The Daily Roxette discussions forum has been closed. The forum is only available as a read-only archive.
The Matrix Recapitulations - people from US&Euro
12 replies
tinytim said on March 18, 2004 02:57:
hey, I’d like to know from people who live in US (or from anyone from Europe), what’s the feeling remaining about the Matrix trilogy. Here, it tasted like a total lame!!! I asking it coz I saw Billy Crystal’s joke in Oscars opening and I imagine that Wachowski bros don’t joy the same genious reputation they had...
matrix, as far as I know, was becoming quite a religion around reloaded’s release date...it only really didn’t become that so, cause reloaded left a unfinished tasting in the air...but then, as I myself felt, revolutions screwed it all...
so, what can u say?
MiracleMan said on March 18, 2004 18:30:
Die-hard fans were probably OK with them. . .
Most critics here thought the second was alright, but that they really fell down on the third one. Long on effects, short on plot and character development.
As for me, the second was not that bad, some really nice action sequences, but all the pseudo-religious bs got in the way. (And, yes, I understood the point, but it was still a load of crap.) The third just burried everything in special effects and bored me to tears. Didn’t care what happened, just wanted it over. Disappointing.
infofarmer said on March 19, 2004 00:50:
The Matrix Trilogy is the most prominent cinema-feature for now and for many years still to come. It’s universally-approved. Just look at the bank accounts of some major names coming up with the matrix. Critics just need to bury sth great to be heard.
The trilogy should be considered as a trilogy, not as a movie and 2 sequels. The Matrix of 1999 enlarged the scope of movie-making to the maximum. The last two parts are just illustration of what can be done with contemporary digital equipment. Like the Final Fantasy did.
IMHO, the Lord of the Rings was paid attention mostly because of the J.R.R. Tolkien’s books. The movie itself is not a success...
Markuz said on March 19, 2004 04:50:
@infofarmer: nevermind that Matrix is a complete RIPOFF of the 1998 movie “Dark City” wich is a million times better than Matrix.
kachina008 said on March 19, 2004 08:13:
infofarmer: LOTR movies not a success? are you kidding me? personally, the LOTR movies touched me in a great way b/c there aren’t many good fantasy movies out there, and I love fantasy. I have not read Tolkien, so I am not a die hard fan. LOTR is an epic, both the books (as I’ve heard) and the movies. The age old ideas of good vs evil (naive as they might be in this cynical world) are so appealing :)
Markus: “dark city”...isn’t that the movie that came out after “the crow”...same Gothic atmosphere? I think I watched the first 30 mins of it, then had to do something else.
As for the Matrix, I just like watching Keanu kick butt. trinity aint bad either. altho, how about that unnecessarily long and sentimental dying trinity scene? heh.
Roxlander said on March 19, 2004 17:51:
Even when Latin Americans were not requested for this thread, I’m gonna say my opinion.
First of all, infofarmer, who can someone compare TLOTR with Matrix?!!! I loved the first Matrix, of course, a total cult movie, but their sequels were a truly flop, what a dissapoinment! Neo became a futurist Jesus, even dead with his arms like crucified, what a joke! And Trinity died and died all the time, how boring! The only thing to rescue from those movies, the special effects.
In the other hand TLOTR is a real trilogy, a whole interesting story, with amazing characters. Wonderful special effects submissive to the story. No one denies part of its success was because of the books, but many people have done movies from great books and they were a total failure. These movies are history, and Matrix was just a history wannabe.
infofarmer said on March 20, 2004 00:33:
Okay. I just don’t wanna write a very long post, cuz nobody reads long posts anyway :-) At least I don’t :-)
Thinking about movies based on his books, Tolkien set up a special rule. A movie can be made with a symbolic royalty to the Tolkiens, but must be close to the books and carry their ideas. Or a movie can take just the main story-line from the books, but the royalty would be quite reasonable. The LOTR trilogy was made according to the second option. The books are great. The movie is very stupid in comparison. Still, it’s nice, I admit it.
The first Matrix was a WOW for every cinema-goer. When we were going to see Reloaded, we expected sth which would amaze us even more. Most ppl watching the two last parts of the Matrix trilogy didn’t even have the question “How in the hell was it possible to film those stunts?..” Well, I did. And I can tell you, that Reloaded and Revolutions took MUCH more hard work and talent from those, making it.
coyboyusa said on March 20, 2004 17:23:
lotr was not a success? its going to outsell titanic as the most selling movie of all time even the matrix couldnt do that
Ferdan said on March 20, 2004 18:23:
Matrix 1, good movie (too much from Dark City tho, even the scenary wich were leftovers from Dark City’s filming in the same studio, and this is a fact)...
the rest of the trilogy sounds like “hell, we didn’t think it was going to have success so we have never put effort in the rest of the story”
Jackeill said on March 21, 2004 01:28:
i liked matrix, but reloaded and revolutions wasted all my good feelings about that movie. some stories need to be left unfinished...
haven’t seen dark city yet, but i’ll do it for sure.
coyboyusa said on March 18, 2004 13:24:
i never went to see the 2nd and 3rd one so much hyper lord of the rings was worth much more to me