Slashdot Mirror
'Matrix Revolutions' Opens Today
shelleymonster writes "The Matrix Revolutions was released worldwide at 9 AM EST today. With a running time of 2 hr. 9 min., I'm expecting the /. reviews to start pouring in around 11:30. Since critics are saying things like, "Matrix finale could put you back in a coma," and, "The final episode is a slam-bang, dreary mess," I'm curious to hear some real fans' reactions." Many readers have pointed to the BBC's review; they were not amused. Were you? Update: 11/05 17:17 GMT by T : Read on for one reader's (spoiler-free) first impression.
wickedweasel writes "Just came from one of the first showings of Matrix: Revolutions (Germany, don't know why, but it started 2:30 pm here) and came by to drop some comments (no spoilers). To cut it short: not even close to the first one, and honestly spoken way worse than the second one (which wasn't _that_ bad). The ones looking for cool action will hardly find any, neither will the ones who came for the story (like me) be satisfied. Only a few good scenes in and around Zion, some quite big plot holes and unfinished threads and, most important, an unsatisfying end, to say the least. I guess I'll be flamed for my opinion by the die-hard-fans, but hear this: I once considered myself one too until I saw this."
Hitchcock would have loved the first one because of the clear cut way they told the story and used suspense to tell it.
'No officer, your men are allready dead' and after that you get the fight. It is a classic example of creating suspense like Hitchcock used it, but faster.
But Hitchcock would have hated the sequels. The story has no starting point, instead it follows the Hollywood formula of all sequels: just let the same events happen in roughly the same order (Trinity opens with a fight and someone dies and is resurected). It is like they forgot how to deliver a complex story to an audience. Instead it became a vehicle for stunning special effects. And that is something that continues in the third episode with for instance the use of rain. There is no better way to show your quality as a CG master than with the use of rain isn't there?
No. this one has 'hire me' signs all over it. Just like the second one. They did not start a new CG company for nothing. This is just a big trailer sponsored by those visiting the cinema and buying the DVD.
The should have started part two with an introduction on the use of keys and being a program. Just like they did in number one with the use of special forces.
Why does the Matrix inspire this type of snobishness?
"It was also very academic in some respects, which probably explains why general audiences (read "unwashed masses") won't "get" it."
Basically, if you don't like these movies you are not intellectual enough. This was the same defense offered by many Matrix "fans" to people who didn't like Reloaded. By the way, Reloaded was a dreadful movie, just because somebody doesn't like it doesn't mean their dumb or unsophisticated.
I've already seen a lot of negative reaction to this movie in the reviews and from the net. And already the apologists are saying that the "unwashed" masses are not smart enough to appreciate this "wonderful" piece of art. This type of spinning of the movie is not encouraging.
- sigs are for wimps.
The problem is, you've already seen 2/3rd of the triology. Would you really put down a book after 2/3rds, or stop watching a show after 2/3rds of the season? I wouldn't, either I'd stop rather quickly or follow it through. At least not a show with development that is, like e.g. 24. A show where you can miss 10 eps and it'll still be the same basic gag, like Friends, Seinfeld or Frasier is different.
In a triology, the second film is usually the worst. The first is "new", and the last has all the big "final/ultimate" scenes. The second is well.. it's usually just more of the same. Maybe Matrix: Revolution is an exception to the rule, but it's not really all that stupid to find out.
The problem is, I want to know what happens to Neo and Trinity. Good, bad story, I still want to
"know". Of course you might say that is silly and that it's just a movie and it doesn't matter. But if you don't care about what you're watching, why do it at all? And I want to see the last of the LotR films too, even if all the critics say it's a complete and utter turkey (which I don't think they will, but anyway). Just human nature, I think...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Hey now, I'm articulate, and I'll defend Point Break over Revolutions. Sorry, this was just a passing mention in your message, but defending Point Break is sort of a hobby of mine. Yes, I need to get out more.
But consider: Point Break is an amazing film. Not a "good" film, but still amazing. Take three of the worst actors in Hollywood - Keanu, Swayze, and Gary Busey - and write an inane script about surfing bank robbers, and somehow produce a loud, stupid, but thoroughly entertaining and fun film from start to finish. On paper, Point Break should be just about the worst movie ever made, but somehow it isn't. Director Kathryn Bigelow put enough into it that it not only works on its own level - it does what it set out to do, perfectly - but it also succeeds above and beyond with at least one of the best chase scenes ever filmed. And unlike Revolutions, there isn't really a dull moment.
Revolutions, on the other hand, tried to be deep sci-fi and failed miserably. Unlike Point Break, which took terrible actors and made them watchable in a fun, goofy way, the Wachowskis just let the bad actors suck and made the good actors suck, too (like Fishburne's big speech in Zion). There wasn't a single scene in Zion that was better than a shitty, boring episode of some Star Trek franchise show, except you got to see nipples during the rave. Even its action scenes, besides the burly brawl and the semi collision, were pretty dull. Some of the martial arts wire work, supposedly what the Matrix does so well, was awful and laughable, so it couldn't even succeed on its own level as well as Point Break.
I actually really liked the Architect scene, though - I thought it was good "Prisoner"-esque fun, and one of the high points of the movie. Still... as counterintuitive as it might seem, I'd argue that Kathryn Bigelow could teach the Wachowskis a few things.