OT: Matrix

Atrocities · #1 March 24th, 2004, 02:34 AM

I found the first movie to be very interesting and revolutionary, but after seeing it once or twice I lost interest in it. The second movie was a logical continuation of the first as the third was of the second.

I do not buy the ending of the trilage at all though. We all know that he is inside of a matrix that is inside of a matrix and so on and so on. How else could he see everything in the "real world" as code?

Azselendor · #2 March 24th, 2004, 05:10 AM

I admire the directors for thier attempts at innovation and thier visual style, but I wasn't pleased with the overall structure of the other two films. They should have been more stand-alone pictures and kept it a little more grounded.

Oh well, can't have it all.

Captain Kwok · #3 March 24th, 2004, 06:39 AM

There were a few highlights in the series, but no where near as rewarding as the Lord of the Rings.

General Woundwort · #4 March 24th, 2004, 01:13 PM

Woundwort's First Theorem of Filmmaking - If you have a great (or just good) standalone film, making a trilogy or series out of it will ruin it.

Proofs of theorem -
Jaws
the Matrix
Superman (caveat - in this case, II was better than I - but the rest...)

Timstone · #5 March 24th, 2004, 01:34 PM

And what about the Alien serie? Only Part 4 was bad, but the rest was absolutely great.
Don't think that when you have more than one part that the other parts will be worse than the first one. Everyone has his/her own thoughts about the next movie after the first, so it always is a bit different than that person wanted to see it. You can't please everyone. It really annoys me that a lot of people forget this and condemn a follow-up movie to a degrading status.

General Woundwort · #6 March 24th, 2004, 01:56 PM

To slightly modify the theorem - trying to recapitulate the same film 2-3 times over will ruin it.

Aliens I and II were two different genre movies using the same aliens (I - horror/slasher; II - action/shoot-em-up) so both could stand on their own merits. III tried to go back to the original genre and just didn't work IMHO.

Aliens IV... was the third-worst movie I have ever seen. (Just in case you're wondering - Highlander II was the second-worst, Eraserhead was the worst).

Another case in point - the Bond series. I used to love Bond films as a kid. Now, I couldn't care less. How many times can you do "Bond uses neat gadgets to beat the bad guy, steal his girlfriend, and save the world" before it starts to get - well - blase?

Another proof of the theorem - Blair Witch Project.

AMF · #7 March 25th, 2004, 02:05 AM

Eraserhead and Pink Flamingos are the only movies I have seen where I needed to take a shower and go outside in the sun afterwards. I felt "dirtied" by them. I do think eraserhead was well made, but just disturbing. Pink flamingos was just gross (weel, the Last scene where Divine eats doggie poo at least...)

But, I have to disagree about Alien III. I actually thought it was the best one of the series.

Quote:

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
To slightly modify the theorem - trying to recapitulate the same film 2-3 times over will ruin it.

Aliens I and II were two different genre movies using the same aliens (I - horror/slasher; II - action/shoot-em-up) so both could stand on their own merits. III tried to go back to the original genre and just didn't work IMHO.

Aliens IV... was the third-worst movie I have ever seen. (Just in case you're wondering - Highlander II was the second-worst, Eraserhead was the worst).

Another case in point - the Bond series. I used to love Bond films as a kid. Now, I couldn't care less. How many times can you do "Bond uses neat gadgets to beat the bad guy, steal his girlfriend, and save the world" before it starts to get - well - blase?

Another proof of the theorem - Blair Witch Project.

[ March 24, 2004, 12:17: Message edited by: alarikf ]