»The matrix: The best trilogy ever? or a load of rubbish?«

the matrix is the greatest trilogy ever!

niether

it was an excellent trilogy but doesnt compare with starwars or the godfather

in my view it was better than lotr because i hate lotr

Personally I loved LOTR, Star Wars(the original 3) and The Godfather; but The Matrix Trilogy to me is the best.
It provoked more thought, discussion and debate than all the above put together..
The Matrix Trilogy is the best trilogy ever..that's my opinion

IMO, best trilogy ever. I have never seen any movie as many times as I've seen either of the Matrix films already released. And I have never seen a movie as many times in theatres as I've seen Revolutions. They provoke so much thought, yet if you just want to sit back and watch, they are still great. And this trilogy gets no credit, not even for its special effects. I saw all 3 LOTR and they were all horrible IMO. Just not my kind of movie. I liked Star Wars (the originals) and I watched the new ones and they are all good. But not great. Godfather was good and I like gangster movies, but they don't compare to the Matrix. IMHO, the Matrix is the greatest trilogy EVER.

best trilogy ever?

damnit i HAVE to agree.

even though i HATED the 3rd film

everytime i see it i want to rip my eyes out in anger, puke my skull out from my sockets, and run BOILING acid over the remainder of my hanging, slimy, and flacid head.
(thats right BOILING, i want to be scalded too)

the first 2 were just to damn good for words.
they make me VOMIT in GLEE!

and the rest of the movies that ever existed are just to damn BAD for words.

although i did like the back to the future movies.
but again they RUINED it with the 3rd installment.
some people say the same thing about the 3rd star wars as well.
although the 3rd LOTR was the best one. *even if they were ALL crap in some way*
if ALL of the LOTR movies were CRAP then at least the 3rd one has the least peanuts and corn in it.
but if you want to define TRILOGY as All 3 movies?
then fine ill get technical and give it to the STAR WARS trilogy.
after all i didnt HATE any of them.

best TRILOGY? (by MY definition)-cause i take the 3rd one out of my brain.-
YEAH. 2 out of 3 isnt bad.

JMHB-just my humble opinion-

ill justify my answer for starwars

starwars made me want to go out and be a jedi and make all the lightsabre noises

the matrix didnt make me want to wear a black raincoat and shades and go out kung fu kicking men in green and black suits

Another Smith says it all for me.

Matrix was one of the best 2/3rds of a Trilogy (minus Rev: which IMHO is the latter of your questions) I've seen in a long time but it doesn't compare to LOTR IMHO.

The Anomaly wrote -

Quote:

the matrix didnt make me want to wear a black raincoat and shades and go out kung fu kicking men in green and black suits

Well, I'll be honest with you...I've worn black and leather since I was a teen, my Mum and Dad used to say I was weird. They weren't far wrong, I might add. I have always been a little different, I don't like to run with the crowd.
Then I saw the Matrix, I still wear black and I still love leather, the addition of sun-specs is just cool. You know I dressed-up as Smith for Halloween last year, I think most of you have seen the pic!
The only other thing was realising just how sexy men with receding hairlines, wearing suits and sun-specs actually look..Mmmmm!

In my opinion The Matrix wasn't the best series of films ever. However, I did think it was fantastic.

What other trilogies haven't been mentioned. There's Terminator, Die Hard, Indiana Jones.... I don't think these measure up anyway.

Most people will probably remember me saying on some occaision that I HATE the LOTR movies (note 'movies' - i have respect for the novels tho I consider them overrated) They weren't well acted or well adapted.

In the case of the Godfather trilogy I loved the first movie, however I found the sequel to be dull as hell. I thought this was strange since I was told that it was better than the original movie. I have not seen the third film but I have been told that it is dissapointing.

Star Wars - quite a set of movies. Worth noting that the third movie in the Star Wars series was also more corny than the other movies (not a little because of the arrival of Eworks). It must be said that I would probably have a copy of the original Star Wars trilogy if it weren't for the fact that you can only get the digitally enhanced version on DVD. Why is this a problem? Well the first and last movies are tainted by the alteration.

(i) The first movie has a stupid scene where Harrison Ford talks to Jabba The Hut. It doesn't fit in with the action at the time and it also doesn't help that (to deal with the way it was filmed) Jabba's tail is trodden on and he doesn't get angry!

(ii) Return Of The Jedi (as if the Eworks weren't bad enough) has an unbearably annoying alien band that look so CG you can taste it and throw up. Not only are they annoying but they also detract from the horror of watching one of Jabba's slaves falling through the floor to be killed by the beast that lives below.

So the matrix beats all of these but what it can't beat - personal taste coming in here - is the alien trilogy (technically not a trilogy though). Each film builds on the last one and adds its own thing. Just like each vampire movie builds on ideas from the old movies so did the alien movies. Just like vampires and werewolves, Giger's alien has become a movie myth. If any trilogy beats the matrix it has to be Alien!

ALIEN?

good VERY good trilogy but its not really a "trilogy"
meaning "3" movies.

but STAR wars "was" a trilogy, and only until recently it was MORE than that.
george lucas ORIGINALLY didnt plan on making the "new" ones.

and LOTS of people say that the 3rd matrix movie was HIGHLY derivitave of ALIENS and STAR WARS.

however, if you want to take ideas from movies, thats not a bad start.
because NOTHINGS "entirely" original.
everything in existance is "DERIVED" from something.
-Star wars is derived from the war of good vs evil- as an example.

but alien 1 really wasnt that "great'
ALIEN"S" was AWESOME!

and the reason why the MATRIX movies are so GREAT is for the SAME reasons why STAR WARS was so "great" or popular.
and its for the SAME reason why the 1st jurassic park was so popular.
unfortunatly it was the SAME reason why the 2nd jurassic park was so "BAD" (in comparison)
it is because they were ALL "ahead of their time"
they presented us with things that the public had "never seen"
MATRIX= "bullet time"
JURASSIC PARK= DINOSAURS
STAR WARS= spaceships and aliens.

the mass public is crazy enough to fall for stuff and like movies "SOLEY" on special effects and the "MAJORITY" of the public falls for things because they are "pretty"
the majority of the public falls for THIS illusion.
GREAT SPECIAL EFFECTS= GREAT MOVIE.
(which isnt true)
more people have come to "see the light"
and the ONLY reason that they have is because more and more companies are being competive and provide tons of special effects.
(since every movie tries to do this, now people are looking more toward plot.)
although things are DERIVED from stuff you can put a "different" spin upon the same idea and make it "appear" origional when in fact NOTHING is original.
-in the philosophical sence and religious sence theres not-
(at least not on THIS earth, or LIFETIME-) *there was a beginning and THIS "our lives" are NOT it.*

Well this is a first for me, hearing someone say they didn't like LoTR. I love the LoTR trilogy, but I can understand how it wouldn't be someones type of movie.

I like Star Wars, The Godfather, Indiana Jones. Even though I was disappointed with Revolutions I still LOVE the films.
I think over all I'd give my vote for best Trilogy of all time to LoTR.

Disclaimer: I never read the books LoTR was based on.

Yeah - I don't remember if I said and I'm too lazy to even re-read my own posts so....

disclaimer: I HAVE read the books of the LOTR so I might have had pre-conceptions of how it should be. (Not that I think that gives the movie much of an excuse for being an appalling travesty)

I thought that the LOTR trilogy was excellent... however the books were far superior and if you haven't read them I think you should..

Another Smith wrote:

I thought that the LOTR trilogy was excellent... however the books were far superior and if you haven't read them I think you should..

i havent and i wont

i absolutely detest the fantasy dungeons and dragons and orcs and goblins and pish genre as an entirity

that goes for games and films and books etc

the only exeption to this rule is the Zelda games by nintendo as they do not fit into the cliches of the genre

the anomaly wrote:

Another Smith wrote: I thought that the LOTR trilogy was excellent... however the books were far superior and if you haven't read them I think you should.. i havent and i wont i absolutely detest the fantasy dungeons and dragons and orcs and goblins and pish genre as an entirity that goes for games and films and books etc the only exeption to this rule is the Zelda games by nintendo as they do not fit into the cliches of the genre

I agree, except I didn't really like Zelda either. I watched the LOTR movies because they were so hyped. I saw the first one and hated it. Then I hear I have to see the second one because it's so much better. Saw it and hated it. Then I hear you have to see the third one it's even better. So I watched it, and guess what... I hated it. I wanted to see it because I heard the special effects were amazing. They were not. And I just hate those kind of movies.

i mean while all the lotr movies werent very good, i still think that the 3rd one is the best of the 3.

its like saying that while its still a piece of crap the 3rd one has the least crunchy peanuts and therefore easier to swallow.

i did like those undead guys even though they were only in it for like 2 seconds.

I personally loved them. Yes I love the books too and there is certainly a lot more in the books.

I wish they would have made the movies 6 hours each and put all of the elements of the books in to them LOL.

I am looking forward to them doing the Hobbit book too.

The 3rd LOTR movie, with the ending that consists of half an hour of people crying, jumping on beds and hugging etc. ?
I should have left when it got to the point when they were lying next to an erupting volcano (they don't just sit there chatting in the book because the book actually makes sense. People next to erupting volcanoes will choke on poisonous fumes!)

Anomaly, have you read the Hobbit? I think you need to read that before you give up on Tolkein entirely. You must realise that all the fantasy and dungeons and dragons stuff was made because of love for Tolkein's book. Tolkein came before any of it. The LOTRs isn't a cliched fantasy story because it existed before the ideas became cliched in the first place.

Quote:

You must realise that all the fantasy and dungeons and dragons stuff was made because of love for Tolkein's book. Tolkein came before any of it. The LOTRs isn't a cliched fantasy story because it existed before the ideas became cliched in the first place

REALLY?
i know that ive heard that tolkein was considered a "philosopher"

but i wasnt sure if it was the same guy.

it would make sence though.
thats pretty interesting if it is true.

-i guess it had to start somewhere-
but from hobbits?

do you have proof of that?

are you sure it just doesnt come from a altered fictional belief like "knights of the round table?" and things of that nature?
like coming from mid evil fables?


it might just be your theory that it is derived from that, but wasnt there other types of mid-evil folklore before tolkein?

is he that old?

i dont think so.

Knights of the round table isn't quite the same as dungeons and dragons is it?

Tolkein based his ideas on the old legends. But he made it into something different. From this new take on fantasy came the cliched dungeons and dragons idea. Books like the 'dragon lance' series are clearly based on the sam kind of fantasy ideas as Tolkein's LOTR books, but they don't seem anything like the old knights of the round table legends.

Quote:

Most people will probably remember me saying on some occaision that I HATE the LOTR movies (note 'movies' - i have respect for the novels tho I consider them overrated) They weren't well acted or well adapted.

Are you really trying to claim that the acting in the Matrix movies was better than the acting in the Lord of the Rings movies?

The acting in the Matrix movies is quite easily one of the weakest aspects of them.

I think the acting in both movies is generally pretty similar. In the case of the actors who play Frodo and Sam (who are technically the most important characters) the acting is appalling. As has often been said, Keanu gets away with it in the matrix because of the nature of his character - Laurence Fishburne and Carrie Anne Moss on the other hand are superb actors and use their parts well.

I think the really good actors in the LOTR are let down by a poor adaptation of Tolkein's story. While the LOTR movies seem to rip the plot of the books apart, the matrix story seems to bring the best out in the actors performing.

Fatpie42 wrote:

Anomaly, have you read the Hobbit? I think you need to read that before you give up on Tolkein entirely. You must realise that all the fantasy and dungeons and dragons stuff was made because of love for Tolkein's book. Tolkein came before any of it. The LOTRs isn't a cliched fantasy story because it existed before the ideas became cliched in the first place.

i donr know how many times im going to have this discussion with people but its beginning to get on my nerves

I KNOW TOLKIEN WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO WRITE THIS GENRE BUT

SO WE ESTABLISH THAT HE WASNT CLICHED WHEN HE WROTE IT
BUT THAT DOESNT STOP IT FROM BEING CLICHED NOW

IT CRAP,ITS BORING,AND ITS FOR BEARDED GAMES WORKSHOP FANATICS

THE END