Advertisement |
Overall Rating
  Awesome: 66.75%
Worth A Look: 18.57%
Average: 6.92%
Pretty Bad: 3.88%
Total Crap: 3.88%
27 reviews, 662 user ratings
|
|
Matrix, The |
by MP Bartley
"You weren't really the One after all were you Neo?"

|
After all the debates and raging arguments of whether 'Reloaded' and 'Revolutions' were worth the wait had died down, there was always one comment said by just about everyone: "Ah, but the first one will always be the best". And I'd have agreed with them. But then I thought to myself, is that really the case? My copy of 'The Matrix' was gathering dust on my shelf so I took it down and plugged myself in again. And I didn't particularly like what I saw.I won't bother with the plot explanation - hell, I'm sure we all know it by now and if you don't, there's another 25 reviews here that will tell you it in great detail - but let's just re-evaluate it after all the hype has died down.
So what still works then? Well, the design and cinematography look as wondrous as ever. The shiny quality of the matrix contrasts brilliantly to the scorched real world, and the sight of Neo, Morpheous and Trinity decked out in cloaks and shades is as glorious a cinematic image as you'll ever get.
And the nightmarish idea of the whole human race being farmed out as comatose batteries, while tricked into a fake reality is as chillingly effective as ever. Combine that with the devastated Earth and no wonder we were all duped first-time around. It's truly one of the best depictions of Hell on Earth. Or Hell as Earth.
But after that...this is where 'The Matrix' starts to go downhill. Firstly, the god-awful dialogue. Truly, I don't think there's ever been a script written so full of pretentious, philosophy under-graduate rubbish:
"What is perception?"
"What is reality?"
"Reality IS a perception ha ha!"
Oh just shut up, give us a break and show us some more cool stuff will ya? The trite ruminations aren't helped when they're delivered by a po-faced cast who look like they really believe they're talking about something vastly intelligent, let alone making sense of it all. Yep, Carrie-Anne Moss looks great in a pvc catsuit but that doesn't make this a great film. Larry Fishbourne just annoys constantly with his smug sense of superiority and can we just admit now that Keanu always looked silly from the very beginning? It's only Hugo Weaving who looks to be having any fun as the bad guy Smith. Possibly because he realises how ridicolous it all is and just goes way over the top. It's a lip-curling, snarling performance that instantly livens up the film whenever he makes an appearance.
But what about the absolutely kick-ass action I hear you cry? Well truth be told, it isn't looking that kick-ass any more. This is partly due, not to its own fault, but the films own success, which meant that everyone and their uncle ripped it off. So some scenes still astound (the lobby shoot-out, the helicopter), but equally some are just dated horribly. The first scenes of Neo trying to jump between the buildings and Neo dodging under the Agents bullets just look very early 90's now. And this is why we should really see through 'The Matrix' for the sham it actually is. No film that has any genuine claim to be a classic should ever date remotely: 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Star Wars', 'The Great Escape' - all classics, and all not dated. Even the likes of 'King Kong' may have dated in terms of special effects, but that still has a freshness of storytelling and lack of pretension that will never die.
Ultimately 'The Matrix' just looks like the work of someone trying too hard to impress and to look like the coolest kids in class. And like most attempts like that, it'll only ever work for a limited time.
Joel Silver said that these movies were raising the bar. Wasn't for long though, was it Joel?So when you see through the hype and dispense with the fanboy drooling, you have what was just a pretender to the throne of the real sci-fi/action classics. Yes, 'The Matrix' looks great but looks aren't everything are they?
link directly to this review at https://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=722&reviewer=293 originally posted: 04/01/04 21:39:54
printer-friendly format
|
Trilogy Starters: For more in the Trilogy Starters series, click here.
|
 |
USA 31-Mar-1999 (R) DVD: 07-Dec-2004
UK 11-Jun-1999 (15)
Australia 08-Apr-1999 (MA)
|
|