Matrix Resurrections

[Björn Benckert]

Likely this went IPP2 to ACES and was graded in HDR and then converted to REC709 all in a rush, all with shots that where half done and tossed out from the post pipeline at a time where nobody outside of the marketing team wanted to call them done. And yes that is usaually the normal procedure for VFX heavy films and their trailers.

And likely the material went a few different ways, me guessing. IPP2 to ACES and/or Linear for VFX then graded in HDR then later converted down to REC 709 or something like it.

So Christoffer, I think to blame IPP2 or red color science for the look is likely not right as the chance that material was only dealt with within IPP2 is very slim.

But yes, I assume there will be more than a few "how it was done videos" to come on this film so time will tell.

 

[rand thompson]

Bjorn,

I think one of a couple things happened.

CREATIVE

1) The way the Matrix Trailer looks is intregal to the story that will be told in this movie.

TECHNICAL

I don't know if this was graded in Davinci Resolve or not, however if it was graded in Davinci Resolve here are a few technical things " I " believe could have contributed to this.

2) I believe they would have used an ACES HDR-Dolby Digital workflow to Master this instead of IPP2 .They might have not tried to fully Tone-Map the original ACES HDR master.

3) They simply went with the Automatic L1 100nit Trim in Davinci Resolve which is automatically included along with the HDR metadata master from whatever HDR nit brightness they were mastering from. They didn't use Trim tools available with L2 Metadata( Dolby Vision 2.x) or L8 Metadata which has more trim adjustment tools than L2 Metadata( Dolby Vision 4.0 ) that would have allowed them to further adjust the 100nit trim pass.

Dolby Digital 4.0 Trim Tools greyed out because I don't have a L8 Metadata License. You can see all of the additional parameters that could be corrected with both the Primary and Secondary Trim tools for the 100nit or lower HDR nit value trim pass.

100nit Preview

HDR GRADE-Better Gamut Mapping

Final Color Grade

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Likely this went IPP2 to ACES and was graded in HDR and then converted to REC709 all in a rush, all with shots that where half done and tossed out from the post pipeline at a time where nobody outside of the marketing team wanted to call them done. And yes that is usaually the normal procedure for VFX heavy films and their trailers.

And likely the material went a few different ways, me guessing. IPP2 to ACES and/or Linear for VFX then graded in HDR then later converted down to REC 709 or something like it.

So Christoffer, I think to blame IPP2 or red color science for the look is likely not right as the chance that material was only dealt with within IPP2 is very slim.

But yes, I assume there will be more than a few "how it was done videos" to come on this film so time will tell.

You're probably right, but ACES is also not really "there yet", at least not from my own tests. Especially when it comes to out of gamut stuff, like tail lights and stuff can sometimes go total bonkers. Not sure it's been done in a rush though. This close to release there probably has to be some things locked down. I think it's more likely they've done a P3 grade for the trailer, then converted from that. The thing is though that many color behaviors in this trailer act very much like oversaturated IPP2 transforms do. But at the same time, ACES doesn't really remove the basic look of Red sensors, so unchecked you'll be back in similar behavior as IPP2, but not as intense as it is with IPP2. But since this is pushed in saturation, it may be that those behaviors creep back more visibly.

Another factor that I realized is that Warner's decision to release major cinema releases on streaming at the same time as cinema might have put pressure on finishing a HDR master of the film earlier than intended. So instead of focusing on just the P3 release first, they need mastering for both P3 and 4K HDR plus standard REC709. However, I think ACES is the most accurate route due to all the VFX work. But it's still possible IPP2 was used since it can be used in a similar workflow for VFX. I've done this with heavy VFX stuff, using my own transfer as the standard for everyone involved as a standardized output. The key things that I note are the behavior of warm and magenta tones, bleed of tungsten colors with odd greenish tints, out of gamut magenta, intense neon pink in skin etc. Those are very common in IPP2 and are more visible with saturation pushed high.

Outside of this though, hopefully, ACES will reach a level that addresses some of the drawbacks, especially out of gamut stuff. I decided to go full ACES for everything I do some time ago, but quickly ran into stuff that could only be fixed by breaking the workflow chain, so now I use my own transfer instead.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

and they worked tirelessly to give the filmmakers the precise images they wanted to see. There's a disturbing trend these days of crazy, obsessed, toxic fans who believe they know more than the actual filmmakers.

With the greatest respect, I completely disagree with you.

The fans have every right to say whatever they want about the stories they are told. The producers don't have to say 'yes' to anything, naturally. But if you think that expressing disapproval is rude, well, too bad. The fans are what makes movies, at the end of the day. If you don't listen to them, you get train wrecks like the disintegration of mainstream comics, which is slowly being replaced by Manga and independent creators, year over year.

I honestly don't give a toss how hard anyone works at anything. If it's good, may gold be showered upon you. If it isn't, well, it's not my problem, but I wish you well anyway. Everyone has the right to aim for success. I look forward to seeing this film eventually. If I don't like it, well, too bad for me. You can't like everything.

 

[Brian Timmons]

Behind the scenes clips with glimpses of the RED Arsenal.
NOTE: I obviously have not seen the film but there seem to be
potential spoilers in this BTS so be advised.

Saw an interview with Lana Wachowski where there was talk of a greater embracement of natural light for the cinematography.
That would explain a good part of the the different look and feel of this film.

I think this film is going to be a bit different than people's expectations.
Perhaps riding the line of blasphemy and genius.
We'll see.



Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[Christoffer Glans]

The original trailer posted here looks incredible. Live the new grade for this “series.” Anyone naysaying... I dunno gtfo or watch some of the recent wachowski films THAT HAVE A GREATER COLOR PALETTE than the gross green stuff you remember from the nineties. Lord I hope no one wasting time on here ACTUALLY HAS red cameras otherwise you should be out making YOUR MASTERPIECE.

Maybe you should read the entire thread, check the examples of gamut problems and Red color irregularities before just ranting like that. I have owned Red cameras for a long time, I've been working with Red color science for even longer. If professionals can't comment on what they see are possible problems while getting bashed by people not contributing to the discussion at all other than "omg, gtfo, make your own MASTERPIECE", then why the hell should I bother sticking around on this forum? It's becoming reddit more and more and everyone's got a twitter mentality. So sick of what this forum has become.

 

[rand thompson]

Christoffer,

Just keep doing what you have always done and bring attention to topics and things you feel need attention brought to them. Alot of members here may complain about you complaining about one thing or another, but they're secretly glad you did because they didn't have the nerve to do it themselves.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Watched the film last night on a calibrated LG OLED C9 from HBOMax here in the U.S., and I thought it looked fine. There were some scenes at the end that were over-the-top nutty in terms of color, but I think when you're dealing with a story that takes place in an artificial "computer game" world, I can completely forgive it. It's another world, it's science fiction, it's whatever Lana Wachowski and DP's Daniele Massaccesi & John Toll wanted it to be. "Normal" is not part of that world. I've worked with Toll before and he's extremely technically aware and very much on top of the image -- he knows what he's doing in terms of lighting, lenses, exposure, and camera movement.

The lead colorist was reportedly Traudl Nicholson at Arri Media in Munich, so you can call her up and ask her about the choices used on the film. Me, I think it's fine, but to me color is always in service of the story. I did have some problems with the story, but I wouldn't be so bold as to say I know better ways to do it than the writers, the director, and the producers. There are some pretty stunning moments in the film that are worth seeing. Any film that has over 100 stunt people in the end credits... you know they went to some extreme lengths to do things never attempted before.

 

[Alex Lubensky]

This was the worst franchise reboot ever.

Throwing away all the story issues, and speaking about color - it was the first time in my life that I've seen obvious power windows and such a dramatic inconsistensies in color grading in a movie theatre. Awful experience, especially considering how good the first three movies were - story and cinematography wise.

Speaking about cinematography - it seemed meaningless. Like there was no idea behind the camera at all. Dunno maybe it was up to the editing and the whole bad story, but some scenes were so lacking on camera angles and basic blocking that any modern tv-series looked like an oscar winner compared to this one.

 

[BrandonChristensen]

This was the worst franchise reboot ever.

Throwing away all the story issues, and speaking about color - it was the first time in my life that I've seen obvious power windows and such a dramatic inconsistensies in color grading in a movie theatre. Awful experience, especially considering how good the first three movies were - story and cinematography wise.

Speaking about cinematography - it seemed meaningless. Like there was no idea behind the camera at all. Dunno maybe it was up to the editing and the whole bad story, but some scenes were so lacking on camera angles and basic blocking that any modern tv-series looked like an oscar winner compared to this one.

Yeah basically. The first three, even if the second and third are kind of lame, were visual showcases pushing technology and art together in new ways.

This felt like they just hosed down coverage and figured it out later. Gone is the careful cinematography making it feel like a comic brought to life...the only times it looked good were the direct references to the previous films (the shot looking up at the helicopter and bullets raining down). I had high hopes for it, and it completely failed for me.

 

[Brian Timmons]

Tough crowd.
I didn't have much expectations and was fueled more by curiosity.
I liked the original Matrix and for the most part liked "Reloaded" and "Revolutions" though
I was lost at times in what was going on.

Considering we have 1) one half of the original directing duo and 2) a filmmaker who is 20 years older and has developed a different approach I'm not surprised by the considerable departure in style found in Matrix Resurrections.

I've seen interviews with Lana Wachowski where she mentioned embracing a looser more improvisational approach to filmmaking and integrating natural light when possible (DP John Toll's influence).
I imagine this transformation might be akin to a filmmaker like Kubrick embracing a style closer to Terrence Malik (could one even imagine that one).

In terms of cinematography I generally liked the look of the film. Thought the train sequence and the bar brawl/"swarm" chase were particularly well done.

There were some over cranked shots where the shutter speed was a bit too long and ended up looking smeary (a la Michael Mann's Public Enemies).
There were also some in-camera FX shots that, while interesting, did not quite compare well to some of the FX work from the original films. I will give them props for even attempting to film an action scene and long character monologue combo as an in camera FX shot though.

I ultimately liked the film. I liked it more than I thought I would.
No the film wasn't quite as innovative visually as the first one but I don't think there was attempt or emphasis at doing that.

Story wise I suspect this film was operating on a few different levels beyond the scope of the original story and I wouldn't be surprised if there are some personal Easter eggs placed throughout the story that relate more to Wachowski's own psychology and perhaps behind the scenes (studio) pressures to make the film in the first place.
If this was an aspect of the "meta" parts of the story, that alone makes this film much more interesting than just being a sequel to a successful franchise.
In this sense, Matrix Resurrections may have more in common with Fellini's 8 1/2 than one might imagine.


One thing I do feel strongly about are the monologues stated by Neal Patrick Harris' character "the Analyst" which I thought were pretty well written and well performed.
While I won't say the ideas were particularly new they are extremely timely given the present day and concerning political sea change going on world wide between governments and citizens (Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, UK, US...) and the usual societal trappings we all wrestle with.
A Hero's (or sheeple's) journey.

Don't know and not claiming that was the filmmakers' intent but that's what I got out of it.

I think there's more in this film than the average super hero or shoot 'em up flick and it's worth a view... or 2.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[Scot Yount]

Haven't seen the movie. But curiosity was a bit piqued when RED published this article https://www.red.com/the-matrix stating the movie was shot predominately on Helium. I was under the impression that all those BT Monstros that were released this summer were from this movie and were used in the arrays. IMDB says Komodo, Monstro and Ranger, but it doesn't say what Ranger. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1083818...ef_=tt_spec_sm.

 

[Sergio Perez]

Tough crowd.
I didn't have much expectations and was fueled more by curiosity.
I liked the original Matrix and for the most part liked "Reloaded" and "Revolutions" though
I was lost at times in what was going on.

Considering we have 1) one half of the original directing duo and 2) a filmmaker who is 20 years older and has developed a different approach I'm not surprised by the considerable departure in style found in Matrix Resurrections.

I've seen interviews with Lana Wachowski where she mentioned embracing a looser more improvisational approach to filmmaking and integrating natural light when possible (DP John Toll's influence).
I imagine this transformation might be akin to a filmmaker like Kubrick embracing a style closer to Terrence Malik (could one even imagine that one).

In terms of cinematography I generally liked the look of the film. Thought the train sequence and the bar brawl/"swarm" chase were particularly well done.

There were some over cranked shots where the shutter speed was a bit too long and ended up looking smeary (a la Michael Mann's Public Enemies).
There were also some in-camera FX shots that, while interesting, did not quite compare well to some of the FX work from the original films. I will give them props for even attempting to film an action scene and long character monologue combo as an in camera FX shot though.

I ultimately liked the film. I liked it more than I thought I would.
No the film wasn't quite as innovative visually as the first one but I don't think there was attempt or emphasis at doing that.

Story wise I suspect this film was operating on a few different levels beyond the scope of the original story and I wouldn't be surprised if there are some personal Easter eggs placed throughout the story that relate more to Wachowski's own psychology and perhaps behind the scenes (studio) pressures to make the film in the first place.
If this was an aspect of the "meta" parts of the story, that alone makes this film much more interesting than just being a sequel to a successful franchise.
In this sense, Matrix Resurrections may have more in common with Fellini's 8 1/2 than one might imagine.


One thing I do feel strongly about are the monologues stated by Neal Patrick Harris' character "the Analyst" which I thought were pretty well written and well performed.
While I won't say the ideas were particularly new they are extremely timely given the present day and concerning political sea change going on world wide between governments and citizens (Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, UK, US...) and the usual societal trappings we all wrestle with.
A Hero's (or sheeple's) journey.

Don't know and not claiming that was the filmmakers' intent but that's what I got out of it.

I think there's more in this film than the average super hero or shoot 'em up flick and it's worth a view... or 2.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

Very similar feelings when I saw it.

Technicaly , I don't get where all those visual criticisms come from.

I personally loved the image, the cinematography, the effects. The only sequence I felt a bit out of place was the train "handheld" approach, which felt a bit off.

I loved the grading. The use of the Red orbs artefact was deliberate, as I suspected, and worked well. The saturation, the colors worked wonderfully inside and outside the matrix.

The CG animation was top notch specially for the "real" world. Superior then the original trilogy for sure.

The acting was on form. Reeves and Moss are the soul of the film, but the new entrants do the world justice. Neil Patrick Harris was the biggest surprise, delivering a new and exciting character that can have a different sort of range and development, provided the poor box office doesn't kill the franchise.

It was Meta, as some are saying, but more than that, an auteur film. It really did feel like 8 1/2 to me during the film. Its a very fine line to walk when doing this, on the edge of presumptuous, but Lana pulled it off.

There was character building, world building, immense respect and love for the characters. As a fan, a film lover, and someone that uses red cameras for a living, this is a great showcase and definitely worth every second of viewing on a big screen. For those that haven't seen the previous trilogy, It might, however, feel confusing. Its a film that rewards those that are following the white rabbit since the beginning.

 

[Brian Timmons]

Very similar feelings when I saw it.

Technicaly , I don't get where all those visual criticisms come from.

I personally loved the image, the cinematography, the effects. The only sequence I felt a bit out of place was the train "handheld" approach, which felt a bit off.

I loved the grading. The use of the Red orbs artefact was deliberate, as I suspected, and worked well. The saturation, the colors worked wonderfully inside and outside the matrix.

The CG animation was top notch specially for the "real" world. Superior then the original trilogy for sure.

The acting was on form. Reeves and Moss are the soul of the film, but the new entrants do the world justice. Neil Patrick Harris was the biggest surprise, delivering a new and exciting character that can have a different sort of range and development, provided the poor box office doesn't kill the franchise.

It was Meta, as some are saying, but more than that, an auteur film. It really did feel like 8 1/2 to me during the film. Its a very fine line to walk when doing this, on the edge of presumptuous, but Lana pulled it off.

There was character building, world building, immense respect and love for the characters. As a fan, a film lover, and someone that uses red cameras for a living, this is a great showcase and definitely worth every second of viewing on a big screen. For those that haven't seen the previous trilogy, It might, however, feel confusing. Its a film that rewards those that are following the white rabbit since the beginning.

I watched the film again (some specific scenes multiple times) and have to admit that the more I watch it the more I agree with the approach taken with the look.
I still have the same criticism regarding the open shutter look on some slow motion shots but generally the cinematography (particularly the color) was used well with the world building in showing not only that they were in a new matrix but one that fit the character driven dramatic approach in the first act of the film.

I agree with calling this an auteur film.
This was not treated as just a franchise sequel film. I think the filmmakers were really trying to explore some real issues here.
There seems to be A LOT going on under the surface of this film that deal with aspects of PTSD, mental illness, perception vs reality, breaking vicious cycles among others and how these issues are exploited by some to control and manipulate populations of people. While this is in keeping with the other films, the more dramatic approach allowed them to go a bit deeper than in previous films.

Some might think "Hey it's just a movie" but I don't think a filmmaker like Lana Wachowski (or a writer like David Mitchel) gets involved with a project to "keep some kids entertained" as Keanu Reeve's Thomas Anderson says who was likely a proxy for Wachowski.

Who ever thought you would see a scene of a middle aged Neo and Trinity talking about life expectations and domestic life in a coffee shop?
It could be argued that scene alone covered more character development than the entire trilogy.

I understand the disappointment some have with the differences in approach (some people think it felt like a Rom Com at times) but I believe the choices made ultimately told a story that character wise went a bit deeper in a way that ultimately enhances whole story.

I think the general audience wanted something that was more familiar to the original trilogy. I don't think many people were in the mood for a different take on the characters, story, or filmmaking.
It kind of reminds me of when I'm visiting a new country with others and you always have those who choose to just eat American fast food abroad instead of trying something new and unfamiliar in the local cuisine.
They don't necessarily eat McDonalds and Burger King because they like it but because they know what to expect.

During the 2nd attempt at trying to Red pill Thomas Anderson, the Red pill scene from the 1st Matrix is projected on a movie screen behind the characters. Yahya Abdul Mateen II as Morpheus stating the line "Nothing comforts anxiety like a little bit of nostalgia" may illustrates the writers being aware of this.

I think the deeper points of this film and Matrix in general is about a flip of the notion of escapism.
Most people see the idea of escapism as substituting a difficult and more inconveniently truthful version of reality for a more psychologically comfortable (yet false) view of it.
The escapism of the Matrix films seem to be rooted more in the idea of people waking up (escaping) from the false reality (no matter how ideal it seems to be) so they can adapt to their true reality (no matter how seemingly harsh and undesirable).

Again, I think the films are timely. We're all going through this.

These are my impressions of the film. I don't truly know what the filmmakers intended.
Would be interesting to get more official takes on the film.

There's too much to write on this and this is going out of the scope of a film production forum.
I'll conclude that the REDs used looked great and I think the look captured (including some of the signature RED quirks you noted Sergio) successfully helped in visually telling the story.

The BTS on the RED site was an interesting write up.
https://www.red.com/the-matrix


Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[Sergio Perez]

I watched the film again (some specific scenes multiple times) and have to admit that the more I watch it the more I agree with the approach taken with the look.
I still have the same criticism regarding the open shutter look on some slow motion shots but generally the cinematography (particularly the color) was used well with the world building in showing not only that they were in a new matrix but one that fit the character driven dramatic approach in the first act of the film.

I agree with calling this an auteur film.
This was not treated as just a franchise sequel film. I think the filmmakers were really trying to explore some real issues here.
There seems to be A LOT going on under the surface of this film that deal with aspects of PTSD, mental illness, perception vs reality, breaking vicious cycles among others and how these issues are exploited by some to control and manipulate populations of people. While this is in keeping with the other films, the more dramatic approach allowed them to go a bit deeper than in previous films.

Some might think "Hey it's just a movie" but I don't think a filmmaker like Lana Wachowski (or a writer like David Mitchel) gets involved with a project to "keep some kids entertained" as Keanu Reeve's Thomas Anderson says who was likely a proxy for Wachowski.

Who ever thought you would see a scene of a middle aged Neo and Trinity talking about life expectations and domestic life in a coffee shop?
It could be argued that scene alone covered more character development than the entire trilogy.

I understand the disappointment some have with the differences in approach (some people think it felt like a Rom Com at times) but I believe the choices made ultimately told a story that character wise went a bit deeper in a way that ultimately enhances whole story.

I think the general audience wanted something that was more familiar to the original trilogy. I don't think many people were in the mood for a different take on the characters, story, or filmmaking.
It kind of reminds me of when I'm visiting a new country with others and you always have those who choose to just eat American fast food abroad instead of trying something new and unfamiliar in the local cuisine.
They don't necessarily eat McDonalds and Burger King because they like it but because they know what to expect.

During the 2nd attempt at trying to Red pill Thomas Anderson, the Red pill scene from the 1st Matrix is projected on a movie screen behind the characters. Yahya Abdul Mateen II as Morpheus stating the line "Nothing comforts anxiety like a little bit of nostalgia" may illustrates the writers being aware of this.

I think the deeper points of this film and Matrix in general is about a flip of the notion of escapism.
Most people see the idea of escapism as substituting a difficult and more inconveniently truthful version of reality for a more psychologically comfortable (yet false) view of it.
The escapism of the Matrix films seem to be rooted more in the idea of people waking up (escaping) from the false reality (no matter how ideal it seems to be) so they can adapt to their true reality (no matter how seemingly harsh and undesirable).

Again, I think the films are timely. We're all going through this.

These are my impressions of the film. I don't truly know what the filmmakers intended.
Would be interesting to get more official takes on the film.

There's too much to write on this and this is going out of the scope of a film production forum.
I'll conclude that the REDs used looked great and I think the look captured (including some of the signature RED quirks you noted Sergio) successfully helped in visually telling the story.

The BTS on the RED site was an interesting write up.
https://www.red.com/the-matrix


Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

Absolutely Brian.

Would absolutely love to see a Behind the Look Q&A with the cinematographer and director like RED did with the Red Notice team. Hopefully Jarred and team can pull one of this off later on- I dont mind waiting! - with an intelligent and not time restricted talk behind not only the cinematography but the whole thought process behind puling this together- as well as some scene dissecting .

As an audience I'm really, really happy the director sticked to her guns and told the story she wanted to tell. I think the cast and crew was also happy with the film. I personally think this film is one of those that will stand the tests of time, like any proper auteur film normally does. Lets see if time proves me wrong.

 

[Mi Hao]

I'm a huge fan of the Matrix so I will add my humble opinion.
I think that in comparison with the original trilogy, The Matrix Ressurection looks embarrassingly bad. Cheap, clumsy, amateurishly bad. It feels like a fan made production.
I understand that the movie is making fun of the source material to the point of turning itself into a parody but damn, even cinematography feels like a joke. No offence to John Toll of course - he's one of the greatest. I'm quite confident that it was all Lana's vision.
The way this film is lit looks shockingly cheap. If you disagree with that observation you might as well say that Jada Pinkett Smith's makeup looked great or that the fight sequences were well choreographed. Those directionally confused hard lights looked like a high school play. What happened to the big soft sources? Have they stopped using neg? Those soundstage office scenes were so confused in terms of where the light should be coming from! Yuck, it looked so fake! Even the camera movement was very awkward. I've noticed a lot of motor jerkiness in most of the slower moving gimbal shots. Not to mention completely unremarkable composition of every shot and erratic handheld. Don't get me even started about visual effects.
In the end I came to conclusion that I really love Bill Pope's cinematography. Really do. Give me his chiaroscuro anytime.

 

[M Harvey]

No offence to John Toll of course - he's one of the greatest. I'm quite confident that it was all Lana's vision.

Toll was interviewed on the Deakins podcast, and turns out he had to leave the movie fairly early into the shoot (Covid and family reasons). His operator Daniele Massaccesi took over for the majority of the production. Whether people like or dislike the way the film looks, I do wonder what effect this big change had on the final product…

 

[Christoffer Glans]

So I've finally watched the movie and I think it's unfairly criticized when it comes to the story. Matrix was never the dumb action movie type of blockbuster, it could never be the same as any other action flick. So I think Lana did a great job with crafting the story and philosophy behind it all.

I also feel they fixed a lot of the issues with colors that I pointed out in this thread, the balance is much better and out of gamut colors didn't occur.

However...

I have rarely seen such a bad handling of shutter speeds. It's all over the place and looks really bad. It's also no way near as perfectly crafted as the previous films. It doesn't look like there was any storyboarding, just an overuse of, in these times, outdated shaky-cam action that everyone else moved away from today. It's ironic that much of the shaky-cam action trend started out as a counterpoint to the slick and planned action of the first Matrix trilogy, and now this one continues with shaky-cam when everyone else has begun to move away from it.

The camerawork, the action sequences were extremely sloppy in some cases. The train sequence is just a chaotic mess (and not in a good way) while the fight between Neo and the Analyst was in no way near the brilliance of the previous films.

I mean, these things have nothing to do with the budget, it's how things are staged, blocked, and edited. It's such an uneven movie, sometimes having good VFX and sometimes it looks like amateur fan-art. Seriously, how the hell did it end up like this? It could have been a major mind-blowing addition to Matrix if the craft of cinematography, VFX and action had been done with the same sleight of hand as the previous movies.

It just feels like the love of the stylistic action, the almost dance performance art of the action in the previous films were abandoned and not cared for. This is a perfect example of when an attempt of substance over style misses the point that the style and substance were interlinked previously. The symbiosis the original trilogy had has been lost and it drags the good ideas of the screenplay down with it. Not caring for the legacy of the craft the previous movies had is the reason the movie tanked, not the ideas it presented.

Just go back and check the behind the scenes of the original trilogy, how the art department, concept artists, storyboarders, choreographers, VFX team and Bill Pope worked their asses off trying to reach the extremely dedicated vision that the Wachowski's had back then. I don't see any of that here and it doesn't matter that the story is a deconstruct of the previous trilogy, it doesn't support any reason for the sloppy result of bad camerawork, confusing action, bad VFX, uneven shutter speed settings etc.

I just think it's sad that when we had this rare chance to get a blockbuster that isn't another Marvel movie, that isn't another cash grab, but could have been a major spectacular release with deep ideas and mind-blowing visuals, ended up this way. It's truly a tragedy because the ideas get drowned in poor execution.

 

[AndreasOberg]

I agree with you on pretty much all points. The story was better than the reviews indicate, I thought it was quite clever at least in the first half. However I was really surprised that the fight scenes were not stronger. Underwhelming fight moves in a Matrix movie? Did not expect that.
All the scenes in the machine city were interesting, wish there were more of it, and well I do wish they would make more movies in the Matrix Universe. It feels as if they need to expand a bit on the concept to make it really interesting.

Andreas