Why all the hate on the Matrix Sequels?

[Woodsey]

The first is great, the second is OK, the third is good. Too much time spent in Zion in Revolutions though.

My main problem with the sequels is that there's so much going on and nothing is explained particularly well; often I find that that's because whenever the Oracle explains something to Neo, she lets him work it out mostly for himself, but then it's never actually explained to the audience.

 

[Tourette]

Very rarely does a sequel surpass the original. The Matrix was an awesome movie which was totally original and it blew us away when it first came out. The sequel were the same formula which wasn't original and didn't have the same wow factor but they were still great but had some really dodgy scenes.

 

[Enigma6667]

I actually highly enjoyed Reloaded, but Revolutions was pretty stupid. It's not the worst set of sequels. Batman & Robin will always be a big contender of worst sequels in my book, but I still like the original the best.

 

[Thaius]

Eh. The second sported one of the greatest fight scenes ever captured on film (the highway chase and medieval weaponry battle), but also had an incomprehensible plot with some stupid and convoluted turns, some terrible CG, and some random sex thrown in for no reason. The third one just sucked. It had some cool mech stuff, but everything else about it sucked.

I see what you're saying: sometimes I think they get too much hate. But the fact is, The Matrix would have been better standing alone than with those sequels.

 

[Evil the White]

People can relate to Neo on the first, the can't on the sequels. That's my guess. I have wondered that too.

EDIT: Wanna see some bad sequels? Go watch Pirates Of The Caribbean 2 & 3. One was an excellent film, but the other two were kinda stupid and boring.

Did you watch them on inverse order? I think exactly the opposite. On the sequels there was the Kraken, Davy Jones, great fights, great CGI's, more comedy, more fantasy. I can't even recall a good moment on the first.

I think part of the whole thing with Pirates is that they re-use jokes. Therefore, if you watch them in the correct order, it's funny when Jack gets slapped by several prostitues, but not as funny when they do it in the next film, and visa versa.

 

[SilverUchiha]

Well, they aren't bad films. They just weren't as good as the original and introduced some stupid plot points.

EDIT: Wanna see some bad sequels? Go watch Pirates Of The Caribbean 2 & 3. One was an excellent film, but the other two were kinda stupid and boring.

I actually liked the pirate sequels. I thought they were fun.

OT: I didn't even think the original Matrix was all that good. So the sequels were bound to be terrible if you ask me.

 

[Ham_authority95]

I've heard about plot-holes and generic-ness, so that's probably why.

I personally don't care about The Matrix that much, so these films weren't much of a loss to me.

 

[Amphoteric]

I think it has just become Fasionable to dislike The Matrix sequels

 

[esperandote]

People can relate to Neo on the first, the can't on the sequels. That's my guess. I have wondered that too.

EDIT: Wanna see some bad sequels? Go watch Pirates Of The Caribbean 2 & 3. One was an excellent film, but the other two were kinda stupid and boring.

Did you watch them on inverse order? I think exactly the opposite. On the sequels there was the Kraken, Davy Jones, great fights, great CGI's, more comedy, more fantasy. I can't even recall a good moment on the first.

I think part of the whole thing with Pirates is that they re-use jokes. Therefore, if you watch them in the correct order, it's funny when Jack gets slapped by several prostitues, but not as funny when they do it in the next film, and visa versa.

Or when they bad guys arrest Orlando and Kira's characters in the beggining of the second movie (right?) and ask for Jack Sparrow and they say "CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow" it was funny because Jack did that a lot on the first one.

 

[TheBaron87]

No, the movies were quite literally bad. They had good special effects and action scenes, that's IT. Whether you saw the original or not doesn't change the fact that the sequels were bad in every other way a work of fiction can be bad.

Why are there so many replies to the effect of "They weren't really bad they just had a ton of flaws."

THAT'S WHAT MAKES THEM BAD. What redeeming qualities did they have to make up for all the flaws you guys keep mentioning? What IS a bad movie to you?

 

[Tyrannowalefish_Rex]

They feel a little unstructured, pretentious and narcissistic compared to the first movie. There is little sense of authenticity left, it's pompous, it never feels really serious, the fights are just for show and all rules can be broken (even the rule that all rules can be broken so that Neo actually has to conform to some strange set of rules).
It's still fun to look at, the philosophy seems solid (as far as I care, I never tried to nitpick on every detail, I haven't even watched the movies so often), and especially the machine designs are impressive and sort of original.

 

[Dxz5roxg]

I thought all of them where great. My favorite is actually the second one. I can never see problems with movies. I just enjoy the experience. The thing that confuses me most is why people hate the prequels to Star Wars. I thought they where awesome.

 

[TheLordofPie]

I think killing off (spoiler alert) Trinity in Revolutions pissed a lot of people off. It rendered Neo's rescuing of her in Reloded pointless. It should have been Morpheus (easily the coolest character in the Trilogy), since he had nothing to do in part 3 but side-seat drive. That's the only problem I had, anyway.

i agree, was quite dumb on their part

 

[VulakAerr]

tl;dr

There is hate towards them because they are fucking terrible films. As many other people have said, it takes itself waaaaaaaaay too seriously, it's got thinly-veiled religious undertones, and has a stick up its arse.

Not to mention, the end of the third film is fucking stupid because it doesn't answer any questions. Not because it's best left unanswered, but because it's a fucking cheap ploy to get people talking about it and be as vague as possible. I'd rather they either all died (actually, I'd love this, I may even watch it again) or they all lived happily ever after. Not just "well, that's that then. Anybody want a mint?"

Also, I'm not especially fond of the last 10 minutes of the first film. "Don't die, Neo. I love you and whoever I love can't die, despite the fact that I'm fucking irritating and they may slit their wrists." "Woah, okay, Trinity. I was just off playing Battleships with Death. Now I'm back and everything's green and shit."


Basically, the Wackoffski Brothers had a great idea, a great concept and managed to get 90% of a great film out of it before their shitty writing skills fucked it all up.

 

[VulakAerr]

I thought all of them where great. My favorite is actually the second one. I can never see problems with movies. I just enjoy the experience. The thing that confuses me most is why people hate the prequels to Star Wars. I thought they where awesome.

Yeah, that's an "alternative" view to have.

See here:


Edit: Fucking Channel 4 anti-embedding.

 

[Yawwy]

Something that always annoyed me about the sequels,is this.So,in the first movie,we find out 'OH!By the way guys,you know this 'world' you all live in?You know that wife of yours?You know that delicious sandwhich you are eating?Yea,it isn't real.In fact,you're just a battery in a huge power plant for machines.Isn't that awesome!?But it's okay because soon The One will come along,and we shall rise up against our machine overlords,and The One shall bring us to the promised land!Yay!'

Now,we come to the sequels.'Right so,Neo,my man.You know how I kinda maybe said you were 'The One'?Yeaaaa...about that.You're more like...'The Twelfth.'What I'm trying to say is,you aren't unique.There have been loads of 'Ones'.You are just another cog in the machine.In fact,guess what's going to happen no matter what you do?We're going to just reboot the computer that runs The Matrix,and send off the error report.No matter what you do Neo.'

I mean...what?I can understand the idea that there have been Matrixes before the one we know,with the Agents as Angels etc.I can even deal with The Oracle's bodyguard being an ex-Agent.Or at least,I think he was.But when they bring up the whole 'You are just a number!' deal with Neo,after building him up as the ONLY One,it just ruins it.It means all that you have seen,has been done before,and will be done again.Did you panic about Trinity when she got shot?NO WORRIES!In about thirty years time,it's just going to happen again.Were you really hoping that Neo would save the day,and free us all from being triple A batteries?Well,don't fret.Soon there'll be another hero to worship and pray he saves us.Just wait.

In fact,the only thing that hasn't happened before if I remember right,is Smith.No agent has ever gone rogue as he did,and began infecting everything.And even that took away from what happened in the first film.When I heard 'Mr Anderson' in the first film,it was like 'Oh shiiit here comes Smith!Watch out Neo!'In Reloaded and Revolutions?It's more like 'Oh...It's Smith...yaaaay?'

And of course,the ending.What the ever living flying fudgesiciles were they thinking?After the entire thing,after Neo does all his flying business,after so many people died,and after we see a little girl get turned into an Agent,The Oracle and The Architect sit down,nicely,on a park bench,and just say 'So,you can have some humans,and I'll have the rest.Sound fair?'After all that,it's just a case of 'Oh fine,take some humans and stop bothering me while I'm trying to work already!'

I will give the sequels one thing though.In the machine city,that baby face is creepy.

 

[spacecowboy86]

i didn't like revolution because they never went in the matrix till the end, and i didn't like reloaded because they mostly talked to people in the matrix. there was one good action seen in reloaded and at least two in the first matrix. basic math, 2>1. slow motion super powered action is what made these movies stand out and the second two just didn't have as much, but to answer your question, if you brought them over to my house i might watch trough them, but i don't know if i'd be interested enough to see the other two.

 

[GLo Jones]

In my opinion, the first had a cool story, and awesome effects and fight scenes for it's time. The second one had some truly fantastic action scenes, but lacked a decent plot (and I thought the rescue of Trinity was ridiculous), the third film was just a result of trying to one-up the first two in both action and plot, and failed miserably.

Like many people we thought the "Zion" world was another shell of the simulation, another Matrix. It was the only way to explain several events in the first two movies (Tank's survival and rescue of the others, the rusted catwalk killing the team which was supposed to take over the power plant, Neo's newfound power outside of the Matrix) which were required in order for the "it's all part of the plan" explanation to make any sense.

Turns out the W-ski brothers were explaining it all with mystical bullshit.

I realize the ultimately unsatisfactory conclusion of the Matrix-within-a-Matrix explanation (how do you know that you've ever really escaped it?) but at least it was internally consistent and didn't require multiple deus ex machinas to hold together.

If that had been the actual plot, then Revolutions would have been so much better. I think it would've been a very nice way for the plot to come full circle and give closure (a pessimistic ending would've fit nicely).

 

[Deacon Cole]

I'm afraid I do not have an opinion of the Matrix sequels because I've forgotten everything about them. Not a single thing in either movie is memorable. Something tells me this is for the best.