Home :: DVD :: Science Fiction & Fantasy :: Series & Sequels  

Alien Invasion
Aliens
Animation
Classic Sci-Fi
Comedy
Cult Classics
Fantasy
Futuristic
General
Kids & Family
Monsters & Mutants
Robots & Androids
Sci-Fi Action
Series & Sequels

Space Adventure
Star Trek
Television
The Matrix Revolutions (Full Screen Edition)

The Matrix Revolutions (Full Screen Edition)

List Price: $19.96
Your Price: $15.97
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 2 3 4 5 .. 85 >>

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: The Betrayal of the Real: Revolutions - Riff or Rip-Off
Review: As evidenced in both 'Making The Matrix' in The Matrix DVD and 'Scrolls to Screen: The History and Culture of Anime' in the Animatrix DVD; we here Producer Joe Silver identifying the genesis of The Matrix, in part, in anime - in particular Oshii Mamuro's anime of Shirow Masamune's manga Ghost in the Shell (GitS). On the Internet, the consensus points to the Wachowskis 'ripping-off' Oshii's groundbreaking work. I prefer to see it as a 'riff.'

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a riff as 'a repeated phrase in jazz typically supporting a solo improvisation; also a piece based on such a phrase.' The Matrix then is both new and old - it is a riff with deep roots. The one thing that the Wachowskis irreverently forgot to consider is a tight thematic core that informs the cyberpunk. tradition - in Gibson's Neuromancer and Dick's Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep - also known as Ridley Scott's, Blade Runner. This lack of "adherence" to a lineage is problematic. The syncretic energy of The Matrix trilogy makes it a pastiche of "all things" without a core theme. Missing many windows of opportunity it is stuck in the duality of man vs. machine and an elusive ending.
Susan Napier writes on GitS: "In its exploration of such profound issues as the relations between soul, body and technology, GitS owes as much to American science fiction, such as Ridley Scott's landmark 1982 science fiction film Blade Runner or William Gibson's classic 1980 cyberpunk novel Neuromancer as it does to any specific mecha anime. [...] Rather than categorizing GitS purely as a mecha film, therefore, it might be at least as accurate to call it a "cyberpunk-noir film" with elegiac, gothic, and even apocalyptic overtones" (Napier 105).

Using Blade Runner as a starting point, replicants exist as simulation in real time and space. In The Matrix, and this is the reason I hesitate to classify it as a postmodern film; 'reality' itself is not in question (Lyon 2). Disneyland "is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real" (Baudrillard 12). I contend therefore that "The Matrix" provides the same 'reassurance' that Zion and the machines are real - ergo, the betrayal of the real. Returning to Blade Runner, "What makes Blade Runner postmodern? [...] For a start, 'reality' itself is in question. Replicants want to be 'real' people, but proof of 'reality', apparently, is a photographic image, a constructed identity. Here is one way of seeing the postmodern: it is a debate about reality." (Lyons 2).

GitS owes as much to Blade Runner as it does Gibson's Neuromancer. The notion of a "matrix" and the idea of "cranial jacks," can be pegged to Neuromancer. Returning to the source: "The matrix has its roots in primitive arcade games," said the voice-over, "in early graphics programs and military experimentation with cranial jacks." [...] "Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity." (Gibson 51). In Gibson's 'matrix' users 'jack' in much the same way we log in to our computers - we are separate from our computers as much as Case is in Neuromancer. However, in a slight of hand, the Wachowskis divert our attention - there is a fantasy/reality break.
By examining the 'Zion archives' we witness the rise of the machines. The 'zero-point' of The Matrix, in the Wachowski rendition, is pegged to the rise of the machines and the eventual defeat of the humans. Despite the elaborate ruse - if you defeat the machines and shut of the matrix, all those plugged into it are 'free.' Now, the question becomes, "Free to what?" I chuckle when I hear folks talk about the movie and focus on the matrix and ignore the 'reality' of Zion and the machine. The matrix might look like a Buddhist unreality - how would those with a Buddhist read or neuronal read explain those outside the matrix? They do not. They ignore it because it does not fit into their explanation.

In The Matrix, there is no postmodern question of 'identity.' There is no question of the 'docile body' created through discursive practice. There is no questioning of categories and 'the body' like there is in Blade Runner and subsequently GitS - where the replicants such as Priss and cyborgs like Kusanagi and Batu are problematic because they exist along side us and 'blurry' the distinction between man and machine. As David Weberman reminds us of the reality/fantasy break and grounds us in a material reality: "Still, a skeptic of all this, a cyberskeptic, will say that no matter how many sensory impressions one has of the virtual world and no matter how much they cohere within and between individuals, the cyberworld is not real because it does not exist in space. [...] According to this view, "cyberspace" is a mere metaphor; strictly speaking, "cyberspace" is an oxymoron." (Irwin, William 225 - 239).

The Matrix is a melange of eclectic belief systems packaged using a cross pollination of cinematic genres from anime and kung fu movies: it is everything and it is nothing. My sense is that this "syncretic" move is one that is "instrumental," and designed less to inform but instead to entertain. To ascribe meaning where there is none is dangerous and pointless. The Wachowski's cannot end the movie properly because the writing did not have a coherent thread to begin with. Revolutions' staid and open-ended conclusion leaves one wondering if this Hollywood's way of saying sequel or prequel? The Matrix is trapped in the 'modern' duality of man versus machine and affirms the 'real.' What showed promise as an epistemological time bomb is reduced to caricature and 'spectacle' since we are living in a postmodern world - are we not?

Miguel Llora

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Actually a pretty good movie.
Review: Although a lot of people hate this movie, I thought it was great. The special effects are amazing, such as a battle between the machines and humans who are fighting in giant robots, which was pretty cool. The real problem with the series is that it needed another movie, either a prequel to the original Matrix or something between the first one and Reloaded. If you saw the first and second, you have to see this.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Satisfying
Review: Let's start off by saying this, if you watch this movie with amazingly high hopes then you will be greatly dissapointed. The Matrix Revolutions isn't what most people think, or what most people will tell you. It's not a horrible film, not a dissapointment, but it's also not an amazing finish to an amazing trilogy. It's an above average finish to a very deep trilogy.

The Matrix Revolutions starts off right from where the 2nd one ended. Right after Neo is an some sort of coma. However his brain is in a similair state of a regular human in the matrix. The movie does basically what you expect it to do which is show a war, have some great fight scenes and be too serious for it's own good. Although there are a few suprises still up the Wachowski brothers sleeve's to make the movie still feel fresh to a certain extent. The addition of the train station is one of them, not to mention you finally see the "machine city" where all of the sentenals are made to destroy Zion. These things make the movie likeable, but no where as good as the 2nd film (which in my oppinion is the best of the three) or the first film for that matter. The main thing that hurts the movie is the fact that the main idea, the plot, the whole trilogy just isn't as fresh as it used to be (kind of like Men In Black 2 - theres nothin suprising about shooting up aliens in 2003 like there was in 1997).

In the end this movie is a good finish to the Matrix trilogy. You'll like it if you go into the mind frame (right before watching the movie) that your going to like it because it is a matrix movie. You'll also like it if your not a die hard fan and you expect the series to lose alot of it's steam from the first 2 movies. Die hard fans, should watch it, but they'll be dissapointed. Hated the 2nd one? you'll hate this one even more

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Better than Reloaded, but still does't match the original.
Review: The Wachowski brothers really tried to make this an epic trilogy similar to the likes of "Lord of The Rings" and "Star Wars," but really they should have stuck with one revolutonary film rather than attempt three and fail miserably. Reloaded was a pointless mess of a film, however still entertaining. Reloaded was a buildup to the war that in Revolutions. The third film is a revolution, however. It is a revolution in overused special effects and dry acting by all but the minor characters, such as Hugo Weaving, Mary Alice, and a short but great appearance by Bruce Campbell. The plot relies on you watching Reloaded, but it doesn't really rely too much on understanding it. Revolutions is just a war movie with a lot of excessive special effects, kind of like "Lord of The Rings," but LOTR had a plot where the effects didn't get in the way. If we had just stuck with the orignal, everything would have been fine.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: Highly Dissapointed
Review: It's really quite simple, The Matrix coulda been the best film trilogy ever, instead the Wachowski Brothers decided to sellout and go the commercial route. Nice and Simple.

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: not good -- my review will spoil the plot, btw
Review: I was a huge Matrix fan. The first movie left me breathless (despite the few scenes that are a bit lacking, the rest of the movie was so damn excellent the few mediocre scenes didn't matter). I really loved the second movie as well. I thought it was a phenomenal follow up. I was waiting for the third with extremely high hopes.

Perhaps that was the problem. Maybe I expected too much.

I wasn't happy with most of this movie. It was lame. The story sucked. They tried to blend too many divergent philosophies together, only to end with a huge judeo-christian crucifixion.

I truly believe the only reason that Neo was blind at the end is because Keanu Reeves is such a horrible actor.

The death scene at the end is the worst piece of crap I have ever seen. I wanted to laugh. It was supposed to be tragic, but it was insipid. And very poorly acted.

And just when you're really wishing you hadn't plopped down money for this, there's another shoot-em-up-in-a-room-full-of-columns scene. Cuz it worked so well the first time, I guess.

All in all, it was a huge disappointment.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: Just Watch the Original and Pretend the Sequels Don't Exist
Review: What a mess! What happened?! Obviously something went terribly wrong during the initial stages of the scripting, casting & filming of the 2 sequels and the whole project slid downhill from there. The result is as close as the Wachowski bros could come to freely admitting they had nothing to add to The Matrix without actually refusing to make the movies (which would have been the honorable thing to do). They completely paint themselves into a corner by overemphasizing the eye candy and cheesy military melodrama and failing to expand on the philosophy. Far too much emphasis on minor characters, Zion as grunge paradise, & Neo as Christ figure. Oddly enough, Neo, Morpheus and Trinity are mere afterthoughts in Revolutions. Makes me wonder if, during the filming of Reloaded, Reaves, Fishburne & Moss expressed their reservations about the direction (or lack thereof) this project was going in and the bros retaliating by all but benching them for the finale. The Matrix is The One.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: DEBACLE
Review: I really didn't expect much after reloaded but after renting this movie I couldn't believe how bad it really is. This movie sucks so bad I wouldn't even recommend it to my ex girlfriend (...).

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: consistently excellent, but a bit too much shooting here
Review: This is a worthy ending to this series. While I tired somewhat of the cowboy stuff that naturally accompanies a climax, the dark vision and ambiguous ending of the film mark it as truly outstanding sci-fi. Sure, the ending was happy, but troubles for the future are very clearly in the making. The greatest surprize of all is the maintenance of the cryptic - and logically consistent - references that were so much fun in the 2nd part. Moreover, it is never fully explained, but left to the imaginative to puzzle out, if they so wish. Indeed, there are added delicious mysteries, like the little Indian girl and the transforamtion of the oracle.

REcommended for serious fans of sci-fi.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Less fighting, more thought
Review: The Matrix Revolutions is the third and final part of the Matrix trilogy and more the second part of the Matrix II. This time there is less fighting martial art style but more SF fighting between machines. It all looks superb again of course. In the second movie you could sometimes see that the characters fighting were computer graphics instead of real people but not so now, making it looking more real; even for a SF.

We finally see the end of the story, but like in all the Matrix movies, makes us think again too. Does it start all over again? or not?

You have to see this if you have seen the first two and are interested in the story, you will not be dissappointed!


<< 1 2 3 4 5 .. 85 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates