I didn't want to spend too much time writing a review for this movie. I wrote a pretty lengthy review for 'Matrix Reloaded' that carries a lot of my same complaints that I had for this movie to extensive detail. But as I wrote and wrote, the words just flooded out. Hope you have a minute or two...

To put it mildly, 'Matrix Revolutions' and 'Matrix Reloaded' were major disappointments. I think that they were both intelligent movies and both strived to achieve some kind of philosophical meaning that extended beyond the obvious. Both movies had action sequences and special effects that have been unlike anything ever seen before.

'Matrix Revolutions' is the third installment of the Matrix trilogy. There has never been a third movie to any trilogy that has not been disappointing. Some people say that the second movie is the hardest movie to make when you're making a trilogy. I think that based on past experiences watching trilogies, the third movie has got to be the hardest one to make. In the Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and the Godfather movies, the second installment is in many ways just as good (better many say) than the original. I can understand why it is almost always harder to make a second movie. It's harder to pick up where you left off and to continue the story of the people that you met in the first movie. The main point of the second movie in a trilogy is to introduce some kind of earth shattering conflict. (Vader being Luke's dad, Michael ordering the death of Fredo, and the start of the war for middle earth). So I can understand the reasons why it's hardest to make second movie.

So the two main rules of a second movie are to continue the stories of characters that were introduced in the first movie and to introduce some kind of seemingly impossible conflict that the protagonist must overcome. As far as I can tell, the most successful second and third movies have also lived by the biggest cardinal rule of not completely deviating from the story set out with the first movie. As is the case with 'Reloaded' and 'Revolutions,' the Wachowski Bros. have almost completely negated the first movie with their second and third movie. As Anya pointed out to me, the second and third Matrix movies are actually REALLY good movies when not seen as part of the first movie. I definitely know what she's talking about. The second and third movies are really strong movies, but they almost completely the story that the first movie set up. So it's almost as if there should be two separate trilogies.

The first 'Matrix' movie set up a premise of a young leader losing his apathy and gaining a sense of the world around him. This young leader has no other task set before him than freeing all of his brothers and sisters from this machine induced slavery type of system and leading his people into a new age of human existence. The very last paragraph of dialogue from the first movie confirms everything above, and also offers a promise of things to come:

"I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid... afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world WITHOUT YOU. A world without rules or controls, borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you."

If you notice, I highlighted what I think are the most important words of that entire paragraph. Neo's role, as set up through the first movie is to set up a world where humans are no longer slaves, batteries to the machine world. He's going to show his followers a world where they can see the code. A world where they can jump from building to building. A world where Kung Fu and bullets don't apply.

But then the second and third movies seem to abandon this notion. Again, I don't want to fault any artist for striving to put some kind philosophical meaning and depth into their work, but I feel that as is the case with the Wachowski's they took a relatively simple idea that had many levels of complexity, and turned it into a story that is too complex and non-simple for both themselves and their audience. Artificial Intelligence is a concept that is extremely difficult to put into words and images. Very few directors have ever made movies that have successfully dealt with the many different facets of artificial intelligence. Probably the two best movies that deal with AI are 'A.I.,' '2001,' and even 'War Games.' Spielberg's 'A.I,' sought to explain whether a human could ever love a machine, but more importantly, if a machine could ever trully love a human back. 'War Games' talked of a world where a super computer held the world in the balance because of a game it had trapped itself into. Kubrick's '2001' discussed how an AI program called the HAL 9000 could feel so threatened by two humans, that it could eventually lead to homicidal tendencies.

What 'Reloaded' and 'Revolutions' sought to explain was that artificial intelligence could set up a series of complex models of society both on the real world, as well as the world of the Matrix. As was explained in the 'Animatrix,' the world of the machines had at one time tried to live side by side with human beings, only to have both sides grow increasingly frustrated with each other. The machine world decided to set up it's own level of society that existed as it's own separate and successful entity until the human started to feel threatened. Once the humans started to feel threatened, the machines took it upon themselves to enslave the entire human race and turn them into batteries for the machine world. So what you had was an inbalance between the human world and the machines who enslaved them. The real world existed in this sort of wacked out existence where the machines were the rulers and the people were the enslaved.

But once Neo came along in the first movie, he sought to change all of that. Along with the other freedom fighters of the real world, they sought to find a world where there was no other system of slavery. And thus you have the serious question of AI. If you believe that there is no way that machines can have feelings and even more so, a soul, then it's a pretty easy decision to make. If that's the way you feel, then it's eradication of the machines. If you feel that the created AI does indeed have feelings and some kind of soul, then there has to be some kind of middle ground reached. If that's your view, then to wipe out the AI would be just as horrific as wiping out any race of people.

HOWEVER...

I do not think that 'Revolutions' came close to even bringing up that question. And if some people say that they did bring up that question, then the answer that was put forth defies all forms of logic.

The first movie is clear. Humans are batteries. Period! As much as they would like to think that the second and third movie discuss the complexities of AI, they really don't. About as far as we get into any kind of explanation comes from a young girl who was created from two other programs who loved each other. When Neo asks the nature of love, the programs explain that love is just a word and that all that's important is the fulfillment of that word into everyday life. And the other instance of an explanation into AI comes when Neo is in the capital city of the machine world. But nearly every other single form of explanation about AI that comes from the movies is from an almost completely negative light. From Agent Smith to the sentinels to the capsules enslaving every human on the planet to the Architect to the 'matrix' itself, every glimpse we get of AI in the Matrix is from an absolute negative light. We don't see the machines in anything other than a negative light. So what we have are the Wachowskis attempting at making us feel something positive about an entity that has been put into an almost complete state of negativity. If the brothers Wachowski's goal was to show the immense layers of depth to AI, then they failed almost completely. As is in the movie, the machines are nothing but enslavers, and that's why they must be stopped.

But about illogical, the end of 'Revolutions' ended with a bit of a Korean war ending. There is a lot resolved, but there is in no sense closure to the story. The machines are going to let go a "whoever wants to be freed," but what about the rest of the slaves? Are the humans going to remain underground? Will the humans and machines fight yet again? Is Neo even alive? What next? But that's not even the most illogical part of the ending is that it doesn't make one lick of sense that the machines would give up their best and most bountiful power source. To give up humans, even if they agreed to do so, would be just as illogical as humans giving up air. It does not make any sense.

Again, I think that in order for it to be a successful third movie, you have to have closure. I think that even though Lucas included Ewoks in 'Jedi,' he understood this. I think Peter Jackson is going to make the most successful third movie ever. Michael Corleone dies at the end of 'Godfather 3.' But we don't have that sense of closure with 'Mat. Rev.' Sure Neo's dead, but there is WAY TOO MUCH left open.

My MAIN gripe with the second and third 'Matrix' movie, and hopefully I've illustrated at least some of my frustrations in a clear way, is that the Wachowskis took a simple story of humans versus machines and attempted to turn it into a Kubrickian adventure tale into the nature of AI. But as I said above, I do not believe that they came close to achieving that goal. But I don't fault them for trying.

As far as the acting, it's just as wooden as ever. I really don't have much to say about that. Keaneu is not much of an actor. The best actor in the series is Fishburne's 'Morpheus,' but in the second movie; if he's not over-acting, he's giving off a major "fundamentalist" vibe. All sense of Morpheus being a calm and collected bad ass have been thrown out the window. Carrie Ann Moss gives a solid performance. Solid wood and cheese that is.

And what's the deal with Persephone and the Marovingian? Their stories are not hashed out and answered at all. Was their a point for these two people to be in this movie other than for eye candy and few laughs.

Speaking of laughs, the shootout at the S&M club is a laugh and a half. The ceiling shootout was completely gratuitous and pointless. I found myself laughing out loud through numerous points in that S&M club. I mean, some of the costumes look EXACTLY like the gimp costume from 'Pulp Fiction' for crying out loud. It's as if they cloned the gimp and had him go fight in a Matrix movie.

There was no Rage Against the Machine song at the end of the third movie. It's a minor gripe, but I think that they should have followed precedent and finished it off with a final RATM song. I'm thinking 'Freedom' would be a good one. DUH!!!!

My favorite part of the movie was the Zion shoot out between the robots and the sentinels. I think that there was sense of urgency in those scenes because I found myself emotionally invested in the characters on screen and wanted to see them succeed. But as is usually the case with directors who start believing their over-hype, the scene went on too long. I hate it when directors think that their vision is best and not in need of editing. I think that the best directors give their stuff to the editor and let them do their work. As my poetry teacher says, "any poet can cut a bad line. It takes a great poet to cut a GREAT Line."

I don't feel that the second and third movies are horrible. I'm just severely disappointed in them. I think that there was so much potential set forth in the first movie and wish that they had stuck to their guns with their simple story they had set up. As it is now, I think most people who find themselves disappointed with the matrix movies are going to let it slip from their pop cultural radar. I find that sad. I think that there was great potential for those movies to be our 'Star Wars.' As it is now, I think most people will just keep their first movie and let the other two collect dust.

What a shame.

matt out