'Revolution' without resolution? Nothing to resolve?

Rating: 7/10 (7 November 2003)

It seems so long ago since January, when 2003 was being touted as The Year of The Matrix. The anticipation of continuing the story from 1999 was the movie hype for the new-year. There may well be The Return of the King, but there would be two Matrix sequels in six months.
And then, Reloaded came along. I think it would be foolish to dismiss it entirely, as it boasts some of the most impressive and jaw-dropping special effects sequences (the 100 Agent Smiths, the freeway chase) since, well, The Matrix. However, the story was so pompously up-its-own-arse and knee-deep in pseudo-philosophy, that somehow the 700 million dollar grossing movie was a disappointment. A big disappointment. It wasn't so much the problem that the audience 'didn't get' the Matrix Reloaded, it was that, really, there is not a lot to get. The Wachowski brothers stretched their one film idea into three, and the story in Reloaded is so incredibly thin (it is, accept it!) that trying to disguise it by giving 'clever' character-names and philosophising one-liners could never hope to hide the holes that were creeping in. And this was only part 2.
So, it was somewhat unbelievable, just eleven months down the road from the start of the Year of The Matrix, that the anticipation for the concluding instalment was, in general, lukewarm. Hotdog magazine ran a telling article title recently - `Game Over? After Reloaded does anyone still care?'. I did still care, and was no doubt one of many who hoped that Revolutions could finish the trilogy off in style.
Today, my worst fears for the long-term prestige of the Matrix brand have been confirmed. Revolutions is another disappointment. I am perfectly happy to allow the thousands of Matrix fans to type away at their message boards trying to find the meanings in this film, relating it to religion, science, and who knows what else. The thing is, by expanding a basic idea like the first film over three, we lose a lot of the clout that the original idea held for us. The realization on the part of Neo in the first Matrix was what made the film, for me. It was a journey into the unknown, a confrontation of it and the naÃ¯ve nature of his existence and his coming-to-terms with it made the story of the first film a decent enough effort.
However, for all their skill as directors, although I for one would even question this (!), the Wachowski brothers are not writers. Remember the hopeless Stallone-Banderas vehicle of 1995, Assassins. Who was behind the typewriter that time? The Wachowski brothers. Bound, 1996, is similarly uninspiring. Revolutions is almost agonising. In Reloaded they tried to pull-the-wool over the eyes of audiences by patronising them by calling characters after Greek gods and goddesses, or French rulers. There is nothing clever in calling a character Persephone. If anything, it takes much of the hard work away, leaving an on-screen and on-paper one dimensional character to the claws of the obsessed, desperate to find meaning. And of course, if you name your characters as such there will always be a meaning, and someone will always be able to apply that to the film. In my opinion, the characterisation of the Matrix is one of the more arrogant and charlatanistic moves in the entire series.
Back to Revolutions in general. It lumbers on like a comatose donkey for thirty or fourty minutes, maybe longer. Sitting in the cinema desperately hoping for some saving-grace I was faced with a long wait. It only really gets going once the attack on Zion begins, and here we find another Wachowksi illusion-effect. The onslaught rages on for so long that when it is over you forget that for the first forty minutes you were being dragged along slowly and painfully. Similarly the Agent Smith scenes at the end promise much in the trailer, but come too late and are too ineffective to redeem what has already been lost in the first half of the film. The screenplay is, again, at times cringe-inducingly bad. The acting is more wooden than before. The action seems self-referrential, in a Shrek-parody way, rather than feeling natural to the series, and the action we are presented with is largely what we have seen elsewhere before. Don't be expecting the bullet-time of the first Matrix, or the 'virtual cinematography' of Reloaded (whatever this is referring to! Raoul Coutard must be sorry of what has become of his once perfected artform!).
I cannot believe that the Wachowski brothers conceived 'The Matrix' as one grand vision. After the Matrix it was talk of `well, it was always meant to be three films'. If this is true, then they need to have a serious rethink of their scriptwriting and storytelling abilities. True, they had a vision, and a very good one, but this vision could have been and perhaps should have been contained within the first film. Peter Jackson must be rubbing his hands together with glee. Now nothing stands in the way of him taking the accolades of the greatest motion picture trilogy of all time. Quite frankly it is about time something blew Star Wars away.
Remember in 1999, when Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace was surprised by the first Matrix film. Back then it looked like a new-kid was in town, full of promise and confidence to lead off the most exciting movie trilogy since the early 1980s. Now, 1999 seems so long ago. The first film will always be a landmark, a classic moment when something came along and really struck-a-chord and showed us something new and exciting.
However, 2003 will not be remembered as The Year of The Matrix. Reloaded and Revolutions will no doubt make so much money that The Matrix 4, whatever, will always be a possibility, but for the sake of compromising their original vision I would say enough is enough. The Matrix concept has been so bastardised by other films and other enterprises that it would be the ultimate tragedy if those responsible for the original greatness of the original were the same responsible for later parody and regurgitation. The Matrix Revolutions is a reasonably good film, an average piece of sci-fi action. But it is not the conclusion to the saga that many hoped for. Don't be surprised if the only Oscars next year are in the Special Effects department.
The Matrix concept has been 'concluded', and I for one am glad that it has ended before doing any serious damage to the reputation of the original. Or maybe it is too late.
I am well prepared for the Matrix-philes who will rally against me for 'missing-the-point' and being ignorant. To them I say, as a piece of cinema the Matrix trilogy offers nothing besides innovative effects. I think it is far more ignorant to seek meaning that is not necessarily there and to convince oneself that the things we might not understand are therefore complex and intelligent. Accept the Matrix as what it is, what it was, not what it 'might' be about or is 'actually' about.