We finally got around to watching the Matrix Reloaded last night. It’s funny. Before Seb was born (right around the time the movie was released), we were very excited to see it. We had nearly worn out our copy of The Matrix. But then the boy was born and at least I suddenly didn’t care about the movie. I had read a lot of the stuff people had written about it — about how deep it was, how it further twisted our perceptions of how things were in the world of the movie. And to top it off, the action scenes were amazing. So the DVD was released last week, and we purchased it, and we watched it last night. So what did I think? Well……(beware of spoilers)

It was an entertaining movie. I enjoyed watching it. I didn’t fall asleep (which, at 9:00pm on a Monday night, is a ringing endorsement). But….it wasn’t as good as the first movie. Why? Well, the Wachowski set the bar pretty high with the first movie. Everything in that movie had a reason to be there. If you’ve watched the companion DVD to The Matrix, you learned that nearly every frame of the movie was carefully designed. Nothing was accidental. The dialog was smart (well, except when Keanu was talking), but not too smart. It wanted to play with our perceptions of reality (in the vain of the modern philosphers like Berkeley, Spinoza, and Leibnitz, and the post-modern Baudrillard, whose Simulacra & Simulation became a bible of sorts for the directors and the actors). And the action sequences were groundbreaking, but still “real.” It was the actors doing most of the dirty work, and we appreciated that.

But The Matrix Reloaded lost some of that intellectual and directorial purity. It started for me with the first scenes in Zion, specifically the Stomp-esque party. I have trouble thinking the Wachowski brothers thought that this scene was important to the progress of the themes of the movies. It’s easier to imagine a few studio execs pulling the brothers aside on day, saying “You know, this is great stuff, but maybe it’s too heady? We need some sweaty, half-naked bodies grinding to some electronic music. That’ll keep the kids more interested.” I assume it’s purpose was to show that humans are still human, and we can still RAWK! even when the hounds of hell are descending upon us.

That said, I thought the scenes in Zion were well done. The scene with the counselor and Neo in the engineering room was thought-provoking, but not in the heavy-handed way that other scenes suffer from. The concept of the symbiotic relationship between human and machine will no doubt be further pursued in Revolutions, and this scene was a good start.

I hope the brothers have big plans for Agent Smith in Revolutions, because I didn’t think his presence did much for this movie. The “100 Smiths” fighting scene was cool for about 30 seconds. Then it just got silly. At first, we both thought the CG animations were sorta bad, but then I thought that maybe they were supposed to be that way. With the brother’s interest in Anime (and the Animatrix), maybe it was supposed to look animated. The same goes for the highway chase scene.

While we’re here, let me talk about the action scenes a bit. Best scene? The fight between Neo and the Oracle’s companion. Very artisitc. A dance, almost. Worst scene? Humm. Either the “100 Smiths” fight, or the highway scene. I think the “100 Smiths” scene wins, but the highway scene is a close second. It was just too long. The first minutes were good, because there was still a lot of live action happening, but by the end, it had degraded to CG, so it wasn’t so groundbreaking anymore.

So what’s the philosophy of this movie? Well, it begins with the discussion about free will/determinism between Neo and the Oracle. But, this discussion dovetails nicely with the whole “what is real” conundrum. Did Neo really make the choice to accept his responsibility of being the One? Or did choices make before he was even aware of the Matrix make him the One? Scratches head. It’s vaguely akin to the Christian theological arguments about free will vs. predestination (and, by the way, I’m not in any way implying that the movie is dealing with this theological dilemma). Personally, I’m a believer in predestination, but because that concept is so beyond my comprehension, I live my live day to day making decisions. I don’t sit around before lunch thinking “I wonder what God planned for me to eat today?” I decide to go and get a sandwich, or I decide to eat the burrito I made last night. Simple, right?

Neo rightly identifies this logical/philosophical dilemma (during his discussion with the Architect), and his response is to simply act. At that point, he can’t be burdened with this existential dilemma, and he chooses to act. He saves Trinity, and he shoulders the responsibility for saving Zion. In fact, Neo identifies the same philosophical dilemma that Ludwig Wittgenstein does — philosophy becomes mired in the discussion of unproveable facts. Early in his life, Wittgenstein’s solution was simply: “Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must silent.” But Wittgenstein had a revelation later in his life. We can talk about the things that we know — the facts of the world. Neo comes to the same conclusion — it doesn’t matter what is real, and it doesn’t matter what fate dictates — he knows he can save Trinity, and all of Zion, so that’s what he does.

Whoa! That was a bit much. I started to sound like the architect there. I thought that scene sounded like a bad philosophy paper. I don’t doubt that there are important gems in there, but it was just too much. And as I said, Neo’s response it quite simple. He’s got no time anymore for philosophical discussions — he’s got people to save. That scene mirrors Neo’s moment of existential decision in the first movie — in the first movie, he doesn’t necessarily believe he’s the One, but he’s compelled to leave the philosophy behind and simply act. The same thing happens. The Architect tells him it’s actually quite cut and dry, but Neo, almost acting as if he doesn’t know any better, simply does what he has to.

Sidenote: I thought the character of the Keymaker was a nice touch. And his philosophical ramblings are just ambivalent enough to keep us guessing (“I doing this because I’m supposed to be doing this”) — is Neo the One, or is the Architect telling the truth — will this played out over and over again?

That’s enough for now, methinks. I’ve still got write about the whole Gregg Easterbrook fiasco.

Posted on 21 October 2003