Ebert is pretty much right on with this one. Great visually but with a lackluster script. They could have done something interesting but the reason for the Matrix is stupid in so many ways, and it ends up in a mindless gun battle.
awesome movie..first one was the best though. Love Carrie Ann Moss.. first time i seen her in leather i was hooked... btw how do u all know your really in chat and not in the matrix?
This movie was so ahead of it's time. I Can't believe it came out in 99, it feels like it came out in 2009. In fact it was better than most films that came out in 09
I agree with these guys to some extent. The Matrix IS a landmark in the whole scifi action genre but it is by no means close to perfect. Everything that was awful in the sequels began here and got worse with the sequels: the poor acting, ridiculous dialogue, slap-your-head-and-groan moments, endless metaphors...
Whatever the rest of it is though, the idea was pretty mad and yeah, the effects were incredible.
i think ebert missed the point. why would they need to explore the illusion of the matrix any more than they did? the point is that neo was trying to gain control of the matrix and break its code through his own developing sense of his identity as the chosen one. i think this screenplay is brilliant. it's perfectly plotted, intelligent, and offers some philosophical mind food all in an action/cyberpunk/heroes mythical journey package. wtf more do you want?
@gaozhi2007 Intelligent? No. If these machines were desperate for a power source, harvesting body heat is probably one of the least efficient. Running the Matrix itself would take up whatever they might get, and really they could have just not bothered with that as someone brain dead on life support still generates body heat anyway. Or they could have used chemical fuel to go into space to get solar power. I can see why they went with mindless action, though, as that sells tickets.
The first matrix film without a doubt was groundbreaking , it borrowed from all kinds of sources and made it into a cinematic showdown of deep human qualities . That being said the " trilogy " ruined the mythology ...How it ended made it clear that the NEO was in fact the "one" and was an unstoppable force . It was too easy and manipulative too make sequels out of it ..Because by the end of the first film were left only guessing ...Which was fine with me .
I don't think anyone should become a critic before they first became a filmmaker.
Think about it, it's like a child criticizing an actual technician for his/her work. Think of a a random, non-educated-in-the-subject, idiot looking at a building an giving their opinion about the engineer's work just for having seen other buildings before. It's the most useless profession out there.
These are people who wish they were filmmakers but never had the talent or the guts to pursue it. Pitiful!
@viniciusb So basically the only people who should watch and appreciate movies are those who make them? That's a really silly thought, given that these movies are made for the public a.k.a. us, and we have every right to criticize these movies, given it's our money they want to make us watch these movies.
@zigifrojd Sounds like someone just can't handle fair criticism so they have to disregard someone's else opinion as worthless to make yourself feel better. Quite pathetic, really.
@zigifrojd I assume you have never passed English class. Also, I hope you realize that as a film director, you are a artist and as a artist, you must compile the contents of your work into a way that appeals to many. Picasso, M.C. Escher, van Gogh, etc. knew they had to do this and look at how well their names are known to the world of art. It's imperative that you listen to opinions. You don't have to do what others suggest, but it will give you a clearer view to a masterpiece.
@viniciusb So what your'e saying is that Ed Wood's or Michael Bay's opinions carry more weight than Roger Ebert?By your logic your in no position to criticize Ebert because your'e not a film critic yourself. Anyone who watches a film is entitled to their own opinion and if you are able to justify said opinion in a fair and understandable way than you deserve to be a professional critic.
Excuse me, but the millions of us who watch movies and form opinions of the work are not going to go out and become filmmakers before voicing those opinions. As viewers, our opinions are important to filmmakers. It is how they grow in their profession. If everyone did the same thing in order to inform the other of what he was doing right or wrong, there'd be no real opinions. Just flat statements. I'm a writer, but I require the feedback of non-writers in order to improve my work.
I think the matrix is a masterpiece, It's classic mythology, with archetypal characters and the hero's journey. A fusion of different cultures and art forms, technical and philosophical. It has everything. It's extremely well directed too, The Wachowskis should have be nominated for best director at the oscars. It has a huge impact on popular culture and for a short period, was this generations Star Wars. Its a pity the sequels were awful, But the Matrix is one the finest films ever made.
I can see his point that they didn't expore the implications of an illusionary world enough. That would have been interesting, and could have been the focus of the sequels.
@ThePhantom135, the "Matrix" goes beyond general cinema aesthetics by incorporating philosophy, action, anime cinematography and religion into a cohesive, thought-provoking melee. If you ascribe to the simplistic review by Ebert, then, clearly, characterization evades you. Fishburne and Weaving bring heavy weight to their characters, even the Monomyth manages to rear its head --within the supporting cast. This is hardly just an "idea."
He seemed to get the philosophical overtones of Ghost in the Shell but totally missed it on this one. He should watch it again and review it honestly.
Roger Ebert is a chubby agent written for the current version of the Matrix you now are plugged into. Agent Fat Fuck is the name of this program. He is everyone and he is no one.
@BrokenClouds89 You are wrong, and a real fan of the "Ghost in the Shell" anime would know better. Clearly it influenced "The Matrix" in terms of visual style and, far more indirectly, thematic content, but The Matrix explores philosophical questions the anime never did, and far more succinctly. You probably think Shakespeare is a hack, too.
Actually, The Matrix is nothing but a hacked story. The Wachowskis lifted damn near everything from The Invisibles by Grant Morrison. Everything you saw in The Matrix is from this comic series, right down to the appearance of King Mob (Morpheus's counterpart). And you never know about Shakespeare, either. He might have been a hack, too. We don't know everything about the guy. In fact, there's a whole movie called Anonymous that deals with that very subject.
@Elfrunner as an English major, I can tell you that the alternative authorship theory of Shakespeare's works is bogus, pure speculation. On "The Invisibles": as I haven't read Grant Morrison's work, I can't really argue with you there. It's an interesting point. Regardless, I still think The Matrix is a well executed work.
With 400 years worth of distorted history, I'm not going to accept anything as fact. You being an English major makes no difference to me. What you have is conjecture, same as I. I wasn't saying Shakespeare was definitely a hack or definitely genuine. I only said he might have been a hack. About The Matrix, though, yes, it was a good movie, better than the sequels, but it doesn't make it any less of a hacked script. Check out The Invisibles sometime. The story is good.
@Elfrunner I understand why you have reservations about historical facts; after all, it's hard to empirically determine "what happened" in the past. That said, I've studied the subject thoroughly, and I've been taught by professionals who've analyzed linguistic and thematic patterns, including those of Shakespeare, their whole academic lives. Respectfully, it does mean something to have a degree in a field you're arguing about. Again, I concede the Morrison thing. I'll definitely check it out.
Perhaps, but having such a degree doesn't make history any more factual, despite all the study put in by professionals. Shakespeare might have been just a really good fraud. 400 years from now, scholars may debate similar details concerning the Wachowski brothers and The Matrix, citing them as the creators of such a seminal work while forgetting everything that Morrison did.
@Elfrunner What you say about history is true, and I agree with you in principle. Still, the problem with the alternative authorship theory, and other such theories, is that they rely on the absence of evidence for the strength of their argument. Shakespeare could have been a fraud, but there's no compelling evidence for me to believe this. Ultimately historians have to assemble an incomplete picture from what evidence they can find. It is imperfect, but it's the best method we have.
The tweed jacket crowd is not comfortable with strong praise of anything that is "cool", "hip", involves modern fashion, "hot" people, etc.. If the exact same story were told set in some New England city with frumpy people, clothes, cars, etc... they would have been howling its praises. I'm not into praising what is trendy, "cool" etc... either but I know a very good movie when I see it and I can move beyond my presumptions.
Ask anybody who have seen this movie and they will tell you it was AWESOME.
Don´t listen to critics they make cool movies like Matrix feel overrated and crap.
In my opinion as a Fan o films i say Matrix is a master peace full of new ideas and a brilliant story. Matrix is a film that will stand forever as one of the best Sci-fi movies of our generation.And those who don´t like it, can go┌∩┐◣_◢ them self's.
The Matrix is the one movie that WANTS, that DEMANDS of me to be a film maker. I will never meet the standard of a matrix movie, but i do love that they milked everything that is standard in a feature film and make it "more": story, visual effects, the transparency of social qualms we have in life; its the ultimate movie. I desire nothing more than to be a shadow in my film works compared to the matrix
As with most of comments on the more 'controversial' videos, I'm yet again appalled by the personal attacks from those who disagree with Ebert's opinions.
It's an opinion. He's entitled to it, he justifies it (perhaps debatably).
For my money, The Matrix is probably one of the best action films made - for how it reinvented the wheel in the genre. The script is good, too.
People should realize he states in the reloaded review that he appreciates this movie more because he understands it better. But I kind of see where he's coming from.
Matrix was better action, but the subject/story of Dark City was far more mature and well-done. I agree with Ebert on this one, although I usually don't.
Even to this day, it shocks me how much thought must have gone into this film. The idea is just ingenious, i could never come up with something like The Matrix in a million years. I don't think Hollywood will either.
@monsterinyourpocket Don't get me wrong... I love the Matrix. I guess for me growing up being into the Cyberpunk genre books, playing Shadowrun, seeing Ghost in the Shell in '95 ... the Matrix wasn't unique at all to me. It was exciting and one of those sort of "it's about time someone in hollywood gets it" moments, but Ghost in the Shell is far deeper storywise. I think Matrix was wonderful and stands up on its own. I think I like 2 & 3 better than most people too. They're just not new.
You know I never really cared for the Matrix. I don't hate it, I just don't really care for it . The story is good, the effects and the action is ok for the most part, and the characters are boring expect for like 3 mildly amusing characters. I know the focus for the Matrix is about the whole reality being an illusion which is interesting, but this film doesn't work for me. I'm sorry it just doesn't. Oh well, there's not a movie out there that can be everyone's "cup of tea".
The Matrix is good. It has great visuals, action sequences, and an intriguing premise (even though it's been done 100x before). What it lacks though are interesting characters with actual personalities. Sure, they look cool in their costumes and the way they speak but that's it. The Matrix is so concerned with being groundbreaking and visionary that it forgets that the best movies are the ones with enduring characters/stories. An idea alone isn't strong enough to carry a whole movie.
@ThePhantom135 It actually is in this case -.- your reviewed failed. The actors weren't bad either, the only bland characters were keeanu reeves and the traitor dude.
These idiots have almost never liked a groudbreaking film, As film reviewers they belong in the 1930's. They thought Robocop was better than Aliens and thought Terminator was so-so. Who the fuck pays these people?
"Story was a let-down." Critic is a rotten profession. Only filmmakers should be allowed to evaluate other filmmakers' work. Ebert is a moron, but not bigger a moron than his partner Siskel was. He thought two of the best films ever made, The Matrix and Fight Club were a let-down. He actually said Fight Club was a bad movie.
They also left out the Buddhist aspect of enlightenment and freeing our minds from the bounds of this illusion we believe is reality. These are not my personal beliefs, but it is still something the movie does well. Neo, in one respect, represents Buddha when he is able to see beyond the system at the end of the film.
@usernameDOGS LOL yeah it's very overrated, but most people would agree that Scarface is the most overrated movie of all time. It's the definition of an "overrated movie".
The Matrix was murky? The story a letdown? That movie was an effing DOCUMENTARY, FFS!!! O.O Lot's of crack being smoked here. :^/ And, though I liked Dark City, it was cut as aggressively as a music video. The pace was disastrous. The Matrix (the first one, now) was freaking scripture.
The story is kind of a letdown? Come on Ebert!! The 1st Matrix is an incredible movie.A classic.Both of these guys missed the whole point of the Movie.
I can kinda empathize with them missing the point the first time around - I somehow expected something different the first time I saw it and therefore missed many of the subtle nuances ("Do you think that's air you're breathing?") I have since come to appreciate and love this film for.
It's a nearly perfect film - every plot point and piece of dialog was referenced either earlier or later in the film, there were no bits of story brought up then promptly forgot (as in so many films) - tight.
I usually agree with everything Ebert says but I think he's over-simplifying this movie and I'm surprised to hear him say the story was a let-down.
It's not just a trivial hacker story with some cool effects. It draws upon an entire history of theory and philosophy about technology and humanity, about society and anxiety, social phobia and conformity... it's a stunning script.
I hate it when critics just see the effects and act like that's all the movie is. Sometimes it is, but not here.
@magicbibledotcom The problem was they used most of it in pseudo-philosophical dialogue to make it sound more intelligent. There is a big difference between show and talk. In the end, they mostly talked about big ideas and followed the typical monomyth pattern. There isn't really the emotional impact it should have with someone finding out everything is an illusion.
@schadenfreudelolz22 Hmmm, I'm not sure about psuedo-philosophical - I think in the 2nd and 3rd more-so but I think think the 1st was genuinely intruiging. It was a huge combination of old, very old and not so old philosophy cased in a modern world. And executed so well. I think the original is a genuine classic.
@magicbibledotcom would any of us really care about the philosphical meanings in 'the matrix' if the effects were all cut out? there is not one ounce of philosophy in this film that is not realized through action. ebert isn't panning the film he's simply panhandling it.
@magicbibledotcom It is a simple story. It's 30 minutes of story stretched out into 2 1/2 hours of speeches and action. I mean, by the time Morpheus has Neo, we know the story, which is extended with a "One of our own turns against us" story that had no effect on the actual story and with taking Morpheus hostage.
@magicbibledotcom yes but it's not really that original a concept there are anime movies and even episodes of Star Trek, Twilight Zone and i think Doctor Who that used this idea so in that sense it's not that great but as an homage to stuff like that it's awesome
@magicbibledotcom There's no real way to over-simplify this movie. Its like a Christopher Norton movie to me in terms of being made for pseudo intellectual people but enjoyable for others as well. Really not too confusing at all unless you have trouble following the story
@RockBottomRiser21 I tried to correct that. Nolan, not Norton. I typed too fast. Its like a Nolan film, being that it's enjoyable but simplistic but everyone claims its genius. Inception comes to mind
@magicbibledotcom There's no real way to over-simplify this movie. Its like a Christopher Nolan movie to me in terms of being made for pseudo intellectual people but enjoyable for others as well. Really not too confusing at all unless you have trouble following the story
@Iceking137 No I'm not. It's absolutely about those things. I know as I read philosophy here and there, and just whilst I was looking around I saw some major influences, I forget the sources now but major philosophical influences to The Matrix.
The main idea of being plugged into an reality which is in a sense a perfect illusion is a very old philosophical idea for one thing. One of the most famous questions posed was involving it. What basis do I have? um, the film is a pretty good one lmao.
@magicbibledotcom when i asked what basis you had, i meant what is your evidence becuz as I recal the movie doesn't actually go in depth with that philosophy. All it does is present that philosophy, never really doing anythign with it other then to make it look deceptively deep. Which is not deep at all.
@Iceking137 You don't neccessarily have to fully dig into ideas for a movie, or presentation, or piece, to be deep. Just being aware of certain philosophies, just glazing them, just touching on them in certain ways, can be considered deep.
'The Matrix' doesn't indulge in any one particular idea for too long, but it very cleverly bounces between them, using the characters' situations as platforms.
You have the basic idea of a virtual reality, and the film does actually discuss complex ideas.
@magicbibledotcom Roger should have elaborated why he stated those things to make it more clear, he gave 0 reason to his statement, I'll give you that.
but, like most movies, the Matrix has issues too.. The plot while inside the Matrix becomes dependant on special effects because all emotions are completely gone and I should say, fully immersed into a computer point of view. The main lead, Keanu Reeves, terrible pick and terrible preformance.. Almost everything he said and did seemed forced.
What I like to see is constructive reviews/criticism that regards both positive and bad things about movies, because, like most critics out there would say, there are no perfect movies. If we ignored the bad things on movies and just blindly agreed that the Matrix deserves a clean 10/10, we would only step backwards in movie evolution because instead of speeding it's progress we're keeping it away from it.
@toxicitzi Yeah I like that too. That's the only reason for criticism to exist, why would I want him to blindly say it's 10/10 lmao, that's silly.
But he over-simplified the movie. There's no point in simplistic criticism or criticizing a movie not properly understood too.
Characterizing 'The Matrix' as basically, a 'cool shoot-em-up' or popcorn flick is absurd. It is those things, but it's much more, and he didn't recognize that here.
@magicbibledotcom and that's what I was saying, he should have given more details about why he made that decision
I'll give you that, this review felt poorly reviewed. If he gave a little explanation as to what the movie was trying to do, but managed otherwise, it would've given him more credit for the score. Still, saying that he's completely wrong is also wrong, the action in the movie did take over the plot more than once :P
so, my guess is he just didn't care anymore whenever that happened
@toxicitzi How is saying he's completely wrong, if I can justify it... wrong? how is you now saying I'm completely wrong for that not completely wrong lmao?
If you can justify it, it's not wrong.
He over-simplified the movie and didn't justify his review. I justified why I think he did this however, so I'm not wrong.
@magicbibledotcom because.. like I said...... the action took over the plot.. more than once.. so I guess he just didn't care.. which is unjustifiable, but still doesn't mean he's wrong.. because the action indeed took over the plot a few too many times...
@magicbibledotcom@magicbibledotcom because.. like I said...... the action took over the plot.. more than once.. so I guess he just didn't care.. which is unjustifiable, but still doesn't mean he's wrong.. because the action indeed took over the plot a few too many times... and he was right about that part of the movie..
@magicbibledotcom to decrypt my comment a little more efficiently, what I meant to say by that was:
The action took over the emotions of the scenes, many times, which turned the movie more into a blockbuster summer movie and I felt the same way too about that, I just wasn't affected as much by that. Roger Ebert is an old man and movies like The Matrix are popsicles to him..
Trust me, whatever you say, your opinion towards him is just an unjustifiable as his opinion on the movie :)
The Matrix was and is an absolutely mind-blowing, revolutionary movie. The sequels were a let-down and the third one was a bore for me, I don't however think the second movie was that bad. But, they were a let down in the sense they didn't really expand much on the philosophical conundrums of the first.
But the first movie is incredible. The casting is perfect, the script is electric, the scenes are... unforgettable, it's a combination of so many things. It's amazing.
Ebert is pretty much right on with this one. Great visually but with a lackluster script. They could have done something interesting but the reason for the Matrix is stupid in so many ways, and it ends up in a mindless gun battle.
mrjjking77 21 hours ago
awesome movie..first one was the best though. Love Carrie Ann Moss.. first time i seen her in leather i was hooked... btw how do u all know your really in chat and not in the matrix?
TheHenderson31 1 week ago
movie*
jdis 2 weeks ago
sci-fi movies were king in the 80s and 90s and how fitting that this movies was the true last movie of that era
jdis 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
LpZil91 3 weeks ago
These guys are geezers. The Matrix is hands down one of the best sci movies EVER!
erfansvideos 1 month ago
This movie was so ahead of it's time. I Can't believe it came out in 99, it feels like it came out in 2009. In fact it was better than most films that came out in 09
spielbergfan1992 1 month ago
Listen to it again: Siegel added nothing to the coversation.
JackMonroe 1 month ago
Siegel's definitely gay
JackMonroe 1 month ago
Didn't succeed in good story? Wha?
szore 1 month ago
I would have liked to seen this movie all in real time.
jewbar2point0 1 month ago
Comment removed
zigifrojd 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the critics are 'the agents' as in how they talk, even their oscar jokes
saugat234 2 months ago
the critics are 'the agents' as in how they talk, even their oscar jokes
saugat234 2 months ago
Numbers don't lie.
dvsxavier 2 months ago
I agree with these guys to some extent. The Matrix IS a landmark in the whole scifi action genre but it is by no means close to perfect. Everything that was awful in the sequels began here and got worse with the sequels: the poor acting, ridiculous dialogue, slap-your-head-and-groan moments, endless metaphors...
Whatever the rest of it is though, the idea was pretty mad and yeah, the effects were incredible.
sirdoodlebug219 2 months ago
i think ebert missed the point. why would they need to explore the illusion of the matrix any more than they did? the point is that neo was trying to gain control of the matrix and break its code through his own developing sense of his identity as the chosen one. i think this screenplay is brilliant. it's perfectly plotted, intelligent, and offers some philosophical mind food all in an action/cyberpunk/heroes mythical journey package. wtf more do you want?
gaozhi2007 3 months ago
@gaozhi2007 Intelligent? No. If these machines were desperate for a power source, harvesting body heat is probably one of the least efficient. Running the Matrix itself would take up whatever they might get, and really they could have just not bothered with that as someone brain dead on life support still generates body heat anyway. Or they could have used chemical fuel to go into space to get solar power. I can see why they went with mindless action, though, as that sells tickets.
mrjjking77 21 hours ago
The first matrix film without a doubt was groundbreaking , it borrowed from all kinds of sources and made it into a cinematic showdown of deep human qualities . That being said the " trilogy " ruined the mythology ...How it ended made it clear that the NEO was in fact the "one" and was an unstoppable force . It was too easy and manipulative too make sequels out of it ..Because by the end of the first film were left only guessing ...Which was fine with me .
ruthlessmada 3 months ago
Siegel's a twit.
cjwright79 3 months ago
I don't think anyone should become a critic before they first became a filmmaker.
Think about it, it's like a child criticizing an actual technician for his/her work. Think of a a random, non-educated-in-the-subject, idiot looking at a building an giving their opinion about the engineer's work just for having seen other buildings before. It's the most useless profession out there.
These are people who wish they were filmmakers but never had the talent or the guts to pursue it. Pitiful!
viniciusb 3 months ago
@viniciusb So basically the only people who should watch and appreciate movies are those who make them? That's a really silly thought, given that these movies are made for the public a.k.a. us, and we have every right to criticize these movies, given it's our money they want to make us watch these movies.
Jai137 3 months ago
@viniciusb So then to be a fan of football, and form an opinion, then you must play first? This is such a failed logic you have here.
MarcusKiner 3 months ago
Comment removed
zigifrojd 2 months ago
@zigifrojd Sounds like someone just can't handle fair criticism so they have to disregard someone's else opinion as worthless to make yourself feel better. Quite pathetic, really.
CoolerKing37 2 months ago
Comment removed
zigifrojd 2 months ago
@zigifrojd Thanks for proving my point that you're someone who can't handle criticism. "Everyone's stupid except me! Waah!"
CoolerKing37 2 months ago
@zigifrojd I assume you have never passed English class. Also, I hope you realize that as a film director, you are a artist and as a artist, you must compile the contents of your work into a way that appeals to many. Picasso, M.C. Escher, van Gogh, etc. knew they had to do this and look at how well their names are known to the world of art. It's imperative that you listen to opinions. You don't have to do what others suggest, but it will give you a clearer view to a masterpiece.
Luiszerep 2 months ago
Comment removed
zigifrojd 2 months ago
Comment removed
zigifrojd 2 months ago
Comment removed
zigifrojd 2 months ago
@viniciusb So what your'e saying is that Ed Wood's or Michael Bay's opinions carry more weight than Roger Ebert?By your logic your in no position to criticize Ebert because your'e not a film critic yourself. Anyone who watches a film is entitled to their own opinion and if you are able to justify said opinion in a fair and understandable way than you deserve to be a professional critic.
H96Sean 2 months ago
@viniciusb
Excuse me, but the millions of us who watch movies and form opinions of the work are not going to go out and become filmmakers before voicing those opinions. As viewers, our opinions are important to filmmakers. It is how they grow in their profession. If everyone did the same thing in order to inform the other of what he was doing right or wrong, there'd be no real opinions. Just flat statements. I'm a writer, but I require the feedback of non-writers in order to improve my work.
Elfrunner 2 weeks ago
I think the matrix is a masterpiece, It's classic mythology, with archetypal characters and the hero's journey. A fusion of different cultures and art forms, technical and philosophical. It has everything. It's extremely well directed too, The Wachowskis should have be nominated for best director at the oscars. It has a huge impact on popular culture and for a short period, was this generations Star Wars. Its a pity the sequels were awful, But the Matrix is one the finest films ever made.
smalllions 3 months ago
It's hilarious how personal some people take Ebert's rather light criticism of the film.
minglis88 3 months ago 3
I can see his point that they didn't expore the implications of an illusionary world enough. That would have been interesting, and could have been the focus of the sequels.
Fangtorn 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Best film ever made.
sammycut1 4 months ago
If they made glasses that could just sit on the bridge of your nose would people buy them?... I'm going to be thinking about that all night.
hdtwoodsman 4 months ago
lacking on story? Does anyone realize that it ingeniously tells the story of Christianity? The greatest fable ever told!
TheDrunkenAtheist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePhantom135, the "Matrix" goes beyond general cinema aesthetics by incorporating philosophy, action, anime cinematography and religion into a cohesive, thought-provoking melee. If you ascribe to the simplistic review by Ebert, then, clearly, characterization evades you. Fishburne and Weaving bring heavy weight to their characters, even the Monomyth manages to rear its head --within the supporting cast. This is hardly just an "idea."
jasonauric 4 months ago
@jasonauric
No, it was actually Grant Morrison's idea.
Elfrunner 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jasonauric
No, it was actually Grant Morrison's idea.
Elfrunner 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
jasonauric 4 months ago
Comment removed
jasonauric 4 months ago
Crappy movie
MrRazorblade999 4 months ago
He seemed to get the philosophical overtones of Ghost in the Shell but totally missed it on this one. He should watch it again and review it honestly.
Nikkyeshiva83 4 months ago
Roger Ebert is a chubby agent written for the current version of the Matrix you now are plugged into. Agent Fat Fuck is the name of this program. He is everyone and he is no one.
Subatomic1000 4 months ago
"FUCK" which is more than Ebert and his loser fans can do
daveybaby131 5 months ago
@daveybaby131
Boo hoo, cry more tool.
Catmangamer 3 months ago
Blatant Ghost in the Shell ripoff. Fuck this movie.
BrokenClouds89 5 months ago
@BrokenClouds89 You are wrong, and a real fan of the "Ghost in the Shell" anime would know better. Clearly it influenced "The Matrix" in terms of visual style and, far more indirectly, thematic content, but The Matrix explores philosophical questions the anime never did, and far more succinctly. You probably think Shakespeare is a hack, too.
SvoreSvore 4 months ago 10
@SvoreSvore
Actually, The Matrix is nothing but a hacked story. The Wachowskis lifted damn near everything from The Invisibles by Grant Morrison. Everything you saw in The Matrix is from this comic series, right down to the appearance of King Mob (Morpheus's counterpart). And you never know about Shakespeare, either. He might have been a hack, too. We don't know everything about the guy. In fact, there's a whole movie called Anonymous that deals with that very subject.
Elfrunner 2 weeks ago
@Elfrunner as an English major, I can tell you that the alternative authorship theory of Shakespeare's works is bogus, pure speculation. On "The Invisibles": as I haven't read Grant Morrison's work, I can't really argue with you there. It's an interesting point. Regardless, I still think The Matrix is a well executed work.
SvoreSvore 1 week ago
@SvoreSvore
With 400 years worth of distorted history, I'm not going to accept anything as fact. You being an English major makes no difference to me. What you have is conjecture, same as I. I wasn't saying Shakespeare was definitely a hack or definitely genuine. I only said he might have been a hack. About The Matrix, though, yes, it was a good movie, better than the sequels, but it doesn't make it any less of a hacked script. Check out The Invisibles sometime. The story is good.
Elfrunner 1 week ago
@Elfrunner I understand why you have reservations about historical facts; after all, it's hard to empirically determine "what happened" in the past. That said, I've studied the subject thoroughly, and I've been taught by professionals who've analyzed linguistic and thematic patterns, including those of Shakespeare, their whole academic lives. Respectfully, it does mean something to have a degree in a field you're arguing about. Again, I concede the Morrison thing. I'll definitely check it out.
SvoreSvore 5 days ago
@SvoreSvore
Perhaps, but having such a degree doesn't make history any more factual, despite all the study put in by professionals. Shakespeare might have been just a really good fraud. 400 years from now, scholars may debate similar details concerning the Wachowski brothers and The Matrix, citing them as the creators of such a seminal work while forgetting everything that Morrison did.
Elfrunner 5 days ago
@Elfrunner What you say about history is true, and I agree with you in principle. Still, the problem with the alternative authorship theory, and other such theories, is that they rely on the absence of evidence for the strength of their argument. Shakespeare could have been a fraud, but there's no compelling evidence for me to believe this. Ultimately historians have to assemble an incomplete picture from what evidence they can find. It is imperfect, but it's the best method we have.
SvoreSvore 4 days ago
@BrokenClouds89
No, it was a ripoff of a comic books series called The Invisibles. Check it out.
Elfrunner 2 weeks ago
The tweed jacket crowd is not comfortable with strong praise of anything that is "cool", "hip", involves modern fashion, "hot" people, etc.. If the exact same story were told set in some New England city with frumpy people, clothes, cars, etc... they would have been howling its praises. I'm not into praising what is trendy, "cool" etc... either but I know a very good movie when I see it and I can move beyond my presumptions.
ActaNonVerba71 5 months ago
To me this flim was very well made in story and in effects
darthbriboy 5 months ago
These dudes were afraid to go out on a limb to praise this film. But they should have known the Matrix was groundbreaking and way ahead of it's time.
tga2848 5 months ago
lacking on story? this had so many deep ground breaking phylisophical ideas for its time.
Brettwbeyer14 5 months ago
the matrix is the closest thing well ever get to a live action ghost in the shell
ssgsorrels 5 months ago
Siskel will eventually get a worthy successor.
qwuezalothus 5 months ago
I miss Siskel and Ebert.
Durwood71 5 months ago
and the matrix shits all over dark city.
ThaSubzstance 6 months ago
@ThaSubzstance
nah
austinthebookworm5 6 months ago
EBERT=UGLY
FANS=LOSERS
TheBitchinbabs 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ask anybody who have seen this movie and they will tell you it was AWESOME.
Don´t listen to critics they make cool movies like Matrix feel overrated and crap.
In my opinion as a Fan o films i say Matrix is a master peace full of new ideas and a brilliant story. Matrix is a film that will stand forever as one of the best Sci-fi movies of our generation.And those who don´t like it, can go┌∩┐◣_◢ them self's.
MrMikeTheDude 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrMikeTheDude 6 months ago
@Honestabe86 Blade Runner is NOT overrated, its a brilliant film, perhaps the best sci-fi ever!
CrazyChunkles 6 months ago
The Matrix is the one movie that WANTS, that DEMANDS of me to be a film maker. I will never meet the standard of a matrix movie, but i do love that they milked everything that is standard in a feature film and make it "more": story, visual effects, the transparency of social qualms we have in life; its the ultimate movie. I desire nothing more than to be a shadow in my film works compared to the matrix
WallyWadeMovies 6 months ago
I'm with you on the bullet time cliche.So over used!
disasterzone1974 6 months ago
The Matrix changed movies in 1999. What fools.
lcromy 6 months ago
@lcromy ...For the worse. If I never see another bullet time scene in a movie I will be happy.
murphysborounderdark 6 months ago
Ebert was right about Dark City being better.
Honestabe86 6 months ago 19
@Honestabe86 Dark city is the matrix's father (visually) if you like matrix you will like Dark city, Blade Runner.
WallyWadeMovies 6 months ago
@WallyWadeMovies
Blade Runner is overrated.
Honestabe86 6 months ago
@Honestabe86 how dare you. for a 1982 film? Fuck off.
ThaSubzstance 6 months ago
@ThaSubzstance
The visuals and cinematography are great but the story sucked.
Honestabe86 6 months ago
@Honestabe86 Oh, please...
viniciusb 3 months ago
@Honestabe86 Ilove dark city ,but i hate the end of that movie,they fuck things up pretty bad ,with those special fx .
saxzw 3 months ago
As with most of comments on the more 'controversial' videos, I'm yet again appalled by the personal attacks from those who disagree with Ebert's opinions.
It's an opinion. He's entitled to it, he justifies it (perhaps debatably).
For my money, The Matrix is probably one of the best action films made - for how it reinvented the wheel in the genre. The script is good, too.
nmsiamese 7 months ago 21
People should realize he states in the reloaded review that he appreciates this movie more because he understands it better. But I kind of see where he's coming from.
thechallenger9000 7 months ago
all movie critics should be lynched
shaalis 7 months ago
Matrix was better action, but the subject/story of Dark City was far more mature and well-done. I agree with Ebert on this one, although I usually don't.
WalterLiddy 7 months ago
what the hell did Joel Siegel give it ? thumbs up or down?
hypes411 7 months ago
let down????............LET DOWN..............coming from the idiot who liked attack of the clones, big fucking surprise
IGNsucks 7 months ago
Ebert. Ugly.
kellygreen5556 7 months ago
Even to this day, it shocks me how much thought must have gone into this film. The idea is just ingenious, i could never come up with something like The Matrix in a million years. I don't think Hollywood will either.
monsterinyourpocket 7 months ago
@monsterinyourpocket Don't get me wrong... I love the Matrix. I guess for me growing up being into the Cyberpunk genre books, playing Shadowrun, seeing Ghost in the Shell in '95 ... the Matrix wasn't unique at all to me. It was exciting and one of those sort of "it's about time someone in hollywood gets it" moments, but Ghost in the Shell is far deeper storywise. I think Matrix was wonderful and stands up on its own. I think I like 2 & 3 better than most people too. They're just not new.
AICNMurderMostFowl 7 months ago
Like it wasn't copied by a number of movies through-out the decade.
eboromir 8 months ago
You know I never really cared for the Matrix. I don't hate it, I just don't really care for it . The story is good, the effects and the action is ok for the most part, and the characters are boring expect for like 3 mildly amusing characters. I know the focus for the Matrix is about the whole reality being an illusion which is interesting, but this film doesn't work for me. I'm sorry it just doesn't. Oh well, there's not a movie out there that can be everyone's "cup of tea".
lightingcobra 8 months ago
If anything influenced the Matrix it was 'Dark City'. Any thumbs down for the Matrix is sheer ignorance.
tjrxk7 8 months ago
The story is amaizing in Matrix..It really makes you look from different point off view..
xtrajently 8 months ago
The Matrix is good. It has great visuals, action sequences, and an intriguing premise (even though it's been done 100x before). What it lacks though are interesting characters with actual personalities. Sure, they look cool in their costumes and the way they speak but that's it. The Matrix is so concerned with being groundbreaking and visionary that it forgets that the best movies are the ones with enduring characters/stories. An idea alone isn't strong enough to carry a whole movie.
ThePhantom135 8 months ago 3
@ThePhantom135 It actually is in this case -.- your reviewed failed. The actors weren't bad either, the only bland characters were keeanu reeves and the traitor dude.
Tekkenman101 4 months ago
Ebert didn't find the story very interesting because he was enthralled with Dark city, the better film.
RCTPatriot75 8 months ago
UHHHH I dont think Ebert really understood this movie.lol
docbaddoc 9 months ago
These idiots have almost never liked a groudbreaking film, As film reviewers they belong in the 1930's. They thought Robocop was better than Aliens and thought Terminator was so-so. Who the fuck pays these people?
Candleman89 9 months ago
@Candleman89 Uh, they liked this movie. I guess you didn't pay attention.
DAmicoJohnny 9 months ago
"Story was a let-down." Critic is a rotten profession. Only filmmakers should be allowed to evaluate other filmmakers' work. Ebert is a moron, but not bigger a moron than his partner Siskel was. He thought two of the best films ever made, The Matrix and Fight Club were a let-down. He actually said Fight Club was a bad movie.
viniciusb 9 months ago
@viniciusb
Neither the Matrix or Fight Club are the two greatest films of all time...not even in the top 200, maybe 300.
LumpyAdams 9 months ago
@LumpyAdams youre entitled to your own unique, and equally unimportant opinion
thebludoc 9 months ago
R.I.P. Joel Siegel
dnasty312 9 months ago
@Johnlindsey289 word
illestnrealest 9 months ago
They also left out the Buddhist aspect of enlightenment and freeing our minds from the bounds of this illusion we believe is reality. These are not my personal beliefs, but it is still something the movie does well. Neo, in one respect, represents Buddha when he is able to see beyond the system at the end of the film.
jcckidz 9 months ago
thumbs up if you think Joe Siegel should have replaced Gene Siskel instead of that babbling moron Richard Roeper.
DARTHPIZZAROLL 9 months ago
The Matrix is the most overrated movie ever made.
se7s95 10 months ago
@se7s95 How come?
viniciusb 9 months ago
@viniciusb It's #19 on Imdb's top 250 and that's fucking impossible.
se7s95 9 months ago
@se7s95 no, the hangover is the most overrated film of all time and thats a fact
usernameDOGS 9 months ago
@usernameDOGS LOL yeah it's very overrated, but most people would agree that Scarface is the most overrated movie of all time. It's the definition of an "overrated movie".
se7s95 9 months ago
Comment removed
usernameDOGS 9 months ago
How'd you get 'f*ck' to appear in your name :D.
PrimaveraPictures 10 months ago
@Grymmorgan Dude, everybody's entitled to their opinion.
lb8068 10 months ago
The Matrix was murky? The story a letdown? That movie was an effing DOCUMENTARY, FFS!!! O.O Lot's of crack being smoked here. :^/ And, though I liked Dark City, it was cut as aggressively as a music video. The pace was disastrous. The Matrix (the first one, now) was freaking scripture.
Grymmorgan 10 months ago 16
@tend Yeah, if you weren't aware, Siskel died a few years earlier, so Roger had guest reviewers until Richard Roeper came along.
TF2Fan101 10 months ago
The Matrix is extremely overrated.
InsanelyINsane 10 months ago
@InsanelyINsane
This
TanukiCoast 10 months ago
Matrix was a lot better than these critics are implying ...
kagiso3741 10 months ago
Dark City was better than The Matrix.
AshCosgrove 10 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lol @ these two OLD faggots reviewing movies like "The Matrix". Stick to "Citizen Kane" and "Gone With The Wind" you old shitbags.
bannedagainfromutube 10 months ago
@bannedagainfromutube I found your comment hilarious! lol but I disagree with you, Roger Ebert is a genius in film and that never gets old
blahmehblah1 10 months ago 2
@bannedagainfromutube cunt
geoffpeas 10 months ago
The story is kind of a letdown? Come on Ebert!! The 1st Matrix is an incredible movie.A classic.Both of these guys missed the whole point of the Movie.
mrbrianmccarthy 10 months ago
I WISH IT WAS PERMANENTLY JOEL SIEGAL AND EBERT AFTER SISKEL PASSED AWAY...I CAN TELL EBERT LIKES HIM..
STUMPYBOY1 10 months ago
@STUMPYBOY1
There's no chemistry. Where's the pizzaz?
GoUSAWorldCup 10 months ago
I can kinda empathize with them missing the point the first time around - I somehow expected something different the first time I saw it and therefore missed many of the subtle nuances ("Do you think that's air you're breathing?") I have since come to appreciate and love this film for.
It's a nearly perfect film - every plot point and piece of dialog was referenced either earlier or later in the film, there were no bits of story brought up then promptly forgot (as in so many films) - tight.
steveb0503 11 months ago
I usually agree with everything Ebert says but I think he's over-simplifying this movie and I'm surprised to hear him say the story was a let-down.
It's not just a trivial hacker story with some cool effects. It draws upon an entire history of theory and philosophy about technology and humanity, about society and anxiety, social phobia and conformity... it's a stunning script.
I hate it when critics just see the effects and act like that's all the movie is. Sometimes it is, but not here.
magicbibledotcom 11 months ago 57
@magicbibledotcom The problem was they used most of it in pseudo-philosophical dialogue to make it sound more intelligent. There is a big difference between show and talk. In the end, they mostly talked about big ideas and followed the typical monomyth pattern. There isn't really the emotional impact it should have with someone finding out everything is an illusion.
schadenfreudelolz22 9 months ago
@schadenfreudelolz22 Hmmm, I'm not sure about psuedo-philosophical - I think in the 2nd and 3rd more-so but I think think the 1st was genuinely intruiging. It was a huge combination of old, very old and not so old philosophy cased in a modern world. And executed so well. I think the original is a genuine classic.
magicbibledotcom 9 months ago
@magicbibledotcom you didnt understand anything about the matrix
dupapa33 9 months ago
@magicbibledotcom would any of us really care about the philosphical meanings in 'the matrix' if the effects were all cut out? there is not one ounce of philosophy in this film that is not realized through action. ebert isn't panning the film he's simply panhandling it.
JJJ10JJJ 9 months ago
@magicbibledotcom Wow-insightful, and well written. Perhaps you should be a film critic. Or teach philosophy...
Lisa4174 8 months ago
@magicbibledotcom It is a simple story. It's 30 minutes of story stretched out into 2 1/2 hours of speeches and action. I mean, by the time Morpheus has Neo, we know the story, which is extended with a "One of our own turns against us" story that had no effect on the actual story and with taking Morpheus hostage.
FlyingOverTr0ut 8 months ago
@magicbibledotcom Disagree buddy. The Matrix is a cartoon nothing more. This is no Taxi Driver or 2001 a Space Odyssey
bierbuik 8 months ago
@magicbibledotcom yes but it's not really that original a concept there are anime movies and even episodes of Star Trek, Twilight Zone and i think Doctor Who that used this idea so in that sense it's not that great but as an homage to stuff like that it's awesome
zombiefan011 8 months ago
@magicbibledotcom There's no real way to over-simplify this movie. Its like a Christopher Norton movie to me in terms of being made for pseudo intellectual people but enjoyable for others as well. Really not too confusing at all unless you have trouble following the story
Gilch30 7 months ago
@Gilch30 who is christopher norton?
RockBottomRiser21 7 months ago
@RockBottomRiser21 I tried to correct that. Nolan, not Norton. I typed too fast. Its like a Nolan film, being that it's enjoyable but simplistic but everyone claims its genius. Inception comes to mind
Gilch30 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@magicbibledotcom There's no real way to over-simplify this movie. Its like a Christopher Nolan movie to me in terms of being made for pseudo intellectual people but enjoyable for others as well. Really not too confusing at all unless you have trouble following the story
Gilch30 7 months ago
@magicbibledotcom lolz, you're so right! Ebert wasn't ready 4 this yet!
edupbeat 7 months ago
@magicbibledotcom and i think your over complicating the film when its not about that. what Basis do you have for that?
Iceking137 7 months ago
@Iceking137 No I'm not. It's absolutely about those things. I know as I read philosophy here and there, and just whilst I was looking around I saw some major influences, I forget the sources now but major philosophical influences to The Matrix.
The main idea of being plugged into an reality which is in a sense a perfect illusion is a very old philosophical idea for one thing. One of the most famous questions posed was involving it. What basis do I have? um, the film is a pretty good one lmao.
magicbibledotcom 6 months ago
@magicbibledotcom when i asked what basis you had, i meant what is your evidence becuz as I recal the movie doesn't actually go in depth with that philosophy. All it does is present that philosophy, never really doing anythign with it other then to make it look deceptively deep. Which is not deep at all.
Iceking137 6 months ago
@Iceking137 You don't neccessarily have to fully dig into ideas for a movie, or presentation, or piece, to be deep. Just being aware of certain philosophies, just glazing them, just touching on them in certain ways, can be considered deep.
'The Matrix' doesn't indulge in any one particular idea for too long, but it very cleverly bounces between them, using the characters' situations as platforms.
You have the basic idea of a virtual reality, and the film does actually discuss complex ideas.
magicbibledotcom 6 months ago
@magicbibledotcom Roger should have elaborated why he stated those things to make it more clear, he gave 0 reason to his statement, I'll give you that.
but, like most movies, the Matrix has issues too.. The plot while inside the Matrix becomes dependant on special effects because all emotions are completely gone and I should say, fully immersed into a computer point of view. The main lead, Keanu Reeves, terrible pick and terrible preformance.. Almost everything he said and did seemed forced.
toxicitzi 5 months ago
@magicbibledotcom still, I liked the Matrix all the same :)
What I like to see is constructive reviews/criticism that regards both positive and bad things about movies, because, like most critics out there would say, there are no perfect movies. If we ignored the bad things on movies and just blindly agreed that the Matrix deserves a clean 10/10, we would only step backwards in movie evolution because instead of speeding it's progress we're keeping it away from it.
toxicitzi 5 months ago
@toxicitzi Yeah I like that too. That's the only reason for criticism to exist, why would I want him to blindly say it's 10/10 lmao, that's silly.
But he over-simplified the movie. There's no point in simplistic criticism or criticizing a movie not properly understood too.
Characterizing 'The Matrix' as basically, a 'cool shoot-em-up' or popcorn flick is absurd. It is those things, but it's much more, and he didn't recognize that here.
magicbibledotcom 5 months ago
@magicbibledotcom and that's what I was saying, he should have given more details about why he made that decision
I'll give you that, this review felt poorly reviewed. If he gave a little explanation as to what the movie was trying to do, but managed otherwise, it would've given him more credit for the score. Still, saying that he's completely wrong is also wrong, the action in the movie did take over the plot more than once :P
so, my guess is he just didn't care anymore whenever that happened
toxicitzi 5 months ago
@toxicitzi How is saying he's completely wrong, if I can justify it... wrong? how is you now saying I'm completely wrong for that not completely wrong lmao?
If you can justify it, it's not wrong.
He over-simplified the movie and didn't justify his review. I justified why I think he did this however, so I'm not wrong.
magicbibledotcom 5 months ago
@magicbibledotcom because.. like I said...... the action took over the plot.. more than once.. so I guess he just didn't care.. which is unjustifiable, but still doesn't mean he's wrong.. because the action indeed took over the plot a few too many times...
toxicitzi 5 months ago
@magicbibledotcom @magicbibledotcom because.. like I said...... the action took over the plot.. more than once.. so I guess he just didn't care.. which is unjustifiable, but still doesn't mean he's wrong.. because the action indeed took over the plot a few too many times... and he was right about that part of the movie..
toxicitzi 5 months ago
@magicbibledotcom to decrypt my comment a little more efficiently, what I meant to say by that was:
The action took over the emotions of the scenes, many times, which turned the movie more into a blockbuster summer movie and I felt the same way too about that, I just wasn't affected as much by that. Roger Ebert is an old man and movies like The Matrix are popsicles to him..
Trust me, whatever you say, your opinion towards him is just an unjustifiable as his opinion on the movie :)
toxicitzi 5 months ago
The Matrix was and is an absolutely mind-blowing, revolutionary movie. The sequels were a let-down and the third one was a bore for me, I don't however think the second movie was that bad. But, they were a let down in the sense they didn't really expand much on the philosophical conundrums of the first.
But the first movie is incredible. The casting is perfect, the script is electric, the scenes are... unforgettable, it's a combination of so many things. It's amazing.
magicbibledotcom 11 months ago
The funny thing about Hugo Weaving is that about a year after this movie came out, he played Elrond in Lord of the Rings.
TF2Fan101 11 months ago
@TF2Fan101 what's so funny? :P
SuperHeroMania 11 months ago
@SuperHeroMania HW went from playing the main villain to playing one of the main good guys.
TF2Fan101 10 months ago
Not really a siskel and ebert reveiw if theres no siskel, change the title
drakeTM1 11 months ago
Awesome pairing of Movie Critics, these two.
jjobie 11 months ago
story wise this movie is a let down???
Siskel...you are a twit.
tend 1 year ago
@tend Siskel isn't there, dude. It's Ebert and a guest host, Joel Siegel.
scottishthunder47 1 year ago
@tend it is his opinion. siskel was not in attendance. he was already up in that big balcony in the sky , reviewing pictures
OralAgreement69 11 months ago
@tend That's Ebert
ECL28E 11 months ago
Dark City owns Matrix. Well, everything other than Smith.
blindthrall 1 year ago
This movie is full of Illuminati symbolism. Its crazy...
SunnyLovetts 1 year ago
@SunnyLovetts You're the only one who's crazy.
bahramf 1 year ago
i didn't like the douchbag he was wierd
UltraMovieNerd 1 year ago