The Sacrifice Of Philosophy For Effects Drags Down The Complete Matrix Trilogy

The Good: Interesting setting, Surprisingly good acting, Great initial idea, DVD bonus features, Effects
The Bad: Characters become progressively less interesting, Plot becomes rather formulaic, Themes gutted for effects
The Basics: The bonus features for The Complete Matrix Trilogy are amazing, but not quite enough to overlook the poor (but great looking/sounding!) source material.


Once upon a time, there was a great idea for a film. One brother went to another and said, "Wouldn't it be great if we could make a movie where we presented the idea that all of our lives right now are just simulations controlled by machines to keep us all in check while they drained us of energy to power themselves?" And the other brother said, "The people would never buy that, it's too complicated." And the first brother said, "But we could make it with incredible special effects and popular actors and intriguing characters and hide our themes of the values of life and freedom in among the gunshots and car chases!" And the second brother said, "We should do just that!" And they wrote it. And they directed it. And it was good.

And it was The Matrix.

And then the screwed it all up by adding onto the film with the vastly inferior The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions! Why couldn't they just quit while they were ahead?! I have rated a number of film trilogies this year, like The Indiana Jones Trilogy (reviewed here!) and the Back To The Future Trilogy (reviewed here!) and while they might have had their issues, none of them take quite the nosedive away from what they were than The Matrix Trilogy, now compiled into a 3 disc set.

For those unfamiliar with The Matrix Trilogy, this was a series of three science fiction/action adventure films that pitted humanity vs. machines in an all-out battle for survival and control over a ruined Earth.

In The Matrix (reviewed here!), Thomas Anderson - a hacker who goes by Neo in the virtual world of cyberspace - is approached by a group of hackers who offer to wake him up to the reality of the world by helping him break free of the Matrix. Neo accepts and suddenly finds himself in a war-torn, barren world on the run from giant Sentinel machines that are slaughtering the last free humans on the planet. The rest of humanity is plugged into the machines, their minds existing in the virtual reality world of the Matrix (an ordinary world and life by any objective standard) while their bodies are used to generate energy for the machines! Trained by Morpheus, Neo soon takes up the mantle of savior to the people trapped within the Matrix and he returns to the constructed world to free the people there.

In The Matrix Reloaded (reviewed here!), Neo appears to have not blown the minds of everyone in the world of the Matrix, but instead created a monster in the construct in the form of Agent Smith, who now has the ability to replicate himself by absorbing individuals within the Matrix and making them into himself. As Smith goes on a killing spree to absorb everyone he can in his hunt for Neo, Neo works to balance his role as savior with his love for Trinity and formulate a way to destroy the Matrix while Morpheus desperately tries to protect Zion, the last human city.

The story is concluded (or is it?) in The Matrix Revolutions (reviewed here!), where Neo finds his way out of the Matrix with the knowledge of how he may defeat the Agents Smith and liberate the humans still trapped by the machines only to discover that one of the Smiths has managed to enter the real world. As Neo fights to save the enslaved humanity, Morpheus marshals the forces needed to try to prevent the millions of Sentinels boring down into Zion from killing every last free human there.

The fundamental problem with The Matrix Trilogy is that it starts as a fairly well-conceived, highly philosophical exploration of reality, perception and the nature of freedom and the value of freedom over tyranny. What it degenerates into is a pretty mindless giant special effects battle movie that shoots everything and does not care much for sensibility or reality and instead goes for the glitz and the shiny objects. Where The Matrix ended was perfect and if the films had continued in that direction, instead of a big-budget special effects movie, the next films would have been allegories about the responsibilities of a god to the world it has dominion over. But no, instead, in order to continue the trilogy, The Matrix reboots with stories that allow the films to continue by retelling the first story but with a different ending. In other words, this was a poorly conceived trilogy. Great first film, mediocre and abysmal sequels.

Now, don't get me wrong, if you like mind of mindless, big battle special effects movies with less in the way of talking and characters relating, The Matrix Trilogy works out just fine! This set gets most of the talking out of the way in the first half and allows for the second half to be filled with giant action sequences, massive amounts of gunplay and hand-to-hand battles that will make your nose bleed just watching them! (They gave me a headache anyway . . . ). The problem - for those of us who like something more and who like some measure of consistency - is that the first film, while packed with action and more than enough intrigue to keep us rewatching it over and over again, is not set up that way. It is anything but mindless and so when we go into the Trilogy and discover there is a great deal of thought and philosophy behind it, we are ultimately disappointed by the abandonment of that by the time the final film comes around.

That said, there is a lot that The Complete Matrix Trilogy does right. First, the stories do have interesting characters, even if their characters get somewhat gutted by the end of the three films. The principle, consistent characters throughout the Trilogy include:

Neo - An ordinary working class man who has a glimmer that something is wrong in his world when he discovers he is not living in the real world. Freed from the Matrix, Neo succumbs to suggestions from Morpheus that he has a greater destiny and might well be the one to end the war between the humans and the machines by freeing the enslaved minds trapped within the Matrix and bodies that are plugged into the machines powering it. He soon discovers he has powers that verge on godhood and his exploration of them is complicated by a growing love for Trinity,

Trinity - A tough-as-nails sidekick of Morpheus, she falls in love with Neo when helping him realize the extent of his powers. Uncertain how she fits into his life when he becomes something of a religious icon to the freed people of Zion, she redoubles her commitment to freeing everyone from the Matrix by any means necessary, even if it were to cost her her life,

Morpheus - The mentor to Neo who helps free him from the virtual world and becomes obsessed with the idea that Neo is the One and therefore somewhat infallible at destroying the Matrix. He devotes his attention to protecting Zion and leaving Neo to himself once he has set him on that path,

and Agent Smith - One of the defense mechanisms of the Matrix, he starts as a simple human security program designed to stop dissidents within the construct. After Neo overcomes him, he finds his programming altered and he goes rogue. Obsessed with destroying Neo and all biological life, he begins to clone himself through the Matrix becoming a threat to everything and everyone!

Agent Smith is aptly played by Hugo Weaving, who played Elrond in The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy (reviewed here!)! Weaving reveals his versatility in the role of Smith by going deeper and darker than most of us have seen him before. Weaving is stone-faced and ruthless most of the film so when he emotes - like when he wrinkles his nose in complete disgust at the smell of perspiration coming off Morpheus - it is powerful and expressive.

Carrie-Anne Moss plays Trinity and she is a worthy successor to other science fiction heroines like Ellen Ripley, Wonder Woman and . . . hmmm . . . pretty short list. Moss , like Fishburne and Weaving, plays the role with a duality of stone-cold affect and highly emotive. Her acting chops are won not when she opens the second film with a bang, but when she relaxes her body language and becomes vulnerable for the love scene, which illustrates her humanity and the depth of her character's love.

Lawrence Fishburne plays Morpheus and he is wonderful . . . in establishing his character. Fishburne plays the mentor role wonderfully and establishes Morpheus as a guide and sage with the body language of a warrior and guardian, but as the films progress, he is given less and less to do and while his character stagnates, Fishburne allows his performance to remain fairly static. He's good, but the Trilogy simply does not know what to do with his talents and they come to neglect him and his character.

But Keanu Reeves is the one with the burden of making part of The Matrix Trilogy make real sense and this is the role he was born to play. Reeves with his understated acting is the everyman Neo, the awkward man coming to be a deity. He plays the role with a slouch that evolves with his character until he owns the part. His deliveries are almost never melodramatic and he has a quality to him that lends itself perfectly to the more muted superhero role.

But for a giant special effects series, the devil is in the details. In The Matrix one of the wonderful visual cues to humanity's desperation - made all the more clear on Blu-Ray - is how threadbare the costumes are. Humanity is on the run, of course there are no sweatshops, er, factories making new clothes. But in the two sequels, with a budget, suddenly the people of Zion are pretty well coifed!

Similarly, for a film series that pays so much attention to style and look, it's amazing how much they cheat on some of the special effects. Yes, the big climactic battles are SO tremendous and huge in scope and scale that there is no possible way to take in all that is going on on the screen at any given moment. On HD-DVD the battles look good . . . what you can see of them. They move at a pace that is oppressive and overwhelming such that one gets the idea of the battles, the ebb and flow, but no specifics stand out.

I've long argued against the whole Blu-Ray/HD-DVD concept (I gladly admit that). My reasoning is simple: DVD is a wonderful, durable, enduring media and the highest grossing form of entertainment in the world for the past few years has been DVD Boxed set television series'. A lot of people have a lot of money tied up in DVDs and with television shows being the primary place they have their money invested, there is not much a higher quality DVD can (affordably) do for most consumers. Upgrading to any form of Blu-Ray is just milking people for their hard-earned money a second time (unless players are all backwards compatible) and that's just wrong.

My other reason for pretty much despising (well in advance of its release) the HD-DVD medium is that the vast majority of consumers cannot possibly afford all the equipment needed to fully take advantage of the enhanced medium. Well, my huge splurge in recent years was my HD-TV (reviewed here!) so I've had occasion now to occasionally test out an HD-DVD or Blue-Ray disc from time to time. Honestly, The Complete Matrix Trilogy is what this medium was made for! With a kicking system these films (especially the first) look and sound absolutely amazing! This DVD set is enough to make one believe in the Matrix it looks so real and sounds so vibrant on screen and over the speakers.

On the three discs, (one per film) there are commentary tracks (which have the cast and crew and philosophers discussing the making of and implications of the movies), 18 featurettes, music videos, advertisements, and trailers. This is essentially the "lite" version of the "Ultimate Matrix Collection," which also includes the Animatrix and some other goodies that tied together the franchise. The Complete Matrix Trilogy is just the cinematic Matrix adventures in HD and there are ample goodies for the fans. The nice thing is, for those who purchased any other version of The Matrix on DVD or HD-DVD, there is NOTHING exclusive in this set to make you want to buy it as an upgrade to what you already own. Conversely, one is not losing anything by purchasing this set; it includes ALL of the DVD bonuses from the "Ultimate Matrix Collection" as well as the picture-in-picture HD options from the HD version of that set. The only reason to buy this set is because you do not have the Trilogy and you're starting at the HD level and you don't want the Animatrix.

And honestly, I can't even recommend it for those people. The only one of these movies worth seeing is The Matrix. I'm sure there is (or will be) a single-disc DVD version of it with all the same bonus features. Go for that instead, this is not worth it, even though it makes magnificent use of the medium!

For the other film saga reviews, please check out my reviews of:
The Star Wars Saga
The Twilight Saga
The Dark Knight Trilogy

5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Baz Luhrmann’s Creativity Does Not Diminish William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet The Way His Direction Does!

The Good: Great story, Decent chemistry, Most of the acting, Moments of direction
The Bad: Most of the direction
The Basics: A modern recasting of William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet is creative and accurate, but unfortunately cut more often than not.


Tonight, perusing my wife’s DVD collection for a new (to me) film to watch, I came upon William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet. My wife enthusiastically urged me to put in the film and I was in a Shakespeare mood, so I eagerly complied. Generally, I am glad I did.

That said, I have no inherent issue with modern interpretations of Shakespeare, but Baz Luhrmann’s William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet does not quite land it for me the way it does for my wife. In the case of William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet, all that really has been changed is that the film is set in modern Verona Beach and a few contemporary songs have been thrown in. The language is Shakespeare’s (for the most part) and the story is the classic Shakespeare play adapted to use the full scope of the screen well. Unfortunately, the directing is erratic at best and some of the acting is not all it ought to be.

In Verona Beach, the Montagues and the Capulets are warring families, gangs essentially. After a fight at a gas station, Benvolio reports back to the head of the Montague family, who is preoccupied with thoughts of his son, Romeo. Romeo, brooding young man that he is, is not eager to engage in the family war and is actually more interested in love. When Mercutio invites Romeo to a Capulet-thrown party, he goes, but without any real enthusiasm. At the party, however, he falls in love with Juliet upon first gazing upon her (through an aquarium) and she is taken with him, despite her mother trying to set him up with Dave Paris.

Following the party, Romeo and Juliet reunite, flirt, and confirm their love for one another. After a secret wedding, a fight breaks out in which Mercutio is killed and in anger, after being much provoked, Romeo kills Tybalt. This earns Romeo banishment from Verona Beach and with him gone, Juliet’s mother pushes her to marry Paris. But with the help of Juliet’s nurse and Father Laurence, Romeo and Juliet make plans to reunite and run away together, before all those plans lead to inevitable tragedy.

William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet is not Franco Zeffirelli’s interpretation of Romeo And Juliet (that was the cinematic version of the story I was raised on and remains a pretty true – literal – interpretation of Shakespeare’s play) and for all the risks it takes – with guns and street fighting – it is pretty tame. In fact, there are only two real strikes against it.

The first is Baz Luhrmann’s direction. The creativity – Mercutio in drag is fine, using televisions for the narrators, etc. – is enviable, though the color palate in the first half of the film is garish. Baz Luhrmann is creative and the creativity stands on its own, for the most part. The issue, though, is with the direction. Luhrmann has created an erratic film. William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet starts lit in bright colors, flamboyant and comical performances, and cuts made so manically that it is almost nauseating. The moment Romeo and Juliet spy one another through the fish tank, the film’s direction changes. The cuts are – blissfully – more static from that point on, the exception being the fight sequence that costs Mercutio his life. The film is still artful, but it looks much more professional and does not rely upon the shock of “modernized Shakespeare” the way the opening half does. Luhrmann also appears to think his audience is idiotic in that he repeats sections, most notably the opening monologue, multiple times as if it were not clear by the words and images he puts on screen.

The only other issue is with the performance of Claire Danes. Danes has been fabulous in each and every other thing I have seen her in, but in William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet she is more often than not stiff or tentative and she stood out at several key moments, especially when playing off Miriam Margolyes (the Nurse). That said, she and Leonardo DiCaprio (Romeo) have great on-screen chemistry. From the moment they first appear on screen together, their chemistry is entirely convincing and enjoyable to watch. They portray young love perfectly.

On DVD, William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet features a commentary track and galleries of production artwork. There are also music videos for some of the music works in the film. William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet is good, but not extraordinary; it takes the incredible poetic lines of Shakespeare and assembles them in an erratically-executed fashion.

For other films based on (or about) Shakespeare’s works, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Hamlet
O
Shakespeare In Love

6/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

After The Apocalypse: Infection Resurrects 28 Weeks Later . . .

The Good: Decent acting, Interesting plot, Good direction, Good musical direction
The Bad: No character development, Huge plot holes, Extraordinary violence and gore
The Basics: Ultimately a terribly average film, 28 Weeks Later . . . returns the viewer to abandoned London after the infection for a well-directed, well-acted poorly plotted, plot-driven film with no real characters.


[Note: This was originally written after seeing "28 Weeks Later . . ." in the theater and I liked my opening, so I am not changing it! Enjoy! - W.L. Swarts]

Have you ever seen a film and, when it was over, you sat and thought, "Man, I hope that's not the last movie I ever see . . ?" I was alternating between that and hoping the tractor that was on the flatbed truck I was following home after seeing 28 Weeks Later . . . would fall off and kill me so I wouldn't have to write this review. I write this not because I have a particular death wish (anymore) or because 28 Weeks Later . . . was a terrible movie, but rather because the film is exceptionally difficult to review. To dispense with the pleasantries, I LOVED 28 Days Later . . . (reviewed here!) and I could not wait to add that film to my DVD library. The short version of this review is that when I first heard 28 Weeks Later . . . was in the works, I was wary. It was better than I thought it would be, but I will not be adding it to my permanent collection when it is released on DVD.

England, the once pleasant island empire, has fallen to the infectious plague virus known as the Rage. Those who are infected run through the streets infecting others and/or tearing them apart. Now, twenty-eight weeks after the initial infection struck, the island is dead and those who escaped in the early days of the infection are being allowed to return to London to rebuild the country. The problem, of course, is that with 15,000 civilians under the watchful eye of the U.S. military, mistakes are bound to happen.

In this case, the mistake is the return of children Andy and Tammy, who are joyfully reunited with their father, Don, who runs some of the new London (he survived on the island throughout the outbreak). Andy and Tammy jump the bridge from protected London into one of the unsanitized areas where they find their mother, Alice, who Don abandoned when she was swarmed by the infected. Alice, it seems, is a carrier of the Rage, but not infected. Unfortunately, almost simultaneous to this discovery, Don reunites with his wife and she infects him, setting off a new wave of infection. As the U.S. military works with surprising ineptitude to contain the new outbreak, Andy and Tammy find themselves running for their lives with Doyle - a soldier - and Scarlet, an army doctor who understands what Alice was.

Just as 28 Days Later . . . ultimately suffers some from the idea that a bloodborne contagion that is so virulent that a drop of it would almost instantly infect people who are uninfected could be fought by a bunch of people who often hack apart infected people in such a way that it is inconceivable that they, too, would not be infected, 28 Weeks Later . . . suffers from serious structural flaws that undermine the basic concept of the film. In 28 Weeks Later . . . the viewer is asked to believe that the U.S. military, which seems in this instance specially designed for contamination control, would be so inept as to forget to lock a door? Ultimately, the new wave of infection begins because the shelter most of the refugees are herded into has an unlocked back door through which the lone infected enters! Understanding the rage virus is entirely dependent upon seeing 28 Days Later . . . and this film stands up poorly if one has not seen it.

But even before that, there are serious questions that are raised that push the level of suspension of disbelief into the realm of suspension of intelligence. Don, established immediately in the new hierarchy of London as the man who runs the power station is able to use his card to gain access to a military quarantine lab. Why? There's no conceivable reason that any of the several checkpoints he swiped his card at en route would not have stopped him to find out his purpose.

But let's backtrack even more. Alice is found in an area of London that the military has been through; the stacks of unburned yellow biohazard bags are evidence of that. How did they miss finding Alice? How did they miss the other bodies that are in the area? Better yet, why is there a bridge connecting the uninfected Green Zone to the dubious remainder of London? And if it must be there, why is it only guarded by two people? Come on!

This may seem like nit-picking, but it actually is a fair exploration of the conceits the viewer is simply expected to swallow without thinking. I refuse to do this. The thing one needs to consider about life after the apocalypse is that it's quiet. With the power grid down, without cars, airplanes, gas fires, water running, without people, much of the world is quieter. I mean this in a literal - sound - fashion and a visual sense. Satellite technology being what it is, infrared heat signatures from a dead nation would stand out brightly. Robbed of all of the things that would clutter up such a device, a human body that was still generating energy would stand out like a flare on an infrared scan. One would presume some of this is how the government was able to assess that the infected had died after five weeks. Alice ought to have been visible long before the military even approached Britain.

But this conceit reaches its peak near the climax of the movie (which I will not ruin by overstating). The viewer is expected to believe that a victim of the rage, who slobbers, shouts maniacally and runs around noisily would not be heard in an empty subway depot? Please! Everything the viewer sees of the infected in the two films illustrates that these are not stealthy people. They run around, flailing, vomiting blood and making noise. Yet, in the last few moments of the film, one pops up in an otherwise empty, open space without any warning. I don't buy it.

Which leads me to my last point - and this one, I will concede is a nit-pick - which deals with Alice. I LOVE the idea of a person who has a natural immunity to the Rage. It makes sense. Humans are resilient that way. For every affliction, there is a cure and often it is in us somewhere. I dig that. Don abandoned Alice - as we see in the film's opening - because she was swarmed with infected. While we may easily buy that Alice has the natural ability to resist the Rage, it's pretty far-fetched to believe that the infected would not simply tear her apart.

That said, 28 Weeks Later . . . is not a subtle movie. In fact, it seems to hinge on the idea that the circumstances are so horrific that the viewer will simply disengage their senses and sensibilities. One of the wonderfully terrifying moments of 28 Days Later . . . was when Jim is told about the outbreak at the airport and the viewer imagines the terror of a crowd becoming infected and people trampling one another to try to escape. 28 Weeks Later . . . shows that quite graphically and it leads to a sequence that is graphic, violent, bloody, and also strangely inadequate.

The U.S. military in 28 Weeks Later . . . takes a right rebound from cautious and inept to the necessary stage of overkill. The problem here is in the middle ground. The moment a quarantine is activated - when Don becomes infected and escapes - the military ought to have been on its most ready and (frankly) brutal standing. The moment the quarantine was broken, there is no sensible reason for not shooting everything that moves. Yes, human compassion dictates some of the people running out of the quarantine area may not be infected and you're killing innocent people. Contagion protocol dictates a level of callousness that must disengage from that. Contagion protocol is big picture thinking; you kill all two thousand people in the bunker to protect the other thirteen thousand people and the world at large.

So, despite the gore and horror that erupts from the infection and the shock and horror that the audience might feel when innocents are eventually cut down, many will simply watch and wonder, why weren't they doing that from the beginning?

It is at this point in the review that some might be wondering why I'm dissecting the plot so very much. I'm making righteous attacks on the plot because this is a plot-intensive film. There is almost no character development to speak of. In fact, the only true element of character development comes within the first ten minutes of the film. The film opens with a small group of survivors of the plague having a meal when a young boy arrives at the house and Don, Alice and the others take him in, though the Infected soon rush through killing most. Don and Alice become separated when Alice opts to save the young boy instead of herself. The sole bit of genuine character development in 28 Weeks Later . . . comes when Andy - Alice's son who had been evacuated prior to the event - is shown on screen and he looks stunningly like the boy Alice tried to save. We understand that Alice's maternal instinct kicked in to try to save someone who reminded her of her son. It's subtle, clever and it's the only thing in the one and a half hour frightfest that genuinely pops of insight.

Robbed of character development, it's hard to even discuss the acting. Rose Byrne is well cast as Scarlet. She is plausible as a military doctor and the viewer wonders why the Major doesn't fight more for what she believes in. Byrne is able to connote compassion and strength in a character that is otherwise very much a "type." She is a joy to watch throughout the film.

Similarly, Robert Carlyle is empathetic as Don. Carlyle is one of the few survivors of the outbreak and he is shocked, cautious and deeply wounded at the beginning of the film. Carlyle's performance of a survivor is so good that he makes the viewer wonder why Don would even want to stay in Britain. Seriously, when he tells his children that they can't go back to their old home, his performance is so heartwrenching that it makes the viewer sit up and wonder, why are people bothering to go back to London anyway? I mean, if I've been fleeing for over three months before I see someone who is sane, uninfected and has access to a safe world off the island, why would I stay amidst the ghosts and gloom as opposed to begging for extraction?

Even the kids, Mackintosh Muggleton (Andy) and Imogen Poots (Tammy) are decent enough in their performances, though for most of the film they are relegated to running and looking terrified. Jeremy Renner convincingly plays the military-minded Doyle and we instantly believe his efficiency and instinct toward self preservation. Even Harold Perrineau - recognizable from his role of Michael on Lost (reviewed here!) - is fine, though underscripted as the helicopter pilot Flynn.

Which brings us to the final analysis. No character development, a good concept that results in a plot that only works when one ignores the facts presented, and generally good acting. The musical direction is as powerful as in the first film and director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo does a great job at making the film look and feel like the next chapter in the saga. But ultimately, this is a whole lot of blood, with little sensibility.

There we go. There is a lot of blood. There is a lot of gore. There is a lot of shooting, frenzied violence and even a whole load of people split apart by helicopter blades. How this movie skated by with an R rating, I don't know. I'm not big into the MPAA or ratings, because I believe they should be guidelines that simply dictate what state a film is in, as opposed to something that is regulated such that movies submit and resubmit to try to get the rating they want (I think films should get one pass with the MPAA, rated and then released in that form and let parents and adults do the rest of the work). How 28 Weeks Later . . . is R and not NC-17 or X, I do not know. I've no problem with it if it was, in fact for a post-apocalyptic scenario where any means necessary will be employed to save the world, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have such carnage to rate a higher rating. This movie feels like it ought to have been something more extreme than an R rating. It employs a level of graphicness that is both disturbing and appropriate. For the plot of the film, this is to be expected. It ought to be rated like that, though.

Now on DVD, 28 Weeks Later . . . features a commentary track as well as some other decent bonus features. There are deleted scenes, featurettes and a "graphic novel" that bridges the first movie with this one. It's a nice package that adds value to the otherwise mediocre film.

So, it's a lot of blood, gore, violence, extreme concept that is pretty terrifying (though also pretty well telegraphed). And for what? Had the movie ended where it appeared to end, I think I would have rated it higher. But there was one additional scene. It sets up another potential sequel and it basically defines what the whole purpose of the film we've just sat through truly is. And it's a disappointing direction and it comes rather out of the blue.

Which is why this film is so hard to rate. I spent some time debating rating it an 8 (with a not recommend) because it was a good example of a post-apocalyptic horror filled with all the expected gore and terror one would figure on. I thought about all of the plot holes and thought maybe it was a 4 that I could recommend to those who liked 28 Days Later . . . Ultimately, I think in my pantheon (which is a 10 point scale), this would be best rated as a six because it is well directed, well acted (given the parts) and if one were going to resurrect the rage virus 28 weeks later, I suppose this might be the most plausible avenue. Ultimately, though, this is a remarkably average film experience and it leaves the viewer with a sense of being unfulfilled. And I return to where I was before I ever saw this movie: 28 Weeks Later . . . is a bad idea; they should have left it with the first movie and let it be.

I wish I had.

For other films about infectious agents, please visit my reviews of:
Contagion
Zombieland
Quarantine

6/10 (not recommended)

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Revolting Conclusion To What Could Have Been A Classic: The Matrix Revolutions!

The Good: Moments of special effects, Daring defiance of audience expectations
The Bad: Speed of special effects, Lack of character, Terrible resolution, Abandonment of themes, Bad acting
The Basics: In a disappointing conclusion to a movie franchise gone wrong, The Matrix Revolutions forces the viewer to ask what kind of dimwits are enslaved by such stupid machines?


When I left The Matrix Reloaded (reviewed here!), I had some ambivalence. When I rewatched it, I came to appreciate it more. In the interim, I had seen The Matrix Revolutions, which may have been what softened me up for Reloaded again. It's important to note that Revolutions, in addition to "revolt," also means "turn over," which seems to be a double entendre the producers intended. For every bit of ambivalence I had after The Matrix Reloaded, the first time, I had dislike of The Matrix Revolutions. Here is why the series should have ended with The Matrix . . .

Beginning moments after The Matrix Reloaded, Revolutions finds our people in fairly dire straits. Neo appears to be gone and Trinity and Morpheus are hitching a ride on another ship, while the Sentinels are nearing the subterranean city of Zion. Neo finds himself in a holding room within the Matrix, having developed the power to jack himself in without actually being attached to a computer. Rescued by Trinity and Morpheus, Neo visits the Oracle moments before she, like most of the personalities within the Matrix, is absorbed by Agent Smith. As open war wages within Zion, Neo and Trinity journey to the machine capital city, stalked by the evil Smith made incarnate until Neo can face Smith inside the Matrix for one last showdown.

Right off the bat, the single most disappointing aspect of this movie is its complete abandonment of where the series had been. What was the purpose of the first movie, The Matrix (reviewed here)? It was to get Neo out of the Matrix because humans were enslaved by machines and they needed to be freed. Even The Matrix Reloaded found some time to debate philosophy and attempted to put up the pretense that the war was about freeing the humans who were enslaved by the machines. The Matrix Revolutions makes no such pretense. In fact, the closest mention that is made about freeing the humans comes as an afterthought at the very end of the movie and in a context that implies that there will be no humans freed (i.e. the humans in the Matrix are told they will have a choice, but given the nature of the revolution in the Matrix, there is little or no reason to believe anyone in the Matrix at the conclusion of the film would actually know or suspect they were in the computer environment.

Furthermore, for a film series that prided itself on innovations in special effects, The Matrix Revolutions seems to have no real sense behind the special effects. The perfect example is in the battle for Zion. The machines bore a hole down into the earth, into Zion, through which hundreds of thousands of Sentinels emerge. While the humans start firing at the hole right away (good strategy), many Sentinels make it through (as one might expect). Why then, would the Sentinels be so stupid as to remain in streams to be picked off? How have these idiot robots stayed in power without realizing the most elemental strategy, which in this case would be to get through the small hole, then expand as much as possible. Given the limited armaments of the humans, the Sentinels should easily have overrun them by simply forming a blanket (a wave instead of a trickle) once they were inside. It's that type of lack of sensibility that makes The Matrix Revolutions quite difficult to watch. Add to that that the special effects occur at ridiculously quick speeds. It's almost impossible to tell what is going on because the Sentinels and bullets and such are moving so fast.

Beyond the battle of Zion, we are left with our protagonists. In The Matrix Revolutions, we are down to Neo and Trinity as heroes because Morpheus - who was such a powerhouse in the previous pictures - is a complete nonentity here. Morpheus has a place in the film, but it's way back in the balcony. He does not advise Neo, he is not prophetic, he's not even interesting. Had he been left out of anything after the first five minutes, the movie would have evolved without any differences.

So, how are things with Neo and Trinity? Trinity is still a strong female character and Neo is still something of a dimwit who is trying to solve things with force. However, Neo's strategy in entering the machine city does beg the audience to ask three important questions: 1. Why haven't any humans before Neo figured out that if they want to destroy the machines, all they have to do is go above the clouds?, 2. Why did the machines build such an elaborate system for getting their energy as harvesting humans when they could have simply made really big poles to push the solar panels they depended on above the clouds? and 3. If the humans had noticed the machine inability to figure out how to get above the clouds, once their subterranean cities started getting wiped out, why didn't any of them strike up the idea to start building cities above the clouds?

Apparently, the Wachowski brothers assume we are all sheep or idiots that would never conceive these things. Watching their movie, I came up with these ideas within ten seconds. Ten seconds to come up with more viable, intelligent and inspired ideas than Neo or Morpheus. Hey reader, I am the One! One would think that with the fate of the entire human race on the line, the surviving people would become inspired and creative. Apparently not; they'd rather dance around in caves. Sigh.

My point in all of this is that Neo fails to develop into more than he was in the last movie. He's still a guy trying to fight violence with violence and as a result, the film degenerates into more battle scenes. This culminates in the least inspired fight of the series, when Neo takes on Agent Smith in the ruins of the Matrix. I said at the very beginning that I always wanted to see Neo expand his perceptions to the point that in his realization that the Matrix wasn't real and its parts had no affect on him that there should come a time that he is hit unbelievably hard and he is not thrown backward. Can you dig it? If gravity and force don't have an effect on Neo in the Matrix (because he knows his body is not really there), it does not matter how hard he is hit, he should not be pushed backward. Unfortunately, the Wachowski brothers never developed their idea that far and even in the last scenes of the battle between Neo and Smith, when Smith hits Neo unimaginably hard, Neo goes flying tremendous distances.

If it seems all I am doing is harping on the special effects and the fight sequences, you are quite perceptive. The reason for that is that they make up not only the bulk, but the substance of the movie. While The Matrix belabored philosophy and training, The Matrix Revolutions is almost exclusively a stream of battles and hand to hand combats strung together. There is little reason, less thought and almost a complete lack of empathetic characters.

In the end, the only thing at all noteworthy about The Matrix Revolutions is that it defies the audiences expectations in the end. Some of them, anyway. I was expecting the series to end, but they left far too many doors open for me to be left satisfied that they might learn from their mistakes and end it here. If nothing else, even more than the prequel trilogy to Star Wars, the Matrix trilogy illustrates the importance of quitting while you are ahead. Had The Matrix ended with Neo flying off with the godlike potential he appeared to have, we never would have been subjected to the pointless sendoff that is The Matrix Revolutions. This movie is only for those who have seen the other two, though it is likely to leave those who appreciated either of its predecessors woefully disappointed.

For other special-effects driven films, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Sucker Punch
Thor
Alice In Wonderland

3.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Why Reloading The Matrix Wasn't The Best Or Worst Idea: The Matrix Reloaded!

The Good: Special effects, Moments of philosophy, Moments of acting
The Bad: Repetitive fight scenes, Boring analysis, Lack of emphasis on freedom fight
The Basics: When Neo, Trinity and Morpheus re-enter the Matrix, a fight ensues that defies reason or philosophy or the viewer's ability to appreciate.


Some things are best left as they are. That is to say, some films do not need sequels, some musical artists ought to be content with their one #1 hit, and some people who successfully publish books should be happy with the one they get out on the shelves. The Wachowski brothers had successful movies like Bound before they did The Matrix (reviewed here!). Once they had the smash with The Matrix, they should have been content to let that universe they created be. That is to say that the end to The Matrix was a nice end to the plot of that story. Indeed, when I heard they were doing a sequel to the movie, I said, "Unless they're doing a prequel, that's going to be boring; after all, who wants to see a movie about a god reorganizing the world?"

It is rare that I am so right and so wrong. That is to say that I was wrong in that the sequel to The Matrix was neither a prequel, nor a film about a newly formed god freeing the enslaved people of the Matrix. I was right in that outside the visual elements, most of The Matrix Reloaded is boring.

Beginning some undefined time after The Matrix ended, The Matrix Reloaded finds the war between the machines and the humans at a potential turning point. The machine army has discovered the last human city, Zion, and they are mounting an attack. As they drill toward the subterranean city, Morpheus convinces Neo and the Council of Zion that the battle must actually be fought inside the Matrix and, as a matter of faith, he believes Neo will win the war for them.

This brings Neo, Morpheus and Trinity into the Matrix to search for the Oracle and then the Keymaker in a series of pointless fights and witless chases that climax in a cliffhanger designed to get the viewer to watch the last installment of the trilogy.

What works in The Matrix Reloaded is that it looks good. While The Matrix was groundbreaking with its special effects, it also told a wonderful story about a band of humans trying to fight off slavery in a very physical, real form (i.e. being chained to computers for power) and in an intellectual level ("Free your mind"). The Matrix Reloaded spends about a tenth of the time on the philosophy and too much of it is raw exposition in the form of two exceptionally boring white men (Merovingian and The Architect). Basically, these two characters spend a lot of time talking about cause and effect and programming. Almost completely gone is the whole philosophy of what it means to be free and the importance of self-determination. Much of The Matrix Reloaded is about predestination.

The problem with this is that The Matrix ended with Neo having the big epiphany. Neo understood that anything that happened in the Matrix was not real, it could not harm him and he could undo it. In The Matrix Reloaded the closest the viewer sees of that is Neo's ability to see the actual programming around him. It's a cheap out used to cover the fact that it's almost impossible to do a movie about an omnipotent character. In short, if The Matrix ended with Neo understanding how to change the world, by completely defying it, the hold the machines had over the enslaved humans should have been broken and humanity should have been entirely freed.

Instead, The Matrix Reloaded spends a great deal of time with fighting. Neo fights Agents, Neo fights Smiths (who have returned with new powers), Neo fights Seraph, Neo fights thugs, Neo lets his friends fight the two badass programs that can make themselves immaterial. The short point: it's boring. We've seen Neo fight. We saw Neo fight in the first one. He fought, it was cool. He (and the audience) moved beyond it. By the second fight sequence in The Matrix Reloaded, anyone who truly enjoyed the depth of the themes of The Matrix is bored and basically saying "Get on with it!"

That said, The Matrix Reloaded was not the worst film I saw in 2003. It was not even as bad as The Matrix Revolutions, which completed the saga. The truth is, I liked The Matrix Reloaded more when I saw it the second time. I was still bored by the fights and I still thought the primal dance scene was somewhat ridiculous, but there was a lot to enjoy.

The first thing I enjoyed about it was Lawrence Fishburn's portrayal of Morpheus. Fishburn plays him like a quiet zealot and it's an intriguing role. Fishburn does amazing physical work with his stunts and makes us believe in Morpheus and the strength of his belief in Neo. At the end of the day, without Morpheus, the viewer would care a lot less about Neo. Fishburn adds presence to a great number of lines that could have easily sounded cliche from any other actor.

The second thing I enjoyed was the performance by Carrie-Anne Moss as Trinity. She is flat out cool in The Matrix Reloaded. She moves like a cat, talks like a sweetheart lover poet and drives like a maniac. She is the most fun to watch in The Matrix Reloaded.

The other thing I liked about the movie was the scope. Entering Zion, a lot of effort is made to compare the surroundings with humans, so the viewer sees how very big everything is. There is a wonderful sense of architecture and physical majesty to the buildings in The Matrix Reloaded.

Unfortunately, that detail was not carried into the smaller details. One of the most sensible aspects of The Matrix was the detail in the costuming. The freed humans wore spun-looking, ratty clothes. They looked like fugitives and rebels. In Zion in The Matrix Reloaded, humans are wearing finely made garments that would take extensive machining to make. And in this world, we're at war with those machines.

In the final analysis, The Matrix Reloaded was a movie that should never have been made, but now that is has, it disappoints the sensibilities of those who wanted to see a thoughtful continuation of The Matrix. While some of the elements are exciting (the freeway chase, for example), most of the movie is visually fast, thematically devoid and repetitive in the most uninspired ways. Not for anyone who hasn't seen The Matrix and for those who loved it, save yourself the disappointment and let the series stay with the high note. Not for anyone who isn't a fan of science fiction either.

For other epics that push the envelope of special effects, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Watchmen
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon

5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Women Top Many Things, But Not Woman On Top!

The Good: Background actors do a good job
The Bad: Utter lack of character development, First billed actors aren't acting, Not funny
The Basics: A sad attempt at sexy and funny fails to be both instead being an insulting blend of idiotic men and women who believe fate controls them in Woman On Top.


It's supposed to be difficult for a feminist to pan a film that is pro-woman, pro-choice. I'd like to laugh at all of my fellow feminists who tout Woman On Top as a wonderful example of a feminist film. The truth is, they're full of it. Woman On Top is not a feminist film. It is not a film about the strength of a woman and the importance of her decisions; it's about how stupid men are and how most think with their genitals. The protagonist, Isabella Oliveira, does not make so many decisions revealing her inner strength as she waits for the men in her life to come to their senses and realize she's important and begin to cherish her. In fact, Woman On Top is not a feminist treatise, Penelope Cruz is not the latest feminist; this is another romantic comedy where casting was done on t,l, and a. The "l," in case you didn't guess, is "legs."

Woman On Top is a romantic comedy (I use both terms lightly) wherein Isabella Oliveira leaves Brazil and her cheating husband for San Francisco. There she finds her newly released transvestite friend, Monica, and she meets Cliff Lloyd. Cliff, in addition to being ridiculously attracted to her, gets her a job as a chef on television. So, Isabella becomes involved with a strange love triangle between herself, Cliff and Toninho, who follows her to San Francisco to declare his love.

The first thing is, they're all utterly passionless. There's no chemistry between Cliff and Isabella, even less between Isabella and her husband. Everything is oversimplified. Cliff follows Isabella as part of a mob of men who simply begin following her down the street her one of her first days in San Francisco. He's solely attracted to her body and the truth is, if you've watched more than ten american films in your life, you've seen it before. She's thin, leggy, busty enough, clear skin, you name it. It's the typical Hollywood look woman.

The men in the film, they're all idiots. In addition to being utterly dazzled by Isabella, the men are simple and driven by one thing. It's pathetic. I demand better in my characters. Cliff goes from being so dazzled by Isabella to being more focused on his career, which doesn't read right considering one of his first lines is that he hates his life and work. The only male that has a good, consistent character is Alex, played by John de Lancie. He's consistent as a television exec always out to do what will make the show float.

The only woman that gives a decent performance is Anne Ramsay as the show's director. If you've never seen her name come up in association with this film here's why: she's a bit role. She's not focused on at all. That's how far down the ladder I had to go for a good female character. The only other performance of note is Harold Perrineau Jr. as Monica. He's convincing and funny as Monica.

Woman On Top suffers as most romantic comedies do from predictability. Add to that an element of superstition that completely destroys the idea of women empowering themselves, a series of bad performances and a complete lack of character development and you have an equation for a film not worth seeing.

For other movies starring Penelope Cruz, check out my reviews of:
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
G-Force
All The Pretty Horses

1.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

A Season Underground And Dangerous: Lost Season Two Is Perfect!

The Good: Excellent character work, interesting plots, good acting, great concept
The Bad: Moments of predictable reversal
The Basics: With its intriguing characters and interesting story, Lost spends a season underground in the hatch, saving the world and one another.



Sophomore seasons can make or break a hit show. With Lost, (first season DVD set review can be read by clicking here!) the challenge was to answer questions left from the first season and continue to grow the mysteries of the island and the backstory of the characters in such a way as to keep people interested and guessing. And in true J.J. Abrams fashion, Lost - The Complete Second Season: The Extended Experience on DVD delivers, only without J.J. Abrams. Due to Abrams' working on Mission Impossible III and finishing off the series Alias, there is little of J.J. Abrams in the second season of Lost, though executive producers Carlton Cuse and Daimon Lindoff seamlessly execute the second season with the same mood and feel of the first.

Picking up in the moment after the last shot of season 1, Locke and Jack are instantly captivated by the now-open hatch. Exploring the hatch causes conflict between Jack, Lock and Kate and when they discover that what lies beneath the island may be an apocalyptic device, the leaders of the survivors become conflicted over what to do. Meanwhile, having been left adrift by the Others, Sawyer, Michael and Jin soon find themselves back on the island and at the mercy of a rugged group who is soon revealed to be more survivors from Oceanic flight 815, and their experiences on the island have not been pleasant.

Under tragic circumstances, the two groups of survivors come together, but the Island's version of fate soon hands them a prize or gift that has the potential to lead to more even more conflict, tragedy and possibly a way off the island.

One of the most effective aspects of Lost is the tension and mysteries surrounding the island. The island acts as a character in the first season with the menace of the Thing In The Woods, the Others, the Hatch and the strange confluence of other apparent coincidences it reveals. The Hatch was the big mystery of season one and season two was set up to deliver exactly what was in the hatch. The revelation of what is in the bunker happens over the course of the first three episodes of season 2 and the demands it places on our protagonists on the island are certainly compelling. On one of the commentaries, one of the execs defines season two as "The Year of the Hatch" and it certainly is a year with our characters underground, both physically and metaphorically.

Equally as interesting is the introduction of the Tailies (as Hurley calls them), who have survived - barely - under the guidance of Ana-Lucia (who was introduced in the season 1 finale) while being under siege by the Others. One of the most intense episodes of the season "The Other 48 Days" recalls the attempts by the Tailies to survive. Their story is not one of foraging for food and waiting for rescue. It's a dark tale wherein they are attacked, kidnaped and forced to flee into the jungle by the Others who are preying upon them. They are merciless when Sawyer, Michael and Jin wash up on shore and their dismal view of the world as a result of their experiences makes for compelling television.

What works so well on Lost is not simply that it tells an interesting story, but that it takes the time to explore characters with a depth and richness that we do not usually see on television. As in the first season, most episodes of Lost combine a character-driven narrative in the present time with an exploration of the important character's backstory. So, for example, in season 2, we learn "What Kate Did," what it was actually like for Hurley to win the lottery and we witness Sawyer living up to his potential as a con man.

All great television focuses on great characters and Lost certainly applies. Here is where season two finds the principles of Lost:

Jack - Determined to keep the survivors alive and safe, Jack's initial plan to move everyone into the hatch fails, but he quickly adapts. Upon learning what is in the hatch, Jack steps up to become the leader he had resisted becoming and he works to give purpose to the survivors, until a new arrival threatens everything,

Sayid - Having just found love with Shannon, Sayid's expertise soon comes into play with exploring the hatch and later when Rousseau presents him with an intriguing gift,

Hurley - Given the responsibilities of a quartermaster when the hatch is opened, Hugo comes to understand that the island is guided by forces much bigger than he is. Hurley also finds himself attracted to one of the Tailies,

Sawyer - Wounded and broken following the events on the raft, Sawyer works to reconcile his feelings for Kate with his past and his desire to make something out of his time on the island,

Jin - Soon reunited with his wife, Jin struggles to learn English and help Michael find Walt. However, Sun soon provides him with a reason to stand by her,

Sun - Still keeping secrets from Jin, she is overwhelmed by the powers the island appears to possess and she finds herself in another serious predicament,

Kate - While attempting to help Jack, Kate allies herself with Locke to explore what is in the hatch. Soon after, she discovers her feelings for Sawyer are growing and when he abruptly returns, she finds herself seriously conflicted with her feelings for both Sawyer and Jack,

Charlie - Struggling to remain clean after finding more heroin on the island and soon abandoned by Locke, Charlie finds himself in a strange apprenticeship with Mr. Eko, from the tail section,

John Locke - Having made it to the bottom of the hatch, Locke finds the purpose he was looking for and he abandons the survivors for an attempt to save the world. In that, he soon discovers his chance at a greater destiny and he embraces his Fate in a way no one would expect,

Claire - Dealing with her baby and her on and off relationship with Charlie, Claire soon learns her baby might be in danger and she goes on a search for the answers to what happened to her in her missing days on the island,

Michael - Having lost Walt to the Others, Michael becomes obsessed with finding them. He leaves the safety of the hatch to find Walt and when he returns, his answers will change everything for the survivors,

Shannon - Falling in love with Sayid leads to consequences Shannon would not have guessed,

Ana-Lucia - The leader of the Tailies, Ana-Lucia works to overcome her violent past and when the survivors from the raft wash ashore, she works hard to trust them. With her arrival in the hatch, she attempts to restart her life by trusting Jack and the others,

Libby - A psychologist with a past linked to Hurley, Libby survived with the Tailies and works to fit in with the survivors on the other side of the island. She soon develops a relationship with Hurley,

Mr. Eko - With his mysterious past as a priest and a criminal in Africa, Eko feels a sense of destiny and responsibility on the island. He takes in Charlie as his apprentice and when he is given the opportunity to help Locke, he takes it, leading to cataclysmic events on the island,

and Walt - Captured by the Others, Walt appears as a phantasm throughout the season to various characters in their moments of greatest need, confusion or conflict.

The characters in Lost are compelling and the show does an excellent job balancing them, which is difficult to do with such a large cast as Lost has. Indeed, the addition of new characters could have been problematic, but the executive producers do an excellent job balancing the new characters with the ones from the first season and the show continues to work rather well. We have the feeling that this is the continuation of the narrative we began in season 1 as opposed to being a totally new show. That takes finesse and the producers deserve credit for that.

The actors deserve a lot of credit as well. This is a strong ensemble cast and they work quite well together. Daniel Dae Kim remains one of the most powerful actors of the show, convincing viewers easily of his difficulty speaking English so effectively that when in "Everybody Hates Hugo," Jin speaks flawless English in a dream sequence, the viewers are easily rattled. Of course Daniel Dae Kim is paired frequently with Yoon-jin Kim who is an exceptional actress and the two work quite well with one another.

Matthew Fox continues to do strong work that is completely different from any other character he has played. Similarly, Evangeline Lilly gives strong performances that balance her character's coarseness and vulnerability. Josh Holloway is convincing as Sawyer, for more than just his rugged good looks.

Perhaps the most neglected on the cast is the truly wonderful Naveen Andrews, who plays Sayid. Sayid is given surprisingly little until midseason, though his part in the mid and latter episodes is quite strong. Andrews does remarkably well with the part he is given, but it seems a shame to use such a talented individual so little. The character was initially set up as a "type" as opposed to an individual and Andrews has worked hard to add depth to what could be a fairly awful stereotype.

But the mind-blowing standout in the cast is once again Terry O'Quinn. John Locke, who spent season one as a mysterious and in-control character becomes vulnerable in season two, especially through his backstory. O'Quinn not only rises to the occasion as Locke, but he makes the viewers wait for his stories and we gobble them up when they are given to us. Terry O'Quinn is given an incredible acting challenge as Locke finds purpose, collapses, and then takes charge in an incredible new way and never once does his performance waver. O'Quinn is the man to watch on Lost.

So, who will like season 2 of Lost? Those who saw season one. It is, quite simply, a waste of time for newcomers. Unlike some series' that one can jump right into, Lost is heavily serialized and the clip show recap of the series (available at Best Buy as an exclusive bonus disc, though they are almost impossible to find) does not do it justice and will not prepare the viewer for the experience of the show. Then again, after seeing this season, it is hard not to want the complete series!

For other science fiction television programs, please check out my reviews of:
Star Trek
VR.5

10/10

For other television programs, please check out the index page!

© 2010, 2007, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

A Plane of Scoundrels, Cheats, Cursed and Unlucky People Crashes On An Island . . . Lost Season 1!

The Good: Excellent Character Development, Good Acting, Clever Writing, Wonderful Plot, Pacing
The Bad: Treatment of Pilot, Predictable Ending to the Season, Lack of DVD Commentary For Later Episodes
The Basics: In its first season, Lost tells the story of survivors of a plane crash who must deal with their pasts, a monster in the woods, and each other.

Some of the language of this review is written as if Lost were still at its beginning, which is when the review was originally written.  I liked the flavor of it and so I've opted not to change the wording from the original 2005 text for most of the review.  Enjoy!


Once in a while there is a television show that is so wonderfully different from everything else on television that it becomes an event that one looks forward to each and every week. Star Trek Deep Space Nine, Sports Night, and Nothing Sacred have all filled that niche in my life in the past. Now, every week I find myself anticipating Lost. After watching the third episode, I knew that this was going to be a television show I purchased when it came out on DVD and I was one of the first to my local Media Play when it was released.

Lost is different from anything else on television in that it does not tell a single linear story each week. The basic premise is simple enough; a group of people survive a plane crash and find themselves alive on a desert island. But what the show is truly about in its first season is introducing the viewers to the characters. Season One is a setup, an introduction, a prelude to the actual plot that is unfolding in season two (and presumably, beyond). Each episode tells a story of one of the survivors and then flashes back to that character's backstory to explain how and why that character was on the plane. Usually, the past and present stories are deeply intertwined with key events in the past explaining or justifying the actions of a character in the present.

The story of Lost in its first season is truly simple enough. Oceanic Flight 815 Sydney (Australia) to Los Angeles hits some turbulence and breaks up mid-flight, depositing some forty-eight people on a desert island. Amid the wreckage, Dr. Jack Shephard treats the wounded and survives long enough to save some of the victims of the crash from exploding debris, ghastly wounds and fear.

Surviving the plane crash is only the beginnings of the problems for the passengers. In short order, the survivors realize there is something massive and unseen tearing apart the forest, some of those wounded in the crash are dying and the food supply is dangerously low. When Jack and two other survivors venture into the woods in search of the plane's black box, they learn the horrifying truth of their predicament: no rescue will be forthcoming as the plane was a thousand miles off course when it broke up.

So, the survivors begin to survive, with John Locke hunting boar, Sayid applying his technical skills to the problem of creating a working transmitter, Jack learning to be a leader and leading the survivors from the desperate hope of the beach and rescue to inland caves and survival for the long haul. And in the process of their various attempts to cope and deal with each other, it becomes obvious that the survivors of the crash are not the only ones on the island, a fact reinforced when Locke discovers a mysterious hatch in the ground.

J.J. Abrams is one of the creators and co-executive producers of Lost, treading on his street credibility from Felicity and the more successful Alias. Abrams delivers and with his co-creators Jeffrey Lieber and Damon Lindelof, there is a remarkably cohesive quality to the first season of the show. There is the overall sense that the show is going somewhere and that the producers had a pretty firm idea of who the characters were when they began the work. This bodes well for the series and the only real probable limitation to their vision will be in the actors; quality shows that have well-conceived long-term arcs like Babylon 5 have suffered when actors decide they are moving on to other projects. It would be unfortunate if Lost ran into such a difficulty. As it stands, the first season feels very much like there are long arcs in the works and viewers will be rewarded if they stick with the show.

As the best serialized television shows all have strong characters in common, Lost has a powerful ensemble that keeps viewers returning week after week. The advantage of this series is that with such a large ensemble, the show could go on quite a long time exploring all of the different characters. Indeed, the first season takes place over the course of roughly 45 days, much of which is exploring backstory. Here are the characters who are Lost in the first season:

Dr. Jack Shephard - A surgeon who survives the plane crash only to become the de facto leader of those who want to adapt and survive. He takes on the responsibility of caring for the survivors of the crash and in the process becomes entrusted with many secrets of the various personalities of those who survived as well as the firearms that the survivors possess,

Sayid - An Iraqi who served in the Republican Guard, Sayid is a technical genius bent on getting off the island. His skills allow the survivors to learn that they are not alone on the island and, in fact, he is the first to meet one of the island's other inhabitants. His skills are called upon in leading those who want rescue above all else and he finds himself drawn more and more to the charms of Shannon,

Claire - A pregnant Australian who is on the plane because a psychic told her there was a family in Los Angeles her baby would be safe with. She frets about her unborn child and finds a close friend in Charlie,

Hurley - A good-natured and rather large guy who is often the negotiator on the island, running between different groups of people. His story is guarded for much of the season, but his reasons for being on the plane might be the reason for the crash itself,

Shannon - A spoiled gold-digger whose lifestyle is not supported by being trapped on a desert island. She starts as one who would use anyone to keep herself comfortable, but when her asthma returns, she finds herself dependent. Close to her brother Boone, Shannon's story takes her away from her protective brother when Sayid finds a use for her translating French,

Sawyer - The rogue of the survivors. A con man and a scoundrel, Sawyer becomes the quartermaster as he was the first to scavenge the wreckage. Much of what people want they have to go through him to get. His past is a dark one and he is not on the island for redemption,

Jin - A Korean who does not speak English, he attempts to keep himself and his wife isolated from everyone else. Once he attacks another survivor, though, he is forced to accept that their lives and fates are intertwined. He provides fish for the survivors, but otherwise has no ability to communicate with anyone other than his wife,

Sun - Jin's wife and a woman with a secret. Disappointed by Jin's domineering qualities, Sun had a plan before getting on the plane and the crash has made her rethink her reasons for taking the flight. Sun works to mediate between herself, Jin and the others, realizing that Fate may have deposited her on the island as punishment,

Kate - A woman who was in custody when the plane crashed, Kate is a hardened criminal whose exact crimes remain something of a mystery. She, like Sawyer, is something of a rogue and she bonds quickly to Sawyer, Sayid and Jack. She never reveals more about herself than she has to and as a result is quite a mystery to most everyone on the plane and her agenda is mostly just to escape if rescue does come,

Charlie - The bass player of "Driveshaft," a one-hit band that left Charlie a has-been and a drug addict. He is searching for himself as he goes through withdrawal and finds Claire affectionate toward him. He often ends up on important hikes with Jack or Kate and knows much of what is going on on the island,

John Locke - An older man who is in no hurry to leave the island for a simple reason; he was the beneficiary of a miracle when the crash occurred and he comes to believe the island is an entity or a force of its own. Locke hunts boar for the survivors until he discovers a mysterious hatch in the ground, a hatch he believes is manifested by the island and holds a purpose for him. That belief will motivate his actions and change everything for the survivors,

Michael - An artist and construction worker, he is the father of Walt. Struggling to become Walt's father, he often finds himself in conflict with the boy and Locke, who has taken an interest in the child. His is a story of loss and conflict, adversity and the attempt to triumph over it. Disturbed by what he sees on the island, he decides he must get himself and Walt off the island and he begins construction of a raft,

Walt - A ten year-old boy who was raised by his mother and stepfather in Australia. There is something unsettling about the boy and it does not take long before it becomes apparent that he possesses some gifts that cannot be seen and might not be good,

and Boone - Shannon's brother. Obsessed with Shannon and protective of her, he often finds himself appalled by her bratty nature. Thus, he finds it rather easy to apprentice himself to Locke when the opportunity comes along, a move that changes his life radically.

This is a wonderful eclectic group of characters and their interactions and conflicts make the show far more intriguing than the mysterious unseen creature in the woods. As relationships form (and dissolve) between them, it creates a powerful drama that keeps the viewer coming back for more and eager to see what will happen to them next.

But great characters are nothing without actors to portray them. This is a show that is impressive for its lack of ego in the actors. The cast is listed alphabetically, despite the fact that the character with the most screentime is easily Jack, portrayed by Matthew Fox. Fox is an excellent binder for the actors, approaching the role with good humor and intensity. This is very different from any other role Fox has done and it works quite well for him. Similarly, Dominic Monaghan - best known as Merry in The Lord of the Rings - gives a great performance as Charlie that is quite different from his supporting Hobbit role. Here he is given much screentime to be awkward, pained, and comical. His moments of revelation where he reveals much with his eyes make him an actor to watch.

All of the women of Lost are incredible actresses. Emile de Ravin is great as the pregnant Claire, adding a lot of humor to her young character that works very well. Maggie Grace, one hopes, is a fantastic actress as she pulls off spoiled and rich very well. Because of how unlikable her character is, Grace often gets the short straw for attention. She does wonderful work with her voice and body language that sells her performances and make her character. Evangeline Lilly is excellent as well as Kate, using facial expressions and expressiveness of her eyes to take Kate from sympathetic to hard within an eyeblink. Her character is a strong woman and Lilly effectively balances the internal strength of her character with a powerful bearing with a vulnerability that creeps into her eyes and lips when she needs it to. Yunjin Kim is extraordinary as Sun, especially in the earliest episodes of the season where she is given the greatest acting challenges. She pulls it off admirably.

Complimenting Yunjin Kim's performance is Daniel Dae Kim, who I've enjoyed as a recurring guest actor on Angel. Kim's performance as Jin is memorable in that in all other roles I've seen him in, he speaks perfect, fluent English without any trace of any accent. As Jin, he speaks fluent Korean and he completely sells the viewer on the idea that he does not and cannot speak English. That's quite a feat!

The real star to watch on Lost in the first season is the always excellent Terry O'Quinn. O'Quinn starred in Abram's other work, Alias, and in the fabulously dark Millennium. In Lost, O'Quinn plays a quiet man with deep convictions and he sells the viewer on Locke's vision. O'Quinn is forced to do a lot of physical work on the show and he plays the part of hunter/provider excellently. O'Quinn is given significant passages of dialogue and he manages them perfectly, stealing every scene he is in.

Lost as a show is wonderful, but there are some problems with the DVD boxed set. The first is in the pilot episode. On the DVD, the episode is broken into two episodes, like it was for reruns. In its original release, the episode was a single double-long episode and it should have been preserved and presented that way. The nice thing about the DVD is that the early episodes are chock full of commentary. One of the cool things about the commentaries are that sometimes J.J. Abrams will say "stop the film" and he'll talk about something like alternate takes for several minutes. The DVD provides great behind-the-scenes footage to support his tangent stories and it's clever and a great gift for fans of the show.

The problem is, midway through the season, those wonderful commentaries stop. The latter half of the season, we are not given any behind-the-scenes information or insights into the show, except with the documentary on the final disc. This is annoying, as there are several behind-the-scenes questions that linger awkwardly. For example, one of the regular characters disappears before the end of the season. Fans of the show are left wondering if this was an actor issue or if this was planned all along. After the early forthcoming nature of the bonuses, the obscuring of information in the latter half of the set is just annoying.

The only other thing that is problematic is only problematic for fans of J.J. Abrams other series, Alias. Anyone who has seen enough episodes of Alias knows the exact shot the season would end on. On the plus side, it's a strong ending to the season and more than enough to made us yearn for the second season. And now that the series is over, we can easily say that it DID live up! Check out my review of the full series by clicking here!

FYI: For anyone looking to buy the DVD set, drop me an e-mail!  I have my (VERY GENTLY) used one I'm looking to sell as I'm upgrading to the Complete Series set!

For other television series’ I’ve reviewed, please check out:
Star Trek Season 1
VR.5

9/10

For other television series reviews, please check out my index page!

© 2010, 2005 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |