The Matrix

Can't believe I'm, erm, resurrecting this thread. Warning, this post is gonna be a long one.

Anyways, the reason I've been thinking back to how much the last film I felt disappointed was due to me reflecting on it now having seen arguably the best film of the year that surprisingly shares similarities to The Matrix Resurrections, that being Top Gun: Maverick. Looking at the two films, it's interesting how much shared DNA they have.

Both are legacy sequels to long dormant series, are basically the original creators (Lana Wachowski and Tom Cruise) going back to look at and examine the legacy of the original, take new looks at what place the older characters have when compared to the new generation, have the past trauma inform a lot of what the hero goes through, use new techniques in the filming of it (be it natural lighting or actual riding in the jets), and use meta-commentary to reflect on the very nature of these sorts of films (be it all of the blatant fourth-wall leaning moments in Resurrections, or the many remarks given to Maverick about his time being almost up in TGM).

Yet Matrix Resurrections ended up being a box-office failure and garnered mediocre reviews, while Top Gun Maverick is currently enjoying record breaking box-office numbers and critical acclaim. One is considered unnecessary and a huge letdown, and the other is hailed as arguably the new blueprint for how a legacy sequel should be done. Why is that, despite them both having arguably the same goal in mind?

Honestly, I think it comes down to the execution. With Matrix Resurrections, Lana got too caught up in it being a personal project with a very specific message she wanted to get across. It's blatantly obvious that this is both her airing her grievances about the constant demands for her to make another sequel, and her working through her grief at losing people close to her. Whether it's all the moments of Biting-the-Hand Humor during the first act, the decision to resurrect Neo and Trinity, Bug's message to the former about how his legend was told to her and others, and the increased focus on the love story between the two of them, her intentions are very clear.

Top Gun Maverick does something similar. It's also very clear that Cruise viewed it as a personal work as well, made especially obvious by his thank you message to the audience at the beginning. From the whole training camp he designed the actors to go through, his insistence that it be released in cinemas to the point of delaying it multiple times, and even the fact that he went out of his way to get Val Kilmer back in spite of his illnesses. And like Lana, Cruise also inserted his own thoughts about what the studios and the like think of these sorts of sequels and how the old characters are treated (just look at the speech Ed Harris's character gives in the beginning).

But it's here that the reason behind why one failed and the other succeeded become clear.

In Matrix Resurrections, Lana is so caught up in showcasing her feelings and the themes she wants to communicate that she neglects nearly every single area that counts. Whether its the much tamer action, Neo not being nearly as pro-active as he once was, and ultimately repeating many of the same beats as the originals but not doing anything more creative with them, TMR simply fails to really justify why it needed to be made in the first place. In fact, it actually repeats a lot of the failings of the previous sequels, rather than fixing them, such as the long dialogue sequences and dodgy CGI.

Yes, that may have been the point (the brainstorming focus group scene comes to mind), but this doesn't make it any less tedious to watch. And the things that are added either don't add much (the Analyst's time stop being used just for more dialogue) or make the film look ironically cheaper (the natural lighting being one of the main culprits). It certainly doesn't help that Neo isn't really treated with as much dignity as he should. The most he gets to do as The One is force-push, and he doesn't even get to fly until after Trinity does. In putting so much focus on the themes and meta-commentary, the film forgets everything else. It's no wonder why so many viewers have come away not liking it, and it resulting in a $100,000,000 box-office loss as a result. Heck, it may have actually killed people's interest in the franchise for good, which while that may have been Lana's intent as to torch the series and run for it, is still disappointing, given how rich the world of the Matrix series is.

Now compare this to Top Gun Maverick. While it too includes similar themes and messages, it never lets them overtake the main narrative and reasons as to why people came to see it in the first place. That being, not to have some sort of overt meta-commentary on the nature of the film's existence, but to come away with a satisfying sequel that lives up to and honors the original. And in this regard, TGM pulls this off masterfully.

Not content with just repeating action and narrative beats, it one-ups the originals thanks to going above and beyond with real stunts (they really did train to fly in the backseat of the F/A-18 Super Hornets), fixes complaints people had with the original (even down to the smallest things like them actually using their cannons this time), and everything that is added to the film actually justifies its existence as a legacy sequel, given that it, rather than just repeat the beats of the original purely to make a "meta-commentary", instead builds upon what was set-up in the first film, such as Maverick's guilt over Goose's death and his friendship with Iceman.

That, and it also treats the main hero with more dignity. While it isn't afraid to question Maverick's place in the present day, it ultimately reaffirms why he is still a beloved hero. He gets to show why he still has it, from his 2:15 minute test run, to his sacrifice for Rooster during the Coffin Corner sequence, he is not pushed aside just to make some sort of "point". Whereas Neo is made to more or less react to everything with little agency until the end, Maverick is made more pro-active instead.

As a result, TGM end up being a much more satisfying legacy sequel than TMR. Yes, all of the above mentioned may have been the point Lana was trying to communicate, but it just doesn't translate well in practice, especially when combined with the poor execution. Whereas Cruise knew exactly how to treat the legacy of the original without being heavy-handed, and didn't sacrifice anything just to prove a "point". And unlike how TMR destroyed many people's interest in that series, more people have become fans of the Top Gun series to the point that ideas and the demand for more sequels are forming in the minds of many who saw it.

Being a huge fan of the original Matrix and not that much of a fan of the original Top Gun, it's both ironic and disheartening that it turned out this way, for me that is. Lana really could've taken a few notes from how Cruise and Joseph Kosinski approached making the sequel to Top Gun for when she made Matrix Resurrections. She could still have her meta-commentary and all that, but she should've still done what the latter two filmmakers did; that being, one-up the original while honoring it, treat the hero with more respect, and still deliver a satisfying experience beyond just the personal manner.

That is, at least in my eyes, why one film is at a mere 63% RT score, 5.7 IMDB rating and only grossed 157.3 million USD on a 190 million USD budget, while the other is sitting at a mighty 96% RT score, 8.5 IMDB rating, and has made 1.424 billion USD on a 170 million USD budget. While Matrix Resurrections crashed and burned, Top Gun Maverick soared.

Again though, that's just my thoughts. What say you guys?

Edited by LDragon2 on Sep 1st 2022 at 4:43:06 AM

I think something should be kept in mind is that The Matrix had two sequels before this film while Top Gun had none. To that extent I understand why Lilly and Lana were frustrated at being urged to make more Matrix films, because they had done everything they wanted to do in the series. Top Gun didn’t have a sequel, so the crew were still able to view the setting with a fresh eye instead of something they had already sunk years of their lives in. Hence why Resurrections has a more cynical attitude at first about returning. Or Neo being on the backfoot in this film because he already spent two films as a Physical God.

Edited by Tuckerscreator on Sep 1st 2022 at 4:50:44 AM

Even so, Lilly actually gave her blessing to her sister and the others to come up with something even better than what came before, and Lana said she had revived interest in it as it helped her cope with the grief of losing loved ones.

While not to the same degree, Tom Cruise also only went back to Top Gun when he felt that technology had advanced enough to do justice to the series, and also only after he felt that the story was strong enough to justify it.

And even though Neo was a Physical God in the past two films, that still doesn't mean they couldn't have done more creative things with his status as The One, nor have him still be as pro-active as he once was, like how Maverick was portrayed in TGM.

Edited by LDragon2 on Sep 1st 2022 at 4:53:56 AM

Honestly, Resurrections' cynicism about being a forced sequel was a big draw for me: the first act is probably my favorite part of the film aside from the intensely unnecessary reminders of the original, better one. But then characters start going on and on about various barely connected subplots and there is so much world-building that has nothing to do with the core story. Keanu Reeves' lackluster performance only makes it worse.

I'm one of the people who really liked the Matrix trilogy and did my best to fully understand its themes (well, except the trans allegory, which is incredibly easy to overlook if you aren't in tune with it). The philosophical message about choice is extremely deep, although there's enough navel gazing to start an entire industry.

Rather than add to that, Resurrections wallows in its messages and refuses to give them room to breathe, and it is so obviously a protest film by a director who had no interest in the project that I feel like I should have honored her wishes by skipping it.

Top Gun: Maverick has a number of similarities with Resurrections in that it too is a distant sequel capitalizing on nostalgia for the original with an aging star. The main difference is that the latter is putting on an air of depth while being almost totally insubstantial beneath the surface, the former tells its audience up front that it's dumb, inconsequential fun so we know what to expect.

Another difference is that, unlike Reeves, Cruise is definitely not phoning it in for Maverick. He's putting the effort in and it shows. I'm not exactly his biggest fan, but he manages to carry the emotional weight of the movie surprisingly well.

I mean, Keanu has never been the most expressive actor to begin with.

I wouldn’t say that Reeves was phoning it in. If anything, Resurrections was arguably his best performance in the whole series. Even among those who liked the prior films it was often accepted that Neo and Trinity had as much personality as cardboard. This film puts their Coffee Shop AU Fic romance front and center, and their performances have definitely grown to fill the space. I felt like I was finally seeing the leads the way Lana intended all along.

I haven't seen Maverick so I can't comment in specific, but I can say that the original Top Gun is a simultaneously heartless and mindless bubblegum piece of military propaganda largely lifted up by a good soundtrack, and I have seen no particular indication the sequel is any different (on the contrary, it's been praised to high heaven for repeating the bubblegum stupidity of the original).

Even having a fair bit of criticism towards Resurrections, I can't imagine I'd possibly respect another piece of masturbatory 80's nostalgia laced with jingoism than it. I wouldn't even be inclined to make a comparison.

I get that, and I get that being emotionally numb is part of his character arc, but it's a little too effective if that's the intent. He is by far the least interesting character in a movie of which he's allegedly the protagonist.

Again, I'm going to respectfully disagree. There is such a thing as playing emotional numbness too well. His scenes with Carrie Ann Moss are good, I'll admit, and if the movie had remembered that it was about a love story instead of all the other stuff that got piled into it, I wouldn't have minded so much.

Neo makes it perfectly clear that he couldn't give a shit about all the messianic baggage everyone is putting onto him, but all the other characters act like they're in a completely different story: a heroic tale of resistance against... something.

Maybe that's the point, but it didn't sync for me. Compare the recent film Bullet Train, which has a similarly disaffected protagonist in a world where everyone else is intense to the point of parody, but at least it allows that protagonist to be entertaining to watch.

Edit: Both films are monumentally insubstantial, but Resurrections really wants you to think it's deep and meaningful. Maverick therefore wins that contest by being honest about its intentions.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 1st 2022 at 8:22:10 AM

Honestly, I didn't get the feeling the Maverick was trying to be some sort of jingoistic propaganda film, at least not to the degree you are fearing. It's simply wanting to tell an exciting and engaging action film that involves the Navy and cool jets, and the focus is instead on the characters of Maverick and Rooster rather than any sort of political spiel.

So you don't have to worry about that.

Gotta agree with Tuckers here… I may not have been as invested in the plot as with previous films (it’s admittedly very messy), but I found Neo and Trinity a lot more relatable as characters, and Keanu’s performance was subdued, sure, but you could still feel how lost Neo was.

It didn’t come off to me like, say, Bruce Willis sleepwalking through every movie in the last decade or so.

Edited by Lyendith on Sep 1st 2022 at 2:28:32 PM

Resurrections isn't about how cool it is that the US air force bombs foreign nations with impunity so I'm afraid it'd be very hard for me to back Maverick over it.

For the record, I don't actually have a problem with Keanu Reeves' portrayal of Neo in any of the films. It's a very stoic performance economic in expressions (as Keanu does) but I feel like he gets the zen tranquility of the character fairly well across. I don't think Reeves phones in any performance I've seen of his, either, he just seems to have a hit-or-miss style.

Edited by Gaon on Sep 1st 2022 at 5:26:27 AM

Worth noting is that Willis’s family recently revealed he was diagnosed with aphasia, rather than deliberately phoning it in like most people had assumed.

Regardless of how the films play out in terms of meaning, I can say that, with all that I've outlines, that Maverick is way better at what it set out to do than Resurrections.

On the note of acting, yeah the performances of Reeves and Cruise do reflect the overall feel of the films and what exactly the overall goal and result of them were. While the former didn't too terribly, he definitely didn't seem as invested or passionate as the latter. I mean, just compare all of Neo's scenes to the one with Maverick and Iceman here.

Oh… I didn’t know that. I apologize.

Looking further into the two films again, apparently, Lana didn't want to do another kung-fu scene or anything like that because so many other people had already done it.

To me, that doesn't really excuse why the fight scenes felt so by-the-numbers. This is a series that prides itself on having well-choreographed fight scenes utilizing long, steady takes. Instead, Resurrections using rather tame choreography alongside quick cuts and editing, which is a huge step back from what is expected. It's obvious that Yuen Woo Ping was not involved in the action this time around, and the film suffers as a result.

Yes, I know that, again, this may have been the point, given how much Lana wanted to focus on the message this time around but it doesn't make the film any less underwhelming. She could've gone above and beyond, yet she didn't.

Again, compare that to Top Gun Maverick. Tom Cruise didn't just want to do the original's action scenes over again, like Lana. But instead of downgrading them, he and the rest of the film crew decided to go above and beyond, setting up an entire training regime to allow the case to actually perform in the jets this time around, instead of defaulting to green screen. The result is a film that is far more engaging to watch, and actually feels like an upgrade over the original.

TMR downgrades while TGM levels up.

I reiterate, though, if you’re looking for the Matrix movie that was “the first done above and beyond”, it was already made and it’s The Matrix Reloaded. Resurrections was experimental because it is the fourth film, not the second. Perhaps one day Tom Cruise will eventually make Top Gun 4 and by then he’ll will be bored enough he’ll experiment with… I dunno, turning himself literally into a plane.

I'd argue against Reloaded being the "first film gone above and beyond" due to it relying much more on themes of storytelling and having much more of a focus on CGI compared to the first.

Also, when you are making a long belated follow-up, going for a more experimental route doesn't really make for a wise choice, especially when you have people coming in wondering why this series is only now getting a sequel. You have to justify bringing them back for more, which TMR fails to do compared to TGM.

Yes, I get that that may have been the point Lana was trying to make, but she doesn't elevate the film beyond what she is criticizing. And heck, for all the attempts at being "arty and meaningful", it is TGM that has ended up with the award buzz.

In many ways resurrection can be confusing as hell.

Like at first I will said is perfect meta comentary and I will said it also allow to conect to Neo better than any other film, specially his talking with trinity feel....human, more human than ever before and you can get this two actually have feeling for one another. Their age actually help here because both have this sense of "former lovers who break up but clearly feel something".

But some element feel there like Smith and is weird because the story seen to close any argument as not trinity and Neo have power and plan to take over matrix and make it better, but before that all the elements actually feel pretty good for continuing future sequels.

I will said another reason is that Top gun act like another sequels, there is this tendecy on this "sequels 30 years later" to do things because the last one happen long time ago while Top gun just....kinda did the same but better.

It's not difficult to see why 'genuine passion project' and 'doing this because you're twisting my arm and are going to do it with or without me' lead to different results here. I'm sure Lana did their best but the genesises of the films are from very different places.

"Rather than add to that, Resurrections wallows in its messages and refuses to give them room to breathe, and it is so obviously a protest film by a director who had no interest in the project that I feel like I should have honored her wishes by skipping it.

"

I feel is the oposite, I feel Lana just straight out said all that was bullshit and focus on the idea of Matrix as love story, the whole philosophical mumbo jumbo get throw out of a window right away.

I wanted a combination of philosophical navel-gazing with high-powered kung-fu fights, because that's what The Matrix is. I respect a creator's right to tell the story they want, of course. That doesn't stop me from feeling like Resurrections is targeting a completely different audience than the first three.

Reposting this quote by Nathan Rabin:

Also this from Film Crit Hulk:

Perhaps the “old” Matrix seems more appealing because many people were able to project themselves on it while this film is very specifically about Lana herself. But like it or not, the Wachowskis have always been filmmakers who sought to do what they want to do and not chase what they think the fanbase wants. And that I think is far more truthful to what The Matrix “is” than flashy fights. It’s always been a story about being true to yourself. This is the creators actually living it.

Edited by Tuckerscreator on Sep 2nd 2022 at 7:54:15 AM

I get all of that. But then why does Resurrections have so much world-building and so many characters with their own stories and agendas if Neo clearly doesn't care about any of it? It's trying to establish this immense universe with piles of sequel and tie-in material, in which humans and machines are trying to coexist while different factions of the machines are fighting each other, and in the middle is a protagonist who just wants to reunite with his love.

Maybe this is an intentional subversion. If so, well played, because the movie kept me fooled nearly all the way to the end. (Edit: Not fooled, exactly. I saw what was being attempted and held out hope that it would turn out to be something different.)

Well, the obvious trans allegory didn't. I got that loud and clear, and I'm fine with it — I get that the "bots" are metaphorically the millions of normal people who will tear down nonconformity because they're programmed to by culture. I get that I'm not qualified to opine on how anyone in that community should feel. As I said, the first act of the movie is great in highlighting how our culture causes people to feel isolated and disconnected.

But why is Smith there? Why is the Merovingian there? Is there any actual danger to the humans, and if not, why is everyone freaking out about it? The new status quo seems to be getting along fine without Neo and Trinity, yet both the machines and humans worship him with a fervor that seems to evoke real-world fandom. Again, if that's what they're going for, cool, but it fell flat for me because the film plays it so straight.

The paper-thin justification is that The Analyst is using the angst that Neo and Trinity feel to generate vast amounts of power, but come on. That's even more ludicrous than the original idea of humans-as-batteries. Although it is kind of funny in a way that I hope was unintentional. If we can harness the energy of nonconformist angst, we can power the whole world. Nice one.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 2nd 2022 at 12:53:49 PM

As a cisgender man I didn't feel non-represented by Resurrections at all. In fact, I wouldn't be able to guess it was made by a trans director if I hadn't had the knowledge beforehand. While I can definetely see the metaphors and satire, I personally think people have focused way too much on allegories and behind-the-scenes problems rather than the story itself and the merits and problems it has.

Edited by good-morning on Nov 5th 2022 at 3:50:58 PM

Certainly I did not mean to give the impression, and I hope nobody else did either, that Resurrections is exclusively messaged at trans people. The idea of being your true self in the face of societal disapproval is universal. However, there are some very specific scenes that are keyed for trans audiences, particularly the deadnaming ones.