| |
|
dAB, I've got a few issues with your interpertation of the ending. I don't see the people in The Matrix as being aware of the fictional nature of their reality in the new Matrix. I think the choice that The Architect refers to is a similar one to what he talks about in Reloaded, how just the fact that there is a choice, even subconscious, makes it easy to control people. So, they may show people the nature of reality, and those who choose to live in Zion will go there, and the others will go in to The Matrix, and live like they did at the beginning of Matrix I, just completely oblivious to what is going on around them.
The ending of the movie is so shoddy and rushed that it substitutes just confusing and unclear dialogue for an intriuging open ending. I think that this is essentially as what happened in Matrix 5.0, it started out with giving people a choice, Zion or the Matrix, and becuase they had that choice, they did not question The Matrix. That's happened again, the only change is that for now, Zion is at peace.
However, I think the title Revolutions is indicating that the same events will play out. There may be a lot of freedom at first, but gradually agents will start again to control stuff, and eventually the one will come along, and things will be rebooted yet again. The entire movie is about the illusion of change, no one is really freed, they're just starting another cycle.
Not to insult your point, but I think the fact that they are relying on a videogame to continue the story indicates the big problem with The Matrix: it's too much a multi-media "experience" and not enough three really good films. There's nothing wrong with building stories around the films, but the films should stand alone. Say what you want about Star Wars, at least Lucas keeps the films essentially self-contained, and the supplemental material is not needed to understand the story.
Reflecting back on Revolutions, I've found two major problems. The first is that the Wachowskis assume you really care about the people of Zion, when we have absoultely no reason to. They have no personality, have horrible dialogue and have no style. The people of Zion are like the crew in the first movie, there are two many of them to get to know, so you don't care about them. But then to focus an entire movie around these people is an awful flaw. The entire mech fight is purely an effects showcase. There's an infinite number of sentinels, so they have no chance of winning, and we just look at these people who we don't care about, and are supposed to be dazzled by the effect.
Then, the end of the film is entirely based around the idea that having peace in the real world is more important than changing the matrix. The end of the first movie was incredible becuase it gave you the idea that the matrix would become this superhero playground, and everyone would evolve to another level. Before I saw Revolutions, I heard the rumor that that scene was in fact the end of Revolutions, which made sense at the time. Reloaded hadn't really followed up on that, but I was able to forgive it, since I assumed it would be covered in Revolutions. But, there was absoultely no attempt to free people. The Matrix itself plays essentially no role in Revolutions, it's all about freeing Zion. Peace in Zion is not a satisfying ending, because, at least how I saw it, everyone else is trapped in a regular life in the matrix.
And that's not to mention the fact that for this small group of people to get freedom, everyone in the matrix lost their lives. When Smith takes over The Matrix, he wipes out everyone's life in the whole world, and the end of the film makes us seem happy that that occurs. The whole film is based on a very juvenile real/unreal dichtomoy, the idea that because these people are in The Matrix, their emotions and ideas aren't valid. The lobby scene, as much as I love it, is really like Volume II King Mob at his worst, and in Reloaded it goes even further, like in the power plant sequence. Our "heroes" are really just self-serving killers, who assume that their reality is more valid than the people in the matrix, which is completely invalid, if you go by the first film's idea that the matrix is essentially our world, and everyone is living out their lives in the same way that people do here. The third film puts forth the idea that it's a happy ending because even though every single person in the matrix was wiped out, a few got freedom, and that makes it worth it.
On a completely different note, the film didn't work because it just wasn't cool. The opening Club Hell sequence was excellent, recalling the cool of Matrix I, but the rest of the movie was just like syndicated sci-fi. Zion is just awful visually. I love Reloaded because it's so stylish and cool, it's shiny and almost plastic. And the lobby scene in The Matrix I is the essence of cool. The third film won't be setting any fashion trends, and there's really nothing to look up to. The design of Zion was an awful mistake. You go to The Matrix for guns, leather sunglasses, and some light philosophy, and Revolutions failed on all those accounts. |
|
|
.