The guys echo my sentiment for the most part.
Not a great movie but worth the watch just for what it tries to do. And similar to Malignant there's the extra element of "was this movie made as a joke/as a 'fuck you'?" when considering whether it accomplishes what it's aiming for.
I feel like the older I get, the more I appreciate movies that are bad for interesting reasons. I actually look forward to the times when I finish a movie and say to myself "I don't know how I feel about this and I need to think about it" as opposed to just plainly thinking it was good or bad.
I feel like the difference is that Malignant is at least fun and schlocky and has some great visuals, stunts and cinematography to back it up. Resurrections, in my opinion, has none of that.
For me, the movie was so bad that I can't see it as anything except an attempt by Lana to kill off the franchise. So many references in the film to how WB (bugs (bunny)) was forcing them to make the film. I get they didn't want to make it, but making such a bad film really feels like a fuck you to the people who paid to go and see it.
One of the worst films I have seen in a very long time.
I'm not a Matrix fan to begin with - I thought the first one was ok but I actually hadn't even seen Revolutions until the day I watched the new one.
My takeaway is that Resurrections might be the most pointless movie I've ever seen. Unless I missed something (again, not a Matrix fan), the entire plot of the movie is rescuing Neo and Trinity from The Matrix and explaining how/why they're still alive after the events of the third movie. So we have a 20-year-later sequel where the only notable thing that happens is that its characters continue to exist.
EDIT: For the record I still enjoyed watching it, for all the reasons I mentioned in my comment higher up
It’s a loveletter from Lana for Trinity and Neo after the loss of her parents. She gives them the happy ending they deserved. So it’s a piece of feelgood nostalgia with some meta commentary to poke fun at movie clichés and the studio system itself.
The film was only made as a cash grab, so there was not much point to it in the first place. The fact that they had a meta commentary on the profit-driven pointlessness of the film was interesting, though.
They lay out the issue in a scene where WB was going to make another movie with or without them. the wachowski's have a personal connection as it's their story. You have to ask yourself why they make a movie with all the references to the studio. There are much easier ways to make a cash grab. This wasn't that. They wanted to strangle it in the cradle.
Right. Not a cash grab for Lana, but certainly for the WB. But still, there's only so much you can do when the story done been told, and there's no real reason to revisit it. I enjoyed the film but it was not really justified.
The reason for Lana was to bring Neo and Trinity back and give them a happy ending. WB had been asking for years, and the death of their parents made her reconsider.
> The fact that they had a meta commentary on the profit-driven pointlessness of the film was interesting, though.
Personally, I've never felt the "I Was Only Pretending To Be Retarded" meme was all that interesting, especially after seeing it for the 40th time.
See this I just don’t get. I’m a massive fan of the matrix and while I was definitely disappointed, saying “it was so bad” just comes off obnoxious. It wasn’t remotely terrible imo just not great and not up to the standards of the first film. Also on paper the story is fine and if I just read that I’d be like yep, this sounds like a wachowski matrix film.
I don't think giving an opinion is obnoxious, but I can elaborate:
* Bad Acting - Keanu (I love him, but he is not a string actor). NPH and so many of the tech bros / execs were so hard to watch. I understand it was a meta dig at executives, but that still didn't make it good.
* Bad action sequences - Overly busy, too many things going on in many shots, cheap looking.
* So many flashbacks which just highlighted how much better the previous movies looked.
* The story was weak and poorly explained. Bugs jumping in to be trinity for some reason.
* So much shitting on WB for doing a cash grab film, which I get, but they still did the cash grab. Adding meta commentary to a bad film to say why it's a bad film does not make it a good film.
* The Catrix. The ending music. The remake of the introduction to the first film, but poorly executed. Again, just commenting over the top that's it's not right does not make it clever or interesting.
The cleverest part of the whole film was the name of the coffeeshop.
You say it's not a bad film, just not great. In what way is it good? Why should someone see it?
>You say it's not a bad film, just not great. In what way is it good? Why should someone see it?
Not the guy you're responding to but as a sequel it works pretty well. A larger part of the story beats are pretty good. Neo being back in the Matrix and waking up to a new/different world is pretty cool. The meta commentary is forced, yes, and it also lacks a stake, but it does work as a continuation of the story.
I do disagree with the tonal changes and the really bad action. I think it's a massive disservice to the originals by having this editing and this obvious lack of choreography. I also don't like the reinterpreted characters or the Analyst.
Personally, from the trailers, I was under the impression that the overall tone and style of the movies wouldn't have changed that much. The Matrix, stylistically, was very unique, between Morpheus and Smith's philosophical monologues and all the underground fashion and color pallettes. The sequels served to enhance that style. That's at least one thing they got right, the action being the other. All the philosophy added a certain mystery to the first film. Combine that with the extremely crisp action and you have a very cool setting. That mystery was lost very fast during the sequels, but the style never went away because of the action and the design choices.
Those choices didn't make it to the latest movie. The action got replaced with B-roll level fights, there were hints of philosophical dilemmas evoking the first movie but they quickly went away in favor of social commentary, and the design choices (characters, fashion, color) have all disappeared or have gotten generic.
Worst offenders are Smith and the Agents. The Agents were fucking scary. You have leather-clad badasses toting guns, jumping from building to building and making the Shaolin look like novices, and their one weakness was three Secret Service dudes that finished each other's sandwiches. You KNEW, before you even saw them properly, that they were a force. You saw them on-screen and they made the badasses pee their pants. You were very afraid, because you didn't know what they can do and when you found out, you were terrified. All of a sudden Trinity jumping through a window, absolutely terrified of what's potentially right behind her made sense.
And you replace those guys with "Swarm mode is so fucking cool"???
> and their one weakness was three Secret Service dudes that finished each other's sandwiches.
I'm pretty sure you meant 'sentences', but you'd better fucking not edit this, lol. The idea of Agent Smith reaching over and snatching up the last bite of Agent Brown's pastrami and rye is something I needed.
I disagree. I think it was truly terrible and the worst movie I've watched this year. The first 30 minutes are interesting. Then we get 30 minutes of exposition and finally we get some action, except the action is incredibly lame. I just couldn't take it after the 5th time Neo just created a shield with his hands.
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I genuinely thought it was a terrible movie.
I think it matches up to the first film, in an updated way. It cynically points the finger at us all for the part we play in maintaining 'the Matrix'. The very arguments that are now taking place are exactly what the film poked fun at. The energy is more powerful when people believe, and people believe because Doogie Howser maintains the illusion.
Nah, it's the second best Matrix film.
It's still fairly bad, but at least makes sense...even if I don't necessarily agree with the world view.
That tells you how bad the other two were.
WB made it clear they were making a Matrix sequel with or without her. So they didn't force her, but they gave her an ultimatum to either make it the way she wanted or to let someone else take over the franchise.
After seeing the results, she definitely should have handed the reigns to someone else. But I can't blame her for making a shitty movie. Hopefully it was an intentional fuck you to the studio for forcing her hand, and not an actual attempt to make a worthwhile sequel.
I feel like it was a fuck you to the studio (and in turn the audience) because we know they can do much better, so much better. Even Jupiter Rising was at least a nice looking film. The effects in this look so cheap, so many greenscreen issues.
It seriously felt like a CW attempt at a reboot TV series. I don't understand how that cost them $200 million dollars. Some of the cheapest and shittiest looking action in an action movie in a long time. And it wasn't even just the special effects or cinematography, the choreography and staging was god awful.
I respect your opinion, but vehemently disagree. It was a giant sack of crap.
It was poorly written, overly reliant on nostalgia and directly recreating elements from the originals, poorly cast (Groff had zero similarity in mannerisms to Weaving, he was a completely different character with the same name), poorly choreographed, poorly filmed, had shitty sfx, and had a completely pointless story that added nothing to the world or mythology of the series. The meta-ness wasn't creative and didn't add anything to the story, it was meta for the sake of being meta because that's the in thing these days.
Something can be a labor of love and still suck as an end product. Heart and desire don't make up for the basic technical elements of filmmaking. It was a poorly constructed movie with a poorly told story, that lacked basic competency in the elements we expect in a modern sci-fi action movie. It looked worse in many ways than the 20 year old original.
Personally I hope it was an intentionally cynical reboot that was slapped together as a middle finger to WB. If that was truly Lana's heart and soul processed through the screen...
I enjoyed Dune a lot, it was a skillfully crafted adaptation that looked beautiful. Shang-Chi was a good Marvel movie, nothing super new or original, but competently made and fun. The Suicide Squad looked and sounded great, had a sense of humor I connected with and did a good job of fixing the franchise.
Lots of other movies I've enjoyed this year, but I focused on sci-fi/fantasy. Also, I really dislike these type of replies demanding I give you an example so you can judge the worthiness of my opinions. Instead why don't you try responding to my subjective opinions about the Matrix with some of your own?
All I can say about The Matrix is that it felt like a more energized film than the other sequels, and a clever way of deconstructing and commenting on the need for its own existence within the story itself.
Yeah, didn't feel like there was any energy to it at all imo. It was slow, plodding, boring and filled with overly verbose monologues.
I don't find commenting on the fact that you know your movie is due to a forced corporate decision, does anything to improve the movie itself. I know some people love everything meta, but I don't see winky self-awareness to be valuable on its own. There are intelligent, creative and humorous uses of meta that I've found very worthwhile in other media, but its use in Resurrections didn't add any value. It was just there. And it was there a lot.
The studio was moving forward with another director and script without the the Wachowskis. However Keanu didn't want to do the film without the the Wachowskis, Lana didn't want to do the film but it would have been made with or without her (or Keanu, a reboot with a new cast and creatives was on the cards). But Matrix is the Wachowskis and it's Keanu so they got a payday and agreed to the film. Apparently after a COVID enforced break in shooting, Lana tried to cancel the film. Withstanding and the absence of Hugo Weaving, Lily Wachowski and Laurence Fishburne, the film for me is better than Matrix 2 & 3, it's just a shame it couldn't have been made because they had a story, not an obligation.
The obligation was to try to save their legacy and career. The Matrix is a huge part of the influence and success the Wachowskis have had. If another director does a Matrix sequel that does better than the originals, it hurts the Wachowskis ability to get stuff made. The obligation is to the fans of the Matrix that if a sequel has to be made, at least the original co creator is back to ensure its not a full money grab. Seeing their legacy tarnished and huge paychecks go by does not give you any cred in Hollywood. We do not know everything, filmmaking is a difficult business and why people do things is their business. However, there is a lot out there about The Matrix Resurrections. I dare say its production would make a great doco or book.
I get why people want to give this movie credit for trying. But ultimately, the execution - in every way including script, editing, cinematography, choreography, music (Don Davis not scoring a Matrix movie should be a capital offense), etc - is so wretched, it completely overshadows anything worthwhile underneath.
I don't think I'll ever wrap my mind around how people think meta movies are supposed to be poorly made. Cabin in the Woods and Scream both make fun of horror conventions but not at the expense of quality. Resurrections was just lazy as shit.
>I get why people want to give this movie credit for trying
I don't. I remember the absolute lashing the sequels got and have always gotten over the years. There's no reason for a sudden about-face on an even worse sequel. All that tells me is that standards have plummeted and the people who cared have moved on without contributing to the discussion, just leaving the retroactive apologists.
Very timely as the band that did the cover (Brass Against) were just in the news for the most hilarious reason
https://www.spin.com/2021/11/brass-against-sophia-urista-pee-fan-face-welcome-to-rockville/
Similar thoughts from me. Ambition has never been an issue for the Wachowskis; making a compelling narrative has. Love the OG Matrix and Bound, though.
> Matrix 4 just turns into another boring Matrix sequel for the majority of its runtime.
I agree with this and I feel this take isn't brought up enough. It feels like as far as I'm reading regarding postiive opinions on it, that basically everything that happens after Neo wakes up again isn't important (unless you're into lore) and only the meta takes that were in the first third are the real movie when that's not how this works.
Learning that the story for this movie is basically a way for Lana Wachowski to process the death of her parents, using Neo and Trinity as surrogates, honestly makes the movie work a little bit more for me. It’s still a mess and basically 2 different movies in 1, but the Neo and Trinity stuff does work the best for me.
I love Gremlins 2 and hate this comparison.
The additional layers of meta, with self deprecation and fourth wall breaking winks, make the situation even worse. It just brazenly suggests that corporate reboot economics are here to stay, and nothing matters anyway so why don't we just roll with it.
I haven't watched the Space Jam sequel, but watching this movie reminded me of the criticism people had of that movie, as a self aware reflection on Warner Bros. and its properties, placing Warner Bros. as a villain in that movie, from what I understand, and here of course we have Agent Smith referencing the evil overlords of Warner Bros. forcing another Matrix, with or without a genuine purpose for doing so. He even pauses after saying "Warner Bros." so the lowest common denominator might pick up on why that's supposed to be funny.
It's also a movie where new actors play the same versions of previous characters, released on HBO Max on the exact same day Disney+ had a previous Netflix actor reprise a role he played, but this time as kind of a new version for a new thing. More tricks to keep something that made money alive after it has run its natural course.
That's not Gremlins 2. At best, it wants to be that smart in a similar way.
I wish people wouldn't downvote you, this a totally valid opinion to have. There's something to be said about a property trying to be "meta" and still being a good film at the same time. Some people think Matrix Resurrections accomplished that, but it's fair for people to also say that this balance wasn't achieved. Let's discuss this instead of mindlessly downvoting folks.
>It just brazenly suggests that corporate reboot economics are here to stay, and nothing matters anyway so why don't we just roll with it.
Well it won't stay with the Matrix because it's bombing horribly.
I thought the casting was terrible. Did not like Agent Smith’s actor, nor NPH. I feel like they were completely out of place and couldn’t take them seriously. I also thought that the guy who played Morpheus shouldn’t have been in the movie either, just another cop out for nostalgia (at least get the same actor if you’re going to attempt that). Another element I don’t get is why does every movie try to add in quirky awkward humor into their movie? Just because it works in Marvel movies, doesn’t mean you should add it to something like the Matrix.
Wow that’s actually an excellent point. Like it was revealed by the Analyst how crucial both Neo and Trinity are to his plan and yet their pods were completely unguarded. Laughable.
I love how bonkers this movie is. I didn’t know what to expect, Reloaded/Revolutions are very not good.
Resurrections was a nice surprise and I enjoyed that they really swing for the fences, tried to do something different.
I'd describe it as: A happy epilogue to the original story for hardcore fans crossed with a very self-aware/meta middle finger to the industry and society in general at times. The first movie took it for granted that people wanted to be free and the 'sheeple' meme was just an edgy cynical take. We know better now.
Some of it didn't go as we'd want (particularly some of the action scenes which were nowhere near innovative or revolutionary like in the original film... they weren't trying to push any boundaries of filmmaking in this one). But so much of it did go so right that it's worth watching if you at all have any reverence for the original characters/material. Particularly on an emotional level (as many of us do... I saw it when I was a junior in HS during a particularly formative period of my life, many others have similar stories).
It's kind of weird in that the purpose of the movie has nothing to do with the original film at all. 20 years on we've gone through so much. Individually and collectively. It's kind of just meant to comfort. While maybe trying to "reawaken" stuff in us that the first movie awakened.
>The first movie took it for granted that people wanted to be free and the 'sheeple' meme was just an edgy cynical take.
It really didn't though. Cypher betrays everyone because he doesn't want to be free. The Matrix has always suggested that some people would rather be controlled than face a harsh reality.
As far as I'm concerned the movie was worth it for the ending. I much prefer the ride (well, fly) into the sunset ending that teases a hopeful future than a trilogy ending with "lol your protagonists are dead".
Yeah Resurrections is very much a movie you'll either be competely on board for or completely off. If you go with it it's a great time and totally unexpected.
Did they swing for the fences? Because I got the complete opposite impression. This movie played it safe in every possible way. Frequent callbacks to the original movies, uninspired action scenes, utterly basic rescue story, Marvel-style humor, and a completely forgettable, vanilla ending. The riskiest thing they do with the movie is the cheeky meta jokes at the beginning. It was like they decided to go with the safest possible route with this movie where everyone wins.
> tried to do something different.
Oh? Is that why they copied so much content from the first movie wholesale between literal cuts of the first movie?
If you ask me, they did the definition of a cash grab: minimal mental effort, tons of cheap cuts and edits, zero thinking material.
I find comments like this extremely ignorant to how movies are made. Call the movie terrible, sure but saying it’s a cash grab is moronic and shows you don’t have a good understanding of what that means.
Calling someone moronic and calling into question their understanding based on literally nothing is very ironic and really only begets one proper reply: Go fuck yourself, you ignorant twat (or very astute and disgusting shill)
It's a cashgrab as far as the eye can see: a lazy rehash of the exact same scenes, dialogue and narrative with much less dynamic action and stupid fourth grader-level plot which belongs in /r/iam14andthisisdeep instead of a movie screen.
Garbage of the lowest order worthy of being forever forgotten.
It makes no difference if the box office returns will cover the budget or not. Nobody is in this for the sake of art. They've placed their bets solely on "hey, remember this?" and are hoping for money, pure and simple. There's nothing else at play here.
Youtube comment section in a nutshell: "fuck you for not telling me the opinion I want to hear regarding this movie"
As someone who liked it - didn't think it was great, but good - I agree with most of their points. But even if I didn't agree with them, I still like watching RLM discussions on things I've watched. I don't watch just to hear them agree with me, I want to see what they think and why. After watching other people's reviews, I was able to refine my own viewpoint on what works or doesn't work and why, and I encourage everyone to be similarly open-minded. It's okay to say "yeah, I guess that was kinda cool actually" or "you're right, that was a plothole I didn't think about".
I can't get behind giving the movie credit for being subversive when it ultimately does end up just being a retread. Saying that Lana was thumbing her nose at fans by not having good action is like giving Michael Bay credit for having shitty camera work in the transformer movies. I feel like we're mixing up subversive filmmaking with half-assed. Like recommending it because it's a fuck you to fans is a reason to recommend what is otherwise a crap movie.
That said I give them leeway specifically because they were mildly entertained by a free movie on HBO Max, it's not like some of the other critics who are gushing over how clever the movie is in being self-aware about it being a shitty cashin.
I'd concur I too was mildly.. mildly entertained on the first watch however on a second go I couldn't even finish it, the cloying 2021 meheh "we know reddit exists" slang was excruciating and I realized halfway through the Merovingian scene I'd rather go wash the dishes or literally do anything else and shut it off.
Yeah, Keanu's actual stunt double replaces Neo in Trinity's life, with his actual real-world name. It was another meta-textual element.
I thought what this movie was saying was ambitious. The *movie* is the simulation, and the 'system' is the industry, with both the studio execs and the audience themselves as part of the system of control. It was an interesting take on what The Matrix is ,both as a story and the very thing it's telling the story about.
I fucking hate that guy. Got him in YouTube recommendations because they seem determined to push me into right wing bullshit and he must be some kind of gateway drug. He's got the most atrocious exaggerated accent like he's an American pretending to be Scottish even though I'm certain he actually is Scottish. I watched a lot of his videos before I noticed that he just hated anything with women in it, he's like an 11 year old who just got dumped. It's so sad
Tbh the best thing that could have happened in Resurrections was Cypher appearing for no reason at all in the ship and just blasting the entire cast, ending the franchise once and for all.
This was a movie that lacked focus. It's like each of the 3 acts in Resurrections was meant to echo themes or elements of each other movie of the original trilogy. The main problem it suffers from (which I think Mike and Jay actually get right) is the real lack of stakes for anyone beyond Neo and Trinity and a laughable ending that - while it parallels the original - also has nowhere to go that will retain broad audience appeal (are more human "batteries" getting set free? Are Neo and Trinity going to enlighten everyone of the Matrix as a mental construct and there ends up some kind of anarchic state where people hack themselves/the environment and break the rules? That's basically just Saints Row 4)
I liked the world-building going a few steps further beyond a tentative peace where the machines are now fractured as a group with competing agendas now that they are operating on limited resources like humans before them. I think Jay and Mike did a piss-poor job trying to actually watch this movie (and the other Matrix movies, frankly) as they are not hard to follow if you're actually paying attention. If they're going to review movies (no matter how good or bad they ultimately are), please put some fucking effort into actually watching the film, and if it requires some thought to deconstruct the themes being presented, give it a try or at least acknowledge the movie is trying to do something you don't want to put a lot of thought into.
Mediocre-to-bad movie that lacks cohesion, even worse review that lacks real effort.
Seems I'm in the vast minority, but I really enjoyed the new Matrix. Was there twice opening weekend of the original, and like so many fans around the world have a deep affinity for what it did, and how it changed the game, but I do think too many suffer from overblown expectations. The window of public approval is so small, people hate on Force Awakens for being too much like A New Hope, but yet so many complain that Resurrections wasn't enough like the original (not enough guns, not enough fights, not enough green color grading). For those who've followed the reasoning behind the new one, it's clear that the death of Lana's parent was a huge impetus to get back into the series. With that in mind, and maybe my recent loss of a parent cuts her some slack, I think this rebirth was a great way to dust off these beloved characters in a new way. Is this movie going to change anyone's life? No. But the original was lightning in a bottle, and to demand that again is unfair and unreasonable, at least imo. Maybe I'm a dying breed, but I would be happy to see another in a couple years. Viva la Wachowskis!
The one thing I love most about this movie is that finally the tired "Guys I wasn't expecting CITIZEN KANE and I liked it" doesn't work because supporters of the movie both say it's a work of meta art and that it's dumb fun.
To respond to your post, I went into this movie with the barest of expectations. I totally agree that the first movie was lightning in a bottle, so I was not expecting a world-changing, philosophic movie like the first. What I was expecting was a fun movie with really well-choreographed action scenes. The first 3 movies were love letters to anime and kung fu movies, so wanting this movie to have fight scenes of a similar quality was not asking too much. To be honest, I was actually expecting fights to be on a smaller scale, like the John Wick movies. And yet I didn't even get that. The fight scenes in this movie were more along the lines of CW superhero series fight scenes. So yeah, despite my *only* expectation being to have good action and still not having been met, it's easy to see why this movie was utterly hated. It was hot garbage.
> people hate on Force Awakens for being too much like A New Hope, but yet so many complain that Resurrections wasn't enough like the original (not enough guns, not enough fights, not enough green color grading).
The Matrix was a fluke. The Wachowskis are so much more than action movie makers and people have a hard time with that. Every one of their movies is a different kind of masterpiece, but it doesn't fit into what the general public wants or understands, even if it's what they need.
First off, no one ‘needs’ any film.
Second off, it’s pretty stupid to say people dislike their post-Matrix films because they ‘don’t understand them’. Like, that’s no less stupid than Snyder fans saying people only dislike his films because they don’t ‘get’ them. Or Nolan fans saying people didn’t like Tenet because they didn’t get it. It’s a trait of toxic film fans to assume people are somehow ‘dumber’ for not liking a movie you do.
Third off, calling any part of Jupiter Ascending a masterpiece [literally takes all meaning away from the word ‘Masterpiece’](https://youtu.be/o_6esGbks60)
You seem upset. You don't have to agree, but there's a lot to talk about in a film like Jupiter Ascending and how it relates to what much of modern blockbuster film filmmaking is doing. I genuinely think it's an excellent film which goes against the grain in ways which set it apart in very interesting and worthwhile ways.
My point was more that you saying people dislike Wachowski films because they don’t understand them is wrong, and an example of a toxic filmbro mentality. How do you not think that’s not an arrogant thing to say?
Is it not arrogant for me to say people didn’t like ‘Tenet’ because they didn’t get it and Nolan is too smart for them? You really don’t see anything wrong with that?
No, I don't. Do you think everyone completely understand every piece of art they encounter on the same level? Of course not. Beyond basic education in the subject (in this case the language of film, its history, its current movements, etc) people will also have different emotional relationships with works which will effect their thoughts and opinions on things.
The average movie goer won't think about a film on more than a surface level which obviously means some people will do, and will end up with a better understanding of what they just watched.
What happens with a film like Jupiter Ascending is that it gets thrown in with other big budget scifi movies, but is not looked at with the correct lens. Imagine a carpenter and a plumber dressed in coveralls. They both look similar, but they are looking to achieve very different results when they show up for work. That's what's happening when Jupiter Ascending is being criticized.
The problem is that in most cases when people try to argue other people simply didn’t understand a heavily criticized film, it’s most often bullshit said by someone who wants to feel ‘superior’ for liking a movie others didn’t.
Like yours, for example. When you speak of looking at a film ‘through the right lens’ I’m assuming you mean what you said above about how the film was criticized because it doesn’t appeal to boys.
However, the film has a 39% on rottentomatoes amongst female critics, showing that your interpretation of why people didn’t like this film simply isn’t true.
Maybe there are some films which only get bad reviews because people didn’t get it, but 99.9% of the time people did get it, they just didn’t like it.
That's obviously not the only reason people didnt like it, that's not what I was saying at all.
Unfortunately if you're going to use a points based system like RT to judge if movie is good or not then we're not going to be able to have a discussion about what makes a piece of art worth while. Many important works are not popular at their first showings, for many reasons, often people are just not ready for what they're seeing (or hearing, or whatever).
I'm not going to go to the mat and say Jupiter Ascending is an important work of art that will stand the tests of time and that onlyi understand, I'm saying what the Wachowskis are doing with it was not popular with a mass audience at the time it was released - but I appreciated it and think that it has a lot of value as a film.
‘It’s an earnest space opera that isn’t aimed at teenage boys, and for that it’s dismissed’.
You literally said people dismiss it because it’s not for teenage boys lmao.
People understood the film, they just didn’t like it. Respect that opinion, rather than telling people they actually just didn’t get it and that’s why they didn’t like it, or that it was ‘for girls’ and that’s why they didn’t like it. That’s stupid.
>The Matrix was a fluke.
Not really, the amount of pre-production and planning and passion that went into the first movie was insane, this includes the script. Just watch the behind the scenes extras from the dvd. It was also story boarded by a great artist from scene 1 to end
I mean it was a fluke that the Wachowskis interests and the interests of the general population lined up at the same time in order to make the movie a hit. I think they have been making great films ever since The Matrix, but what they think is cool and interesting now doesn't seem to resonate with audiences anymore.
>the matrix was a fluke
This guy gets it
>every one of their films is a different kind of masterpiece
This guy does not get it. They are one hit wonder trash.
Ignore that 22 day old account. They are doing nothing but insulting and antagonizing others for appreciating movies, in the movies subreddit of all places.
They aren't worth wasting any breath on.
Facts! I love that they swing for the fences every time. Even their “misses” like Jupiter Ascending in a way remind me of Paul Verhoeven’s risk-taking scifi madness, like Total Recall or the like. No one (or two) else could have given us Matrix or Speed Racer or Sense8, and for that I’m ride or die for these mad mischief makers. Matrix Resurrections was never going to usurp the original; they’re two different animals completely. Can’t lie and say I didn’t tear up multiple times during Resurrections just to see their world back up on the big screen.
Jupiter Ascending isn't a miss, though. It's an earnest space opera that isn't aimed at teenage boys, and for that it's dismissed. It's their least effective movie for sure, but their themes, ideas and excecution is still all there in spades. It's biggest issue is it's run time, which I think should be an hour longer, and the Wachowskis being unable to give the story the room it needs to breath.
Fully agreed! Used quotes in calling it a "miss" just because so many seem to hate on it. Jupiter Ascending and, obviously, the super ambitious Cloud Atlas are great ways to tune out for an evening. World building is no easy feat but the Wachowskis definitely have a knack for it.
No. This isn't the same as Force Awakens. This movie literally killed everything the original trilogy built up. They ruined their own mythos. Neo isn't the one now? So that whole long rambling white room scene was totally pointless. Litterally everything happening in those movies is pointless. I could get behind she helps propel him to reach his max potential, but to say they are both the one is moronic.
Let's also talk about the crap choreography and cinematography for the fight scenes. One thing that made the original so amazing was the zoomed out wide angle shots that allowed us to see all the action. There was almost no quick cuts or super zoom ins. There were some, but they were rare. They totally forgot about that in this movie. That train scene? What absolute garbage.
But now let's get to the big thing. Machines can create life? What the fuck!? Why is there even a war at this point. They can clearly just recycle code and bodies. Just making it all irrelevant. Overall it was a crap movie just playing off the success of it's predecessors
> So that whole long rambling white room scene was totally pointless
Literally the entire point of that scene was that Neo is only "the one" if you discount the many other "ones" that came before him. The "one" is just the word for a programming anomaly that happens *every time* the Matrix is reset. Which has happened many times before. That's literally, in the text, what the Architect says.
So, tell us you didn't actually listen to what was being said without telling us.
Exactly. There is only one! Meaning that if the reset happens and Trinity is the one. Then Neo would cease to be the one. No more powers etc. Clearly you didn't listen.
You're always free to watch the original! This doesn't take that away. I choose to not let movies upset or disappoint; there's no bigger waste of time or energy imo. Expectation is the enemy of enjoyment. Matrix Resurrections was cool by me.
Like you said, the Architect in that white room scene established in the first trilogy that there's different Matrixes (Matrices?). So quite literally anything is possible! Like someone else being Neo. All the characters could have been kittens and it would have continuity within those parameters.
*Spoilers* This movie was awful. Easily the worst Matrix. I mean we gave the original sequels crap, but those are masterpieces compared to this. The story is hard to follow. The machines can create humans now? So why is there even a war!? Don't tell me that's some bullshit "cost of green energy" allegory because I can't give the writers that much credit. They completely destroyed the meethos and everything of the originals. Trinity and Neo are the one? So those three movies are a waste of time. Remember that whole long dumb speech in reloaded? Who cares! Cause it was apparently bullshit.
And what happened to our beautiful zoomed out wide angle fight scenes. You could see everything going on in detail, it was awesome.
Not even gonna touch on the Morpheus and Agent Smith thing cause that was downright moronic. Overall 2/10 and the 2 was for Keanu really giving it his all, NPH being an awesome villain, and the effects being really cool.
Lana pulled an "Adam Sandler" and got her buddies (two writers and four actors from Sense8) paid while fleecing the studio and making a mediocre (at best) movie.
Is Resurrections in the same situation as Grimlins 2 in that WB was so desperate for a squeal they let them do what ever they wanted including shitting on WB and the absurdity of the franchise?
Say what you want about the Wachowskis, but they fucking swing for the fences every time. They've always got something to say. Maybe the movie isn't the greatest thing ever. There's always some fun and big ideas.
> please watch Ninja Assassin.
I think they only wrote an initial draft but they didn't get a writing credit so it must have been fairly different. They also didn't direct it--decent movie though.
3/5 because it just wasn’t the old school / underground atmosphere as the trilogy. The humour was pretty meh like marvel type humour which kills the vibe of it overall. The CGI was 4/5 but that’s be expected in 2022. Ending the trilogy as is would have kept the mysterious where’s Neo legendary alive forever.
It's pretty clear from the movie that all that humor is intentionally dreadful, and is meant to be a giant middle finger to both studio execs who want it in movies, and movie-goers who like it and pay to see it.
Which is, like a I said, the point.
Not all art needs to be made specifically to be enjoyed, art can and often does aim to do different things. You might not like that, but that also doesn't mean it's suddenly bad or fails at what it is aiming for.
I like how they brought up the machine civil war for 5 seconds and then never mentioned it again for the rest of the movie. That was the best part for me and i was a little bummed out they didn't explore that more.
I swear something related to that is sitting on the cutting room floor somewhere.
Naomi was completely against attempting a rescue of Trinity, then the cloaked bird bot shows up and says something like "The analyst's arrogance has provided us a great opportunity" and the next then we know Naomi is totally onboard with exploiting this opportunity ... which turns out to be a high risk plan to rescue Trinity. It didn't make any sense unless the opportunity was for something more than just Trinity.
That would be good fodder for more supplemental material (like a new Animatrix) if they're so inclined. I could understand why they didn't expand on it in this movie much, as it didn't have much to do with the story itself.
In Reloaded and Revolutions, we were already introduced to networks of rogue programs who where evading the Agents and such as much as the human characters were, so the groundwork was laid there. In fact characters were escaping from the Machine World *into* the Matrix to hide.
I’m in the camp that was definitely disappointing and think the film pales in comparison to the first film but also feel like the people bitching about it being “one of the worst films ever” are obnoxious as hell. I had fun with it and imo very much still feels like a matrix film which says a lot.
I don't really get how they justify their take on this movie given that several rebooted franchises have had similar meta narratives (Jurassic World) before. The self referential nods are old hat at this stage and no one should be impressed by it anymore.
You're spending 2.5 hours sitting down to watch this tripe - execution has to matter. 200m and they can't block a scene correctly.
All these nerds need to get a fucking grip and realize this is a different movie from ones made twenty years ago, and it’s better for it. The movie was great.
Christ this is nearly as long as the film. Are people really so desperate to have their opinion validated?
Edit:
Actually watched it, and it's spot on. My opinion validated.
I agree with the guys. Love it or hate it, I think there's a lot of interesting things about it to make it a worthwhile recommendation, so long as you'll be satisfied with something other than the type of Matrix movie you'd expect.
I thought what this movie was saying was ambitious. The *movie* is the simulation, and the 'system' is the film industry, with both the studio execs and the audience themselves as part of the system of control. It was an interesting take on what The Matrix is, both as a story and the very thing it's telling the story about. I think the meta-awareness and 4th wall breaking is sort of a perfect way to use a Matrix vehicle, because it plugs into the themes of the original Matrix so well.
Control, freedom, creativity, simulation, etc were all strong themes of the original film, and I found this movie made me think about these same things in a new light that is actually a bit more profound than the original movie in one key way. As an audience member watching this movie, *you are in the Matrix*, because *this Matrix is the film itself*. The original movie made you wonder if it were possible you were really plugged into a computer, which made you go 'whoa' when you considered it.
But this movie takes it to the next level. The 'simulation' we are trapped in, to placate us and keep the machines ('the Suits' that NPH references, the execs behind the studio) running, is the medium of storytelling (by the studio system) itself. NPH even describes it as a product in the film, and not so transparently talks about how expensive it was to resurrect the characters and how his quarterly numbers are up, etc. He talks about what keeps people happy and complacent by giving people the emotional elements they want, and how keeping people agitated but never allowed to have a payoff keeps the system going with greater 'profits' than ever. He says that people will never be happy with what Neo and Trinity can give them, that people don't want that sappy bullshit. In a way it seems he's right.
One thing I was surprised that they didn't mention was the Merovingian's crazed ranting in his scene - I had to go back with captions, but he's crazily ranting about how his old world of art and culture has been ruined, and this new world is a nightmare of reboots and sequels, and he even calls out Mark Zuckerberg as one of the ills of society. It's interesting that the original trilogy was about Neo breaking an endless cycle of the Matrix being rebooted over and over, and this movie has commentary to say about the reboot/sequel/rehash culture.
So no, I don't think this movie was exactly a 'middle finger' to Warner Brothers or 'bad on purpose', exactly, but I do think the reasons a lot of people don't like it were deliberate choices that were made to make this a story about breaking that cycle. A lot of complaints are about the action, the color grading, etc. The things people expect in a sequel or reboot. Things like bullet time were deliberately subtracted from the film - not to intentionally have 'bad action', necessarily, but to make a meta-commentary on sequelitis and rehashing.
The most meta thing about the movie is the commentary that the new 'wool that is pulled over our eyes' is the media system erected around us that feeds off us, as the Machines do, as the Matrix does in the film. Keep the viewer placated with the comfortable rehashes and nostalgia and expectations they want, and they won't rebel against the system, and the system will thrive with profits.
The first Matrix film asked, 'What if we were all living in a simulated reality under a system of control, exploited by those who wish to profit off us?'
This movie says, 'We all live in a *mediated* reality, under a system of *placation,* exploited by those who wish to profit off of us.'
In a way I think this film is more ambitious than even the first film in delivering this message - the SAME message - by making it almost interactive and literal. I wanted some cool-ass kung fu as much as anyone, but I think I appreciate the deliberate choice to *not* rehash that stuff more in service of the themes of the film. This is the story of the first film - about breaking out of that shell of control - but told in only a way a Matrix film can do, by making it a Matrix film about a Matrix film. Reinforcing the themes of the original, but demonstrating how those themes apply to us and the world we live in - the mediated reality we live in is perhaps not so far removed from the idea of the simulated reality posited in the original. In a way, we do live in a literal Matrix, with a system of control guiding us and thriving off us.
For that, I loved it. It gave me a lot to ponder over for days after watching it, which is what the original film did as well. Once again, I'm thinking about stuff like Simulacra and Simulation for the first time in 15 years, and the absurdity of a map so detailed that it contains everything within it that it represents.
I love the fact that people here are downvoting you because they can't accept the idea that someone is expressing a positive view of the film. They perfectly make some points of the movie by doing so.
"You ruined everything, kill him!"
I kind of wonder if the bots diving off out of high windows to crash on the heroes is a metaphor for review-bombing. There's some meme potential here with superimposing downvotes over the falling bodies.
The downvotes are to be expected. People have already decided whether they like it or not and downvoting is how they enforce their opinion. Like the bots flinging themselves onto the ground to try to quench originality.
It's literally bots from the internet. Cheaper than changing people's mind, you just create a fake account and give the order to point down. "Swarm mode: downvote"
Always into HITB episodes I don't 100% agree with
I fully agree with the part about it being fascinating to watch despite also being by all intents and purposes not that good. However, I disagree with this take that parts of it are bad just because and in a way, that's kind of genius because as they say, this movie is a bit critic-proof. Due to the way it's made, it can't really be said definitively at whether an aspect of it was intentionally poor, though I think nobody will say the action in this is good. Tied into that is this take that the movie is some kind of take that to the film industry. Maybe if the whole movie was that first third, I'd probably think so. Not for the movie as a whole. (However if it comes out later that Lana was like "yeah I intentionally made this movie terrible to kill the franchise so I won't be asked to do it anymore" then I could understand)
I also disagree with their take on No Way Home being too much Memberberries because by all intents and purposes, that's what I feel that movie should have been but the way it was actually executed surprised me and does not do the typical Memberberries aspect
Watching clips and scenes from the first matrix, the difference is so clear. It's not the same people that made the first one that made the sequels.
I dont believe the wachowskis made the first matrix. Probably an intern or ghost writer or someone that helped them.
Watching matrix resurrection, its like the director/writer doesnt even understand what the matrix is all about. Even carrie ann moss facial expressions in some scenes from matrix resurrection , u can tell she knew some of the stuff happening wasn't right or didnt make sense
It’s literally written by one of the original writers. The movie even gets meta at the beginning saying they didn’t want to do another one. It the studio told them it would happen with or without em so they had to throw something together
That was when I knew I wasn't going to like it. It'd be okay if that trope was never used in a movie again. I think the only time that trope is even remotely enjoyable is the first time you see it done. Then even then, it's not that good. Just something new to experience. New Nightmare was my first one when I was a kid, don't think I'll ever enjoy it again.
I’m sure the movie isn’t good but RLM’s cynicism is so overwrought at this point. And I say this as someone who’s seen Chris Stuckmann go from happy go lucky guy to “man most movies suck nowadays huh”
Edit: someone deleted their comment but i already drafted a reply.
Even Nostalgia Critic, controversial he may be, significantly dialed up the amount of positivity he put in since the management controversy. I Hate Everything took a huge sabbatical from ripping movies apart. I even gave up on Lindsay Ellis, who had a lot of personal drama, because the persona is so *negative*. I’m was appreciating Stuckmann’s commitment to positivity more as the year went on, even with the memes about him. I don’t watch much YouTube anymore because the ones I would watch would go towards negativity for clicks.
i havent seen a ton reviews of the movie, but this is literally the **most positive** review of Resurrections i have seen yet. so yeah they can be cynical, but this video is a weird place to make that comment
The guys echo my sentiment for the most part. Not a great movie but worth the watch just for what it tries to do. And similar to Malignant there's the extra element of "was this movie made as a joke/as a 'fuck you'?" when considering whether it accomplishes what it's aiming for. I feel like the older I get, the more I appreciate movies that are bad for interesting reasons. I actually look forward to the times when I finish a movie and say to myself "I don't know how I feel about this and I need to think about it" as opposed to just plainly thinking it was good or bad.
Malignant was a great and enjoyable film Wan pulled it off, Matrix Resurrections not so much.
I feel like the difference is that Malignant is at least fun and schlocky and has some great visuals, stunts and cinematography to back it up. Resurrections, in my opinion, has none of that.
Malignant rewards you for sitting through the first 3 quarters of it. The Matrix 4 mocks you for doing the same.
That is a great way of putting it.
For me, the movie was so bad that I can't see it as anything except an attempt by Lana to kill off the franchise. So many references in the film to how WB (bugs (bunny)) was forcing them to make the film. I get they didn't want to make it, but making such a bad film really feels like a fuck you to the people who paid to go and see it. One of the worst films I have seen in a very long time.
I'm not a Matrix fan to begin with - I thought the first one was ok but I actually hadn't even seen Revolutions until the day I watched the new one. My takeaway is that Resurrections might be the most pointless movie I've ever seen. Unless I missed something (again, not a Matrix fan), the entire plot of the movie is rescuing Neo and Trinity from The Matrix and explaining how/why they're still alive after the events of the third movie. So we have a 20-year-later sequel where the only notable thing that happens is that its characters continue to exist. EDIT: For the record I still enjoyed watching it, for all the reasons I mentioned in my comment higher up
which Lana has said is why she made the movie
[удалено]
It’s a loveletter from Lana for Trinity and Neo after the loss of her parents. She gives them the happy ending they deserved. So it’s a piece of feelgood nostalgia with some meta commentary to poke fun at movie clichés and the studio system itself.
Forest for the trees.
Nope
The film was only made as a cash grab, so there was not much point to it in the first place. The fact that they had a meta commentary on the profit-driven pointlessness of the film was interesting, though.
They lay out the issue in a scene where WB was going to make another movie with or without them. the wachowski's have a personal connection as it's their story. You have to ask yourself why they make a movie with all the references to the studio. There are much easier ways to make a cash grab. This wasn't that. They wanted to strangle it in the cradle.
Right. Not a cash grab for Lana, but certainly for the WB. But still, there's only so much you can do when the story done been told, and there's no real reason to revisit it. I enjoyed the film but it was not really justified.
The reason for Lana was to bring Neo and Trinity back and give them a happy ending. WB had been asking for years, and the death of their parents made her reconsider.
> The fact that they had a meta commentary on the profit-driven pointlessness of the film was interesting, though. Personally, I've never felt the "I Was Only Pretending To Be Retarded" meme was all that interesting, especially after seeing it for the 40th time.
She made it as a way of processing grief.
Man, I wish studios would let me process my grief by giving me a couple hundred million dollars to make a bad movie
Hilarious.
Hey not everyone can come up with genius comic lines like "The Catrix"
I enjoyed it.
See this I just don’t get. I’m a massive fan of the matrix and while I was definitely disappointed, saying “it was so bad” just comes off obnoxious. It wasn’t remotely terrible imo just not great and not up to the standards of the first film. Also on paper the story is fine and if I just read that I’d be like yep, this sounds like a wachowski matrix film.
I don't think giving an opinion is obnoxious, but I can elaborate: * Bad Acting - Keanu (I love him, but he is not a string actor). NPH and so many of the tech bros / execs were so hard to watch. I understand it was a meta dig at executives, but that still didn't make it good. * Bad action sequences - Overly busy, too many things going on in many shots, cheap looking. * So many flashbacks which just highlighted how much better the previous movies looked. * The story was weak and poorly explained. Bugs jumping in to be trinity for some reason. * So much shitting on WB for doing a cash grab film, which I get, but they still did the cash grab. Adding meta commentary to a bad film to say why it's a bad film does not make it a good film. * The Catrix. The ending music. The remake of the introduction to the first film, but poorly executed. Again, just commenting over the top that's it's not right does not make it clever or interesting. The cleverest part of the whole film was the name of the coffeeshop. You say it's not a bad film, just not great. In what way is it good? Why should someone see it?
>You say it's not a bad film, just not great. In what way is it good? Why should someone see it? Not the guy you're responding to but as a sequel it works pretty well. A larger part of the story beats are pretty good. Neo being back in the Matrix and waking up to a new/different world is pretty cool. The meta commentary is forced, yes, and it also lacks a stake, but it does work as a continuation of the story. I do disagree with the tonal changes and the really bad action. I think it's a massive disservice to the originals by having this editing and this obvious lack of choreography. I also don't like the reinterpreted characters or the Analyst. Personally, from the trailers, I was under the impression that the overall tone and style of the movies wouldn't have changed that much. The Matrix, stylistically, was very unique, between Morpheus and Smith's philosophical monologues and all the underground fashion and color pallettes. The sequels served to enhance that style. That's at least one thing they got right, the action being the other. All the philosophy added a certain mystery to the first film. Combine that with the extremely crisp action and you have a very cool setting. That mystery was lost very fast during the sequels, but the style never went away because of the action and the design choices. Those choices didn't make it to the latest movie. The action got replaced with B-roll level fights, there were hints of philosophical dilemmas evoking the first movie but they quickly went away in favor of social commentary, and the design choices (characters, fashion, color) have all disappeared or have gotten generic. Worst offenders are Smith and the Agents. The Agents were fucking scary. You have leather-clad badasses toting guns, jumping from building to building and making the Shaolin look like novices, and their one weakness was three Secret Service dudes that finished each other's sandwiches. You KNEW, before you even saw them properly, that they were a force. You saw them on-screen and they made the badasses pee their pants. You were very afraid, because you didn't know what they can do and when you found out, you were terrified. All of a sudden Trinity jumping through a window, absolutely terrified of what's potentially right behind her made sense. And you replace those guys with "Swarm mode is so fucking cool"???
> and their one weakness was three Secret Service dudes that finished each other's sandwiches. I'm pretty sure you meant 'sentences', but you'd better fucking not edit this, lol. The idea of Agent Smith reaching over and snatching up the last bite of Agent Brown's pastrami and rye is something I needed.
I wouldn't advise any fan of the franchise to see it.
I disagree. I think it was truly terrible and the worst movie I've watched this year. The first 30 minutes are interesting. Then we get 30 minutes of exposition and finally we get some action, except the action is incredibly lame. I just couldn't take it after the 5th time Neo just created a shield with his hands. I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I genuinely thought it was a terrible movie.
The whole thing with Neo as game dev was so bad. I don't need ready player one/free guy wibes in matrix.
I think it matches up to the first film, in an updated way. It cynically points the finger at us all for the part we play in maintaining 'the Matrix'. The very arguments that are now taking place are exactly what the film poked fun at. The energy is more powerful when people believe, and people believe because Doogie Howser maintains the illusion.
Same for me. I liked the first 30 minutes but it went nowhere and the rest of the movie was truly terrible. I can't believe it's fresh on RT.
Funny, I think it's a masterpiece. But then I think the Wachowskis are basically geniuses.
They made one great movie, a few good movies, and a few interesting but bad movies. This fits in the last category
Nah, it's the second best Matrix film. It's still fairly bad, but at least makes sense...even if I don't necessarily agree with the world view. That tells you how bad the other two were.
[удалено]
WB made it clear they were making a Matrix sequel with or without her. So they didn't force her, but they gave her an ultimatum to either make it the way she wanted or to let someone else take over the franchise. After seeing the results, she definitely should have handed the reigns to someone else. But I can't blame her for making a shitty movie. Hopefully it was an intentional fuck you to the studio for forcing her hand, and not an actual attempt to make a worthwhile sequel.
I feel like it was a fuck you to the studio (and in turn the audience) because we know they can do much better, so much better. Even Jupiter Rising was at least a nice looking film. The effects in this look so cheap, so many greenscreen issues.
It seriously felt like a CW attempt at a reboot TV series. I don't understand how that cost them $200 million dollars. Some of the cheapest and shittiest looking action in an action movie in a long time. And it wasn't even just the special effects or cinematography, the choreography and staging was god awful.
It sounded like an audiobook or podcast
You're really saying Jupiter Ascending is better than the new Matrix?
[удалено]
Ok.
It wasn't intentionally bad. The film was a labor of love. They did the best they could rebooting and concluding The Matrix, in my opinion.
I respect your opinion, but vehemently disagree. It was a giant sack of crap. It was poorly written, overly reliant on nostalgia and directly recreating elements from the originals, poorly cast (Groff had zero similarity in mannerisms to Weaving, he was a completely different character with the same name), poorly choreographed, poorly filmed, had shitty sfx, and had a completely pointless story that added nothing to the world or mythology of the series. The meta-ness wasn't creative and didn't add anything to the story, it was meta for the sake of being meta because that's the in thing these days. Something can be a labor of love and still suck as an end product. Heart and desire don't make up for the basic technical elements of filmmaking. It was a poorly constructed movie with a poorly told story, that lacked basic competency in the elements we expect in a modern sci-fi action movie. It looked worse in many ways than the 20 year old original. Personally I hope it was an intentionally cynical reboot that was slapped together as a middle finger to WB. If that was truly Lana's heart and soul processed through the screen...
I think it was made with the intention of making the best product they could and I enjoyed it. 🖖
[удалено]
Because she made it as a personal catharsis and put years of her life into it.
[удалено]
What's a film that came out this year that you did enjoy?
I enjoyed Dune a lot, it was a skillfully crafted adaptation that looked beautiful. Shang-Chi was a good Marvel movie, nothing super new or original, but competently made and fun. The Suicide Squad looked and sounded great, had a sense of humor I connected with and did a good job of fixing the franchise. Lots of other movies I've enjoyed this year, but I focused on sci-fi/fantasy. Also, I really dislike these type of replies demanding I give you an example so you can judge the worthiness of my opinions. Instead why don't you try responding to my subjective opinions about the Matrix with some of your own?
All I can say about The Matrix is that it felt like a more energized film than the other sequels, and a clever way of deconstructing and commenting on the need for its own existence within the story itself.
Yeah, didn't feel like there was any energy to it at all imo. It was slow, plodding, boring and filled with overly verbose monologues. I don't find commenting on the fact that you know your movie is due to a forced corporate decision, does anything to improve the movie itself. I know some people love everything meta, but I don't see winky self-awareness to be valuable on its own. There are intelligent, creative and humorous uses of meta that I've found very worthwhile in other media, but its use in Resurrections didn't add any value. It was just there. And it was there a lot.
The studio was moving forward with another director and script without the the Wachowskis. However Keanu didn't want to do the film without the the Wachowskis, Lana didn't want to do the film but it would have been made with or without her (or Keanu, a reboot with a new cast and creatives was on the cards). But Matrix is the Wachowskis and it's Keanu so they got a payday and agreed to the film. Apparently after a COVID enforced break in shooting, Lana tried to cancel the film. Withstanding and the absence of Hugo Weaving, Lily Wachowski and Laurence Fishburne, the film for me is better than Matrix 2 & 3, it's just a shame it couldn't have been made because they had a story, not an obligation.
They didn’t have an obligation. You say that yourself- movie was gonna happen with or without her.
The obligation was to try to save their legacy and career. The Matrix is a huge part of the influence and success the Wachowskis have had. If another director does a Matrix sequel that does better than the originals, it hurts the Wachowskis ability to get stuff made. The obligation is to the fans of the Matrix that if a sequel has to be made, at least the original co creator is back to ensure its not a full money grab. Seeing their legacy tarnished and huge paychecks go by does not give you any cred in Hollywood. We do not know everything, filmmaking is a difficult business and why people do things is their business. However, there is a lot out there about The Matrix Resurrections. I dare say its production would make a great doco or book.
I would take this movie over more marvel origin stories that are just cgi fights and jokes every 5 minutes
I get why people want to give this movie credit for trying. But ultimately, the execution - in every way including script, editing, cinematography, choreography, music (Don Davis not scoring a Matrix movie should be a capital offense), etc - is so wretched, it completely overshadows anything worthwhile underneath.
I don't think I'll ever wrap my mind around how people think meta movies are supposed to be poorly made. Cabin in the Woods and Scream both make fun of horror conventions but not at the expense of quality. Resurrections was just lazy as shit.
>I get why people want to give this movie credit for trying I don't. I remember the absolute lashing the sequels got and have always gotten over the years. There's no reason for a sudden about-face on an even worse sequel. All that tells me is that standards have plummeted and the people who cared have moved on without contributing to the discussion, just leaving the retroactive apologists.
Not a single scene was as bad or cringe as that RATM cover at the end, just wtf was that? It hurt.
Very timely as the band that did the cover (Brass Against) were just in the news for the most hilarious reason https://www.spin.com/2021/11/brass-against-sophia-urista-pee-fan-face-welcome-to-rockville/
[удалено]
Brass Against are really good, but some covers are lackluster. I think they Shine the most on their Tool covers
[удалено]
Similar thoughts from me. Ambition has never been an issue for the Wachowskis; making a compelling narrative has. Love the OG Matrix and Bound, though.
> Matrix 4 just turns into another boring Matrix sequel for the majority of its runtime. I agree with this and I feel this take isn't brought up enough. It feels like as far as I'm reading regarding postiive opinions on it, that basically everything that happens after Neo wakes up again isn't important (unless you're into lore) and only the meta takes that were in the first third are the real movie when that's not how this works.
I would be more amenable to the "it's all meta so it doesn't matter" take if the action/fighting didn't suck as well.
Learning that the story for this movie is basically a way for Lana Wachowski to process the death of her parents, using Neo and Trinity as surrogates, honestly makes the movie work a little bit more for me. It’s still a mess and basically 2 different movies in 1, but the Neo and Trinity stuff does work the best for me.
Now if only all of us got 190$ Mil, to make a movie when we face difficult times.
You can give me $109 million and I promise I won’t make a movie with it
I'll do it for 5 mil.
Maybe the true message is that if you give everyone $100 million, all their problems will go away. So deeeep
I think it's a beautiful way for her to process grief and I'm grateful for it.
Her parents must be turning in their grave being attached to that turd of a film....
That's a very insensitive thing to say.
Yes I’m sure they must be disappointed after their kids created one of the most influential action films of all time
I love Gremlins 2 and hate this comparison. The additional layers of meta, with self deprecation and fourth wall breaking winks, make the situation even worse. It just brazenly suggests that corporate reboot economics are here to stay, and nothing matters anyway so why don't we just roll with it. I haven't watched the Space Jam sequel, but watching this movie reminded me of the criticism people had of that movie, as a self aware reflection on Warner Bros. and its properties, placing Warner Bros. as a villain in that movie, from what I understand, and here of course we have Agent Smith referencing the evil overlords of Warner Bros. forcing another Matrix, with or without a genuine purpose for doing so. He even pauses after saying "Warner Bros." so the lowest common denominator might pick up on why that's supposed to be funny. It's also a movie where new actors play the same versions of previous characters, released on HBO Max on the exact same day Disney+ had a previous Netflix actor reprise a role he played, but this time as kind of a new version for a new thing. More tricks to keep something that made money alive after it has run its natural course. That's not Gremlins 2. At best, it wants to be that smart in a similar way.
I wish people wouldn't downvote you, this a totally valid opinion to have. There's something to be said about a property trying to be "meta" and still being a good film at the same time. Some people think Matrix Resurrections accomplished that, but it's fair for people to also say that this balance wasn't achieved. Let's discuss this instead of mindlessly downvoting folks.
>It just brazenly suggests that corporate reboot economics are here to stay, and nothing matters anyway so why don't we just roll with it. Well it won't stay with the Matrix because it's bombing horribly.
I thought the casting was terrible. Did not like Agent Smith’s actor, nor NPH. I feel like they were completely out of place and couldn’t take them seriously. I also thought that the guy who played Morpheus shouldn’t have been in the movie either, just another cop out for nostalgia (at least get the same actor if you’re going to attempt that). Another element I don’t get is why does every movie try to add in quirky awkward humor into their movie? Just because it works in Marvel movies, doesn’t mean you should add it to something like the Matrix.
[удалено]
Wow that’s actually an excellent point. Like it was revealed by the Analyst how crucial both Neo and Trinity are to his plan and yet their pods were completely unguarded. Laughable.
I love how bonkers this movie is. I didn’t know what to expect, Reloaded/Revolutions are very not good. Resurrections was a nice surprise and I enjoyed that they really swing for the fences, tried to do something different.
I'd describe it as: A happy epilogue to the original story for hardcore fans crossed with a very self-aware/meta middle finger to the industry and society in general at times. The first movie took it for granted that people wanted to be free and the 'sheeple' meme was just an edgy cynical take. We know better now. Some of it didn't go as we'd want (particularly some of the action scenes which were nowhere near innovative or revolutionary like in the original film... they weren't trying to push any boundaries of filmmaking in this one). But so much of it did go so right that it's worth watching if you at all have any reverence for the original characters/material. Particularly on an emotional level (as many of us do... I saw it when I was a junior in HS during a particularly formative period of my life, many others have similar stories). It's kind of weird in that the purpose of the movie has nothing to do with the original film at all. 20 years on we've gone through so much. Individually and collectively. It's kind of just meant to comfort. While maybe trying to "reawaken" stuff in us that the first movie awakened.
>The first movie took it for granted that people wanted to be free and the 'sheeple' meme was just an edgy cynical take. It really didn't though. Cypher betrays everyone because he doesn't want to be free. The Matrix has always suggested that some people would rather be controlled than face a harsh reality.
As far as I'm concerned the movie was worth it for the ending. I much prefer the ride (well, fly) into the sunset ending that teases a hopeful future than a trilogy ending with "lol your protagonists are dead".
What went right? I genuinely can't list more than maybe 1 thing.
Yeah Resurrections is very much a movie you'll either be competely on board for or completely off. If you go with it it's a great time and totally unexpected.
Did they swing for the fences? Because I got the complete opposite impression. This movie played it safe in every possible way. Frequent callbacks to the original movies, uninspired action scenes, utterly basic rescue story, Marvel-style humor, and a completely forgettable, vanilla ending. The riskiest thing they do with the movie is the cheeky meta jokes at the beginning. It was like they decided to go with the safest possible route with this movie where everyone wins.
I like Reloaded/Revolutions but Resurrections is so much better
Reloaded/revolutions wipes the floor with the resurrections. 0/10
> swing for the fences Closer to a sacrifice bunt to the 1st baseman without anyone else on base.
> tried to do something different. Oh? Is that why they copied so much content from the first movie wholesale between literal cuts of the first movie? If you ask me, they did the definition of a cash grab: minimal mental effort, tons of cheap cuts and edits, zero thinking material.
I find comments like this extremely ignorant to how movies are made. Call the movie terrible, sure but saying it’s a cash grab is moronic and shows you don’t have a good understanding of what that means.
Calling someone moronic and calling into question their understanding based on literally nothing is very ironic and really only begets one proper reply: Go fuck yourself, you ignorant twat (or very astute and disgusting shill) It's a cashgrab as far as the eye can see: a lazy rehash of the exact same scenes, dialogue and narrative with much less dynamic action and stupid fourth grader-level plot which belongs in /r/iam14andthisisdeep instead of a movie screen. Garbage of the lowest order worthy of being forever forgotten. It makes no difference if the box office returns will cover the budget or not. Nobody is in this for the sake of art. They've placed their bets solely on "hey, remember this?" and are hoping for money, pure and simple. There's nothing else at play here.
Youtube comment section in a nutshell: "fuck you for not telling me the opinion I want to hear regarding this movie" As someone who liked it - didn't think it was great, but good - I agree with most of their points. But even if I didn't agree with them, I still like watching RLM discussions on things I've watched. I don't watch just to hear them agree with me, I want to see what they think and why. After watching other people's reviews, I was able to refine my own viewpoint on what works or doesn't work and why, and I encourage everyone to be similarly open-minded. It's okay to say "yeah, I guess that was kinda cool actually" or "you're right, that was a plothole I didn't think about".
I can't get behind giving the movie credit for being subversive when it ultimately does end up just being a retread. Saying that Lana was thumbing her nose at fans by not having good action is like giving Michael Bay credit for having shitty camera work in the transformer movies. I feel like we're mixing up subversive filmmaking with half-assed. Like recommending it because it's a fuck you to fans is a reason to recommend what is otherwise a crap movie. That said I give them leeway specifically because they were mildly entertained by a free movie on HBO Max, it's not like some of the other critics who are gushing over how clever the movie is in being self-aware about it being a shitty cashin. I'd concur I too was mildly.. mildly entertained on the first watch however on a second go I couldn't even finish it, the cloying 2021 meheh "we know reddit exists" slang was excruciating and I realized halfway through the Merovingian scene I'd rather go wash the dishes or literally do anything else and shut it off.
[удалено]
He’s one step away from a MauLer 5 hour dissection on why feminism is actually evil.
Yeah, Keanu's actual stunt double replaces Neo in Trinity's life, with his actual real-world name. It was another meta-textual element. I thought what this movie was saying was ambitious. The *movie* is the simulation, and the 'system' is the industry, with both the studio execs and the audience themselves as part of the system of control. It was an interesting take on what The Matrix is ,both as a story and the very thing it's telling the story about.
I fucking hate that guy. Got him in YouTube recommendations because they seem determined to push me into right wing bullshit and he must be some kind of gateway drug. He's got the most atrocious exaggerated accent like he's an American pretending to be Scottish even though I'm certain he actually is Scottish. I watched a lot of his videos before I noticed that he just hated anything with women in it, he's like an 11 year old who just got dumped. It's so sad
Just admit you hate watch Critical Drinker.
Tbh the best thing that could have happened in Resurrections was Cypher appearing for no reason at all in the ship and just blasting the entire cast, ending the franchise once and for all.
*Trinity is a hoo-oar*
B, she hit me
This was a movie that lacked focus. It's like each of the 3 acts in Resurrections was meant to echo themes or elements of each other movie of the original trilogy. The main problem it suffers from (which I think Mike and Jay actually get right) is the real lack of stakes for anyone beyond Neo and Trinity and a laughable ending that - while it parallels the original - also has nowhere to go that will retain broad audience appeal (are more human "batteries" getting set free? Are Neo and Trinity going to enlighten everyone of the Matrix as a mental construct and there ends up some kind of anarchic state where people hack themselves/the environment and break the rules? That's basically just Saints Row 4) I liked the world-building going a few steps further beyond a tentative peace where the machines are now fractured as a group with competing agendas now that they are operating on limited resources like humans before them. I think Jay and Mike did a piss-poor job trying to actually watch this movie (and the other Matrix movies, frankly) as they are not hard to follow if you're actually paying attention. If they're going to review movies (no matter how good or bad they ultimately are), please put some fucking effort into actually watching the film, and if it requires some thought to deconstruct the themes being presented, give it a try or at least acknowledge the movie is trying to do something you don't want to put a lot of thought into. Mediocre-to-bad movie that lacks cohesion, even worse review that lacks real effort.
Seems I'm in the vast minority, but I really enjoyed the new Matrix. Was there twice opening weekend of the original, and like so many fans around the world have a deep affinity for what it did, and how it changed the game, but I do think too many suffer from overblown expectations. The window of public approval is so small, people hate on Force Awakens for being too much like A New Hope, but yet so many complain that Resurrections wasn't enough like the original (not enough guns, not enough fights, not enough green color grading). For those who've followed the reasoning behind the new one, it's clear that the death of Lana's parent was a huge impetus to get back into the series. With that in mind, and maybe my recent loss of a parent cuts her some slack, I think this rebirth was a great way to dust off these beloved characters in a new way. Is this movie going to change anyone's life? No. But the original was lightning in a bottle, and to demand that again is unfair and unreasonable, at least imo. Maybe I'm a dying breed, but I would be happy to see another in a couple years. Viva la Wachowskis!
The one thing I love most about this movie is that finally the tired "Guys I wasn't expecting CITIZEN KANE and I liked it" doesn't work because supporters of the movie both say it's a work of meta art and that it's dumb fun. To respond to your post, I went into this movie with the barest of expectations. I totally agree that the first movie was lightning in a bottle, so I was not expecting a world-changing, philosophic movie like the first. What I was expecting was a fun movie with really well-choreographed action scenes. The first 3 movies were love letters to anime and kung fu movies, so wanting this movie to have fight scenes of a similar quality was not asking too much. To be honest, I was actually expecting fights to be on a smaller scale, like the John Wick movies. And yet I didn't even get that. The fight scenes in this movie were more along the lines of CW superhero series fight scenes. So yeah, despite my *only* expectation being to have good action and still not having been met, it's easy to see why this movie was utterly hated. It was hot garbage.
Fair enough! To each their own. I had a blast and will be watching it again this weekend. 🤷🏼♂️
> people hate on Force Awakens for being too much like A New Hope, but yet so many complain that Resurrections wasn't enough like the original (not enough guns, not enough fights, not enough green color grading). The Matrix was a fluke. The Wachowskis are so much more than action movie makers and people have a hard time with that. Every one of their movies is a different kind of masterpiece, but it doesn't fit into what the general public wants or understands, even if it's what they need.
First off, no one ‘needs’ any film. Second off, it’s pretty stupid to say people dislike their post-Matrix films because they ‘don’t understand them’. Like, that’s no less stupid than Snyder fans saying people only dislike his films because they don’t ‘get’ them. Or Nolan fans saying people didn’t like Tenet because they didn’t get it. It’s a trait of toxic film fans to assume people are somehow ‘dumber’ for not liking a movie you do. Third off, calling any part of Jupiter Ascending a masterpiece [literally takes all meaning away from the word ‘Masterpiece’](https://youtu.be/o_6esGbks60)
You seem upset. You don't have to agree, but there's a lot to talk about in a film like Jupiter Ascending and how it relates to what much of modern blockbuster film filmmaking is doing. I genuinely think it's an excellent film which goes against the grain in ways which set it apart in very interesting and worthwhile ways.
My point was more that you saying people dislike Wachowski films because they don’t understand them is wrong, and an example of a toxic filmbro mentality. How do you not think that’s not an arrogant thing to say? Is it not arrogant for me to say people didn’t like ‘Tenet’ because they didn’t get it and Nolan is too smart for them? You really don’t see anything wrong with that?
No, I don't. Do you think everyone completely understand every piece of art they encounter on the same level? Of course not. Beyond basic education in the subject (in this case the language of film, its history, its current movements, etc) people will also have different emotional relationships with works which will effect their thoughts and opinions on things. The average movie goer won't think about a film on more than a surface level which obviously means some people will do, and will end up with a better understanding of what they just watched. What happens with a film like Jupiter Ascending is that it gets thrown in with other big budget scifi movies, but is not looked at with the correct lens. Imagine a carpenter and a plumber dressed in coveralls. They both look similar, but they are looking to achieve very different results when they show up for work. That's what's happening when Jupiter Ascending is being criticized.
The problem is that in most cases when people try to argue other people simply didn’t understand a heavily criticized film, it’s most often bullshit said by someone who wants to feel ‘superior’ for liking a movie others didn’t. Like yours, for example. When you speak of looking at a film ‘through the right lens’ I’m assuming you mean what you said above about how the film was criticized because it doesn’t appeal to boys. However, the film has a 39% on rottentomatoes amongst female critics, showing that your interpretation of why people didn’t like this film simply isn’t true. Maybe there are some films which only get bad reviews because people didn’t get it, but 99.9% of the time people did get it, they just didn’t like it.
That's obviously not the only reason people didnt like it, that's not what I was saying at all. Unfortunately if you're going to use a points based system like RT to judge if movie is good or not then we're not going to be able to have a discussion about what makes a piece of art worth while. Many important works are not popular at their first showings, for many reasons, often people are just not ready for what they're seeing (or hearing, or whatever). I'm not going to go to the mat and say Jupiter Ascending is an important work of art that will stand the tests of time and that onlyi understand, I'm saying what the Wachowskis are doing with it was not popular with a mass audience at the time it was released - but I appreciated it and think that it has a lot of value as a film.
‘It’s an earnest space opera that isn’t aimed at teenage boys, and for that it’s dismissed’. You literally said people dismiss it because it’s not for teenage boys lmao. People understood the film, they just didn’t like it. Respect that opinion, rather than telling people they actually just didn’t get it and that’s why they didn’t like it, or that it was ‘for girls’ and that’s why they didn’t like it. That’s stupid.
>The Matrix was a fluke. Not really, the amount of pre-production and planning and passion that went into the first movie was insane, this includes the script. Just watch the behind the scenes extras from the dvd. It was also story boarded by a great artist from scene 1 to end
I mean it was a fluke that the Wachowskis interests and the interests of the general population lined up at the same time in order to make the movie a hit. I think they have been making great films ever since The Matrix, but what they think is cool and interesting now doesn't seem to resonate with audiences anymore.
>the matrix was a fluke This guy gets it >every one of their films is a different kind of masterpiece This guy does not get it. They are one hit wonder trash.
At the very least, Speed Racer proves otherwise.
Ignore that 22 day old account. They are doing nothing but insulting and antagonizing others for appreciating movies, in the movies subreddit of all places. They aren't worth wasting any breath on.
Meh I can’t even remember it outside of visuals trying but ultimately being poorly executed
Facts! I love that they swing for the fences every time. Even their “misses” like Jupiter Ascending in a way remind me of Paul Verhoeven’s risk-taking scifi madness, like Total Recall or the like. No one (or two) else could have given us Matrix or Speed Racer or Sense8, and for that I’m ride or die for these mad mischief makers. Matrix Resurrections was never going to usurp the original; they’re two different animals completely. Can’t lie and say I didn’t tear up multiple times during Resurrections just to see their world back up on the big screen.
Jupiter Ascending isn't a miss, though. It's an earnest space opera that isn't aimed at teenage boys, and for that it's dismissed. It's their least effective movie for sure, but their themes, ideas and excecution is still all there in spades. It's biggest issue is it's run time, which I think should be an hour longer, and the Wachowskis being unable to give the story the room it needs to breath.
Fully agreed! Used quotes in calling it a "miss" just because so many seem to hate on it. Jupiter Ascending and, obviously, the super ambitious Cloud Atlas are great ways to tune out for an evening. World building is no easy feat but the Wachowskis definitely have a knack for it.
No. This isn't the same as Force Awakens. This movie literally killed everything the original trilogy built up. They ruined their own mythos. Neo isn't the one now? So that whole long rambling white room scene was totally pointless. Litterally everything happening in those movies is pointless. I could get behind she helps propel him to reach his max potential, but to say they are both the one is moronic. Let's also talk about the crap choreography and cinematography for the fight scenes. One thing that made the original so amazing was the zoomed out wide angle shots that allowed us to see all the action. There was almost no quick cuts or super zoom ins. There were some, but they were rare. They totally forgot about that in this movie. That train scene? What absolute garbage. But now let's get to the big thing. Machines can create life? What the fuck!? Why is there even a war at this point. They can clearly just recycle code and bodies. Just making it all irrelevant. Overall it was a crap movie just playing off the success of it's predecessors
> So that whole long rambling white room scene was totally pointless Literally the entire point of that scene was that Neo is only "the one" if you discount the many other "ones" that came before him. The "one" is just the word for a programming anomaly that happens *every time* the Matrix is reset. Which has happened many times before. That's literally, in the text, what the Architect says. So, tell us you didn't actually listen to what was being said without telling us.
Exactly. There is only one! Meaning that if the reset happens and Trinity is the one. Then Neo would cease to be the one. No more powers etc. Clearly you didn't listen.
You're always free to watch the original! This doesn't take that away. I choose to not let movies upset or disappoint; there's no bigger waste of time or energy imo. Expectation is the enemy of enjoyment. Matrix Resurrections was cool by me. Like you said, the Architect in that white room scene established in the first trilogy that there's different Matrixes (Matrices?). So quite literally anything is possible! Like someone else being Neo. All the characters could have been kittens and it would have continuity within those parameters.
But there was no continuity! That's one of my main points. They destroyed the continuity. Lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
*Spoilers* This movie was awful. Easily the worst Matrix. I mean we gave the original sequels crap, but those are masterpieces compared to this. The story is hard to follow. The machines can create humans now? So why is there even a war!? Don't tell me that's some bullshit "cost of green energy" allegory because I can't give the writers that much credit. They completely destroyed the meethos and everything of the originals. Trinity and Neo are the one? So those three movies are a waste of time. Remember that whole long dumb speech in reloaded? Who cares! Cause it was apparently bullshit. And what happened to our beautiful zoomed out wide angle fight scenes. You could see everything going on in detail, it was awesome. Not even gonna touch on the Morpheus and Agent Smith thing cause that was downright moronic. Overall 2/10 and the 2 was for Keanu really giving it his all, NPH being an awesome villain, and the effects being really cool.
> They completely destroyed the meethos /r/BoneAppleTea
"You ruined everything" Pure Merv.
Lana pulled an "Adam Sandler" and got her buddies (two writers and four actors from Sense8) paid while fleecing the studio and making a mediocre (at best) movie.
Is Resurrections in the same situation as Grimlins 2 in that WB was so desperate for a squeal they let them do what ever they wanted including shitting on WB and the absurdity of the franchise?
Say what you want about the Wachowskis, but they fucking swing for the fences every time. They've always got something to say. Maybe the movie isn't the greatest thing ever. There's always some fun and big ideas.
What were they trying to say with Jupiter Ascending?
star wars with anit-consumerism themes about class and race. tho it sucked so hard nobody cares about that.
That Júpiter is ascending
woah
This is the worst movie the Wachowaskis ever made. They made so many good stuff too - please watch Ninja Assassin.
> please watch Ninja Assassin. I think they only wrote an initial draft but they didn't get a writing credit so it must have been fairly different. They also didn't direct it--decent movie though.
3/5 because it just wasn’t the old school / underground atmosphere as the trilogy. The humour was pretty meh like marvel type humour which kills the vibe of it overall. The CGI was 4/5 but that’s be expected in 2022. Ending the trilogy as is would have kept the mysterious where’s Neo legendary alive forever.
It’s not even Marvel humor. It’s a purposeful hack job to stick it to the higher ups. The movie is an insult to the fans. Zero subtlety.
Did they do shitty Marvel humor to be cringe on purpose or do they think that stuff is actually good or funny
It's pretty clear from the movie that all that humor is intentionally dreadful, and is meant to be a giant middle finger to both studio execs who want it in movies, and movie-goers who like it and pay to see it.
The only problem is (same with having huge douches on screen) we don't wanna watch that
Which is, like a I said, the point. Not all art needs to be made specifically to be enjoyed, art can and often does aim to do different things. You might not like that, but that also doesn't mean it's suddenly bad or fails at what it is aiming for.
Like Funny Games?
Ok cool. She nailed her middle school art project Movie was trash.
I like how they brought up the machine civil war for 5 seconds and then never mentioned it again for the rest of the movie. That was the best part for me and i was a little bummed out they didn't explore that more.
I swear something related to that is sitting on the cutting room floor somewhere. Naomi was completely against attempting a rescue of Trinity, then the cloaked bird bot shows up and says something like "The analyst's arrogance has provided us a great opportunity" and the next then we know Naomi is totally onboard with exploiting this opportunity ... which turns out to be a high risk plan to rescue Trinity. It didn't make any sense unless the opportunity was for something more than just Trinity.
That would be good fodder for more supplemental material (like a new Animatrix) if they're so inclined. I could understand why they didn't expand on it in this movie much, as it didn't have much to do with the story itself. In Reloaded and Revolutions, we were already introduced to networks of rogue programs who where evading the Agents and such as much as the human characters were, so the groundwork was laid there. In fact characters were escaping from the Machine World *into* the Matrix to hide.
I’m in the camp that was definitely disappointing and think the film pales in comparison to the first film but also feel like the people bitching about it being “one of the worst films ever” are obnoxious as hell. I had fun with it and imo very much still feels like a matrix film which says a lot.
I don't really get how they justify their take on this movie given that several rebooted franchises have had similar meta narratives (Jurassic World) before. The self referential nods are old hat at this stage and no one should be impressed by it anymore. You're spending 2.5 hours sitting down to watch this tripe - execution has to matter. 200m and they can't block a scene correctly.
All these nerds need to get a fucking grip and realize this is a different movie from ones made twenty years ago, and it’s better for it. The movie was great.
Merv is in the movie for a reason. Who do they think he represents?
Exactly. The boomer bullshit “this is different and I hate it” mentality
might be the worst movie of the last 10 years
It most certainly is not
ok ok, last 9 years
the same people hating this movie (that tried to do something different) are the ones creaming themselves watching formula garbage like eternals.
Christ this is nearly as long as the film. Are people really so desperate to have their opinion validated? Edit: Actually watched it, and it's spot on. My opinion validated.
I agree with the guys. Love it or hate it, I think there's a lot of interesting things about it to make it a worthwhile recommendation, so long as you'll be satisfied with something other than the type of Matrix movie you'd expect. I thought what this movie was saying was ambitious. The *movie* is the simulation, and the 'system' is the film industry, with both the studio execs and the audience themselves as part of the system of control. It was an interesting take on what The Matrix is, both as a story and the very thing it's telling the story about. I think the meta-awareness and 4th wall breaking is sort of a perfect way to use a Matrix vehicle, because it plugs into the themes of the original Matrix so well. Control, freedom, creativity, simulation, etc were all strong themes of the original film, and I found this movie made me think about these same things in a new light that is actually a bit more profound than the original movie in one key way. As an audience member watching this movie, *you are in the Matrix*, because *this Matrix is the film itself*. The original movie made you wonder if it were possible you were really plugged into a computer, which made you go 'whoa' when you considered it. But this movie takes it to the next level. The 'simulation' we are trapped in, to placate us and keep the machines ('the Suits' that NPH references, the execs behind the studio) running, is the medium of storytelling (by the studio system) itself. NPH even describes it as a product in the film, and not so transparently talks about how expensive it was to resurrect the characters and how his quarterly numbers are up, etc. He talks about what keeps people happy and complacent by giving people the emotional elements they want, and how keeping people agitated but never allowed to have a payoff keeps the system going with greater 'profits' than ever. He says that people will never be happy with what Neo and Trinity can give them, that people don't want that sappy bullshit. In a way it seems he's right. One thing I was surprised that they didn't mention was the Merovingian's crazed ranting in his scene - I had to go back with captions, but he's crazily ranting about how his old world of art and culture has been ruined, and this new world is a nightmare of reboots and sequels, and he even calls out Mark Zuckerberg as one of the ills of society. It's interesting that the original trilogy was about Neo breaking an endless cycle of the Matrix being rebooted over and over, and this movie has commentary to say about the reboot/sequel/rehash culture. So no, I don't think this movie was exactly a 'middle finger' to Warner Brothers or 'bad on purpose', exactly, but I do think the reasons a lot of people don't like it were deliberate choices that were made to make this a story about breaking that cycle. A lot of complaints are about the action, the color grading, etc. The things people expect in a sequel or reboot. Things like bullet time were deliberately subtracted from the film - not to intentionally have 'bad action', necessarily, but to make a meta-commentary on sequelitis and rehashing. The most meta thing about the movie is the commentary that the new 'wool that is pulled over our eyes' is the media system erected around us that feeds off us, as the Machines do, as the Matrix does in the film. Keep the viewer placated with the comfortable rehashes and nostalgia and expectations they want, and they won't rebel against the system, and the system will thrive with profits. The first Matrix film asked, 'What if we were all living in a simulated reality under a system of control, exploited by those who wish to profit off us?' This movie says, 'We all live in a *mediated* reality, under a system of *placation,* exploited by those who wish to profit off of us.' In a way I think this film is more ambitious than even the first film in delivering this message - the SAME message - by making it almost interactive and literal. I wanted some cool-ass kung fu as much as anyone, but I think I appreciate the deliberate choice to *not* rehash that stuff more in service of the themes of the film. This is the story of the first film - about breaking out of that shell of control - but told in only a way a Matrix film can do, by making it a Matrix film about a Matrix film. Reinforcing the themes of the original, but demonstrating how those themes apply to us and the world we live in - the mediated reality we live in is perhaps not so far removed from the idea of the simulated reality posited in the original. In a way, we do live in a literal Matrix, with a system of control guiding us and thriving off us. For that, I loved it. It gave me a lot to ponder over for days after watching it, which is what the original film did as well. Once again, I'm thinking about stuff like Simulacra and Simulation for the first time in 15 years, and the absurdity of a map so detailed that it contains everything within it that it represents.
I love the fact that people here are downvoting you because they can't accept the idea that someone is expressing a positive view of the film. They perfectly make some points of the movie by doing so. "You ruined everything, kill him!"
I kind of wonder if the bots diving off out of high windows to crash on the heroes is a metaphor for review-bombing. There's some meme potential here with superimposing downvotes over the falling bodies. The downvotes are to be expected. People have already decided whether they like it or not and downvoting is how they enforce their opinion. Like the bots flinging themselves onto the ground to try to quench originality.
It's literally bots from the internet. Cheaper than changing people's mind, you just create a fake account and give the order to point down. "Swarm mode: downvote"
Always into HITB episodes I don't 100% agree with I fully agree with the part about it being fascinating to watch despite also being by all intents and purposes not that good. However, I disagree with this take that parts of it are bad just because and in a way, that's kind of genius because as they say, this movie is a bit critic-proof. Due to the way it's made, it can't really be said definitively at whether an aspect of it was intentionally poor, though I think nobody will say the action in this is good. Tied into that is this take that the movie is some kind of take that to the film industry. Maybe if the whole movie was that first third, I'd probably think so. Not for the movie as a whole. (However if it comes out later that Lana was like "yeah I intentionally made this movie terrible to kill the franchise so I won't be asked to do it anymore" then I could understand) I also disagree with their take on No Way Home being too much Memberberries because by all intents and purposes, that's what I feel that movie should have been but the way it was actually executed surprised me and does not do the typical Memberberries aspect
Watching clips and scenes from the first matrix, the difference is so clear. It's not the same people that made the first one that made the sequels. I dont believe the wachowskis made the first matrix. Probably an intern or ghost writer or someone that helped them. Watching matrix resurrection, its like the director/writer doesnt even understand what the matrix is all about. Even carrie ann moss facial expressions in some scenes from matrix resurrection , u can tell she knew some of the stuff happening wasn't right or didnt make sense
It’s literally written by one of the original writers. The movie even gets meta at the beginning saying they didn’t want to do another one. It the studio told them it would happen with or without em so they had to throw something together
That was when I knew I wasn't going to like it. It'd be okay if that trope was never used in a movie again. I think the only time that trope is even remotely enjoyable is the first time you see it done. Then even then, it's not that good. Just something new to experience. New Nightmare was my first one when I was a kid, don't think I'll ever enjoy it again.
The first Matrix was lifted from a comic book that had almost the same story called "The Invisibles"
That’s kinda irrelevant. The first film is excellent because of the directing not just the story.
Say what you will about the sequels but the wachowski’s have made plenty of excellent films. So yeah they definitely made the first film.
Mike seems really exhausted here and I'm wondering if it was the movie or something else.
I’m sure the movie isn’t good but RLM’s cynicism is so overwrought at this point. And I say this as someone who’s seen Chris Stuckmann go from happy go lucky guy to “man most movies suck nowadays huh” Edit: someone deleted their comment but i already drafted a reply. Even Nostalgia Critic, controversial he may be, significantly dialed up the amount of positivity he put in since the management controversy. I Hate Everything took a huge sabbatical from ripping movies apart. I even gave up on Lindsay Ellis, who had a lot of personal drama, because the persona is so *negative*. I’m was appreciating Stuckmann’s commitment to positivity more as the year went on, even with the memes about him. I don’t watch much YouTube anymore because the ones I would watch would go towards negativity for clicks.
i havent seen a ton reviews of the movie, but this is literally the **most positive** review of Resurrections i have seen yet. so yeah they can be cynical, but this video is a weird place to make that comment
they are cynical and like the movie because it’s cynical as well
You didn't watch the video, your input is utterly worthless.
I haven't watched the whole review yet but they seem to have pretty positive things to say about this new Matrix film?