Warp wrote:

>   Reloaded was greatly misunderstood and got a lot of negative hype soon
> after release because it was *different* from the illusion people had for
> a Matrix sequel. In other words, it suffered from "they changed it, now
> it sucks" syndrome (even though they really didn't change anything).

I think the sequals sucked for the same reason as the Star Wars 
prequals: All the same characters are there, they're all doing the same 
sort of stuff, but there is seemingly NO REASON for their actions. I 
mean, something happens, they react to that, which causes something 
else, so then they have to do this other thing... what are we working up 
to again? I have no idea.

>   The machines need people to be conscious (the reason given in the first
> movie, using humans as energy sources, is completely bogus and AFAIK a
> result of executive meddling; the Wachowski brothers originally had a
> more logical explanation, but it was scrapped because executives thought
> viewers are morons and wouldn't understand it). In order for people to be
> conscious and not go crazy (which happens if you keep people locked in
> solitary confinement), they created this life simulator. The Architect
> was the main developer.
> 
>   Now, what the Architect created was a perfect world where nothing bad
> happens ever, but much to his surprise people started dying, and he couldn't
> understand why.
> 
>   He concluded that the simulated world was too good, too perfect, and the
> human mind needs problems, confrontations and crises in order to keep sane.
> A perfect life seemed to bore people out of their minds, making them
> perform unconscious suicide.
> 
>   So he created a second version of the matrix, one which was like a
> nightmare, with monsters and werewolves and vampires (it's implied that
> this is where such stories are from)... And also this was a similar failure.
> 
>   A different program, here named "Oracle" came up with the real reason:
> What people need is not problems and confrontations. What they need is
> choice. If you completely remove the human capacity for true choice, the
> mind rebels against the situation in the only possible way it can (by
> dying).
> 
>   So the third version of the matrix was built with a genuine choice for
> all people, even though this choice was to be made at a near subconscious
> level: They could choose to escape from the matrix, or choose to believe
> the world they were experiencing was real.
> 
>   This capacity of making a subconscious choice seemed to be enough to
> keep people happy and alive. Of course a few people actually chose to
> escape, which is the whole point of the series. The Architect allows them
> to escape because else they wouldn't have a real choice. (It's never clearly
> explained why this has an effect, but I assume that some kind of supernatural
> connection between all human consciousness could be implied.)
> 
>   This setup had yet another unexpected side-effect: Neo. (Again, it's not
> clearly explained why, but again it could be implied as some kind of
> supernatural global consciousness of the entire humanity thing.)
> 
>   Neo is the culmination of free choice of all humanity, and Neo must be
> given the choice of continuing the cycle (his consciousness is fused with
> the "Source" and eventually a new Neo pops up some time in the future) or
> try to free the entire humanity and defeat the machines.
> 
>   (Apparently Neo must be given the choice only if he reaches the Architect.
> If he dies in the process, that's ok. A new Neo is born eventually again,
> and the cycle continues. That's why the agents don't have any problem in
> trying to kill Neo. Killing him is just beneficial because it gives them
> more time until the next Neo tries to reach the Architect.)
> 
>   If you think about the above explanation, and then listen to the
> Architect's explanation in the movie carefully, you'll see how he is
> explaining exactly what I wrote above. Try it. It's enlightening.

So it's possible to construct an explanation which appears to make sense 
in the context of the film. That's not the same as the film making sense.

I was expecting the original film to be rubbish. Lots of guys posing 
around in dark glasses and expensive suits, with gun-fu fighting and 
slick special effects. Much to my surprise, the film was... really 
gripping. And it ACTUALLY MADE SENSE. Contrary to what I was expecting, 
by the end of the film you more or less understand why everything 
happened. (Although it's deliberately mysterious initially.)

The sequals, however, consist mostly of mental fights, crazy special 
effects, and cryptic dialog unrelated to the rest of the film. It just 
isn't entertaining. Some of the fights are even more impressive than the 
original, but since it's not clear what there is to gain or lose... I 
find myself feeling "OK, this is an epic battle, but... I just don't 
actually CARE any more. Even though I feel like I should care."

>> Not a 
>> lot, really...? So... uh... I've just watched several hours of film and 
>> I *still* don't know anything I didn't know before. In fact, the film 
>> has undone several of the things that were cool about the one before.
> 
>   You simply didn't understand. Try it again.

In the first movie, Neo destroys an agent - something which is seemingly 
unprecedented and has never happened before. But right at the start of 
the 2nd movie... oh, no, he's not destroyed, in fact it's basically like 
that battle never happened. Oh well, never mind.

>   Maybe the point of the sequel was not to repeat the first movie, but
> to explain things instead? If you want the first movie again, then watch
> it again.

I will admit that if Neo had just showed up, kicked arse and saved the 
world - like we were all expecting - that would have taken, like, maybe 
30 minutes, and would have been quite dull actually. But then, if you 
don't have a compelling story to tell, don't bother making a movie?



I think both the Matrix and Star Wars can be understood on another 
level: Cut density.

Look at the original Star Wars films, and there are lots of scenes which 
could theoretically by cut shorter, but aren't. Now watch Episode I, and 
it's CUT, CUT, CUT, CUT. Each scene is just barely long enough to impart 
some small piece of information, and then we cut to the next.

Similarly with the Matrix films. We didn't *have* to spend 10 minutes 
with Cipher deliberating over who to kill next. That whole scene could 
have lasted 30 seconds instead. But it didn't. And the film is much more 
intense as a result. In the sequals, we just seem to cut from fight to 
fight to rambling dialog to fight to another fight to more dialog to 
fight to... oh, wait, that's the end? OMG, what was the point?!



Anyway, it's a free country, so you can like the Matrix sequals if you 
want. Personally, I don't. ;-)

Also... watching this review has taught me more about why some films 
work better than others than I thought possible. Suddenly I can 
comprehend *why* Episode I was boring, even though it seemed to contain 
all the right stuff.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message