Looking back at "Revolutions"

email this story
read comments (59)
post a comment

We're approaching the four-year anniversary of the final collapse of the Matrix theology that came with the 10.27.03 release of The Matrix Revolutions. Too bad it's not the fifth anniversary or I could tap out a stock-taking piece. It was a pretty amazing meltdown; hard to believe it all happened the way it did.

Are the second and third Matrix films still the most despised and discredited franchise films ever made? Is there anyone in the world except for the 300 or 400 remaining Wachowski geeks out there who's even watched Matrix Reloaded or Matrix Revolutions on DVD over the past three or four years?

I wrote a piece called "Neo Schmeo" that summed it all up back in October 2003:

"I never would have guessed after getting my first look at The Matrix -- a movie that freed my heart and made me levitate -- that the sequels-to-come would turn out as badly as they have.

"Now the word is spreading like a huge fart and it's all over but the revenues. This franchise went spiritually belly-up after the release of The Matrix Reloaded last summer, and now here's The Matrix Revolutions to drive the final stake in and kill it for good. The legend, the faith, the magic...dead.

"You may be able to figure out most of what's going on in Revolutions...or not. Point is, if your experience is anything like mine you're going to stop caring anyway because you're going to find yourself realizing with a jolt you're totally done with looking at Carrie Ann Moss and fat Larry Fishburne doing that deadpan superhero thing in those shades and leather outfits.

"It hit me around 25 minutes in. I said to myself, 'I'm done. I don't want to watch this shit any more...ever." I see the Matrix Reloaded DVD on the shelves at my local DVD store and a thought never even occurs to me about renting it. I don't want to look at a scene, a snippet...nothing.

"I could go on for six or seven paragraphs trying to pick through what made sense to me and what I'm still trying to figure out, but why should I write anything in this column that will pay even an oblique tribute to something I believe everyone should wash their hands of?

"I saw Keanu Reeves in Nancy Meyers' Something's Gotta Give last night (i.e., Monday) and I was so grateful he wasn't wearing his leather Neo outfit I almost teared up. He looked so normal and natural and regular guy-ish. Considering the metaphorical implications made me feel light in the head.

"It doesn't matter what Revolutions makes. Either it gets people where they live (like The Matrix did) or it doesn't. Millions are going to go this weekend and what of it? Ticket sales don't mean anything. Not with big-studio tentpolers.

"The Matrix Revolutions is like a bowl of narrative spaghetti, meant to be savored (I presume) for being a wonderful tangle that geek boys can dive into and try to put together in some fashion. But there is no one strand that leads to any kind of thematic core or foundation that seems to support the whole thing. The story hasn't been told -- it's been heaped upon us like some kind of bizarre attack of live pasta and CGI squid.

"The big attack sequence on Zion is too overwhelming to make much of an impact. Too many millions of sentinels, no way of keeping score, and I don't want or need this in my life.

""I know this: When inquiring minds feel they need to compare notes in order to get their heads straight about what may or may not have happened story-wise, which I was doing with friends in front of the Fox Village last Thursday night and then on the phone and internet after that, the movie hasn't done its job.. Journo after journo raised their eyebrows and gave me that 'look' after the all-media screening.

"One guy said, 'Oh, well...!' Another said, 'I hated it!' Another said, 'Who was that big Wizard of Oz guy with the big deep voice at the end? Where was he during the last two installments...?'

"The single best bit in the whole thing is when Neo tries running on foot out of the train station, and finds himself right back where he started a second later.

"The second best scenes in the film both belong to Hugo Weaving. His scene with the Oracle, and his scene at the end when he talks about the meaninglessness of it all, blah, blah. That was great.

"They should have left it alone with the original The Matrix, and been proud of that triumph, and gone on to something new and fresh. But no -- Joel and the boys and Keanu Reeves wanted to make all that money. And money's all they're going to get."

Jones talking about stuff<< previous | next >>Montecito road & dancers

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 26, 2007 at 11:59 AM

comment #1

Mr. Kockum says ...

I'm still waiting for David Poland to explain it all for me.

Posted by Mr. Kockum at August 26, 2007 12:48 PM

comment #2

Dan Revill says ...

I re-watched the first film a while ago. I'd forgotten how amazing it is.
I didn't mind most of the second one up until the ending at any rate. The third entertained me but it isn't a DVD I would take off my shelf just for the hell of it.
But given the context of the first film, the next two are sorely lacking overall. It's a real shame.

Posted by Dan Revill at August 26, 2007 12:50 PM

comment #3

MathewM says ...

Something happened to the Wachowski bros. post-Matrix 1. They went from being creative, Hollywood anti-heroes to total fuck-ups. Was it the drugs? Money? lack of direction? Sex changes? But I think most would now agree, big whoop. The original Matrix was a pretty good movie. A little overrated but it's a cinematic experience that I still remember.

Posted by MathewM at August 26, 2007 12:51 PM

comment #4

BNick says ...

I think the second one gets a lot of crap on account of the third one sucking so much. No one would think that Reloaded was bad if Revolutions had turned out to be great.

The freeway chase scene still looks great even if the scene with 700 Smiths looks like a video game.

Posted by BNick at August 26, 2007 1:00 PM

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

I agree Nick, separate out the action sequences from the rest of Reloaded and it's not that bad. Unfortunately, Reloaded makes promises plot- and character-wise that Revolutions doesn't even try to keep.

I think the Wachowskis came down with George Lucas syndrome, where they became convinced they were storytelling geniuses who could do no wrong.

Posted by jeffmcm at August 26, 2007 1:03 PM

comment #6

jeffmcm says ...

Oh yeah, and I'm also still waiting for David Poland's review of Revolutions. Anytime he's asked about it, all he says is 'it is what it is' in what comes off as a surly tone of writing.

Posted by jeffmcm at August 26, 2007 1:05 PM

comment #7

caslab says ...

Funny you wrote this . . . my wife was watching this to battle a case of insomnia last night. I thought it was bad in the theater . . . but watching it on television really brought into focus that The Matrix Revolutions is Doc-Brown-on-a-flying-train bad.

Posted by caslab at August 26, 2007 1:07 PM

comment #8

Pelham123 says ...

"Matrix Revolutions" is one of the funniest bad movies I've ever seen. Excrutiating for the most part, but it has a few scenes where I couldn't help but laugh out loud in the theater. I had to cover my mouth as these scenes were supposed to be dead serious. Just awful. Really, what happened to the Wachowskis?

Posted by Pelham123 at August 26, 2007 1:08 PM

comment #9

Walter Sobchak says ...

I remember back in the 80's when people were casually lumping all of the "Jaws" movies together... ("that scene from that 'Jaws' film, I can't remember if it was the first one or the second one...")

Luckily with time the populace was able to flush the awful sequels from their minds and now the original stands proudly as its own self-contained unit...

Hopefully that will happen with the Matrix... it has for me... I never saw the third and have forgotten about the second...

"The Matrix" conjures up one thing for me... a super kick-ass movie that came out in 1999 and still rocks...

and once again.... am I the only person on here who is asked to re-sign in to TypeKey practically EVERY time I want to post??? (and yes, I DO check the box that says "keep me signed in for two weeks")

Posted by Walter Sobchak at August 26, 2007 1:11 PM

comment #10

a1 says ...

'"Matrix Revolutions" is one of the funniest bad movies I've ever seen.'

No kidding! Me, I loved how the leader of Zion was the most stereotypical "angry police captain" this side of Sledge Hammer. Every line of his might as well have been, "DAMMIT, Neo - you're off the case!"

Posted by a1 at August 26, 2007 1:22 PM

comment #11

corey3rd says ...

but the Jaws films were made by different people and different actors. Everyone smelled it as a money grab. The follow ups to the Matrix were supposed to be seens as the coronation of the Brothers W as cinematic Gods. Nobody expected anything out of Jaws The Revenge except sharks eating people.

The Matrix follow ups suffer because Neo is pretty useless as a character in them. What do you do with Superman Jr? I enjoy watch the films when I'm drunk and it's just playing in the background.

Posted by corey3rd at August 26, 2007 1:23 PM

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

I personally thought the Wachowskis lost it with V for Vendetta, and will probably seal their fates with Speed Racer. Anyway, I thought the sequels were wonderfully subversive in that they could be viewed as an indictment of the impending war which was glorified in the first film. But the American people unanimously wanted to murder one million Iraqis, so they opted for Kill Bill, since it allowed them the violence without consequences.

caslab: I'm not sure why people hate Back to the Future III, either. It was a realistic look at the Wild West, and had some wonderful homages to Jules Verne thrown in, too. Christ, don't people have a sense of imagination, anymore? If it's not a movie about the trials and tribulations of a dysfunctional yuppie family or a movie about
gangster heists, it's automatically relegated to the "crap" bin.

Posted by D.Z. at August 26, 2007 1:25 PM

comment #13

The Winchester says ...

I'm have to agree with DZ about Back to the Future III. It's perfectly fine film, full of wit and imagination. And if the first movie has a flying DeLorean, why not end the series with a flying train, in Jules Verne fashion, who is alluded to repeatedly throughout the third film?

Posted by The Winchester at August 26, 2007 1:57 PM

comment #14

EOTW says ...

after the first couple of weeks where the first was a national cause, Joel Silver told someone that the W bros had a whole trilogy already written and that it was gonig to rival Star wars and blah. the truth is that they didnt have a trilogy and wrote these two things you could bare call scripts. Also, there's all those stories about them stealing the script for the first film, so that doesn't help either.

Posted by EOTW at August 26, 2007 2:01 PM

comment #15

dgunz says ...

Actually saw the original today- still holds up as a great sci-fi film. It's a shame the sequels came out so poorly.

Posted by dgunz at August 26, 2007 2:03 PM

comment #16

Rothchild says ...

There are no "stories" about how they stole the first film.

Posted by Rothchild at August 26, 2007 2:09 PM

comment #17

giantman says ...

I brought the series out again last year to let my son watch them, his age prevented him from seeing them when they were in the theater. This was the first re-watch I had experienced of the last two, having burned the first movie into my already damaged geek brain. I have to say they did little for me other than make me tired and my son was honestly bored silly and he has a good film head on his shoulders. Right now the DVDs are collecting dust at the very, very bottom of a huge pile of films and I can't imagine a scenario (other than an alien visitor who demands watching them) where I would voluntarily watch the 2nd and 3rd films again.

Worst franchise follow-ups ever? Maybe, right now just the thought of them has made me too tired to think.

Posted by giantman at August 26, 2007 2:23 PM

comment #18

Dan Revill says ...

As good as The Matrix is, a lot of the ideas in it were presented in Dark City much more effectively in my mind.

Posted by Dan Revill at August 26, 2007 2:24 PM

comment #19

Jean says ...

Okay, lemme be a voice for those who liked the sequels: First, they were better films than most of the crap released around the same time (Legally Blonde films, Hannibal, the laughably bad Bond films, especially Die Another Day); Secondly, I kinda "got" what the W-Bros. were shooting for - the sequels were inspired by anime films where usually you don't get the ending you thought you were but you get a resolution. Yes, I will admit the viseral end to the first film is what elevated it above the sequels, but I do admire intellectually how the trilogy ended. I did recognize immediately the existential philosophy in the sequels: After meeting the architect, Neo's (& in turn Morpheus') beliefs in the prophecy is completely killed so they have to "make it up as they go" to the ending. Maybe the W-Bros. planned this for the audience also: we all thought we were going one place & ended up in another - I didn't hate that. So yeah, I dug the sequels.

Posted by Jean at August 26, 2007 2:35 PM

comment #20

PeytonWestlake says ...

What?

Posted by PeytonWestlake at August 26, 2007 2:44 PM

comment #21

Sax says ...

Personally, I've always thought you could make one pretty good movie out of those two sequels, just by cutting out the flab -- the 'rave', the idiotic multi-smith fight where he just flies away randomly to end it (Why not just fly away in the first place?), lots of tedious exposition in dialogue ... half of the squid attack, etc, etc. As it is, furtively enjoying the movies,(The good parts) I edit them myself with the remote.

The real problem for the Wachowskis is a common Hollywood disease in which the ego eats the brain. The real question -- where was Joel Silver in all this? A strong producer often makes the difference between a great film and a bloated mess. Look at The Deer Hunter versus Heaven's Gate. The real difference there? A guy named Michael Deely. And Clint Eastwood was just as tough on Cimino during the making of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. I guess Joel Silver chose the blue pill.

Posted by Sax at August 26, 2007 2:59 PM

comment #22

JckNapier2 says ...

First off, Back To The Future III is my favorite of the series. It's fun, exciting, well acted (unlike part II), and it's the only film in the series to have anything resembling character development or drama. It's a rousing finish and I still love it today.

Second off, I second the above poster. I liked The Matrix quite a bit, but I had seen Dark City the year before and it's a far more intelligent and challenging film that deals with many of the same ideas.

Ironically, when The Matrix Reloaded came out, I was amused how it actually felt even more like Dark City, with a more despairing tone and an undertone of tragedy running through it (among many other things, Dark City always struck me as a 'sad' film - completely acknowledging the tragedy of not really having any role to play in your own mortal existence - and it's more potent for it).

I actually prefer The Matrix Reloaded to The Matrix. It's willingness to deconstruct the simplistic 'hero's journey' arc of the first film is partially what alienated a lot of people in my opinion.

The first film was about wish-fulfillment for it's younger audience members and the sequel directly challenged the simple 'good vs evil' notions. The ideas explored and brought about in the second film laid the groundwork for a dynamite conclusion, in theory.

Although I have nothing to back this up, I've always felt that the Warchowsky Bros recut or re-imagined The Matrix Revolutions in response to the reactions of the second film. Almost all of the ideas brought up in part 2 were tossed aside (almost literally in the Oracle scene). Furthermore, the inclusion of a nearly-hour long robot battle seemed like a calculated response to fans who wanted more action set-pieces of a larger scale.

Overal, I still rather like the first and last twenty minutes of The Matrix Revolutions. There are some interesting new ideas contained, and I like the daring it took to resolve their series not with a giant war, but with peace achieved through compromise at the last minute.

The final fight between Smith and Neo still works because it is tinged in regret, tragedy, and the foreknowledge of defeat for both Neo and Smith (witness how Smith struggles with his own fatal premonitions and how Neo wearily accepts his own death, having already lost Trinity and presuming that Morpheus and co. are already dead).

The middle hour may stink, but the opening and closing show what might have been for the flawed but interesting third movie.

Scott Mendelson

Posted by JckNapier2 at August 26, 2007 3:05 PM

comment #23

fstop says ...

as another who enjoyed the sequels, i will be the first to admit that set-up provided in Reloaded was not entirely acheived to the degree to which i had hoped in Revolutions. but compared to the other crap that we're subjected to every weekend i will never understand the constant complaints concerning the sequels. that's the problem with expectations i guess.

Posted by fstop at August 26, 2007 3:06 PM

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

Sax: "where he just flies away randomly to end it (Why not just fly away in the first place?),"

I'm guessing he wanted to see what he was up against, so he could have a better report for the resistance. But no one seems to wonder why the Crazy 88s don't run over Uma in their bikes, either.

Posted by D.Z. at August 26, 2007 3:06 PM

comment #25

Devin Faraci says ...

My understanding is that the reaction to RELOADED meant that REVOLUTIONS did get heavily tinkered with at the last minute.

Posted by Devin Faraci at August 26, 2007 3:09 PM

comment #26

Howlingman says ...

Well the "diminishing returns" aspect of every film trilogy in recent memory -- PIRATES, SPIDEY and MATRIX most notably -- probably speaks more to the Hollywood way of doing business than anything else.

Posted by Howlingman at August 26, 2007 3:17 PM

comment #27

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, you are a prime dipshit who doesn't understand _any_ of the movies you're talking about.

Posted by jeffmcm at August 26, 2007 3:31 PM

comment #28

jeffmcm says ...

Let me be more specific:

How would the Crazy 88s run over Uma with their bikes - run outside, hop on their bikes that they've parked, and drive them inside? While she just stand around and waits for it?

How did The Matrix glorify a war, in 1999, that wouldn't start until 2003? How did Reloaded or Revolutions 'indict' a war when both movies put us on the side of the besieged humans battling for survival at any cost? What does Kill Bill have to do with any of this?

You need to shut up and go watch Loose Change again for the thousandth time, it's a better use of your brain capacity.

Posted by jeffmcm at August 26, 2007 3:42 PM

comment #29

Yuval says ...

The Matrix sequels were too long and suffered from bad acting and writing in some of the scenes. I mostly hated Jada Pinkett Smith and Harry J. Lenix. Their scenes just went on and on and on. "Some things in this world never change" - god damn it, just shut up, I get it. But... other than that, the movies were great and very brave. The ending is bitter, but completely true to what came before it and to the real world metaphor. If you don't get it, I recommend watching again with an open mind, trying to ignore the bad acting, thinking about the philosocal text, the payoff is much sweeter that way. It isn't that hard to get.
The 1st movie was much more uplifting, the sequels were hard realities. Not something the Wachowski brothers would churn up to buy a 4th house, but because they believed in what they're making.
The movies were even better in comparison to the other trilogies that went out those years - Lord of The Rings and Star Wars. If with the Matrix you get philosophy, action and bad acting. With Lord of The Rings you get terrible over-the-top acting, the same fight sequence repeated for over 9 hours, each time you're supposted to believe this battle is the key, and some nice animation. And yeah, good battles with evil, wins, but pays a price. I'm glad I spent 9 hours for that. The Matrix is a masterpiece in comparison.

"When inquiring minds feel they need to compare notes in order to get their heads straight about what may or may not have happened story-wise... the movie hasn't done its job"

Really? Coming of out of Blowup I'm sure you never discussed what may or may not have happened. Why did you start this blog if you felt discussing a movie's story only means it "hasn't done its job"? Did you just want to make all the money? You had a bad experience in your 1st viewing, and because the european critics didn't tell you to love the movie as with Antonioni or any other thought-provoking movie, you decided it wasn't worth your time. You can think with CGI action sequences.

Posted by Yuval at August 26, 2007 4:02 PM

comment #30

Geoff says ...

I too am waiting for DAVID POLAND'S MATRIX EXPLAINED review to wrap up. I mean, the guy was going crazy with analysis on Reloaded and then Revolutions came out and it was as if he had just had a moment with the Burning Bush but, unlike Moses, didn't feel the need to relay any kind of message.

Posted by Geoff at August 26, 2007 4:19 PM

comment #31

Larry says ...

The Matrix sequels are so detestable I don't even like to think about them. They never should have been made. The original isn't just about new filming techniques, or flying martial arts. Much of the greatness of the first film is the journey of a guy who thinks he's in our normal world and spends a lot of time educating himself about the reality behind the facde, with some cool guides and nasty enemies. All this was thrown out the window in the sequels.

Instead, we get a whole lot of time wasted in Zion. Zion was a MacGuffin--we don't give a damn about it. (And even if we did, the version in the sequels is so boring I was wishing it would be destroyed so humans could start over).

What we wanted to see in the sequels, and was refused, was humanity waking up, just like Neo did in the original. Instead, all we got was darkness, absurdity, pointless action and philosophical gibberish

Posted by Larry at August 26, 2007 4:21 PM

comment #32

JckNapier2 says ...

Actually, I disagree with Yuval's above post. I liked the Matrix trilogy, AND the Lord Of The Rings and Star Wars series. You can love all of them or some of them, and liking one doesn't mean having to knock others down.

As for Lord Of The Rings, well either you were moved by the dramatic beats and wowed by the character-centered action scenes or you weren't, so be it either way.

The newer Star Wars movies actually have a lot in common with The Matrix sequels. In that, they both take a simple heroic journey story and deconstruct it and make it far messier and more complicated than we originally thought.

The Jedis aren't as perfect as we thought.
The Dark Side, while used by evil people, isn't an evil philosophy per-se. Evil triumphs because good people (Anakin, Mace Windu) make bad decisions and evil people (Palpatine, etc) exploit those decisions. Who would have thought, way back when, that Anakin's moment of conversion would be caused by him doing what is morally right (stopping Windu from murdering an elected head of state without trial).

Warts and all, the new trilogy is a far more complicated story than the relatively simple original trilogy. Yes, the old films are better in many ways (pacing, acting, dialogue, more resemblance to a real world onscreen), but the new trilogy has a lot on its mind (no one got the political symbolism of parts I and II, so Lucas had to make it kind of obvious in part III). Whether critiquing draconian regimes of US past and future, or making a parable to the rise and fall of Ancient Rome, the prequels aren't anywhere near as empty-headed as people make them out to be. There's real storytelling going on here, the kind that undercuts the gee-whiz factor of the original epics while still belonging in the same universe.

Scott Mendelson

Posted by JckNapier2 at August 26, 2007 4:24 PM

comment #33

jeffmcm says ...

"Much of the greatness of the first film is the journey of a guy who thinks he's in our normal world and spends a lot of time educating himself about the reality behind the facde"

This is why the movie is popular, but it's also why it's kind of simplistic. Surely we'd all like to subscribe to the notion that our humdrum daily lives are 'false' and that the 'real' world consists of supercool leather outfits and kung-fu battles. But the truth is, they don't.

Posted by jeffmcm at August 26, 2007 5:06 PM

comment #34

Yuval says ...

Scott, Anakin isn't doing what is morally right, he's not stopping Windu from murdering an elected head of state without trial. It is quite clear that he kills Windu because he believes the emperor will help him save his wife's life (he's saying it while doing it), and he believes that because he is stupid. That's why people think the prequels are empty-headed, they center around an empty-headed character. Anakin is simply the little boy with too much power. And Christensen's whiny voice and pout are the added bonus. "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." o.k. Hayden, now give me FEAR, now give me ANGER, now Hate, hm... your hate seems a loot like anger... What's the difference? I guess I never thought about it, I just needed 4 stages, they sound more complicated and profound than 3. Never mind, just do the whiny voice again, that's killer. Now suffering, and now the mask part, so you're off the hook. If only I would have asked James Earl Jones to do a whiny voice in the 1st 3. Well.. there's always the new digitally changed DVDs.

But all that's really beside the point...

Larry, the sequels are very different then the original, they have to be. If you want to see a variation on the same theme this is the wrong movie. Mankind won't reawaken and destroy the machines, there's no destroying of the machines, the same way there's no destroying the computers we're using right now. Human Beings are dependant on technology to survive, always have been. Take a look at the sad Dark City ending in order to see the idea again incarnated, much more tragically - the freedom Neo or any other human achieves is limited by the technology around him and the technology of his "real" body. The sky the oracle is looking at and the pier John Murdoch is on are fake, but they are beautiful creation.

Posted by Yuval at August 26, 2007 5:15 PM

comment #35

Ron Lim says ...

I HATED the two Matrix sequels.... and even the first one had one major flaw. Who the fuck would want to live in the REAL world after seeing what the machines had done to it? Wouldn't you rather take the path of Joe Pantiliano and eat great steak and fuck hot broads... especially if you could create computer simulations that felt real? The real world was grey and bleak with no sun.... let the computers have it!

Posted by Ron Lim at August 26, 2007 5:25 PM

comment #36

GlassFamily says ...

I love these films unequivocally and am not embarrassed by my un-hip enthusiasm for them (and have watched them tons on DVD and do not consider myself a Wachowski fanboy or apologist, they just hit me in the pleasure centers). That said, the first 45 minutes or so of Revolutions sucks on toast.

Posted by GlassFamily at August 26, 2007 6:10 PM

comment #37

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "How would the Crazy 88s run over Uma with their bikes - run outside, hop on their bikes that they've parked, and drive them inside? While she just stand around and waits for it?"

No, they shouldn't have gotten off their bikes in the first place. They should have smashed through the doors and/or windows and run her over. Instead they just jump her and surround her and make it easier for her to cut them up. The audacity of that dumb film to be ranked higher than Drunken Master 2 in EW is insulting to real action buffs.

"How did The Matrix glorify a war, in 1999, that wouldn't start until 2003?"

What do you think the whole business with The One was about? That he'd lead the resistance into a full-scale war with the machines. The Wachowskis even leave the first movie open-ended to imply that the fight wasn't over. Then Brian Singer used the same idea for X Men.

"How did Reloaded or Revolutions 'indict' a war when both movies put us on the side of the besieged humans battling for survival at any cost?"

The humans, much like the neo-cons, have a messianic vision of their future which clearly did not come to pass. Instead, most of them are destroyed, and they're forced to work with the very enemies they'd been fighting all this time- just to survive. Very indicative of our current situation with Iran and Syria.

Posted by D.Z. at August 26, 2007 7:11 PM

comment #38

Chicago48 says ...

Bring the Wachowski's who made "Bound".

Posted by Chicago48 at August 26, 2007 7:32 PM

comment #39

Reedyb says ...

This is my admission.

I loved The Matrix. Disappointed by The Matrix Reloaded and only saw The Matrix Revolution on DVD.

But I find myself liking them more and more. The last 2 weren't what I expected. They have bad parts, they aren't as great as The Matrix, but they have some amazing fantasy, sci-fi ideas and sequences that look even better after this summer of thirds. And after the Star Wars prequel deathblow.

I think the fact that TNT shows them often, means that someone is watching and enjoying.

Their legend will grow.

Posted by Reedyb at August 26, 2007 7:43 PM

comment #40

Aunt Sassy says ...

"It hit me around 25 minutes in. I said to myself, 'I'm done. I don't want to watch this shit any more...ever." I see the Matrix Reloaded DVD on the shelves at my local DVD store and a thought never even occurs to me about renting it. I don't want to look at a scene, a snippet...nothing."

Aww, Jeffrey didn't get what he wanted for Christmas. Now he's going to throw his peas on the floor.

I too, am one of those fans that don't think the sequels should ever have been made. Nothing the Wachowski's imagined happening after Neo flies up into the sky could ever equal what the the audience thought happened in their own imaginations.

That being said, I still enjoy the sequels. I really liked RELOADED when it was released and wrote a review defending it. However, I loathed REVOLUTIONS and had to get a drink afterwards to wash the taste out of my mouth.

Now that some time has passed and I've viewed all of them as a single piece, they do make sense and I like the overall philosophy they espouse. The problem is that, for the most part, the sequels only work on a philosophical level and not on an action one. What made THE MATRIX a classic, is that it worked on both.

Regardless, the Wachowskis are consistently interesting filmmakers and I can't wait to see what they come up with for SPEED RACER. But if that movie blows, well... I might not be so inclined to cut them some slack.

P.S. Jeffrey, considering your obvious sexual identity issues, I'd have thought you'd be much more supportive of the Wachowski's work (at least Larry's).

Posted by Aunt Sassy at August 26, 2007 7:48 PM

comment #41

jeffmcm says ...

I just realized that DZ is bashing Tarantino (predictable) but - praising the Wachowskis? Even though they're as guilty of ripping off Hong Kong action as anybody?

Seriously, I hate you and everything you stand for, DZ.

Posted by jeffmcm at August 26, 2007 8:03 PM

comment #42

PerfectTommy says ...

Life's too short. Saw "Reloaded" in the theater and decided not to watch "Revolutions" and haven't. Never need to see any of the "Star Wars" prequels again, never believed the Anakin of any of the films would become Darth Vader. But I did recently show my kids the original "Matrix" and it was a kick and led to some fun philosophical and religous conversations.

Posted by PerfectTommy at August 26, 2007 8:06 PM

comment #43

source188 says ...

It's said that the Wachowskis always envisioned The Matrix as a trilogy but the first one always felt completely independent to me. The first sign something was wrong was at the announcement that the sequels would be shot back-to-back or as just one big production. The Wachowskis definitely changed after 1999, whether it was fame and fortune that corrupted the young minds or creativity that was forced/pressured and not inspired, whatever. The sequels are horrible and it breaks my heart to say so because the first Matrix was such a revelation for me.

I saw Dark City long after watching The Matrix and the similarities are unmistakable. Both films are essentially the same story of a second-coming messiah destined to free a world with a veil over it's eyes unknowingly being manipulated and decided by inhuman entities. But one yarn utilizes film noir to uncoil itself and the other revolutionizes the action genre to punctuate it's ideas and concepts. I love both of the films but Dark City remains extra special because it doesn't have sequels that are painful to bring up.

Oh and Bound remains the most impressive film made by the Wachowskis but only after watching the Matrix trilogy.

Posted by source188 at August 26, 2007 8:10 PM

comment #44

alynch says ...

jeffmcm, you realize that you're pretty much the only one who responds to DZ anymore right?

Posted by alynch at August 26, 2007 8:14 PM

comment #45

Undercover Brother says ...

Wow. Wells just gives a borderline random mention of the Matrix Sequels and the chatroom shit hits the fan. Everyone chimes in, people gets pissed and opinionated. In an odd way, this universal loathing of the sequels kind of solidifies their continued existnece in the movie lexicon. Are the Matrix sequels the new "Heaven's Gate?" Seems like the case to me.

Posted by Undercover Brother at August 26, 2007 8:43 PM

comment #46

D.Z. says ...

Reedy: "But I find myself liking them more and more. The last 2 weren't what I expected. They have bad parts, they aren't as great as The Matrix, but they have some amazing fantasy, sci-fi ideas and sequences that look even better after this summer of thirds. And after the Star Wars prequel deathblow."

Just the Neo vs the Smiths fight scene in Reloaded was more satisfying than the entire Clones plotline.

Aunt Sassy: "Nothing the Wachowski's imagined happening after Neo flies up into the sky could ever equal what the the audience thought happened in their own imaginations."

Not even the Animatrix?

jeff: "I just realized that DZ is bashing Tarantino (predictable) but - praising the Wachowskis? Even though they're as guilty of ripping off Hong Kong action as anybody?"

The Wachowskis gave Yuen Woo Ping a job, while Joel Silver gave Jet Li his debut in Lethal Weapon 4. When Tarantino does the same for Ringo Lam, then we'll talk.

source: "I saw Dark City long after watching The Matrix and the similarities are unmistakable."

Yeah, and Proyas swiped one of the Animatrix storylines for I, Robot. What's your point? Anyway, if you want to be technical, The Matrix is a remake of Megazone 23.

Posted by D.Z. at August 26, 2007 9:11 PM

comment #47

jeffmcm says ...

Alynch, you're right. I unfortunately feel a need to stamp out stupidity whereever I see it, and DZ is a veritable cockroach of stupidity, impervious to all treatments. The arrogance his stupidity requires is breathtaking. For example: who has ever heard of Megazone 23, much less who gives a shit about it?

Posted by jeffmcm at August 27, 2007 12:28 AM

comment #48

D.Z. says ...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Megazone+Matrix&btnG=Google+Search

Posted by D.Z. at August 27, 2007 2:10 AM

comment #49

BurmaShave says ...

I had a friend once who would get livid, and could not for the life of him stop saying that THE MATRIX was a ripoff of THE TRUMAN SHOW. If only.

Posted by BurmaShave at August 27, 2007 2:44 AM

comment #50

Spacesheik says ...

Considering the talent and money involved the trilogy really went to shit due to several factors, but the main one would hav e to be the Zion subplot (and its uninteresting supporting characters).

Had they stuck with Reeves, Moss and Fishburne throughout the trilogy instead of breaking them up and having them dissapear for long stretches etc it would been better for the trilogy.

In essence the first film's genius was its trio of characters, its simplicity, the discovery of the alternate world - once neo turned into superman and fought hundreds of agent smiths etc the element of danger, of tension was removed.

Posted by Spacesheik at August 27, 2007 3:39 AM

comment #51

Breedlove says ...

I'm posting too late for anyone to read this, but I had to pop in and say I absolutely love Part 2. I like it more than Part 1. It's wildly entertaining, like something the spawn of David Lynch and Jim Cameron would make. Great movie. Part 3 was disappointing but I was totally satisfied by part 2 when it came out. I really think it's one of the better action films of the past deacde.

Posted by Breedlove at August 27, 2007 5:36 AM

comment #52

Dan Revill says ...

DZ, you are insufferable. That is all.

Posted by Dan Revill at August 27, 2007 12:15 PM

comment #53

DarthCorleone says ...

Count me in the "Reloaded is good" camp. I enjoyed it more than the first. Revolutions, however, was an abomination.

Posted by DarthCorleone at August 27, 2007 1:27 PM

comment #54

D.Z. says ...

Part 3 had some of the best sci-fi war sequences I'd seen in ages. Of course, I haven't seen Starship Troopers...

Posted by D.Z. at August 27, 2007 2:33 PM

comment #55

christian says ...

i thought THE MATRIX was a very good distillation of anime stylings with a genuinely subversive message about the nature of reality and revolution. i was never that enthralled but the sequels fell apart with random characters and explanations. the third had so many cliches i thought they were intentional -- like the young soldier who can't wait to fight...and why would you build robot armor that exposes your body?

still, the w bros are super smart and talented. it will be nice to see them direct a non-MATRIX film.

Posted by christian at August 27, 2007 6:10 PM

comment #56

source188 says ...

"It's wildly entertaining, like something the spawn of David Lynch and Jim Cameron would make"

There is NOTHING "Lynch-ian" about The Matrix Reloaded or any Matrix film for that matter, that's either a very stupid thing to say or just ridiculously ignorant. And it's not opinion....it's just not "Lynch-ian".

Posted by source188 at August 27, 2007 6:23 PM

comment #57

16666 says ...

My turn!

I loved the first Matrix, gave up on Reloaded, but Revolutions actually restored my love for the franchise.

I loved the never-ending squid attack. It was so relentless and ridiculously over-the-top, it came closest to the buzz I got from the first movie. The second movie just bored me.

The Animatrix was cool too. I, for one (perhaps the only one), would love to see more Matrix movie sequels.

Posted by 16666 at August 27, 2007 6:42 PM

comment #58

D.Z. says ...

christian: "and why would you build robot armor that exposes your body?"

In the Animatrix, they got torn out of their armor by the machines. So I'm assuming the open cockpit was for the humans to better escape in case they got caught or wounded.

Posted by D.Z. at August 27, 2007 9:00 PM

comment #59