‘Matrix’ shouldn’t have been trilogy

ALLEN MACDONALD

Lots of style, very little substance. Larry and Andy Wachowski’s

final installment in the “Matrix” trilogy, “The Matrix Revolutions,”

finishes the hatchet job the talented siblings began when the second

film, “The Matrix Reloaded,” began this last summer. Not since I

watched “Star Wars -- Episode II -- Attack of the Clones” have I

watched a filmmaker so enthusiastically shoot himself (or, in this

case, themselves) in the creative foot. When the original “Matrix”

was released in 1999, it was one of the most innovative sci-fi films

to hit the screen in years. It introduced its audience to a

marvelously crafted vision of the future that was visually arresting,

and gave us compelling, fascinating characters. With the each sequel

(shot together over an 18-month period, then released 6 months

apart), the artistic triumph of the original film has been tainted

and degraded, and finally, with this final offering, squelched of

life.

Picking up immediately where it left off, “Matrix Revolutions”

continues the story of an apocalyptic Earth where the machines have

become the dominant race, and enslaved humans as the batteries that

power them. There are a small population of “free” humans who live in

an underground city called Zion, and they are at war with the

machines under the leadership of Neo (Keanu Reeves), his great love

and fellow warrior, Trinity (Carrie-Ann Moss) and the sagacious

Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), who was initially Neo’s mentor, but in

this new film pretty much just does what he’s told, since at this

point the student has surpassed his master. Neo is the leading force

in the war that now focuses on destroying the rogue Agent Smith (Hugo

Weaving), Neo’s software perfected nemesis inside the Matrix who may

or may not have discovered a way to download himself into the real

world. Smith also has learned to replicate himself; this is why there

are several hundred Smiths on screen.

Neo’s character development was a major flaw in “Reloaded,” and

that problem has become fatal with “Revolutions.” In the first film,

we followed him on his journey to accept his fate as “the one,”

experiencing all his self-doubt and confusion as his strength and

confidence increased. Nothing is more entertaining than watching an

intriguing character change and grow while on a voyage of

self-discovery. The problem with the sequels is that Neo doesn’t

change or grow at all. He is all-powerful and very, very boring.

“The Matrix” presented some old Eastern philosophies wrapped in an

attractive new package: Do people really control their destinies? Is

the future set in stone? Is the human race just puppets playing out

their lives on a stage? It was always a bit pretentious, but not any

more so than “the force” is to the “Star Wars” films. However, the

original “Matrix” presented this philosophy in a palatable,

entertaining way. Now its so convoluted and self-reverential, it just

seems silly. The dialogue is clunky and flat. The Wachowski Brothers

try so hard to be mind-bending and profound, that the result ends up

being nothing more than silly. When a much-loved, pivotal character

dies in a long, protracted scene, the impulse to laugh becomes

overwhelming. If you told me four years ago I would laugh at this

character’s death scene, I would’ve called you misguided.

What is almost beyond belief is that long sequences of

“Revolutions” unfold on the screen without the major characters. “The

Matrix” focused on the Neo, Trinity and Morpheus troika and created

strong bonds between them. In “Revolutions,” they have shockingly

little screen time and are split up into separate story strands that

weaken the overall story. Even “Reloaded” didn’t make this mistake.

As a result, focus in lost, and the delicate story completely

unravels. I believe the Wachowskis were attempting to take time to

introduce the audience to ancillary Zion characters so we’ll get a

better feel for what’s at a stake at the everyman level. This makes

some sense, but it feels as though many of these scenes were left on

the cutting room floor, so every time these secondary characters show

up, I muttered to myself, “Wait... who is this?” I bought a ticket to

watch Neo, Trinity, Morpheus and Agent Smith.

* ALLEN MacDONALD, 30, recently earned a master’s in screenwriting

from the American Film Institute in Los Angeles.

‘Revolutions’ would do better at PG-13

Derek: Let me just preface this by saying that if anyone wanted

“The Matrix Revolutions” to be good, it was me. When “The Matrix”

came out, it was my favorite movie of all time, and I can still watch

that movie for about the one hundred billionth time and enjoy it. So

you can imagine my disappointment at how stupid “Reloaded” was. The

Wachowski brothers had selfishly taken an amazing action film with a

mind-blowing concept and turned it into a cheesy sci-fi nerd flick

where the feigned-intelligence was so forced I’m surprised that a

blood vessel didn’t burst in the inflated head of one of those

pretentious directors while trying to squeeze it out. So I, as did

most anyone who has seen “Reloaded,” really wanted “Revolutions” to

redeem the trilogy. But alas, it did not. Now, to be fair, the battle

at the port of Zion with the machine invaders is probably equally as

good or better than the office building scene in The Matrix but aside

from that, “Revolutions” has nothing going for it. In fact, the one

part you’d think that the Wachowski brothers could not screw up, the

final fight scene between Neo and Smith, was anti-climactic and

certainly didn’t live up to my expectations. If you are an avid

“Matrix” fan go see this movie. I’m just warning you that I came out

of that theater wishing like crazy that “The Matrix” had never been

made into a trilogy.

Sean: “The Matrix Revolutions” had some good fight scenes but the

plot didn’t have many good things about it. The fight scenes were

very well done and, as usual, are one of the one of the best reasons

to go see a Matrix move. Although all the actors played their parts

well, the movie could have been better if the directors had taken

more time with the ending and it had not ended it so abruptly. The

ending wasn’t very clear. Perhaps the directors wanted you to puzzle

over the ending in your car on the way home but I didn’t really like

that part much. From what I saw, the movie didn’t have much of a

reason to be rated R and if they had taken out the small amount of

violence that did justify the R then the movie probably would do

better in the box office by attracting more of the teen audience.

The fight scenes were good and the plot was OK. Teri: “The Matrix

Revolutions” wasn’t horrible. I didn’t feel the need to get up and

walk out. If my motivation to go to the movie came from my kids or my

partner, I could sit there mildly entertained until the credits

rolled. After all, Keanu Reeves is nice to look at. If special

effects spun my top, I would still be spinning. Some were

spectacular. Yet, I generally go to the movies for the story and I

had a difficult time following the script. Too sophisticated, I

suppose. A basic “Battlestar Galactica” storyline, biblical

references and images abounded culminating in a Christ-like pose by

Reeves as savior. Yet I wasn’t clear on what, exactly, he had saved

or how he had done it. “Matrix” has an R rating and it does have some

gratuitous gore, however, the language is pretty clean, the intimacy

is limited to a hug and a peck so I wouldn’t keep my teens from

viewing it.

* SEAN RUHLAND, 14, is a freshman at Huntington Beach High School,

DEREK RUHLAND, 16, is a junior at Huntington Beach High School, and

TERI SIMONIS works for the city of Huntington Beach.

‘Sylvia’ is a poor portrayal of Plath

Writer Sylvia Plath broke new ground in the 1950s and ‘60s with

poems that vividly articulated her suffering from chronic depression.

The movie “Sylvia” explores the final years of Plath’s life and her

marriage to poet Ted Hughes. Its Hollywood’s attempt to portray of

the life of a woman whose name is synonymous with artistic brilliance

and suicide. Unfortunately, the movie shies away from exploring the

mind of Syliva Plath the writer. A major problem with the movie is

that it fails to capture the pain that Plath felt during her life.

Plath’s poems are like perfectly drawn landscapes splattered with a

combination of black oil paint and the artist’s own blood. The movie

hints at this kind of darkness, but never really shows it to us. The

person we see is dysfunctional and irrational, but doesn’t exhibit

the self-loathing of someone who’s made several attempts at taking

her own life.

Likewise the movie doesn’t do an especially good job of capturing

Plath’s genius as a writer. It’s kind of amazing that anyone could

conceive of doing a movie about her without using her own written

word to help guide the audience into her inner world. Plath’s poetry

is an open window into her psyche and her longing to die. Her

semi-autobiographical novel, “The Bell Jar,” is a literary classic.

It’s a brutally honest accounting a woman’s descent into madness.

Virtually ignoring Plath’s writing is like doing a movie about Pablo

Picasso and just casually mentioning that he painted. I can’t fathom

what was going through the minds of director Christine Jeffs and

writer John Brownlow when they decided Plath’s writing wasn’t a

critical part of this story.

Gwenyth Paltrow gives one of the best performances of her career,

but she can’t overcome this movie’s problems. I’m sure she’s hoping

for an Oscar nomination for this performance, but I don’t see that

happening. It’s hard to give an award-winning performance in a movie

that misses its mark in so many ways.

Jeffs definitely seems out of his league with this script. His

melodramatic portrayal of Plath’s death as a soft focus, slow motion

suicide fantasy, is absolutely absurd. The overbearing and overly

melodramatic musical score provided by Gabriel Yared, combined with

the shots of Paltrow’s immaculate corpse, create a scene that is so

ridiculously saccharine that it’s an insult to Plath’s memory. She

worked with dark realities. Jeffs seems to be more at home with

Hollywood cliches.

“Sylvia” isn’t a dreadful movie, but it’s certainly a

disappointment. I have a hard time recommending this movie, even as a

rental. It’s not an accurate accounting of Sylvia Plath’s life and if

you’re just looking for a love story you can do much better.

* JIM ERWIN, 40, is a technical writer and computer trainer.