The different answer that the first Matrix film promised was that there is no God and that frankly that is ok. If life is as valid as a computer construct then where can a creator have a role to play? Neo 'escaped' the Matrix, because he wanted to know 'the truth'. But if the truth means wearing uncomfortable clothes, eating rubbish food and being constantly at war. Then is the truth any more true then a lie? This was hinted at in the ending of the second film, The Matrix: Reloaded. Which for virtually the whole film offered nothing new. Until the very last minute when Neo suddenly finds he has the same powers in the 'real world' as in the Matrix; and in that discovery is the hint that the truth was really a lie and that the 'real world' was as much a construct as the Matrix, which Neo had supposedly escaped from. The idea that Life is like a kind of Infinite Escher Onion that peels itself back to reveal another layer, and that however far you go you can never get to the core, was a compelling vision.

Unfortunately, come the final part of the trilogy that seemed to have been totally forgotten about. I didn't of course expect an answer to life, the universe and everything (though try typing the search query 'what is the answer to life the universe and everything' into google.com and they DO have the answer!) But unfortunately they didn't even have the appetiser in Matrix Revolutions. The characters raced around manically enough, but that simply compounded the feeling that they had missed the point. To my eyes the whole sequence of the films demanded that the Matrix be layered and turned infinitely in on itself. It couldn't have a solution if the evidence of the first two films was to be believed, and it seemed strange that Neo was bothering to get worked up about something that couldn't possibly exist. Instead, very strangely, the Wachowski Brothers seemed to turn it into some quasi-religious metaphor of Neo as the saviour. Complete with cross imagery and seemingly miraculous concocted happy ending. Something that to me seemed totally counter intuitive to the whole philosophical thrust of the first two films.

The problem I suppose is that the first film was essentially complete in itself as a philosophical statement (apart from one inspired idea at the end of the second film), and that by the third film it had forgotten itself in favour of a goodies v baddies science fiction shoot-em-up. I enjoyed all three. But the first one made me think. The second created enough momentum in one minute to make up for the rest of the film which was decidely average. And the third was a visual treat at times, but ultimately a vacuous and unfulfilling ride in Hollywood tinsel which derided its own logic. I expected a Nietzschean style analysis of 'God is Dead'. But instead got the Ride of the Valkyries! Very odd.

Copyright - Stuart Brown