..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

May 12, 2003

Escaping The Media Matrix

by David Poland
______________________

I first saw The Matrix Reloaded 12 days ago. My first reaction was an unmitigated appreciation of the action movie elements and a slight discomfort by the huge load of new ideas loaded into the series. A second viewing changed that second part of my opinion significantly, as the waves of exposition, required to take the series from a contained, stand-alone film, settled in and no longer stuck out as they demanded consideration while a new action scene was taking place.

Anyone interested in understanding the evolution of stand-alone movie to a trilogy, which is how The Matrix was designed (even if The Wachowskis dreamt of a trilogy) can understand. In retrospect, many embrace The Empire Strikes Back as the best of the Star Wars series. But not when it was released. It was darker, weirder and less easily digested.

I would argue that for an adult, Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom is the richest of that series of films. But it was shredded critically for being too adult and too edgy, to the insane degree that Spielberg actually apologized for the film. Of course, I also feel that the best of the Batman movies is Batman Returns, with hyper-unreal, but richly developed characters in Catwoman and Penquin. Nonetheless…

I have sat on my review of The Matrix Reloaded because I agreed to do so. Anonymous reviews have come up on other websites, most notably Ain't It Cool News. I held fire. Time Magazine ran a childishly reactionary and detailed "feature" on the film that also quoted people from the same exhibitor's screening that the first AICN review had attended. I held fire. The trades reviewed the film. I held fire.

I commented publicly, wanting to be open about my intentions, that I would write my Reloaded review in today's Hot Button. I was asked to hold fire once again. I did.

Over the weekend, Newsweek, Time and The New Yorker all kicked in with their reviews. Newsweek was mixed positive. The others were unmitigated pans. The New Yorker went so far as to put "What Is Wrong With The Matrix?" on their cover flap.

Both the Richard Schickel review in Time and the Adam Gopnick reviews miss the film by a mile. Schickel at least has the decency to admit that he may have aged out of an interest in the Matrix goings on. Gopnick spends thousands of words trying to prove that he is much smarter than those Wachowski guys. He is an intellectual and they are, by his reading, two guys who lost their way with a Philosophy 101 reading list. How do I say this gently… uh, fuck him!!!

And here I sit, still holding my review.

Does all of this add up to a hill of beans in this crazy world? I guess not. The movie will do huge business. A discussion of the R rating's effect on box office will supercede any discussion over whether the critical splaying of this film before release had any effect. Some will obsess to the positive. Others to the negative.

But this is what is killing me… all of this cold water has chilled my passion as well. I have seen the movie multiple times. I know the film fairly well. And I believe in it. The proviso that the film feels more comfortable the second time around remains. But my passion for it is intense and I am looking forward to see how the guys bring it all together… much as I feel about Lord of the Rings, the middle film, and Return of the King.

The difference is that Return of the King has an old fashioned feel that does not put off older viewers, while somehow, any sense that one is confused while watching a Matrix film is somehow a comment on whether you "get" the edge. These films are very, very similar in their ideas and effects magic. But Return of the King could well win the Oscar this year and The Matrix series stands no chance of even being nominated.

But my point was that I no longer am enthusiastic about writing about The Matrix Reloaded. I don't want to be a writer - amongst many - in the role of explaining why all those "mainstream" journalists were wrong. I've been here before. And it is no fun.

As I discussed many times during the Oscar campaigns, especially as regarded Adaptation, as soon as you are in the role of changing someone's perception, you are no longer having a balanced conversation. You become the school teacher, making corrections. And people resist like crazy. Film critics resist like crazy. In order to engage people in a balanced way, you need to get a foothold before opinion sets in media concrete.

And now, Warner's convoluted policies about who can and cannot write about their most precious of movies - which not surprising, but unpredictably, has been more negative than positive - has left me cold. Ice cold.

Another viewing of the film - unlikely this week - would bring me right out of this, the way that a good laugh can break the spell of a funk. I will have to find another way to recover. After all, there is no review.