The Matrix Trilogy - Andy and Larry's Not So Excellent Adventure

Rating: 2/10 (5 November 2003)

The Matrix Trilogy - Andy and Larry's Not So Excellent Adventure
Initially I left the Maryland premiere of Matrix Revolutions felling happy. After all I was one of the first viewers to find out where the Matrix Reloaded's lame cliffhanger was going. I saw the film in one of the best theaters on the east coast, The Senator. I saw an action sequence that equaled the motorcycle chase in the previous film. Heck there were even numerous players from the Baltimore Ravens in the theater with me. Everything was great until the film's bitter aftertaste hit my pallet.
A friend asked me, `When you review a film do you hold it up to previous films for comparison?' Of course I do. It is extremely rare for a film to redefine or reinvent a genre. The first Matrix did. Pulling off a successful movie trilogy is a tricky endeavor. Looking to the past one finds a great deal of good and bad movie trilogies. Some are destined to be great but many, like the Matrix franchise, aren't so fortunate.
Star Wars episodes 4-6 are timeless because limitations in film technology forced the actors and screenplay to carry the film. There is genuine chemistry between characters that allows you to care about what happens to them. There is no over-dependence on CGI and bloated action sequences to make up for a weak story.
That is not to say that CGI is a bad thing. The Lord of the Rings trilogy evolved from a time tested set of successful novels. The use of CGI in the series adds to the enjoyment of an already proven story. The success of the trilogy is again based on strong screenwriting and powerful acting. This is not the case in the Matrix trilogy.
Other trilogies start off strong and continue to amaze only to implode during their final installments. The Alien, Lethal Weapon, and Die Hard films are prime examples of two hit wonders. These series stormed onto the scene with unique approaches to old formulas. The films then investigate dynamics left unexplored in the first films and should have stopped there.
Instead the final installments of these series became laughable parodies of their predecessors. (Some would say the Terminator films fall into this category; refer to my T3 review to see why they don't). Sadly, these are not examples of the Matrix trilogy either.
Some series are hit or miss as they trudge along. Look to Indiana Jones, Axel Foley, Rocky and Rambo for proof. These films had a formula that was replayed multiple times with varying degrees of success. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn't. Often the socio-political climate that made one film work had changed causing subsequent films to fail. What were they thinking when they made Temple of Doom anyway?
So what is the Matrix's place in the trilogy landscape? There is yet another trilogy class that unfortunately dominates the movie industry. Some films explode on the scene and wrap their story up in a nice neat little package. Unmercifully they return to cash in on their predecessor's success.
The first series that comes to mind is the Back to the Future franchise. The first movie did what it needed to and did it well. Then mimicking Sherman and Peabody in their time machine, Marty and the Doc return for more disastrous adventures. Unlike the Peabody cartoons, which contained an interesting history lesson, 2nd and 3rd films were a horrible waste of film stock. Coincidentally those 2nd and 3rd installments were also filmed concurrently. My question to the Wachowski brothers is, `Hello, McFlys, did you see what followed Jaws?' Finally we have found a category for the Matrix trilogy!
The first film was so new and different that viewers were able to see past the mediocre acting. A smaller budget led to a conservative use of CGI and a heavier reliance on the story of, and the character's interaction with, the matrix. It was a great concept on the same level as the `so if our universe is an atom on somebody's finger, there could be a tiny universe on my finger,' Pinto recites in Animal House.
The second and third films still have the same weak actors, but now also have weak plots to contend with. Take away the motorcycle chase sequence from Reloaded and what are you really left with? Take away the defending Zion sequence from Revolutions and what do you get? You get a mediocre action film that..
*** Spoilers in the following paragraph ***
.. pauses just long enough for people to deliver trite dialog usually prior to dying. Why didn't the sentinels stomp all over 'Kid' while he was listening to Mifune drone on and on? How did all those sentinels miss killing Link's girlfriend? What exactly is the machines motivation for killing the humans? Why did Neo talking to the machine god remind me so much of the final stage of the Arkaniod arcade game? Did we really need to see Trinity experience the sun? Why did all those Smiths just stand around and watch?
*** End Spoilers ***
So many of the Matrix Revolutions scenes made me sicker to my stomach then the `There it is..Jurassic Park!' and the `Grandpa! Grandpa!' scenes in the 'epic' Jurassic Cheese Park. The Wachowski brothers had a tough act to follow. If they had brought in other writers they might have developed a better direction to take the Matrix franchise. They didn't. Their trilogy now sits along side the likes of Smokey and the Bandit, Jaws and Highlander leaving viewers wondering why didn't they leave well enough alone.
The Matrix is and will continue to hold a well-deserved place in the imdb.com top 50. I doubt we will see its followers there or anywhere near the top 250. Both Reloaded and Revolutions belong in the bottom 100, rotting away with the plethora of other failed sequels that rule that category.
** (out of 5) The defending Zion sequence saved this from * (out of 5).