Respectfully, big disagree. The problem with The Matrix as a standalone film is that it tells people that they just need to find the one truth beyond the veil and everything will be solved. But this is the thinking that pulls people so deeply into ideologies that are inherently flawed. By the end of The Matrix we understand that Neo is the one, and that the conflict is merely humans vs. machines. In the sequels (which are not without flaws) we learn that Neo's rebellion and anger towards the system is actually a *part* of the system he's trying to defeat. He was permitted to rebel, permitted to learn "the truth". His defiance was merely another factor in the equation, and he eventually came to understand that there existed a path to ending the war by making peace with the machines, a possibility that never even occurred to the rebels. So whereas the first movie tells us to seek truth and fight the powers that be, the sequels encourage us to look even deeper than that; to look at the patterns of our behavior, both as individuals and as a species. Without spoiling anything, this new film delves even deeper into the illusion of choice. It will never be enough to find "the truth", because there exist too many truths that we accept on intuition and cling to in an effort to control our lives. We must constantly reflect on our choices and behavior, and be cautious of our own defiance and anger. The angriest people in the world are often blind to the flaws of their own ideologies, unaware that they have been fed lies to stoke their lust for a war they do not need to fight.
@@OdiousMage Exactly. Then there are also other topics (like free will and illusion of choice) which were only hinted at in the first Matrix and further explored in the sequels (and the new one too). I'd highly recommend watching a YT video called "The Matrix sequels are good, actually" which explains the many philosophical themes that most audiences (including Mark unfortunately) almost completely missed.
I think a lot of companies and creators fundamentally misunderstand the heart of nostalgia. Think of Jurassic Park. The first time you see the giant dinosaurs. Everything changed after that. Right? But it's the emotional reaction to something new and/or spellbinding. It's the feelings themselves, not the image that provoked them, that they need to aim for. If you wanna stun audiences, do something new, exciting, fresh. Shock us, surprise us, impress us. Aim high, succeed or fail, you'll have our admiration. Retread old journeys and we'll see right through you. All that said, I'm still Gona see this at home :)
@@dmc1943 I mostly enjoyed the last jedi. But other than subverting existing tropes both within the mythology and in monomyths in general, it did nothing new or compelling for me. The Rashomon style flashback was underplayed strangely enough. Although the kamikaze attack on the destroyer was visually stunning.
@@OdiousMage from what I've heard it's overly self-referential to the point of near smugness, but I still prefer a movie that aims high even if it spirals earthward catastrophically
I agree on the original being a standalone - the prospect of imagining what Neo could do after fully awakening to his potential is more interesting than actually seeing it.
There were actually two great Matrix Movies. The original, and the Animatrix, which was dark collection of short stories that gave excellent background context to the original movie.
Agreed. I skyved off school to watch the first matrix. Probably the greatest original film I've seen at the pictures. The Animatrix was also my favourite VHS. It had heavy competition.
Personally, I would love to see new paths from new characters in this universe a la Animatrix. It's a big world and it would be fun to follow self-contained stories from different corners of it. Not everything has to be these "chosen one" predestined, universe-saving stories about Skywalker and Harry Potter and Neo. Let's see some other folks.
To me this film felt like it was made out of spite by Lana Wachowski. The cynical self-referencing that just kept rearing it's ugly head every once in a while was not only jarring, it was cringy and completely out of place. One of the worst examples was the fight in the factory where they cut to one character that's mocking the movie and gaming industry WHILE the fight is happening. Then there's the post credit scene where they just mock the Matrix openly. It almost like Lana made a film she didn't want to make so she saw this as an opportunity to both give the middle finger to fans of the original trilogy for liking it, and the movie studio for capitalizing on it while giving them a pretty bad Matrix sequel. And I didn't even mention how technically this film is sub-par to the original trilogy. Granted, it's difficult to top bullet time but at least they could've filmed fight scenes in a cohesive way. Instead we got a chaotic mess in both choreography, the way they were shot and edited. That's a Bourne Identity wombo-combo right there. Tonally this film is all over the place with lines of dialogue either delivered poorly or completely breaking the tone of scenes ("What's up Doc?"). I could go on but I'll just say that it made Reloaded and Revolutions suddenly not so bad at all.
Yeah especially the scene were Neo is talking to Trinity at the coffee shop. Neo was pretty much Lana in that scene lamenting what the Matrix franchise meant to them and how they see it today.
Exactly. The sequels may have felt at times like bad fanfiction (held up by fun action sequences), but I'll take bad fanfiction over a cynical cash grab any day. At least the former is made out of passion, not spite.
TV show is the same thought I had, for a number of reasons. There's a lot of the same cast and crew that worked on Sense8, the Netflix series, and they may be absolutely fine and very talented people in their own right, but I don't think it worked. Using an actor again becuase you've worked with them before is absolutely fine, but when you're looking at a scnee with four of them in, it's very hard to not think "which thing am I watching here", it's only natural becuase you've seen those four actors in an entirely different series, with a different storyline, but same directors, editors, writers and composers, you can't help but leave "the matrix world" you've currently watching and remeber things from Sense8. This was a mistake in my opinion. But it goes deeper than that, one of the great things about the originals was the soundtrack, it wasn't "just" the brass swells as a signature sound, they were used in very clever ways and complemented other compositional choices. Don Davis made a truly unique score that was utterly complementary to all three of the films. Tom Tykwer and Johnny Klimek are good composers, but the score for this didn't seem to complement the orignals in any way. They threw in the signature brass swells in very odd ways in my opinion, and the rest of the soundtrack was what I feel like describing as "high end television", in that there were so many cliche techniques in there that have been done to death over the years, that weren't used by Don Davis either. Then there was the blending of truly orginal music with alternative songs from the time, those tracks defined the film, it was a true mashup of styles that worked so wwell - there was none of that in this, and it doesn't feel like they paid any attentiont to it. I could go on about the specific pace of editing in certain scenes being more like a US TV series, or the special effects in places looked more Netflix than Hollywood. I understand why they were being used, to convey the messages and storyline that were being told, but the choice to use them were enormously out of character compared to the originals.
Definitely. This is not something that should have been made as a film - it would have worked better and been better received as a limited series on HBO on Netflix. The three acts are so far apart that they should be their own things - the story of Morpheus' return in the beginning would have made a good 45 minute episode instead of 10 badly paced minutes in a film, then do Neo's return for 45 and then end the series with Neo and Trinity's reunion with another 45. The acting, special effects and the action scenes are fine for a TV show, but not a 2 and a half hour blockbuster cinema movie.
So many people are defending this by saying "no you missed the point; it's a sequel full of pointless nostalgic references because it's criticizing studios that make sequels banking on nostalgia". That's a great way to prank the studio and the audience, I guess, but that doesn't make it a good film or a good addition to the Matrix universe.
I'm reminded of a great quote from Philip K Dick: "Reality is such that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." It would've been very interesting for this Matrix film to have explored this quote in an intellectual way.
@@anthonymartensen3164 Well, not if you take the quote in the context of PKD's writing and ideology. In a Matrix film, it would be represented as a person believing that he is in the Matrix when actually he isn't, and the life that he's wasting is more real that any life in his imagined world.
Trailers were underwhelming, but went in out of curiosity with low expectations considering aged core characters. Was not disappointed, enjoyed meta opening short, storyline bridged time gap and suited aged characters. Nostalgia def carries the film, with many modern themes weaving plot and dialogue. Overall loved it. Particular mention for the main antagonist Neil Patrick Harris and Brit actress Jessica Henwick as Bug, she brought out the cool n swag very well.
I think the filmmakers tried to do what David Lynch did with Twin Peaks: The Return, comment on the current state of the world and the dangers of nostalgia... Unfortunately, they are not David Lynch...
But the problem is, you can't continue to make "wow" moments with old theories. Everyone reviewingthemovie sounds like one of the scenes in Resurrections. "Whatmade Matrix 1 great? It f'd with your head". People are looking for that exact same feeling from each of the sequels.
For me, the disappointment was that they alluded to the machines splitting in to factions, fighting each other and some defecting to the human side. That is a brilliant scenario to explore, perfect for some scifi meat to get in to. But it just got dropped for, well, I dont know. ... So, either they failed with this film, or that's a setup for more films. But, I'm not sure if any one will care after this film.
Any sequel that is relying on nostalgia as its main selling point is bound to fail. Blade runner 2049 worked because it respected the source material and introduced new and innovative ideas, they used practical effects and slow, meaningful editing. It's a visceral experience that draws you in and gives you time to think about the deeper meaning Villeneuve intended. It expanded the universe but everything new that was introduced felt at home within the world of the original. There was no need for gratituitous flash backs or corny forces lines that called back to the original. Its the polar opposite of the star wars sequels and they failed because they tried to pander to the masses and diluted the brand while insulting the fans in the process.
Too kind Mark. I had steeled myself with low expectations, but “Matrix The Panto” was so painful to watch I almost considered walking out, hoping it would get better, as it just got worse and worse. Hand me the blue pill so I can forget this embarrassing mess.
Seems pretty clear to me that they deliberately made a bad film to protest at having to do it at all. It's right there in the script. It couldn't be much more obvious.
@@robicenco1 Couldn't have put it better myself. It was pretty obvious quite early on, especially with the jarring out and out sitcom-like marketing executive scenes.
rewatching this now (the review, never the film!), and stunned that Mark says it's better than 3 and on par with 2. This incarnation is truly awful, utter garbage.
I’m with you. I cant believe anyone defends it. It came off to me like a parody of the matrix and had the choreography and visuals of a straight to tv film. It’s almost like she wanted to sabotage this film so they wouldn’t make anymore, and if that was the case: mission accomplished
Totally on the mark there. At the end of The Matrix we understood that there was no spoon; so no need to fight at all - bullets and punches become meaningless. If only the sequels had gone done that route and it could then have developed a story where the human population actually could have been freed in the end.
Kermode is the first one I've seen compare it to Craven's New Nightmare which is a brilliant film. Definitely agree with him here. A messy flick but no necessarily terrible and it never committed to its big ideas. Also had sub par action.
The Matrix I feel has the Terminator/Star Wars syndrome of having an amazing universe that you could do so much with; however the moves only show it from the same character's perspectives. Heck Matrix did that with a video game from Jada Pinket Smith's character's perspective and that was pretty cool. You could even have Neo in it for a while to show how powerful he is vs the protagonist?
I was saying a similar thing to my friends but more in relation to Star Wars. Both The Matrix and Star Wars have interesting and wonderfully crafted universes with so many possibilities for stories, mythology, action and so on. Alas after that initial film entry that sent the world alight, the follow-up material just hasn't been able to create something as enticing. That's not to say everything is crap afterwards, but it certainly doesn't have those key elements that the original does.
Star Wars has the potential for all kinds of stories that don't feel repetitive, it's a whole universe with hundreds of aliens that can be a Western or a Samurai movie or a World War 2 dogfighting movie or a Vietnam movie or basically anything else. The Matrix is a bit different, and while you definitely CAN have other stories in that universe (as The Animatrix proved) it's not really clear that audiences would be interested in anything that's not focused on Neo.
When Mark starts with "Here's the thing." 😬 The film didn't break any new ground, philosophically or cinematically like the original did. But it was a delight to see Keanu Reeves and Carrie- Ann Moss together and I'm glad they had their happy ending. I thought the film was mostly Lana Wachowski putting up the middle finger to Warner Bros, whilst having a fun time with the cast and crew, which I respect in a way. Her creative IP was being harassed and exploited by Warner Bros with threats to "reboot" with or without the creators. The original trilogy was perfect (IMO) and nothing subsequent could measure up, so there was little point in trying to emulate them. Rather than let someone else mine the original trilogy for a nostalgic facsimilie ala Star Wars Force awakens, she took the initiative and created something irreverent and joyful. The bad reviews actually do The Wachowskis a favour, as it will reduce the likelihood of subsequent films and help let the original trilogy rest in peace.
It's a rare case but I think blade runner 2049 is a perfect example of how allowing outside talent to tell new stories in a universe can have huge payoffs.
@@elqord.1118 They explicitly comment in the script how WB already planned to make a new film even if it was against their wishes. It's clear they didn't have all that much of a say in the matter
I didn’t hate this. I thought it had some interesting ideas especially around how your life is going vs how you want it to go. I think this could have been much better as a limited series with a team of writers. There’s plenty of interesting characters to explore, but the Neo/Trinity story part IV was not enough to really carry a feature.
It was possible to make sequels to The Matrix that would have worked. The first two sequels should have picked up where the original film ended, with Neo contacting and freeing other people trapped in the Matrix (remember his call on the payphone), to train them and increase the numbers of freedom fighters. Neo's character arc would be learning to step into the Morpheus role. Instead, overnight Neo became a Superman ripoff in a trench coat, fighting a thousand agents and literally flying through the sky. Then there were the forgettable one-off characters, endless monologues with the Architect, religious allegories, and finally Neo and Trinity die. This new film, Resurrections, is an odd duck because it's both a sequel and a sort of reboot, except the actors are 22 years older and all the ideas are old as well. Who cares anymore?
Yes it seems so obvious that where it should have gone was freeing those in the Matrix and it would resonate with several of the spiritual religious themes which I felt was the over arching theme where the 'enlightened one' would then free those from illusion. What was also disappointing is that I went to a 4D Imax experience with the seats moving in all directions for no reason. It was a film I had to see but ultimately didn't need to be made.
the sequel should have followed neo's journey through a new matrix where he has the identity of a brooklyn plumber Mario and has a brother named Luigi. Then, they get the shock of their lives when they discover a parallel world populated by the intelligent descendants of dinosaurs. It seems they weren't destroyed by a meteor millions of years ago but hurled into another dimension and, now, they have plans to rule our world. It's up to our unlikely heroes to battle the evil King Koopa and his Goomba guards, free the beautiful Princess Daisy and save mankind in this adventure of a lifetime.
As noted the problem is that there's two films. A metacontextual short film and the extra stuff. To my mind, there is Lana Wachowski's Neo/Trinity movie and Warner Bros fan service/setup for potential future cash grabbing. The mixing of the two diluted the impact.
Watched it today, mainly out of loyalty to the original Matrix and a sense of nostalgia, as that film meant something to me, but also partly to escape The Marvel Hegemony. I went into it with eyes open regarding the so-so reviews. I have to say, it's...alright. The first and largest portion of the film is rather long, Neo getting back into the Matrix. I enjoyed this more than the final bit, which seemed to go past too quickly and was resolved too easily. Was it a great film? No. Was it terrible? Also no. I loved seeing some of the same characters again, after twenty years though. And yes, The Matrix is a great standalone film.
@callmecatalyst There are lots of films each *year* indeed that aren’t Marvel films…however I’m talking about this week, because that’s the choice that one has in practice especially as I don’t go to the cinema all the time. Unfortunately my cinema plays mostly blockbusters (excluding kids’ movies of course), and at least 50% of those are from Marvel. Nothing wrong with that for those who like those films, just not my preference. You are right that there were other non-Marvel choices I avoided: Clifford the Big Red Dog, Elcanto and Ghostbusters being a few I could mention, but when the cinema shows Spider-Man 23 times in the same day, the choices also compress for this reason too.
I thought it was a good film, and worth going to see it. I liked the matrix revolutions better than reloaded. The original matrix is still the best to me.
Despite how bad it is at least Revolutions had a story, Resurrections spent too long with the meta garbage that it took until the half way point for them to realise they needed a story.
'The Matrix Resurrections' looks and plays more like three 45-min episodes of a TV show being played back to back than a film. Watching it is a particularly televisual experience, and that's a shame, when the original Matrix films were groundbreaking action cinema. I'm not sure the filmmakers can be blamed for this, as the budget you get is the budget you get, but the result is very underwhelming when it should have rivalled the biggest tentpoles of the day. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the mandate to the filmmakers was to produce something that could've played on HBO Max as a miniseries or as a theatrical film. Everything that follows with The Matrix 4 is a result of those economic realities - the film looks and feels cheap and pedestrian, and its ambitious story is rushed and condensed, despite the shoot probably costing north of $100million. That said, in spite of ALL its flaws, of which there are many, 'The Matrix Resurrections' accomplishes something that the Star Wars sequels for example, fail to do. It respects its original, legacy characters and puts them at the forefront of the story, focussing on their relationship and making it an integral part of the narrative. It gives the fans what they want - we will be disappointed by the lower tier CGI and special effects, the lower tier action set pieces, the terribly rushed story, etc. But what we'll never forgive is them getting the characters wrong; and either by design, or sheer luck, the filmmakers brought Neo and Trinity back in an emotional, touching, satisfying way. For any fan of the original Matrix films (yes, all three, not just the first one), this is probably enough. I watched this last night on Christmas Eve and enjoyed it, a lot more than I expected. Pretty sure I will watch it again at some point.
Totally the truth. The Matrix was a brilliant, era defining film. Everything that came after that was completely superflous and never came close to being as good as that first film, and this latest outing that drags in actors really too old for this carry on is no different.
First third was really good, I thought, I was really intrigued to see where it was all heading. Unfortunately it wasn't heading anywhere very interesting. I really think they should have made the whole thing a character-driven psychological thriller with zero action scenes.
I saw Matrix Resurrections yesterday and I was really bored. In the beginning I thought it could get good, but after half an hour I thought it's just an endless repetition of the dialogues and fight scenes Matrix fans loved in the first movie. I think they should have never made a second or third one and definetively not this one.
I don't think it was any worse than the Matrix 2 or 3. I thought it was okay. And the 1st one was ground breaking so no movie will compare. And for the old sequels - people will always consider older things more fondly. Keanu's acting hasn't improved at all. Really stood out.
Agree as a standalone the Matrix is one of the greatest films of all time. Resurrections is an SNL parody skit dragged out over and hour. Then when the classic, bullet time kung fu with pumping techno is about to begin Dougie Howser literally stops the movie to monologue for five minutes. Instead of sensational cyberpunk weets wire fu we get a re run of the first movie but with Keanu doing jazz hands.
I felt the same thing about LOST the TV series… it should’ve ended after the 1st season. If it was solely that one season, it would’ve been one of the all time greatest TV shows. Of course this is just my humble opinion.
I have the opposite opinion, I think it is one of the greatest series of all time but the 1st Season is my least favourite. Whenever I've researched the series front to back it always seems like a slow crawl. Some excellent moments peppered through though. I think I'm in the minority that found the ending satisfying and think the whole show peaked at Season 4.
20 years on the special effects were not groundbreaking the movie and characters were boring but the ability to tell a decent story is the most lacking thin about Resurrections!
"the matrix is a stand alone film" couldnt agree more! the matrix was a close-to-perfect movie. We signed up for a ride and we had no idea where it was going. everything after, good? ok? whatever you want to say, but nothing like the first
The Matrix Resurrections is a film for people that think the sequels are good, actually. And I am one of them. I am fine with people hating it but I loved it.
I liked Reloaded and thought Revolutions was meh. I thought this one was the worst of the lot. The fight scenes are awful and the ideas are terrible. Jada Pinkett pretending to be old is straight out of the I Am Sam school of acting. It's even more glaring when you watch the new Spiderman film. Member berries done exceptionally
@@masteryas80 I feel the same way about the sequels. Had a feeling a might also like this one the least. That it has such poor action is criminal for a Matrix movie
First one changed the game. The other two, as Mark says, just had golden moments. Matrix 4 for me is probably the 2nd best Matrix movie. I just boiled it down to, "this is a love story. And it's certainly more interesting than the average love story".
I agree completely. I felt they really swung for the fences … hit some, missed others but I certainly found it entertaining and much better than the other two sequels
@@tommarshall9927 thats your opinion buddy and I certainly see how you could see it that way. For me personally, I remember the excitement and anticipation of seeing Reloaded in 2002? and bar the fantastic motorway chase sequence it was my biggest ever cinema going disappointment after the amazing original. The third I just remember as a brown, muddy nothing. This as OP said can be boiled down to being a love story. For me, this is a much more enjoyable theme than whatever the original sequels were about …. What were they about, in the end? I seam to remember the directors losing their way in the mythology very quickly ….. standing around in train stations ….. speaking to programs …… confusing conversations with key makers …. Etc … basically nonsense. This film, admittedly despite having a few terrible scenes, has far higher highs than the sequels combined and therefore I can safely say I enjoyed it more than the sequels. I only wish they could have got cameos by Laurence Fishburne and Hugo Weaving as their absences are massive
I thought it was hugely disappointing. Did the "Man of Steel" thing where the opening 30-40 mins was very interesting and opened up a lot of potential plot directions that could have been fascinating, but then just descended into being a dull by-the-numbers plodathon. The entire final third feels like a low-level superhero film. Huge missed opportunity.
It would appear that Trinity and Neo are now collectively 'The One,' perhaps mirroring Lana's own transition, as some muse, but something is still missing. We can't see it, yet, but it's there, like a splinter in our minds. Reloaded and Revolutions showed us entirely new layers to the larger world that was The Matrix (original). Clearly, Resurrections was designed to do the same, but what if the entire film was not as it appeared? Might Lana have placed us all in a Matrix within a Matrix in Resurrections, to dream Neo's dream, ending as it began, like a dream? Because it was. Perhaps it's not that "Tom" created the Matrix films and a popular video game called The Matrix, as Resurrections wants to show us - it's that his newly revealed "real life" is a dream program still running within the Architect's "measure of control," and overseen by the Analyst, who very well might be the Architect himself playing the role of Tom's analyst within the Modal. This would mean Trinity is still dead, and Tiffany/Trinity is nothing but a "resurrected" NPC within the Modal, giving Neo purpose, but an empty one. Perhaps the Machines are testing out various Modals to see which version could never be escaped by anyone, including Neo, with the Architect still attempting to create the perfect Matrix overall, as it were. The line in Resurrections where Neo says, "I've had dreams that weren't just dreams," as well as what the Analyst tells him about his current "reality" are strong clues. This would explain the strangely disjointed, campy, dream-like theme to Resurrections itself. The entire film is not a prequel, but a computer-generated dream (that we each experienced) designed to expose the Anomaly's weaknesses so that all future "One's" would never expose the Machines own weaknesses, as Neo did. The Machine's knowing Trinity was a strong factor in Neo's power, would of course seemingly "resurrect" her to test Neo's abilities, hence the film's name. The Machines would be in need of an answer as to how Neo manifested in power to the point he did, if only to prevent another Anomaly from ever challenging the Machines to the extent he did. I heard there won't be a sequel, but if there were, we may find out the crushing reality that the Matrix is still a dark, cyberpunk world, where Morpheus and the Oracle still exist and are still trying to find Neo, as Neo slumbers somewhere deep within the Machine world being unwittingly experimented on by the Architect. Indeed, this sounds exactly like the thinking of a machine to me... ... ...
The Matrix certainly works as a standalone film, but there was clearly potential for more, whatever you think of the sequels themselves. The first film ends with Neo becoming the one, but the matrix itself still exists. It even ends with a call to action (which people might cynically call 'sequel-bait').
The film spends 45 minutes wanting to deconstruct what's happened before it, and it's fun! There's some good ideas about deja-vu and a matrix within a matrix. It feels a bit Gremlins 2 'meta' and it felt fresh. After this the film just descends into what made the sequels so bad, and what the film was commenting on. Bizarrely it has the fight choreographer from the original film acting in this- the film sure could have done with him helping with the action as it falls flat in that regard.
Yeah, that's what has made me sad too. I was initially intrigued, but then knowing it all just serves to go back on itself really stings what it was trying to say before. And it can't even have the decent to do the action right at that point.
I cannot fathom how a matrix film manages to have such terrible action choreography. The best thing about action in the matrix was how much you saw, without frequent cuts. The action in this is just a mess of bourne-like nonsense
Chad Stahelski, who has an acting role in this, was a stuntman in the first Matrix films, not a fight choreographer. The choreographer/action director was Yuen Woo-Ping (who did not return for this). Stahelski (and John Wick 1 co-director David Leitch) did say in interviews a while ago that they were going to contribute some things to Resurrections' action. But unfortunately there wasn't much evidence of it! Tiger Chen is someone else who *did* return. He was part of Yuen Woo-Ping's stunt team in the original trilogy, starred in Keanu Reeves' directorial debut Man of Tai Chi (fun film!), and has a role in Resurrections. I don't know if he contributed anything to the film film's action, though. There was a recent interview with Jonathan Groff who said that Lana Wachowski told him that since she transitioned, she's become more improvisational in her directing style, and less reliant on meticulously storyboarding shots. I wonder if that played a role in the decline of Resurrections' action?
I feel like so many people missed the point of this movie. It is not a sequel to the Matrix but a message to WB. So many scenes represent WB talking to Lana Wachowski. How "Smith" says this project will be done with or without you. How the characters keep referencing how they haven't been given a choice. Similar to how Lana was essentially put between a rock and a hard place because she would either have to give her characters, "her children" to some soulless money making machine or be forced to make a sequel to a story that had already been properly concluded. A bunch of meetings most likely took place about what was expected to be in the matrix sequel, mirrored by the actual meetings in the movie; after Lana was essentially forced to be a part of it all. However if she was gonna be a part of it, then she was gonna make sure that above all else, her "children" were saved. All the things in the meeting that were discussed they were gonna make in the movie,so that her true message could go unnoticed by the old farts demanding a sequel. The ending of the film, having both Trinity and Neo being completely overpowered, essentially places any future writer in a hole that is impossible to escape. The ending scene where they talk about rainbows, is saying to WB, create a new world with new characters and lore, and stop trying to resurrect old franchises. It's a subtle and yet not so subtle message, that says yeah a lot of "sheeple" will be swayed by money to revive their old franchises and if becoming one with the soulless machine makes them happy more power to them, but Lana Wachowki ain't one of em.
Yeah I get that it's a meta commentary on Lana, the movie practically shouts that at you. I just don't think it's interesting or well-written or fun to watch.
Maybe handing it over to someone else would have been the better way forward. Nolan would have worked wonders with a new iteration. Inception itself was very Matrix like. There’s plenty of directors out there that could have been totally invested in the universe..one of them was in the film!! (Chad Stahelski).
Part of this Matrix felt like it had been inspired by T2. Using the flashbacks and involving the meta stuff in conversation pieces. Just like some parts of the second trainspotting.
I’m surprised he didn’t eviscerate this film, I walked out saying it was a 7 at most to some friends but upon more reflection it is a 5 at best. IMO Reloaded and Revolutions all had something to offer and although no where near as good as the original they both expanded the story and still have people discussing parts and character arcs to this day - more so than if it had been a standalone. It’s interesting to me and perhaps it’s a generational thing but I still to this day look at the Lore and peoples interpretations regarding the ending and it still fascinates me to this day and essentially keeps the Matrix alive. To say that this is on a par with the sequels is to me forgetting the impact those films had and perhaps because of the lack of interest as mentioned by their generation in learning more about the story post film. Literally nobody will be asking anymore questions about Resurrections as none of it felt like canon.
I kinda hoped than during the 18 or so years since revolutions that they may have come up with a single idea worth committing to film. But yes, it was wrong to expect anything other than what we got.
I watched the first Matrix in the cinemas in 1999 as a teenager knowing barely anything about it and it still stands to this day as my favourite film/cinema experience of all-time. Hearing that the Matrix was always supposed to be a trilogy had me giddy with excitement and expectation and I had my dreams crushed when they were released. I kind of wish they didn't exist as the first film was so perfect. That said, I appreciated that the story did end the way it did. There was a definite finality about it. So when I heard about the fourth coming out, I wasn't really excited to see it. I ended up watching Resurrections more as a curiosity than anything else. My expectations were already so low. I kind of treated it as more like a side-story then actually pushing the Matrix universe forward, especially after seeing the trailer. And that's why to my surprise I REALLY enjoyed Resurrections. Immediately you could see the tonal shift that the film was taking and that it was going to be nothing like the original trilogy (in terms of tonality). They were openly breaking the fourth wall and stating that it didn't need to exist and just was having fun and making jokes. And because of this I relaxed into the experience and started to have fun with it myself. The whole opening third of the movie was really well done with Neo trying to figure out what was real or not and whether he was losing his mind. It recaptured some of the magic of the original film's opening. Then, for me, the entire resurrection scene was both awesome and horrific in the best way possible. Seeing the machine city again but in it's newer form was jaw dropping. After not thinking about what would happen in the aftermath of the war and reliving that all again made me glad I was able to revisit it. I thought the film kind of fell flat in the final third but the action sequences were good enough to keep me entertained (again, I wasn't expecting anything on the level of the first film). I also loved (spoiler alert) that the architect of the new matrix was just some business suit that was using Neo and Trinity to meet his monthly output targets/profits (again, breaking the fourth wall to epitomise why this film exists in the first place). So overall I came away very happy. I feel like the negative reviews people are having are probably because they still had investment in the franchise. Go into watching this film with different expectations and I think you'll enjoy it.
Funny thing, Reloaded and Revolutions actually grew on me after watching them a few times and watching it as a Trilogy makes a lot of sense. And I know a lot of people who think this way. I think we were expecting too much of those sequels after being blown away by the first one but with time, the story makes sense and the story of the trilogy as a whole is pretty decent. And honestly that 4th "movie" was just pure garbage to me, the whole meta aspect was ridiculous, the cuts were obnoxious in action scenes and for heaven's sake, the frigging zombies instead of agents thing was so stupid... By far the worst movie I watched in years and way worse than any other matrix movie...
No setup for another? You've got to be kidding. They get together again, and even state that get another try at things. If that ain't a signal for a sequel, I don't know what is.
Don't understand the hate for Reloaded and Revolutions, some of the dialogue in Revolutions was god awful.. I'll give you that but they were pretty awesome.
It was very amateurish and looked like a TV show in its execution. Lana lacked conviction in the directing which made the action scenes look flat and not very well story boarded. The Matrix films have well known for pushing the boundaries of action, showing us scenes of carnage that defy anything we've seen before, none of the action here comes even close. The editing was terrible, with too much flashbacks to the original films, it felt contrived and lazy as it tried to instill nostalgia into the viewer to make them forget they were watching a very poor film. A huge disappointment and cynical cash grab that does no justice to the trilogy (even if uneven). Hopefully it will loose enough money to prevent anymore films being made that will just tarnish the legacy of the films even further.
That's a good point. Maybe bringing in an outside director would have been better. Ilya Naishuller, who did Nobody comes to mind. It says something when the satire of John Wick has better directing.
@@DrVVVinK Nobody was an awesome action film, Ilya Naishuller would have been a great choice to direct a Matrix film. Sam Hargrave also springs to mind as he did a brilliant job directing Extraction. Those action scenes flowed so well, they literally immersed you In them.
I loathed this film. I hate how emotional thinking about this film makes me, but I am heavily invested in the lore of the trilogy, because despite its flaws and frequent accidental comedy and eventual hollow profundity, I love those first three films. However, this was just a basic, cynical ego-trip for a director who basically was in the right place at the right time with a one-hit wonder, which quite rightly changed the face of action cinema as we know it. This film had be squirming in my seat, experiencing a mixture of horror and sadness.
The action, the dialogue, the plot, the music, the lack of threat, the smugness, a cat called Deja Vue, it makes no sense, the acting, direction, the orange suit, the statue, everything.....
@@pauldevonshire9493 seems like that would've been the response no matter what they put together. People forget, movies are pure fantasy. They are an illusion. I feel like no magger what was delivered would've been unsatisfying...
It's the third Pirates movie where everyone's a pirate combined with the masturbatory fan service nostalgia of JJ's THE FORCE AWAKENS. Utter rubbish. It was pretty, though. Keanu phoned it in, Trinity felt like an afterthought, and Lana had a social commentary agenda and bone to pick with WB. It's biggest crime was undercutting the rules established in the first film, and that to me is unforgivable.
to be honest I’ve always believed the matrix works best as a trilogy and I can fully believe it was written that way. Is the first film the strongest, the most watchable? Absolutely, but the second and third films have always worked very well to build on top of the first matrix, particularly with regards to the films philosophical aspirations. I understand Kermode’s opinion on the matrix as a series, it’s undeniable that the first film is perfectly paced in almost every way and balances the stakes in a way that the later films do not, but I would still much rather a world with the matrix sequels than one without, and I am at least glad that even though resurrections is lacking that same pacing and construction, even though the action does not wow like the first film, that the franchise still has a soul and intellectual curiosity to it that allows it to stand out, I think, from the usual action fare. I am also glad that we have a such a prominent series by transgender filmmakers that is gradually being recognised for its trans themes, but I think sadly it will be some time before that becomes an accepted part of the public discourse around these films
One thing this matrix does far better than reloaded and revolutions is making the real world far more interesting (but not enough explored). Io is far more interesting than Zion. But Mark is spot on in saying this movie is on par with Reloaded (perhaps a tiny bit above it).
I enjoyed the film didn't go in with huge expecatations, they opened the door again for better matrix films to be created now... The door was closed for good and it's back open now ^
The matrix resurrections is just awful. 1. The movie tries to do too much and is so unfocused. Many things are left unfinished or unexplained. 2. There is no tension or high stakes. Nobody dies. There’s no sense that humanity is about to be destroyed. 3. The movie doesn’t take itself seriously. Between the humour and the constant meta references it’s not a movie that believes itself to be a genuine matrix story. 4. The action is pretty lacklustre. Nothing really stands out or is interesting. 5. Why is agent smith still around? Why is Morpheus not played by Laurence fishburne.Why has the Merovingian been reduced to be a stupid rambling homeless person.
I really really enjoyed the Matrix Resurrections. I think there’s often a conflict between your intellectual and emotional response to a movie, and with this movie it’s not difficult to start analysing why it’s not cinematically groundbreaking, or why the plot doesn’t quite work, or why the movie didn’t need to be made, or why it’s a little too ‘meta’. But at the end of the day - for me at least, and my friends - the 2 hours 30 minutes absolutely flew by, the action scenes had us shouting “phwoar”, the nostalgic call-backs had us buzzing, the re-connection of Neo and Trinity portrayed by Keanu and Carrie-Anne sent shivers down our spine, and ultimately we came out of that cinema with a big smile on our faces. I can absolutely understand why some would be a little disappointed, but I think (a) if you’re expecting a movie as groundbreaking as the first Matrix, you’ve got foolishly high expectations, and (b) I think the people scoring this movie a 1 star or a 1/10 are just being silly.
I had similar thoughts to you. The first is still a perfectly self-contained movie and none of the sequels get close, but this was the most I enjoyed a Matrix sequel (if we don't count the Animatrix). I'm a little confused at the aggressively negative feedback from some but I'm glad I saw it and had a good time.
@@PTizzleAusGN I agree. To be honest I think the negative feedback is predominately coming from critics and old bitter fans who hated the movie before they even saw it, because they didn’t want it to be made. The interesting thing is that (and Mark even mentioned this), although the original Matrix was groundbreaking, and a masterpiece, Reloaded and Revolutions were not so, and furthermore were riddled with issues. And they got a lot of criticism upon release, but it’s almost like now people have forgotten this are putting the entire original trilogy on the level of the first Matrix and then stating that Resurrections is far below. In my opinion, although I love the other sequels, I think Resurrections is just as good as Reloaded and Revolutions, and isn’t any worse than the original Matrix than they are, yet for some reason the some fans are scoring it a 1 star.
@@mattypayne66 I was actually optimistic going in. I was looking forward to it. But there is no denying it was utter rubbish. But then again, each to their own. A friend of mine who is also in the same boat as me, saw it separately, and reported he thought it was terrible too.
I thought it had so many great things. The one problem for me, was that the central story line should not have been a solely lovey dovey plot. Instead it should have been a side plot, to a matrix story that went more deeper and thought provoking than the original. To really push the philosophy, to a level where people left the cinema like "holy shit we could be in one already" "this is real" or "walking out the cinema feels mega weird now". And the love story would have been the ultimate compliment to that. It needed to mentally go somewhere where the other 3 and other films had not been in general for it to have the complete impact it wanted. Fundamentally that's what the original was all about. I still enjoyed it though, still better than most shite and the never ending array of super hero films that came out in 2021.
Resurrections has something to say... but what it's saying is "Warner brothers sucks LOL" and the script reads like it was composed in a Twitter thread after Lana had a few too many drinks. High ambitions and big ideas don't automatically make for good storytelling, or else every stoner kid in college would be making masterpieces.
For me Mark misses the point - in a cycle of cynical blockbusters this is an original property doing interesting things - it’s all about love, arguably the whole franchise is. The original, reloaded and this are the trilogy.
LOVED the first one. 2 and 3 were bloated and bleh. Resurrections different, daring, and fun. People are picking bones with the TV aesthetic, but for me, it worked, given the plot.
Not sure if I have the terrible reviews to thank, but as a massive Matrix fan I went into the cinema on Wednesday night with fairly low expectations and found it... surprisingly enjoyable? Just don't take it too seriously and don't expect a film in the same style as the original trilogy. A lot of time has passed since 1999: the world has changed and we've all changed since. So has The Matrix. Seeing a lot of criticism of it being 'too woke' but all that must have gone over my head. Ratings: The Matrix - 10/10 Reloaded - 8/10 Revolutions - 7/10 Resurrections - 6.5/10
The Matrix original is probably partly so good because it's almost scene for scene ripping off Ghost in the Shell. But then when the Wachowski's then had to rely more on their own ideas for the following films... we saw what happens.
But see... shouldn't you review a film with objectivity, rather than in comparison to some other completely different movie? It baffles me how few critics are able to maintain objectivity in regard to this film.
Thing I found intresting was the new method of control. The way the machines had comeup with to make humans accept the matrix and not risk the truth. Other than that not notable or done better before.
The Matrix is my fave movie & I watched Resurrections last night! It's all over the place! It's not awful but it is average at best! There's some good action sequences but there's some decisions made in the film where I was like, you having a laugh? Also where's Neo's cool sunglasses when he's in the Matrix? Even on the posters he's wearing them but he doesn't in the movie! I actually think revolutions is slightly better & that's saying something!
Here's the thing... I was expecting the Matrix for social media, mobile phones, infinite content netflix online of 2022, using the ideas on AI from Nick Bostrom expressed in Superinteligence. There was none of that, sadly. Can only hope to be alive when next Space Odyssey 2001 comes out.
The story of this film should have been the story of a new trilogy. 1st film: introduce new characters, end with rediscovering neo. 2nd film: neo breaking out of the matrix, end with discovering trinity. 3rd film: breaking trinity out of the matrix. Everything after the first 30-45 minutes felt so rushed, and underdeveloped.
I actually ended up liking this more than I'd dare hope. I fully agree the original Matrix is 'the ONE' and this one has its issues for sure. I personally found the montage where everyone chimes in on what the Matrix in essence is to be a bit cringe and obvious. But there are all kinds of little details that make it fun to watch regardless. I also got the sense it handled certain less savoury factions' claiming its legacy and 'red pill' terminology quite well, e.g. by doubling down on Wachowski's own reading of the original film as an allegory about transitioning in a binary gender system.
Let's face it, if they had just done the first one, we wouldn't really have missed the sequels. That said this one was ok. It wasn't as terrible as the 3rd, and was slightly better than the second. You could make another six sequels but you're never going to beat the first which is a modern classic.
@@johnhaigh7473 I think they meant it's slightly better than the first sequel ie Reloaded but not as good as the original film. I disagree though I think it's worse than Reloaded but better than Revolutions.
As a huge fan of the originals, especially the sequels, I absolutely loved it. I never thought we needed a new one, but if we had to have one, this is what I wanted - less a sequel and more an epilogue. It's obviously in close conversation with not just the original movies but the entire cultural phenomenon of the Matrix, but it then transforms into this thesis about what it's *really* all about, love and trust and togetherness and community, about feeling over cold rationality. I think that thesis is what Kermode and others are missing here. The first half is asking a question ("What was The Matrix?") which is answered by the second. However I also understand if people hate it. Anyone who didn't like the sequels will almost certainly dislike this. But as someone for whom those films were enormously important and formative this was perfect. Not flawless, but perfect. (I did really miss Fishburne though.)
Here's the thing.... Any sequel that makes fun of the prior film(s) loses me as it takes away from what you love. I am looking directly at Crystal Skull, the rubber snake and the sand pit. 😐 Resurrections has at least two of these moments. I enjoyed the cinema experience, but this film takes more than it gives.
My unpopular opinion is that actually all of the Matrix films are good and work as a complete story. But then my thoughts on what the important themes, ideas and focuses were seem different to other people's anyway.
"Here’s the thing." Uh oh.
😂😂😂 Everytime hahaha
All you need to hear 😄
Someone should make a playlist or supercut of everytime he starts a review like that.
@@HA-ot6uf that would be incredible - Well keen to hear that hahaha
At least it didn’t get a “it is ALL over the place”
He’s right. The Matrix is a standalone film.
Respectfully, big disagree. The problem with The Matrix as a standalone film is that it tells people that they just need to find the one truth beyond the veil and everything will be solved. But this is the thinking that pulls people so deeply into ideologies that are inherently flawed. By the end of The Matrix we understand that Neo is the one, and that the conflict is merely humans vs. machines. In the sequels (which are not without flaws) we learn that Neo's rebellion and anger towards the system is actually a *part* of the system he's trying to defeat. He was permitted to rebel, permitted to learn "the truth". His defiance was merely another factor in the equation, and he eventually came to understand that there existed a path to ending the war by making peace with the machines, a possibility that never even occurred to the rebels. So whereas the first movie tells us to seek truth and fight the powers that be, the sequels encourage us to look even deeper than that; to look at the patterns of our behavior, both as individuals and as a species. Without spoiling anything, this new film delves even deeper into the illusion of choice.
It will never be enough to find "the truth", because there exist too many truths that we accept on intuition and cling to in an effort to control our lives. We must constantly reflect on our choices and behavior, and be cautious of our own defiance and anger. The angriest people in the world are often blind to the flaws of their own ideologies, unaware that they have been fed lies to stoke their lust for a war they do not need to fight.
Animatrix shows that the concept can work with other creators.
@@OdiousMage Exactly. Then there are also other topics (like free will and illusion of choice) which were only hinted at in the first Matrix and further explored in the sequels (and the new one too). I'd highly recommend watching a YT video called "The Matrix sequels are good, actually" which explains the many philosophical themes that most audiences (including Mark unfortunately) almost completely missed.
@@Atrumeos ah no. The sequels were a Hollywood cash grab and just terrible films. It should have been a stand alone picture.
@@kieransmith1796 Oh, I provided an explanation, while you said no and assumed your baseless assumption true. Got it.
I think a lot of companies and creators fundamentally misunderstand the heart of nostalgia. Think of Jurassic Park. The first time you see the giant dinosaurs. Everything changed after that. Right? But it's the emotional reaction to something new and/or spellbinding. It's the feelings themselves, not the image that provoked them, that they need to aim for. If you wanna stun audiences, do something new, exciting, fresh. Shock us, surprise us, impress us. Aim high, succeed or fail, you'll have our admiration. Retread old journeys and we'll see right through you.
All that said, I'm still Gona see this at home :)
“You’ll have our admiration”
Tell that to Star Wars fans after the last Jedi
Sounds like you're going to love this movie then!
TBH I don't think they care about how great it is it just makes money and that's the aim
@@dmc1943 I mostly enjoyed the last jedi. But other than subverting existing tropes both within the mythology and in monomyths in general, it did nothing new or compelling for me. The Rashomon style flashback was underplayed strangely enough. Although the kamikaze attack on the destroyer was visually stunning.
@@OdiousMage from what I've heard it's overly self-referential to the point of near smugness, but I still prefer a movie that aims high even if it spirals earthward catastrophically
I agree on the original being a standalone - the prospect of imagining what Neo could do after fully awakening to his potential is more interesting than actually seeing it.
There were actually two great Matrix Movies. The original, and the Animatrix, which was dark collection of short stories that gave excellent background context to the original movie.
Agreed. I skyved off school to watch the first matrix. Probably the greatest original film I've seen at the pictures. The Animatrix was also my favourite VHS. It had heavy competition.
Absolutely loved the Animatrix, I agree it's better than any of the sequels.
That said, I still like the sequels more than pretty much everyone.
Very apt for the season: a gift you didn’t want and already have too much of
Animatrix was the good follow-up to The Matrix. We don't need more.
Animatrix was brilliant, it filled so many gaps and more.
Yes so true and underrated. Enter the matrix and path neo were also amazing games
More Animatrix is needed.
Personally, I would love to see new paths from new characters in this universe a la Animatrix. It's a big world and it would be fun to follow self-contained stories from different corners of it. Not everything has to be these "chosen one" predestined, universe-saving stories about Skywalker and Harry Potter and Neo. Let's see some other folks.
To me this film felt like it was made out of spite by Lana Wachowski. The cynical self-referencing that just kept rearing it's ugly head every once in a while was not only jarring, it was cringy and completely out of place. One of the worst examples was the fight in the factory where they cut to one character that's mocking the movie and gaming industry WHILE the fight is happening. Then there's the post credit scene where they just mock the Matrix openly. It almost like Lana made a film she didn't want to make so she saw this as an opportunity to both give the middle finger to fans of the original trilogy for liking it, and the movie studio for capitalizing on it while giving them a pretty bad Matrix sequel. And I didn't even mention how technically this film is sub-par to the original trilogy. Granted, it's difficult to top bullet time but at least they could've filmed fight scenes in a cohesive way. Instead we got a chaotic mess in both choreography, the way they were shot and edited. That's a Bourne Identity wombo-combo right there. Tonally this film is all over the place with lines of dialogue either delivered poorly or completely breaking the tone of scenes ("What's up Doc?"). I could go on but I'll just say that it made Reloaded and Revolutions suddenly not so bad at all.
Yeah especially the scene were Neo is talking to Trinity at the coffee shop. Neo was pretty much Lana in that scene lamenting what the Matrix franchise meant to them and how they see it today.
Exactly. The sequels may have felt at times like bad fanfiction (held up by fun action sequences), but I'll take bad fanfiction over a cynical cash grab any day. At least the former is made out of passion, not spite.
I did enjoy the film. What insane things can we expect from motion pictures today? I lowered my benchmark and still found it fulfilling
@@williamnunn8847 "fulfilling"
Agreed 100% - saw this today. Movie is a mess with surprisingly poor action sequences. Self-references are just ridiculous.
Personally, I think Resurrections is WAY worse than any other Matrix movie.
Agreed, it just felt recycled with a very boring story, as the story was literally get neo back and then rescue trinity… which is dreadfully dull.
It seemed more like a parody than an actual Matrix movie.
First time I've ever checked my phone to see how long was left during a film.
Mark asked Simon a question, which woke him up and he had no idea what year he was in.
Spot on. It actually felt like a pilot to a television show.
TV show is the same thought I had, for a number of reasons. There's a lot of the same cast and crew that worked on Sense8, the Netflix series, and they may be absolutely fine and very talented people in their own right, but I don't think it worked. Using an actor again becuase you've worked with them before is absolutely fine, but when you're looking at a scnee with four of them in, it's very hard to not think "which thing am I watching here", it's only natural becuase you've seen those four actors in an entirely different series, with a different storyline, but same directors, editors, writers and composers, you can't help but leave "the matrix world" you've currently watching and remeber things from Sense8. This was a mistake in my opinion.
But it goes deeper than that, one of the great things about the originals was the soundtrack, it wasn't "just" the brass swells as a signature sound, they were used in very clever ways and complemented other compositional choices. Don Davis made a truly unique score that was utterly complementary to all three of the films. Tom Tykwer and Johnny Klimek are good composers, but the score for this didn't seem to complement the orignals in any way. They threw in the signature brass swells in very odd ways in my opinion, and the rest of the soundtrack was what I feel like describing as "high end television", in that there were so many cliche techniques in there that have been done to death over the years, that weren't used by Don Davis either. Then there was the blending of truly orginal music with alternative songs from the time, those tracks defined the film, it was a true mashup of styles that worked so wwell - there was none of that in this, and it doesn't feel like they paid any attentiont to it.
I could go on about the specific pace of editing in certain scenes being more like a US TV series, or the special effects in places looked more Netflix than Hollywood. I understand why they were being used, to convey the messages and storyline that were being told, but the choice to use them were enormously out of character compared to the originals.
Would that tv show perhaps be 1993's Matrix starring Carrie-Anne Moss?
A SNL skit
@@sphtpfhorbrains3592 haha just checked that good call lol
Definitely. This is not something that should have been made as a film - it would have worked better and been better received as a limited series on HBO on Netflix. The three acts are so far apart that they should be their own things - the story of Morpheus' return in the beginning would have made a good 45 minute episode instead of 10 badly paced minutes in a film, then do Neo's return for 45 and then end the series with Neo and Trinity's reunion with another 45. The acting, special effects and the action scenes are fine for a TV show, but not a 2 and a half hour blockbuster cinema movie.
So many people are defending this by saying "no you missed the point; it's a sequel full of pointless nostalgic references because it's criticizing studios that make sequels banking on nostalgia". That's a great way to prank the studio and the audience, I guess, but that doesn't make it a good film or a good addition to the Matrix universe.
Prank the audience into coughing up £15
There is no nostalgia. Just symbolisms of the cycle of the Matrix ….
I'm reminded of a great quote from Philip K Dick: "Reality is such that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
It would've been very interesting for this Matrix film to have explored this quote in an intellectual way.
I thought it did just that.
@@anthonymartensen3164 Well, not if you take the quote in the context of PKD's writing and ideology. In a Matrix film, it would be represented as a person believing that he is in the Matrix when actually he isn't, and the life that he's wasting is more real that any life in his imagined world.
@@UberNoodle that is what taking the blue pill represents, isn't it?
Trailers were underwhelming, but went in out of curiosity with low expectations considering aged core characters. Was not disappointed, enjoyed meta opening short, storyline bridged time gap and suited aged characters. Nostalgia def carries the film, with many modern themes weaving plot and dialogue. Overall loved it. Particular mention for the main antagonist Neil Patrick Harris and Brit actress Jessica Henwick as Bug, she brought out the cool n swag very well.
What? It was terrible
You eat your words and choke on them, Neil Patrick did NOT belong in this movie. Thats even coming from a huge Neil Patrick Harris fan.
I think the filmmakers tried to do what David Lynch did with Twin Peaks: The Return, comment on the current state of the world and the dangers of nostalgia... Unfortunately, they are not David Lynch...
...patiently waiting for David Lynch's Matrix 5. The Return was an absolute triumph though wasn't it?
"Do you think that's air you're breathing now? ". That’s how simple and perfect the Matrix was.
The real red pill was Morpheus had been farting, silently, for 20 minutes
But the problem is, you can't continue to make "wow" moments with old theories. Everyone reviewingthemovie sounds like one of the scenes in Resurrections. "Whatmade Matrix 1 great? It f'd with your head". People are looking for that exact same feeling from each of the sequels.
For me, the disappointment was that they alluded to the machines splitting in to factions, fighting each other and some defecting to the human side. That is a brilliant scenario to explore, perfect for some scifi meat to get in to. But it just got dropped for, well, I dont know. ...
So, either they failed with this film, or that's a setup for more films. But, I'm not sure if any one will care after this film.
It’s shown briefly then moved on from
@@mustermas well, yes
Any sequel that is relying on nostalgia as its main selling point is bound to fail. Blade runner 2049 worked because it respected the source material and introduced new and innovative ideas, they used practical effects and slow, meaningful editing. It's a visceral experience that draws you in and gives you time to think about the deeper meaning Villeneuve intended. It expanded the universe but everything new that was introduced felt at home within the world of the original. There was no need for gratituitous flash backs or corny forces lines that called back to the original. Its the polar opposite of the star wars sequels and they failed because they tried to pander to the masses and diluted the brand while insulting the fans in the process.
Blade Runner 2049 it's an overrated but ok movie to me
For me, it was very hollow. And I've never been so bored watching a Matrix film, than this one.
I gave up halfway through. I found it quite insulting.
Too kind Mark. I had steeled myself with low expectations, but “Matrix The Panto” was so painful to watch I almost considered walking out, hoping it would get better, as it just got worse and worse. Hand me the blue pill so I can forget this embarrassing mess.
Seems pretty clear to me that they deliberately made a bad film to protest at having to do it at all. It's right there in the script. It couldn't be much more obvious.
@@robicenco1 Couldn't have put it better myself. It was pretty obvious quite early on, especially with the jarring out and out sitcom-like marketing executive scenes.
rewatching this now (the review, never the film!), and stunned that Mark says it's better than 3 and on par with 2. This incarnation is truly awful, utter garbage.
I’m with you. I cant believe anyone defends it. It came off to me like a parody of the matrix and had the choreography and visuals of a straight to tv film. It’s almost like she wanted to sabotage this film so they wouldn’t make anymore, and if that was the case: mission accomplished
Totally on the mark there. At the end of The Matrix we understood that there was no spoon; so no need to fight at all - bullets and punches become meaningless. If only the sequels had gone done that route and it could then have developed a story where the human population actually could have been freed in the end.
Kermode is the first one I've seen compare it to Craven's New Nightmare which is a brilliant film.
Definitely agree with him here. A messy flick but no necessarily terrible and it never committed to its big ideas. Also had sub par action.
New Nightmare is my favorite of the series
The Matrix I feel has the Terminator/Star Wars syndrome of having an amazing universe that you could do so much with; however the moves only show it from the same character's perspectives. Heck Matrix did that with a video game from Jada Pinket Smith's character's perspective and that was pretty cool.
You could even have Neo in it for a while to show how powerful he is vs the protagonist?
I was saying a similar thing to my friends but more in relation to Star Wars. Both The Matrix and Star Wars have interesting and wonderfully crafted universes with so many possibilities for stories, mythology, action and so on. Alas after that initial film entry that sent the world alight, the follow-up material just hasn't been able to create something as enticing. That's not to say everything is crap afterwards, but it certainly doesn't have those key elements that the original does.
Star Wars has the potential for all kinds of stories that don't feel repetitive, it's a whole universe with hundreds of aliens that can be a Western or a Samurai movie or a World War 2 dogfighting movie or a Vietnam movie or basically anything else. The Matrix is a bit different, and while you definitely CAN have other stories in that universe (as The Animatrix proved) it's not really clear that audiences would be interested in anything that's not focused on Neo.
The first Matrix was and is genius. Twenty years later they make this.
More than
When Mark starts with "Here's the thing." 😬
The film didn't break any new ground, philosophically or cinematically like the original did. But it was a delight to see Keanu Reeves and Carrie- Ann Moss together and I'm glad they had their happy ending.
I thought the film was mostly Lana Wachowski putting up the middle finger to Warner Bros, whilst having a fun time with the cast and crew, which I respect in a way. Her creative IP was being harassed and exploited by Warner Bros with threats to "reboot" with or without the creators. The original trilogy was perfect (IMO) and nothing subsequent could measure up, so there was little point in trying to emulate them. Rather than let someone else mine the original trilogy for a nostalgic facsimilie ala Star Wars Force awakens, she took the initiative and created something irreverent and joyful.
The bad reviews actually do The Wachowskis a favour, as it will reduce the likelihood of subsequent films and help let the original trilogy rest in peace.
It's a rare case but I think blade runner 2049 is a perfect example of how allowing outside talent to tell new stories in a universe can have huge payoffs.
@@TheeRogerWayne Don't be transphobic
No Roger we stan our queen
You know…they could have said no to a new film.
@@elqord.1118 They explicitly comment in the script how WB already planned to make a new film even if it was against their wishes.
It's clear they didn't have all that much of a say in the matter
I didn’t hate this. I thought it had some interesting ideas especially around how your life is going vs how you want it to go. I think this could have been much better as a limited series with a team of writers. There’s plenty of interesting characters to explore, but the Neo/Trinity story part IV was not enough to really carry a feature.
Some really good ideas but not enough to drive it and it didn't quite unify the worthwhile fragments
It was possible to make sequels to The Matrix that would have worked. The first two sequels should have picked up where the original film ended, with Neo contacting and freeing other people trapped in the Matrix (remember his call on the payphone), to train them and increase the numbers of freedom fighters. Neo's character arc would be learning to step into the Morpheus role. Instead, overnight Neo became a Superman ripoff in a trench coat, fighting a thousand agents and literally flying through the sky. Then there were the forgettable one-off characters, endless monologues with the Architect, religious allegories, and finally Neo and Trinity die. This new film, Resurrections, is an odd duck because it's both a sequel and a sort of reboot, except the actors are 22 years older and all the ideas are old as well. Who cares anymore?
Yes it seems so obvious that where it should have gone was freeing those in the Matrix and it would resonate with several of the spiritual religious themes which I felt was the over arching theme where the 'enlightened one' would then free those from illusion. What was also disappointing is that I went to a 4D Imax experience with the seats moving in all directions for no reason. It was a film I had to see but ultimately didn't need to be made.
the sequel should have followed neo's journey through a new matrix where he has the identity of a brooklyn plumber Mario and has a brother named Luigi. Then, they get the shock of their lives when they discover a parallel world populated by the intelligent descendants of dinosaurs. It seems they weren't destroyed by a meteor millions of years ago but hurled into another dimension and, now, they have plans to rule our world. It's up to our unlikely heroes to battle the evil King Koopa and his Goomba guards, free the beautiful Princess Daisy and save mankind in this adventure of a lifetime.
As noted the problem is that there's two films. A metacontextual short film and the extra stuff. To my mind, there is Lana Wachowski's Neo/Trinity movie and Warner Bros fan service/setup for potential future cash grabbing. The mixing of the two diluted the impact.
Watched it today, mainly out of loyalty to the original Matrix and a sense of nostalgia, as that film meant something to me, but also partly to escape The Marvel Hegemony. I went into it with eyes open regarding the so-so reviews. I have to say, it's...alright. The first and largest portion of the film is rather long, Neo getting back into the Matrix. I enjoyed this more than the final bit, which seemed to go past too quickly and was resolved too easily. Was it a great film? No. Was it terrible? Also no. I loved seeing some of the same characters again, after twenty years though.
And yes, The Matrix is a great standalone film.
@callmecatalyst There are lots of films each *year* indeed that aren’t Marvel films…however I’m talking about this week, because that’s the choice that one has in practice especially as I don’t go to the cinema all the time.
Unfortunately my cinema plays mostly blockbusters (excluding kids’ movies of course), and at least 50% of those are from Marvel. Nothing wrong with that for those who like those films, just not my preference.
You are right that there were other non-Marvel choices I avoided: Clifford the Big Red Dog, Elcanto and Ghostbusters being a few I could mention, but when the cinema shows Spider-Man 23 times in the same day, the choices also compress for this reason too.
Are you on drugs?
Having No Hugo Weaving or Fishburne was a BS decision
I thought it was a good film, and worth going to see it. I liked the matrix revolutions better than reloaded. The original matrix is still the best to me.
That's how I felt about it, too
Despite how bad it is at least Revolutions had a story, Resurrections spent too long with the meta garbage that it took until the half way point for them to realise they needed a story.
'The Matrix Resurrections' looks and plays more like three 45-min episodes of a TV show being played back to back than a film. Watching it is a particularly televisual experience, and that's a shame, when the original Matrix films were groundbreaking action cinema. I'm not sure the filmmakers can be blamed for this, as the budget you get is the budget you get, but the result is very underwhelming when it should have rivalled the biggest tentpoles of the day. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the mandate to the filmmakers was to produce something that could've played on HBO Max as a miniseries or as a theatrical film. Everything that follows with The Matrix 4 is a result of those economic realities - the film looks and feels cheap and pedestrian, and its ambitious story is rushed and condensed, despite the shoot probably costing north of $100million.
That said, in spite of ALL its flaws, of which there are many, 'The Matrix Resurrections' accomplishes something that the Star Wars sequels for example, fail to do. It respects its original, legacy characters and puts them at the forefront of the story, focussing on their relationship and making it an integral part of the narrative. It gives the fans what they want - we will be disappointed by the lower tier CGI and special effects, the lower tier action set pieces, the terribly rushed story, etc. But what we'll never forgive is them getting the characters wrong; and either by design, or sheer luck, the filmmakers brought Neo and Trinity back in an emotional, touching, satisfying way. For any fan of the original Matrix films (yes, all three, not just the first one), this is probably enough. I watched this last night on Christmas Eve and enjoyed it, a lot more than I expected. Pretty sure I will watch it again at some point.
Totally the truth. The Matrix was a brilliant, era defining film. Everything that came after that was completely superflous and never came close to being as good as that first film, and this latest outing that drags in actors really too old for this carry on is no different.
First third was really good, I thought, I was really intrigued to see where it was all heading. Unfortunately it wasn't heading anywhere very interesting. I really think they should have made the whole thing a character-driven psychological thriller with zero action scenes.
the fight scene - the fighters obviously being held up by wires reminded me of highlander 2
I saw Matrix Resurrections yesterday and I was really bored. In the beginning I thought it could get good, but after half an hour I thought it's just an endless repetition of the dialogues and fight scenes Matrix fans loved in the first movie. I think they should have never made a second or third one and definetively not this one.
Perhaps The Matrix shouldn't've been made at all then.
I felt like Agent Smith from The Matrix Revolutions when I watched The Matrix Resurrections:
*"Why, Mrs. Wachowski? Why, why, why? Why do you do it?"*
I don't think it was any worse than the Matrix 2 or 3. I thought it was okay. And the 1st one was ground breaking so no movie will compare. And for the old sequels - people will always consider older things more fondly. Keanu's acting hasn't improved at all. Really stood out.
Agree as a standalone the Matrix is one of the greatest films of all time.
Resurrections is an SNL parody skit dragged out over and hour. Then when the classic, bullet time kung fu with pumping techno is about to begin Dougie Howser literally stops the movie to monologue for five minutes. Instead of sensational cyberpunk weets wire fu we get a re run of the first movie but with Keanu doing jazz hands.
I felt the same thing about LOST the TV series… it should’ve ended after the 1st season. If it was solely that one season, it would’ve been one of the all time greatest TV shows. Of course this is just my humble opinion.
Season 2 was good too.
I have the opposite opinion, I think it is one of the greatest series of all time but the 1st Season is my least favourite.
Whenever I've researched the series front to back it always seems like a slow crawl. Some excellent moments peppered through though.
I think I'm in the minority that found the ending satisfying and think the whole show peaked at Season 4.
20 years on the special effects were not groundbreaking the movie and characters were boring but the ability to tell a decent story is the most lacking thin about Resurrections!
Completely agree, saved me writing a separate comment.
"the matrix is a stand alone film" couldnt agree more! the matrix was a close-to-perfect movie. We signed up for a ride and we had no idea where it was going. everything after, good? ok? whatever you want to say, but nothing like the first
The Matrix Resurrections is a film for people that think the sequels are good, actually. And I am one of them. I am fine with people hating it but I loved it.
A lot of people who love the sequels hated it. Some people who don't like the sequels found it good.
I liked Reloaded and thought Revolutions was meh. I thought this one was the worst of the lot. The fight scenes are awful and the ideas are terrible. Jada Pinkett pretending to be old is straight out of the I Am Sam school of acting.
It's even more glaring when you watch the new Spiderman film. Member berries done exceptionally
@@masteryas80 I feel the same way about the sequels. Had a feeling a might also like this one the least.
That it has such poor action is criminal for a Matrix movie
@@DocRobotnik You didn't need bullet time to dodge a single punch in this film!
@@masteryas80 no one dies, so it's as if they all have cheat codes.
First one changed the game. The other two, as Mark says, just had golden moments. Matrix 4 for me is probably the 2nd best Matrix movie.
I just boiled it down to, "this is a love story. And it's certainly more interesting than the average love story".
👍
Reloaded was good and Revolutions grew on me this Movie was unnecessary
I agree completely. I felt they really swung for the fences … hit some, missed others but I certainly found it entertaining and much better than the other two sequels
There’s absolutely no reality where this film is better or on par with the pervious sequels. The first half felt like a bad Saturday Night Live Skit
@@tommarshall9927 thats your opinion buddy and I certainly see how you could see it that way. For me personally, I remember the excitement and anticipation of seeing Reloaded in 2002? and bar the fantastic motorway chase sequence it was my biggest ever cinema going disappointment after the amazing original. The third I just remember as a brown, muddy nothing. This as OP said can be boiled down to being a love story. For me, this is a much more enjoyable theme than whatever the original sequels were about …. What were they about, in the end? I seam to remember the directors losing their way in the mythology very quickly ….. standing around in train stations ….. speaking to programs …… confusing conversations with key makers …. Etc … basically nonsense. This film, admittedly despite having a few terrible scenes, has far higher highs than the sequels combined and therefore I can safely say I enjoyed it more than the sequels. I only wish they could have got cameos by Laurence Fishburne and Hugo Weaving as their absences are massive
I thought it was hugely disappointing. Did the "Man of Steel" thing where the opening 30-40 mins was very interesting and opened up a lot of potential plot directions that could have been fascinating, but then just descended into being a dull by-the-numbers plodathon.
The entire final third feels like a low-level superhero film. Huge missed opportunity.
It would appear that Trinity and Neo are now collectively 'The One,' perhaps mirroring Lana's own transition, as some muse, but something is still missing. We can't see it, yet, but it's there, like a splinter in our minds. Reloaded and Revolutions showed us entirely new layers to the larger world that was The Matrix (original). Clearly, Resurrections was designed to do the same, but what if the entire film was not as it appeared? Might Lana have placed us all in a Matrix within a Matrix in Resurrections, to dream Neo's dream, ending as it began, like a dream? Because it was. Perhaps it's not that "Tom" created the Matrix films and a popular video game called The Matrix, as Resurrections wants to show us - it's that his newly revealed "real life" is a dream program still running within the Architect's "measure of control," and overseen by the Analyst, who very well might be the Architect himself playing the role of Tom's analyst within the Modal. This would mean Trinity is still dead, and Tiffany/Trinity is nothing but a "resurrected" NPC within the Modal, giving Neo purpose, but an empty one. Perhaps the Machines are testing out various Modals to see which version could never be escaped by anyone, including Neo, with the Architect still attempting to create the perfect Matrix overall, as it were. The line in Resurrections where Neo says, "I've had dreams that weren't just dreams," as well as what the Analyst tells him about his current "reality" are strong clues.
This would explain the strangely disjointed, campy, dream-like theme to Resurrections itself. The entire film is not a prequel, but a computer-generated dream (that we each experienced) designed to expose the Anomaly's weaknesses so that all future "One's" would never expose the Machines own weaknesses, as Neo did. The Machine's knowing Trinity was a strong factor in Neo's power, would of course seemingly "resurrect" her to test Neo's abilities, hence the film's name. The Machines would be in need of an answer as to how Neo manifested in power to the point he did, if only to prevent another Anomaly from ever challenging the Machines to the extent he did. I heard there won't be a sequel, but if there were, we may find out the crushing reality that the Matrix is still a dark, cyberpunk world, where Morpheus and the Oracle still exist and are still trying to find Neo, as Neo slumbers somewhere deep within the Machine world being unwittingly experimented on by the Architect. Indeed, this sounds exactly like the thinking of a machine to me... ... ...
Nah. Too coherent. And jettisons the silly "trans allegory" stuff.
The Matrix certainly works as a standalone film, but there was clearly potential for more, whatever you think of the sequels themselves. The first film ends with Neo becoming the one, but the matrix itself still exists. It even ends with a call to action (which people might cynically call 'sequel-bait').
The film spends 45 minutes wanting to deconstruct what's happened before it, and it's fun! There's some good ideas about deja-vu and a matrix within a matrix. It feels a bit Gremlins 2 'meta' and it felt fresh.
After this the film just descends into what made the sequels so bad, and what the film was commenting on. Bizarrely it has the fight choreographer from the original film acting in this- the film sure could have done with him helping with the action as it falls flat in that regard.
Yeah, that's what has made me sad too. I was initially intrigued, but then knowing it all just serves to go back on itself really stings what it was trying to say before. And it can't even have the decent to do the action right at that point.
I cannot fathom how a matrix film manages to have such terrible action choreography.
The best thing about action in the matrix was how much you saw, without frequent cuts. The action in this is just a mess of bourne-like nonsense
@@DocRobotnik no second unit, at all.
Chad Stahelski, who has an acting role in this, was a stuntman in the first Matrix films, not a fight choreographer. The choreographer/action director was Yuen Woo-Ping (who did not return for this).
Stahelski (and John Wick 1 co-director David Leitch) did say in interviews a while ago that they were going to contribute some things to Resurrections' action. But unfortunately there wasn't much evidence of it!
Tiger Chen is someone else who *did* return. He was part of Yuen Woo-Ping's stunt team in the original trilogy, starred in Keanu Reeves' directorial debut Man of Tai Chi (fun film!), and has a role in Resurrections. I don't know if he contributed anything to the film film's action, though.
There was a recent interview with Jonathan Groff who said that Lana Wachowski told him that since she transitioned, she's become more improvisational in her directing style, and less reliant on meticulously storyboarding shots. I wonder if that played a role in the decline of Resurrections' action?
@@AkdmxVEVO that's not always a bag thing, but here, they needed an action director
Any opportunity to shoehorn Wes Craven into a conversation, Mark's straight in there
The first film tells the entire story. It never need anything else.
I feel like so many people missed the point of this movie. It is not a sequel to the Matrix but a message to WB. So many scenes represent WB talking to Lana Wachowski. How "Smith" says this project will be done with or without you. How the characters keep referencing how they haven't been given a choice.
Similar to how Lana was essentially put between a rock and a hard place because she would either have to give her characters, "her children" to some soulless money making machine or be forced to make a sequel to a story that had already been properly concluded. A bunch of meetings most likely took place about what was expected to be in the matrix sequel, mirrored by the actual meetings in the movie; after Lana was essentially forced to be a part of it all. However if she was gonna be a part of it, then she was gonna make sure that above all else, her "children" were saved. All the things in the meeting that were discussed they were gonna make in the movie,so that her true message could go unnoticed by the old farts demanding a sequel.
The ending of the film, having both Trinity and Neo being completely overpowered, essentially places any future writer in a hole that is impossible to escape. The ending scene where they talk about rainbows, is saying to WB, create a new world with new characters and lore, and stop trying to resurrect old franchises. It's a subtle and yet not so subtle message, that says yeah a lot of "sheeple" will be swayed by money to revive their old franchises and if becoming one with the soulless machine makes them happy more power to them, but Lana Wachowki ain't one of em.
Yeah I get that it's a meta commentary on Lana, the movie practically shouts that at you. I just don't think it's interesting or well-written or fun to watch.
Maybe handing it over to someone else would have been the better way forward. Nolan would have worked wonders with a new iteration. Inception itself was very Matrix like. There’s plenty of directors out there that could have been totally invested in the universe..one of them was in the film!! (Chad Stahelski).
Part of this Matrix felt like it had been inspired by T2. Using the flashbacks and involving the meta stuff in conversation pieces. Just like some parts of the second trainspotting.
I’m surprised he didn’t eviscerate this film, I walked out saying it was a 7 at most to some friends but upon more reflection it is a 5 at best. IMO Reloaded and Revolutions all had something to offer and although no where near as good as the original they both expanded the story and still have people discussing parts and character arcs to this day - more so than if it had been a standalone.
It’s interesting to me and perhaps it’s a generational thing but I still to this day look at the Lore and peoples interpretations regarding the ending and it still fascinates me to this day and essentially keeps the Matrix alive.
To say that this is on a par with the sequels is to me forgetting the impact those films had and perhaps because of the lack of interest as mentioned by their generation in learning more about the story post film.
Literally nobody will be asking anymore questions about Resurrections as none of it felt like canon.
Exactly, the matrix sequels are much better than they're given credit for. Not as good as 1 but still great movies. This was mid
Our world has changed. The first was so awesome we have all moved on and I have no desire to see this: don't look back!
Shouldn't the two prior subpar sequels have tempered expectations going into this one?!
I kinda hoped than during the 18 or so years since revolutions that they may have come up with a single idea worth committing to film. But yes, it was wrong to expect anything other than what we got.
I loved the first three matrix series....but this one for me wasn’t very good too me....I think I expected to much maybe lol
I watched the first Matrix in the cinemas in 1999 as a teenager knowing barely anything about it and it still stands to this day as my favourite film/cinema experience of all-time. Hearing that the Matrix was always supposed to be a trilogy had me giddy with excitement and expectation and I had my dreams crushed when they were released. I kind of wish they didn't exist as the first film was so perfect. That said, I appreciated that the story did end the way it did. There was a definite finality about it.
So when I heard about the fourth coming out, I wasn't really excited to see it. I ended up watching Resurrections more as a curiosity than anything else. My expectations were already so low. I kind of treated it as more like a side-story then actually pushing the Matrix universe forward, especially after seeing the trailer.
And that's why to my surprise I REALLY enjoyed Resurrections. Immediately you could see the tonal shift that the film was taking and that it was going to be nothing like the original trilogy (in terms of tonality). They were openly breaking the fourth wall and stating that it didn't need to exist and just was having fun and making jokes. And because of this I relaxed into the experience and started to have fun with it myself.
The whole opening third of the movie was really well done with Neo trying to figure out what was real or not and whether he was losing his mind. It recaptured some of the magic of the original film's opening. Then, for me, the entire resurrection scene was both awesome and horrific in the best way possible. Seeing the machine city again but in it's newer form was jaw dropping. After not thinking about what would happen in the aftermath of the war and reliving that all again made me glad I was able to revisit it.
I thought the film kind of fell flat in the final third but the action sequences were good enough to keep me entertained (again, I wasn't expecting anything on the level of the first film). I also loved (spoiler alert) that the architect of the new matrix was just some business suit that was using Neo and Trinity to meet his monthly output targets/profits (again, breaking the fourth wall to epitomise why this film exists in the first place). So overall I came away very happy. I feel like the negative reviews people are having are probably because they still had investment in the franchise. Go into watching this film with different expectations and I think you'll enjoy it.
It's horrible
I liked films better why I was a teenager too.
Funny thing, Reloaded and Revolutions actually grew on me after watching them a few times and watching it as a Trilogy makes a lot of sense. And I know a lot of people who think this way. I think we were expecting too much of those sequels after being blown away by the first one but with time, the story makes sense and the story of the trilogy as a whole is pretty decent. And honestly that 4th "movie" was just pure garbage to me, the whole meta aspect was ridiculous, the cuts were obnoxious in action scenes and for heaven's sake, the frigging zombies instead of agents thing was so stupid... By far the worst movie I watched in years and way worse than any other matrix movie...
They would have made one perfect sequel rather than two overlong sequels.
Many know that the original Matrix owes a great deal 'stylistically' to 1998's Blade and Dark City.
I haven't seen it yet. But can we also discuss the cinematography, the score and other things about the movie rather than just the story and plot?
No setup for another? You've got to be kidding. They get together again, and even state that get another try at things. If that ain't a signal for a sequel, I don't know what is.
I saw the "thank you for another chance" thing as referring to this 4th movie itself and specifically giving Trinity more explicit importance
In terms of possible sequels; Lana Wachowski has confirmed this was a one-off.
Don't understand the hate for Reloaded and Revolutions, some of the dialogue in Revolutions was god awful.. I'll give you that but they were pretty awesome.
I don't understand the hate the action was amazing in both those movies maybe acting/story not as great
It was very amateurish and looked like a TV show in its execution. Lana lacked conviction in the directing which made the action scenes look flat and not very well story boarded.
The Matrix films have well known for pushing the boundaries of action, showing us scenes of carnage that defy anything we've seen before, none of the action here comes even close.
The editing was terrible, with too much flashbacks to the original films, it felt contrived and lazy as it tried to instill nostalgia into the viewer to make them forget they were watching a very poor film.
A huge disappointment and cynical cash grab that does no justice to the trilogy (even if uneven). Hopefully it will loose enough money to prevent anymore films being made that will just tarnish the legacy of the films even further.
That's a good point. Maybe bringing in an outside director would have been better. Ilya Naishuller, who did Nobody comes to mind. It says something when the satire of John Wick has better directing.
@@DrVVVinK Nobody was an awesome action film, Ilya Naishuller would have been a great choice to direct a Matrix film. Sam Hargrave also springs to mind as he did a brilliant job directing Extraction. Those action scenes flowed so well, they literally immersed you In them.
So many of these sort of hyperbolic comments.
I enjoyed how the characters kept asking each other what was going on and there response made it even more confusing
I loathed this film. I hate how emotional thinking about this film makes me, but I am heavily invested in the lore of the trilogy, because despite its flaws and frequent accidental comedy and eventual hollow profundity, I love those first three films. However, this was just a basic, cynical ego-trip for a director who basically was in the right place at the right time with a one-hit wonder, which quite rightly changed the face of action cinema as we know it. This film had be squirming in my seat, experiencing a mixture of horror and sadness.
Can someone explain what their problem is with the film rather than just spew how bad they think it is?
The action, the dialogue, the plot, the music, the lack of threat, the smugness, a cat called Deja Vue, it makes no sense, the acting, direction, the orange suit, the statue, everything.....
@@pauldevonshire9493 seems like that would've been the response no matter what they put together. People forget, movies are pure fantasy. They are an illusion. I feel like no magger what was delivered would've been unsatisfying...
It's the third Pirates movie where everyone's a pirate combined with the masturbatory fan service nostalgia of JJ's THE FORCE AWAKENS. Utter rubbish. It was pretty, though. Keanu phoned it in, Trinity felt like an afterthought, and Lana had a social commentary agenda and bone to pick with WB. It's biggest crime was undercutting the rules established in the first film, and that to me is unforgivable.
Was this the real review or is everything I know false?
to be honest I’ve always believed the matrix works best as a trilogy and I can fully believe it was written that way. Is the first film the strongest, the most watchable? Absolutely, but the second and third films have always worked very well to build on top of the first matrix, particularly with regards to the films philosophical aspirations. I understand Kermode’s opinion on the matrix as a series, it’s undeniable that the first film is perfectly paced in almost every way and balances the stakes in a way that the later films do not, but I would still much rather a world with the matrix sequels than one without, and I am at least glad that even though resurrections is lacking that same pacing and construction, even though the action does not wow like the first film, that the franchise still has a soul and intellectual curiosity to it that allows it to stand out, I think, from the usual action fare. I am also glad that we have a such a prominent series by transgender filmmakers that is gradually being recognised for its trans themes, but I think sadly it will be some time before that becomes an accepted part of the public discourse around these films
better than Revolutions? Resurrections makes Revolutions look like Shawshank
One thing this matrix does far better than reloaded and revolutions is making the real world far more interesting (but not enough explored). Io is far more interesting than Zion. But Mark is spot on in saying this movie is on par with Reloaded (perhaps a tiny bit above it).
It could have been interesting, but it was just "described" and forgotten. Shame!
I enjoyed the film didn't go in with huge expecatations, they opened the door again for better matrix films to be created now... The door was closed for good and it's back open now ^
That was a very kind review.. too kind perhaps
The matrix resurrections is just awful.
1. The movie tries to do too much and is so unfocused. Many things are left unfinished or unexplained.
2. There is no tension or high stakes. Nobody dies. There’s no sense that humanity is about to be destroyed.
3. The movie doesn’t take itself seriously. Between the humour and the constant meta references it’s not a movie that believes itself to be a genuine matrix story.
4. The action is pretty lacklustre. Nothing really stands out or is interesting.
5. Why is agent smith still around? Why is Morpheus not played by Laurence fishburne.Why has the Merovingian been reduced to be a stupid rambling homeless person.
I really really enjoyed the Matrix Resurrections. I think there’s often a conflict between your intellectual and emotional response to a movie, and with this movie it’s not difficult to start analysing why it’s not cinematically groundbreaking, or why the plot doesn’t quite work, or why the movie didn’t need to be made, or why it’s a little too ‘meta’. But at the end of the day - for me at least, and my friends - the 2 hours 30 minutes absolutely flew by, the action scenes had us shouting “phwoar”, the nostalgic call-backs had us buzzing, the re-connection of Neo and Trinity portrayed by Keanu and Carrie-Anne sent shivers down our spine, and ultimately we came out of that cinema with a big smile on our faces.
I can absolutely understand why some would be a little disappointed, but I think (a) if you’re expecting a movie as groundbreaking as the first Matrix, you’ve got foolishly high expectations, and (b) I think the people scoring this movie a 1 star or a 1/10 are just being silly.
How much did WB pay you?
I had similar thoughts to you. The first is still a perfectly self-contained movie and none of the sequels get close, but this was the most I enjoyed a Matrix sequel (if we don't count the Animatrix). I'm a little confused at the aggressively negative feedback from some but I'm glad I saw it and had a good time.
@@PTizzleAusGN I agree. To be honest I think the negative feedback is predominately coming from critics and old bitter fans who hated the movie before they even saw it, because they didn’t want it to be made.
The interesting thing is that (and Mark even mentioned this), although the original Matrix was groundbreaking, and a masterpiece, Reloaded and Revolutions were not so, and furthermore were riddled with issues. And they got a lot of criticism upon release, but it’s almost like now people have forgotten this are putting the entire original trilogy on the level of the first Matrix and then stating that Resurrections is far below. In my opinion, although I love the other sequels, I think Resurrections is just as good as Reloaded and Revolutions, and isn’t any worse than the original Matrix than they are, yet for some reason the some fans are scoring it a 1 star.
@@mattypayne66 I was actually optimistic going in. I was looking forward to it. But there is no denying it was utter rubbish. But then again, each to their own. A friend of mine who is also in the same boat as me, saw it separately, and reported he thought it was terrible too.
@@Ashtonishing1812 in what regard was it utter rubbish?
*>"MOVIES SUCK NOW AND ITS THE DUMB AUDIENCES FAULT AND NOT GREEDY CORPORATIONS."*
There I saved you two and half hours.
I was surprised as to how badly the fight scenes were shot and edited given the first three movies.
I don't like how Kermode pretends that Animatrix doesn't exist smh
I suppose it was only a special video only release. But yeah, it's up with Akira and Ghost in the shell in my book!
I thought it had so many great things. The one problem for me, was that the central story line should not have been a solely lovey dovey plot. Instead it should have been a side plot, to a matrix story that went more deeper and thought provoking than the original. To really push the philosophy, to a level where people left the cinema like "holy shit we could be in one already" "this is real" or "walking out the cinema feels mega weird now". And the love story would have been the ultimate compliment to that. It needed to mentally go somewhere where the other 3 and other films had not been in general for it to have the complete impact it wanted. Fundamentally that's what the original was all about. I still enjoyed it though, still better than most shite and the never ending array of super hero films that came out in 2021.
This is pretty accurate. I'd still like to see one more with Weaving and Fishburne back again.
Resurrections has something to say... but what it's saying is "Warner brothers sucks LOL" and the script reads like it was composed in a Twitter thread after Lana had a few too many drinks. High ambitions and big ideas don't automatically make for good storytelling, or else every stoner kid in college would be making masterpieces.
For me Mark misses the point - in a cycle of cynical blockbusters this is an original property doing interesting things - it’s all about love, arguably the whole franchise is. The original, reloaded and this are the trilogy.
The Burly Brawl in Reloaded (notwithstanding some of the bad CGI) was fantastic.
LOVED the first one. 2 and 3 were bloated and bleh. Resurrections different, daring, and fun. People are picking bones with the TV aesthetic, but for me, it worked, given the plot.
Not sure if I have the terrible reviews to thank, but as a massive Matrix fan I went into the cinema on Wednesday night with fairly low expectations and found it... surprisingly enjoyable? Just don't take it too seriously and don't expect a film in the same style as the original trilogy. A lot of time has passed since 1999: the world has changed and we've all changed since. So has The Matrix.
Seeing a lot of criticism of it being 'too woke' but all that must have gone over my head.
Ratings:
The Matrix - 10/10
Reloaded - 8/10
Revolutions - 7/10
Resurrections - 6.5/10
Agree with your scores except I'd give Resurrections 5/10 at most
@@mettacitta2000 I'd give it 2.5 or 3 out of 10 at the absolute max. Terrible writing, crap cinematography, terrible action sequences, crap plot.
I would definitely say this is far better watched at home, with subtitles. That dialogue needs to be seen to be believed
I had particular trouble following some of Bug’s lines - but by that point I was past caring anyway.
The Matrix original is probably partly so good because it's almost scene for scene ripping off Ghost in the Shell. But then when the Wachowski's then had to rely more on their own ideas for the following films... we saw what happens.
My guess is that a lot of the people who dislike just didn't get what they wanted. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a terrible film.
But see...
shouldn't you review a film with objectivity, rather than in comparison to some other completely different movie?
It baffles me how few critics are able to maintain objectivity in regard to this film.
I absolutely agree with Mark, for a change! The Matrix is a classic, and should have ended there. Everything after that is a cash grab.
theres only 2 trilogys which are any good, ORIGINAL STAR WARS & NOLANS BATMAN trilogy for me
@@nicoladavies1848 add the Lord of the rings to that!
@@drhfuhruhurr4253 they were too long for me! Just don't say Harry Potter!
@@rossofficial beverly hills cop trilogy!!! 🤣🤣🤣
Thing I found intresting was the new method of control. The way the machines had comeup with to make humans accept the matrix and not risk the truth. Other than that not notable or done better before.
The Matrix is my fave movie & I watched Resurrections last night! It's all over the place! It's not awful but it is average at best! There's some good action sequences but there's some decisions made in the film where I was like, you having a laugh? Also where's Neo's cool sunglasses when he's in the Matrix? Even on the posters he's wearing them but he doesn't in the movie! I actually think revolutions is slightly better & that's saying something!
Here's the thing... I was expecting the Matrix for social media, mobile phones, infinite content netflix online of 2022, using the ideas on AI from Nick Bostrom expressed in Superinteligence. There was none of that, sadly. Can only hope to be alive when next Space Odyssey 2001 comes out.
The story of this film should have been the story of a new trilogy.
1st film: introduce new characters, end with rediscovering neo.
2nd film: neo breaking out of the matrix, end with discovering trinity.
3rd film: breaking trinity out of the matrix.
Everything after the first 30-45 minutes felt so rushed, and underdeveloped.
This movie was a philosophical breakdown of the trilogy disguised as an accessible action movie.
I actually ended up liking this more than I'd dare hope. I fully agree the original Matrix is 'the ONE' and this one has its issues for sure. I personally found the montage where everyone chimes in on what the Matrix in essence is to be a bit cringe and obvious. But there are all kinds of little details that make it fun to watch regardless. I also got the sense it handled certain less savoury factions' claiming its legacy and 'red pill' terminology quite well, e.g. by doubling down on Wachowski's own reading of the original film as an allegory about transitioning in a binary gender system.
Let's face it, if they had just done the first one, we wouldn't really have missed the sequels. That said this one was ok. It wasn't as terrible as the 3rd, and was slightly better than the second. You could make another six sequels but you're never going to beat the first which is a modern classic.
@@johnhaigh7473 I think they meant it's slightly better than the first sequel ie Reloaded but not as good as the original film. I disagree though I think it's worse than Reloaded but better than Revolutions.
As a huge fan of the originals, especially the sequels, I absolutely loved it. I never thought we needed a new one, but if we had to have one, this is what I wanted - less a sequel and more an epilogue.
It's obviously in close conversation with not just the original movies but the entire cultural phenomenon of the Matrix, but it then transforms into this thesis about what it's *really* all about, love and trust and togetherness and community, about feeling over cold rationality. I think that thesis is what Kermode and others are missing here. The first half is asking a question ("What was The Matrix?") which is answered by the second.
However I also understand if people hate it. Anyone who didn't like the sequels will almost certainly dislike this. But as someone for whom those films were enormously important and formative this was perfect. Not flawless, but perfect.
(I did really miss Fishburne though.)
Here's the thing.... Any sequel that makes fun of the prior film(s) loses me as it takes away from what you love. I am looking directly at Crystal Skull, the rubber snake and the sand pit. 😐 Resurrections has at least two of these moments. I enjoyed the cinema experience, but this film takes more than it gives.
Sometimes you need to make fun of the past.
My unpopular opinion is that actually all of the Matrix films are good and work as a complete story.
But then my thoughts on what the important themes, ideas and focuses were seem different to other people's anyway.