Does "The Matrix" still hold up for you?

once neo became an unkillable god....I lost interest, first one was pretty good

 

I think of Forrest Gump.

 

Toyota just brought back a convertible Corolla... Its pretty close.

 

169K miles and counting on the 2008 Yaris. It's been a workhorse! Saved so much on gas, it's crazy.

 

never held up for me in the first place.

 

This is actually a very good point; originally, the Wachowski's didn't intend Neo to become The One at the end of the first film, neither did they intend to spell out in specific detail why the Machines kept humans in the Matrix... it was all going to be left for the sequels they hoped to make... but the studio demanded both things be laid out in the first film as they weren't sure how well The Matrix would do upon release.

It all worked out well in the end, except that the Wachowski's had nowhere else to take Neo for the sequels... which explains the rather awkward and unconvincing turn for Neo in Reloaded/Revolutions where not only did he devolve from a god-like being at the end of the first film to merely Superman in the sequels, but he had no further character arc either left to explore, he's just there doing stuff in the sequels but not really progressing as a character in any real substantial form.

Still think if the sequels had been a single three-hour film, it would have played much better, but it's all academic at this point...

 

Got Smith?

 

There's a level of suckitude that Matrix 2 and Matrix 3 hit that are lower than whale **** at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.

I dunno. I've read the scripts for all three, and there's a whole lotta suck and a whole lotta vagueness and stupidity in the sequels. When there's no real payoff for a solid mystery (and Lost, X Files, and Matrix are high on that list of disappointments), the audience is going to get angry.

Scripts:
Daily Script - The Matrix by Andy & Larry Wachowski
HorrorLair - The Matrix Reloaded by Andy & Larry Wachowski
HorrorLair - The Matrix Revolutions by Andy & Larry Wachowski

 

I guess that’s one of those rare instances in which studio interference worked out for the best, at least in the case of the first film. Sure, the trilogy suffered, but we got one great film that, like the original Star Wars, works as a stand-alone film.

 

I recall one of the key tracks in Brothers in Arms was longer on CD compared to the LP? That was the reason people I knew switched.

 

And a lot of that is due to the fact the story is unnecessarily stretched over two films... had it been boiled down to one three-hour film, it would have inevitably lessened the 'suck' somewhat.

The Wachowski's were originally thinking of making both a prequel and a sequel together, but changed their plan to two sequels... which explains to me many of the problems of those two films... butter scraped over too much bread, to quote Tolkien.

Some cinematic storylines deserve two films - Infinity War/Endgame being the most recent example - the Matrix sequels was not one of them...

 

I had to go and look at the end scene again to get that. Probably more went over my head

 

Both Lost and the X Files, looked initially promising. After that, they got just plain awful.

I never did the "love" that everyone seemed to have for them.

 

My number one and two shows respectively.

 

There were aspects of both shows that were very well done, and there was genuine chemistry between some members of the cast and technically, the shows were very well-made. I think the writing on both was very uneven, and the endings went crazy towards the end. Surprisingly, Fringe had an ending that made sense, though that show never got the ratings that Lost and X-Files did.

 

The best TV series I have ever seen was Dead Like Me. I think it was the best non commercial type of program that they ever did put on TV.

I don't think it was very well known. I had discovered it while in a motel room with a TV, sometime after the original series was off the air.

I only saw a few episodes, but found the entire two season series on DVD and the made of TV DVD movie that was made some years afterward.

The star Ellen Muth does the best deadpan I have ever seen.



And this is the best roll that Mandy Patinkin ever played, as her grim reaper boss.

 

I saw the Matrix at a preview screening and my thoughts then were:
1)Pretty good wire-fu
2)Crazy special effects
3)Great looking style wise
4)Serviceable acting and script
5)Good ending

So I was a thumps up, BUT at the same time I had thought:

1)Its ripping off William Gibson
2)Its ripping off Philip K Dick - but in a much more juvenile and stupid way.
3)If I'd never read William Gibson or Philip K. Dick I'd think THEY ripped this movie off - and that is bad.

So it's a great film - but it's not a "GREAT" film --except for the effects.

The sequels were AWWWWFFFFUUUULLLLLL - but they did manage to get my money - so the sequels won.

 

Yeah, Cyberpunk and "worlds within worlds" each were a thing long before The Matrix. But to be fair, I think the Wachowskis did a good job synthesizing those ideas into something that "felt" very new. Hell, about half of Phil Dick's biggest works all dealt with the idea of a lead character who suddenly realized his reality was not necessarily true.

Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions were among the few times I've been with a mass-market audience that booed when the credits started. But the second film made $742 million and the third made $427 million, compared to the original at $463 million. I think it's fair to say everybody was in shock to discover "there was no there there" in the sequels, and it was all just a bunch of b******t. A friend of mine at WB worked on all three, and he'd been telling me for years that the Wachowskis were completely out to lunch, and not to expect anything sensible or satisfying out of the story; he was right.

 

Philip K. Dick characters found out what they "knew" to be true wasn't - and they could never exactly figure out what reality was - trust me - I've read literally ALL of his books. (Seriosuly ALL of them.)

And the words "The Matrix" are directly lifted from Neuromancer (and I did give that feedback on my audience score card) and I didn't appreciate it. Nor did I appreciate Johnny Mnemonic - but for other reasons
But in discussions right after the film friends agreed it was a college level "take some fun drugs then discuss what reality is" --but at the Ogre in Revenge of The Nerds II level of thinking.

It's a pretty juvenile film - the machines plan was/is stupid - and the sequels define the word: unnecessary.

But I liked it enough to have seen it probably 6 times - buy the DVD back in the early 2000s and to post about it on the net in 2019

We are in violent agreement.

 

I just did a spit take all over my computer!

 

I've not seen the first movie in this series for about 15 years, but some of its themes are so firmly part of who I am today that it's a film I could do without ever watching again. If anything, I'd rather not even risk setting myself off by revisiting that world, alien as it may seem to most who were also introduced to it twenty years ago. Incredibly, I tried making it through the sequels, only to fall asleep on both occasions - maybe some things are best left as standalone experiences?

 

Let's not forget that the Wachowski brothers also brought us cinema classic's like Jupiter Ascending and Speed Racer.

I can't hardly wait for their next movie!

 

Finally saw The Matrix in February 2019. Had been avoiding it, figuring it had to suck. It did not. Pretty cool. As noted above, like a Phillip K. Dick novel goofed-down a bit. And some obvious and mostly gratuitous Biblical references. But, hey, I like Keanu. I've been told to avoid the sequels and I will.

 

You are correct.