New Matrix trailer

[Elemental]

I'm pretty sure the Wachowski Bros. didn't set out to make just an action movie. I'm sure they were striving for more and have said as much in interviews. I'm not willing to shoehorn The Matrix into the "Just An Action Movie" category and forget about it. What is showed in the first half was beyond your typical action film. If the definition of action film is that all the non-action scenes set up the action scenes and mean nothing more (which seems to be the case in most action films) then the second half of The Matrix certainly fits the bill.

If you are willing to let the unfulfilled setup of the beginning of the film. The pure wonder and imagination of it was all reduced to a simple fight at the end. That, to me is a waste. To have the concept of twisted reality, modelled after our current world where the producers were able to show us things that were conceptually and visually different from things we have seen before was an accomplishment. If you are willing to let it go, I am totally cool with that. But you cannot convince me that it was just an action film and leave it at that. The setup was too good.

In fairness, I'd say that's the job of the sequels. I can't be certain of this, but I think that the first film was always meant to be part of a trilogy, so you might as well not rush to wrap up the grand plot in the first film, and instead please the crowd.

 

[John Crichton]

In fairness, I'd say that's the job of the sequels. I can't be certain of this, but I think that the first film was always meant to be part of a trilogy, so you might as well not rush to wrap up the grand plot in the first film, and instead please the crowd.

I do hope the sequals take care of a few of my issues from the first film. However, any movie should solve its own internal conflicts and logic without other films tacked on to it. The first Star Wars did it. The original Back to the Future did as well, even though they were parts of a larger story. Heck even Wrath of Khan (which was part of a trilogy of the original flims) did it. There are very few film franchises that really need other movies to resolve their own stories (Lord of the Rings is really the only I can think of). So even if it is part of a larger picture, it should still live up to its own setup as many films in trilogies have different feels then their brother and sister films.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

I like The Matrix. I think it's very, very far from being a "bad film." It's pretty ironic that someone could call it that and with the same face praise Charlie's Angels, which was clearly and trasnparently influenced by it.

That said, many of the criticisms of the film are well-founded. It's not all that innovative a film, for example - pretty much everything it does from a story standpoint has been done before. And the film's innovations in special effects are generally overstated. The Matrix has been unquestionably influential, however - just look at action movies since. The Transporter and Charlie's Angels are two obvious examples. It's an important film for that reason.

The movie is not a 'smart' film as some people think - it is, instead, 'clever.' A smart movie would have had an ending that repaid the promise of the film's premise and major plot twist - The Matrix had a shootout and kung-fu fistfight. A very well-done and entertaining shootout and fistfight, to be sure, but only that.

The film's key acheivement is not its intelligence, or its story, or the rather thin veneer of philosophy that overlays the action, or even its very well-done major twist. It's key achievement is its style which is distinct and unique and which has hugely influenced similar films made since.

 

[WizarDru]

The movie is not a 'smart' film as some people think - it is, instead, 'clever.' A smart movie would have had an ending that repaid the promise of the film's premise and major plot twist - The Matrix had a shootout and kung-fu fistfight. A very well-done and entertaining shootout and fistfight, to be sure, but only that.

The film's key acheivement is not its intelligence, or its story, or the rather thin veneer of philosophy that overlays the action, or even its very well-done major twist. It's key achievement is its style which is distinct and unique and which has hugely influenced similar films made since.

I agree, for the most part. It's not not deep, and it's not that original. I'd even go further and say that it's varied elements are all borrowed from other films that are, for their respective disciplines, as good as or better than The Matrix.

I certainly agree that the movie's style was a major factor. It succesfully married Hong Kong's WuXia and Gun-Fu style action films (Iron Monkey meets The Killer) with reasonable science-fiction concepts, euro-style, anime, rave culture and a bunch of other elements. The synthesis of those elements is what made The Matrix work, and brought it to a mass audience who hadn't experienced it before.

A thing to keep in mind is that many of the elements seen in The Matrix weren't in the popular zeitgeist, as popular as they may have been amongst groups like SF Fans, Honk Kong cinemas fans and so forth. How much of the American movie-going public had even seen a fight choereogaphed by Yuen-Wo Ping, let alone known who he was? I don't think you can underestimate that, for some people, The Matrix was the first place they saw this kind of thing, and that carries a lot of weight.

 

[Mallus]

I like The Matrix. I think it's very, very far from being a "bad film." It's pretty ironic that someone could call it that and with the same face praise Charlie's Angels, which was clearly and trasnparently influenced by it.

I liked the Matrix too, but I don't think its ironic at all that someone could enjoy Charlie's Angels more. Different people have different responses. I think Barsoom was well aware of what kind of film Charlies Angels was --thrilling stupid, IMHO-- and simple took more pleasure from it than The Matrix. Besides, I found Charlie's Angels to be a pretty stylish film in its own way, and I got a far bigger kick from the Matrix-inspired/stolen fight scene in CA between Cripsin Glover{!!!} and the Angles, set to The Prodigy, than I did in any single action sequence in The Matrix... not that I thought CA was a better film, mind you.

The film's key acheivement is not its intelligence, or its story, or the rather thin veneer of philosophy that overlays the action, or even its very well-done major twist. It's key achievement is its style which is distinct and unique and which has hugely influenced similar films made since.

Exactly. I think that really nails The Matrix's appeal.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

I liked the Matrix too, but I don't think its ironic at all that someone could enjoy Charlie's Angels more.

BC didn't say he liked Charlie's Angels but disliked The Matrix (a perfectly valid opinion.) He said he liked the former but that the latter was a bad film.

 

[Mallus]

BC didn't say he liked Charlie's Angels but disliked The Matrix (a perfectly valid opinion.) He said he liked the former but that the latter was a bad film.

Hmmm, you're right. But to be fair, thinking The Matrix is a bad film is also a perfectly valid opinion. At least BC was willing to explain his response --in considerable depth-- .

You know, I disagreed with most of BC's critiques/analyses of films in this thread, but I really enjoyed reading them. They were thoughtful and detailed, and I get a big kick out of seeing someone direct their critical energies at summer genre action flicks. It fits in with my personal belief that no narrative is beneath consideration.

Besides, we all know The Matrix isn't a bad film...

 

[John Crichton]

I like The Matrix. I think it's very, very far from being a "bad film." It's pretty ironic that someone could call it that and with the same face praise Charlie's Angels, which was clearly and trasnparently influenced by it.

That said, many of the criticisms of the film are well-founded. It's not all that innovative a film, for example - pretty much everything it does from a story standpoint has been done before. And the film's innovations in special effects are generally overstated. The Matrix has been unquestionably influential, however - just look at action movies since. The Transporter and Charlie's Angels are two obvious examples. It's an important film for that reason.

The movie is not a 'smart' film as some people think - it is, instead, 'clever.' A smart movie would have had an ending that repaid the promise of the film's premise and major plot twist - The Matrix had a shootout and kung-fu fistfight. A very well-done and entertaining shootout and fistfight, to be sure, but only that.

The film's key acheivement is not its intelligence, or its story, or the rather thin veneer of philosophy that overlays the action, or even its very well-done major twist. It's key achievement is its style which is distinct and unique and which has hugely influenced similar films made since.

Well put. I would go as far to say that I was more frustrated by The Matrix than dissappointed. On one end, I was highly entertained for all the reasons mentioned but on the other hand I saw a wasted chance to make the film even better. Now, I had no expectations at all going into the movie, nor did I have any idea what I was about to be shown. And what I saw I did like but just had few issues with the ending. So at the time I thought it was a very good movie, not great but very entertaining.

However, I do get a little chafed when folks start calling it things like "better than Star Wars" or "the best science fiction movie of our time" or things of that nature (not that anyone here is doing that). It was entertaining and has had some influence on other modern films. And that's where its accomplishments end.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Now, I had no expectations at all going into the movie, nor did I have any idea what I was about to be shown.

Same here. I hadn't even seen the trailer or any ads for it - only heard through the grapevine that it was good. It's the kind of movie, I think, that's helped immeasurably by complete ignorance going in.

However, I do get a little chafed when folks start calling it things like "better than Star Wars" or "the best science fiction movie of our time" or things of that nature (not that anyone here is doing that).

I think a case can be made that it was, when it came out, the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner. I don't agree, necessarily, but the case can be made. Since then, I think Minority Report may have been better, though I thought the ending of that film was also a little too pat.

I do think it's clearly a better film than either of the two recent Star Wars efforts.

It was entertaining and has had some influence on other modern films. And that's where its accomplishments end.

The film is, I think, much too recent to fairly evaluate its influence. The recent spate of films which borrow from it may be nothing more than a short-term trend. To really see what kind of lasting impact the movie will have on film in general and sci-fi or action movies in particular we're going to need another ten years or so, probably more.

 

[John Crichton]

Same here. I hadn't even seen the trailer or any ads for it - only heard through the grapevine that it was good. It's the kind of movie, I think, that's helped immeasurably by complete ignorance going in.

I think I actually saw it opening night. And it did help that I knew nothing about it - a trend I have tried to continue to this day.

I think a case can be made that it was, when it came out, the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner. I don't agree, necessarily, but the case can be made. Since then, I think Minority Report may have been better, though I thought the ending of that film was also a little too pat.

I do think it's clearly a better film than either of the two recent Star Wars efforts.

A case could be made if the ending had lived up the promise of the start of the film; without that it is incomplete, to me. As for best since Blade Runner - I thought T2, Dark City, 12 Monkeys, Star Trek 6, Back to the Future, Aliens and a bunch of others were better science fiction films. I can say that if you look to the core of all of the films and remove elements like fight scenes you have complete movies in most cases. The Matrix simply doesn't hold up under those conditions (which I admit are biased for each individual).

And I won't even get into the prequel Star Wars films here because a) I am a huge fan of Star Wars, b) The prequel films are unique to movie history and are in a category all their own & c) I am way too biased towards them.

The film is, I think, much too recent to fairly evaluate its influence. The recent spate of films which borrow from it may be nothing more than a short-term trend. To really see what kind of lasting impact the movie will have on film in general and sci-fi or action movies in particular we're going to need another ten years or so, probably more.

I agree. It's too early to tell plus the coming films will have an impact, possibly negative & positive, on how the original film will be viewed.