oh i wanted it to be good, but.....

Rating: Null/10 (6 November 2003)

yes..... i wanted it to be good, so i expected to overlook a flaw here, an inconsistency there, useless exposition ( which the series has taken to a new level). but all of those things were so bad they could not be overlooked. The dialogue AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh. sitting at lunch today, before we went to see revolutions, i was telling my wife about how bad the dialogue was in the second movie. i used the example i believe is from plan 9 from outer space, the old Ed Wood movie "he's dead, murdered, and someone's responsible" We both laughed out loud during revolutions as that line was actually repeated. this line is well noted as the one of the worst in movie history so i have to wonder if the directors didnt put it there on purpose. why? so I would talk about it later? if so the joke is on us.... and them...... yes ill talk, but i have nothing good to say. that is only one of the few examples of god awful dialogue. see if you can spot it among the rest of the crap. this movie reminds me of the kid in school who uses large words to convince himself hes smart. and like that kid this flick comes off as pompous. the special effects are better than youve seen in any other movie. flawlessly incorporated into the real life action. but there are no sequences in this movie to top the ones in the second, in fact i think they fall far short of what reloaded gave us in the chase/fight scene or the "burly brawl" with the multiple agent smiths. that said ill quote george lucas's thoughts on special effects in movies, i think he should know a little about the subject. he said "a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." the 2 matrix sequels test and prove that axiom. in reloaded the effects kept the movie from drowning in bad dialogue, bad acting, bad storytelling, but in revolutions even the effects could not distract me from one awful scene after another. its easy to see what the makers were going for... and it was a good, certainly attainable goal. i imagine they got complete creative control when they dealt to make the sequals, so they had no one to tell them which scene was weak, which was repetitive, which was pointless to the story line. no one to tell them what was missing. so what did i like? precious little. hugo weaving, who plays agent smith once again steals every scene with his subtle, subdued rage routine. Ian Bliss who portrays agent smith as BANE in the real world stole the movie. if they were going to drag on with a scene, why couldnt they have dragged on with his movie stealing portrayal of smith. now that im at the end of my rant, remember...... i wanted it to be good. and i take back what i said earlier about the directors not reaching they're goal. they got my 7 bucks. my wife loved it. but shes always been the forgiving type, and likes ambiguous storylines