In the case of Reloaded and Revolutions, it’s the Wachowskis' somewhat admirable predilection for verbose philosophical waffling that makes the nuts-and-bolts story frustratingly difficult to keep track of, in a way the first Matrix never was. The Matrix sequels are a bit like the Star Wars prequel trilogy: they have a complicated legacy, they used all the shiny new digital tools that early-‘00s filmmaking had to offer, they’re experiencing something of a cultural re-appraisal, and manage to tell great stories in not-so-elegant ways. The problem is, they’re also needlessly hard to follow. (The back-to-back action freak-out of the Merovingian fight and the freeway chase in Reloaded is pure, mind-blowing Matrix.) Beyond that, they also make interesting choices with the ‘chosen one’ narrative, introduce some cool new characters (Niobe! Link!), and open up our understanding of both the Matrix and the real world in fascinating ways. In many ways, though, they’re both pretty spectacular – especially in the action department. More debatable, though, is the consensus on sequels The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions. Released six months apart in 2003, they initially received a mixed reception that has since gone down in history as something of a disappointment. If there’s something film fans can generally agree on, it’s that The Matrix is a masterpiece – a sci-fi cyberpunk classic whose eye-popping action set-pieces still sizzle the synapses in all the right ways.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |