Sci-Fi movie? Action movie? Martial arts movie? Make up your mind!

Rating: Null/10 (31 May 2000)

It's one thing to combine genres of stories and hit upon each one well enough that it works. It's something else entirely to fumble about a bit with three genres and skim them, never really deciding what kind of story you want to tell.
I will admit that upon first hearing what the concept behind "The Matrix" was, I was extremely embittered, because I was at that very point in time writing a novel based around the exact same premise: humanity has been unknowingly trapped inside a "false reality" brought about by machines that have realized that they are significantly smarter, more efficient, and more deserving of this planet than we are.
After several months of seething and grinding my teeth, I finally decided that the only way I was going to be able to get the rage out of my system was to actually sit down and watch the movie. I also decided that I would completely dismiss the anger if I actually liked what I saw. Unfortunately, I did NOT like what I saw.
Style over substance. Welcome to American cinema.
Breaking it down, piece by piece:
CAST & ACTING-- Apparently, the primary function of even having people in this movie is so they can look cool and stylish. This function even overrides what would be common sense, within the confines of the narrative. Am I the only person to notice that they look really conspicuous walking through the city streets wearing black leather outfits? To nitpick... Laurence Fishburne is woefully underutilized. It doesn't take a master thespian to look cool and speak in enigmas. Yoda did it better, and he wasn't even played by a real person. Keanu Reeves, meanwhile, once again feeds his resume by standing around and looking dumbfounded, and like he has no idea what the hell is going on. Now that he's mastered this facial expression, maybe he'll learn a couple more.
LIGHTING & CINEMATOGRAPHY: These were the only things that really impressed me about "The Matrix". I liked that they used slightly green filtering for all the scenes taking place inside the computer system, and used darker black-and-blue set design for everything OUTSIDE of the system. A lot of the camera angles were well chosen for their scenes. However, the much-ballyhooed bullet-time photography that vomitously oversaturates almost every fight scene in the film doesn't really impress me, as it serves no real purpose other than to be eye candy.
MUSIC: Oh, boy. "Dragula" by Rob Zombie. Just what I wanted to hear again, after having heard it played on the radio four billion times when his "Hellbilly Deluxe" album was released. Some of the other tracks are pretty good, although the orchestral score is immeasurably obnoxious.
SPECIAL EFFECTS: Yes, they look very nice. Too bad nobody's yet realized that packing a movie full of computer graphics doesn't necessarily make the movie GOOD. Apparently, however, they're all you need if your sole objective is to make lots of money.
SCI-FI ELEMENTS: There are some good things going on here, but not enough of them. The ultra-mechanized true reality is visualized well, and the premise is promising. What ends up happening, though, is that I get the feeling that this premise and visual style was used as an engine to make a really nifty-looking action/kung-fu flick. If only the movie had lived up to the concept's philosophical potential, this could have been another "Blade Runner". Instead, it tries to be something else. (see below)
ACTION ELEMENTS: The action elements in "The Matrix" were well done (by which I mean the gunplay and explosions; the kung-fu will be addressed shortly), although slightly overdramatized by gross misuse of slow-motion. Slow-motion, I think, should be used for no more than fifteen seconds of footage. Showing an entire gunfight in slow-motion is simply gratuitous. However, the production team did a hell of a job in making it look nice. There's just something gratifying about watching walls and stone pillars shatter as bullets rip through them. However, once again, there's not enough of this to really call "The Matrix" an action flick.
KUNG-FU ELEMENTS: My main problem with the kung-fu sequences in "The Matrix" is that very little of it is achieved through any dexterity, coordination, or physical prowess of the actors, because very little of it is humanly possible, at all, period. And I know you're thinking, "well it doesn't HAVE to be humanly possible because it's inside an artificial reality... and in a MOVIE, no less". That isn't really the issue. What I'm getting at is that when I see kung-fu movies, I like to see the actors using their own skills, not smoke and mirrors, to accomplish mind-blowing feats.
Overall, the film seems very non-committal as to what genre it is. I like movies that can't be readily categorized, but not the ones that only defy categorization because the movie itself is a jumble. "Pi", for example, defies categorization, but we know it's SOMETHING. Whatever it is, it DEFINITELY is. As for "The Matrix", I guess it's whatever you want it to be. It just doesn't do an outstanding job in any of its three parent genres.
Going back to what I said at the beginning of this review...
I'm still angry.