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.
"The Wachowski brothers have delivered a dud so disappointing, they may as well have bussed in Ewoks to save Zion"
...go rent Dark City to compensate.
You forget, this is /. and waiting to see the movie before reviewing it would be like reading the article before commenting on it.
-cp-
President Bush to Liberate Alaska
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.
Too bad I didn't think of this, but I thought it deserved to be here on Slashdot in case you don't read everything: You mean it doesn't end with Keanu Reeves waking up, turning to Alex Winter and saying "Bill, I just had a most excellent dream!"? Shame.
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.
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.
Yeah, but what if Jar Jar won? Oh, the horror...
"Meesa hang up dissa phone now. Meesa show deesa people what youssa hide from dem. Where wese go from dere choice meesa giva you."
Just got back from the 6:00am showing of the movie and I was pretty impressed.
You probably fell asleep 20 minutes into it and dreamed a better movie. It's the only explanation.
The reason Revolutions blows is because of the following:
* None of the questions in Reloaded are answered. How does Neo really stop the Sentinels? How did Smith enter Bane? How did he get so powerful? It's all explained away with one or two sentences. We're just supposed to accept it because it's "symbolic" of something. Reloaded seemed to treat itself like a bridge to some sort of great explanation for everything in the third movie. Guess what? It never comes! What the fuck?
* The focus is Zion. Instead of freeing the people of the Matrix, as the first one suggested, the sequels have been all about saving this dirty underground city we don't care about. What the hell happened to the people of the Matrix? It's like the movies don't even care.
* No humanity in the characters and dialogue. The movies just don't enjoy themselves. The first one had a mixture of humor and joy and was just having fun with what it could do. That's why things like the lobby scene kicked so much ass. It was like, "We've smashed the barriers of physics, now lets see what we can do with it!" And you had the fun human moments like the discussion during breakfast, the Cipher character, and so on. Neo was just a normal computer programmer who discovered the world around him wasn't real. More importantly, the movie was FUN.
Now, the sequels tried to change that story into a post-apocalyptic sci-fi epic about an iconic Christ figure who lives and dies. Which leads me to the next point...
* Nobody is freed, Trinity and Neo die, and we're left with the same situation we had at the beginning of the first movie. We've invested our attention to these three movies all for nothing. It was pointless. Why even have Trinity live in Reloaded? She should have stayed dead. It would have been more interesting to see how Neo copes with being unable to save her last time.
I'm completely disenchanted with the Wachowskis. These two guys were considered genius filmmakers after the first movie. The second one was tolerated because we assumed everything that was put in it was for a reason, but it turns out they just dropped the ball on what could have been the most groundbreaking science-fiction trilogy since Star Wars.
At least there's Return of the King this December.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I just watched it, thank goodness for time difference and living in the far east. Ok, here are the spoilers.
1. Neo and Agent Smith beat the shit out of each other.
2. Neo and Trinity kiss. Many times.
3. Locke thinks Morpheus is a lunatic
4. The sentinels lay waste to Zion's defense.
5. Persephone was really cute.
6. The Oracle bakes more cookies
7. There is no spoon.
In the Matrix, all three of the Matrix movies would have rocked.
I saw it in Westwood (a trendy part of Los Angeles) and there was a video crew filming fan reactions outside the theater.
"Give us your opinion of the movie," they asked.
I replied, "How about this, I give you the finger, and you give me my $9.75 back."
I suspect I won't make the final edit for the commercial.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
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
But that's Hollywood for you - you can't just make one great movie and leave it alone. You have to squeeze every dollar out of the franchise while you can!
:-(
I agree. Last time I was at a bookstore, I even noticed that Lord of the Rings, this masterpiece of an epic, is already out in book form.
Pathetic what lengths commercialization will go to these days. There's just no leaving good movies alone anymore.
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.