MovieChat Forums > The Matrix Reloaded (2003) Discussion > Neo vs the Smiths is some of the most cr...

Neo vs the Smiths is some of the most cringeworthy CGI in film


I don't hate this movie and it's obviously not as good as the first. But I can't watch it again because the CGI is some of the scenes are Star Wars prequels level bad.

reply

So skip the third act of the fight. The first two acts are for the most part live action and the rest of the movie's CGI is no worse than the worst bits of eg the LotR movies or other big movies of the era.

They need to color time the CGI of the fight in the next home video release. It didn't come out right and every cut to CGI sticks out because eg even Smiths' suits change color!

It's probably because the movie was finished photo-chemically instead of with a DI where they would be able to extensively tweak the color scene by scene.

reply

Oh just shut the hell up you dont know what your even talking about you couldnt find a kick ass scene like that today too often and when it came out it was cutting edge and everyone was *beep* their pants in the theater. I feel bad if you just discard any movie with special effecs you deem unworthy just becuase they arent from the last two years. The minute you spot a tiny detail in the effects you dont like from a movie made 15 years ago thats it then game over?

reply

Surely you are not responding to me.

reply

The theater I was in snickered and groaned during that fight. I was silently disappointed. The CGI is really bad.

reply

You must be joking. When everyone I know watched that scene in 2003 it was a complete embarrassment. Neo turns into a legit cartoon. He looks like the judge from Roger Rabbit, haha.

reply

I've just seen it, I understand what you mean, but I disagree, brilliantly directed and fun, I can let go of bad FX if the movie/scene is done well enough.

reply

For the time it was quite groundbreaking and yes, I'm sure even then people knew it was CGI because you just couldn't do all the stuff they were doing in live action. but most of it was live action which was also damn impressive.

reply

It's good if you like Playstation 2 cutscenes...

reply

It's good if you like Playstation 2 cutscenes...

Ummm..if you think about it, that is exactly the point.

CGI in the Matrix isn't meant to depict reality. It is depicting action taking place within a digitally created world, yes...like Playstation 2.

Watch in Revolutions when Agent Smith fights Trinity and Neo in the real world. Looks real. No CGI. A bit awkward and clumsy the way real fights are.

reply

What? What kind of BS excuse is that? The rest of the Matrix looks real and is supposed to trick people into believing it's real. No, this was a poor use of CGI that had not quite hit its peak yet.

reply

The rest of the Matrix looks real and is supposed to trick people into believing it's real.

Not really.

There is no place in "reality" where everything and everyone exist in one nameless city. No farms. No suburbs. No small towns. No airports to fly to other cities or other countries because there aren't any. No world news or world maps or anything about the rest of the world because there isn't any. The entire Matrix is just like a video game, with artificial, impenetrable borders to this imaginary world.

Also there are no families shown in The Matrix. Everyone is pretty much living a single, intensely urban lifestyle. No kids going to school. No families having a picnic in the park. Etc. Everyone and everything in The Matrix is artificially centered around the story and the action. That action is the purpose of the way The Matrix is structured, not some sort of believable reality for people to live in.

No, this was a poor use of CGI that had not quite hit its peak yet.

You are being silly. You think CGI has "hit its peak" already? You think it can't possibly get better?

If CGI can get better, then isn't making a movie now a waste of time, just like The Matrix was a waste of time in its day?

By your philosophy no movies should ever be made since CGI can always get better. All movie makers should just kinda stop and wait until that mythical CGI "peak" is reached? Kinda silly.

Consider watching Wizard of Oz (again?). That was made in 1939 and it still holds up as a classic that people still love. You could mock it for its painted scenery, archaic make-up and costume design, the use of real dwarfs as actors and other old fashioned special effects.

Or you could recognize Wizard of Oz as timeless classic which many movies (including The Matrix) still reference. And if you can do that, why not recognize The Matrix also as such a timeless classic which many other movies still reference and which maintains an active discussion board on IMDb.

Allegiant, Suicide Squad and Neon Demon came out this year, with modern,2016 CGI effects. You think people will still be talking about those movies in 15 years?

reply

The movie doesn't show people taking a dump, either, so I'm sure you'd say that doesn't happen either. Actually, there is a family: the Indian family at the bus station. There are kids who live with the Oracle. There is a high school in the Animatrix. Just because it isn't emphasized, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The movie clearly shows that people are grown by machines from babies to adults, which means that they are also babies in the matrix as well. The Matrix in the movie represents the world that you and I live in, or else it wouldn't have any sort of impact on the viewer. Trying to throw all that away so you can justify the use of lame CGI is absurd.

I actually do think that good directors know when and how to use CGI technology in their movies. A good director looks at the Scorpion King and says "yeah, that's not gonna fly." I'm guessing you as a viewer are just easier to trick. It was a bad move and it didn't age well by any means. Many movies have aged well by being smart with how they used technology vs. practical effects. Everyone liked the Thing. Nobody liked the Thing remake.



reply

The movie doesn't show people taking a dump

There is a difference between showing on-screen families, airports, named cities, schools, sports, entertainment etc. and on-screen pooping. There is no "privacy" issue with naming the one city shown in the matrix, with showing families and recreation and other travel or cultural elements. We are shown a rave party and a soul-less cubicle hell of a job to establish the culture of The Matrix. That minimalist choice says something. The Matrix is a video/computer game.

Actually, there is a family: the Indian family at the bus station.
You are showing an unfamiliarity with Revolutions.
1. It is a train station not bus.

2. The (Mobil Ave.) train station is not in The Matrix. That's why Neo can't control things there and can't get out.

3. The "Indian family" are not human beings at all. They are just computer programs.

There are kids who live with the Oracle.

But it is clearly not a "family". There are no parents there. These kids are called "potentials". Had you given any thought to what their potential might be?

There is a high school in the Animatrix.

If you have seen Animatrix, I don't know how you could miss the resemblance of this world to a video game world. It isn't really "reality" and it isn't trying to be.

This is fictional social allegory, just like Gulliver's Travels, Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, etc. These fantasy worlds aren't supposed to be real and make sense as a real place people could live. Like these other stories, The Matrix is a statement about our OWN society, accomplished by creating a cartoonish, unrealistic version of it to point out our flaws and problems. It was never meant to be taken as a real place. Even the central theme of human bodies as "batteries" doesn't make real scientific sense. The meaning of The Matrix is meant to be taken symbolically, not realistically.

The movie clearly shows that people are grown by machines from babies to adults, which means that they are also babies in the matrix as well.

Not necessarily. You are not thinking clearly about the situation. Are you trying to say that when The Matrix first started, every human being in there was a baby?

Obviously not. For the Matrix to get started, most of the people had to be inserted as adults, with the memories of their childhood implanted. There is no reason that process would not continue through each 100 year cycle of the Matrix.

Trying to throw all that away so you can justify the use of lame CGI is absurd.

This is a stupid statement at every level. It wasn't "lame" CGI at the time of the movie's making. It was cutting edge. Apparently you weren't born when the movie was made.

And if it seems like "lame CGI" now, then so what? A timeless classic transcends its technology, with Wizard Of Oz already being a prime example given. Knuckleheads like you seem to think that movies shouldn't have been made before CGI existed. And of course, you are too dumb to realize that today's CGI will seem lame in a few years, so you think it is a complete waste of time to make movies today.


reply

Wow, I saw some really nice dodging there. Someone has been watching the debates

The Indian man clearly refers to the girl as his daughter and introduces the woman as his wife. BAM. Family. And they live in the Matrix, like other programs. He even loves her, just like humans do. Neo comments on that. So, right off the bat, you're completely wrong that there are no children or that there are no families in the Matrix. There are children --human and non-human--in the Matrix. You're free to assume that they don't grow up, but you're not justified in your assumption by any evidence in the films. There are babies, small children, and high school aged kids in the movies, which demonstrates a natural progression. That's the evidence, bucko. This has no bearing on the the fact that the Matrix is still a program to control all that.
The babies shown in the first movie are plugged into the Matrix, and would still need that neural control--probably even more so--that adults have to thrive for the machines. The Architect stated that they lost crops of people when they weren't plugged into a good system. Obviously a baby would need to be too. Obviously. And if their mental projection of themselves isn't developed into an adult, then their matrix-selves would be babies too.
Obviously I am thinking clearly about the situation.

The Matrix Reloaded is probably my all-around favorite of the trilogy. But I am not laboring under the delusion that it will be considered a "timeless classic" as the first movie was. Currently, The Matrix ranks #18 on IMDB's top 250. The sequels don't even make it at all. And part of that, I suspect, is because it overreached. It wasn't a great move, and most fans admit that. Only some try to re-write the premise of the movie to try to fit the wonky CGI of the Burly Brawl.

reply

I just realized that your argument, when it comes down to it, is that the wonky CGI was done on purpose, and that the Wachowski's could have done better with it, but chose not to so as to impress upon us that we are looking at a computer program that, at some select times, looks like a PS2 game.

Ha Ha HA!

I wonder why we didn't see more of that and why they used more practical effects and wires. Since the point is to remind us that we're looking at a simulation.

reply

There is no place in "reality" where everything and everyone exist in one nameless city. No farms. No suburbs. No small towns. No airports to fly to other cities or other countries because there aren't any. No world news or world maps or anything about the rest of the world because there isn't any. The entire Matrix is just like a video game, with artificial, impenetrable borders to this imaginary world.



I believe you are mistaken Matrix with Dark City Matrix simulation is complete they recreate the entire 20's century In Animatrix show us a School never in all this year i have hear or read someone who believe Matrix simulation was limited you really dint pay attention to the movie

everything and everyone exist in one nameless city


The Matrix story is develop in CHICAGO the movie was made in Sidney but the streets name are from Chicago the Hometown from teh Wachowsky people or wathever they/them Hers/him are

reply

Exactly. And really long cut scenes.

reply

I actually like the action choreography in the scene, it's copied from better sources but it's still good.
The CGI, and the stunts, are awfully fake. And I remember thinking in theatre "god, this movie is C R A P!".
Well, I was the only one saying that back then, everybody else was like "Wow! Have you seen that? That is AWESOME!".

Most people won't know the difference untill somebody better tells them otherwise.

reply

I hated the overuse of CGI too. Haven’t seen this in a long time, but still remember how bad the scene is with Neo swinging that pole around, hitting all the PS2 style cgi Smith’s.

reply

The bowling sound effect only made it worse.

reply

LOL. Everytime I rewatch Reloaded I eaglery await the bowling pin toppling sound.

reply

Its not the CGI thats cringeworthy , the CGI is fine .
Is the scene itself , how could Neo fighting a couple of hundred Smiths ever look anything but stupid?

I dont care how good the CGI is , one guy fighting 200 hand to hand is always going to look totally stupid , even if one of them is Neo

reply

"the CGI is fine"

No it is not, LOL. You're right about the concept alone being stupid, but the CGI is baaaaaaaaaaad.

reply

ok , maybe the cgi is not fine , like a 6 out of 10 maybe

But how can that matter next to the ridicluos spectacle of 200 agent smiths

If the CGI was fine , it would still look like a stupid video game cgi fest , no matter how good the cgi .

reply

This is my least favorite of the series. That fight scene was one of the reasons why. It's truly awful. The movie itself has grown on me, but there's still things about it I absolutely hate.

reply

More importantly, why didn't Agents Smiths just shoot Neo?

reply

Neo could stop bullets with an upraised hand

reply

Funny. In the theater, back in 2003, we all thought the graphics were absolutely amazing. Today, people call out the obvious computer graphics usage. It's not cringeworthy, it's just obvious in 1080p HD and 4K UHD.

reply

I remember people in 2003 cringed at that scene and together with the goofy albino twins it sucked all the hype out of the Matrix—and we didn’t even bother with the third. I was 23 when they came out and me and my friends thought they sucked ass.

reply

It looked good at the time, but it aged poorly. Other effects aged better like the dinos in Jurassic Park or Gollum from Lord of the Rings. I still think the Matrix sequels are "okay" and would be remembered as weird cult classics if not for their being compared to the original film. The first film is so mind-bending and so good end-to-end, so the other two are let-downs. (I say other two because I haven't seen Resurrections, so I can't comment).

reply