MATRIX: revolution

[harveyfan323]

Yes, I'm sure it sucks....I've read enough about it to conclude that with some confidence. But I'll go see it to check out the CGI on the big screen. I'll try to ignore the story..or lack thereof. They really screwed up this franchise, although the Matrix comics are good at least.

[BigMan]

Okay I went uber-geek and did a all nighter with a bunch of buds to catch the 6am showing the 1st showing was at the same time all around the world. We had the works a barbecque, drinks , portable heaters because it was cold at 3 am in Newport Beach stupid ocean breeze, burrrrr, and a $5,000 projection set up outside to watch the 1st 2 Matrix movies on, man I have some great high tech friends. Anyway after a long cold night waiting a good movie plot was interesting, though since I was half asleep it will take me awhile to understand everything. A good movie to see once but I will not see it again. Overall grade B-

[fantastic_four]

Just got back from seeing it. I'll reserve judgement until I feel I understand everything, which isn't the case right now due to the half-dozen or so questions I've got which I still haven't figured out answers to which make sense within the film's total message. Reading through the reviews, I can tell the large majority of those critics didn't really understand the full story, either. Which isn't surprising, given the amount you had to keep up with and process very, very quickly...but I still find it dismissive and unfair for them to just totally write off a story it's obvious they don't understand just because they're not used to that style of storytelling/filmmaking. Even in the first film, the Wachowskis were targeting the quickest-minded members of the audience--or forcing you to watch the film multiple times--and in parts 2 and 3, they decided to step the pace and complexity up a few more notches! But I guess it's the job of a critic to have a final-sounding opinion regardless of whether it's a well-informed, balanced one or not, so it's the nature of their work.

 

Usually filmmakers just try to make a film rich and complex by spreading their work across all the elements of filmmaking (plot, story, dialogue, character development, visual composition, style, pace, sound, cinematography, etc). The Wachowskis don't ignore all of those elements, but they sure did decide to lay down the thickest and most complex story structure that I can personally ever remember seeing on film before. Certainly it's the most complex story in a blockbuster popcorn film that Hollywood has ever seen!

 

I dunno how I like the story yet--or how much I like stories in general that are really complex like this--but I'll let you know once I've figured out what it was all about! I do agree with a few other people here who are basically saying that if you just give up on understanding what the heck all the subplots add up to (architect vs. oracle, smith vs. oracle, merovingian vs. persephone, smith vs. the computer AI, smith somehow getting into the "real" world--and was there even a "real" world at all), the action in the second and third films were definitely enjoyable.

[mitol]

Caught it on IMAX. Good intense battle scenes. For some of the deep stuff, I thought I was watching a Kevin Smith movie. Better than "Revisited".

[DoubleCovaBrotha]

Caught it on IMAX. Good intense battle scenes. For some of the deep stuff, I thought I was watching a Kevin Smith movie. Better than "Revisited".

 

Better than Matrix: Revisited or Matrix: Reloaded? Revisited was the documentary on the making of the film.

[deathlok]

How many of you saw Animatrix?? For those that did, did the one titled "Program" kick major or what?!? The DVD also went a long way into explaining a lot of the back story. If what the reviews are saying is true, I hope they do an Animatrix 2 for more explanation.

[DoubleCovaBrotha]

How many of you saw Animatrix?? For those that did, did the one titled "Program" kick major or what?!? The DVD also went a long way into explaining a lot of the back story. If what the reviews are saying is true, I hope they do an Animatrix 2 for more explanation.

 

I saw it, and I loved all of them. If they do make an Animatrix 2, I hope it is just one long movie instead of 9 little ones.

[deathlok]

I don't think one long movie would be as effective as shorter mini movies.

[DoubleCovaBrotha]

I don't think one long movie would be as effective as shorter mini movies.

 

I don't think so either, but watching the Animatrix left me kinda antsy because none of the mini movies had a real "ending." There wasn't any real room for character development or plot development. If they could make a long movie kick as much as the shorter movies, I would be the first in line to see it. If not, oh well.

[mitol]

Sorry. Meant to say "Reloaded".

[DoubleCovaBrotha]

Sorry. Meant to say "Reloaded".

 

Yeah, I guessed as much. I hope you are right though, I haven't seen the movie yet. Thanks for your succinct, yet non-spoiling review.

[uluru]

How many of you saw Animatrix?? For those that did, did the one titled "Program" kick major or what?!? The DVD also went a long way into explaining a lot of the back story. If what the reviews are saying is true, I hope they do an Animatrix 2 for more explanation.

 

I agree!

I would like an explanation.

[Rickdogg]

Revoultion = C+

[HooDeeDoo]

but I still find it dismissive and unfair for them to just totally write off a story it's obvious they don't understand just because they're not used to that style of storytelling/filmmaking.

 

 

It has nothing to do with style and EVERYTHING to do with storytelling. If you're going to tell a story, it would help if it were told in a way that you can actually follow and understand what the storyteller is saying. The "meaning" of the story you can ruminate on later, however, to look for a deeper meaning, one has to understand what the storyteller is actually SAYING.

 

I saw it this afternoon - it was an incoherent mess. I haven't the slightest idea what happened or why it happened.

 

I'm reminded of an article I read about Toni Morrison. In it, the author tells of an appearence Ms. Morrison made on Oprah where Oprah asked Toni about a section of "Beloved" that she didn't understand. Oprah said she read it over and over and over again to understand what was going on. After voicing her frustration about Toni's sentences, Toni responded: "That's called reading." The author' of the article posits: "No Toni, that's called bad writing."

 

"Matrix Revolutions" may not be bad filmmaking, but it definitely is bad storytelling.

[Kevin76]

I almost couldn't wait for the movie to be over...the previews were more exciting to watch than the movie itself

[fantastic_four]

[The "meaning" of the story you can ruminate on later, however, to look for a deeper meaning, one has to understand what the storyteller is actually SAYING.

 

I saw it this afternoon - it was an incoherent mess. I haven't the slightest idea what happened or why it happened.

 

...

 

"Matrix Revolutions" may not be bad filmmaking, but it definitely is bad storytelling.

 

You might not know how or why things happened the way they did, but you know what happened, although like anyone with intellectual curiosity would be, you're so focused on the reasons behind the actions that it's obscuring the "what." Neo kicked a bunch of arse and saved his people.

 

The average human being has a short-term memory that can only remember so many pieces of information. The Wachowskis far, far exceeded that limit on short-term memory, so I would argue that the unaided viewer has to watch those films multiple times to get the reasons why things worked the way they did. And I know they intentionally designed it that way because they said they designed the first film that way in an interview, that you wouldn't really understand it until you had seen it a few times to process the entire volume of information they threw at you.

 

If you don't feel like processing that much info...that's your choice. But it's both lazy and inaccurate to state that their writing is "bad" just because it's beyond what you're able to absorb in a single sitting. If you didn't enjoy the visuals, the action, the acting (LOVE that Merovingian!!!), or the other obvious surface-level elements of film enough to peel back the layers of complexity, then just stick with the simple version of the story and feel free to dislike it--Neo was the Jesus/Buddha/Vishnu messiah who kicked some butt and saved Zion. If something about the film struck you, then dig deeper amongst the mountain of clues and figure out how and why the characters did what they did.

 

It's arrogantly dismissive--not to mention entirely entirely inaccurate--to say that the story is a "mess" without more study just because the Wachowskis intentionally overwhelmed you. If you're willing to bring up the specific facets of the film that were a "mess," please do so...but if it's a "mess" because they overchallenged you...then just let it go and stick with the simple version of what the story was about.

[awe4one]

If you don't feel like processing that much info...that's your choice. But it's both lazy and inaccurate to state that their writing is "bad" just because it's beyond what you're able to absorb in a single sitting.

 

Bull....

 

It is bad writing or editing (or staging, etc) if a movie maker cannot convey his message within the confines of the movie and the audience comprehend within that timeframe. There should be no need to watch again or force the audience to dig to find that message. Movies should be a mostly passive activity from the audience's standpoint. If true that the "Brothers" intentionally overwhelmed with information requiring the need to re-watch their movie, then they failed as filmmakers.

 

We've heard too many filmmakers blame their faults on the audience not understanding what they were doing. The fact that the audience doesn't understand should clue them off on where the blame lies....

 

Jim

[fantastic_four]

It is bad writing or editing (or staging, etc) if a movie maker cannot convey his message within the confines of the movie and the audience comprehend within that timeframe. There should be no need to watch again or force the audience to dig to find that message.

 

Using that criteria, Shakespeare's writings were also a "mess." People didn't speak like he wrote back when he lived...that complex style of language was just the way Shakespeare liked to present his stories. Is Shakespeare a "mess" for the overly simplistic reason that he's hard to understand?

 

 

Movies should be a mostly passive activity from the audience's standpoint. If true that the "Brothers" intentionally overwhelmed with information requiring the need to re-watch their movie, then they failed as filmmakers.

 

They're not the first to do it. Quite a few writers who are now looked back upon as masters wrote in a complex style to challenge their readers. Shakespeare, Cummings, and Faulkner are three examples of many. I'm not saying these guys are in that league--I haven't figured out the whole story yet, much less the themes--but just because a story is complex doesn't mean that complexity itself is a failing.

 

 

We've heard too many filmmakers blame their faults on the audience not understanding what they were doing. The fact that the audience doesn't understand should clue them off on where the blame lies...

 

They knew you wouldn't get it the first time; that was an intentional part of their method. You're free to dislike it, or free to be intrigued enough to figure out what they were saying.

[awe4one]

Using that criteria, Shakespeare's writings were also a "mess." People didn't speak like he wrote back when he lived...that complex style of language was just the way Shakespeare liked to present his stories. Is Shakespeare a "mess" for the overly simplistic reason that he's hard to understand?

 

First, we're talking movies here...try to stay on topic....

 

And when Shakespeare was presenting his plays for the first time, the audience did speak the language. They got the meaning the first time.....

 

And on another note, are you seriously trying to compare the "Brothers" with great literature?

 

They knew you wouldn't get it the first time; that was an intentional part of their method.

 

Then they failed as filmmakers. Again, it's not the audience's job to dig and try to figure out what's going on.

 

Jim

 

 

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

It is bad writing or editing (or staging, etc) if a movie maker cannot convey his message within the confines of the movie and the audience comprehend within that timeframe.

 

ANY good piece of art, literature, or cinematography is one that compels you to dwell on its complexity, to try and grasp the subtle nuances of its make-up. A good book to me is one that keeps me thinking well after I am done with it. Same with a good movie. Personally, I didn't care for the original Matrix, nor the second one the first time I saw them. It was "upon further review" that I finally began to understand the symbolism, and appreciate it. Heaven forbid, but I actually had to use my imagination and cognative thought processes to grasp the meaning.

 

The jury is still out for me on the Matrix trilogy, since I haven't seen the last film. But, some praise does go to the Brothers W for putting out something that challenges us to at least try and understand it.