I thought this movie was going to be about the truce between Zion and the machines that Neo brought about. That's where the story left off. Instead, this movie was about how Lana is trapped in the Hollywood matrix.
I was pretty confused when I was watching this. I understood that it was commenting on the nature of sequels and realised it was intentionally bland etc but now after watching this and reading the comments I realise just how much I wasnt aware was going on or why. I need to watch it again. Thanx for the video Wisecrack and for the explanations and views from the comments section.
Half way? The board room stuff where the movie is clearly making fun of itself is in the first act. The middle half is when it actually starts continuing the lore.
Pretty much matrix revolutions. Being one of the first big multi sequel production at once they got burned out hard and fast and you can tell as the sequels go on, but those at least have the same overarching vibe and them for the most part.
I enjoyed it. But turned it off 90mins in. Seemed like the actual message of the movie was that I should probably stop watching the movie and go live life. 🤷♂️ Edit: I meant that with zero irony or sarcasm btw
Not simply hating it, but hate of the idea of making a basic retread nostalgia bait action flick. There's so much in the film that's about more than that, like the misappropriation or misinterpretation of matrix's rebellious subtext
I was unexpectedly entertained before Neo wakes up again from his pod. All the gaslighting and mental fuckery put on him and thus the audience was pretty fun to watch, as well as Wachowski's dissection of not only the trilogy itself but also her view on the business now. Unfortunately everything kinda just went bland after that, even though it is possible that Lana did it intentionally. Filming intentionally bad to give a mid finger to WB is fun, watching the end product as a fan of the franchise, on the other hand, is not.
it was no where near bad enough to make the claim that Lana made a 'bad film on purpose'. She attempted to make a good film while giving the middle finger to WB but failed.
The worst part about all of this is the fact that there were actual good plot points that would have made great movies on their own. - Some machines have become sympathetic to the human cause - Trinity realizing her own strengths that aren't tied to Neo - Smith acting as an eternal opposite to Neo - The politics of the Machines and the new city of Io
This is one of those movies where I LOVE the ideas and concepts it gives, but I hate the execution. I honestly think this is proof that the Wachowski siblings work best together instead of separate. I feel like each of the points you mentioned would have been fleshed out more if the other Sibling was on board with Lana
Also, the fact machines started a war against other machines, meaning they no longer act as a unique swarm but rather like seperated entities fighting for ressources, repeating the process every biological form of life has been through before they were enslaved or eradicated.
I agree with all of these except for the third. Smith coming back in any capacity is incredibly stupid. It’s almost as bad Palpatine in TROS. Almost
2 года назад+11
> Some machines have become sympathetic to the human cause Don't we actually explore that theme since the first movie? Or else what's the Oracle's deal then?
I think the movie had a completely different tone than the rest of the series, and the aesthetics that were chosen were also odd. It was filmed like a vibrant CW tv show and the comedy was similarly off putting. It did not feel like a Matrix movie. The story really dipped in quality around 30 minutes in and the action got worse with every take. It’s also very difficult to watch when you think of Keanu Reeves’ recent action work in John Wick. I don’t know what happened, but it was not good.
They definitely went with more traditional action cinematography versus how they framed everything based on anime/manga frames in the originals. That definitely took alot of potential aesthetic character away from part 4.
@@israelsu1757 ....that's literally what they just said. And then they literally gave reasons for why they didn't like it. I haven't even seen this yet and I agree with the statement that it looks and feels like a poorly written CW movie. And almost any movie critic out there is saying the same exact thing, it's been on nearly everyone's worst movie's of 2021 list.
Realising Wachowski intentionally make a movie that is shit by industry standards and a big middle finger towards reboot culture, I think it's one of the most baller moves ever made.
@@bloodaonadeline8346according to the free market, our excess spending power is going into rent. I'd rather have art than increased rent (tho I get the reason that happens is to incentivize building, which is probably a better use to house ppl etc. but just talking about the actual effect in a capitalist/NIMBY culture). And I guess I can think of infinite bad uses just like that, tho not sure how that impacts it being a baller move anyway
It definitely is a baller move but I wish I knew that before watching the movie. Everything I loved about the trilogy was destroyed with this one movie.
I have not been very impressed by the tongue in cheek "we are roasting our own legacy" thing. It worked for 22 Jump Street but that had the added benefit of being able to actually joke about all the cliches because it's actually a comedy.
A movie doesn't need to explicitly be a comedy to have its own humor validated. It's just another artistic choice like anything else. I thought it worked just fine.
Exactly. You are allowed to make fun of your own movie but only if you're planning on doing something different than the tropes you're making fun of. Resurrections does not.
Idk, something about the whole movie felt like a Matrix fan fiction got a greenlight from WB. Also I'm a little sick to death of snide, meta, cometary/callouts in movies that absolutely won't age well at all.
Lana had the creative freedom to do what she wanted and she decided to do a movie that comments on the fact that it's unnecessary. I get that it turns a lot of people off (apparently) but it works for me. It's funny to me that people seem to not think the other Matrix films haven't "aged".
I get the message that the 4th Matrix movie in the series trying to make, so I just felt disappointed by the time it got to the movie's ending. I'm also still unclear why it was important that Morpheus be dead from the original Morpheus according to Laura Wachowski. After all this talk about resurrection and how the Matrix now represents trans, that never was clear to me why that was so constant to her. I wanted to like it, but I didn't. It feels like a slog that I have to wait for another movie to get this story over with. Your opinion may vary, and I respect that.
doesn‘t seems to have changed anything. Matrix 5 is already in discussion and probably will be a huge middlefinger to Lana. At least she got to express and say what she wanted to say with Matrix 4.
@@JoeChillton maybe you have more recent news I‘m not aware of but it definitely seems like there will be more Matrix down the road, doubt Warner will let this IP die, maybe not Matrix 5 but Ani-Matrix or an original HBO max series with the IP. ruclips.net/video/c5ohTSrSwbE/видео.html … time will tell.
@@kenonerboy Not incredibly fun like the first one that woke too many minds, nor too horrific like the second one that also lost too many minds, nor dull like the third that had a war on terror. 4 is a little too much ("Catrix"?) and not enough fun (suicidal star and botnets).
It's not a very good movie but hating itself and believing it shouldn't exist makes it very interesting. I'm glad to see someone pushing back against the endless parade of sequels and cinematic universes that dominate our media landscape today.
I completely agree with you. It's a perfectly decent film, but the fact that it hates its own existence and constantly references the previous films is genuinely pretty interesting. It at least kept my attention more than the *vast* majority of unnecessary reboot sequels.
I would say the movie "hates itself" is a bit of an exaggeration. I think it comments on the fact that it was made via studio obligation and the state of this nostalgia crazed world we live in.
The movie kind of freaked me out honestly. Because of the implications of the whole “isn’t this stupid” thing. The first movies were obviously kinda mind blowing, and I think an audience member probably should have come away with a feeling of “I need to understand how the powers that be control my life and perceptions.” However this movie sort of makes that theme a bit hopeless. Like “lol we don’t wanna make this movie, but Warner brothers is gonna do it anyway, let’s make fun of it!” WB: “yeah sure you do u. As long as it makes us money” (which it did). Basically there’s kind of a weird power move here on WB’s part where it’s essentially outright saying “we can force creators to make something, and we can shove it down your throats, and you’ll buy it.” It’s kind of anti revolutionary I think. It feels less like a realization/way out, and more like an acceptance that we “can’t get out of the matrix” lol. Which ironically might be a more accurate depiction of beudrillard’s work that inspired this, but still felt strange actually coming from a corporate film studio.
What you are talking about is recuperation under capitalism. This movie isn't just "anti revolutionary." It is literally a capitalist product produced by capitalists to generate profit for the corporation's shareholders. Their "revolution" is wholly controlled by the machine.
@@TheSundayShooter Leftists dont consider corporations allies lol, we hate how they reappropriate things that should be taken way more seriously. Death to Capitalism and their t-shirts. We aren't here to make the poor downtrodden white males feel better about themselves. You aren't being oppressed by any mainstream elite sjws trying to wipe you out forever, snowflake. Stop separating yourselves from us and fight the real enemy, those that worship money.
@@anthonymartensen3164 I wasn't happy that somehow they were able to resurrect the original Neo and Trinity, but they weren't able to resurrect the original Morpheus. That just made no damn sense to me
I've watched it twice, and I still don't even know what Lana was trying to do, exactly. There are just so many elements that don't add up. LIke why are the action scenes so terrible? Why make the moral of the story "Trinity was just as important as Neo" but have Trinity sidelined for 90% of the movie? Why was Smith even in it at all? Why all the not-Zion drama that goes nowhere? It's just so MESSY. Although props to her for creating a movie people are talking about. Love it or hate it, this does seem to be one of the most divisive and talked-about major franchise films in years.
Yeah it really felt like lana was like, no, i'm gonna make trinity important just cuz i can. The Oracle was so important to the original trilogy, shifting away from that to some kind of special bond between neo and trinity got me irked. But i think it was completely intentional, Lana was forced to make this, and made sure everyone knew throughout.
cause they phoned everything in. period. they didnt care cause they wanted another sequel and she kept saying no and caved. they shouldve got fresh blood to direct it if she was so heistant about coming back
The Last Jedi irreparably fractured the SW franchise yet there's still hope. The Mandalorian, The Bad Batch have been hits and Boba episode 2 was amazing. The Matrix 4 utterly obliterated and killed the franchise. It's done and no sequels have been slated.
@@anthonymartensen3164 and yet they ended the movie in a way that you are all but guaranteed that you have to make more movies to continue the story. I hate that. Even if intentional parody doing so.
@@starkingbiker language, and look at the ending again and tell me that they can't come back to redo the Matrix to make it better like they were going to do in the first trilogy sequel in the first place interpretation? But that is the whole point that they're trying to stop for making another movie what the studios are going to miss and going to make movies or going to reboot this damn thing in the first place because they can anyway. We all agree it shouldn't be made.
She worded it perfectly at the end of the video. Lana used this movie to change things she did not like in the previous 3 movies. And that is what fundamentally I do not like about this Matrix movie. I love the entire franchise with a passion. But this movie felt like it was created by someone who actually hated the previous movies and wanted to make it "better". If that was the case, just use all new characters and show a new generation fighting against the establishment. Don't even re-tread the Neo story, write a new story. Don't go and replace Morpheus with a new actor, change what makes Neo the one and say, actually he is one of two. And why was Merovingian even in the movie at all ??? Just for a laugh ? You have him back but not even think about asking Laurence Fishburne ? Really ?!?!?
I'm taking your position and thinking this is like what George Lucas did, try to improve the story many years or decades later and this is our result. Except on this iteration, she was forced to continue the story because if she didn't, someone else would without her. Confused what this means when they were two relatives that made the story, and one sister is not involved if it is that story anymore. I'm just throwing my hands up and saying I'm not interested anymore for the continuation of the story.
He was there because his character taught us that not everyone gets erased when the Matrix is reset. Morpheus died outside the Matrix and is full dead.
@@khangmai5753 I hear you, except Neo and Trinity also both died. Trinity specifically died outside the matrix but they found a way to bring her back... With resurrection pods?
@@KevinF but they died in the "meta" matrix, the one created for those seeking for freedom, but not in the "meta meta matrix" that this movie takes place. In this one is made clear that morpheus is a program on the "meta matrix" while neo and trinity are from the "meta meta matrix"
It doesn't work as well as a Hollywood blockbuster product, but I've been tearing up reflecting on all the ways Lana inserted herself into the story. As a trans allegory, it's pretty intense. That both Neo and Trinity occupy bodies that don't reflect who they are... Trinity sharing how she identified with Trinity and having her husband laugh... and she laughs as well to hide the pain and the anger. The primacy of relationship in the disruption of the matrix - it's not enough to see myself as myself, but there is power in being seen. As a Matrix movie, it doesn't have the revolutionary blockbuster sparkle of the original, but as a vehicle for telling a personal story about relationships and being seen, it puts a crinkle in my heart.
I had friends who were in the "hated it for another piece of woke Hollywood garbage", down to one who merely said "I wasn't impressed." I on the other hand enjoyed it, the hype leading up to it, the meta introduction in the first act of it, the Easter eggs throughout, and every bit of heavy-handeness it tried to utilize. I wholeheartedly believed that the premise of this generation of The Matrix wasn't working fully because it didn't contain Neo and Trinity properly, and was doomed to fail. It's something that was established from the first movie. The problem is when Lana is trying to say she was trying to take back "red pill" and that the movie was some sort of "gotcha" against the fans. They pulled the anti-capitalist angle. They pulled the Big Corporation is Evil angle. They didn't come of as progressive or subversive, they came off as a classic love story in a technological environment, but eradicated much of the good metaphysical viewpoints they worked ardently to insert into the first three movies. So in light of it all, I did what was truly natural to the Neo who gave two middle fingers to Smith in that interrogation movie in the first movie: I unashamedly pirated the movie online and didn't give Warner Brothers a dime.
My gripes with this movie is that for (or wanting to) being focused on Trinity, she has so much less screentime and....agency(?) IK she's the one that turns the tide in the third act but i wish we got to see more of her in this movie
I'm taking the interpretation the reason we didn't see Trinity that much is that the whole point is that her voice was being under represented just like Laura Wachowski was being under-represented in her own story. But this overall movie entire message I still feel was a terrible terrible attempt gone wrong.
I think the movie got way too meta for it's own good. It seems as if Warner Bros. (or any other parties that had a financial stake in this film) were telling the writers "Hey, this needs to be more meta, we want our audience to think they're smart by seeing through the script, let's make it as easy as possible for them." When this situation comes up, to me, anything "meta" turns instantly "not meta" The message I get from this film, is the over eagerness of big companies to try to convince their customers that they are "on your side" much akin to commercials telling you why you need a product. I think the meta behind the meta (the matrix within the matrix if you will) ultimately goes against what the film is trying to do, reinforcing why the movie hates itself
I really doubt any dictates came from WB to make the movie meta. The entire studio has been in flux since 2016 as it was merged with AT&T in 2017 and cleaned house, fired their president and so on. And then further more in 2020 when AT&T decided to sell WB off to Discovery (who did a new corporate shake up of their own). Essentially this movie was made during a period “the parents were getting divorced, remarried, and divorced again” within 4 years.
@@TalentCaldwell Even if it wasn't WB, the film definitely gave off a sense that some big wig was telling the writers "the first film changed the entire game of the film industry, we need to replicate that. If we literally talk about ourselves and literally break the 4th wall in this movie critics will go wild"
When a Movie tells you it hates itself, Believe it. Find a better movie with better self esteem. It's not the viewers responsibility to assuage the fears of a product.
This is where I am. I find people talking about what Lana Wachowski was trying to do/say with the movie be a lot more interesting than….the actual movie.
@@BertranDeGato "Based"? Based on what? Did you mean biased? If so what bias? Space jam did the same thing and got the same reaction by viewers. The people have spoken, if you movie says it hates itself, the viewers probably will too.
They are making self fulfilling prophecies and then are shocked Pikachu face when it happens. Its a product not a person. Self hate isn't selling more tickets nor is it entertaining to watch
What is “too meta”? It was the perfect amount of “meta” for me. In a post-‘Matrix’ world in which the word and idea of a “Matrix” has become so ingrained in our culture, our socio-politics, our science…this was the ONLY way to make a ‘Matrix’ film in today’s time.
Yeah I felt the same. I WANTED an extremely meta film with very apparent and intense motifs. I felt like it couldnt have been done in any other way after the 3rd
I liked seeing Keanu and Carrie-Anne reprise their roles. I think it's sad that it's a franchise that is so popular and yet the response is so negative. I don't know how they could have tinkered it to be something that somehow would have pleased people. (And saying "by making it good" is not a solution)
I had a little bit of hope (when they said machines started a war against other machines and some of them are helping humans) that they would manage to make this great universe evolve in some way but it litteraly lasted for 5 seconds. The rest of the movie is like "nothing has changed but we got new cgi and new colorimetry for you guys". No thanks
I actually really connected with this film. It's a big middle finger all around and to be honest it was really refreshing. I really enjoyed the filling the sky with rainbows idea. I just hope we get to see it. the self critique of the movie was just icing on the cake for me. I believe the movie pokes more towards the better qualities of humanity. hopeless optimism and taking chances, love, connections. it was basically all I personally wanted to see. Went in with 0 expectations although I'm a huge fan of the trilogy, and came out of the theatre satisfied.
The way I see it, WB was gonna make this movie with or without the Wachowskis. It was always going to be an unnecessary cash grab. Love it, hate it, or don't care, at least this way they got to make it mean more than that.
Which is the exact take Lana has with the conversation between Smith and Anderson when Smith talks about making a Matrix 4. She felt it's better to be involved than not.
The point is that WB owns the IP, and was going to make a shameless retread no matter what. It's only thanks to Lana's involvement that there is any modicum of meta-commentary, criticism, or satire to speak of, which, in my opinion, elevates the movie above just another shit legacy sequel to something that, while not as great as the original, is better than a hundred other bullshit studio cash-grabs. She got to put in her criticism of the studio, a trans identity allegory, and a commentary on media consumption/interpretation, all while making a not great, but pretty good movie. My overall point is that I really don't care how good or bad the movie is, I'm just glad she got to have a say, got to express at least some artistic vision over the project instead of letting it and herself get crushed by the Hollywood recycle machinery.
The reason the matrix was able to fit so many different meanings is because it was the same as Plato's cave allegory. The cave was a depiction of reality where people were chained up in a cave and forced to look at projections cast by puppet masters. So if one were to break free from these shackles, they could then see the true nature of the world and become enlightened. This applies to the human existence, because every human seeks enlightenment, and therefor can be applied to any story of enlightenment. This is why you have the Wachowski's telling us that 'taking the red pill' is a symbol of enlightenment in relation to their gender transition... but you also have right wing people saying that 'taking the red pill' is a symbol of enlightenment in relation to their freedom and world view. It applies to both of these concepts, because they are both concepts which revolve around enlightenment.
@@randallb.7180 Saying "Reality has no ideology" is as meaningless as saying "reality has no eyes, therefore everything you see through your eyes is an ilusion". "An ideology (/ˌʌɪdɪˈɒlədʒi/) is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons that are not purely epistemic,[1][2] in which "practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones."[3] Formerly applied primarily to economic, political, or religious theories and policies, in a tradition going back to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, more recent use treats the term as mainly condemnatory.[4] The term was coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy, a French Enlightenment aristocrat and philosopher, who conceived it in 1796 as the "science of ideas" to develop a rational system of ideas to oppose the irrational impulses of the mob. In political science, the term is used in a descriptive sense to refer to political belief systems.[4]" www.wikiwand.com/en/Ideology
@@randallb.7180 Maybe if you're a nihilist, but even then it would be impossible to be truly nihilistic (unless perhaps you were to commit suicide). Because even if you concede to the concept of life having no meaning, you will be subject to instinctual drives (the need to eat/drink/sleep etc.), so you will be acting out some sort of rudimentary survivalist ideology.
The red pill is an analogy to waking up from a false/contructed reality, this can apply to almost anything, from sexual identity out of contructed norms, to religious dogmas that you find yourself not believing after a life of following the said religion, or most commonly... Accepting that your world view is contructed by "them" and you can find the real truth with my political view™ The Wachowski trying to force a single specific meaning o it is just dumb
The allegory of the cave is definitely represented by the red pills, but the matrix and the desert of the real are not separate places in Beaudrillard’s Simulation and Simulacra, which inspired the films. The redpills, especially Morpheus, are manipulated by the Oracle to believe Neo is their savior. The name Zion even has religious origins. Resurrections shows how the promise of peace and material comforts (strawberries) is enough for the redpills to CHOOSE oppression over liberation, i.e. there is no escaping the cave.
I've always been a sucker for good meta commentary, and watching a completely unnecessary sequel to the Matrix trilogy actively talk about how it doesn't even want to exist was pretty entertaining. I think I missed a bit of the popcorn spectacle of the originals? The crazy kung fu and bullet time are always fun, but Keanu and Carrie are both in their mid-50's, so I can definitely understand why it was cut back.
Does it make you feel clever, like it’s designed to ? Cause… it isn’t. It’s extremely lazy. Instead of making something better, they take cheap shots at the fact that it’s shit and that’s supposed to be a substitute. Like, no. What a cheap, boring trick. The ol’ ‘poem about writing a poem’ which EVERY middle school child at least thought about thinking its original or clever… and it’s not.
Being 'meta' ain't even meta anymore. It's like status quo. TV shows and movies have been doing this for years, even comic book movies (Deadpool) have employed it in recent times. IF she really wanted to do something, she should've used REAL name and faces and broken the 4th wall, now thats real meta in the 21st century.
Apparently the movie has done horribly at the box office. I don't want to shit on the hardworking people who made it but I hate the idea of the movie and the circumstances surrounding its creation. Im kind of glad it bombed.
I hate that this was a personal message from her and somehow her sister wasn't involved because it was also her personal involvement from before. What a damn mess this whole thing became.
If the first trilogy didn't exist I could just notch this movie up to being a popcorn action flick. But it is a continuation of a revolutionary and mind bending trilogy, even if 2 and 3 stumbled carrying the torch the first movie handed them. With that said, I enjoyed the first part of the movie very much. Once they brought the story to Io, then all the thought provoking things they began to dabble into ended and it just went to generic scifi action. It had huge shoes to fill so it was in trouble from the get, and even though the cards were stacked against it, it failed at being great, but succeeded at being mediocre.
You know what I felt was thought provoking but not sufficiently explored right after they hit IO? The machines went on war with each other when energy and resources became scarce, exactly the same as humanity has done over and over again. There's a new equalizing argument in this movie about the category of "sentients", both saved by Neo, both now working to restore the world, and here I'm thinking: did Artificial Intelligence inherited humanity's particular propensity to fratricide; or is all life, organic or mechanic, doomed by the forces of natural resources and economics to kill each other when times get rough and "survival of the fittest" devolves into "survival of the strongest"? And The Architect mocked The Oracle about "being human" lmao... Very fine cyberpunk food for thought indeed.
@@rodylermglez U should watch the animatrix, it's like a collection of individual animated stories that explores some gaps in the world of the matrix. One of the stories is about how the machines rose to power. I dont wanna spoil much but we basically used them for slave labor, attacked them when they tried to live in isolation...then they eventually got fed up It sucks cuz there was so much potential to expanding this series but Lana ended up making it a project to vent her frustration and hold audiences hostage to an internal war we knew nothing about
y'know what i think really ruins 2 and 3 is the tonal shift from sophomore curiosity to humorlessly sober post-dystopia... i think it works for fans considering the story of endtimes but the flashy darkness is so constant paired with keanu's flair for woodenness really does age poorly... so now with the self-deprecating shift... it was such the breath of fresh air it needed (a vulture-looking merovingian? lol), and it's going to be interesting to see how much more levity than can squeeze out of what comes next after that "painting the sky with rainbows" line... i really hope we're done with the constant whispery monochrome
@@PanicbyExample I agree to an extent. I got use to the blandness of the original trilogy cuz that fit the story and the time period. Life is supposed to be boring and mundane because that part of the program This new one, had a tonal shit that fits with today's modern world. Life is rapid, colorful, fast paced, to keep u plugged in and fear breaking free into the real, boring world. I just wish the movie did a better job of balancing this new visual with an equally enticing story...not a personal fuck u to the fans from Lana
The film I feel is another casualty of the sequel machine in Hollywood that has absolutely murdered great franchises like Terminator, Predator, Jurassic Park, Underworld, and more by simply continuing to pump out content. Sometimes a story doesn't need a sequel. It started to become obvious after about an hour that the film was simply critiquing the studio that brought this IP back from the dead.
Something else that should have been PAINFULLY OBVIOUS is that it’s a big franchise so of course they were gonna drag it out for money related purposes. They’re gonna keep dragging out series until they’re dead for money. Get used to it. Also, who cares if this one is a flop? The others aren’t automatically bad bc of it so appreciate the other movies for what they are. It doesnt HAVE to ruin the series. You have the option to ignore it.
I just thought the photography was awfully done, it looked like a fan made RUclips film. At least I expected the film to be visually up to standards, I really couldn't get over that
Kinda feels like there was not need for the 4th film at all, WB wanted to do it anyway and Lana say "ok, fuck it, I'll take the money and do what I please" and she did a movie that's not necessary at all. Seems fair to me.
@@Blarmenify its not necessary because the matrix revolution wrapped up everything. It was already told that the relationship between Trinity and Neo was watch defined the idea of Neo “been” the “one”. Idk Matrix 4 seems redundant and the movie it’s self aware of that.
We understand their disdain for making a sequel, but, beyond the limitations of the culture industry, they could have made a good movie. A movie treating the fans as family, offering what they praised and loved for twenty years. Instead, they make a mediocre film without iconic scenes or punch lines, without memorable music or choreography, without meaningful moments delivered through Matrix aesthetics. After 20 years without encountering the Matrix, Lana brought a bitter present for Christmas.
Given the timing of its release (during a pandemic and thus with the theatres at its lowest in decades) pushed hastily at the behest and urgency of shareholders to the newest streaming platform in the block, I think the movie got the optimal amount of effort as dictated by "the suits" and the forces of capitalism. And no, that wasn't a defense for it. I'm just stating the sad facts around why the movie is not a masterpiece. If collective authorship theory is true, this wasn't just to blame for a single individual. Besides, I also would love to see The Matrix elevated. It's a good cyberpunk story 😢
Lana Wachowski should have never come near this movie. We could have had a beautiful, existential, artful addition to The Matrix universe, and all we got was a bitter, cynical movie about reboots. Look at what Denis Villeneuve did with Blade Runner, or what Christopher Nolan did with Batman. Additions to a franchise CAN be amazing, and not just mindless cash grabs.
But what do you do when your point is to make it a piece of crap that is your message of too many messages about the message of meta? But I agree with you, not this.
The red pill part of the analysis was sort of weak, to me the whole misogyny thing felt tacked on, unnecessary, and bizarre. Why the hell would the architect care about gender politics? He’s an algorithm!
Honestly, this movie is the most perfect F-U I've ever seen. On those terms, it's incredible. I recommend watching Red Letter Media's review of it, they nail so many points that others missed.
Regarding "Death of the Author", I've always despised it. First, because I'm a translator, and in translation that mentality is profoundly negligent. And second because it's profoundly hypocritical. We often say that pieces of art are a reflection of the artists soul, and that how tragic it is that Studio executives try to take that control away from them. But when it's convenient for them, people use the "Death of the Author" card in order to basically throw all out of the window. And on top of that, it renders the whole creative process meaningless. Why bother putting ANY thought into something you create if people are not going pay attention to those thoughts? Of course, that has a strong caveat, and it's that the work itself should be able to convey the intended message, or thoughts, etc. with as little external input as possible, ideally with none. That's the part of "Death of the Author" I agree with. But not the extreme that says the author's intentions should be completely left out from the conversation, specially if you are going to make an in-depth analysis.
I don't disagree that the "Death of the Author" concept gets abused in the way you explained, but that does not mean that it has no merit. If a work of art is truly the reflection of the artists soul, then the meaning expressed by it surely surpasses a single coherent idea the artist wanted to express and also expresses unintentional meanings. Humans have a subconscious they have no control over and I don't see why that can not be reflected in their art. An analyst might later pick up on that meaning. This is not supposed to legitimate every BS interpretation out there. Like most things in the world, this is not a black and white issue. The answer is somewhere in between.
@Novem's Natural Roll "You can't reverse that impact after no matter how hard you try." I'm pretty sure you can kill someone's love of a franchise by releasing edited versions of the original or simply by making seemingly subpar sequels. Just ask George Lucas. If not sabotage, artists sometimes deconstruct their prior work. The impact of art is dynamic because all the parts involved are dynamic -- our minds through time.
I think that everyone can have their own interpretation about things. I think that it is important that each of us use art to help ourselves however we need. But if we are going to "debate" interpretations, some are more supported and better argued than others. The Matrix is not a film with heavy transgender themes "just because Lana say's so", it is because there are several scenes, events in the history of the production of the film and even explicit references to transgender culture, that support that interpretation.
Being that Lana was one of the co-creators of the franchise, I think what she did with the fourth installment was something unexpected and interesting while resisting against ideologies that have warped its messages to a group of people that believe they’re identifying with Neo when they’re really Cyphers. Coming back, I wasn’t expecting mind blowing, but I got cleverly thoughtful and mindful. There’s more layers at work and taking it at face value, it can feel underwhelming, but I’m glad it was a sequel that still had something to say that is much more relevant to today’s climate. Also, it was made in reaction to family loss to the Wachowski sisters. I think it was meta enough. Just happy to see Neo and Trinity back. While I hope they can make more, I’m more than understanding if Lana ends her contribution finished and or Lily remains detached from the franchise.
My only complaint about that with her, is that her sister didn't seem to get any agency in this interpretation or message or that she mentioned that her sister was saying anything in this. But absolutely agree with you on that.
@@joshuacr From interviews with Lily, she was dealing with burnout and she thought it was a regression going back to a property she made before her transition, but I want to say that Lana did approach her about making it together, but she ultimately bowed out. I believe she was working on her series at Showtime, Work in Progress. Lana is apart of the brain trust, if you will, from the original trilogy. Whether or not Lily liked her return to the franchise, I do not know. I’d hope she’d be supportive and understanding. However, might be wishful thinking, but I haven’t heard that she outright rejects what her sister’s done.
I really liked the movie. It managed to be a competent sequel and at the same time be a critique of sequels in general. If it were only one of the two, it would be meh. But they pulled it off.
Definitely think Lana Wachowski made to intentionally be bad and say a screw you to Warner Bros. It’s kind of like you know your creation is going to be destroyed to turned into something other than what you loved, so take some joy in destroying it yourself. I like to imagine that’s what happened, but just okay enough to make Warner Bros think it would be good.
It was bad in ways and great in other. But it was aware and that's why it went there. She made it good where she wanted it to be good, but bad where it wouldn't destroy the legacy of the series.
And then when I began thinking this I was questioning if it was actually the intent of the author of this story, or was it our Collective interpretation that was making this opinion? Thank you wisecrack for confirming this potential Viewpoint debate.
well now it reflects on her cause it looks like she cant direct a decent matrix without her sister. doesnt matter what she meant, purposefully making a bad movie to stick it to wb is beyond retarded
If it ain't meta, it ain't The Matrix. Maybe I need to watch it a few more times to really tell if it succeeds or fails at any more objective elements of delivering a critique of this or that idea, but after the first viewing and a day to think on it, so far I think it's biggest strength and weakness are the same - it's meaning remains partially in our hands to choose for ourselves. As someone who thinks the question is often more important than the answer, I think it may be the best one if them all for avoiding that heavy feeling of messianic mythos fir much more human story without sacrificing any of the awesome sci-fi imagination the world-building makes possible. Criminally underrated, imo.
@@JJ-hs3fy 😂 your three responses and an edit that involve you mistaking me as the original commenter surely reinforces your mental and emotional superiority exactly as much as you think it does. 👏👏👏 Once again, being a self righteous (and misinformed) prick on the internet isn’t cool kids, stay in school 😎
I’ve written for a company I didn’t like and watched a story I loved turned into one I hated. The end result was so bad, I walked away from the contract. If you’re a creative and hate what you do, best move on the greener pastures. It’s very difficult to write or create something you aren’t passionate about. I believe the best parts of M4 were the meta commentaries, but that wasn’t “story” as much as it was exploration. It made two movies happen at once, and the second (part two of the film) felt like the weaker half. I think a film about the first half on its own would have been great. Seeing Neo finally realize he’s back in the matrix and not crazy would have been an awesome way to end the movie.
I like the general message about this film, the powers that be do thrive on the misfortune and frenzy of the masses. But it lacks punch and action sequences from Neo combined with being a lil too meta sealed it’s fate. I hope this franchise doesn’t go out with a whimper 😔
@@anthonymartensen3164 well yea… if u played the matrix awakens demo a prominent line is, “They were ok with your philosophical mumbo jumbo; at long as there’s action” and it fails to deliver on that aspect. There’s no iconic freeway chase, or neo vs agents or ghost moments… The film lacked essence beyond the good intentioned messages
Lana said her self that what drove her to finally get on board with it was a form of artistic coping after her parents died. And that for some reason made the film make way more sense to me. Id say this, I think the fact this film sort of bombed is the point of it. Lana knew it wasn't gonna land. And she also knew people are getting tired of reboots. We are seeing through the crap. Hollywood is only out to make an easy buck off pop culture and nostalgia. And trying to re-sell old IP. And I think Lana did a great job of hammering that home. That honestly is what stuck with me most about the film. The rest felt a bit messy. And and messy I think a previous commenter summed it best. Like a sandwich but with all the wrong ingredients. I would not say any one aspect was bad but they didnt fit cohesively like it did in the previous matrix movies. While I always liked trinity and felt she was incredibly important and was a major driving factor for the original three films. I can't tell if putting her front and centre by the climax of the film, was a meta critique of Hollywood checking boxes to sell the product or Lana trying to make a point trinity is and and should of been as important as neo to the fan base. And wasn't. But in the end I think this film is a love story. And the importance of genuine human connection despite the resistance in a frequently noisey world that is becoming more and more digitized and by consequence removing something real from human connection we had before.
lol, i actually interpreted the exact opposite. My take is that she is completely critical of the audience, and and she does blame studios for the blatant cash grabbing they do, ultimately she is aware that the audience gives them every power to do so despite being so critical of the films that are coming out.
@@ivanehtnoij6243 you know I guess it really depends on how we want to view her motives. Was it directed more towards the audience. Or the studios. That I'd say a more cynical take but I do find that thought interesting. Or maybe in wachowski fashion. It's both haha
I don't think the film particularly aimed at criticizing red pill theory (which isn't only used for misogyny, it has become more of a general cultural slogan for things society doesn't explicit tell you but still enacts). You said it flew in the face of all the other themes of the trilogy but... who says? Sure the term "red pill" is everywhere now, but people don't use it to discuss or analyse the films themselves, it's a separate entity now. And giving one single quote from The Analyst doesn't seem like enough evidence to back this claim. However, it's true that the fact Trinity becomes just as, if not more powerful than Neo might indicate they wanted to change the fan's perspective on women. I still think it is clumsy to have tried this after more than 20 years, and again the entire film begs the question : how do you judge which interpretations of a work of art should be "correct" or not?
Trinity being more powerful didn't make sense as Neo was the One, not the one least powerful of two. She was already an absolute badass as well as feminine. I am extremely tired of seeing invincible female characters for the sake of appealing to 3rd wave feminism. Also since when is red pill related to sexism???
@@OfAngelsAndAnarchist "Every review out there." I mean, sure, if you only read the bad ones you agree with! Well over half the critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are positive, as is the audience score. Just cause you didn't like it, doesn't mean it's bad.
Lana tried to have her cake and eat it too. You can't claim to be against sequelities by doing the film. Warner won, and we got a shit movie beacuse of it
Unless, perhaps, she intentionally made a bad movie in order to dissuade WB from making another sequel. Nothing says "leave it alone!" like a bit of sabotage.
This is one of the best reviews of the film i've seen. I think the film is exactly as i would expect from a wachowski forced to make a matrix sequel. Bit enough meta and not enough focus on the philosophy for me, combined with clunky pacing. Still a great film to enjoy, although i can't imagine how it would come across if you hadn't seen the first 3
I wouldn't consider this a review, more like an analysis. She didn't really give an opinion on if the movie was worth watching it how it rates in quality.
@@michaeldehart3253 Ultimately i agree with this, and theres dialog that directly deals with it in the film. I would have much prefered that wachowski let someone else make the next trilogy as a kind of a response, turning it into a kind of ontological dialectic. In the same world, but responding to the philosophy set out in the first trilogy. Which has been picked apart a lot through the years, so theres scope for it. They could have literally cherry picked the director for it. Tough to give over your work, but Wachowski shouldve come to peace with the fact the studio owned their work from day one.
I really don't think it was meant to be anything philiosophical. I geniunely think at its core the premise of the film was just a huge middle finger to company for essentially cornering them into making a new sequel, and to the "fans" for "hating" sequelitis and reboot fatigue yet lapping at the slightest mention of a beloved property coming back.
I doubt Lana Wachowski meant to suggest that The Matrix is ONLY about transitioning but to disregard this reading, Barthes in hand, as like just the director's opinion man is to gloss over a LOT of textual evidence in both the original and this one. Texts never mean just ONE thing, and that holds double for this franchise, which like Star Wars touches on all kinds of myths and themes. It's more a 'pastiche' of or play of meanings than any one thing, and to be perfectly honest: the first Matrix DOES have elements that would plausibly reverberate with nerdy white guys who make up the Alt-Right. That said, I think you're missing something crucial by focusing on the very meta self-referential aspects of Resurrections. I personally liked the film but found the boardroom montage where everyone chimes in on what the Matrix is or means to be a bit cheesy and obvious on my first viewing because it's something we've been seeing for decades in film and TV: a kind of cynical self-awareness that goes yeah yeah, what you're watching is just another commodity to shift units and satisfy consumer demands. But the film goes beyond such tired 4th wall tropes, and the montage actually serves as a red herring for what can only be described as a shockingly sincere and personal film. If the first Matrix asked the question of what 'reality' is, or how we know it, Resurrections more poignantly asks what it means to live authentically in a world that requires you to keep up appearances at all times - a universal theme if there ever was one, but to disregard the specific experiences of gender-nonconforming people like the director informing this film is to willingly ignore a lot of the text and not at all a receptive reading. The truly radical import of this instalment of the series isn't in any new visual effects or 5D-mindfuckery, but as Renegade Cut pointed out, in its unflinching sincerity and, dare I say, 'kindness' at a time when cynicism and vacuous posturing seem to be the norm.
It's been a while since I took Semiotics 101 (the year the first Matrix came out to be exact) but I always took the whole 'Death of the Author' thing to be more about what the author might have to say outside of the text as to what he intended to write. So whether the author denies it, or a at the time of writing wasn't aware, but the text is very much full of homoerotic entendres and imagery then focussing on this aspect is anything but 'reading into' the text - it's the people willingly glossing over this aspect or taking elements out of context who are doing the misreading. lol, I mean just look at how gay the crew of the Nebudkanezer is. They're like the cyberpunk version of the Village People for fucks sake.
The first film and this mark an epochal change from a time when it was part of the fun you could have under capitalism to critique its soullessness and retreat into philosophy, to now when capitalism's soullessness feels infinitely grimmer, more deadly phoney, not fun at all, and represents an actual threat to humanity's survival. We're in an age of despair and we see it in a lot of our media, e.g. Succession, BBC series Industry, Don't Look Up and lots of other things I've temporarily forgotten. I'm glad I saw it for the self-loathing corporate pawn part at the start. I've felt very much the same myself at times and I felt the condition was depicted well. That was the only interesting bit of the movie for me.
But there is a point where you're doing the trope talking about the trope just gets too tired, and even in this movie that was clear. Whether the personal message Laura Wachowski had in that was enough for the entire film, I will leave the debate to others.
@@joshuacr Yeah, it wasn't a very good film and I doubt she meant it to be, but I felt that if her heart was in any of it, it was in the 'back trapped in the Matrix' part.
@@joshuacr It's a good comparison. Because in addition to living in an age of despair, we live in an age of reboots of decades-old franchises - which feels a bit like just another way of saying we live in an age of despair. It's pathetic. It's like everybody's saying, "The good culture's already happened and we can't do it anymore. Sorry if you missed it."
Digital override on a dystopian sunset. Plutocratic consumerism. Money conquered morality long ago. That’s reality. Merovingian is accurate with his cynical psychobabble.
The shot of the middle finger couldn’t be more apt. I’m also thinking of that shot of the electric sign at the beginning, “HA.” The entire first act is an open rant against having to make another Matrix, and the movie overall rails against the very idea of franchise movies and “reboots” that exist only to pander to sleepwalking audiences and greedy shareholders. I also love its sentimental heart, with not only the romance between the two leads, but the ruminations on aging and the struggle to connect with your younger self. It’s one of those themes that resonates once you hit middle age or go through a major life change (career, relationships, family, etc). And, yes, the original Matrix was openly meta and loved to comment on itself, which makes sense for any story that deals in illusion versus reality. It’s like these movies come with a built-in Philip K Dick commentary track. The comparison to Space Jam 2 couldn’t be more perfect. The answer from Wachowski, obviously, is that there shouldn’t be a “Space Jam 2,” and you’re a mindless zombie for playing along.
I have to disagree with the take that the movie goes against Death of the Author. The movie criticizes one _specific_ interpretation that involves a lot of hatred and sexism. Critiquing that specific interpretation does not mean that they are trying to dismiss every interpretation. If I say that "Lord of the Rings is about white supremacy" is a bad interpretation, that doesn't mean I dismiss every _other_ interpretation.
This video is completely irrelevant to it's title and discusses an argument that has nothing to do with the movie but just uses the movie as a reference. Misleading.
Thomas Anderson never really made any video game in this Simulation. This is a looping simulation very different from the simulation which was version 6 in the Trilogy. At the starting of every loop he just wakes up to this manufactured reality which the Analyst created. Then the 2nd thing to happen is him being introduced to Tiffany. Then Smith ambushes him into making M4. Then the Analyst manipulates him into believing that this is all normal and gives him Ontolofloxin. Then he sits with the Focus group. Later he goes to the Gym. Then he takes a bath. Then he meets Tiffany alone in the cafe. Then all of it happens again and again and again. Well until his secret old code Modal is discovered by Bugs, which is the main premise of the movie. If we try to decipher this version with the same expectation as of the Trilogy then one wont understand it and would end up hating it. Yes all of this was presented in the Meta format. And that is the brilliance of the movie. People hating on the Meta aspect are just actually hating on themselves in a loop. And unlike the haters I would admit that your analogy about the Author went above my head.
It got too meta for its own good. It reminded me of Space Jam 2…another WB/HBO Max property that isn’t a movie so much as a cynical cog in the commercial machine.
The Matrix: Resurrections is one director's unreasonably forced decision to decimate the legacy of their own co-created baby in spite of corporate subterfuge and greed, subsequently relinquishing the film as a miserable watch; for some, I'm sure, like witnessing their favourite pub burn down.
For once, I actually disagree with the Wisecrack take. I think the next-level meta commentary that matrix delivers was the only way they could have made the renewal without feeling like a shameless cash grab. As someone who bemoaned the problematic interpretations that ran rampant for one of my favorite IP's, I was really glad to see the directors come out and dispense with the subtlety. I think taken as a piece of art it stands as a staunch defender of an artist's right to make a definitive statement. And I think they balanced it well within the overall world. 9/10, 10/10 for me, this was the movie we needed in 2022, especially with all the recent trash content around the experience of being a trans person, they deserve a piece of media that is unabashedly on their side and tries to give people some sense of what the experience of being trans can feel like within our restrictive, capitalist system. If you didn't want this interpretation and were hoping for another vague action movie, sorry, but directors have the right to make the art that they feel speaks most to their inner voice and I don't feel fans have the right to get mad just because a piece of art doesn't match their exact desired themes and interpretation. that's okay, there is plenty of media that caters to you if that describes you, let a piece of art be itself.
"Your movie sucked" *Scrambling* "Um yeah yeah I meant it to, I dun it on purpose" "No you didn't. You are just bad at making movies now" "Yeah....I know, but it's because I'm stuck in the M" *Interrupting* "JUST STOP!"
Roland Barts kind of suffered from Death of the Author himself, considering the concept was completely misappropriated to mean something he didn't intend for it to mean.
So what you’re telling me about matrix resurrections… is that it sucks? and it rely so much on the source material that it literally shows the old movies and tells no no its not just a slide show… its a video game… literally the bf2042 of movies this year
I was pretty confused when I was watching this. I understood that it was commenting on the nature of sequels and realised it was intentionally bland etc but now after watching this and reading the comments I realise just how much I wasnt aware of what was being said or why. I need to watch it again. Thanx for the video Wisecrack and for the explanations and views from the comments section. :)
I enjoyed it. It wasn’t ground breaking or anything, but I saw what they were going for and it succeeded. As for Deckard though? Definitely human. To make him a replicant would rob the character of his arc; he lost his humanity while taking out replicants, and falling in love with one helped him find it again.
@@HEARTS-OF-SPACE they missed either a waste of time because that was the whole point that she was forced to make the movie, or the message that the transition transexuality to her the director was done through Neo to Trinity and Trinity is shown as more powerful representing that. Or we could take the postmodern representation of the group interpretation versus the director interpretation as wisecrack mentioned. My interpretation it was too damn long and too many messages in there to make it a point in the first place, but maybe that was the point, who knows?
Matrix IV is science fantasy where I to III are science fiction. Also, the fight choreography was abysmal, which is super weird given that Chad Stahelski, John Wick director and Matrix I choreographer was in the movie! I guess they really wanted to make it flop, didn't they.
I loved watching Helen talk about this. I seriously believe that Lana Wachowski took liberties with meta-play. Only she agreed to make it, not her sister, which makes me think that she probably was like "if anyone is going to fuck this up, it's gonna be me." I know they refused numerous times. This was just a big middle finger to the studio and industry about reboots, but unfortunately there were innocent casualties (the fans).
I mean, this was actually my favorite film of 2021. I understand why people didn't like it but I was on the same wave-length. I also disagree with the statement that the film "hates itself". Once Neo is unplugged again the film is showing how much love and care there is for this world from Lana
Maybe doesn't hate itself but I think it was clear that didn't care much about itself either. The most obvious, for me at least, was the wasted opportunity of talking about the world post-war where humans and machines started to live together again and even machines had conflict with "ideologies" or ways of living-being with those of other machines; even exploring the idea of why most people would know the truth and still prefered to live plugged to the matrix was there but barely got touched in the most shallow way if at all. Lana wanted to deliver a message about her ouvre. The rest was either fanservice or filler with the themes (primarily, the aesthetic ones) of the franchise. I felt the movie nervous or not sure at all about itself, but the future of the sequels is to be done with that bittersweet flavour for many (the CEO of Warner said that if Lana wants to do another, is welcome, but they were going to make Resurrections without her or her sister anyway).
Matrix 1 was a "classic" in that it just feels like it was made to be watched over and over again as comfort food....its legacy took a lot away from its initial impact with everyone and their grandmother parodying it. Matrix Reloaded actually feels the most alive because it opens up a lot of questions which, sadly were crushed by Matrix revolutions , a movie that could have been great but sort of just was an action movie ...a very entertaining action movie but none the less nothing all that deep. Matrix ressurections once again got that spark of possibilities ,which given the ending, and box office performance, will never create a truly great pay off . The meta element honestly was the most fun part of the movie. All the novelty of the Matrix francaise had been sucked out by its hyper popularity in the mid 2000s and there was no right way of doing it without seeming cheap. Also honestly the second half had me on the edge of my seat. It was a great climax.
I would say that the first half of the film is both funny and thoughtful in its self-examination. The second half of the film feels like it was written separately to give some irrelevant worldbuilding and action sequences in order to satisfy the Warner Bros execs. The overall effect has kind of confused feeling. It is as though the film is warning you that Matrix 4 is a bad idea, then shows exactly how bad that idea is by letting it manifest as dictated by Warner Bros in the second half. If intentional, I commend the clever writing. The fact that its clever doesn't really make it enjoyable to watch for me though.
I liked the last Matrix as it has the natural progression of my own experiences. - From 'we know it all' to 'we don't know almost anything at all', - From 'us against them' to 'why not together' - From 'I am right' to 'define right, and why we need it so badly'. The Analyst is a very interesting figure and I wish I could see the missing episode between the 3 and 4. How he came into power and why, as there is much we can learn from him about managing humans. There are so many allegories about the actual world we live in now (Matrix 4) compared to what we thought will happen (Matrix 1). I would like to learn more about the fascinating world of the Matrix machines and AIs, which are even more interesting than humans. Maybe if you go to the cinema for the action you will be disappointed, but if you go to see a developing conversation about ideas, it is still a thrilling journey and I enjoyed it quite a lot.
I'm probably in a very small minority here, but it's my 2nd favorite in the franchise. I probably enjoyed it much more than I should have because it gave me the feeling it would rile up the fan base and piss a lot of people off. Also, great vid as usual Wisecrack!
I agree, while the original is still easily the best, I think Resurrections is still a good movie and liked it better than Reloaded and Revolutions, which were a mess.
Some people think trans people in general are tolling everyone (pissing everyone off just to do so). I think all of it is quite funny no matter how you look at it.
IMO the filmmaker hates the studio system and the fans that enjoy her previous films. There is no depth in the new Matrix. Just bitterness and disillusionment with our culture and the corporations that own everything that we grew up with.
@@fgarciz You have a right to your own opinion. This is just my take. I feel that this movie hid nothing and left nothing for interpretation. Everything was obvious and on the nose. If the plot leaves nothing for the viewers to interpret for themselves then it is not deep.
It was literally a blantant critique of the film industry, red pill community and other things. But you say it has no depth? So if you criticise anything that makes bitter? Even so does that make the message less poignant Ah well
@@Novacaine_m Having a message does not equal depth. Regardless of weather the message is good or bad. When people say that a movie is deep they are saying that they had to spend a lot of time after watching the movie to understand it's meaning. This movie was so on the nose that you do not need to think about what the filmmaker was trying to say.
I have not seen the movie yet but based on what was just said about about this movie matrix Resurrection, it just took a big dump on its own franchise. This movie made everything that happened pointless because Neo isn't even that important.
Actually you can't have Trinity without Neo. 1 cannot exist without the other, it's just the way that message was done (including the message of this is a trans story and that's the female becomes more powerful) loses the message with every other damn message (including up there is no message; this movie should never have been made in the first place.)
I honestly liked it only based on that it was a different sort of franchise sequel. A lot of others tries to pick up where the old one stopped like nothing ever happened and that it was planned to be 6 movies all along. At least this acknowledges that this isn't the a natural continuation of the the first three. It doesn't feel like the other Matrix films and that's a good thing. Although it spends a bit too much time on clips from the last movies. And Trinity's part also felt a bit like a token effort. She's just the love interest from afar for most of the movie and then out of nowhere she is suddenly important. Give her a moment to doubt and face struggles rather than just, becoming the one (or the two?) Out of nowhere
I didn't like the casting of Neil Patrick Harris, not because he sucks as an actor, but because it felt off or misplace. It didnt feel right, unlike with the Architect. But, maybe, thats what they wanted, they wanted the Analyst to feel wrong, like a parody of itself.
My first time watching the movie I was delighted for awhile and then disappointed by the ending. But then I watched it again and now I like it. I think a lot of it is clever. But it can be a little too deflective. Like "I said this about myself before you could say it about me." I don't know if that makes any sense but it's like they lined up enough commentary within the movie so that they say everything a critic would say. Sort of shielding themselves.
I agree. The movie literally references the fact that it's a sequel numerous times. And then turns into a modern take on what a Matrix sequel (continatuion) could be. You either buy into that, or you don't.
Thomas Anderson is Phillip K Dick. Their experiences are not just video games or novels but residual memories of a life once lived.
2 года назад+5
I think it's a great, if flawed, movie, and I disagree that it "trolls itself". I feel like the countless "fans" lamenting the movie "making fun of" their beloved first movie (or the trilogy) are misinterpreting and misdirecting the critique aimed at them instead. Matrix: Resurrections is the best love letter to it's own legacy that I could have imagined, and re-contextualized the IMO flawed sequels in such a way that I found myself liking, respecting and understanding them better than ever. Lana could have left out all the action for all I care and it would still be as much "a Matrix movie" as anything.
I just tried to not read to much into it. The analyst was indeed an analog for Hollywood and their manipulative overwhelming tactics. I liked the movie at face value and do believe if Lana wanted to really just end the IP so Warner Bros would shut up she would have.
My personal view on this after this RUclips article is as follows: I accept the interpretation that this movie was made to eulogize the Matrix trilogy and hopefully to not make any more Matrix movies, as well as a personal message honoring the directors parents and the transition from male to female which made her more empowered. I also recognize the message that this movie means something to everyone as it hit us over the damn head with it again and again and again and again (and in the post-credits) for over two and a half damn hours. Even though I respect the messages it made, it was a piece of crap that had too many messages that was just going too many places even with the intent I listed above, to be considered a good movie or even a good message, but that written, the messages had to be said. Making a piece of crap with a personal message because the studios would have made a piece of crap moneymaker film is not an excuse to make a piece of crap, but at least they did this one artistically. Your personal opinions may vary, and I do appreciate the many many many replies that were listed and are still being listed to this. Thank you everyone and thank you Wisecrack for a great article!
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w7Wf0h1Q8a4/mqdefault.jpg)
I thought this movie was going to be about the truce between Zion and the machines that Neo brought about. That's where the story left off. Instead, this movie was about how Lana is trapped in the Hollywood matrix.
Trapped in the zionist matrix.
@@ronanonymous6017 Just stop...
@@ronanonymous6017 bu dum tsss
I was pretty confused when I was watching this. I understood that it was commenting on the nature of sequels and realised it was intentionally bland etc but now after watching this and reading the comments I realise just how much I wasnt aware was going on or why. I need to watch it again. Thanx for the video Wisecrack and for the explanations and views from the comments section.
@@HEARTS-OF-SPACE He’s right
Half way through the movie I realized this it was just about how they didn't want to make this movie.
It was mostly about their disdain for what the conversation around the movies had become.
It took you that long?
And that's why it was awesome.
Half way? The board room stuff where the movie is clearly making fun of itself is in the first act. The middle half is when it actually starts continuing the lore.
Pretty much matrix revolutions. Being one of the first big multi sequel production at once they got burned out hard and fast and you can tell as the sequels go on, but those at least have the same overarching vibe and them for the most part.
Perhaps it's time to explore the concept of 'Death of the audience'.
Go check out an indie film festival for that
LOL! 🤣
oh yeah
@@Devieus Actually made me laugh thanks for that
Yes. Especially after the fiasco of 'Educating the audience'.
To me the underlying meaning of the new movie was very simple: everyone involved in making it wants you to know that they hated it as much as you do.
like path of neo
I enjoyed it. But turned it off 90mins in. Seemed like the actual message of the movie was that I should probably stop watching the movie and go live life. 🤷♂️
Edit: I meant that with zero irony or sarcasm btw
Not simply hating it, but hate of the idea of making a basic retread nostalgia bait action flick. There's so much in the film that's about more than that, like the misappropriation or misinterpretation of matrix's rebellious subtext
Like Mass Effect Andromeda's voice acting team.
I didn't hate it. I rather enjoyed it and it's meta satire and cultural criticism. Our new social media driven Matrix suck ass and I hate it here.
I was unexpectedly entertained before Neo wakes up again from his pod. All the gaslighting and mental fuckery put on him and thus the audience was pretty fun to watch, as well as Wachowski's dissection of not only the trilogy itself but also her view on the business now. Unfortunately everything kinda just went bland after that, even though it is possible that Lana did it intentionally. Filming intentionally bad to give a mid finger to WB is fun, watching the end product as a fan of the franchise, on the other hand, is not.
it was no where near bad enough to make the claim that Lana made a 'bad film on purpose'. She attempted to make a good film while giving the middle finger to WB but failed.
@@kiwione12 hahaha, so she didn't *try* to make a bad film, but she did a bad film. That's what you're saying?
@@anthonymartensen3164 exactly! it wasn't intentional, she shouldn't be praised for this pile of dogshitt when she set out to make gold
@@kiwione12 I thoroughly enjoyed it
@@anthonymartensen3164 im glad. But can i ask, were you a big fan of the previous 3 matrix films?
Every time they showed a clip from the first movie, it made me want to stop watching Resurrections and turn on the original.
I literally did that and ended up enjoying about an hour of the original epic film.
Felt the same. Watched the whole trilogy and I ended up liking the sequels way more than when I first saw them!
Yeah, it's as if the movie told you "Not that you wanted to watch The Matrix again… watch the original".
mmmm... authors' intent....
@@cbrown717 omg, I also literally did the same
The worst part about all of this is the fact that there were actual good plot points that would have made great movies on their own.
- Some machines have become sympathetic to the human cause
- Trinity realizing her own strengths that aren't tied to Neo
- Smith acting as an eternal opposite to Neo
- The politics of the Machines and the new city of Io
This is one of those movies where I LOVE the ideas and concepts it gives, but I hate the execution. I honestly think this is proof that the Wachowski siblings work best together instead of separate. I feel like each of the points you mentioned would have been fleshed out more if the other Sibling was on board with Lana
@@demonman905 yeah Jupiter Ascending was the best sci-fi movie I've ever seen
Also, the fact machines started a war against other machines, meaning they no longer act as a unique swarm but rather like seperated entities fighting for ressources, repeating the process every biological form of life has been through before they were enslaved or eradicated.
I agree with all of these except for the third. Smith coming back in any capacity is incredibly stupid. It’s almost as bad Palpatine in TROS. Almost
> Some machines have become sympathetic to the human cause
Don't we actually explore that theme since the first movie? Or else what's the Oracle's deal then?
My thoughts on the Matrix: Resurrections: even Abed from Community would say that this film is too meta.
Your streets ahead
@@MrReliableEli you britta'd you're
Best comment ever!
It's not, too meta. It's as meta as it needs to be to have a genuine conversation about itself
Same. I kept saying that through out the movie.
I think the movie had a completely different tone than the rest of the series, and the aesthetics that were chosen were also odd. It was filmed like a vibrant CW tv show and the comedy was similarly off putting. It did not feel like a Matrix movie. The story really dipped in quality around 30 minutes in and the action got worse with every take. It’s also very difficult to watch when you think of Keanu Reeves’ recent action work in John Wick. I don’t know what happened, but it was not good.
They definitely went with more traditional action cinematography versus how they framed everything based on anime/manga frames in the originals. That definitely took alot of potential aesthetic character away from part 4.
No, you didn't like it, that's all
@@israelsu1757 ....that's literally what they just said. And then they literally gave reasons for why they didn't like it. I haven't even seen this yet and I agree with the statement that it looks and feels like a poorly written CW movie. And almost any movie critic out there is saying the same exact thing, it's been on nearly everyone's worst movie's of 2021 list.
@@israelsu1757 No, they're 100% accurate in their assessment.
@@israelsu1757 they literally explained why it felt off to them. The least u can do is add something of substance as a rebuttal
Realising Wachowski intentionally make a movie that is shit by industry standards and a big middle finger towards reboot culture, I think it's one of the most baller moves ever made.
I can think of infinitely better uses of 100 million dollars and years of manpower.
@@bloodaonadeline8346according to the free market, our excess spending power is going into rent. I'd rather have art than increased rent (tho I get the reason that happens is to incentivize building, which is probably a better use to house ppl etc. but just talking about the actual effect in a capitalist/NIMBY culture). And I guess I can think of infinite bad uses just like that, tho not sure how that impacts it being a baller move anyway
It definitely is a baller move but I wish I knew that before watching the movie. Everything I loved about the trilogy was destroyed with this one movie.
I have not been very impressed by the tongue in cheek "we are roasting our own legacy" thing. It worked for 22 Jump Street but that had the added benefit of being able to actually joke about all the cliches because it's actually a comedy.
A movie doesn't need to explicitly be a comedy to have its own humor validated. It's just another artistic choice like anything else. I thought it worked just fine.
Exactly. You are allowed to make fun of your own movie but only if you're planning on doing something different than the tropes you're making fun of. Resurrections does not.
@@MelodicQuest exactly
Resurrections can be seen as an action comedy.
@@MelodicQuest what could they have done that actually would have been satisfactory, in your estimation?
There's a disturbing trend in Hollywood of people not wanting to make the thing they're making and their contempt bleeding into the product.
Idk, something about the whole movie felt like a Matrix fan fiction got a greenlight from WB. Also I'm a little sick to death of snide, meta, cometary/callouts in movies that absolutely won't age well at all.
I agree that this kind of thing will not age well. It's going to become dated very quickly.
Why wouldn't it age well?
Lana had the creative freedom to do what she wanted and she decided to do a movie that comments on the fact that it's unnecessary. I get that it turns a lot of people off (apparently) but it works for me. It's funny to me that people seem to not think the other Matrix films haven't "aged".
@@anthonymartensen3164 nailed it.
I get the message that the 4th Matrix movie in the series trying to make, so I just felt disappointed by the time it got to the movie's ending. I'm also still unclear why it was important that Morpheus be dead from the original Morpheus according to Laura Wachowski. After all this talk about resurrection and how the Matrix now represents trans, that never was clear to me why that was so constant to her. I wanted to like it, but I didn't. It feels like a slog that I have to wait for another movie to get this story over with. Your opinion may vary, and I respect that.
I thought the director had intentionally made a really bad movie so that way the studios wouldnt be incentivized to make another one
Sure seems like it
Well they definitely made a steaming pile of shit for sure.
doesn‘t seems to have changed anything. Matrix 5 is already in discussion and probably will be a huge middlefinger to Lana. At least she got to express and say what she wanted to say with Matrix 4.
@@CeziHD no it's not. They cancelled everything
@@JoeChillton maybe you have more recent news I‘m not aware of but it definitely seems like there will be more Matrix down the road, doubt Warner will let this IP die, maybe not Matrix 5 but Ani-Matrix or an original HBO max series with the IP. ruclips.net/video/c5ohTSrSwbE/видео.html … time will tell.
Have you ever met someone that constantly denigrated themselves, and (surprise!) they're not fun to be around? THAT is Matrix 4.
Yep, this. It’s a very alienating movie
its rare for a film though so i appreciate the attempt at least
I think you may have met me.
idk how "fun" the matrix is supposed to be
@@kenonerboy Not incredibly fun like the first one that woke too many minds, nor too horrific like the second one that also lost too many minds, nor dull like the third that had a war on terror. 4 is a little too much ("Catrix"?) and not enough fun (suicidal star and botnets).
It's not a very good movie but hating itself and believing it shouldn't exist makes it very interesting. I'm glad to see someone pushing back against the endless parade of sequels and cinematic universes that dominate our media landscape today.
Its a very good movie but the ppl dindt understand it
@Olaf Sigurson nah, this is exactly what every franchise should do. If it ruined it for you, that's your problem.
I completely agree with you. It's a perfectly decent film, but the fact that it hates its own existence and constantly references the previous films is genuinely pretty interesting. It at least kept my attention more than the *vast* majority of unnecessary reboot sequels.
I would say the movie "hates itself" is a bit of an exaggeration. I think it comments on the fact that it was made via studio obligation and the state of this nostalgia crazed world we live in.
lol making people think this movie is pushing against sequelities is probably its only success
The movie kind of freaked me out honestly. Because of the implications of the whole “isn’t this stupid” thing. The first movies were obviously kinda mind blowing, and I think an audience member probably should have come away with a feeling of “I need to understand how the powers that be control my life and perceptions.” However this movie sort of makes that theme a bit hopeless. Like “lol we don’t wanna make this movie, but Warner brothers is gonna do it anyway, let’s make fun of it!” WB: “yeah sure you do u. As long as it makes us money” (which it did). Basically there’s kind of a weird power move here on WB’s part where it’s essentially outright saying “we can force creators to make something, and we can shove it down your throats, and you’ll buy it.” It’s kind of anti revolutionary I think. It feels less like a realization/way out, and more like an acceptance that we “can’t get out of the matrix” lol. Which ironically might be a more accurate depiction of beudrillard’s work that inspired this, but still felt strange actually coming from a corporate film studio.
Capitalism has a way to absorb revolutionary content and make it harmless. We can see this happen by comparing the first movie with the last.
@@mariovilas4176 Hence corporations broadcasting BLM, LGBT, and feminism ad nauseam
@@TheSundayShooter nothing runs better on MTV than a protest against MTV - Kurt Cobain
What you are talking about is recuperation under capitalism. This movie isn't just "anti revolutionary." It is literally a capitalist product produced by capitalists to generate profit for the corporation's shareholders. Their "revolution" is wholly controlled by the machine.
@@TheSundayShooter Leftists dont consider corporations allies lol, we hate how they reappropriate things that should be taken way more seriously. Death to Capitalism and their t-shirts. We aren't here to make the poor downtrodden white males feel better about themselves. You aren't being oppressed by any mainstream elite sjws trying to wipe you out forever, snowflake. Stop separating yourselves from us and fight the real enemy, those that worship money.
At no point during the movie was I rooting for the heroes; I was rooting for the end credits.
So you weren't happy to see Neo and Trinity again? Sound like a real matrix fan to me.
@@anthonymartensen3164 I wasn't happy that somehow they were able to resurrect the original Neo and Trinity, but they weren't able to resurrect the original Morpheus. That just made no damn sense to me
Had to watch movie in installments just to finish because it was so bad, worst movie I saw in a long time.
@@joshuacr Morpheus never went to Machine city, therefore the machines didn't have him to ressurect, also why would they bother? Makes perfect sense.
@@joshuacr Morpheus found the one, so his task was complete. The new Morpheus was invented by Neo and partially based on Smith.
I hope you take a long walk on that lovely beach off to the side of the pier, at sunset, when it's nice out. Take a sweater in case it gets chilly.
Alright thanks Nan
@@jws5984 be safe!
i read this before i watched the video and i thought, man this guys really nice, still do
😂
I've watched it twice, and I still don't even know what Lana was trying to do, exactly. There are just so many elements that don't add up. LIke why are the action scenes so terrible? Why make the moral of the story "Trinity was just as important as Neo" but have Trinity sidelined for 90% of the movie? Why was Smith even in it at all? Why all the not-Zion drama that goes nowhere? It's just so MESSY.
Although props to her for creating a movie people are talking about. Love it or hate it, this does seem to be one of the most divisive and talked-about major franchise films in years.
Seriously, Smith and "Morpheus" shouldn't have even been in at all. Would've been a better movie without them.
People are only talking about how awful it is
Yeah it really felt like lana was like, no, i'm gonna make trinity important just cuz i can. The Oracle was so important to the original trilogy, shifting away from that to some kind of special bond between neo and trinity got me irked. But i think it was completely intentional, Lana was forced to make this, and made sure everyone knew throughout.
cause they phoned everything in. period. they didnt care cause they wanted another sequel and she kept saying no and caved. they shouldve got fresh blood to direct it if she was so heistant about coming back
The Last Jedi irreparably fractured the SW franchise yet there's still hope. The Mandalorian, The Bad Batch have been hits and Boba episode 2 was amazing.
The Matrix 4 utterly obliterated and killed the franchise. It's done and no sequels have been slated.
Matrix 4 mostly felt like a parody to me. It completely took me out of the movie.
Thats the point. The first act of the movie is completely parodizing the need for its own existence.
@@anthonymartensen3164 and yet they ended the movie in a way that you are all but guaranteed that you have to make more movies to continue the story. I hate that. Even if intentional parody doing so.
@@joshuacr I thought it ended without signifying any need for another.
@@joshuacr bullshit, it’s literally a no sequel ending. it said all it wanted to say.
@@starkingbiker language, and look at the ending again and tell me that they can't come back to redo the Matrix to make it better like they were going to do in the first trilogy sequel in the first place interpretation?
But that is the whole point that they're trying to stop for making another movie what the studios are going to miss and going to make movies or going to reboot this damn thing in the first place because they can anyway. We all agree it shouldn't be made.
She worded it perfectly at the end of the video. Lana used this movie to change things she did not like in the previous 3 movies. And that is what fundamentally I do not like about this Matrix movie. I love the entire franchise with a passion. But this movie felt like it was created by someone who actually hated the previous movies and wanted to make it "better". If that was the case, just use all new characters and show a new generation fighting against the establishment. Don't even re-tread the Neo story, write a new story. Don't go and replace Morpheus with a new actor, change what makes Neo the one and say, actually he is one of two. And why was Merovingian even in the movie at all ??? Just for a laugh ? You have him back but not even think about asking Laurence Fishburne ? Really ?!?!?
I'm taking your position and thinking this is like what George Lucas did, try to improve the story many years or decades later and this is our result. Except on this iteration, she was forced to continue the story because if she didn't, someone else would without her. Confused what this means when they were two relatives that made the story, and one sister is not involved if it is that story anymore. I'm just throwing my hands up and saying I'm not interested anymore for the continuation of the story.
He was there because his character taught us that not everyone gets erased when the Matrix is reset. Morpheus died outside the Matrix and is full dead.
@@khangmai5753 I hear you, except Neo and Trinity also both died. Trinity specifically died outside the matrix but they found a way to bring her back... With resurrection pods?
I don’t think that they didn’t ask Laurence, I’m gıesaing they did and he refused.
@@KevinF but they died in the "meta" matrix, the one created for those seeking for freedom, but not in the "meta meta matrix" that this movie takes place.
In this one is made clear that morpheus is a program on the "meta matrix" while neo and trinity are from the "meta meta matrix"
It doesn't work as well as a Hollywood blockbuster product, but I've been tearing up reflecting on all the ways Lana inserted herself into the story. As a trans allegory, it's pretty intense. That both Neo and Trinity occupy bodies that don't reflect who they are... Trinity sharing how she identified with Trinity and having her husband laugh... and she laughs as well to hide the pain and the anger. The primacy of relationship in the disruption of the matrix - it's not enough to see myself as myself, but there is power in being seen. As a Matrix movie, it doesn't have the revolutionary blockbuster sparkle of the original, but as a vehicle for telling a personal story about relationships and being seen, it puts a crinkle in my heart.
I had friends who were in the "hated it for another piece of woke Hollywood garbage", down to one who merely said "I wasn't impressed."
I on the other hand enjoyed it, the hype leading up to it, the meta introduction in the first act of it, the Easter eggs throughout, and every bit of heavy-handeness it tried to utilize. I wholeheartedly believed that the premise of this generation of The Matrix wasn't working fully because it didn't contain Neo and Trinity properly, and was doomed to fail. It's something that was established from the first movie.
The problem is when Lana is trying to say she was trying to take back "red pill" and that the movie was some sort of "gotcha" against the fans.
They pulled the anti-capitalist angle. They pulled the Big Corporation is Evil angle. They didn't come of as progressive or subversive, they came off as a classic love story in a technological environment, but eradicated much of the good metaphysical viewpoints they worked ardently to insert into the first three movies.
So in light of it all, I did what was truly natural to the Neo who gave two middle fingers to Smith in that interrogation movie in the first movie:
I unashamedly pirated the movie online and didn't give Warner Brothers a dime.
My gripes with this movie is that for (or wanting to) being focused on Trinity, she has so much less screentime and....agency(?)
IK she's the one that turns the tide in the third act but i wish we got to see more of her in this movie
I'm taking the interpretation the reason we didn't see Trinity that much is that the whole point is that her voice was being under represented just like Laura Wachowski was being under-represented in her own story.
But this overall movie entire message I still feel was a terrible terrible attempt gone wrong.
The movie is about the need for Trinity to wake up to save the world. The whole third act is about her regaining her agency and how important that is.
Yeah, Keanu and Carrie-Anne played off each other so well. It sucks that she's basically absent from the entire second act.
don’t worry, you’ll probably see plenty of her in the next few installments of the matrix
The problem is unlike Neo she didn't have to earn those powers in this movie. She just has them because of plot.
I think the movie got way too meta for it's own good. It seems as if Warner Bros. (or any other parties that had a financial stake in this film) were telling the writers "Hey, this needs to be more meta, we want our audience to think they're smart by seeing through the script, let's make it as easy as possible for them." When this situation comes up, to me, anything "meta" turns instantly "not meta"
The message I get from this film, is the over eagerness of big companies to try to convince their customers that they are "on your side" much akin to commercials telling you why you need a product. I think the meta behind the meta (the matrix within the matrix if you will) ultimately goes against what the film is trying to do, reinforcing why the movie hates itself
I really doubt any dictates came from WB to make the movie meta. The entire studio has been in flux since 2016 as it was merged with AT&T in 2017 and cleaned house, fired their president and so on. And then further more in 2020 when AT&T decided to sell WB off to Discovery (who did a new corporate shake up of their own). Essentially this movie was made during a period “the parents were getting divorced, remarried, and divorced again” within 4 years.
@@TalentCaldwell Even if it wasn't WB, the film definitely gave off a sense that some big wig was telling the writers "the first film changed the entire game of the film industry, we need to replicate that. If we literally talk about ourselves and literally break the 4th wall in this movie critics will go wild"
This.
Yo- I heard you like meta, so I put some meta in your meta so it can be extra meta.
When the meta goes full circle it becomes tame
When a Movie tells you it hates itself, Believe it. Find a better movie with better self esteem. It's not the viewers responsibility to assuage the fears of a product.
This is where I am. I find people talking about what Lana Wachowski was trying to do/say with the movie be a lot more interesting than….the actual movie.
based
@@BertranDeGato "Based"? Based on what? Did you mean biased? If so what bias? Space jam did the same thing and got the same reaction by viewers. The people have spoken, if you movie says it hates itself, the viewers probably will too.
They are making self fulfilling prophecies and then are shocked Pikachu face when it happens. Its a product not a person. Self hate isn't selling more tickets nor is it entertaining to watch
@@monologistics based means good, dude. I liked your take
What is “too meta”? It was the perfect amount of “meta” for me. In a post-‘Matrix’ world in which the word and idea of a “Matrix” has become so ingrained in our culture, our socio-politics, our science…this was the ONLY way to make a ‘Matrix’ film in today’s time.
Yeah I felt the same. I WANTED an extremely meta film with very apparent and intense motifs. I felt like it couldnt have been done in any other way after the 3rd
@@arronax3319 same, I really enjoyed Matrix 4, far more than NWH which was nostalgia indulgence done well but failed to have a decent plot.
Honestly I get that’s it’s supposed to be meta and self aware, but just because it’s aware of how bad it is doesn’t mean it’s not bad anymore.
I liked seeing Keanu and Carrie-Anne reprise their roles. I think it's sad that it's a franchise that is so popular and yet the response is so negative. I don't know how they could have tinkered it to be something that somehow would have pleased people. (And saying "by making it good" is not a solution)
I had a little bit of hope (when they said machines started a war against other machines and some of them are helping humans) that they would manage to make this great universe evolve in some way but it litteraly lasted for 5 seconds. The rest of the movie is like "nothing has changed but we got new cgi and new colorimetry for you guys". No thanks
It still have potential, specially if Lana doesn't direct the next one (if they are brave enought).
I actually really connected with this film. It's a big middle finger all around and to be honest it was really refreshing. I really enjoyed the filling the sky with rainbows idea. I just hope we get to see it. the self critique of the movie was just icing on the cake for me. I believe the movie pokes more towards the better qualities of humanity. hopeless optimism and taking chances, love, connections. it was basically all I personally wanted to see. Went in with 0 expectations although I'm a huge fan of the trilogy, and came out of the theatre satisfied.
The way I see it, WB was gonna make this movie with or without the Wachowskis. It was always going to be an unnecessary cash grab. Love it, hate it, or don't care, at least this way they got to make it mean more than that.
This is a good take.
Which is the exact take Lana has with the conversation between Smith and Anderson when Smith talks about making a Matrix 4. She felt it's better to be involved than not.
I mean... maybe Lana could have made a half-decent Matrix movie instead of a shameless, "self-aware" retread?
@@existentialistremnant6231 it's interesting that people declare that the movie isn't decent. It's like, yeah maybe not to you.
The point is that WB owns the IP, and was going to make a shameless retread no matter what. It's only thanks to Lana's involvement that there is any modicum of meta-commentary, criticism, or satire to speak of, which, in my opinion, elevates the movie above just another shit legacy sequel to something that, while not as great as the original, is better than a hundred other bullshit studio cash-grabs. She got to put in her criticism of the studio, a trans identity allegory, and a commentary on media consumption/interpretation, all while making a not great, but pretty good movie. My overall point is that I really don't care how good or bad the movie is, I'm just glad she got to have a say, got to express at least some artistic vision over the project instead of letting it and herself get crushed by the Hollywood recycle machinery.
The reason the matrix was able to fit so many different meanings is because it was the same as Plato's cave allegory. The cave was a depiction of reality where people were chained up in a cave and forced to look at projections cast by puppet masters. So if one were to break free from these shackles, they could then see the true nature of the world and become enlightened. This applies to the human existence, because every human seeks enlightenment, and therefor can be applied to any story of enlightenment. This is why you have the Wachowski's telling us that 'taking the red pill' is a symbol of enlightenment in relation to their gender transition... but you also have right wing people saying that 'taking the red pill' is a symbol of enlightenment in relation to their freedom and world view. It applies to both of these concepts, because they are both concepts which revolve around enlightenment.
Red pill: wake up in reality.
Blue pill: wake up in ignorance.
All ideological red pills are blue pills. Reality has no ideology.
@@randallb.7180 Saying "Reality has no ideology" is as meaningless as saying "reality has no eyes, therefore everything you see through your eyes is an ilusion".
"An ideology (/ˌʌɪdɪˈɒlədʒi/) is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons that are not purely epistemic,[1][2] in which "practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones."[3] Formerly applied primarily to economic, political, or religious theories and policies, in a tradition going back to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, more recent use treats the term as mainly condemnatory.[4]
The term was coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy, a French Enlightenment aristocrat and philosopher, who conceived it in 1796 as the "science of ideas" to develop a rational system of ideas to oppose the irrational impulses of the mob. In political science, the term is used in a descriptive sense to refer to political belief systems.[4]"
www.wikiwand.com/en/Ideology
@@randallb.7180 Maybe if you're a nihilist, but even then it would be impossible to be truly nihilistic (unless perhaps you were to commit suicide). Because even if you concede to the concept of life having no meaning, you will be subject to instinctual drives (the need to eat/drink/sleep etc.), so you will be acting out some sort of rudimentary survivalist ideology.
The red pill is an analogy to waking up from a false/contructed reality, this can apply to almost anything, from sexual identity out of contructed norms, to religious dogmas that you find yourself not believing after a life of following the said religion, or most commonly... Accepting that your world view is contructed by "them" and you can find the real truth with my political view™
The Wachowski trying to force a single specific meaning o it is just dumb
The allegory of the cave is definitely represented by the red pills, but the matrix and the desert of the real are not separate places in Beaudrillard’s Simulation and Simulacra, which inspired the films. The redpills, especially Morpheus, are manipulated by the Oracle to believe Neo is their savior. The name Zion even has religious origins. Resurrections shows how the promise of peace and material comforts (strawberries) is enough for the redpills to CHOOSE oppression over liberation, i.e. there is no escaping the cave.
I've always been a sucker for good meta commentary, and watching a completely unnecessary sequel to the Matrix trilogy actively talk about how it doesn't even want to exist was pretty entertaining.
I think I missed a bit of the popcorn spectacle of the originals? The crazy kung fu and bullet time are always fun, but Keanu and Carrie are both in their mid-50's, so I can definitely understand why it was cut back.
Does it make you feel clever, like it’s designed to ?
Cause… it isn’t. It’s extremely lazy. Instead of making something better, they take cheap shots at the fact that it’s shit and that’s supposed to be a substitute.
Like, no. What a cheap, boring trick. The ol’ ‘poem about writing a poem’ which EVERY middle school child at least thought about thinking its original or clever… and it’s not.
I think it could have been there if they wanted it to. Chad Stahelski is in the film.
@@OfAngelsAndAnarchist well that's one way to interpret it.
Being 'meta' ain't even meta anymore. It's like status quo. TV shows and movies have been doing this for years, even comic book movies (Deadpool) have employed it in recent times. IF she really wanted to do something, she should've used REAL name and faces and broken the 4th wall, now thats real meta in the 21st century.
@@OfAngelsAndAnarchist Shhhh, there's no need to be upset.
Apparently the movie has done horribly at the box office. I don't want to shit on the hardworking people who made it but I hate the idea of the movie and the circumstances surrounding its creation. Im kind of glad it bombed.
You hate the idea that Lana only did it because she came up with with idea and went through with it as a personal catharsis?
I hate that this was a personal message from her and somehow her sister wasn't involved because it was also her personal involvement from before. What a damn mess this whole thing became.
@@joshuacr His brother*
@@joshuacr why do you hate that?
@@acevaver5425 my mistake thank you.
If the first trilogy didn't exist I could just notch this movie up to being a popcorn action flick.
But it is a continuation of a revolutionary and mind bending trilogy, even if 2 and 3 stumbled carrying the torch the first movie handed them.
With that said, I enjoyed the first part of the movie very much. Once they brought the story to Io, then all the thought provoking things they began to dabble into ended and it just went to generic scifi action.
It had huge shoes to fill so it was in trouble from the get, and even though the cards were stacked against it, it failed at being great, but succeeded at being mediocre.
It's all opinion.
You know what I felt was thought provoking but not sufficiently explored right after they hit IO? The machines went on war with each other when energy and resources became scarce, exactly the same as humanity has done over and over again. There's a new equalizing argument in this movie about the category of "sentients", both saved by Neo, both now working to restore the world, and here I'm thinking: did Artificial Intelligence inherited humanity's particular propensity to fratricide; or is all life, organic or mechanic, doomed by the forces of natural resources and economics to kill each other when times get rough and "survival of the fittest" devolves into "survival of the strongest"? And The Architect mocked The Oracle about "being human" lmao...
Very fine cyberpunk food for thought indeed.
@@rodylermglez U should watch the animatrix, it's like a collection of individual animated stories that explores some gaps in the world of the matrix. One of the stories is about how the machines rose to power. I dont wanna spoil much but we basically used them for slave labor, attacked them when they tried to live in isolation...then they eventually got fed up
It sucks cuz there was so much potential to expanding this series but Lana ended up making it a project to vent her frustration and hold audiences hostage to an internal war we knew nothing about
y'know what i think really ruins 2 and 3 is the tonal shift from sophomore curiosity to humorlessly sober post-dystopia... i think it works for fans considering the story of endtimes but the flashy darkness is so constant paired with keanu's flair for woodenness really does age poorly...
so now with the self-deprecating shift... it was such the breath of fresh air it needed (a vulture-looking merovingian? lol), and it's going to be interesting to see how much more levity than can squeeze out of what comes next after that "painting the sky with rainbows" line... i really hope we're done with the constant whispery monochrome
@@PanicbyExample I agree to an extent. I got use to the blandness of the original trilogy cuz that fit the story and the time period. Life is supposed to be boring and mundane because that part of the program
This new one, had a tonal shit that fits with today's modern world. Life is rapid, colorful, fast paced, to keep u plugged in and fear breaking free into the real, boring world. I just wish the movie did a better job of balancing this new visual with an equally enticing story...not a personal fuck u to the fans from Lana
The film I feel is another casualty of the sequel machine in Hollywood that has absolutely murdered great franchises like Terminator, Predator, Jurassic Park, Underworld, and more by simply continuing to pump out content. Sometimes a story doesn't need a sequel. It started to become obvious after about an hour that the film was simply critiquing the studio that brought this IP back from the dead.
Something else that should have been PAINFULLY OBVIOUS is that it’s a big franchise so of course they were gonna drag it out for money related purposes. They’re gonna keep dragging out series until they’re dead for money. Get used to it.
Also, who cares if this one is a flop? The others aren’t automatically bad bc of it so appreciate the other movies for what they are. It doesnt HAVE to ruin the series. You have the option to ignore it.
I just thought the photography was awfully done, it looked like a fan made RUclips film. At least I expected the film to be visually up to standards, I really couldn't get over that
Wasn't grainy or color coded enough for ya?
@ Shakycam was among the resurrected, and the red/blue lights in the laughably guarded tower were oversaturated.
Kinda feels like there was not need for the 4th film at all, WB wanted to do it anyway and Lana say "ok, fuck it, I'll take the money and do what I please" and she did a movie that's not necessary at all. Seems fair to me.
This.
the movie is actually extremely personal. what would count as necessary?
@@Blarmenify what do you mean when you say “extremely personal”? For you? the writers? The director?
@@Blarmenify its not necessary because the matrix revolution wrapped up everything. It was already told that the relationship between Trinity and Neo was watch defined the idea of Neo “been” the “one”. Idk Matrix 4 seems redundant and the movie it’s self aware of that.
We understand their disdain for making a sequel, but, beyond the limitations of the culture industry, they could have made a good movie. A movie treating the fans as family, offering what they praised and loved for twenty years. Instead, they make a mediocre film without iconic scenes or punch lines, without memorable music or choreography, without meaningful moments delivered through Matrix aesthetics. After 20 years without encountering the Matrix, Lana brought a bitter present for Christmas.
The matrix is not marvel
That was the point, to be something different, not the same hollow Blockbuster that come out every now and then.
Given the timing of its release (during a pandemic and thus with the theatres at its lowest in decades) pushed hastily at the behest and urgency of shareholders to the newest streaming platform in the block, I think the movie got the optimal amount of effort as dictated by "the suits" and the forces of capitalism.
And no, that wasn't a defense for it. I'm just stating the sad facts around why the movie is not a masterpiece. If collective authorship theory is true, this wasn't just to blame for a single individual. Besides, I also would love to see The Matrix elevated. It's a good cyberpunk story 😢
It's useless trying to satisfy the fans
@@rodylermglez That’s not an excuse.
The Matrix (1999) = Cinema. Matrix (2021) = Content.
Lana Wachowski should have never come near this movie. We could have had a beautiful, existential, artful addition to The Matrix universe, and all we got was a bitter, cynical movie about reboots. Look at what Denis Villeneuve did with Blade Runner, or what Christopher Nolan did with Batman. Additions to a franchise CAN be amazing, and not just mindless cash grabs.
But what do you do when your point is to make it a piece of crap that is your message of too many messages about the message of meta?
But I agree with you, not this.
The red pill part of the analysis was sort of weak, to me the whole misogyny thing felt tacked on, unnecessary, and bizarre. Why the hell would the architect care about gender politics? He’s an algorithm!
Because it generates a record-setting level of energy. Whatever, I couldn't buy the whole damn plot in the first place.
Bait comment here.
@@thedudewhoeatspianos how?
Honestly, this movie is the most perfect F-U I've ever seen. On those terms, it's incredible. I recommend watching Red Letter Media's review of it, they nail so many points that others missed.
Regarding "Death of the Author", I've always despised it. First, because I'm a translator, and in translation that mentality is profoundly negligent. And second because it's profoundly hypocritical. We often say that pieces of art are a reflection of the artists soul, and that how tragic it is that Studio executives try to take that control away from them. But when it's convenient for them, people use the "Death of the Author" card in order to basically throw all out of the window. And on top of that, it renders the whole creative process meaningless. Why bother putting ANY thought into something you create if people are not going pay attention to those thoughts?
Of course, that has a strong caveat, and it's that the work itself should be able to convey the intended message, or thoughts, etc. with as little external input as possible, ideally with none. That's the part of "Death of the Author" I agree with. But not the extreme that says the author's intentions should be completely left out from the conversation, specially if you are going to make an in-depth analysis.
I don't disagree that the "Death of the Author" concept gets abused in the way you explained, but that does not mean that it has no merit. If a work of art is truly the reflection of the artists soul, then the meaning expressed by it surely surpasses a single coherent idea the artist wanted to express and also expresses unintentional meanings. Humans have a subconscious they have no control over and I don't see why that can not be reflected in their art. An analyst might later pick up on that meaning.
This is not supposed to legitimate every BS interpretation out there. Like most things in the world, this is not a black and white issue. The answer is somewhere in between.
@Novem's Natural Roll "You can't reverse that impact after no matter how hard you try."
I'm pretty sure you can kill someone's love of a franchise by releasing edited versions of the original or simply by making seemingly subpar sequels. Just ask George Lucas. If not sabotage, artists sometimes deconstruct their prior work.
The impact of art is dynamic because all the parts involved are dynamic -- our minds through time.
I think that everyone can have their own interpretation about things. I think that it is important that each of us use art to help ourselves however we need.
But if we are going to "debate" interpretations, some are more supported and better argued than others. The Matrix is not a film with heavy transgender themes "just because Lana say's so", it is because there are several scenes, events in the history of the production of the film and even explicit references to transgender culture, that support that interpretation.
Being that Lana was one of the co-creators of the franchise, I think what she did with the fourth installment was something unexpected and interesting while resisting against ideologies that have warped its messages to a group of people that believe they’re identifying with Neo when they’re really Cyphers. Coming back, I wasn’t expecting mind blowing, but I got cleverly thoughtful and mindful. There’s more layers at work and taking it at face value, it can feel underwhelming, but I’m glad it was a sequel that still had something to say that is much more relevant to today’s climate. Also, it was made in reaction to family loss to the Wachowski sisters. I think it was meta enough. Just happy to see Neo and Trinity back. While I hope they can make more, I’m more than understanding if Lana ends her contribution finished and or Lily remains detached from the franchise.
My only complaint about that with her, is that her sister didn't seem to get any agency in this interpretation or message or that she mentioned that her sister was saying anything in this. But absolutely agree with you on that.
@@joshuacr From interviews with Lily, she was dealing with burnout and she thought it was a regression going back to a property she made before her transition, but I want to say that Lana did approach her about making it together, but she ultimately bowed out. I believe she was working on her series at Showtime, Work in Progress. Lana is apart of the brain trust, if you will, from the original trilogy. Whether or not Lily liked her return to the franchise, I do not know. I’d hope she’d be supportive and understanding. However, might be wishful thinking, but I haven’t heard that she outright rejects what her sister’s done.
I really liked the movie. It managed to be a competent sequel and at the same time be a critique of sequels in general. If it were only one of the two, it would be meh.
But they pulled it off.
Definitely think Lana Wachowski made to intentionally be bad and say a screw you to Warner Bros. It’s kind of like you know your creation is going to be destroyed to turned into something other than what you loved, so take some joy in destroying it yourself. I like to imagine that’s what happened, but just okay enough to make Warner Bros think it would be good.
It was bad in ways and great in other. But it was aware and that's why it went there. She made it good where she wanted it to be good, but bad where it wouldn't destroy the legacy of the series.
nothing have been destroyed at all
And then when I began thinking this I was questioning if it was actually the intent of the author of this story, or was it our Collective interpretation that was making this opinion? Thank you wisecrack for confirming this potential Viewpoint debate.
well now it reflects on her cause it looks like she cant direct a decent matrix without her sister. doesnt matter what she meant, purposefully making a bad movie to stick it to wb is beyond retarded
You're giving her too much credit. I think it's pretty evident the estrogen treatments destroyed her brain.
If it ain't meta, it ain't The Matrix. Maybe I need to watch it a few more times to really tell if it succeeds or fails at any more objective elements of delivering a critique of this or that idea, but after the first viewing and a day to think on it, so far I think it's biggest strength and weakness are the same - it's meaning remains partially in our hands to choose for ourselves. As someone who thinks the question is often more important than the answer, I think it may be the best one if them all for avoiding that heavy feeling of messianic mythos fir much more human story without sacrificing any of the awesome sci-fi imagination the world-building makes possible. Criminally underrated, imo.
@@JJ-hs3fy it makes sense to me 🤷♂️
Seems weird to point out that you couldn’t follow though…
@@JJ-hs3fy 😂 your three responses and an edit that involve you mistaking me as the original commenter surely reinforces your mental and emotional superiority exactly as much as you think it does. 👏👏👏
Once again, being a self righteous (and misinformed) prick on the internet isn’t cool kids, stay in school 😎
I’ve written for a company I didn’t like and watched a story I loved turned into one I hated. The end result was so bad, I walked away from the contract. If you’re a creative and hate what you do, best move on the greener pastures. It’s very difficult to write or create something you aren’t passionate about.
I believe the best parts of M4 were the meta commentaries, but that wasn’t “story” as much as it was exploration.
It made two movies happen at once, and the second (part two of the film) felt like the weaker half. I think a film about the first half on its own would have been great. Seeing Neo finally realize he’s back in the matrix and not crazy would have been an awesome way to end the movie.
I like the general message about this film, the powers that be do thrive on the misfortune and frenzy of the masses. But it lacks punch and action sequences from Neo combined with being a lil too meta sealed it’s fate.
I hope this franchise doesn’t go out with a whimper 😔
I believe it just did, actually
@@Arander92 Seeing the power of love prevail (as corny as that may sound but thats what the movie is saying) is it going out with a whimper?
@@anthonymartensen3164 well yea… if u played the matrix awakens demo a prominent line is, “They were ok with your philosophical mumbo jumbo; at long as there’s action” and it fails to deliver on that aspect.
There’s no iconic freeway chase, or neo vs agents or ghost moments… The film lacked essence beyond the good intentioned messages
I feel like it got a rough deal being released after No Way Home and being a legacy sequel after a decade of nostalgia and ridiculous expectations
Lana said her self that what drove her to finally get on board with it was a form of artistic coping after her parents died. And that for some reason made the film make way more sense to me.
Id say this, I think the fact this film sort of bombed is the point of it. Lana knew it wasn't gonna land. And she also knew people are getting tired of reboots. We are seeing through the crap. Hollywood is only out to make an easy buck off pop culture and nostalgia. And trying to re-sell old IP. And I think Lana did a great job of hammering that home. That honestly is what stuck with me most about the film. The rest felt a bit messy. And and messy I think a previous commenter summed it best. Like a sandwich but with all the wrong ingredients. I would not say any one aspect was bad but they didnt fit cohesively like it did in the previous matrix movies.
While I always liked trinity and felt she was incredibly important and was a major driving factor for the original three films. I can't tell if putting her front and centre by the climax of the film, was a meta critique of Hollywood checking boxes to sell the product or Lana trying to make a point trinity is and and should of been as important as neo to the fan base. And wasn't. But in the end I think this film is a love story. And the importance of genuine human connection despite the resistance in a frequently noisey world that is becoming more and more digitized and by consequence removing something real from human connection we had before.
lol, i actually interpreted the exact opposite. My take is that she is completely critical of the audience, and and she does blame studios for the blatant cash grabbing they do, ultimately she is aware that the audience gives them every power to do so despite being so critical of the films that are coming out.
@@ivanehtnoij6243 you know I guess it really depends on how we want to view her motives. Was it directed more towards the audience. Or the studios. That I'd say a more cynical take but I do find that thought interesting. Or maybe in wachowski fashion. It's both haha
I don't think the film particularly aimed at criticizing red pill theory (which isn't only used for misogyny, it has become more of a general cultural slogan for things society doesn't explicit tell you but still enacts).
You said it flew in the face of all the other themes of the trilogy but... who says? Sure the term "red pill" is everywhere now, but people don't use it to discuss or analyse the films themselves, it's a separate entity now. And giving one single quote from The Analyst doesn't seem like enough evidence to back this claim.
However, it's true that the fact Trinity becomes just as, if not more powerful than Neo might indicate they wanted to change the fan's perspective on women.
I still think it is clumsy to have tried this after more than 20 years, and again the entire film begs the question : how do you judge which interpretations of a work of art should be "correct" or not?
It was shit
Simple as that
TWENTY YEARS FOR THIS?
pfft
@@OfAngelsAndAnarchist lol no
@@vsGoliath96 oh my bad, I guess every review out there doesn’t count for anything
It was shit
Face it and get over it lol
Trinity being more powerful didn't make sense as Neo was the One, not the one least powerful of two. She was already an absolute badass as well as feminine. I am extremely tired of seeing invincible female characters for the sake of appealing to 3rd wave feminism. Also since when is red pill related to sexism???
@@OfAngelsAndAnarchist "Every review out there."
I mean, sure, if you only read the bad ones you agree with! Well over half the critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are positive, as is the audience score.
Just cause you didn't like it, doesn't mean it's bad.
Lana tried to have her cake and eat it too. You can't claim to be against sequelities by doing the film. Warner won, and we got a shit movie beacuse of it
Unless, perhaps, she intentionally made a bad movie in order to dissuade WB from making another sequel. Nothing says "leave it alone!" like a bit of sabotage.
@@r0bw00d very cool. I wonder why the audience should suffer to make that happen
@@BertranDeGato Because there's no way to make it happen without doing so.
@@r0bw00d that’s pretty sad, since the first movie didn’t require trading your sanity in order to watch it
After watching Matrix Resurrection i got one question.
Did the cops knew that internal affairs was setting them up?
I too love the Leader
This is one of the best reviews of the film i've seen. I think the film is exactly as i would expect from a wachowski forced to make a matrix sequel. Bit enough meta and not enough focus on the philosophy for me, combined with clunky pacing. Still a great film to enjoy, although i can't imagine how it would come across if you hadn't seen the first 3
I wouldn't consider this a review, more like an analysis. She didn't really give an opinion on if the movie was worth watching it how it rates in quality.
No one was forced to make anything.
@@michaeldehart3253 Ultimately i agree with this, and theres dialog that directly deals with it in the film. I would have much prefered that wachowski let someone else make the next trilogy as a kind of a response, turning it into a kind of ontological dialectic. In the same world, but responding to the philosophy set out in the first trilogy. Which has been picked apart a lot through the years, so theres scope for it. They could have literally cherry picked the director for it.
Tough to give over your work, but Wachowski shouldve come to peace with the fact the studio owned their work from day one.
I really don't think it was meant to be anything philiosophical. I geniunely think at its core the premise of the film was just a huge middle finger to company for essentially cornering them into making a new sequel, and to the "fans" for "hating" sequelitis and reboot fatigue yet lapping at the slightest mention of a beloved property coming back.
I doubt Lana Wachowski meant to suggest that The Matrix is ONLY about transitioning but to disregard this reading, Barthes in hand, as like just the director's opinion man is to gloss over a LOT of textual evidence in both the original and this one. Texts never mean just ONE thing, and that holds double for this franchise, which like Star Wars touches on all kinds of myths and themes. It's more a 'pastiche' of or play of meanings than any one thing, and to be perfectly honest: the first Matrix DOES have elements that would plausibly reverberate with nerdy white guys who make up the Alt-Right. That said, I think you're missing something crucial by focusing on the very meta self-referential aspects of Resurrections. I personally liked the film but found the boardroom montage where everyone chimes in on what the Matrix is or means to be a bit cheesy and obvious on my first viewing because it's something we've been seeing for decades in film and TV: a kind of cynical self-awareness that goes yeah yeah, what you're watching is just another commodity to shift units and satisfy consumer demands. But the film goes beyond such tired 4th wall tropes, and the montage actually serves as a red herring for what can only be described as a shockingly sincere and personal film. If the first Matrix asked the question of what 'reality' is, or how we know it, Resurrections more poignantly asks what it means to live authentically in a world that requires you to keep up appearances at all times - a universal theme if there ever was one, but to disregard the specific experiences of gender-nonconforming people like the director informing this film is to willingly ignore a lot of the text and not at all a receptive reading. The truly radical import of this instalment of the series isn't in any new visual effects or 5D-mindfuckery, but as Renegade Cut pointed out, in its unflinching sincerity and, dare I say, 'kindness' at a time when cynicism and vacuous posturing seem to be the norm.
end result: movie was trash
It's been a while since I took Semiotics 101 (the year the first Matrix came out to be exact) but I always took the whole 'Death of the Author' thing to be more about what the author might have to say outside of the text as to what he intended to write. So whether the author denies it, or a at the time of writing wasn't aware, but the text is very much full of homoerotic entendres and imagery then focussing on this aspect is anything but 'reading into' the text - it's the people willingly glossing over this aspect or taking elements out of context who are doing the misreading. lol, I mean just look at how gay the crew of the Nebudkanezer is. They're like the cyberpunk version of the Village People for fucks sake.
this guy matrixes.
no seriously, you hit the nail on the head.
i watched total of 15 minutes of the film before turning it off, the only thing it shares with the previous films is its name
The first film and this mark an epochal change from a time when it was part of the fun you could have under capitalism to critique its soullessness and retreat into philosophy, to now when capitalism's soullessness feels infinitely grimmer, more deadly phoney, not fun at all, and represents an actual threat to humanity's survival. We're in an age of despair and we see it in a lot of our media, e.g. Succession, BBC series Industry, Don't Look Up and lots of other things I've temporarily forgotten.
I'm glad I saw it for the self-loathing corporate pawn part at the start. I've felt very much the same myself at times and I felt the condition was depicted well. That was the only interesting bit of the movie for me.
But there is a point where you're doing the trope talking about the trope just gets too tired, and even in this movie that was clear. Whether the personal message Laura Wachowski had in that was enough for the entire film, I will leave the debate to others.
@@joshuacr Yeah, it wasn't a very good film and I doubt she meant it to be, but I felt that if her heart was in any of it, it was in the 'back trapped in the Matrix' part.
@@JohnMoseley why I gave her so many compliments here and elsewhere compared to, another Star Wars film which I will not name here.
@@joshuacr It's a good comparison. Because in addition to living in an age of despair, we live in an age of reboots of decades-old franchises - which feels a bit like just another way of saying we live in an age of despair. It's pathetic. It's like everybody's saying, "The good culture's already happened and we can't do it anymore. Sorry if you missed it."
Digital override on a dystopian sunset. Plutocratic consumerism. Money conquered morality long ago. That’s reality. Merovingian is accurate with his cynical psychobabble.
The shot of the middle finger couldn’t be more apt. I’m also thinking of that shot of the electric sign at the beginning, “HA.” The entire first act is an open rant against having to make another Matrix, and the movie overall rails against the very idea of franchise movies and “reboots” that exist only to pander to sleepwalking audiences and greedy shareholders.
I also love its sentimental heart, with not only the romance between the two leads, but the ruminations on aging and the struggle to connect with your younger self. It’s one of those themes that resonates once you hit middle age or go through a major life change (career, relationships, family, etc).
And, yes, the original Matrix was openly meta and loved to comment on itself, which makes sense for any story that deals in illusion versus reality. It’s like these movies come with a built-in Philip K Dick commentary track.
The comparison to Space Jam 2 couldn’t be more perfect. The answer from Wachowski, obviously, is that there shouldn’t be a “Space Jam 2,” and you’re a mindless zombie for playing along.
I have to disagree with the take that the movie goes against Death of the Author. The movie criticizes one _specific_ interpretation that involves a lot of hatred and sexism. Critiquing that specific interpretation does not mean that they are trying to dismiss every interpretation. If I say that "Lord of the Rings is about white supremacy" is a bad interpretation, that doesn't mean I dismiss every _other_ interpretation.
Which interpretation do you think she tried to criticize?
This video is completely irrelevant to it's title and discusses an argument that has nothing to do with the movie but just uses the movie as a reference. Misleading.
Thomas Anderson never really made any video game in this Simulation. This is a looping simulation very different from the simulation which was version 6 in the Trilogy. At the starting of every loop he just wakes up to this manufactured reality which the Analyst created. Then the 2nd thing to happen is him being introduced to Tiffany. Then Smith ambushes him into making M4. Then the Analyst manipulates him into believing that this is all normal and gives him Ontolofloxin. Then he sits with the Focus group. Later he goes to the Gym. Then he takes a bath. Then he meets Tiffany alone in the cafe. Then all of it happens again and again and again. Well until his secret old code Modal is discovered by Bugs, which is the main premise of the movie. If we try to decipher this version with the same expectation as of the Trilogy then one wont understand it and would end up hating it.
Yes all of this was presented in the Meta format. And that is the brilliance of the movie. People hating on the Meta aspect are just actually hating on themselves in a loop.
And unlike the haters I would admit that your analogy about the Author went above my head.
It got too meta for its own good. It reminded me of Space Jam 2…another WB/HBO Max property that isn’t a movie so much as a cynical cog in the commercial machine.
"Matrix Resurrections Hates Itself"
It should.
The Matrix: Resurrections is one director's unreasonably forced decision to decimate the legacy of their own co-created baby in spite of corporate subterfuge and greed, subsequently relinquishing the film as a miserable watch; for some, I'm sure, like witnessing their favourite pub burn down.
Don't forget she also misses her parents and her favorite characters but yes.
For once, I actually disagree with the Wisecrack take.
I think the next-level meta commentary that matrix delivers was the only way they could have made the renewal without feeling like a shameless cash grab.
As someone who bemoaned the problematic interpretations that ran rampant for one of my favorite IP's, I was really glad to see the directors come out and dispense with the subtlety. I think taken as a piece of art it stands as a staunch defender of an artist's right to make a definitive statement. And I think they balanced it well within the overall world.
9/10, 10/10 for me, this was the movie we needed in 2022, especially with all the recent trash content around the experience of being a trans person, they deserve a piece of media that is unabashedly on their side and tries to give people some sense of what the experience of being trans can feel like within our restrictive, capitalist system.
If you didn't want this interpretation and were hoping for another vague action movie, sorry, but directors have the right to make the art that they feel speaks most to their inner voice and I don't feel fans have the right to get mad just because a piece of art doesn't match their exact desired themes and interpretation. that's okay, there is plenty of media that caters to you if that describes you, let a piece of art be itself.
I thought Lana wrote it comfort herself after the death of her parents, no? so bringing back neo and trinity was like a comfort blanket
That's the truth right here. OP probably forgot
"Your movie sucked"
*Scrambling* "Um yeah yeah I meant it to, I dun it on purpose"
"No you didn't. You are just bad at making movies now"
"Yeah....I know, but it's because I'm stuck in the M"
*Interrupting* "JUST STOP!"
Roland Barts kind of suffered from Death of the Author himself, considering the concept was completely misappropriated to mean something he didn't intend for it to mean.
So what you’re telling me about matrix resurrections… is that it sucks? and it rely so much on the source material that it literally shows the old movies and tells no no its not just a slide show… its a video game… literally the bf2042 of movies this year
great video. you freeed my mind to new thoughts i didn't have.
I was pretty confused when I was watching this. I understood that it was commenting on the nature of sequels and realised it was intentionally bland etc but now after watching this and reading the comments I realise just how much I wasnt aware of what was being said or why. I need to watch it again. Thanx for the video Wisecrack and for the explanations and views from the comments section. :)
I agree!
I enjoyed it. It wasn’t ground breaking or anything, but I saw what they were going for and it succeeded.
As for Deckard though? Definitely human. To make him a replicant would rob the character of his arc; he lost his humanity while taking out replicants, and falling in love with one helped him find it again.
"Self awareness doesnt absolve anybody of anything".
It's better than perpetuating harm due to lack of awareness.
@@anthonymartensen3164 I'd argue its worse. Imagine being aware you are perpetuating harm and still doing it.
@@lunamaster123 I don't mean self-awarely doing harm
I made it up to the train shootout sequence or just as Neo made it out of The Matrix and had to turn it off. It was just so boring.
You didn't miss anything.
@Meni ya Ka 1 go away
@@HEARTS-OF-SPACE they missed either a waste of time because that was the whole point that she was forced to make the movie, or the message that the transition transexuality to her the director was done through Neo to Trinity and Trinity is shown as more powerful representing that.
Or we could take the postmodern representation of the group interpretation versus the director interpretation as wisecrack mentioned.
My interpretation it was too damn long and too many messages in there to make it a point in the first place, but maybe that was the point, who knows?
Matrix IV is science fantasy where I to III are science fiction. Also, the fight choreography was abysmal, which is super weird given that Chad Stahelski, John Wick director and Matrix I choreographer was in the movie! I guess they really wanted to make it flop, didn't they.
Wasn't Chad just the stunt coordinator (and double) on the originals, and Yuen Woo Ping the choreographer? And man that's tough to follow 😅
very thoughtful and eye-opening video and topic! I especially gravitated towards Adorno's ideas
I loved watching Helen talk about this. I seriously believe that Lana Wachowski took liberties with meta-play. Only she agreed to make it, not her sister, which makes me think that she probably was like "if anyone is going to fuck this up, it's gonna be me." I know they refused numerous times. This was just a big middle finger to the studio and industry about reboots, but unfortunately there were innocent casualties (the fans).
I mean, this was actually my favorite film of 2021. I understand why people didn't like it but I was on the same wave-length. I also disagree with the statement that the film "hates itself". Once Neo is unplugged again the film is showing how much love and care there is for this world from Lana
Maybe doesn't hate itself but I think it was clear that didn't care much about itself either. The most obvious, for me at least, was the wasted opportunity of talking about the world post-war where humans and machines started to live together again and even machines had conflict with "ideologies" or ways of living-being with those of other machines; even exploring the idea of why most people would know the truth and still prefered to live plugged to the matrix was there but barely got touched in the most shallow way if at all.
Lana wanted to deliver a message about her ouvre. The rest was either fanservice or filler with the themes (primarily, the aesthetic ones) of the franchise.
I felt the movie nervous or not sure at all about itself, but the future of the sequels is to be done with that bittersweet flavour for many (the CEO of Warner said that if Lana wants to do another, is welcome, but they were going to make Resurrections without her or her sister anyway).
exactly
Matrix 1 was a "classic" in that it just feels like it was made to be watched over and over again as comfort food....its legacy took a lot away from its initial impact with everyone and their grandmother parodying it.
Matrix Reloaded actually feels the most alive because it opens up a lot of questions which, sadly were crushed by
Matrix revolutions , a movie that could have been great but sort of just was an action movie ...a very entertaining action movie but none the less nothing all that deep.
Matrix ressurections once again got that spark of possibilities ,which given the ending, and box office performance, will never create a truly great pay off .
The meta element honestly was the most fun part of the movie. All the novelty of the Matrix francaise had been sucked out by its hyper popularity in the mid 2000s and there was no right way of doing it without seeming cheap. Also honestly the second half had me on the edge of my seat. It was a great climax.
I would say that the first half of the film is both funny and thoughtful in its self-examination. The second half of the film feels like it was written separately to give some irrelevant worldbuilding and action sequences in order to satisfy the Warner Bros execs. The overall effect has kind of confused feeling. It is as though the film is warning you that Matrix 4 is a bad idea, then shows exactly how bad that idea is by letting it manifest as dictated by Warner Bros in the second half. If intentional, I commend the clever writing. The fact that its clever doesn't really make it enjoyable to watch for me though.
I appreciate WHY the movie was made more than the movie itself. Which kinda makes me appreciate the movie too.
I liked the last Matrix as it has the natural progression of my own experiences.
- From 'we know it all' to 'we don't know almost anything at all',
- From 'us against them' to 'why not together'
- From 'I am right' to 'define right, and why we need it so badly'.
The Analyst is a very interesting figure and I wish I could see the missing episode between the 3 and 4. How he came into power and why, as there is much we can learn from him about managing humans. There are so many allegories about the actual world we live in now (Matrix 4) compared to what we thought will happen (Matrix 1).
I would like to learn more about the fascinating world of the Matrix machines and AIs, which are even more interesting than humans.
Maybe if you go to the cinema for the action you will be disappointed, but if you go to see a developing conversation about ideas, it is still a thrilling journey and I enjoyed it quite a lot.
w0t
The first half of it was solid philosophy. The second was setting up the happy ending. I'm fine with both.
It was dumb on so many levels
I'm probably in a very small minority here, but it's my 2nd favorite in the franchise. I probably enjoyed it much more than I should have because it gave me the feeling it would rile up the fan base and piss a lot of people off.
Also, great vid as usual Wisecrack!
I agree, while the original is still easily the best, I think Resurrections is still a good movie and liked it better than Reloaded and Revolutions, which were a mess.
Some people think trans people in general are tolling everyone (pissing everyone off just to do so). I think all of it is quite funny no matter how you look at it.
IMO the filmmaker hates the studio system and the fans that enjoy her previous films. There is no depth in the new Matrix. Just bitterness and disillusionment with our culture and the corporations that own everything that we grew up with.
If that isn't deep then what would your consider deepness?
@@fgarciz You have a right to your own opinion. This is just my take. I feel that this movie hid nothing and left nothing for interpretation. Everything was obvious and on the nose. If the plot leaves nothing for the viewers to interpret for themselves then it is not deep.
It was literally a blantant critique of the film industry, red pill community and other things. But you say it has no depth? So if you criticise anything that makes bitter? Even so does that make the message less poignant
Ah well
@@Novacaine_m Having a message does not equal depth. Regardless of weather the message is good or bad. When people say that a movie is deep they are saying that they had to spend a lot of time after watching the movie to understand it's meaning. This movie was so on the nose that you do not need to think about what the filmmaker was trying to say.
@@perceivedvelocity9914 okay I get it now, deepness to you is the possibility of speculation... perfectly valid.
And I hated “The Matrix Resurrections.”
I have not seen the movie yet but based on what was just said about about this movie matrix Resurrection, it just took a big dump on its own franchise. This movie made everything that happened pointless because Neo isn't even that important.
Actually you can't have Trinity without Neo. 1 cannot exist without the other, it's just the way that message was done (including the message of this is a trans story and that's the female becomes more powerful) loses the message with every other damn message (including up there is no message; this movie should never have been made in the first place.)
I honestly liked it only based on that it was a different sort of franchise sequel. A lot of others tries to pick up where the old one stopped like nothing ever happened and that it was planned to be 6 movies all along. At least this acknowledges that this isn't the a natural continuation of the the first three. It doesn't feel like the other Matrix films and that's a good thing. Although it spends a bit too much time on clips from the last movies. And Trinity's part also felt a bit like a token effort. She's just the love interest from afar for most of the movie and then out of nowhere she is suddenly important. Give her a moment to doubt and face struggles rather than just, becoming the one (or the two?) Out of nowhere
I didn't like the casting of Neil Patrick Harris, not because he sucks as an actor, but because it felt off or misplace. It didnt feel right, unlike with the Architect. But, maybe, thats what they wanted, they wanted the Analyst to feel wrong, like a parody of itself.
My first time watching the movie I was delighted for awhile and then disappointed by the ending. But then I watched it again and now I like it. I think a lot of it is clever. But it can be a little too deflective. Like "I said this about myself before you could say it about me." I don't know if that makes any sense but it's like they lined up enough commentary within the movie so that they say everything a critic would say. Sort of shielding themselves.
Took the b rabbit approach from the final rap battle in 8 mile.
You made a great point
So 22 Jump Street?
@@JoMiHoppe I don’t even remember 22 jump street I’ll have to rewatch it.
I agree. The movie literally references the fact that it's a sequel numerous times. And then turns into a modern take on what a Matrix sequel (continatuion) could be. You either buy into that, or you don't.
@@CKOBRA72194 Exactly what I was thinking "I'm gonna insult myself before you can!"
Thomas Anderson is Phillip K Dick. Their experiences are not just video games or novels but residual memories of a life once lived.
I think it's a great, if flawed, movie, and I disagree that it "trolls itself". I feel like the countless "fans" lamenting the movie "making fun of" their beloved first movie (or the trilogy) are misinterpreting and misdirecting the critique aimed at them instead. Matrix: Resurrections is the best love letter to it's own legacy that I could have imagined, and re-contextualized the IMO flawed sequels in such a way that I found myself liking, respecting and understanding them better than ever. Lana could have left out all the action for all I care and it would still be as much "a Matrix movie" as anything.
I wonder what nolan would do with this franchise.😁
I just tried to not read to much into it. The analyst was indeed an analog for Hollywood and their manipulative overwhelming tactics. I liked the movie at face value and do believe if Lana wanted to really just end the IP so Warner Bros would shut up she would have.
My personal view on this after this RUclips article is as follows:
I accept the interpretation that this movie was made to eulogize the Matrix trilogy and hopefully to not make any more Matrix movies, as well as a personal message honoring the directors parents and the transition from male to female which made her more empowered.
I also recognize the message that this movie means something to everyone as it hit us over the damn head with it again and again and again and again (and in the post-credits) for over two and a half damn hours.
Even though I respect the messages it made, it was a piece of crap that had too many messages that was just going too many places even with the intent I listed above, to be considered a good movie or even a good message, but that written, the messages had to be said.
Making a piece of crap with a personal message because the studios would have made a piece of crap moneymaker film is not an excuse to make a piece of crap, but at least they did this one artistically.
Your personal opinions may vary, and I do appreciate the many many many replies that were listed and are still being listed to this. Thank you everyone and thank you Wisecrack for a great article!
Its funny how so many people just can't come to terms with the fact that this movie was terrible.
I actually loved the movie… seems I’m the only one
You're not! The internet sucks.
I’m with ya! I think it was clever and well done, but I do understand the fairer criticisms with the movie. It still completely worked for me.
I loved it too!