Does the Matrix series have only one good movie?

[Dream]

Okay, I've noticed that these days that whenever the word Matrix is mentioned, there is constant mention of how the first movie is a classic while the sequels sucked.

I thought the first movie was a good Sci-Fi movie. All the characters were interesting and I liked how we didn't know much about what was going on until Neo was. Bullet time was cool, but ended up being overused by everyone after the first movie. In the end, I think this movie might be a little overrated though.

Matrix Reloaded was an okay sequel. Was it better than the first movie? No. Sequels blowing away originals like the Empire Strikes back are rare in Hollywood and books. I did like that we got other rogue programs until of just the machines. That was interesting if it really didn't go any where.

What I didn't like was that Neo was brought down the Earth somewhat. His new found powers at the end of the first movie were pretty much ignored since all the Agents were upgraded. Also I didn't like how Zion was like. It was hard to root for those people. The cliffhanger ending was also terrible, it was like they just decided to end the movie on a random scene.

Matrix Revolutions was a mess. I don't know what happened, but we barely got any scenes with the main characters that we followed from the first two movies. I think that was my main issue with the movie.

Did you think only the first movie was good or were the sequels worthy follow ups?

 

[Gaith]

If I may be forgiven for quoting one of my own blog posts from elsewhere...

First movie, made help of machines, argue against enslavement to machines. Fun movie. Make million dollars.

W brothers realize: buy more machines, make bigger movies, make bazillion dollars. Tie in video games, make majillion dollars!

Small problem: how to argue against being machine-slave when selling machine games?

Solution: machines not so bad. Misunderstood. Actually, watch machine-animated movie: humans bad first! Machines really good!

Machine viruses, though, not make W brothers tarillion dollars. Machine viruses definitely, very bad.

Movies and games made. Are lame. But, make wadillion dollars! Happy end!


Next: movie about machine-cars. Good machines! Bad humans. Make games about good machines! Buy games! W brothers money, more!
​

 

[MacLeod]

The first Matrix movie was definatly the best of the trilogy. Sequels can be a tricky thing to get right. Sometimes they are Better than the original i.e. TWOK. Sometimes they are considered at least equal i.e. Aliens, other times they are considered inferior.

 

[Kemaiku]

It all went very badly when the studio insisted the sequel be split into two parts and the prequel downgraded to a crappy anime.

They strung the story out with pure bullcrap and sold out on the ending so they could make the Matrix Online game, which at the time only worked on ridiculously state of the art PC's costing a fortune, really going against the whole idea of the "machine bad" thing as Gaith said. And didn't bother bringing in anyone to really polish the script up at all.

The first worked with a smaller budget, more limitations, and needed more physical imput and acting leading to a better story. The others were pure marketing/milking cashcrops with no thought or reason.

Which is a real pity, they had a good story and some good ideas, but spoiled it getting greedy. I wouldn't mind a reboot at all, with the Brothers and Keanu kept well away from it, as long as it was at least similar to the original film in terms of quality and entertainment.

 

[Klaus]

Disliked the first so much I never saw the others...

Derivative and inane story, empty sfx calories, stupid fights, and Keanu... *shudder*

 

[Mach5]

I enjoyed both Reloaded and Revolutions, but I still think of The Matrix (1999) as a standalone movie. Works best that way.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Disliked the first so much I never saw the others...

Derivative and inane story, empty sfx calories, stupid fights, and Keanu... *shudder*

QFT.

 

[EnsignRicky]

The first one had a great concept and was an excellent film.

The second one had an awesome Agent Smith fight.

The third one had a really awesome Agent Smith fight.

Other than that, without breathing too much in or out of it,
they were all pretty good movies.

 

[The Wormhole]

The first is of course the one that's forbidden to speak ill of. Though I found the second to be enjoyable, but I can understand why it hasn't caught on with everyone. Half-baked philosophical ramblings make me feel smart, but they aren't for everyone.

As for the third, well. Hmm... I guess the big Neo/Smith fight at the end is kind of cool. The Battle of Zion has its moments. Battle mechs are cool.

 

[DonIago]

Hm. I thought the Smith fights got progressively less compelling, myself.

I still wish Zion had turned out to be a subsection of The Matrix.

The third movie would have benefitted greatly from at least one sequence showing the denizens of the Matrix mounting at least a token defense against the invading Smiths.

 

[Professor Zoom]

First one is a whole lot of fun.
The second, it's ok.
The third, fucking stupid.

So, yes. Only one good movie.

 

[Gojira]

I really enjoyed the first one. I have not seen it in years and I am thinking of buying it on DVD. I rented the two sequels from my local library and turned the second one off half way through and never even watched the third.

 

[scnj]

I loved the first two, but the third took a huge nosedive.

 

[Set Harth]

I guess the big Neo/Smith fight at the end is kind of cool.

There are some things I never liked about it ( the stunt double silhouettes, the slo-mo face-deforming punch ) but what's cool about it is that it's rope-a-dope. The whole thing is a trick, a farce. And Smith almost figures it out at the last second, but still falls for it.

 

[Shazam!]

The first one is great.

I like the sequels as an example of mind bendingly ridiculous nonsense, the likes of which you rarely see outside of bad Japanese animation.

 

[paudemge]

Yes, there is only one good matrix movie, and I actually think the sequels hurt my enjoyment of the first movie.

I remember watching the second and feeling, well it was ok as the set up for the final, and the final would be great, sadly that was not the case.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

There was more than one? I thought The Animatrix counted as an anthology not as a movie.

 

[Gepard]

The first worked with a smaller budget, more limitations, and needed more physical input and acting leading to a better story. The others were pure marketing/milking cashcrops with no thought or reason.

Definitely. Once Lucas was able to wrap himself in layers of his own PR bullshit and not have to consult with outside sources to get funding, his...


...hold on. Sorry. Thought I was in the "Does Star Wars only have one good movie" thread.

 

[stj]

It's always seemed that the simple kickass theme of The Matrix has always been more popular than the philosophical themes of the sequel. Perhaps this is because the philosophy isn't very wise though I always thought it made the sequel refreshingly different. But then, I don't require that movies express my worldview.

But popular as it is, The Matrix isn't a very good movie because it doesn't make a lick of sense, and the hero just up and comes back to life. In the sequel, he at least goes to Machine Heaven. That right there makes the sequel better, come to think of it.

 

[Skywalker]

The first one was excellent, but the rest of the series suffered from diminishing returns. The sequels' story might have turned out to be pretty good if it hadn't been needlessly stretched out across two movies. The same problem also plagued the first two Pirates sequels, IMO.