Not bad, but not great

Rating: 5/10 (8 November 2003)

****SPOILERS ABOUND****

For quite some time I had very high expectations for this movie but right before watching them I read some reviews with very low expectations, which made me lower mine in turn. I'm not one to agree with everything that critics have to say, but I take everything with a grain of salt and often find that when I do lower my expectations I enjoy the movie more. Such was the case with Revolutions. There were many great things in Revolutions, such as the special effects (especially some of the makeup effects), soundtrack, and dark overtone. Hugo Weaving's acting was supurb and I was rivited every time he took the screen. However, there were many things that made this film very mediocre for me. First off was the acting by some of the more major characters. Trinity, Morpheus, and Neo all seemed very shallow and one dimensional. In contrast, some of the more minors characters seemed to have much more depth and complexity. Much of the dialogue was very poor and I often found myself anticipating the next line, especially between Neo and Trinity. The movie was very predictable for the most part. From the start I knew that Trinity would die, Smith would be erradicated, and Zion would be saved. The only thing I wasn't sure about was the fate of Neo, which I figured out after they started making Christ references. The largest problem I had with this film is that it waxed way too philisophical for me. I have no problem with philosophy but I feel that film makers today beat the Christ references into the ground. Instead of thinking of something original they fall back on the same old 2000 year old story. George Lucas did the same thing in The Phantom Menace by refering to Anikin as a Christ figure (ie high midichlorian count, immaculate conception). As a result I quickly lose interest since I pretty much already know their fates. (At least Lucas corrupted his messiah) Movies that make people think about their lives and the universe are great things, but Revolutions did not explore anything new. Many of the theories set forth are hundreds of years old. The Matrix itself was first concieved by Descartes (although he did not call it the Matrix but the Deceiver). The first Matrix was spectacular because it gave a modern spin to Descartes theory by trying to break away from the deceivers grasp. Two movies later though, there have been no new ideas or advances on the theory, just the concept of Neo as Christ thrown in. If there's going to be philosophy in a trilogy they should not give all of the theory away in the first movie, otherwise it will get stale and the action will be responsible for picking up the slack. To the film makers' credit though, The Matrix was never supposed to have a sequel. What's the conclusion after all this rambling? Great special effects (although some were a little over the top), superb job by Hugo Weaving, and excellent soundtrack. Badly written dialogue, stale acting from the other major characters, and cliches abound. I give it 5/10. I'm not saying don't see it, just be prepared for a lot of mediocrity if you've ever thought about what life means.