The Matrix

Post-modern philosophy for normies

>>87346620
Gnosticism for dummies

1 is a successful combination of elements taken from hundreds if not thousands of previous works. Sorta like Tarantino: not an ounce of originality anywhere, zilch, but it's remixed well enough. Also a technical achievement in visuals and sound

2 and 3 show how limited the wachowski things are at actual storytelling and are obvious cashgrabs since they wrote 1 as a standalone. Hit or miss technically too, like they didn't give a fuck and used CG for things technology couldnt yet do well

1 was really enjoyable. 2 had a couple of cool moments but was poor otherwise. 3 is amongst the worst films I've ever seen.

>>87346787
>2 and 3 show how limited the wachowski things are at actual storytelling
Progressively, story wise, the story fit really well. The big issue is, nobody watched The Matrix 1 for the action cave dweller fighting scenes. They watched it for Neo controlling the world he was in. Once he disconnected from that world, the series lost what drew people to it.

Should have taken the blue pill, Neo.

>>87346787
could you say they were dishonest filmakers?

1 is great. 2 is okay but tried too hard to redo what made 1 great. 3 is crap, mostly because of the retarded battle at zion.

>>87346620
I still like the Matrix trilogy despite huge flaws but The Second Renaissance is pure kino

>it's a "all the great ideas from the first part where cribbed from other sources, the rest were mostly OC and that's where we saw the creator is actually a hack" episode

>>87350917
>The Second Renaissance is pure kino
this

reboot as a series when?