The Matrix: Returns, unfortunately

• Straight up, I thought the sequel was horrible. For four years Peter's been waiting for the return of the Matrix and to my surprise, it did not live up to his expectations. He thought it was a modest effort. Granted, trying to live up to the original is a tall order. The first Matrix had an excellent balance of action and philosophy with a storyline that wasn't in its own reality unlike Reloaded. I always felt that the first Matrix was meant to stand alone. But if a sequel can be made that will generate big bucks, you can be sure that Hollywood will want a piece of that action and be willing to pay for it as well. How much? How about to the tune of $300 million for both of these Matrix installments. Reloaded even felt as if it was an egregious addition in the tradition of the Rambo, Rocky and Die Hard sequels. This sequel is loaded with completely ridiculous action scenes (that are computer animated in parts), a 5 minute unnecessary dance scene, and too much pedantic commentary on reality. It's a film that tries to be everything and results in being wholly superficial and pretentious. Almost all of the characters return: Neo, Morpheus, Trinity and even Agent Smith! (didn't he die in the first film?). Peter feels as though Reloaded is a muddled mess that is lost in its own philosophies. Whereas the first film explored the notion of reality from a novel ideological point of view (ie: the machines control our perspectives on life -- what we conceive to be reality), the sequel doesn't offer any novel perspectives on humanity (which seems to be the point here). The Architect, who is a new character that appears at the end of the film, illustrates the academic muddle that will ultimately confuse audiences where he should fascinate him. Returning characters seem to have lost their roles -- and Smith (Hugo Weaving) just seems to be a retread of his former self (which may be the point. At any rate, Peter will anticipate the Matrix Revolutions to see if questions raised in the second film are answered. The bottom line for Peter: Keanu talks far too much -- and the novelty is gone. But enough ranting, go see the film and judge for yourself but if you want to see a sequel that lives up to its original, check out X2, the first blockbuster I've seen this year that's worth watching.

Sequels and Prequels

• This week, Peter discussed sequels and prequels. The underlying question on his mind was whether the following edict proved true: Sequels are never equal. Well the answer, according to him, is yes and no. Sequels date back to the early 20th Century, and have been with us since the advent of the talkie (with films featuring Dick Tracy, Blondie and Dagwood, The Thin Man series, among many). Sequels, meaning a continuation of events that occurred in the first film featuring the same characters, can be either exploitation for merchandising sake or a genuine continuation of a story that never really ended the first time around. In the 1970s, sequels really took off with the merchandising kick when George Lucas introduced his Star Wars series (or Episodes IV, V and VI – it depends on how you look at it). Do you remember those Burger King tie-in glasses featuring Chewbacca? I sure do. And the trend hasn’t really stopped. However, also in the 1970s, filmmakers such as Francis Ford Coppola took critical and commercial risks with films such as The Godfather, Part II. Fortunately for Coppola, that risk paid off with great box office returns and a trip to the Oscar podium (along with Silence of the Lambs, The Godfather, Part II is only one of two sequel films to win an Academy Award for Best Picture). Prequels, designating pictures in which storylines precede the action of the original film, came into their own in the late 1970s, with films such as Butch and Sundance: The Early Years (remember: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid died at the end of the original… leaving the producers had no other choice in exploring these particular characters). Peter is not a big fan of prequels, having been severely disappointed with George Lucas’s Episodes I and II of the prequel Star Wars trilogy. However, Peter did like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (which preceded the action of Raiders of the Lost Ark) and the recent adaptation of Thomas Harris’ original novel Red Dragon (which preceded Silence of the Lambs – and features a much older Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter). A major suspension of disbelief must come into play for spectators of sequels and prequels, otherwise they will become distracted by change of actors who may be identifiable with the roles (eg. Michael Keaton was on-board as Batman for the first two films in that series, then gave up the role to Val Kilmer for number III and George Clooney for number IV). This leads us to appreciation and disgust when it comes to sequels and prequels. Peter really likes The Godfather Part II, X2: X-Men United, Superman II, the majority of the James Bond films, the Back to the Future trilogy, the Indiana Jones trilogy, Star Wars (episodes IV, V, and VI), Red Dragon/Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs, Scream II and the Lethal Weapon series. Peter deplores all of the sequels to Hallowe’en (except maybe H20). All other horror film sequels really don’t count in his opinion, as the originals usually stink or are better left standing alone. Judge for yourselves. See if sequels/prequels have the ability to live up to the originals. You will be inundated with them this summer! (anyone up for that classic prequel, Dumb and Dumberer?) Until next week folks.