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."
Ever notice how movie sequels tend to be worse than the the previous version, while in theory software sequels are supposed to be an improvement?
No offence, and I could get modded down -1 troll, but really... you need to get out more.
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
they make impulsive decisions but don't know why. they are slaves to the ideas they use to justify their impulsive decisions -after- they've made them.
Ahh, so the trilogy is a methodical dismantling of the Democratic party's platform. It all makes sense, now.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
the 13th floor was much more well done than existenz, but still lacked commercial success due in large part to the inaccessibility of its execution of nested realities.
it's worth noting that both existenz and 13th floor were much more straightforward than the matrix and less densely packed with metaphors. they seemed to be merely a cursory exploration of the subject for the purpose of telling that particular story, rather than a piece on the philosophy of reality itself.
that aside, if you build up a story around certain characters, revealing at the end that they weren't 'real' robs the entire sequence of cinematic weight for most people. This is very similar to the 'it was all just a dream sequence' movies, which are similarly, uniformly reviled. Excepting the case where it is established early on that the movie is about people exploring the reality of the dream sequence, such as Flatliners.
All three movies (13th floor, existenz, the matrix) establish early on that they take place primarily in a virtual world for a reason. Cinematically you must establish that what matters in the alternate world -matters-. there is a -real- person at the end of the line being affected by what happens in the fake reality.
you can't lie to your audience and change the rules halfway through. The audience will naturally try to sympathize with the characters that are most like themselves in the story. If you reveal your main characters are just dreams or simulations of -actual- real people at the very end - the audience will feel cheated that they cared about pointless conflicts and characters.
13th floor and existenz are robbed of rewatchability for most because the whole movie is a gotcha. the ending implies that everything that happens was pointless, as the most human characters, the ones the audience will relate to, are not affected whatsoever by the previous sequences. They have their own tangential motives and are wholly removed from what just happened.
the 'real' characters aren't the ones struggling and exploring reality. So there's no point in watching it again, beyond study, because nothing that happens matters to the 'real' characters.
Note how audiences didn't care when normal people were killed by the dozens in the original Matrix? Simulated people aren't seen as 'real', and receive no broad audience emotional attachment.
Philosophically that's an incorrect analysis, but it is still the emotional reaction of the mass audience at this point in human history.
(Any form of life capable of higher order thought and memory experiences its reality as being just as 'real' as you or I experience our own reality. thusly they should be considered just as 'real' as you or I.)
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
SUSPENSE??? In the first one???
Which one is he going to take, the red pill or the blue pill???
Is he going to pass the test??? I'm not sure! I've never seen a movie before!
Is he actually going to be "The One"??? Gee, lemme think...
Is he actually dead, or will he come back with the aid of a girl yelling at him??? (bet you never saw that one before *cough* Abyss *cough*)
After the first half hour of very promising filmmaking, the first matrix turned into a completely obvious, philosophically simplistic pile of crap. Amazingly, the second one went down hill from there... big surprise that the third is worse.
I mean, where do you get off even *thinking* that there was actual suspense in the first matrix? Did you really not know what was going to happen?
I am sorry if this seems like flaming (and sorry 'bout all those ? marks), but really, I just don't get how people see the first Matrix and see good filmmaking. If Trinity had turned out to be "The One," that at least would have been interesting... but instead is was the same ol' shlep, pretending to be sci-fi.
Thats just stupid talk.
If smith does this everytime, why did the machines let Neo jack in just so Smith could kill him (when they clearly could)?
We already heard that the previous ones were reintegrated into the matrix, and Zion was rebuilt from a selection of One-choosen survivors.
I'll not waste anymore more time debunking a halfassed theory about a halfassed movie.