Almost every negative review of The Matrix: Reloaded has involved three criticisms. One, it wasn’t as good as the original. Two, it wasn’t deep. Three, Keanu can’t act. Love it or hate it but, please, don’t expect me to swallow these reasons…
It wasn’t as good as the original. Why? Either because (a) the sequel should have been a completely new thing, just like the original, or (b) nothing should have changed–it should have been just like the original. If this is your reasoning, you should just stay home and toss off to the original again. Today’s life lesson: new is different.
It wasn’t deep. What is this “deep” of which you speak? How much is it? Where can I find some? Don’t only shallow people talk about things being deep?
And besides, several philosophers and theologians disagree with you. When you’ve put as much thought into your critique of the Matrix as they have into theirs, I’ll be happy to listen. Or if you can show me you know something about “deep” that they don’t.
A variation of this critique is “it wasn’t as deep as the original.” I’ll refer you to above.
Keanu can’t act. I have only one response to this breaking news item: Whoa.
I loved the Matrix Reloaded.
Keanu’s acting … hmm … well, I never think about it, so I guess that means it’s fine. Only part that might have been bad was “because I love you too damn much” … but, really, a cheesy line like that is hard to pull off. I fault the screenplay.
It wasn’t “deep” emotionally … it was thoughtful. Made you think. Intelligent. Was the first movie deep? I didn’t notice. I think the lack of sentiment was part of the whole part of the story (well, except for the love story).
People wanted to have the same reaction to this movie as they did to the original. Which is just a silly expectation, don’t you think?
Yes, well put, very silly of them.
I had an adverse reaction to the original purely because I noticed that Mr. Anderson had a copy of Baudrillard’s Simulations and Simaculara, and I dislike Baudrillard intensely. But after seeing the sequel, I decided to revisit the original. In the original, the plot progressed at a good clip, and special effects weren’t used just for the hell of it. In Reloaded the special effects got in the way of plot and character development–just how long was that fight with the hundreds of Agents Smith? I don’t think I was the only person seeing it who found it tiresome. This isn’t a fatal flaw; someone exerting a firm hand in the editing stage–or perhaps putting the brakes on the effects budget–could have eliminated it.
I was extremely depressed to see on the Matrix website that the philosophers weighing in the film are, with I think one exception, of the analytic persuasion. Maybe they’re angling to get bit parts in the next film, but if they are, they’re going about it the wrong way; I’d be very surprised if Cornel West wrote anything about the first film, let alone Hillary Putnam’s brains-in-vats thought experiments.
I hadn’t noticed the analytic bent — haven’t been over there since the movie came out. Hopefully they’ll fix that before too long.
I agree about the Neo-Smith fight seen. It was very obviously CGI–and Nintendo quality at that. But perhaps the movie was somewhat stiff to emphasize that the resistance is part of the Matrix too? Perhaps that’s too much credit. Have to wait until fall to see.
The Matrix
I tried to obtain a DVD of Wag the Dog last night from my local software/video shop in the city.