There is no subtlety here, no gray. They assume we are idiots and must have every little bit explained in excruciating detail. "Yes," I say to the tv screen, "we know Neo is a Christ figure. You don't have to hit us over the head with it in every scene." It's overblown and heavy-handed. Given all that, it's a fun film and a fun series taken as a whole.
Rolling Stone says, "At the risk of understatement, The Matrix Revolutions sucks." The New York Times seems to be in general agreement: "The appropriate response is somewhere between "About time" ... and "So what?"" EW joins the chorus with, "So here's a mystery for the faithful: Why does resurrection and salvation -- the ''Matrix'' payoff -- here feel more like a religious obligation than a triumphant revelation?" The BBC is even stronger: "Multiple meanie Agent Smith does, however, echo the sentiments of desperate, disappointed audience members when he asks, "Is it over?""
The quotes above sound bad, but most of the reviewers praise the special effects and action sequences, it's just the self-importance and the dragging drama that gets panned.
HollywoodJesus, on the other hand, actually seems to like the blatant, rub-your-nose-in-it lack of nuance:
Why are the reviews bad?
1. Blatant Christ-like imagery (to borrow a phrase from Gandalf). It’s SO obvious that this film is pointing toward the direction of Christ. All the enemy can do is try to turn the hearts of the people away from this message.
Ebert liked it: "Still, in a basic and undeniable sense, this is a good movie". A video review by Ebert & Roeper can be viewed online.
trailer:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment