My 2 cents worth about THE MATRIX: RELOADED

[The Burgomaster]

I'm not a huge fan of the original MATRIX, but I own the DVD.

I went to see the sequel over the weekend. After about 15 minutes, I said to myself, "What am I doing here?"

I think my reaction was a combination of a few things:

1. I'm not a huge MATRIX fan.

2. I'm very much against over done CG effects.

3. I wasn't really in the mood to see it when I did.

Anyway, I thought the movie was "okay" (at best), and I'd give it TWO STARS (out of a possible FOUR).

One thing that really bothered me was that every fight scene seemed to be choreographed exactly the same way as all the others. After the first one, I wasn't interested anymore. And the plot could have been conveyed in about 20 minutes . . . the rest of the movie was filler.

That being said, I will STILL go to see the 3rd installment in the series. And I'm sure that I will buy them all on DVD (so that I have the whole collection).

I really don't make many wise decisions . . .

[Phantom 187]

huh? but you just said you were NOT a fan :?

[The Burgomaster]

I'm not a fan . . . but I like to have complete series. I bought the entire Twilight Zone collection on DVD, even though there are only about 25 episodes that I really like. I bought the Star Trek DVD boxed set (the movies, not the television series), even though I'm not a huge fan. I have Scream 2 on DVD, I just ordered part 1, and some day I will buy part 3 . . . even though I didn't even like the first one very much.

I'm a compulsive buyer . . . and when I buy 1 movie, I have to buy all of the sequels . . . no matter what. It is a written prophecy (I think it's in the Bible somewhere . . . maybe the Book of Revelations).

[mr. henry]

burgo, i know where you're coming from, i thought the flick was way too long...too much filler as you say...

my two cents...

Matrix Reloaded - 2003 (R). (theater) Directed and co-written by Andy and Larry Wachowski. Starring Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Hugo Weaving, and Carrie-Anne Moss. If you're not familiar with the first film, go and watch it. If you don't, Reloaded will most likely prove to be two stunning action sequences surrounded by an incoherent mess. The crew from the first flick returns to fight evil machinery and make sense of the matrix, a virtual plane of existence where one can apparently possess superhuman powers and yet also die by conventional means. This chapter expands upon the miscellaneous philosophical meanderings of the first while also indulging in some impressive action sequences. This all adds up to a tone that differs slightly from the first chapter. A few misguided and misplaced attempts at adult-oriented material and humor come across as cheesy. For example, a green text on black background matricized vagina sequence and a black African-Zionion orgy scene that will make you hope they have plenty of soap and showers in the fictional sub-surface city of Zion. Still, the action sequences you've already been teased with a zillion times on teevee manage to impress while the story does, in its own convoluted way, become more compelling. Part two of three. RECOMMENDED for fans of the first or modern kung-fu completists.

[Evan3]

The Burgomaster wrote:
I have Scream 2 on
> DVD, I just ordered part 1, and some day I will buy part 3 . .
> . even though I didn't even like the first one very much.
>
>
>


Hey, It looks like I finally found someone who enjoyed Scream 2 more than the first. I thought it was funnier and scarier, and my favorite scene is when David Arquette is stabbed in that soundproof room while Courtney Cox looks on. HA

[raj]

Somewhere an evil corporate tycoon* is laughing hysterically-- the subliminal ad campaign is working

*not that I view corporate tycoons as evil, I'm a running dog, come-the-revolution-up-against-the-wall capitalist myself.  Which leads to one of my main pet peeves, why are businessmen in movies always the bad guys?

[The Burgomaster]

Evan3 wrote:

"Hey, It looks like I finally found someone who enjoyed Scream 2 more than the first. I thought it was funnier and scarier, and my favorite scene is when David Arquette is stabbed in that soundproof room while Courtney Cox looks on. HA"

Oh, no . . . please don't get the impression that I like part 2 better than part 1.

I had part 1 on VHS. Then I bought part 2 on DVD. I don't really like EITHER of them, but since I abandoned my VHS collection several years ago, I now need to buy part 1 on DVD (because it doesn't make sense to have part 2 without having part 1).

I have never seen part 3, but I must (yes, MUST) buy it anyway.

There is no logic to any of this. But that's me.

[Fearless Freep]

There is no logic to any of this. But that's me.

My summation of your movie watching tendancies and other trends is that you spend an awful lot of money on stuff you pretty much know you are not going to like to begin with.

[The Burgomaster]

Fearless Freep wrote:

> There is no logic to any of this. But that's me.
>
> My summation of your movie watching tendancies and other trends
> is that you spend an awful lot of money on stuff you pretty
> much know you are not going to like to begin with.

You are exactly right! I have somewhere between 850 and 900 DVDs. At an average cost of, say, $12 each, that comes out to around $10,000 - $11,000. In terms of money, about $5,000 - $7,000 of that money was probably spent on movies that I had never seen before . . . and which most people would consider to be "sucky movies."

[Grumpy Guy]

Hey.  I'm new here, although my brother is a frequent poster... and I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything...

What did you expect?

It's an ACTION MOVIE.  I'm rattling my brain for the last time that an action movie challenged my intellect, and right now I'm drawing a blank.  I was actually fairly impressed that Reloaded had 20 minutes of plot.  That's a lot for an action movie.

Now, I thought that the original pushed the envelope.  It was about as intelligent as I have ever seen an action movie be.  Dramatic, high production values, intreging concept... Sure, it was basicly Dark City revisited, but hey - it had a good thirty minutes of plot, and that's not half bad for a two hour action movie.

The fight scenes are another matter.  They're classic Wu Sha.  I'm not really seeing your complaint here - they were well done, interesting, and, well, cool.  I guess if you're not into Wu Sha, you won't like the fights, but I don't see them being "all the same" unless you mean "a tad over stylized."

Gotta argue.  It's in my soul.  It's who I am.



Post Edited (06-02-03 20:08)

[The Burgomaster]

Grumpy Guy wrote:

> What did you expect?
>
> It's an ACTION MOVIE.  I'm rattling my brain for the last time
> that an action movie challenged my intellect, and right now I'm
> drawing a blank.  I was actually fairly impressed that Reloaded
> had 20 minutes of plot.  That's a lot for an action movie.

I have nothing against action movies . . . some of my favorite movies are action movies. But the action scenes in MATRIX: RELOADED weren't even particularly exciting. In fact, they were tedious. So, what you are left with is:

1. A thin plot
2. Boring action scenes

I can deal with a movie that suffers from EITHER #1 or #2, but not BOTH.

Look at a movie like EXECUTIVE DECISION:

1. Okay plot (not very original, but it worked)
2. Tense action scenes
3. Steven Seagal gets killed early

Now THAT'S what a call an action movie worth seeing!

[Fearless Freep]

> My summation of your movie watching tendancies and other trends
> is that you spend an awful lot of money on stuff you pretty
> much know you are not going to like to begin with.

You are exactly right!

My question is...why?

Why go spend eight bucks to see a sequal to a movie you didn't care for at a time when you don't feel like going in the first place? You're just setting yourself up for dissappointment, which sorta takes the wind from your negative comments, anyway.  Just wait until it comes on video and get it at Hastings for a dollar.  Or at very least if you are going to spend time and money on stuff you don't like, don't complain abut it afterwards

[The Burgomaster]

Fearless Freep wrote:

> Why go spend eight bucks to see a sequal to a movie you didn't
> care for at a time when you don't feel like going in the first
> place? You're just setting yourself up for dissappointment,
> which sorta takes the wind from your negative comments, anyway.
>  Just wait until it comes on video and get it at Hastings for a
> dollar.  Or at very least if you are going to spend time and
> money on stuff you don't like, don't complain abut it
> afterwards

First of all, if I only went to see good movies, I would probably only see 3 or 4 movies a year.

Sometimes I go to see movies that I don't expect to be good, but I am pleasantly surprised.

I rarely complain. I just give my opinions of movies. A negative opinion is not necessarily a complaint.

Since I don't rent movies, the only way I get to see them is to go to the cinema (which I do about 3 or 4 times a month . . . sometimes more), or buy them on DVD (which I do about 20 times a month.

[Grumpy Guy]

The Burgomaster wrote:

> I have nothing against action movies . . . some of my favorite
> movies are action movies. But the action scenes in MATRIX:
> RELOADED weren't even particularly exciting. In fact, they were
> tedious. So, what you are left with is:
>
> 1. A thin plot
> 2. Boring action scenes
>
> I can deal with a movie that suffers from EITHER #1 or #2, but
> not BOTH.
>
> Look at a movie like EXECUTIVE DECISION:
>
> 1. Okay plot (not very original, but it worked)
> 2. Tense action scenes
> 3. Steven Seagal gets killed early
>

You know, I have a good deal of trouble arguing with your asessment of Executive Decision.  Only problem is that the high point came early.  I keep rewinding that scene and laughing my back end off.

But, seriously, I'm still not seeing your complaint about the action sequnces in Reloaded.  They did have the same style, one and all, but it was the same style that the original movie had - and that the moves as a whole had.  If you didn't like the first movie, you should've known you wouldn't like this one.  The opposite is also true.

I found the kung fu to be somewhat refreshing for American cinema.  Let's be frank, here - martial arts pretty much suck in american movies.  Segal manages to make a complicated and beautiful art (Aikido) look ugly and boring, and it's all because until The Matrix, nobody seemed to care about fight choreography or presentation in American movies.

Then came the Matrix.  Martial Arts were finally treated as an art of their own.  Expressive camera work, multiple angles, and so on wove us a wonderful presentation of battle that many movies since have tried (and failed) to immitate.

Granted, The Matrix wasn't exactly art.  But it wasn't mindless action and explosions, either.  And the same holds true for the sequal.

My only real complaint about the sequal is the ten minute sex scene/rave-orgy.  What the hell was that all about?

[Evan3]

Sorry Burgo, I have to go with Grnmpy Guy on this.

With Jackie Chan entering the pure entertainment industry and gaining weight, his fight scenes have really gone down hill in exchange for some mediocre laughs (see: Rush Hour, SHanghai Knights)

Bruce Lee is dead, so we can not expect anything from him except a good rotting

and Jet Li doesnt seem to have done anything worthwhile recently (see: Cradle 2 the Grave), and he doesnt seem to be making any more in the near future.

So with that in mind, the Matrix still pushes the action envelope, with the fight scene on the freeway being the most intense and fun things I have seen since Kiss of the Dragon. It also is nice that the Wachowski brothers attempt to add philosophy into their films.

THe only thing that angered me about the sequel was inconsistencies between the first two.