Movies The Matrix Resurrections - the first critic "reactions" are in

[SuperSpreader]

 

[heydude93]

33 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

How were the sequels a deconstruction? Neo is so powerful in the song movie the only thing they could do with him was to keep him out of the movie for large parts of it. The first movie was about as complete a movie as you could have. They tried to build on that rich the sequels but whatever.

 

In an old interview Lana said it's definitely what they were going for. Not sure where to find it anymore, but there's an excerpt here

 

[skillzdadirecta]

18 minutes ago, heydude93 said:

 

In an old interview Lana said it's definitely what they were going for. Not sure where to find it anymore, but there's an excerpt here

 

I take a lot of those interviews with a grain of salt... if that's what thru were going for, that's not what we got. There was nothing "deconstructed" about Neo in those films. What they tried to do was elevate Smith to be his opposite number for reasons.  That's why it's best to treat the sequels as fan films and just watch the first.

[cusideabelincoln]

On 12/23/2021 at 12:02 AM, skillzdadirecta said:

Disagree...Revolutions is far worse than this.

 

I definitely think film and VFX can still wow us. There have been films since the Matrix that have wowed us with Special Effects work. The issues with this movie aren't just the lack of truly impressive VFX sequences and underwhelming action scenes. There's some weird pacing here. 

 

On 12/22/2021 at 10:40 PM, Mercury33 said:

Perfecting deep fake stuff would probably still wow me. 
 

But who knows, maybe there’s some cool effect that hasn’t been invented yet that could still amaze people the way bullet time or the T1000 did. I put my trust in James Cameron to find a way haha

 

 

What if, and hear me out, the visual effects appear to... pop... IN and OUT of the screen. It will feel like you are really, really there! Like you are adding a... a... another... dimension to the film!

[heydude93]

On 12/25/2021 at 7:56 PM, skillzdadirecta said:

I take a lot of those interviews with a grain of salt... if that's what thru were going for, that's not what we got. There was nothing "deconstructed" about Neo in those films. What they tried to do was elevate Smith to be his opposite number for reasons.  That's Oysters next to treat the sequels as fan films and just enjoy the first. 

 

You're autocorrect seems to be freaking out lol, i'm not sure, but I get what you mean.

 

Anywho yeah even though the Wachowski's were straightforward enough in explaining what they were trying to accomplish, I agree the quality of the result is up for interpretation and a good argument that both films could've been made better definitley exists.

 

But my guess is they still didn't get to make all three of them exactly as they envisioned at the time. Their filmography's inconsistent so whether or not The Matrix IP would've been more beloved or disliked, who knows. In any event I cant remember most of what happens in the sequels so I don't have much of an opinion until I rewatch em again  ^_^ 

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

55 minutes ago, heydude93 said:

 

You're autocorrect seems to be freaking out lol, but I get what you mean.

 

Anywho yeah even though the Wachowski's were straightforward enough in explaining what they were trying to accomplish, I agree the quality of the result is up for interpretation and a good argument that both films could've been made better definitley exists.

 

But my guess is they still didn't get to make all three of them exactly as they envisioned at the time. Their filmography's inconsistent so whether or not The Matrix IP would've been more beloved or disliked, who knows tbh. In any event I cant remember most of what happens in the sequels so I don't have much of an opinion until I rewatch em again  ^_^ 

 

 

I don't know about them making the films they envisioned, but they recieved a LOT of latitude in making those sequels. They had a whole multimedia campaign with the sequels that included videogames, animes and comic books that all tied into the films that they themselves oversaw. And then the films they did afterwards, Cloud Atlas and Speed Racer were both films the studio allowed them to make according to what THEY wanted to do. Warner Bros. was one of the most hands off studios at the time so it's a little disingenous for them to blame the sequels failings on the studio. That's on them. Anywho... This movie wasn't the worse one... Matrix Revolutions still holds that honor. It's not even a bad movie... it just is 

[Anathema-]

Reloaded and Revolutions definitely played a different hand when it comes to the question of how a hero defeats their enemy. There might not be a better word for it than "deconstruction" but it absolutely, intentionally, for better and for worse, had a resolution that was explicitly at odds with the expectations of a major action franchise.

[Anathema-]

THE action franchise of the time. 

[EternallDarkness]

well....it was definitely a Matrix movie...but honestly this is a franchise that should have stopped after the first one 

[skillzdadirecta]

47 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

Reloaded and Revolutions definitely played a different hand when it comes to the question of how a hero defeats their enemy. There might not be a better word for it than "deconstruction" but it absolutely, intentionally, for better and for worse, had a resolution that was explicitly at odds with the expectations of a major action franchise.

How? 

[Keyser_Soze]

9 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Once the film became a hit and sequels were going to be made with or withour them, they just came up with more stories.

 

Which seems to be the case with the 4th movie as well. It just so happens Keanu wouldn't want to do it without the Wachowskis, the studio probably figured the movie wouldn't do as well without Keanu and it just so happened Lana had a story to tell eventually, so she came up with a movie that she wanted to make. (But not necessarily one audiences would gel with.)

[Mercury33]

5 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Which seems to be the case with the 4th movie as well. It just so happens Keanu wouldn't want to do it without the Wachowskis, the studio probably figured the movie wouldn't do as well without Keanu and it just so happened Lana had a story to tell eventually, so she came up with a movie that she wanted to make. (But not necessarily one audiences would gel with.)

Id imagine a Matrix movie with Keanu would have been as good an idea as a MiB movie without Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. 

And I’d also be hard pressed to put Reloaded in any kind of failure category. It wasn’t as revolutionary as the first one but it’s still a really solid and fun movie with some of the best action/scenes in the entire series. Not to mention it’s the highest grossing movie in the trilogy by a massive amount. Revolutions(which i personally don’t hate) was def a bit of a failure though. 

 

[Anathema-]

7 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

How? 

 

Well, Neo didn't punch his way out of his problems for one. In fact, he surrendered. That's not how action films or war films are expected to be resolved and in all obvious ways is the exact opposite. 

 

The "problem" with all the matrix sequels is how they directly confront and reject the juvenile power fantasy that infested the fan base of the original. It all starts with The Architect.

[Guest]

Watched it again and my feelings are largely the same. Maybe more positive without the surprise at how strange the first act is.

 

One thing I’d love to hear Lana explain us the acting. The performances, with the notable exception of Moss, all feel off in a way I still can’t quite put my finger on. So much so that it seems very intentional on the part of the director.

 

Also, I read an article on Red’s site about the camera department on the film and how Lana really became obsessed with stedicam and being up close in the action. IMO, this is a worse way to shoot action as it typically kills the ability of the audience to retain spatial awareness within a scene. This just makes every action sequence chaotic. That technique is fine when chaos is the feeling you want to evoke, but that doesn’t seem to be the intent in many of the shots.

 

Overall I really enjoyed the film and liked seeing Neo and Trinity again. But the most compelling stuff was what they barely touched on, the civil war between the machines and the new willingly shared society of humans and machines. I wouldn’t mind a series or film depicting that, and honestly would rather that than more Neo and Trinity adventures.

[Anathema-]

14 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Overall I really enjoyed the film and liked seeing Neo and Trinity again. But the most compelling stuff was what they barely touched on, the civil war between the machines and the new willingly shared society of humans and machines. I wouldn’t mind a series or film depicting that, and honestly would rather that than more Neo and Trinity adventures.

 

First thing I thought after the movie ended was how badly I wanted an Animatrix sequel. 

[Guest]

Just now, Anathema- said:

 

First thing I thought after the movie ended was how badly I wanted an Animatrix sequel. 

Yeah, that would be a fantastic option

[Brick]

With streaming being what is it these days, a series seems like a perfect fit, and kind of what this franchise needed back in the day before streaming was a thing. 

[johnny]

besides the original this series is nothing special. reloaded has some great action scenes but that’s it. 

[skillzdadirecta]

9 hours ago, Anathema- said:

 

Well, Neo didn't punch his way out of his problems for one. In fact, he surrendered. That's not how action films or war films are expected to be resolved and in all obvious ways is the exact opposite. 

 

The "problem" with all the matrix sequels is how they directly confront and reject the juvenile power fantasy that infested the fan base of the original. It all starts with The Architect.

Are you talking about Matrix Resurrections or the other Two sequels because I remember a WHOLE LOT of Punching and kicking Neo did in those two sequels. He didn't do any in this one but... ok. Plenty of films end with the hero sacrificing themselves for the greater good. I don't think The Matrix is unique in that regard. I really think they didn't leave themselves a lot of room to go with Neo after the first film and this "deconstruction" talk is a smoke screen but that's me.

 

Anywhoo... here's Bill Pope, the cinematographer from teh original films, talking about his work on the series and why he didn't comback for this one.

 

Team Deakins: Bill Pope

TEAMDEAKINS.LIBSYN.COM

---

EPISODE 26 - BILL POPE - Cinematographer Team Deakins has the pleasure of talking with talented cinematographer, Bill Pope. He’s shot so many wonderful films, including THE MATRIX series, THE JUNGLE BOOK, CLUELESS, CLUELESS and many more. A fun discussion on the many aspects of filmmaking, and how certain films were made. We learn how some of the fantastic visuals of The Matrix came to be and some of the...

 

Also there's a pretty good discussion on Reddit talking about the cinematography of the film. Most aren't happy.

 

 

[Guest]

I have really come to hate “deconstruction” talk within the narrative arts. It reminds me of the early 00’s when everybody started cutting in FCP and Premiere (or do you remember Vegas? I kinda liked that one) and people started slapping letterboxes on everything because “widescreen is cinematic”. They did this without composing the shots for the wider aspect ratio. Sometimes it worked perfectly, but often it just doesn’t quite fit.

 

Deconstruction talk feels similar to me.

 

That being said, I do think there is a difference in how Neo sacrifices himself in Revolutions and how Resurrections builds on that. I would say most films in which the hero sacrifices their life for others involves some sort of fight to the bitter end. Or the Independence Day style “crashes a plane into spaceship” to defeat the bad guys. Neo lays his life down willingly by explicitly stopping his participation in the fight. 
 

I don’t think that is necessarily deconstruction, it’s just more of the borrowed Christology of the films. I mean, FFS, the machine thing Neo is in front of at the end literally says “it is complete” or something nearly identical to Christ saying “it is finished” as he dies 😂

[Anathema-]

Right. Deconstruction isn't the right word but despite all the kicking and punching that led to the resolution, the resolution itself was an explicit rejection of all the violence and conflict that came before it, and arguably rejection of violence and conflict itself.

 

So maybe we can come up with a better word than deconstruction but it was absolutely self aware and subversive; not only refusing to indulge in fan service, but actively instructing on why indulging like that is ultimately both both bad and unreasonable. 

[Anathema-]

 

[heydude93]

23 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I have really come to hate “deconstruction” talk within the narrative arts. It reminds me of the early 00’s when everybody started cutting in FCP and Premiere (or do you remember Vegas? I kinda liked that one) and people started slapping letterboxes on everything because “widescreen is cinematic”. They did this without composing the shots for the wider aspect ratio. Sometimes it worked perfectly, but often it just doesn’t quite fit.

 

Deconstruction talk feels similar to me.

 

 

Well the interview with the Wachowskis I linked took place around the mid 00’s about a movie from the early 00’s, so maybe that checks out.

 

But also what an artist communicates to a broad audience isn't always accurate to what they think and say during the actual process, so that's a possibility as well.

 

 imo this is why even though it's fun to debate about and speculate why a movie is what it is, I prefer taking everything reported to the public with a grain of salt, sometimes even if it's from the artist themselves.  The amount of stuff w/ the filmmaking process that goes on behind the scenes is often different and more complicated than what the public can know or assume and this becomes more apparent over time.  

[Jason]

Apparently Lana did this movie just to make sure the studio could never give it to somebody else to do and drive a stake through the heart of the franchise.

[skillzdadirecta]

The ‘Matrix Resurrections’ Exit Survey

WWW.THERINGER.COM

---

Neo and Trinity are back in a sequel 18 years in the making that … might actually be a treatise against sequels?

 

[Mercury33]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

Apparently Lana did this movie just to make sure the studio could never give it to somebody else to do and drive a stake through the heart of the franchise.

Link?

[Jason]

20 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

Link?

 

Spoiler

When we meet up with Thomas Anderson, his past life as Neo relegated to dreams that he turned into a best-selling video game, he is deeply unhappy. He’s chasing a new creative endeavor, a game called Binary. But Anderson was meant for more than the constraints of a binary world. And just as Neo in his game is semi-autobiographical, it feels the same in terms of Anderson serving as a semi-autobiographical avatar for Lana Wachowski, who has also rejected the idea of binaries in her personal life as a trans artist. Even though Anderson is stuck in his routine, the non-negotiable assignment from his boss, Smith, to create The Matrix IV, comes as something of a hostage situation. If Anderson doesn’t do it, Smith assures him that their parent company, Warner Bros., will simply make it with someone else. Obviously, the subtext is the text here and those who have followed along with the production history of The Matrix 4, know that the sequel, once prequel, was going to be written and directed without the Wachowskis involvement should the filmmakers have decided not to return. Thus, Anderson, much like Wachowski, is given the choice to see their deeply personal magnum opus handed off to someone else, or to figure out a way back into it. It’s a choice, which as Morpheus says later, that is an illusion because it’s really “no choice at all.”

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/matrix-resurrections-dividing-audiences-1235067133/

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

I genuinely liked the movie! My wife liked it too, but less so. I expected something divisive and that's what we got. I knew going in that WB was going to make a Matrix movie with or without the Wachowski's, and it was clear from step 1 that Lana Wachowski agreed to come back so that the franchise could be on their terms rather than on WB's so I knew this was going to be an angry movie. 

 

I also knew that there was no Yuen Woo-ping and Lana Wachowski has more and more not cared about action scenes like she used to so I knew the action was not going to be the original trilogy, and while there are stand out shots and moments, the action is not what it used to be.

 

Outside of those two things, I felt the movie focused a lot on characters and acting, which I appreciated. The film expanded on and evolved the Matrix mythology in cool and unique ways. I have to think on the film more, but the more I've thought about the movie the more I like it. I agreed a lot with the review from Polgyon:

 

The Matrix Resurrections review: angry, astonishing, unmissable

WWW.POLYGON.COM

---

A furious Lana Wachowski fights back with a love story

 

[skillzdadirecta]

19 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

  Hide contents

When we meet up with Thomas Anderson, his past life as Neo relegated to dreams that he turned into a best-selling video game, he is deeply unhappy. He’s chasing a new creative endeavor, a game called Binary. But Anderson was meant for more than the constraints of a binary world. And just as Neo in his game is semi-autobiographical, it feels the same in terms of Anderson serving as a semi-autobiographical avatar for Lana Wachowski, who has also rejected the idea of binaries in her personal life as a trans artist. Even though Anderson is stuck in his routine, the non-negotiable assignment from his boss, Smith, to create The Matrix IV, comes as something of a hostage situation. If Anderson doesn’t do it, Smith assures him that their parent company, Warner Bros., will simply make it with someone else. Obviously, the subtext is the text here and those who have followed along with the production history of The Matrix 4, know that the sequel, once prequel, was going to be written and directed without the Wachowskis involvement should the filmmakers have decided not to return. Thus, Anderson, much like Wachowski, is given the choice to see their deeply personal magnum opus handed off to someone else, or to figure out a way back into it. It’s a choice, which as Morpheus says later, that is an illusion because it’s really “no choice at all.”

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/matrix-resurrections-dividing-audiences-1235067133/

 

 

To be fair, that's the writer of this article's interpretation. I thought you were going to post an interview where at least she herself alluded to this being her way of killing the franchise. I t honestly didn't feel like that to me at all... if anything it felt like a setup for more Matrix. There was nothing final about this film. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

To be fair, that's the writer of this article's interpretation. I thought you were going to post an interview where at least she herself alluded to this being her way of killing the franchise. I t honestly didn't feel like that to me at all... if anything it felt like a setup for more Matrix. There was nothing final about this film. 

 

Agreed. Despite it having some mirrors to the ending of the first film, I would say the ending to Resurrections actually invites future stories whereas the original is about as complete and final as you get in blockbuster filmmaking. For as much fun as Lana has at the expense of the sequel machine in Hollywood in this film, the original is still the only one that can and does stand on it's own.

[Zeluge]

On 12/25/2021 at 5:22 PM, skillzdadirecta said:

How were the sequels a deconstruction? Neo is so powerful in the second movie the only thing they could do with him was to keep him out of the movie for large parts of it. The first movie was about as complete a movie as you could have. They tried to build on that rich the sequels but whatever.

 

The sequels absolutely deconstruct (yeah, I’ll stand by this word here) the concept of the savior character and the importance of such a focal figure on a narrative. Neo is obviously integral to the resolution of the story at the end of Revolutions (and the how has already been touched upon by others), but he’s frequently backgrounded in favor of focusing on other characters to highlight the collective importance of everyone to the survival of Zion, and he really hasn’t a clue what to do with all his newfound abilities and is constantly reminded of this by the Oracle, the Architect, and the Merovingian. The first one places a great deal of significance on his mere existence being the solution, while the following two films do a lot to disprove and complicate that notion.

 

 

I think the biggest problem (well, maybe just MY biggest problem) with the existence of Resurrections is that these arguments are coming up again and it's always immensely frustrating that this narrative of the first one being great (which it is) and the sequels being lackluster (which they aren't) hasn't changed as much as I'd hoped over the near-two decades since.

 

Which is fine. Not everyone is going to love everything. But it sucks when something this unique, thoughtful and genuine gets overlooked.

[Guest]

Just wanted to say I immediately clicked when I saw a reply by @Zelugeas most recent. Always appreciate your takes!

[skillzdadirecta]

I was thinking about this this morning and you guys keep saying deconstruct  when I think you mean subvert.  I don't see anything deconstructive about the Matrix sequels regarding Neo in Reloaded and Revolutions. I see some SUBERVISVE elements in Revolutions particularly in how the conflict is ended but that's literally the last act of the third movie. Now if someone wants to make the argument that the LATEST Matrix film is a deconstruction, that makes more sense as Neo is completely different in this film... he seems pretty adverse to violence, doesn't use guns and only fights to defend himself and I don't think he killed one person in this movie. I can imagine that Lana wanted to send a different message with this movie as she's gotten older and had time to reflect on what The Matrix has meant to the larger culture and how her work has been appropriated by more anti-social aspects of society. I think THIS is why this film and Neo in particular, are so different than what we saw before. But yeah, all of this talk about the sequels being deconstructions is what was throwing me because that's not what I saw based on my understanding of what a deconstruction is in film. To each their own. I will say that I thought Resurrection was fine. As I said earlier, I didn't hate it. It's a decent movie... but for me, that's all it is. And for all of this talk of killing the franchise, I'm curious to see what you guys are gonna say when the sequels and spin-off TV shows are announced with Lana over seeing all of it 

[Zeluge]

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Just wanted to say I immediately clicked when I saw a reply by @Zelugeas most recent. Always appreciate your takes!

 

You've made a boy blush today.

[Zeluge]

21 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I was thinking about this this morning and you guys keep saying deconstruct  when I think you mean subvert

 

I'll let Mac handle part of my response and add that not only are they not mutually exclusive terms, but they are both applicable in their individual definitions.

 

EDIT: The resolution of the conflict with Agent Smith is a subversion. The open dialogue with the nature of choice and how that applies to Neo's purpose in ending the war is what I would define as a deconstruction, in particular with its relation to the first film.