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."
I though Reloaded was a huge drop off from the orignal and this one may be a huge disappointment. Too bad, because the orignal was one of the best SciFi movies in Years.
The machines are attacking tomorrow, lets have a Rave.
...go rent Dark City to compensate.
One thing that's interesting about the Matrix movies is that they've become a LOT of different things to a lot of different people. Thanks to the Wachowskis rather brilliant blending of pop culture, Campbell, Jung, Christianity, and Buddhism, they're movies that can resonate with people on so many different levels. Just look at the various articles that've been written since 1999 interpreting the movies and you can see it. You could almost believe these people are seeing different films under the same name.
The problem though, is that a finale, by its nature, must be conclusive. It has to have at least some answers to the big questions. And if (SPECULATING) for example, you were wanting to see a Taoist "balance" ending, and it turns out to be a western-style Good-triumphs-over-Evil, then you're going to be disappointed. Or if you consider the philosophical questions about Causality and Fate more important than the skeleton plot, if the movie is too action-heavy you're going to be irritated that it doesn't solve the philosophical quandaries. (or vice-versa in either situation, obviously)
So, while I won't know for myself until about 4 this afternoon, I suspect the problem is not going to be one of Revolutions being a bad\disappointing movie, but that there is simply no way that the Wachowskis could wrap it up and provide a satisfactory conclusion to ALL the "movies" which the Matrix has become to its viewers.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
I am a real Matrix fan. I couldn't sleep at all last night, knowing I was going to watch Revolutions at 9AM today. However, I felt it was a disappointing failure for several reasons:
1. Trinity dies for no reason, as they don't use her death in any meaningful way.
2. The scene with the machines entering the outer hull of Zion was drawn out needlessly, as it contained no switching between the fight at Zion and Neo's plight (think: middle/end of ROTJ)
3. The fight scene with Smith/Baines and Neo in the Logos was completely extraneous.
4. Neo's death in the end leaves the humans without a powerful weapon against the machines if they were to decide to attack the humans again. Contrast this with Star Wars and LotR, where the playing field is leveled at the end, or slightly in favor of the protagonists.
5. Keanu Reeves performance was subpar, even for him. In the climactic battle with Smith at the end, he looked drugged and was not convincing as the leader of the free world. He had no fire, and it was the machines and the Oracle that actually spurred him on to defeat Smith (esp. the machines, as they revived him after being consumed by Smith).
6. In the beginning, he was trapped in the train station for no conceivable reason but to lengthen the movie. It served no purpose, benefitted the movie naught and did not lead to any great discoveries that were used later in the film. Likewise, how we could be jacked in without being jacked in was never satisfactorily addressed.
If you are a Matrix fan, I urge you to watch this movie with the blinders off and see for yourself what a bad job the Wachowski bros. did with this, what could have been the end of the best sci-fi movie trilogy in history.
science fiction fans are generally unreceptive to fantastical powers in the 'real' world. hence they are looking for the explanation.
Similarly the Wachowskis know that the implication (Zion isn't in -reality-, but is instead another layer of simulation) isn't a popular theme amongst the broad audience - who coincidentally don't mind science fantasy (case in point: Star Wars).
And if science fantasy was their goal with the matrix (which one would doubt given their attention to detail) they would clearly realize how poorly scientific explanations of fantastical elements work out (case in point: Midichlorians)
In the end, it really was an ability best left undiscussed.
smith copied himself onto bane, an unplugged character -then- uploaded himself through the hardline. putting himself in bane's shoes initially is the actual leap in science for scifi fans. how could Smith do that when in M1 it was established that agents could only jump into plugged-in people?
the ending fight was just more kung fu. it was all style with only slight implication. I thought it was a bit excessive, but other than that i didn't have a particular problem with it.
coexistence is indeed the point of the movie, i don't quite understand the people who complain about it. it's as if they didn't hear Neo's speech at the end of The Matrix. (where it was quite clear that he wasn't out to destroy all machines).
However i agree with the poster that the sequels lost all attachment to the people -in- the matrix. of course, this is only a complaint because a bad introduction to Zion left most audience members not caring at all about it.
I mean, it's not like people were really attached the plugged-in masses in M1 - what with nary a complaint about the innocent cops and soldiers killed in droves when subdual was entirely possible. (they had their own load program and they couldn't think to bring tear gas, microwave weapons, or rubber bullets?).
Now i'm not saying that M1 should have been a buddhist exercise in peaceful application of force - most people probably wouldn't have liked that nearly as much. I'm just pointing out that critics are complaining 'what about the plugged in people' precisely because we care even -less- about Zion.
It's more a complaint that Reloaded introduced us to Zion as a whole poorly, and then didn't follow up with even any decently developed characters in Zion to give the audience an attachment. For comparison: no one really cared about the mass of rebels on Hoth, but the audience was drawn in because they wanted to see the main characters get away. But most of the fight for Zion happens away from the characters who got decent development.
And while we're drawing SW parallels - the Wachowskis should've killed off Morpheus if all he was going to do is sit there for the whole movie. It was only in later script revisions that Lucas killed off Obi Wan on the death star in A New Hope - after he realized that Kenobi didn't -do- anything to propel the movie once Leia was rescued.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
I agree wholeheartedly that the predominant problem with the matrix sequels was too much money, and too little critical opposition in the development stage.
:p
The Matrix worked as a standalone film because it was hard pressed to convey its ideas in an accessible manner with a tight storyline that didn't dwell or indulge its philsophical excess. Blatant references to philosophy and religion stuck to concepts familiar to nearly any audience: christianity, buddhism, alice in wonderland. Many deeper metaphors exist, (baudrillard, bohm, gibson, ploughman, gnostic christianity) but the key there is they were -subtle-.
(a neat matrix reference... reference here)
Aside: Most people who find the Matrix to be merely philosophy 101 have clearly only a 100-level familiarity with philosophy themselves. The rest are simply arrogant
The deeper questions, concepts, and correlations to mathetmatics and religion are unequivocably there.
I digress: The average film audience member does not associate with causality, nor with the concept of conscious free will and unconscious impulse. Hence, those deeper blantant dialogues in the sequels aren't well received. They exemplify the cardinal sin of those sequences: too much high level exposition, not enough subtle metaphor, bad pacing.
Morpheus explained the concept of virtual reality to Neo at high level, implying the low level, while taking him on a visually impressive whirlwind ride through postapocalyptic earth. He explained the rules of the matrix and hinted at the implications during a fight. He explained the prophecy and hinted at the undertones in bits and pieces across several scenes.
The merovingian covered causality for 3 straight minutes over dessert, with only a thin layer of metaphor. It's no wonder people didn't like it.
Well that, and we are never meant to believe any character is -actually- in danger in reloaded except trinity when she is falling. How Morpheus and trinity survived so long against upgrades when they fell so quickly against the old versions killed a bit of drama as well.
Thirteenth floor and Existenz were both movies that dealt in recursive or nested realities, and neither received the large audience success of the matrix. though 13th floor was fairly well done, the ending seemed cinematically cheap (though i didn't mind the implication, i thought it trivialized the first 90 minutes, and resting on a gimmick like that kills rewatchability). Existenz was just sloppy.
That said, the clear trend is that a more accessible movie leads to more box office success. The wachowskis are, after all, trying to reach the largest possible audience. By leaving the interpretation of reality being a Blue Matrix open they both engage those of us who want to look deeper, and hold onto the larger audience who has no interest.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
I must add my $0.02 though. Here goes...
The first time I saw MR, I was very dissappointed. The reason I was dissappointed was because there was so much action going on outside the matrix. I missed the M1 feeling of a Noire Detective story with myriads of mysteries... But I soon realized that was the key to enjoying the Matrix trilogy... M1 *was* a Noire Detective story, just like M2 was more of an action movie, a movie where the matrix itself was being exploited... an answer to everyone's internal desire to kick ass inside the matrix, now that we had disspelled that our world was just virtual.
The MRevs was yet another genre, it was about the fight for Zion... it was an Epic. Just like The Return of the King. And the scenes in it are great as far as an epic goes if you ask me.
The plot holes are annoying at best, but really they aren't so much bigger then the questions left pending at the end of M1.
Also, without digressing, I would like to mention that it is my firm belief M1 wasn't made with the intent of being the first of part of a trilogy... I believe the trilogy idea came later (when money started pouring in).
Despite that though, I would like to say MRevs was much better than M2 in the sense that it managed to return somewhat to the M1 mentality of "we aren't here to answer your questions... to tell you exactly why everything is the way it is. We're here to show you another story, put some unbelievable facts out in the open and leave you wondering."
I personally really liked the idea of there being sentient programs who basically come to live in the matrix as if it were a vacation resort of some sort. And the ideas raised in this one are just as valid - and arguably (by some, not me) - just as shallow (or deep) as the ones in the matrix.
All in all, it's very ironic to watch everyone practically spit on the screen because they came here expecting a movie like the M1... that story's already been told. If you wanted to see the Matrix again, go watch it again. How very typical of western culture to feel a great emotion for something, and then demand feeling that same emotion again... it's simply impossible: and that is why the M2|3 will never live up to some people's expectations.