, the sequals suffered because there were not REAL big questions that needed to be answered, nor was there any real shock that could match finding out what the matrix was. So storywise, you could have ONLY gotten worse.

jetbaby · Post by **jetbaby** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:28 am

I thought the matrix itself was incredible, especially when it was first released. As a stand alone it is a glorious movie, but yeah, the sequels really do detract more than anything. They were simply graphical show offs which dont show off that much more than the first one. Just bad trenchcoat CG and changing actors because everyone else died.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:35 am

I was going to give the sequals credit for giving Hugo Weaving more fight time, which is pretty incredible considering that fight scenes are pretty bad for an epileptic like Weaving, but then I realized not ONLY did he have more fight scenes in the original, but they were of better quality. Hell, the only fight scene I really remember liking from the sequals was Neo vs. Sepheram (or whatever his name was), so even from an action standpoint, the sequals sucked.

jetbaby · Post by **jetbaby** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 7:58 am

I was incredibly disappointed there were no stylish gunfights. Fuck the fact that by that point few of the main characters can be hit by bullets, the fact remains: gunfights are good things. Ghosts are not.

avenger69ie · Post by **avenger69ie** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:24 am

reloaded:the gunfight on entrance to the merovinjians restauraunt. the car chase.

revolutions: the gunfight at the merovinjians nightclub. the APU's. nuff said.

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 2:25 pm

I still haven't seen the two sequels so it will remain as a stand alone movie for me.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 2:57 pm

Matrix 1 = kewl
Matrix 2 & 3 = not so kewl
aniMatrix = pretty kewl

'nuff said

T-900 · Post by **T-900** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 3:22 pm

I feel rather unique.. i'm still the only person who likes the second and third film and the Animatrix as much or more than the original...

Sure the original is lovely, but the others... i simply find them more enjoyable. If i want slightly more realistic gun fights, i'll watch Hard-Boiled (aka Hot-Handed-God-of-Cops! (yays!)

).

Stunts! Giant Robots! Lots of Bullets! Deep theological questions! Paradoxes! Whee!

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 5:48 pm

The car chase wasn't THAT spectacular. I rather see car chases like the one at the end of Bourne Supremacy.

The third was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Certainly most disappointing ever. And that black guy(omg racism?) fighting hundreds of thousands of tentacle robots with his little mech was simply too much. The end was also terribly cheesy.

The fight scenes also get redundant, it's always the same shit with slow motions and matrix effects. BS.

The first one was original and innovative, and you really wondered what the hell was going on.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:34 pm

I thought it was pretty obvious that Nathaniel Lee's was asian, not black.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:14 pm

Matrix 1 is a fun movie and Matrix 2 & 3 are viciously shit movies that are so goddamn awful that they ruined not only the first Matrix, but also in fact six or seven totally unrelated movies.

I'm having more fun learning about matrices in my linear algebra class than I did watching Revolutions.

Forty-six & Two · Post by **Forty-six & Two** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:10 pm

avenger69ie wrote:the APU's.

Yea, it looked fairly cool, but it was pretty silly really. Who makes a war machine that has no protection for its user?

I think AniMatrix was alot better then all 3 Matrix movies actually. But yea, the first one was good, but the other two were kinda bad.

Spazmo wrote:Matrix 1 is a fun movie and Matrix 2 & 3 are viciously shit movies that are so goddamn awful that they ruined not only the first Matrix, but also in fact six or seven totally unrelated movies.

Which are these movies you speak of?

avenger69ie · Post by **avenger69ie** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:16 pm

Wolfman Walt wrote:I thought it was pretty obvious that Nathaniel Lee's was asian, not black.

funny i thought he was slightly mauri

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:46 pm

46&2, it's just that now, whenever I watch a decent movie, I'll go "hey, this movie is entertaining, unlike Matrix Revolutions which sucked horribly" and then I have to spend the rest of the movie thinking about how horrid Revolutions was and I can't enjoy the movie I'm watching. It's just that bad a movie.

Briosafreak · Post by **Briosafreak** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:07 am

Franz_Schubert wrote:I was talking to my friend the other day, and I told him that the Matrix sequels really doused the enjoyment I used to get out of watching the original, and he said "On the other hand, the original didn't provide enough closure in the story".

I'm thinking maybe every movie doesn't always have to have TOTAL closure. Maybe it makes a better movie when all the loose ends aren't tied up, so that it leaves more to the imagination. Nowadays it seems like the "imagination" is all but being eliminated as a factor of watching a movie.

Your thoughts?

Couldn`t say it better myself. The Matrix sequels did have one good result, the philosofer Habermas, wich lives almost hidden from the world, gave one interview to a newspaper, wich was an event in itself.

Of couse that he only talked about how the Wachovsky brothers didnÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´t understand his views on networks and reality, and neither many movie critics, and asked a douzen times for them to stop refering his ideas when talking about the movies. The man doesnÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´t care about the world, hates even talking, just writes all the time, only wants peace and quiet, but was so embarassed with the Wachovsky brothers misconcemptions that he even called the reporter himself.

it`s the only good thing that came from those movies really. Oh and they are good to calibrate home cinema setups.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:49 pm

I'll agree with you wholeheartedly Franz, the original works deliciously simply by itself. The whole movie had this great sense of wonder to it which was absent from the sequels, and the ending was really quite good, in that wonky, definitive, high-on-the-bullshit kind of way.

Duck and Cover

The Matrix as a stand-alone movie?

The Matrix as a stand-alone movie?

Re: The Matrix as a stand-alone movie?