I thought the first Matrix film was decent but I didn’t like the second one much. Too many weak scenes which went on for too long without much purpose. Some ghastly music especially in the multiple Agent Smith fight. There were some interesting revelations towards the end but it was too little too late. I doubt my opinion will improve much on a second viewing.
I don’t even consider The Matrix (1) part of the same horrible universe Reloaded occupies.
Is part of the universe occupied by alien^3 and Highlander 2?
Hahahaha, yes, yes it is.
I’m starting to think that the first matrix movie has been somewhat spoiled by the second one; the first one was a complete story (even though it left you hanging, it ended in such a way as to infer that humanity would prevail) - the second one seemed to labour the point on some of the things that should have been left subtle.
Maybe the third movie will tie it all together and restore my faith.
the good thing about the reloaded DVD is the chapters are set so you can skip the shagging/rave scenes, but unfortunately you end up on a shot of keanus pasty ass. it was a lot better 2nd time i watched it, skipping those bits. the fight scenes are still like watching a playstation game though. except for the one where he kicks everyones head in on that staircase.
I shall see revolutions by the end of this week. then we shall see if it sorts things out.
I’m glad I’m not the only pne who thought the rave scene was utterly pointless.
This is what cracked me up about the TBS broadcast of Matrix last night. They edited out every single use of the words Jesus Christ–sure, why not take out one of the central allegories of the movie…
Does everyone believe that the whole thing was conceptualized as a trilogy from the beginning?
I just have doubts about this. As much as I love The Brother’s vision and daring in making Matrix 1, I just have some doubts as to how far they saw it going, especially after having seen Matrix 2 which was enjoyable, but the story, in comparison to Matrix 1, seemed to ‘lame out’ and flatten into lazy vision and lazy daring (true hollywood style).
My thinking is that after the success of Matrix 1, The Brothers were obviously approached for money-making sequels, AND THEN they conceptualized the trilogy, and to their credit went even further and tied that all in to animation and video gaming.
I have the same argument about George Lucas. He once said that he had all the episodes in his head but waited ‘for technology to catch up’ in order to make the prequels. I think that’s bullshit. But it’s all unprovable because it’s my opinion against his.
Me too, but it’s the same with most movie trilogies, including Star Wars as you mention. Jurassic Park, Back to the Future, Scream… They were all retconned into trilogies after the first installment was so successful. I don’t have a problem with that.
I guess Lord of the Rings is an exception.
beajerry, I totally agree, which is the only thing that allows me to sleep at night 
Seriously though, you can tell merely by watching the Matrix movies that Reloaded was handled far differently than The Matrix.
Achernar - If I recall correctly, Back to the Future always was intended as a trilogy because at the end of Back to the Future one, Doc shows up from the future in his tricked out DeLorean and says there’s a crises involving Marty’s kids. Of course, I suppose this could have been added to the VHS version after the fact…
No; it was always there, but even if there was no trilogy conceived at the time, it still would have made sense as an ending in its own right.
Here’s another fun one: in Reloaded, Smith’s license plate reads “ISA5416”. If you look in the King James Bible, Book of Isaiah, chapter 54, verse 16, you find:
Didn’t the movie end with the words, “To be continued” on the screen?
I know about that scene. However, it’s clear when you think about it that the story for Parts II and III hadn’t been written when they first did that scene. It’s supposed to be a sort of catharsis like Mangetout mentions so they can end the movie on an adventurous high note with a sweet technical effect. They wound up doing something similar at the end of Part III as well.
Consider how disconnected the scene in 2015 is from the rest of the film. Doc’s urgency “Something’s got to be done about your kids!” doesn’t make a lot of sense for the minor errand he has Marty run when they actually get there. Also, they immobilize Jennifer almost immediately; they realized it was a mistake to bring her along, but they were stuck with it. Given the extreme cleverness with which the plot is executed overall, it seems to me that they did the best they could, not having thought it through before.
And finally, this is minor, but there’s a small difference between the scenes as shown in Parts I and II. In Part II, Biff comes out of the house to show off his new matchbooks, which allows for one of the many payoffs in the trilogy later, this one at the end of Part II. There are at least a couple payoffs that are set up in Part II that don’t get resolved until Part III, so it would have been clear that they wrote these two parts together, even if they hadn’t shown previews for Part III at the end of Part II.
Even if they had meant for there to be a sequel, they hadn’t written it at that point, and that’s really what I was talking about; making it up as you go along.
I believe parts 2 & 3 were filmed at the same time.
Er, no. “Morpheus” is the Roman god of sleep. The number two in Greek is “duo.”
Achernar, there’s nothing I can really disagree with in regards to what you stated. What I merely meant was that Back to the Future seemed fairly optimistic about having a sequel - so far as to even setting up the basic fundamentals at the end of the 1st one for the 2nd edition (I do not believe, as you also mentioned, that they had written the stories at that point). However, The Matrix did not have such a cliff hanger and really didn’t provide any allusions to a possible sequel. That’s all I was getting at.
Okay, well maybe from a moviemaking perspective they were different in that the BTTF people planned on a sequel. But from a storytelling perspective they were the same in that neither story was originally conceived as a trilogy. That’s an assessment I can get on board with.