MOVIE REVIEWS

MATRIX RELOADED

Reviewed by Andy Alphonse

About a week before the sequel to The Matrix was due to superimpose itself over the consciousness of all mankind, I dug out my VHS of the original so as to refresh and prepare myself. By the time Rage Against the Machine’s closing score lurched out of the speakers I was beset with conflicting emotions; profound admiration for the past, and a protective, pre-emptive pseudo-dread for the future. Memories of Highlander and the subsequent raping and pillaging thereof that passed for its sequels came flooding back. I did not sleep well that night.

That the original Matrix was going to be one of the toughest ever cinematic acts to follow is no revelation; Still, we dared to hope. And when, in the multiplexed darkness one week later, Rage Against the Machine’s ditty once again accompanied the closing credits, my impressions were decidedly simplified: Good enough, but definitely not the near flawless masterpiece that we’d been wailing and gnashing our teeth for for so long.

Four years ago and since, The Matrix has assumed the status, and deservedly so, of a modern day myth of impressive relevance - i.e.: a story that effectively communicates information of a deep and humanistic archetypal significance, dealing with such timely issues as the contemporary relationship of man and technology, as well as the resurrection myth that addresses man’s salvation and eventual evolution. In this territory, the story line of ‘Reloaded' can claim but a pale comparison. The story itself does communicates some issues of deep philosophical content, but it does so primarily via various somewhat long-winded conversations between the characters, and not as information that is skillfully woven into multi-layered story-telling, as was the case with it’s prequel.

The expansions to the concept of the matrix that are written into the story are indeed somewhat sophisticated- the notion of rogue programs, the issues of choice and creation, and most interestingly, the ‘wormholes’ within the program that allow for instantaneous travel through space and time. (One hopes that this particular development will be awarded more attention in the future). The weakness here though is that these philosophical offerings are somewhat dispersed and diluted, as opposed to the original which had a much more tightly wound and cohesive impact.

Finally, less may have been more on several fronts, namely, time and technology. There were several key scenes throughout the film that could have benefited from simply being shorter, like the Zion rave-fest and the Agent Smith brouhaha, to name a few. And the yielding to technology’s gratuitous temptation by the film-makers does rear it’s conspicuous head from time to time (bullet-time and slo-mo-speed-up galore for the benefit of the video-game generation and not necessarily for the enhancement of the story). And a last word on a villain’s villain – the new free-agent-Agent Smith: not quite as chilling as before, but possessing an oddly charming multi-faceted menace that is yet captivating. Go figure. And go enjoy the movie by all means...but it ain’t no Matrix. And if my four-year old memory serves me well, this may be quite fitting and appropriate.

HULK

Reviewed by Charlotte Murphey

I don't know about you, but this seems like the summer for depressing themes! (I hate being depressed, it's so pointless.) Anyway, I didn't - did NOT - like Hulk. (Did I mention 'did not like'?) It was totally disheartening and he didn't help anyone. For those of you who might not know, Hulk is about a scientist named Bruce Banner (played by Aussie actor, Eric Bana), who during an experiment is exposed to gamma rays and lives. Afterwards, when he gets angry he transforms in the Hulk - a giant, green, totally ripped monster, who yells and throws stuff, fights off the army and jumps really, REALLY high. Now anyone who has watched the TV show or read the comic knows that the Hulk also helps people. By the end of every television episode, Bruce would have come to the aid of someone. But in the movie, he doesn't help anyone, except for maybe his girlfriend, but that doesn't really count. In the movie he is constantly depressed or angry, always whining "why me... woe is me!" The movie is also way too long and the ending doesn't make sense. Sorry, but I give it one armadillo.

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE

Reviewed by:Andrew Saucier

Bowling for Columbine tackles a huge issue in America: gun control. Michael Moore takes you on an intense trip through modern America, mainly in Michigan. He portrays the problems with guns in school and with adults in everyday life so well that every second of the documentary keeps you thinking “really?”.

It is a very intense film, with footage of people getting shot and with footage of the morning when the boys brought weapons to school at Columbine, taken from security cameras within the school.

And what about those killer bees or the shark attacks? Not only does Bowling for Columbine investigate gun control, but it also looks into the media and its role in the violence problems in America. Moore compares the US problem with that of the Canadians, or should I say their lack thereof. It is amazing. The Canadians actually leave their doors unlocked most of the time. Michael Moore went from house to house and most of them were wide open and no Canadian cared. I know I wanted to live in Canada after that.

The movie deserves applause, it deserves the Oscar it won, in fact it deserves all sorts of awards. It is America’s duty to see Bowling for Columbine.