“The Matrix Resurrections” movie review:
Lana Wachowski must really love Danganronpa V3 since this movie feels more like that game rather than a Matrix sequel. I give it a 6/10.
So...this movie is...challenging to discuss. Because on the surface, I can just say that the movie sucked on a technical level. The fight choreography was terrible, the Matrix-ness of the franchise is missing (for example, the green gradient that the series is known for), and it doesn’t really justify its existence. By the end of the movie, I didn’t really feel like we needed a continuation, which is a shame since the trailers did a good job hyping the movie up.
But that’s not the full story, is it? No, we need to talk about the “meta-ness” of the movie, the one thing that people took away from the story. That’s why I compared Matrix 4 to Danganronpa V3; it’s not really a sequel, it’s a meta self-critique that challenges the whole idea of the franchise.
I can definitely see why the first act is so divisive. In a not-so-subtle sequence, Neo goes through a series of discussions about how to approach the next Matrix game. So, aside from the obvious meta point about having the Matrix literally be a franchise within the Matrix, the discussions that unfold focus entirely on deconstructing the series as a whole. It seems to mock the aspects that people loved about the Matrix trilogy, such as bullet time and its political commentary.
Then you have Bugs (Jessica Henwick) literally encountering a cutscene which acts as a recreation of the first scene in the original Matrix, with Trinity running from the Agents. And that’s not the only callback to the original trilogy that we get in this movie; there are clips taken right from the trilogy inserted in various scenes which are meant to draw a deliberate parallel.
Why? As Agent Morpheus (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) says, “Nothing comforts anxiety like a little nostalgia”.
Other people have made a more in-depth analysis of how nostalgia plays into the story of Resurrection. For me, I’m a bit of a mixed bag. It’s mainly because I get what Lana was trying to do. It’s a deliberate send-up to the fact that Hollywood has been taken over by the need to reboot every single famous franchise and, coupled with the fact that Warner Bros has been pushing the Wachowski sisters to make another Matrix movie, you could read the movie as Lana venting out her frustrations with the company. I mean, she even namedrops WB in the movie, the jabs are not subtle.
You can also read the meta-aspect of the movie as Lana questioning her own legacy. Unfortunately, as most people should know by now, the Matrix has inspired a toxic following where people say they have been “red-pilled” by rejecting more leftist/liberal values and taking on more right-wing views. There’s also the misogynistic angle of being “red-pilled”, namely with the infamous subreddit r/TheRedPill. It’s just extremely ironic that this was the legacy of the Matrix movies, especially when you remember that the Matix movies are left-leaning and were meant to be an allegory for the trans community.
So, I don’t really mind the meta commentary. Even though it’s in your face and blatantly told to you, it’s an interesting idea that really forces the audience to think about what they’re consuming. My issue with this is that although the idea seems interesting, I don’t think the execution was there.
I feel that’s a common criticism when it comes to the Wachowskis. They’re obviously really creative writers and have a ton of great ideas. But, just like with Reloaded and Revolutions, the execution of those ideas was not the greatest. Specifically for Resurrection, I felt like I was watching a series of interesting ideas that didn’t really come together as a whole.
For example, I like the idea of humans and machines working together. I like the idea that the Matrix is using itself within the simulation as a way to maintain control over Neo and Trinity (the Matrix being a franchise within the Matrix). I like the idea of Agent Morpheus being a combination of Neo’s memories of Morpheus and Agent Smith, which goes back to the theme of humans and machines joining forces. I like the idea that this movie was primarily a Neo-Trinity love story rather than trying to save the world. I even like the idea of Agent Smith sort of becoming this anti-hero/anti-villain who will work with Neo if their interests are aligned.
But just because those ideas are good doesn’t mean they compensate for the flaws of the movie. At times, it felt like I was watching a first draft of the script since a lot of concepts felt half-baked. For example, the Analyst explains that by making it so that Neo and Trinity will always meet but never come in contact with each other, that leads to more power being produced for the machines. Apparently, Neo and Trinity can exert power by just being around each other.
Since when did Neo and Trinity turn into Cloak & Dagger? There is no basis for this sudden change in how the machines generate power, especially when you remember that machines harvest humans for their body heat and electricity. You’d think we’d get a solid explanation behind this new development but instead, all we get is the Analyst talking about hope and despair (Danganronpa again?) Just accept that this is the story and move on.
Also, Trinity is now part-One. Why? Just accept it, move on. And that’s the pattern for a great deal of the movie. This is why it feels like Resurrection was a first draft, a lot of the ideas feel like they weren’t fully realized or thought through. Which makes the whole meta-aspect a little ironic since even though the movie criticizes reboots for being soulless and uncreative, Resurrections doesn’t change the wheel either. Instead, it just pushes forward ideas that seem intriguing, but doesn’t really do anything with them.
Then there are the other problems plaguing this movie. Dialogue was clunky and constantly broke the “show, don’t tell” rule. Bugs’ crew and the Io characters were extremely forgettable (I remember there was a Neo stan and a Trinity stan, that’s about it). For the new characters that I did remember, they were mostly under-written and bland. Action scenes were badly choreographed, which is jarring since this is a franchise known for good action.
And in the end, I didn’t really feel moved by the movie. It was just an underwhelming affair, mainly because it didn’t feel like the movie was needed and that the people making it were just phoning it in. Or perhaps Lana was trying her hardest, but she needed help in fully realizing her ideas. I’m leaning on the second possibility since this movie was missing Yuen Woo-Ping, Lilly Wachowski, Bill Pope, Laurence Fishburne, and Hugo Weaving. Trust me when I say that you can feel the absence of those people in this movie.
Then there’s the third possibility; Lana made this movie to vent out her frustrations against Warner Bros and the red pill movement. That’s why the “cool” aspects of the Matrix are nonexistent in Resurrection, a sort of cinematic ‘fuck you’. If that’s the case, then Lana succeeded; she made an intentionally underwhelming movie/Matrix sequel meant to frustrate audiences. Well, I’m pretty underwhelmed, so...job well done?
Side note: Before anyone brings it up, I don’t care if this movie was meant to be a parody of the original trilogy. You can’t just use the fact that movie is self-referential as carte blanche to do whatever you want. Even movies that are self-aware need to follow the basics of telling a good story
