Last night we went to the drive-in to see these the two films.
I wasn’t expecting much from The Matrix. Those who’ve seen my posts on the board know my antipathy toward the original film (primary complaint: 2/3rds of it was utterly boring).
It turned out the sequel was actually worse than the first. The action sequences were mere copies of the original, and everyone talked fluent Chinese fortune cookie. The characters had less personality than the average coffeetable and there was a severe lack of imagination on the part of the writers. If Neo had control of reality, he should be able to do much more than just a few souped-up kung fun move. And don’t get me started on the plot holes. :rolleyes:
What was interesting was the main setpiece action sequence on the freeway. I found it utterly uninteresting and lacking in excitment, especially when compared to the two main action sequences in “The Italian Job.”
It all boiled down to how the scenes were shot. “The Matrix Reloaded” was computer enhanced; “The Italian Job” was primarily shots of actual action. It’s one thing to see someone making computer-generated leaps atop a computer-generated truck; it’s something else to see an actual helicopter chasing a car in the streets of LA.
And, of course, “The Italian Job” was not going to include High School Philosophy 101 as though it was Word from God, so it had an edige to begin with.
Finally, one question about “The Matrix Reloaded”
[spoiler]Who the hell was the face in the final shot? As far as I could pick out, it was the guy who seemed to be thinking of knifing Neo when he left. But who the hell was he? And why should the shot of his face (upside down, so it made it even more confusing – sloppy, sloppy directing) mean anything to the audience.
[/quote]
BTW, no fair bringing in “The Matrix” in your answer. Even a sequel has to be able to stand on its own.
Without going into a discussion of the quality of the film (there are several other threads doing just that), an answer to your question:
The guy is named “Bane,” I think, but the importance is that he is really Agent Smith, who took over Bane’s body just before leaving the Matrix to go back to Zion, and now is inside Zion. It was presumably he who sabotaged the resistance in the event referred to at the end of the film that wiped out everyone on several ships (leaving him as the only survivor), and clearly his presence in Zion sets up some nastiness that we will expect to see resolved in Matrix: Revolution.
If you didn’t get that, you didn’t get the movie at all. And no fair saying, “I was so bored by that time I didn’t care.” Obviously, you never gave the movie a shot if you missed such a major plot point that was developed in the beginning of the movie.
Mahaloth, I liked TM:R. I’d also like to think that I “got” the movie. However, at first I too didn’t realize that the guy across the table from him was Agent Smith. I simply didn’t make the facial recognition jump needed, and, IIRC, I don’t believe that it’s ever implicitly stated other than that scene (during which, I believe, the characters were wearing sunglasses). Also, given the little kid in the theatre me and my SO were watching it in, it’s possible I was distracted. It’s a bit confusing, and, for someone who already didn’t like the movie, could border on maddening. So I think you should give the OP a break.
RichardB and Mahloth, thanks for the clarification. It makes my opinion of the film go down another notch.
I’m sorry, but one lousy shot of an upside down face of a character who has two whole minutes of screen time is a hell of a lot to expect from an audience, especially when the “Bain into Smith” scene (I do recall it now) lasted about thirty seconds and was at least two hours before the final shot. There was absolutly no reason to remember it, since we had no idea who Bain was previous to that (like all the characters in the film, he had no personality at all). (Maybe he was in the first movie, but that’s just another sign that the Wachowskis have no idea how to write a film.)
Man, what a piece of crap.
And, of course, it’s one more wild plot inconsistancy to add to the list.
Wow, impressive. The last “Matrix Reloaded sucked” thread only got four replies. Way to go. :rolleyes:
There was also a thread (with spoilers) that asked the exact same question you tried to put in a spoiler box. However, since it was called Matrix: Reboot in the thread title, I’ll cut you some slack for not finding it on a search.
Sure, it’s inconsistent. There was nothing to establish that Smith had any power in the real world.
And I missed it simply because the directors didn’t do their job – which was to make the scene clear. The character who Smith took over was never established in the slightest – he was just a face, and a fairly forgettable one at that. So when this happened, it meant nothing and there was nothing about the scene to make me want to pay attention.
If I wasn’t paying attention, then the directors failed. They’re supposed to make you pay attention, especially with any point that has bearing on the plot. They didn’t, which is just another sign of how sloppy they are. They evidently assume that everyone is going watch rapt at every momeht of the film, and that’s an amateur’s first mistake.
Again, “The Italian Job” shows how a good directory does something like this. There was a twist at the end that might seem to come out of nowhere. However, because the director took the time to create a memorable character, some important dialogue, and just the right camera shot, the entire thing was explained even before it happened. The Wachowskis don’t know how to plot a film, and it shows.
However, even if I had made the connection, it wouldn’t have changed my opinion of the film. By the time I got to that final scene, I had already grown weary of this megaturkey. The fight scenes were just plain dull and so much based on video games that you practically saw them pressing the “jump” button. There was a severe lack of imagination throughout, and the plot had enough other holes to fill the Albert Hall. The acting was just plain terrible and the dialog . . . man, what bilge!
The only entertainment value was to Mystery Science Theater it. I haven’t seen a film more ripe for that since “Battlefield Earth.”
So you go to see the sequel to a movie that you didn’t like in the first place (antipathy, 2/3 utterly boring, etc) and expect the director to make you want to pay attention this time, even though if you saw the trailers you had to know that Reloaded was essentially just more of what you didn’t like the first time around? Sounds like you were pretty biased going in, and that’s just a bit too much to ask from any director.
Hey, I’ve gone to movies and was pleasantly surprised, and would have changed my mind onthis one if there was any reason to. If they had put together action sequences as interesting and revolutionary as in the first movie, I would have had a higher opinion. I liked the last half hour of “The Matrix”; it was the dull hour and a half before that that I objected to (as well as the soggy jejune philosophy).
And, yes, I expect the director to make me want to pay attention. That is a director’s job. If they do it well, I’ll like the film no matter what I think of it going in.
For example, I went into “X-Men” expecting not to like it, and it turned out to be a nicely entertaining film. But that had a competent director at the helm who knew how to create characters we could care about.
Hey, I’ve gone to movies and was pleasantly surprised, and would have changed my mind on this one if there was any reason to. If they had put together action sequences as interesting and revolutionary as in the first movie, I would have had a higher opinion. I liked the last half hour of “The Matrix”; it was the dull hour and a half before that that I objected to (as well as the soggy jejune philosophy). But the action was lifted from video games and kung fu movies and made no sense in the logic of the film.
And, yes, I expect the director to make me want to pay attention. That is a director’s job. If they do it well, I’ll like the film no matter what I think of it going in.
For example, I went into “X-Men” expecting not to like it (I never cared for the comic book and dislike Marvel intently), and it turned out to be a nicely entertaining film. But that had a competent director at the helm who knew how to create characters we could care about.
Saw 'em both. Did not like MATRIX RELOADED. Loved THE ITALIAN JOB. Why? ITALIAN JOB was a piece of entertainment. It made me happy. MATRIX RELOADED was trying so hard to be serious and amazing that it just sat there like something embarrassing. If I’m going to spend $8.50 to see a film, I want to be entertained, not baffled.
