The Matrix series changed film forever. Everything from the tweaking of slow-motion action shots into what’s now known as bullet time to fight choreography to viral marketing can all be traced back to the series in some way. Yes, the series is somewhat an example of diminishing returns as each subsequent entry was worse than the previous one, but it still sits in a good place among 21st-century sci-fi action films.
Given the ending of the franchise’s third film, The Matrix Revolutions, it was easy to assume there wasn’t a need for a fourth film. Yet, it appears two decades of Warner Bros. begging the Wachowskis (the duo behind the other Matrix films) for another Matrix film paid off, and The Matrix Resurrections is upon us.
The Matrix Resurrections picks up 60 years after The Matrix Revolutions and finds Thomas Anderson needing to learn if his current seemingly normal life is reality or a mental construct. Is there a reason the premise is similar to the first film? Maybe, but here’s the bigger question - was a resurrection necessary for Neo and company?
Nostalgia is the name of the game for The Matrix Resurrections for better and worse. Keanu Reeves reprises his roles as Thomas Anderson/Neo, and he does so as an actor who’s grown by leaps and bounds since his last turn in those roles. In 2003, Reeves nailed the physical aspects of the part but still didn’t take Neo beyond one serious note. In Resurrections, Reeves has evolved into a guy who can play Neo/Thomas in a serious fashion but has a much better handle on using wit and emotions to humanize the characters and make them more complete.
In addition to his return, Carrie-Anne Moss leads a plethora of connections to the past Matrix films that connect the older stories to this one and adequately move the saga forward. Said connections can’t be mentioned without spoiling the film, but those who have beyond a working knowledge of the Matrix universe will find it easier to follow and enjoy Resurrections.
The downside to Resurrections going so deep into its past is the overdependence on it. With three movies preceding this one and the time between, it makes sense to jog the audience’s memory about what’s already taken place and show how it ties to now. However, this presents a problem for Resurrections because other aspects of the film suffered due to that narrow focus.
The victims of this misstep are the visual effects and cinematography. While the complex but intriguing plot helped separate the Matrix films from the pack, the visual effects and cinematography put it in a completely different class of cinema.
Lana Wachowski, who’s taking the helm solo this time, basically uses the same shots and effects used in the earlier films two decades ago. There are no moments on par with what knocked our socks off with the earlier films, and it’s the stuff other movies like the Kingsman films and the Marvel Cinematic Universe borrowed from and eventually did better.
It could have been a move to get the audience to focus more on the human parts of the story or the result of not wanting to introduce anything new. One thing is certain: the move ultimately made Resurrections a less entertaining watch than several films in the genre that the franchise inspired.
Considering how much ground the Matrix trilogy broke, The Matrix Resurrections should have been another step forward for the sci-fi-action genre and the series itself. Instead, The Matrix Resurrections is a work that gives some semblance of continuity through nostalgia but mostly shows how much The Matrix’s students have surpassed the teacher.
From a story standpoint, The Matrix Resurrections works because of the nostalgic ties and a story that adapts well to our current space. Overall, it falls incredibly short because having no advances in cinematography or visual effects removes the wow factor that made The Matrix series something casual moviegoers, geeks, and cinephiles could all enjoy. Sans that spark, The Matrix Resurrections is another forced sequel that was better left undone and is even better unwatched.
Comments