Everything that has a beginning must (thankfully) end

Rating: Null/10 (25 April 2004)

I'll never forget when I first saw "The Matrix." It was a free sneak preview screening. The price was right for me, because all I knew about the film was that it starred Keanu Reeves, and that had long ceased being an enticement for me to plunk down cold hard cash at the box office. I had no expectations about the film and, much to my surprise, it blew me away. It was thrilling and inventive; filled with mystery and portents. And Keanu Reeves was surprising good. For the most part all the script asked him to do was act bewildered, and he does bewilderment well. All and all, it was one of the best science fiction films I had seen at the movies in a long time-- and remains so until this day. Despite the fact that when you analyze the film logically, it doesn't make much sense. But who cared? It isn't like the film makers had to weave a comprehensive logical world view from the basic setup of the movie. No, they wouldn't have to do that unless they decided to stretch the film out into a trilogy. (Shouldn't be too hard, they must've thought. George Lucas did it, and was doing it again.)
I anxiously awaited the sequel. I saw it with a large group of equally-psyched friends and acquaintances on its opening weekend. Everyone hated it. Except me. They thought it was too talky, but, I found the free will versus determinism, chance versus purpose, debate interesting. They also thought the action set-pieces were too overblown and self-indulgent to be enjoyed. I disagreed. I thought the set-pieces were some of the best I have seen in years. Still, the criticism of my friends rang true in places. Yes, the actual Zion was disappointing, perhaps even ridiculous, compared to the place we imagined in the first film, and, yes, the conflict between Neo and Smith was considerably less compelling in an environment where neither of them could really kill the other. (Freddy vs. Jason, anyone?) However, I kept hope alive. "Reloaded" was only the middle film of the trilogy. The stopgap. The last one had to be better. (Then again... The second film of the original Star Wars trilogy was the best, and, furthermore, the middle film of the Godfather trilogy was arguably the best too.)
Thus came "The Matrix Revolutions." Missed it at the theaters. I wanted to see it, but I like to go to the movies with other people and no one I knew would see it! Bought the DVD the first day it came out. Anxiously put it into the machine, and discovered, to my surprise, it was freaking terrible. I can't think of a single good thing to say about it. Why did I hate it? Let me count the ways...
Neo and Trinity. The romance worked better in the first film than the second. Not surprising since romance is often more exciting to watch in its initial bloom of growth and longing than in its day-to-day application. In the first film, we watched Neo and Trinity get to know each other, and we learned about them ourselves in the process. We wanted them to get to get together, and they did. In the second film, they are together. So what? Where's the growth and sense of discovery? The third film simply takes their already static relationship and deifies it into a symbol of all love. They have stopped being people we can identify with. Yawn.
The pace. Nothing happens for the first hour or so. Stupid problems are created only to be dismissed simplistically. Take, for example, the trainman. Neo can't beat him and as a result could be trapped forever in limbo between the machine world and the matrix. One could easily make a compelling movie about this problem alone, but they don't bother here. It is simply a diversion to let the film makers position the rest of the pieces in the game. Look how ridiculously easy it is for Trinity and Morpheus to get him out. After a perfunctory battle shamelessly and lifelessly rehashed from the first film, they meet up with the great villain, the Frenchman, who waxes philosophically like a blowhard for what seems to be an eternity before Trinity simply puts a gun to his head. I suppose this was supposed to be a comic moment along the lines of Indiana Jones just shooting the sword-wielding Arab, but, if that was the case, why not just get it over with quicker. Then the Frenchman disappears from the movie. The second movie went to great lengths to set him up, but now he's simply dismissed from the film. Then again, I suppose he was lucky. I had still had over an hour to go.
The action set-pieces. The machine attack on Zion had all the thrills of a great video game. However, even the most exciting video game gets boring to watch when you know you're not going to have a turn at the controls. I didn't give a darn about any of the characters involved. Unlike the characters lovingly established in the first movie, the battle for Zion was being fought by a group of one-dimensional stereotypes established in the second film. It was all special effects without heart. However, it was not anywhere as ridiculous as the final battle between Neo and Smith. I found their midair battles nothing short of laughable. This is the battle I waited almost six hours for? Give me a freaking break!
I remember all the criticism of the first two Star War prequels. Sure, those films had their problems. There was too much Jar-Jar in the first one and too much Hayden Christensen in the second one, but they remained entertaining to a degree at their core, particularly on DVD when one can skip a chapter here and there. That cannot be said of "Matrix Revolutions." Despite the millions of dollars spent, and the work of so many talented craftspeople, the film simply cannot even hold my attention.
Everything that has a beginning has an end.
Thank God we reached it.