| quote | Originally posted by JazzMan: I liked the movies a lot, though I thought the second dragged pretty badly toward the end. Matrix is one of those phenomena that one either gets, or doesn't. It definitely isn't mass-produced pap like so much of the schlock that comes out of hollywood nowadays. I'd be willing to bet that Matrix wasn't run past any test audiences first. JazzMan |
|
The first movie isn't the problem to me. (Spoilers ahead.) It was well done, with a great story/concept, inventive action, and cutting edge ideas.
The second one was less good, but still a decent movie. It set up the trilogy and worked nicely as a Part Two. The problem was the Architect. It was as if the Wachowskis were trying to see how many important $5 words they could cram into the Architect's dialog, "ergo" making him sound more sophisticated. The freeway scene was great, except that they passed the same exit ramp about 50 times, and literally every vehicle was a GM product. (Well, maybe the Machines were originally Pontiac Fieros.
)
The third movie was the pointless one. I had a lot of expectations. What I did I get? An "oracle" who is trying to hide by "adjusting her appearance." I know the original actress passed away before the last movie was shot, but I say write the part away or make the oracle a totally different looking character in a totally different location. (I can see the agents rolling up to her apartment - since it is the same as before - and saying "be on the look out for a 50-ish black woman in an apron and smoking cigarettes.) I liked the new characters, though, but I REALLY hated some of the plot ideas.
Maybe someone can explain them to me.
1) Why did Trinity die? Didn't Neo goes through all that trouble to save her in Part 2? He chose the door to save her instead of the "feedback loop" door to save humanity (which would reset the simulation and repeat the results, "ergo" multiple Neos.) So he saved her only to have her get run through during the hovercraft crash? This was a pointless waste of the best character in the movies. (Seriously, why was she killed off again?)
2) Why did Neo lose his eyesite? That was another pointless thing. It had already been established that what they were trying to do was all but impossible. I felt like the Wachowskis were hamfisting the subtlety they did so well at in part 1.
3) Why didn't the trilogy end with an ENDING?
The machines "agree" not to come to zion, and agree to release anyone from the matrix who "realizes" they are there. But the machines still exist, they still have numerical superiority, and Neo is dead, and there won't be a new Neo (I assume) since no one will need to be a superman in the matrix anymore, since they can just be safely unplugged now, etc. I really feel like this is the worst ending possible. How about Neo destroys Smith (who I'd bet got an inflated part since everyone liked him in the first one), and then takes out the matrix, making all the plugged in people simultaneously rebel against their machine overlords? The people win, the people dance again, etc. I don't need a sappy happy ending, but at least give the story (that we have invested time into) closure. Any writer can tell you that.
4) Why didn't the Wachowskis flesh out the French-guy's part? (I forget his name.) I was intriqued by that storyline. His wife wanted to kiss Neo, and I presumed that perhaps the french guy and her were the former Neo and Trinity. That would have made sense, given both characters the role of Soothsayers (or examples of what not to do) because they failed and were transformed into programs or whatever. (something.) But in the third movie, they barely are mentioned.
5) Agent Smith was cool in the first movie, but I really think they overdid it. His virus-like ability in the sequals brought irony to his speech to Morpheus in part 1 ("Human kind is a virus"), so I liked that. But then he becomes this Anti-Neo who ends up mutually destroying Neo. *shrug* I guess conflict should have resolution, not complete destruction.
6) Finally, I wonder about the people in Zion. Sure they get to continue living, but at what cost? No way would they trust the machines, so they would probably rebuild their defenses. Would the machines honor their side of the "agreement?" Maybe this just reinserts the story back into the feedback loop, and it doesn't matter what door Neo picked. I certainly missed the point there.
I would have built the third movie upon the premise that Neo was able to stop the machines while in "the real world." I would establish that Neo's powers transferred over into the real world from the matrix, making him realize that the real world was really just a second layer of security. They are all still enslaved, they just think they are fee. (Outside the cells, but inside the walls the whole time.) THAT would have been an interesting angle, and then I wouldn't have minded a cliffhanger (part 1-type ending to the trilogy, because we can either assume at that point that Neo will eventually go on to really free everyone, or that they'll just make another pretentious trilogy showing how it's done. Either way, I would have signed on for another three movies in the theaters, instead of now pretending 2 & 3 never existed. I'll just add them to the Never-Happened Pile along with Highlander 2 and Star Trek: Enterprise.
For sci-fi movies, the first one was an instant classic. I'm not debating it. The 2nd was a typical sequal: it tried bigger and better while sacrificing some of the soul of the first. The third fumbled the ball.
Just my opinion. And no, I won't be buying the 350 disc Matrix set. 
Edited to fix the smiley, and add this new one, which is fitting for my long post... 
- Flamberge
[This message has been edited by Flamberge (edited 12-13-2004).]