Matrix, whats the deal?

[S7even]

Originally Posted by andyman1970

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You say you like all 3 and the second was your favorite, well, in my opinion the first one was just ok and the other 2 were complete crap. I do not see myself ever owning anything by the Wachowski brothers as I think Speed Racer and V for Vendetta were also crap. But that is my opinion and just what I thought of the movies. Respect that as I respect your right to enjoy them.

V for Vendetta was excellent for me, Speed Racer was a bit George Jetson in my eyes. I like Matrix 1 and 2, hated the 3rd.

[P@t_Mtl]

I am probably one of the few who liked all 3. Each one as a little something that make's it interesting compare to the other 2.

I think that the last one get a bad rep from most because of the ending, it's not a typical ending and I can see how it could put off people.

[sam89]

All three are masterpieces and the sequels are better than the original, IMO.

I put the dislike of the sequels down to the increased complexity of the movies' narrative and philosophical subtexts. You really have to watch the films multiple times to take it all in and fully understand the story.

[naturephoto1]

I liked all 3. But, like many feel that the first is the best. It certainly had some ground breaking effects that were continued and further used and developed in the two sequels.

Rich

[Blu-Benny]

i agree w/the op and have been posting the same thing on here since i became a member.

yes, the 1st one was awesome but everyone keeps comparing #'s 2 & 3 to the 1st one which is not fair. ANY movie would've had a hard time holding up to the 1st one.

i love all 3, just watched #'s 2 & 3 this last weekend. the battle for Zion in Revolutions is incredible!!!

[Zman2k2]

I also agree with the OP, but I gave up this fight a while ago. For some reason, not everyone "understands" what the Wachowski brothers were trying to accomplish with the second and third movies. The first thing that needs to be known is that they weren't sure they were making the sequels. They weren't sure if the story would fly with audiences or not. When it took off, they got into making the next two movies. With that, the brothers tried to put as much narrative and story into the first one as they could, but with the other two movies, they could expand on the first.

I think that without the 2nd and 3rd movies, it leaves the people simply fighting agents forever. The sequels show that people are fighting for something, and trying to gain a victory for everyone, not just little battles, but one final fight for freedom. It's an incredible story, and should be enjoyed as such.

[Jmills]

The original is by far superior due to the shock value seeing it the first time. It truly is unlike anything you've ever seen before. The sequels however are just as amazing in their own right and the way they were expanded out of the Matrix took alot of courage that may have turned some people off.

As you all can see in this thread

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...matrix+trilogy

People seem to be half and half regarding the original and the sequels.

All in all though an amazing movie achievement, especially amongst the sci-fi genre.

[Crim122]

Personally I like the 2nd the best, because of the action.

Then the 1st one for the story

3rd, meh it felt like a long drag to me

Do want the trilogy pack though.

[Jmills]

Originally Posted by sam89

All three are masterpieces and the sequels are better than the original, IMO.

I put the dislike of the sequels down to the increased complexity of the movies' narrative and philosophical subtexts. You really have to watch the films multiple times to take it all in and fully understand the story.

Absolutely right. If people are confused about the story they need to watch the commentary with Ken Wibler and Cornell West! I've been watching all three movies with them giving commentary and they really brought new insight to alot of the trilogy.

People don't like to think anymore lol. Sad really.

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by neos_peace

I hear so many people saying the the first one was awesome, (AND I agree) however they keep saying that the sequals are bombs.
WHY in the heck do they say this. I personally (opinion) thought the second was the best.

I think you answered your own question. It's just a matter of opinion. Some have the opinion that the last two were terrible and should have never been made. This drastically differs from your (and MY) opinion that the last two were great movies.

That's right. We're in total agreement.

The last two Matrix movies were AMAZING. I can't understand the reason WHY people have the opions that they have about these movie, but oh, well, to each his/her own.

[Coop0129]

Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. Some people don't like The Matrix and some do. Some people don't like ice cream either. I personally think The Matrix trilogy is a great trilogy in general. I personally like the first the best. I thought the second was a little sub-par to the first, but I still liked it. I was disappointed in the third when I saw it in the theater but have since found that I like the movie much better even though I like the first two better. Overall, if you look at the three as a whole, kind of like one big movie, it is a great movie trilogy!

[coralfangs]

the first one was awesome, (although the idea wasn't THAT original, *cough* ghost in the shell *cough*)

the second one was trying to be too philosophical that the plots failed utterly, too much non-sense about the choices and the purposes, whenever there needs to be something explained, we get the "don't ask, everything has a purpose" response, while some of the philosophical ideas are correct, the plot hole and the unexplained mystery ultimately overshadowed the few good ideas
it was still very entertaining to watch but you have to watch it with your brain shut down (action sequence was brilliant, the bike chase, the fight scenes, etc)

the third one was okay, but the last fight scene.......
don't get me started
all the flying? all the superman crap?

[thaima1shu]

I thought they were all equally awesome for their own reasons. I can easily watch any of the three and be thoroughly entertained. Don't really see any issues with the 2nd and 3rd ones. The Animatrix was also great.

[perfectdark]

3rd was pretty lame, but I thought the 2nd was the best of the 3 by far

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by neos_peace

But why do you say that they are terrible, I think that the 2nd is better then the first. 1st one and the 3 rd are tied for me. Why do people think that they are terrible thats what I don't understand.

haven't looked at all the replies but I'll tell you why. Alot of people were expecting a more complex story like the first one. But alot of people also were at awe with the special effects. So they went more crazy with the effects. (to the point where it was to much for some. To much bullet time) And the story wasn't to there liking.(Not much time in the Matrix) That and the brothers were making stuff up because they had no idea the first one would be so big.

To me I like all three. They go in the order from when they came out.

[GGX]

A bad movie is a bad movie. What really needs to be explained?

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by coralfangs

the first one was awesome, (although the idea wasn't THAT original, *cough* ghost in the shell *cough*)

Well the story was a combination of all kinds of stories. Lets not get into talking about the places (Dark City)

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

Being a graduate in a science field, it is well practiced to be objective, even in opinions.

That statement is a tautology because opinions are by their definition subjective in nature, not objective. You qualify it by saying you studied science. So you know that science is based on empirical evidence involving reproducible experiments, data, etc. Movies are based on unmeasurables: story, emotion, acting, effects etc. You are trying to impose obvjectivity in subjective realms, and that never works.

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by Gremal

That statement is a tautology because opinions are by their definition subjective in nature, not objective. You qualify it by saying you studied science. So you know that science is based on empirical evidence involving reproducible experiments, data, etc. Movies are based on unmeasurables: story, emotion, acting, effects etc. You are trying to impose obvjectivity in subjective realms, and that never works.

You are failing to see the point.

Opinions are subjective in nature. However, making statements is objectifying opinions, to where they can be incorrect. How can we measure statements in reality? Simple. We can fit them up against the general norms, expectations, and beliefs. I made all these examples clear in my first post. Maybe you should look back at them. You cannot say that the Matrix Reloaded is a bad movie. That would be incorrect. I like to use IMDB as a dependent measure, because it seems to have most ratings per movie.

To reitterate my point:

You cannot say that the Matrix Reloaded is a bad movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0234215/

I think 121,000 votes is sufficient amount of evidence.

However, you can say that "The Matrix reloaded was a bad movie in my opinion".

Just scroll up. You'll see what I'm talking about.

"GGX: A bad movie is a bad movie. What really needs to be explained?"

Delta Farce is a bad movie (yes, I just made a statement):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800003/

[Gremal]

You cannot count up opinions and claim to be objective unless you are doing a survey--and even then you have to run statistics on the data and show that your analysis is unbiased. Individual opinions are not surveys, nor are reviews.