First Matrix Reloaded Review

EpsCylonB writes "The IMDB is reporting that the London Daily mirror has the first review of the Matrix Reloaded. Sounds like the Wachowski borthers have gone for an all out action movie which is a shame if true. What I liked most about the original was the way it blended stunning action with a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality." I'll hold judgement until the closing credits myself.

Comments

Re:Its a sequel

[aarondyck]

Are you saying that it's not possible to innovate AND make money? It seems to me that in the first Matrix movie they were both innovative and money-making! In addition, this movie has been compared to the Empire Strikes Back by the Wychowski bros. (sp?), another movie that both innovated and made money...seems to me that Empire is still in the top 20 all time...and do you remember the scenes with the ships and the guns and the snow and the stormtroopers...cutting edge bluescreen technology, they did things that were unheard of in the movie inudstry at the time. I believe that Matrix Reloaded will be the same...right down to the romance scenes!

Re:Oh come on

[weston]

Subtle philosophy? More like blatantly obvious and hackneyed oversimplification of philosophy.

Oversimplified? Maybe. Muted? You bet. But:

1. This is a story told in film. The premise isn't a vehicle for detailed philosophical discussion, it's for the story.
   
2. The premise, however, is one of the first full illustrations of the "brain in jar"/"shadows on the wall"/"evil demon" philosophical themes that some people are going to encounter. Philosophy students are going to find only very well-trodden ground -- but wasn't it terribly interesting to even them before familiarity bred contempt?
   
3. Furthermore, there's some interesting angles that most people totally ignore. Why would a demon keep your brain in a jar and torment you? There's evilness/enmity and that's a possibility. But in the Matrix, there's utility derived from doing so -- supposedly energy, maybe computational work. The former premise is so ridiculous to anyone who knows what's going on you wonder why they made it. I wonder if they did it to draw attention to a potential analogue: in this world, in 2003, you are plugged into a system. It's not a evil AI made VR, it's society. And it may be there are forces at work in that society that exist to keep you working as little other than a happy cog... you could use the analogy as an examination for socio/political commentary, if you like.
   
4. Buit the movie doesn't seem to, really, and in fact, the movie's peripheral treatment of philosophical elements may have been one of the wisest possible moves. And akin to what Lewis and Williams and especially Tolkien liked to do: don't work with analogy so much as archetype, and not even archetype so much as simply story. It's not about creating a symbolic tapestry that the initiated can have a field day swimming in and decoding. It's about creating a compelling experience that people can taste and draw meaning out of.
   

Re:Speaking of Pinket..

[Random BedHead Ed]

Having said that, imagine Ewan MacGregor. We know he can go from Trainspotting (think thin, pale) for the real world to ATOTC (action hero) for the Matrix. I think he would have added a lot more dimension to Neo than Keanu did.

I quite like the first film with Keanu, and I think it's his best role to date (which isn't saying much, but admit it - you didn't cringe at his acting in Matrix like you did in his other films). But I think a film with Ewan would have been a really interesting choice.

You're right, though. Will Smith has a lot going for him, but he might have ruined The Matrix.