 Critics by and large are unimpressed by the Matrix Revolutions hype. Joel Siegel on Good Morning America observed that Warner Bros. went all-out on everything except the movie itself. "I'm not saying that the Emperor is naked, but if he shows up this morning here in Los Angeles, he's going to catch his death a cold," Siegel remarked. In the New York Post, Lou Lumenick cites Gertrude Stein's words about Oakland as applying to Revolutions: "There's no there, there." "Pure smoke and mirrors," comments John Anderson in Newsday. Jack Mathews in the New York Daily News begins his review by remarking, "At least it's over." And those are some of the kinder reviews. Consider by way of comparison Stephen Hunter's in the Washington Post: "The film is a soggy mess, essentially a loud, wild 100-minute battle movie bookended by an incomprehensible beginning and a laughable ending." (Hunter had praised the original Matrix film.) Or take Mike Clark's blast in USA Today: "This come-down of a series capper is so arch and pompous amid its clanks and collisions that you can only snicker at the verbal wind that obscures the din of marauding machinery." Chris Vognar in the Dallas Morning News grumbles: "There's nothing like a batch of sequels to cheapen a movie's legacy, but the decline of Matrix stock is particularly jarring." And Manohla Dargis asks mournfully in the Los Angeles Times: "How did something that started out so cool get so dorky?" The film does manage to enthrall a handful of critics, among them Lisa Kennedy in the Denver Post, who remarks: "The Matrix Revolutions leaves us with something to chew on for years to come." And Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times concludes: "In a basic and undeniable sense, this is a good movie, and fans who have earned their credit hours with the first two will want to see this one and graduate. To the degree that I was able to put aside my questions, forget logic, disregard continuity problems and immerse myself in the moment, The Matrix Revolutions is a terrific action achievement." |
