A Great Beginning that Doesn't Pay Off in The End

Rating: 7/10 (5 April 1999)

Most of the other comments that I have seen on "The Matrix" I see have focused on the technical aspects of the film. The technical aspects are prodigious, but I would like to spend some time discussing the philosophical issues behind the film. Philosophers have debated for years about 'reality'. One of the assumptions is that what is 혩real' is what we are conscious of. This seems to be the view that the film takes. In the film Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) tells Neo (Keanu Reeves) that if what is real is what we are conscious of, then it is true that the matrix does exist. The other view is that in the world there are certain realities that are indifferent to our perceptions. This argument, in my opinion, does not hold much water. We may want to think that there is a specific, fixed 'reality' because we as humans usually see things in a similar light. But, let's take the example of an animal such as a dog. Research has shown that dogs can only see in black and white. If this is true, then we can rightly assert that a dog's 'reality' is quite different from that of a human's. How are we to know which is the true 'reality'? We don't. A dog's reality is black and white and our reality is color. This however does not mean that what is 혩real' is either of these; both are equally real in terms of the systems of perceptions of each being (dog and human). Dogs and people have different modes of perception, thus creating different perceptions of 'reality'. One may argue that there is no 'real' in the material sense of the word, as there has to be a mechanism of perception enabled by a sentient being for any notion of the 'real' to exist. In other words the 'real' cannot exist without 'perception'. I know these ideas are quite complex and the example that I have used isn't directly related to "The Matrix", but I think that this philosophical concept in general is explored, and thus what I have discussed is quite relevant.
Philosophical abstractions such as what I have described are fascinating, and are integral to the making of great science fiction film. The greatest science fiction films not only amaze us with their use of technology, they also have a deep understanding and care for the human condition, which according to a Marxist view is incompatible with technology. Many films of this genre present technology as a form of ideology propagated by a ruling class (the bourgeois). Technology is seen as a dehumanizing agent, and much of the great work in science fiction is done as a social commentary in reaction to rapid technological expansion. This response is present throughout the works of writers such as Philip K. Dick and William Gibson, both of whom have obviously influenced Larry and Andy Wachowski's script for "The Matrix". I see hints of ideas from films such as "Dark City", "Blade Runner", and "Strange Days" as well. This is not a negative thing though; the story of "The Matrix" is fairly original despite all of its influences from previous work.
There is a point where "The Matrix" falls short, however, and that is in its action sequences. The action sequences look spectacular, but when it comes down to it, they seem like they are inserted as nothing more than fillers where we could have been acquainted with new ideas. "Dark City" was a great science fiction film for many reasons, but one of them is the fact that it didn't overwhelm the audience with familiar shootouts (ie Die Hard films) and fight scenes (ie John Woo's Hong Kong action pictures). When the big action scene towards the finale of "The Matrix" occurs, it feels like the Wachowski brothers left the set leaving the direction to John Woo. John Woo loves to see action in slow motion, and trust me, there is plenty of that here. It all looks good, but it feels out of place, as though the producers must have stepped in and said that their had to be a big action sequence to draw upon a wider audience.
Overall, "The Matrix" was a good movie, but not a great one. The first half or two thirds of the film are spell-binding with its issues of 혩reality', but it begins to fall apart towards the end, where action scenes take center stage and overwhelm the point of the story. In short, I wanted to see more emphasis on the philosophical roots of the story and less emphasis on adrenaline pumping action sequences. Good, original ideas can build up suspense and adrenaline too. "Dark City" and "Blade Runner" proved that to me.
*** out of ****