Third 'Matrix' satisfies, but sacrifices creativity
By Max Rosen, Opinion Editor
The newest "Matrix" isn't all that bad. Those of you who liked Roland Emmerich's "Independence Day" will love the explosions, the action sequences and even some of the plot (which I won't spoil). But let's be honest: The "Matrix" trilogy has Keanu Reeves (Neo), Carrie-Ann Moss (Trinity) and Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus), all of whom lack a certain charismatic magnetism. And the supporting characters-with the exception of the Oracle (Mary Alice) and Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving)-are simply annoying scenery.

"The Matrix Reloaded," the second in the series, managed to set up some interesting threads, but (don't read this line if you don't want anything even remotely revealed) these threads are ignored, or at best hastily resolved, in the last installation. I remember leaving the theater after "Reloaded" speculating on all of the clever ways that the Wachowski brothers could direct the third movie. Well, they didn't use any of them. The plot was predictable. The special effects were good-some excellent-but since most of the film took place in the "real world" they were also basic Hollywood fare with almost no bullet time. I felt like I had seen a better-executed but less-yes, less-innovative film than the third "Terminator." I predicted almost every twist in the plot, and the ones I missed I just didn't care about. I liked the big explosions, but the rest slid off me like a peeled grape.

Should you go see it? Well, if you liked the preview, I'd say go. This film lived up to its preview. No characters were memorable. In fact, I wanted the machines to win. The plot didn't make me think, except when I was identifying holes in it. But while the melodrama was laid on too thickly, the effects were fun, and the script didn't get in the way of the action most of the time. "The Matrix Revolutions" was a spruced-up made-for-TV miniseries. If you liked the first one but not the second, then don't go. This isn't better than the second. It's like "Star Wars: Episode II" to "Episode I." It's better, but when both are so inferior to the original, who cares?

Ultimately, "The Matrix" was the film that did really well, instantly developed a following and spawned sequels. The sequels added nothing to the original film, but made money. Hell, that's what's it's all about. In the process, however, "The Matrix Revolutions" failed the creative standards set by the original. It was all about being a shmaltsy war film, not the conclusion of an epic odyssey. It was a popcorn film, like I thought it would be.

There were some redeeming moments. A fight scene near the end proved that the Wachowski brothers have style, even if they are weighed down by weak editing skills. The film itself was never boring, and I often laughed at the supporting characters' comments. But something in me was sad that what could have been the ultimate mind game-a plot that played into itself with the audacity of a Terry Gilliam film-was as straight-forward as a Jerry Bruckheimer attraction. Even the "clever" plot moments weren't clever; they were merely adequate. They, like the rest, left innovation at the wayside.

So, see it for the effects and for the few good lines. Don't see it for the plot, for any of the actors or for a re-creation of the original's ending, which remains unrivalled. See it for Hugo Weaving. Don't see it for Gloria Foster, who played the Oracle in the first two films, because she died and has been replaced by Mary Alice. See it for the random little girl who shows that computer programs can love. Don't see it for the weird Neo-Trinity kissing scene that reminds us that human beings can love. See it for the attack-on-Zion sequence, which really is awesome. Don't see it for the matrix itself, which has about 20 seconds of airtime. And see it (you guessed it) for the leather and for the 30-second orgy scene that features it. Are those nipples pressed against the inside of that plastic shirt? Yes, yes they are. If only they weren't the most interesting part of the "Revolution."

Issue 11, Submitted 2003-11-12 15:38:41