Unfairly Judged

Rating: Null/10 (9 November 2003)

The two sequels to the Matrix have received an exceeding amount of criticism from the fans of the first film. Having just seen it, I truly cannot understand why.
There will be no spoilers here. These are my responses to the most oft heard critiques. Ironically, the complaints the fan-base are making are the reasons I enjoyed the movie:
1) The Philosophy of The Matrix. --- Many people have complained that the sequels put too much focus on the how's and why's, and ended up being mind-numbing diatribes of pseudo-existential babble. I disagree. If anything, I think the latter two films have done an excellent job of expanding what the first movie hinted to. The first film, while brilliant, really took the easy way out at the end. It took all the potential of what The Matrix itself could mean, and the implications of those dual worlds, and ignored it all so that we could have a shoot-out. The lobby shoot-out was fantastic, but let's face, it left little to the imagination. We knew Trinity and Neo would win, as we knew Neo would beat Smith in the final fight of Part One. If anything I think the sequels should be applauded for adding so much more depth to the story of The One. Instead of Neo persisting as merely a man, inexplicably capable of flashy kicks and jumps, we've learned WHY he is what he is -- The purpose for his being. It makes the choices he comes to -- the wielding of his power in ways the machines did not intend -- that much more meaningful. We learned the "why" in Reloaded; Revolutions is the pay-off. Neo's choices are no longer clear to us (or even to the Oracle or himself), but as an audience we trust his choices, because we have seen him go against convention in the previous films and succeed. These choices would carry far less weight without a history and background. If he had remained simply a Superman figure, his choices would be inconsequential, because we would know that he would always win; that he COULD always win. Now we're not so sure though, and the movie is more suspenseful because of it.

2) Dialogue Over Action. --- Similar to Complaint #1, many fans have called for 'a little less talk and lot more action.' Sitting through Revolutions I could not possibly understand how much more action they expected to be put into one movie. As I said earlier, I think the story of The Matrix has too much depth and potential to simply abandon the story itself in place of action. This is not `Speed'. The action and excitement is still there, but it has now become a product of story and not a contrived addition to it. Specifically in Revolutions, we are treated to dizzying scenes of action and suspense; yet, for the most part, these scenes do not feel obligatory. They exist to drive the story. More than that, minute-for-minute there is much more action in this picture than even in the heralded first movie. The fact that this action does not deprive of us a great story and the culmination to that story is quite amazing.
3) Video Game Special Effects. --- I almost have to agree with the detractors here. Reloaded felt like watching a video game. I would be willing to bet that this was actually a conscious decision on the part of filmmakers rather than just a product of the script exceeding the technology. It fits their logic, that if we are actually NOT watching Neo fight Smith; if we ARE watching Neo's avatar fight Smith, that the scenes SHOULD look artificial. The logic is sound, but it took a lot out of the movie. It is hard to feel suspense when the CGI characters you are watching have no tangible quality for you to focus on. Reloaded had this feel, and it took away from the suspense of the scenes; even facing a battle with hundreds of Agent Smiths, it was hard to feel apprehensive for Neo, because we knew his avatar would eventually hit the 'Fly Away' button. This problem was corrected in Revolutions. There is still an overwhelming amount of CGI used in the picture, but it is used more effectively. The scenes that use CGI feel right. There is weight and depth to the animation that keeps the audience interested. The hand-to-hand fight scenes return to their origins, and as in the first film, they are mostly practical photography, with only the occasional intercut animated scenes. Again, because of the more realistic feel of these CG scenes, as an audience we are kept involved with the outcome of the fight, not simply observers of the inevitable.

To summarize, I feel Revolutions has successfully explored and concluded the potential that the first two pictures hinted to. The first film still remains my favorite. The visuals at the time were breathtaking, and the potential for the depth of the story (albeit undercut by the film itself at the movie's end) was enough to keep your brain churning long after its end. Revolutions follows in that tradition, and in many ways does a better job with the material. There are suspenseful and exciting sequences that are driven by the story (not vice versa) after which we are given an appropriate conclusion followed by a satisfying and tantalizing epilogue. As with any great story, we know that this is not actually The End. The filmmakers have created an alternate reality, and as such that reality will continue to thrive. The films may be concluded, but that is just one arc, one story, from that reality. Many questions have been answered, but many more persist; and like the first film, long after you have left the theater from Revolutions you can ponder and imagine the potential for what will follow. Maintaining such excitement for the unknown and untold is truly the hallmark of a great story and expert story-telling.