The Matrix Reloaded (mild spoilers)

[stevetseitz]

Sometimes if you expect greatness better than average is a bummer.

I cannot tell you how disappointed I was by this film. To give you some perspective, I loved "The Matrix". I saw it three times in the theater and I own the DVD. I loved "The Matrix" because 1. It allowed a certain ambiguity. 2. It didn't spoon-feed the audience 3. It didn't take itself too seriously.

"The Matrix Reloaded" comes across as a typical Hollywood sequel: Repeat/Augment the successful scenes of the first film, Add some interesting characters and blow the whole thing with exposition and convolution. I expected more from the Wachowski Brothers.

I will be the first to admit there were some incredible visual sequences. Some fights and chases were executed in fine form, but I found myself thinking during some of the extended martial arts scenes: "Why am I watching Keanu Reeves in a wire harness in "bullet-time" when I can watch a true artist like Bruce Lee in my copy of "Enter the Dragon"? In light of the true nature of 'the matrix' all the fist-fighting and gunplay seems superfluous and ultimately filler until the next expositional moment in the script. In other words, sure there were some cracker-jack action scenes, but they didn't advance the plot a whole lot. A great action film usually requires a lot of suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience, but at some point the whole "jacking into and out of the matrix gimmick" requires a new level of suspension of disbelief. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is an example of another film with many cracker-jack action scenes but the difference is the scenes actually advanced the plot.

Speaking of exposition, I kept waiting for Micheal York from the "Austin Powers" movies to show up. I mean, COME ON! Somebody tell the screenwriters that the high-school level philosophy class isn't impressing anyone over the age of 18. The first film did a much better job of avoiding making the audience feel like they should take dictation without coming across as shallow. This film does precisely the opposite by talking itself in circles and in the end appearing vacuous.

Also another suggestion to the filmakers: keep the power level of Neo consistent. In one scene he can disrupt the entire matrix with his "wake" and in another five dudes with less skill that Agent Smith keep him occupied for far too long. Either he is omnipotent or he is not. If he is omnipotent within the matrix you don't have much of a story. The Wachowski's seem to want to have it both ways.

OK, I admit I'll shell out the $10.00 to see the next one and ultimately that determines the financial success of a movie, but box-office receipts do not determine whether a film reaches it's potential as a classic series as "The Matrix" could have.

[Johann]

*SPOILERS*

"Reloaded" was absolutely excellent. I have no complaints. The 'rave in the cave' was rockin', the action scenes were executed with style & substance (they outdid themselves when Neo rescues the Keymaker & Morpheus from the rig), the acting seemed more focused, and the sound was just divine. I'll be seeing it again. No doubt about it. George Lucas, eat your heart out...

Anyone think Bob Marley would have felt right at home on the council?

[fuzzy_nolan]

And I thought the first one failed. I was wrong…oh so wrong.

To quote a line from Bulworth, ‘It’s amazing how so many people can put so much money and so much time into something and make something that...just isn’t very good.’

To tell the truth, I really don’t know where to start. After being disappointed by The Matrix, I was hoping that the Wachowski Brothers (Andy (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Wachowski,%20Andy) & Larry (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Wachowski,%20Larry)) would overcome their inadequacies and produce a work of the quality only previously hinted at. Not only did they repeat the same mistakes, which in itself is hardly surprising, they managed to create totally new ones.

Firstly, it appears that the Wachowskis, inflated with their earlier success, upped the special effects ante but forgot to pay someone to look over the script. Admittedly, the directors had a vision, something that was present even before The Matrix was filmed, of an epic cycle – birth, life, death etc. The Matrix Reloaded however, was so bloated with cryptic, convoluted dialogue that while sitting in the darkened theatre, I could literally hear the majority of the audience scratching their respective heads. What is, at heart, a fairly simple story, is complicated by the whims of the Wachowskis. The Matrix Reloaded is incoherent for much of its running time, and this sort of ridiculousness doesn’t wash with an audience. Many of the events are barely strung together in any sort of fashion, in perhaps a vain attempt to excuse the narrative faults by espousing the visual feats. What I’m assuming is that the Wachowskis were given a carte blanche to bring their entire vision directly to the screen, without anyone willing (or able?) to refine their concepts. I don’t think this is too outlandish a suggestion, after the Wachowskis brought Warner Bros. their biggest hit in the history of the studio in the form of The Matrix. What we see in the final cut of The Matrix Reloaded is the ‘Directors’ Cut’ which never should have made it to the screen without some serious revision.

Also, the blatant symbolism of The Matrix, which I was initially quite scathing of, seems infinitely preferable to the philosophical and religious detritus that litters The Matrix Reloaded. The former was basically a Christ analogy contained within the philosophical confines of ‘the real’ and ‘the created’. Its sequel, on the other hand, just seems confused, unsure of where to turn for inspiration. Some of the major moments – Trinity’s (Carrie-Anne Moss (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Moss,%20Carrie-Anne)) death/salvation, Neo’s (Keanu Reeves (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Reeves,%20Keanu)) stopping the sentinels – seem to be merely lifted from The Matrix and recontextualised. I’d laugh, but then again I paid for my ticket. One user on IMDb amusingly noted he'd like to see The Matrix Refunded.

Another thing that provides both the strongest and weakest moments – also something that’s bound to make The Matrix Reloaded a squillion dollar hit – are the special effects. While ‘bullet time’ was heralded as a special effects breakthrough several years ago, it’s no longer so potent. When every second shot within any action sequence within the film prominently features the standards – bullet time, shattered glass, the wire work of Yuen Wo-Ping (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Yuen,+Woo-ping) – the effects begin to wear thin. Case in point: Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Moss,%20Carrie-Anne)) shooting and falling…and falling and shooting…and shooting and falling…etc. If the previous sentence makes no sense at the moment, it will when you see the movie. It’s this sort of intensely overwrought, self-conscious special effects that detract from, rather than add to, the film. The supposedly ‘seamless’ transitions from the real to virtual actors, while laudable, are still quite noticeable. I believe the usual practice is to shoot around the shortcomings, rather than put the spotlight on them like The Matrix Reloaded does. John Gaeta (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Gaeta,%20John), the visual effects supervisor, publicly stated that it’s ‘realism, not special effects, that will trick the brain into believing the impossible’ and in this respect he’s perhaps set his sights a little high. On a bit of a tangent, one special effects moment in the movie – a tracking shot between the Matrixified legs of a beautiful woman – seems more like an expression of the inner Wachowski geek than a legitimate use of special effects to further the narrative. This is visual masturbation, not film-making. While writing this though, I’ve begun to suspect that attacking the special effects is something of a fool’s mission and there certainly is something to be said for the technical, if not creative or conceptual, achievements of The Matrix Reloaded. For the moment though, I’ll leave that for someone else to say.

Just on the acting side of things – for those brief moments when the character belongs to the actor rather than the animator – much of the cast seems to confuse being cool with brain death. Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Fishburne,%20Laurence)) is the main culprit here, with his Mr. Miyagi act fraying around the edges, although Niobe (Jada Pinkett-Smith (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Pinkett%20Smith,%20Jada)) is a strong up and coming contender in this category. Thankfully, it’s not all doom and gloom – the potential for Neo (Keanu Reeves (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Reeves,%20Keanu)) to become fairly anodyne after the first instalment never eventuates. Indeed, some of the film’s quieter moments rest quite comfortably upon his shoulders. Some of the bit players also admirably acquit themselves, particularly Merovingian (Lambert Wilson (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Wilson,%20Lambert)) a Machiavellian playboy, The Kid (Clayton Watson (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Watson,%20Clayton)) Neo’s # 1 fan and Agent Smith v.2.0 (Hugo Weaving (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Weaving,%20Hugo)) who fittingly returns with double the menace. Personally, the charismatic Seraph (Sing Ngai (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Ngai,%20Sing)) also made quite an impression in a small role while Persephone (Monica Bellucci (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Bellucci,%20Monica)) was gorgeous scenery if nothing else.

On the whole, the failings of The Matrix Reloaded far outnumber the few shining moments. It appears that $300 million does not a good movie maketh. It’s a pity, and a relevant comment on the ‘blockbuster’ industry that, in spite of these inherent failings, The Matrix Reloaded will still inevitably make a fortune.

I’m tempted to voice a hope for The Matrix Revolutions – that the final instalment will be the salvation for blockbusterdom. Unfortunately, I’m increasingly given to thinking that this is beyond the ability of the Wachowskis…

– end rant –

[Chris Knipp]

Thank you for your smart and thorough dissection. This is the first thing that has made me want to see the film right away to find out what I think about all this.

[Johann]

I'm at complete polar odds with the people who are disappointed with Reloaded. (and it appears there are many)

I'm trying to figure out what the hell people were expecting. They obviously have the Matrix on a pedestal to be so damning. Sounds a lot like the The Phantom Menace backlash. Lucas messed with his legacy. The Wachowski bros. have not.
I expected a lot and I got it. This sequel is better than the first.
I laugh when people say the script was worse. The whole trilogy was written before they shot the first film! Theydidn't make changes, kids. The movies flow nicely imho, and Revolutions is going to be just as awesome.

And how could anyone not watch Trinity "falling and shooting" over and over? That was a stunning sfx shot. (one of hundreds)
As I said, I have no clue what people were expecting. They didn't see the Matrix as i saw it-incredible escapist entertainment executed with the sexiest style of any filmmakers working today.

[Chris Knipp]

I am keeping an open mind.

[Johann]

I have some questions for fuzzy_nolan

1. What inadequacies were in the first film? (religious tones aside)

2. Can you give a specific example of cryptic dialogue from the film? I understood everything presented to me-nothing incoherent, no scratching of my scalp...

3. Again, please give me an example of "narrative faults".

4. What exactly needs to be refined? Not once did I detect the brothers acting "on a whim" or "masturbating". I sensed serious dedication and faith in their own film.

5. Is "philosophical & religious detrious" wanting to stop a war? That seemed to be the point of this installment. I was more aware of "blatant symbolism" in the first film than Reloaded.

6. Can you honestly say the special effects (i.e bullet time) "begin to wear thin" because of this franchise, or is it because of saturation of use in other films such as Shrek?

7. The "girl + cake" scene was a nice injection of humour. I don't think it was geeky at all-I laughed like a hyena! Did you not giggle?

8. You don't think the actors were just embodying their characters? Morpheus was Morpheus, Neo was Neo, Trinity was Trinity. No change in my eyes from first film to this. I suspect you may be jealous that they looked so boss...

[fuzzy_nolan]

I'm glad to see someone picked a fight, it gives me something to do. I'll do my best to address your points.

1. Personally, I believe The Matrix fails on a couple of levels -as action and as philosophy, each failing because of the attempted presence of the other. When the sermonising rears its head, the action falls flat on its face. Conversely, when the action picks itself up again, the sermonising slinks off.

At best, the two are uneasy bedfellows.

I also thought the film seemed aimed at an audience unwilling to think about the implications themselves. Subsequently, while the film claims ‘there is no spoon’, it simultaneously uses one to spoon-feed the implications to the audience. To me, this seems Morpheus' main function.

Agree or not about these ones, they're only opinions, already voiced on another board round here somewhere.

2. To quote someone from the Chicago Tribune (who can undoubtedly speak more eloquently than I):

Now the Wachowskis are trying to extend their provocative arguments about people vs. machines and free will vs. preprogramming, but the effort has sucked the life out of their storytelling.
There's too many scenes in the film - Neo's conversations with the Oracle and the Architect in particular - that are comprised of psychobabble, pure and simple. Another critic noted, 'rarely has so much pseudo-babble been uttered in one film'. I don't consider myself a stupid person but I'll readily admit I was struggling to give the amount of attention needed for comprehension in those scenes.

Unfortunately, I don't have any specific examples from those two conversations, take that however you will. Buggered if I'm going back again just to find some quotes for you.

3. Narrative faults - this is a bit of a contentious bone to pick. I think a fairly linear story was muddled, not through intent (unless the intent was to make everyone pay to watch several times), but through inability to clearly tell a story. The amount of confusion that's reigning over the majority of the IMDb board for this film is indicative, I'd assume, of the general audience.

Confusion over the real world, matrices within matrices, whether Bane was really Smith etc. While to a certain extent, this hubbub can be explained away as the result of too much time and internet access - 'they do tend to talk, don't they' - I think sloppy storytelling is also to blame. We might have to wait for the third instalment for the proof of this though - to quote Radiohead, 'I might be wrong'.

Empire claims (which I read after I wrote this):

...truth be told, Reloaded labours in places, and once or twice the juggernaut actually comes close to stalling. Overwritten exposition, often pretentious rather than profound, weighs heavily on a plot that is actually resoundingly linear.
4. The 'dedication and faith' is part of the problem. By all accounts, the trilogy has been brought to the screen as it was originally conceived. I doubt anyone will argue on this point. Particularly with the psychobabble that dominates the script - which is one of my personal peeves - we might have a case of 'not enough cooks spoil the broth'.

I think the whole film could have been, if not simplified, at least clarified by outside (Wachowski) intervention.

The Matrix was expressed clearly in a way that its successor is not, more's the pity.

5. 'Philosophical and religious detritus' refers to the lack of clear inspiration for the action. It just seems a mishmash of influences, in parts competing with each other. The first film didn't have this problem, as previously mentioned.

The writer of the Chicago Tribune might, again, help to shed light in this regard.

The movie's opening hour is filled with so much plot exposition and speechifying that you figure the Wachowskis have gotten lost amid their mythologies.
6. In short, yes. When the same thing occurs umpteen times within the same short sequence, the effect indeed wears thin. Do you remember how excited you got when you first saw 'bullet-time' four years ago? I know I did. I don't think you can wring out the same sort of excitement through constant repetition.

When Morpheus is fighting one of the Agents (Johnson?) on top of the semi-trailer for instance. Morpheus fights, gets hit, balances on the edge...Morpheus fights, gets hit, balances on the edge...Morpheus fights, gets hit, balances on the edge...etc. It just starts to get stupid. A similar situation exists with Neo's fight in the lobby with Merovingian's goons where we are treated (?) with several extremely similar shots of Neo vaulting to various bits of staircase. Cool the first time - of course - but it begins to wear thin.

7. Looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree with this one.

By the way, this shot put me in mind of a shot in Monty Python's Meaning Of Life. The one with the revolving woman, overlaid with the grid who's impregnated by a star or something? Ring a bell?

8. Sure, the actors were embodying their characters. Characters that - Morpheus in particular - are somewhat distant from the audience. I won't pick a fight over Keanu Reeves, I think he did admirably (at least in the 'coming to grips with being 'The One'' department) but the others seem inhuman - merely defined by a couple of attributes. It's as if the Wachowskis said to Fishburne, 'just be cool and say your lines'. I even can't imagine Neo and Trinity sustaining a five minute conversation in spite of the fact that we're told they're 'in love'. Badly written or badly acted - it hardly matters - the point is, they fail to convince.

I'll be back to read your replies to replies...and possibly reply.

Cheers.

[Chris Knipp]

I still haven't seen the film but this debate gives me something to go in with. Well argued, FN, but your criticisms and the Chicago critic's both lack specificity somewhat, which is why I like what you say in #6 and following best.

[fuzzy_nolan]

Anyway, stevetseitz appears to agree with me on the script problems:

'The first film did a much better job of avoiding making the audience feel like they should take dictation without coming across as shallow. This film does precisely the opposite by talking itself in circles and in the end appearing vacuous.'

Fair enough Chris - some of the arguments lack specificity. I'm not going to argue with you on that one. It's hard to keep ideas in your head with slumber threatening every few minutes. I hope you join the fray when you've seen the movie.

Personally, I just wish I could watch movies like I used to when I was little. Who cares if they made sense? I used to think that Shredder and Super Shredder in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were totally different characters. I had absolutely no idea what the green ooze stuff was for. And, the point is, I didn't care...

Ignorance is bliss.

[Johann]

I'm glad you've got grey matter, fuzzy!

I think the problems you cite stem from the fact that -like X-Men-The Matrix was a huge success, and the sequels were made knowing that there was an audience ready to eat it up. (or in your case, be critical)

This has it's snags. I agree that the first film played like we were all just silent witnesses to a new, unknown phenomenon whereas Reloaded's actors/directors know we are aware of the story, so they felt they could get away with more "sermonizing". I ignored it (didn't even acknowledge it in Reloaded) because I had more interest in overall meaning than immediate exposition. I feel I was rewarded for taking this position.

I don't think the script is the problem when I think about your comments on "psychobabble"-it's actually the line delivery . Jada Pinkett especially seemed like a posturing goof, and I rolled my eyes when she first speaks to Morpheus. She reminded me of damon wayans' Blankman. Other supporting actors were guilty of over-acting, but I didn't care. The Wachowski's probably took what they could get...I blame the delivery, not the dialogue.

I guess I took the postion you wish could a la "TMNT"- I just let the movie entertain me. I never took The Matrix seriously-that's how I enjoyed it so much. Star Wars fans need to do the same thing. After all, they ARE just movies!

Now, Peter Greenaway? Stanley Kubrick? I take THEM seriously.

[Chris Knipp]

What about Peter Jackson--the Ring trilogy--do you take that seriously? Some people sure do.

[Johann]

I don't know how anyone can enjoy blockbusters unless you walk into the theatre knowing that they are sensational fiction, and as a viewer you must do some work to see what the filmmakers were trying to ultimately do. This is why I think so many people get disappointed. They want their cake and eat it too. Moviegoers don't realize the ball is in the filmmakers' court-not ours.
It's like a courtroom- what was the accuseds' intent ?

In Jackson's case, it was to faithfully adapt the books into films.
In the Wachowski's case, it was to kick-start and keep a neo-myth running. (pardon the pun)

I would say they succeeded in spades. To be too nit-picky over films that are just fine entertainment (and I do it myself) is really what is "vacuuous". I mean, it's pretty easy to shit on a movie when we aren't even in the business, right?

[Chris Knipp]

I don't think anybody is shitting on movies on this site, but just because we aren't filmmakers or even professional movie critics, doesn't mean we don't have every right to be as nit-picky as we want. Nor should we ever assume that "blockbusters" -- a pretty vague term -- it only means movies that are financially successful or mean to be -- can't be excellent. Movies are popular art. That means they are both -- popular, and art. Blockbusters can still be great movies, and we don't have to turn off our critical faculties when viewing them. We do have to remember what kind of movies we are watching, and judging, and not expect them to be something they never intended to be. But it's always best, in fact essential, to trust our gut reactions and go in to a theater with an open mind, not with a set of preconceptions ready to condemn or love the movie, to find fault with it no matter how much fun it was or to excuse its every excess.

Let's not think "blockbusters" are immune to criticism. They have standards too.

P.s. I still haven't seen Matix Reloaded, and I haven't prejudged it. I know that it is a subject of hot debate. I also know that I will trust my own reaction when I see it.

[tabuno]

I really thought Matrix (the original) was great. I really felt that Matrix: Reloaded (the sequel) was mediocre.

1. Action and philosophy are uneasy bedfellows in a movie. I didn't find inadequacies in the first film as the action seemed to flow sufficiently and then a much needed break and shocking transition into exposition that in itself was well portrayed through both narrative and special effects. However, by the second film the philosophizing was so over the top and arcade except for the Oracle that the action seemed to be stripped from the philosophy being broadcast (spoon fed like in paragraphs few could comprehend) that did not seem to be tied to any of the action in the movie. There almost seemed to be two movies going on in the sequel - one action scenes, another movie with dramatic, substantive (appearing) elements. This oil and water mixture really made me fall asleep in places.

2. Neo and the Oracle dialogue was plain, crisp, funny, and delightful...but as coming off a rather mundane opening sequence of imitations from Minority Report, Alien, and Final Fantasy - this dialogue was an added bonus to a weak beginning while Neo and the Architect was so obviously made into some twisted, complex secret paragraphs with language unnecessarily convoluted that it became too apparent as to what the Director was trying to accomplish. The Architect's message was so simple and plain that the high-sounded narrative came off artificial and boringly frustratingly obtuse and vague. No intelligent person this.

3. See above two. Again.

4. As with most sequels, the sequel attempts to bask too long in their success of martial art sequences and they use their new dazzling techiques for far too long to be interesting and maintaining interest.

5. The connection between the action and the philosophy fell apart. The philosophy and religion seemed to be scattered to the winds in the sequel and came down to the more mundane us versus them, instead of the belief between the power faith and the power of technological military strategy.

6. The special effects are overused. After a while, I wanted something different, diversionary. I began to think see it, been there...It was like watching the starry special effects of 2001: A Space Odyssey of which we've seen it repeated again and again through a hundred movies. The special effects at the beginning third of the movie were terrible...a clear rip-off of Minority Report and Final Fantasy. The inner real world was particularly uninspiring. It looked artificial, animated like Final Fantasy - the completely opposite of what the reality of inner earth should have looked like (and the Giger Alien-like formations didn't help matters much).

7. "Girl + Cake" scene?

8. The characters seemed to sustain themselves through both movies.

[stevetseitz]

Yes, I saw "The Matrix Reloaded". I liked the first film and didn't like "Reloaded" as much.

Some questions I have been pondering:

If the machines are aware that some percentage of humans are trouble, why not perform lobotomies and use the living human vegetables as "batteries"? Or monkey with the DNA and make all the humans mental midgets (clone the Baldwin brothers?)

If that doesn't work why replace humans with similarly-sized primate like chimp or gorilla? Think how simple the matrix could be in that scenario with no risk of rebellion.

If "the spoon" does not exist, how does Neo ever get hurt in the Matrix? He is supposedly "the one" and has the knowledge that his body is never actually in the Matrix.

All the gunplay and martial arts seem unecessary.

Why wouldn't the people of Zion release a biological agent into the "plugged in" human populace (or simply kill them all) since they are the source of energy for the machines?

Did Skynet have anything to do with the initial launch that "burned the sky" and if so why do we care if John Conner lives or not? Just kidding.

Is there any way that Anthony Zerbe ISN'T a bad guy in the final film?

[fuzzy_nolan]

I guess I took the postion you wish could a la "TMNT"- I just let the movie entertain me. I never took The Matrix seriously-that's how I enjoyed it so much. Star Wars fans need to do the same thing. After all, they ARE just movies!
The thing is, I'm not the person I was when I could watch movies just for stupid fun. Ten years down the track, I don't look through the same eyes. I think if you take the position that your perspective remains constant, you're only kidding yourself. You'll watch the same movie differently in a day, let alone a year or even a decade.

I guess my point is that I can't voluntarily strip away bits of my perspective until I watch with an untainted 'pure entertainment' view - and thus ignore all the problems I saw (real or otherwise). In some ways I wish I could, but it's not possible.

[fuzzy_nolan]

This has it's snags. I agree that the first film played like we were all just silent witnesses to a new, unknown phenomenon whereas Reloaded's actors/directors know we are aware of the story, so they felt they could get away with more "sermonizing".
This is absolutely true, just read a short excerpt from Empire Online which sums this sentiment up perfectly:

The Matrix was a stealth fighter, a secret weapon that utterly outfoxed its jumbo-sized near-contemporary, The Phantom Menace. The Matrix Reloaded, the first part of an epic single sequel, thunders into town minus that critical element of surprise. Indeed, trailing close behind Reloaded is the creeping suspicion that the torpedo is now bloated to the point where it has become everything it was once designed to detonate...

[Chris Knipp]

fuzzy_nolan: I agree completely that you can't shut down parts of yourself when watching a movie, especially parts that have developed with increasing maturity. (You're young and developing faster than some of us so you're more aware of that.) You shouldn't expect something the filmmakers obviously aren't trying to do, but you can't turn yourself into someone you're not either. (That's a lot of "not's" but I hope you get what I mean.) There's a problem with sequels -- well, lots of problems -- though that doesn't keep them from sometimes being better than the original. They're not particularly needed most of the time, not artistically or story-wise. They're squeezed out to satisfy audience demand and to make more money. A movie becomes popular and a franchise is born. It's hard for the filmmakers to be consistent and congruent without being repetitious. If they change anything, the audience will complain, but if there's nothing new, they'll complain too. No doubt certain members of the audience who adored the original come planning to shut down their brains and say, "I loved #1, so I'm going to enjoy #2, no matter how stupid or repetitious it turns out to be." Those viewers may have a good time, but they're debasing their own instincts to do so. Those who come with a full set of normal mature expectations are going to be harder to please than they were the first time, because they have something to compare #2 with, namely #1. And as I said before, you have to be true to your gut reaction to a movie, not evaluate it the way you'd like to, but according to what you actually felt in the theater.

[stevetseitz]

>>you can't shut down parts of yourself when watching a movie,<<

True and the best movies will access parts you may not have been aware of. Movies like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "The Seven Samurai" have an emotional resonance to men and I am impressed on multiple levels.

>>You shouldn't expect something the filmmakers obviously aren't trying to do,<<

I agree. I can enjoy a simple comedy or a cheesy horror movie without thinking "This isn't an oscar-winner." The Matrix Reloaded wanted to be more than it really is which is a visually stunning sci-fi movie with fun effects and a twist.

>? It's hard for the filmmakers to be consistent and congruent without being repetitious. If they change anything, the audience will complain, but if there's nothing new, they'll complain too.<<

That's why I like sequels like "Aliens", "The Empire Strikes back" and "The Two Towers". They give you a different feel and different tone but respect the character development of the first film.

[Chris Knipp]

I'd certainly agree with you on Aliens which is different and which I like a lot. The Two Towers is a continuation of the series, even if it has a different feel, and does follow Tolkien pretty closely, with important, but convincing, departures. About The Empire Strikes Back I'm not very qualified to say; it has faded from my mind. Obviously you're making a valid point: sequels have different relationships with the originals and that has a big effect on how well they succeed and how they're judged.

I'm not arguing with anybody about Matrix Reloaded because I haven't seen it yet. But the funny thing is that without having seen it, I can get a lot out of reading the forum about how this kind of discussion goes and what the issues about sequels are, and that's why I'm participating even before I've seen the actual movie. It's almost like I can be a moderator because I'm not biased for or against the movie being discussed.

[Johann]

Is the Matrix really worth more thought than "pure entertainment"?

I mean, it's no Bowling For Columbine...

[tabuno]

Two points: Philosophy - Matrix actually is an important and solid piece of sci fi taking into consideration how effectively to visually captured the next evolution of virtual reality and making us question the eternal question of what is "reality"? The sequel also attempts to deal with the issue of destiny and fate, determinism versus self-will and freedom, again basic philosophical concepts. Thus at its core both these movies, the original and sequel have some very important ethical notions brought to the audience in a fascinating sci fi genre. Both movies attempt to be substantive and thoughtful, though the original does this much more successfully.

As to sequels and point two: How it is that the original and one of the best television series "24" can capture 24 episodes, almost each one being a whole chapter in itself while being part of the totality of the series as with "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer" what is it these low-budgeted, less esteemed versions can do so much better than even "Matrix - Reloaded" especially dealing with the tacky "to be continued" ending (one of the worst endings of a movie I've ever seen)?

[Ilker81x]

To be honest, I have never been impressed with "The Matrix" series. In my eyes, it's a series of disjointed action sequences (all very visually stunning), half-understood philosophies, psychobabble, and attempts at serious filmmaking.

One of my best friends says he hates the sequel because not only is it not as strong as the first one, but its philosophies negate and completely deny those of the first. I didn't even bother with an explanation from him because I immediately felt that he was another victim of the movies' inherent flaw: "It's good, but not as good as people want to believe."

Call me crazy, call me elitist, but nothing in "The Matrix" hasn't been said before. Read anything by Philip K. Dick or William Gibson...I guarantee you the Wachowski brothers did...they probably read everything by those authors. There is a claim that they got lost in their own mythologies...I think they did, or rather they got confused. They'd spent so much time reading so many books and philosophy that everything got jumbled up. Nothing in "The Matrix" was anything I didn't hear from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?," or "Valis," or "Neuromancer" or "Idoru," or even Alexander Besher's "Rim." It was nothing I didn't see in "Akira" or "Ghost in the Shell." Hell, machines vs. humans isn't new. Just ask James Cameron, who actually stole it from Harlan Ellison. And while you're at it, check out Arthur C. Clarke too.

Sure, it's a visual extravaganza, but in all honesty, I watched it and just said, "Okay, that was cool." Did I got out and buy the DVD? No. The whole slow-motion bullet cam idea...I remember seeing it done in a Van Halen video, about a year or two before "The Matrix" came out. I'd already seen it...it wasn't as smooth and it didn't have a story to it the way "The Matrix" has a story to its effects, but I'd seen it. And the action itself...just check out any good old samurai movie, or even a John Woo movie. I get more of a thrill from "Enter the Dragon," "The Killer," or "Hard Boiled" than I do from "The Matrix." I will say the rave/love scene was not only visually erotic but also very tasteful...it was one of maybe two or three scenes where I honestly felt the directors were succeeding at good filmmaking.

"The Matrix" is a good movie, and I think its sequel was pretty well done considering it was based on a weak plagiarism of ideas that were all-too-familiar. Everything in this movie was already done, just maybe not as effectively. I think they are cool movies, but I really see too many of its influences to be able to appreciate it to this level that everyone else seems to. People think it's a story of immense depth, and perhaps it is...but all I see is a deep dark hole filled with the mutterings of other people's past accomplishments. If you like it, I won't say you're an idiot...I know I'm in the minority here. Suffice to say, I don't think "The Matrix" was that good a movie or even an idea to begin with...so why bother? That's just me though...you can tell me to fuck off now. :)

[fuzzy_nolan]

Ilker81x: 'Call me crazy, call me elitist, but nothing in "The Matrix" hasn't been said before.'

Oh God! Can I not save
One from the pitiless wave?
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?
- E. A. Poe

[tabuno]

I can understand and accept your version of qualitative and principled observation about the Matrix, and particularly and more so about the sequel.

[Chris Knipp]

Didn't Poe get that idea from Calderon, La vida es sueno y sueno de sueno, Life is a dream and a dream of a dream?

[Ilker81x]

To tabuno, thank you. I appreciate that. To fuzzy_nolan...I'm a big fan of Poe, but I don't recognize this passage. What is it from, and can you please tell me what you mean by quoting it?

I think "The Matrix" is a good movie, but I see no point in trying to over-philosophize a movie whose strengths lie in the technical merits. The story...is mediocre at best. It's not bad...but it's not the greatest story ever told. It's the probably the greatest story ever re-told, but when considering the range of its influences and the degree to which they are presented, it's probably the most unoriginal film series I can think of. Even the Wachowski brothers said (I think in one of the DVD documentaries) that they were trying to make a real-life Manga. I've mentioned "Akira" and "Ghost in the Shell" as being the most obvious of Manga influences in "The Matrix," especially the latter title. I think that says it all.

But I'm babbling on...my last word: It's a good movie, but it's NOT nearly THAT good.

[cinemabon]

As usual, some of us focus on a tree when the idea was to enjoy the entire forrest. If you don't get the analogy, get an education.

The Matrix Reloaded is meant as a continuation of a storyline for the fans of the original. Does it stand on its own? No, I'm afraid not, no matter how much THEY try to insist it does. Is it good entertainment? If you like this genre, yes, it is.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN???? Who knows and who cares. There are religious references, symbolic gestures, analogies, political sarcasm, and some pretty cool stunt effects. What does it all mean? They tried to pack as much stuff in the film to baffle critics, keep fans guessing, and entertain the rest of us film enthusiasts who just like to go to the movies to see the next good story told by filmmakers who enjoy their craft. Was the story told in an interesting and intriguing way? Yes... end of observation.



Sullivan: I want to make a picture with meaning... with class... one that will address the social problems in this country...
Producer: ...and a little sex.

[tabuno]

I was stunned when I first saw "The Matrix" as with "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Alien." Each in their own way brought another level of sci fi to the big screen. "2001" was for many people - long, boring with a technical show that still rivels most sci fi movies even today. It takes its inspiration from a book that was being writing simultaneously by Arthur C. Clark which wasn't the best read (including its sequels). But "2001" had a decent serious sci fi plot, great technical magic, and made sci fi into a serious genre. "Alien" took its magic from a great director, a simple monster/horror plot, through in sci fi elements of outerspace and a seriously directed movie and it takes sci fi/horror movies to a new, realistic level though the movie lacks intellectual, human-character development in depth. Lastly, "The Matrix" took a good sci fi concept, manipulation of virtual reality theme and threw in more special effects in a different way (a more surrealistic - computer - enhanced dream/electronic manipulation of reality theme) - this movie raised the bar some (especially capturing and appealing to a broader mass audience) on the sophisticated twist in sci fi movie and combined the action elements of martial arts, down home Southern comfort, and computer/Terminator genre to good effect. In terms of serious plot development "Forbidden Planet" from the 1950s (more than half a century ago) had as strong sci fi script (though now dorky, dated).

The sequel didn't really push the genre forward is typically an entertaining sequel with disjointed continuity from the original movie.

[Johann]

The Poe quote reminded me of another one I read from David Lynch:

We are like the Spider.
We weave our web and then move along on it.
We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives in the dream.
This is true for the entire universe.