Jonas2021

The more I think about this film, the less I like it. It's not that it was "bad", per se, but it portends to be much more than it is. It reminds me of a formulaic romance novel that was written in a factory of sorts, spurned out according to schedule, with every cliché dialed in to expedite the narration. While some may argue that this was against type - it deflated the ego of the urban protagonist and brought depth to the redneck hicks in backwater Texas - that is itself a cliché and the turnaround/redemption is necessarily predicated upon that formulaic reduction. While that may be Vengeance's most pressing flaw, the entire move is laden with them. Issa Rae is not only woefully under-utilized, but her character has no depth, resonating only a single note. At first, it's skepticism; later, it's encouragement. It's a pivot that has not been genuinely earned, so with the rest of the movie, the story is carried by formulaic unfolding that has been telegraphed from the opening scenes.

Perhaps I'm disappointed in Mr. Novak, as I would have expected more from him - broader writing, more intricate in the plot, and more exploratory in the characters, their strengths, their flaws, and the arc of their storylines. The irony is that this movie is about a man discovering how shallow his life has been, but that exploration itself is shallow in itself. In other words, this is like a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy in that we know that the guy is going to get the girl in the end in spite of the obstacles. If watching late-night on a streaming service, it's simple, non-nutritious, highly caloric mind candy. To translate into the entertainment realm, this isn't high art nor does it feed the soul or the mind. Rather, it passes time just like the empty calories in junk food offer little nutritive benefit. To be fair, this movie did get me thinking: How did it manage to receive an 80% rating on Rotten Tomatoes? This isn't, however, the type of thinking in which I was hoping to be inspired to engage.

As a late-night wind-down with a glass of wine before bed? Sure. As anything else, my vote would be to look for something else. It's not terrible, which is the basis for the five-rating. Some movies of this ilk are just unwatchable. This is not one of those. Rather, it's a movie with only one (also undeveloped) character - Mr. Novak's Ben - while everyone else is just a satellite around his foil.

This isn't a polished comedy, which is part of its charm. Dan Perlman and Kevin Iso aren't great actors, and the situations are rather simple: straight guys caught trying to do right in a theatre of the absurd (i.e., life). Some of the characters - such as Kareem and Dan's mother (love Maria Bamford!) - are ridiculous, but work beautifully in this environment.

I laughed out loud several times over the two seasons, which is more than I laugh at the typical comedy. Its dry sense of humor in spite of its straddling the fence between recognizable reality and the absurdity of navigating the hood is a breath of fresh air.

I hope to see more seasons of this.

I did not like The Matrix Resurrections. I don't think it added anything to the franchise. This was not an epic love story, as it was billed to be. It didn't even have the sexy, sleek, stylized look when characters entered the Matrix. There were novel and incredibly artistic sequences in the first Matrix that required 360 degree perimeter cameras to get the shot, particularly with the the fight sequences. I don't believe any such techniques were used here. The way that this film was constructed, the sloppiness of its execution was plastered over by the narrative, the "upgrades" to the Matrix program, CGI, and the enormity in scope of the numbers involved in the fights that were computer generated onslaughts rather than sophisticated choreographed sequences.

Morpheus didn't have much to do with this movie. He was needed for continuity, but narratively, it was an afterthought. The "new" Agent Smith, played by Jonathan Groff, was terrible. Both Laurence Fishburne and Hugo Weaving were missed. Neil Patrick Harris . . . Silly. I can't imagine it was only because of the pandemic.

I'm not going to recommend that people don't watch it. Of course they are. If one was a fan of the franchise, there is a compulsion, a curiosity, a desire to scratch that itch. Watch it. It wasn't terrrrrible. I have seen worse. For a $150 million budget, however, I don't think the studio got much value. It's not an epic film. It's not a great story. It doesn't have the allegory that the first movie did. It's rather a mindless movie with mediocre sequences, a substandard story, and uninspired effects. It was a disappointment. If Lana Wachowski wanted to resurrect the franchise, there should have been a more compelling story with more compelling filming to go with it. James Cameron didn't release his planned sequels to Avatar (2009) because he needed the technology to realize his vision. While I make no predictions about the quality of his sequels, at least there is a vision associated with their reason and an outlined arc for the narrative. Was the 18-year wait for the Matrix Resurrections worth it? Not that anyone was waiting, but it would be difficult to imagine that anyone could say so.