The Matrix

Released:  March 31^st, 1999

Rated:  R

Studio:  Warner Bros.

Starring:  Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Carrie-Anne Moss, Hugo Weaving, Joe Pantoliano

Directed by:  Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski

Written by:  Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski

Personal Bias Alert:  likes sci-fi; believes it should be evaluated independent of its sequels

8.5 of 10

            Like it or not, The Matrix has to go down as one of the most influential films of its time.  It invented new methods of cinematography and introduced Eastern action choreography to the American masses, changing not only the way Hollywood envisioned action sequences, but also having widespread effects on television and video games as well.  Fifteen years later, its mark can’t be denied, but the great thing about going back and reevaluating this film is the reminder that underneath that ingenuity is a story as solid as they come.

            In case you were born under a rock, The Matrix follows hacker Neo aka Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves) as he finds out that humanity has been enslaved by machines, and the world as he knows it is nothing but a computer simulation.  Having been ‘awoken’ by a band of rebels led by the cryptic Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) and the tough Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), Neo finds out that he may be destined to save humanity and upgrade his wardrobe.

            All joking aside, the visual effects, wardrobe, and everything else that populates the screen is as slick as they come, leaning heavily on the timeless cool of black leather and mirror sunglasses to create a cyberpunk look that still impresses today.  Some of the larger visual effects don’t hold up too well, but the sheer amount of smaller work, from the streaming green code of the Matrix to the reflection shots inserted on character’s sunglasses, culminates in such a spectacularly interesting world that momentary downfalls are forgiven.

            Rarely is a world so stylishly envisioned given a budget large enough to execute that vision, and the credit for getting that done has to start with the Wachowskis.  Say what you will about the quality of their later work, but they routinely make films that don’t look like everything else.  Here, they managed to bring together the disparate filmmaking pieces to create two distinct worlds:  the sleek near-reality of the Matrix and the gritty plainness of the waking world.  Think about it, every department had to create two worlds for one film, and they are both so fully realized that the Wachowskis must have had a clear vision for each one.

              Underneath all this eye candy is a solid action center, drawing from the hero’s journey formula to create a familiar but satisfying story.  The beats are almost textbook, from the thrilling opening action sequence to the titillating training section, but this basic story allows the Wachowskis to devote their exposition time (which is still quite lengthy) to the explanation of their quirky world.

             The world of the Matrix may not be straightforward, but it isn’t exactly original, either.  It owes much to the ideas laid down by classic sci-fi writers like William Gibson and Philip K. Dick, as well as various religious and philosophical works.  What’s impressive is how many ideas the Wachowskis were able to mash together to make what is, in essence, a basic sci-fi horror scenario:  that humanity has become enslaved to their own creation.  It’s a delicate balance to find the right mix of familiar and new concepts that will keep the audience engaged but not overwhelmed, and The Matrix pulls off this challenge with flying colors.

            In the end, the astronomical success of The Matrix was due to the Wackowskis’ ability to blend a familiar story with a slick visual style and a twist of sci-fi.  It’s a lot of pieces to balance, but the Wachowskis have never been ones to make simple films, and The Matrix is their magnum opus.  It’s an ultimate triumph of mass-appeal sci-fi entertainment, and it’s earned its place in the annals of film history.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Taking a mystery pill from the guy wearing sunglasses indoors and talking in circles is never the right choice.

Ø  Yay, creepy body horror!  I completely forgot how much of that there is in this film.

Ø  Fun fact:  The Matrix was the first DVD to sell more than a million copies.

Memento (2000)

Released:  March 16, 2001

Rated:  R

Studio:  Newmarket Films

Staring:  Guy Pearce, Carrie-Anne Moss, Joe Pantoliano

Directed by:  Christopher Nolan 

Written by:  Christopher Nolan

Personal Bias Alert:  loves “The Prestige,” not a fan of flashy storytelling that bogs down a movie

6.7 of 10

            Reverse chronology is a technique not unheard of, but not commonly used in film.  Going into “Memento,” I was told that the film was structured using this technique.  However, I quickly found that that wasn’t entirely true.  A large portion of it is told backwards, but there are also several scenes that clearly play out in a linear fashion.  Now, considering that this wasn’t my first foray in reverse chronology, I wasn’t too thrown by this.  I had previously seen “Irreversible,” a film that goes all in and tells its story entirely in reverse chronology (it goes all in in many other ways, too, so I must give a big warning to those curious about the film).  Perhaps it was this familiarity, or just my familiarity with writer/director Christopher Nolan’s later work, that made “Memento” lack the punch it seems to have for other people.

            That being said, I was very confused by the nuts and bolts of the story.  I doubt anyone figures it out on their first viewing, and considering I’ve only just watched the film for the first time, I’m not 100% sure what happened, either.  I know that our main character, Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce), is trying to track down the man who assaulted and killed his wife.  The complication is that Leonard has anterograde amnesia, which prevents him from converting short-term memory into long-term memory.  Essentially, he can’t remember anything after the attack on his wife.  There are two people currently helping him with his investigation, Teddy (Joe Pantoliano) and Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss).

            The nuts and bolts are intentionally hazy, and many facts that you thought you knew are brought into question by the end.  Nolan makes well thought-out films, so I’m sure you could watch this movie a few times and piece it all together, but I’m not sure it would really add anything.  “Memento” ends with some very clear statements on its themes, and those are the real points of the film.  It’s much like my argument that the question left hanging at the end of Nolan’s “Inception” doesn’t matter, that the significant thing is that Cobb gave up his obsession and chose to live his life.  Here, Leonard makes a clear choice as well.

            Unfortunately, where Nolan makes a cinematically elegant statement at the end of “Inception” and, in what is in my opinion his best work, “The Prestige,” here he ends with a bit of a clunk.  The exposition-heavy end scene isn’t masked by metaphor or strong visual storytelling.  Instead, we get some straightforward dialogue and some terribly on the nose narration.  This muted the sense of thrill that the ending should have evoked, and to me is the clearest sign that, at this point in his career, Nolan was still learning the finer points of his trade.

            Nolan’s decision to use the aforementioned chronology doesn’t make for a sleek film either.  It does get across how confusing life is for Leonard, but it also makes it distractingly difficult to follow what’s happening.  Lots of time has to be devoted to making the story semi-clear, like the repetition of the beginning and end of scenes and the exposition-heavy, often stilted dialogue.  The two main side characters, Teddy and Natalie, suffer the most.  It’s hard to care much about them; at the beginning you are struggling to get a grasp on them, and by the end you are wondering if (or how much) they are lying to Leonard.  It doesn’t help that Pantoliano gives a one-note performance and that Natalie is terribly underwritten.

            The end effect is a narratively interesting, but otherwise stiff film.  Twisty narratives are strong enough to carry a film up to a point, but there needs to be more to make it feel like it really mattered.  Luckily, Nolan figured that out, and he went on to make some truly excellent films.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Pearce and Moss were both good in their roles, but they were there to serve the story, not play real characters.

Ø  Who spotted the cast crossovers with “Battlestar Galactica” and “Sons of Anarchy”?

Ø  If Natalie recognizes that Leonard is driving her boyfriend’s car, why doesn’t she look in it for the missing money?  Or is she just completely lying to Leonard about Dodd going after her for the money?

Ø  So many questions, and yet, I don’t really care if I know.