I Still, To This Day, Wish The 1999 Movie, The Matrix, Was Never Made Into A Franchise. Here's Why

Honestly, there's a case to be made that 1999 is the greatest year in American cinema history.

Yes, many people will point to 1939 (The Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, Gone With the Wind, etc), and my colleague, Hugh Scott, will point to 1986 as the best year in movie history. But, for my money, 1999 will always reign supreme, as Fight Club (arguably David Fincher's best movie), The Sixth Sense, The Iron Giant, The Talented Mr. Ripley (What a gem!), and so many other masterpieces came out in 1999.

The movie that might have left the biggest footprint was The Matrix. Here was a film that basically changed the way people viewed action/sci-fi movies forever, and it became an instant classic. So, being as massive and influential as it was, OF COURSE it was destined to become a franchise. I’d argue that it shouldn't have, and I have 5 reasons why.

The Movie Works Just Fine As A Stand-Alone Film

There are some movies where a sequel truly does feel warranted. Star Wars, for example, had a great story, but the universe seemed so vast that a sequel must have felt necessary. The Terminator is another such example. In a lot of ways, I prefer the original to the sequel, but there was just so much to that first movie that a follow-up just felt like a natural progression.

And then, you have the “unnecessary” sequels. Now, don’t get me wrong. There are many Part IIs that I actually enjoy (like Ghostbusters 2, which I really like!). That said, I would argue that a vast majority of sequels feel unnecessary at best, and like cash grabs at worst. And, The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions (I’ll get to Resurrections in a few) felt like cash grabs to the nth degree.

Which still bothers me, since the original Matrix is almost perfect. In case you don’t remember, the original story is both simple and extremely complex. A computer hacker named Neo, played by the badass Keanu Reeves, is a desk drone in the real world named Thomas Anderson. He goes about his daily life just like all of us, whiling away his time at work, and enjoying his late-night hours on the internet.

But, when Neo’s hacking abilities lead him to what is known as “The Matrix,” he attracts the attention of other hackers, like a badass named Trinity (Carrie Anne-Moss), who says she can take him to a mysterious figure named Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne). You see, reality is a lie, and we’re all living in a simulation. And, when the intelligent machines that are feeding on our bioelectric energy realize that others are “waking up” to this fact, they send out their killer A.I. (Led by Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith) to stop them.

Enter one of the coolest, most intelligent action movies of all time. The story works itself out, and Neo goes from being a weakling to The One in 136 minutes. Yes, after he kicks Agent Smith’s butt, he does promise to show all of humanity that they’re enslaved before flying away, and that ending works on its own. We don’t HAVE to see what comes next. We can imagine it. But then, we got the sequels...

The Sequels Demystified A Lot Of The Concepts That Were Introduced In The First Movie And Made Them Less Interesting

Oh, my God. Zion. That’s all I have to say, right? Zion.

When it was mentioned in the first movie, it seemed like this really mysterious place, and I’m sure we all had these images in our heads of what it could possibly look like. But then, we saw it in The Matrix: Reloaded, and my God, what a disappointment.

Honestly, it looked like Woodstock ‘99 with all of the sweaty, dancing people, and I don’t mean that as a compliment. In that way, I think it would have been better if we had never seen Zion, and it was just left to our imaginations. Because now, whenever I watch the first movie, all I can think about is some rave in a cave whenever Zion is mentioned.

I also liked how limited (but impactful) the action scenes were in the first film. For example, seeing bullet time in the first Matrix was amazing. But then, when we got more action in the sequels, it started to look ridiculous, like that fight with Morpheus on the truck in The Matrix Reloaded, or that God-awful battle between Neo and Agent Smith in The Matrix Revolutions.

Like, it was cool when all of this power was implied in the first film, but to have it flung in our faces was just awful, and it truly demystified everything that made the first movie so special. Ugh.

The Sequels Are Also Arguably Nowhere Near As Good As The Original

Plus, here’s another thing. The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions are nowhere near as good as the original. The Matrix Reloaded itself isn’t terrible, and I remember liking it when I first saw it. But, it’s dragged down by The Matrix Revolutions, which is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen in my entire life, as it’s just so loud and obnoxious.

Now, The Matrix Resurrections…that one’s kind of interesting. I’d still lump it in as being an “unnecessary” sequel, but at least it feels like it has something to say. In our review of the film, my colleague, Eric Eisenberg, called it “uneven,” and it is. But, it does feel like it had something to say on not only the franchise itself, but also action movies at the time, and for that, I applaud it.

But, back to dumping on Revolutions. It’s just such a busy, annoying movie, and it made everything I liked about Reloaded feel like an afterthought. Here was a movie that just flung everything at the wall, and none of it stuck.

In a lot of ways, even though it came out long before it, it makes me think of the Zack Snyder movie, Sucker Punch, which I would rank at the very bottom of his filmography. I only compare the two since Sucker Punch gave me a literal headache with all of the loud noises and visuals, and I had the same reaction to The Matrix Revolutions, green as it was.

I just don't like the Matrix sequels, and they bring down the original movie, which is a shame.

The Added Characters Didn't Feel Necessary

The first movie had a ragtag group of characters, and they all felt necessary.

The sequels, not so much. When other characters like the Architect, the Keymaker, or Niobe were introduced to the story, they seemed important at the time, but after watching Revolutions, they all just felt like so much added padding.

But why was this needed? When we got characters like the Oracle or the Spoon Boy in the first film, they felt like they added to the lore and story. Characters like The Architect just seemed to info dump, though. While he created more lore, did we really need the lore?

I’m being completely serious. As somebody who prefers when things are shown rather than told, I really don’t feel like sitting through people worldbuilding through dialogue when I’m watching a movie.

Again, I bring up The Matrix Resurrections because the new characters in that one, like The Analyst, played by Neil Patrick Harris, did feel like a welcome addition. Then again, that movie overall just feels more focused than Revolutions. Even so, the characters in the original were perfect. The later characters are hit or miss and I’d say mostly miss.

The Original Would Likely Be Seen As More Impactful Today If The Sequels Never Existed

Lastly, and this is what stings the most, but I think The Matrix would be more revered and respected today if there had never been any sequels.

Because the sequels just drag the whole franchise down, and I would never recommend the original to anybody, knowing that they’ll probably want to watch the sequels, eventually.

We are living in an age where the idea of A.I. taking over, and us living in a false reality, seems more plausible than ever these days, and The Matrix could have been that movie that seemed like it foretold it all.

Instead, it all feels muddled, and the original is seen more as a starting point rather than a decisive ending point, as I feel it should. In that way, making The Matrix a franchise truly doomed the novelty of that first movie, and I hate that. It could have remained so special.

What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts.