Hmph. Figures. I thought this was gonna be the old Brian De Palma movie but it turns out to be a remake thereof that I’ve never heard of lol. I watched anyway since the cast list includes Chloe Sevigny and Stephen Rea, and to be honest there are a lot of moments here where I could easily have been convinced – especially considering his recent output prior to Redacted – that it was at the least a much older movie, and at best directed by De Palma himself. I haven’t seen the original so I don’t know if it’s one of his movies that displays the stylish Hitchcock homagery he shortly thereafter became known for, but that’s what I’m referring to here at least. This is all well and good, and makes for an interesting 90 minutes … but I’m just left wondering exactly what the point of it was.

In any case, it’s better than a piece of crap – any time I find myself gasping, “Oh my god” over the gore content of a scene is always a good thing. To be perfectly honest, the ending of this thing feels more like the good old Seventies than anything I’ve seen outside the decade itself, right down to the Rosemary’s Baby ish score. I’ll happily watch it again – though after I get around to seeing the original, I promise.

First off, I’m crazy for what I wrote in both those reviews below. I have seen this movie surely 5 or more times now and, again as with the original, it was only this time around that I finally realised just how brilliant the effects sequences – not just the big lorry crash climax – are here. It’s not as together as the first movie, that’s for sure, and it does end with that hideous cliffhanger that still makes me laugh my ass off … also, kinda like what I noticed about Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix when watching it with non-readers, I noticed here how you really need to have seen the Animatrix shorts between the original and this because there are at least a couple of “huh?” moments if you haven’t. It is still a hell of a lot of fun though, all the way, and especially having watched Revolutions again just now and realised how bad it is, as a sequel to a movie that really didn’t need ‘em, they don’t come much better than this.

April 14th, 2004:

My initial reaction to this installment of the Matrix Trilogy was a little spoiled, a basic, “Whatever,” aside from the lorry crash which continues to meet my highest expectations like no other moment in the whole trilogy.

One of the series’ biggest flaws struck me on this viewing of Reloaded – Don Davis’ score. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great music, but I find that it’s a little like Joel Silver’s hype interviews that filled movie news shows all around the movies’ release dates – it overplays every single moment, making it sound like something is happening that’s infinitely, even impossibly, grander than what is actually happening on screen. It’s impossible to put this into words on the page, I’d have to play you clips of the score or something… but I’m sure it’s a definite problem.

The Burly Brawl is the biggest let down in the trilogy – call me spoiled, tell me that ridiculous defence “It’s all in a computer anyway, it’s not meant to look real!” (seriously I read this a few times…), but the virtual actors just don’t cut it yet, I don’t care how much they spent developing the technology. The funny thing is, there are places where they do work, in fast motion, etc, you can tweak them to make them work; but like idiots, they just had to go too far, put virtual actors into slow motion bullet time, so there’s no escaping scrutiny, and they fall apart before your eyes.

After watching the whole trilogy in order once more, I’ve changed my mind a lot about Revolutions and realise that this installment, Reloaded is the real letdown. Having said that, it’s the biggest ride and I could still watch it perhaps more readily than the other two. Like I said in my review of The Matrix, the jury is out on what the Matrix Trilogy means to me… but they’re endlessly intriguing.

Old review found! Courtesy of Archive.org – May 23rd, 2003:

I just wanted to write a few words on this movie, ‘cos despite my (current) slightly undecided feeling about it, it still blew me away. Why am I undecided on the matter? Why because, that is my purpose… just kidding :-p The third movie Revolutions is gonna be absolutely crucial to anyone’s final judgement on Reloaded and the whole series (though it has to be said, whatever the outcome, the first movie will always be a standalone masterpiece).

This may or may not be spoiler laden, I don’t know, I don’t care, there, I mentioned it. The movie ends, perhaps unsurprisingly, with the title, “To be concluded…” But that’s not all. It ends with a lingering shot of the ‘evilly-bearded guy’ and a hysterically funny music stab (I kid not, we’re talking of the dun-dun-DUHHHHHH brand of musical cue found only in parodies). I sincerely hope there was some tongue-in-cheek here and I don’t mean Trinity’s tongue or Neo’s cheek, ‘cos personally, I almost had to laugh out loud at the cheesiness of this moment.

Secondly, the BIG effect (you’ll know it when you see it) that ends the much-touted car chase is the ONLY thing in Reloaded that reaches the jaw-dropping peaks that the first movie was filled with. Revolutions simply MUST have more scenes of this calibre to make the series worthwhile. But boy, when it hits that peak, it goes beyond, any movie for the next 5 years will be pushed to match this effects shot.

A lot of people don’t like the Wachowski’s dialogue… I say they’re missing the point, I don’t know how to elaborate on that. They did the same in Bound, and I personally love the coldness of it.

This is all surface-matter. I think the true value of this installment in particular will be revealed in further more scrutinising viewings. There’s effects here that are hidden, like the matrix itself is described by the Oracle, when it goes right, people don’t notice, but when it goes wrong, you hear about it a lot. There’s a lot wrong here. But there’s LOTS to like, so pay attention. I’d recommend the Animatrix for anyone wanting that little bit extra depth (“Beyond” in particular… I want to write about that at another time, simply the most beautiful animation I’ve ever seen… the light… but I’ll write about it another time).

Like the ad says… Free your mind. You might like it.

Can’t help but mention Kermode yet again on this movie, but what can say, his review was probably his best since whenever it was he last spoke at length on The Exorcist, lol. Three times really is the charm on this movie, and I’m glad I didn’t feel compelled to try and write anything on the second viewing on Oscar day.

The second or third time is the time you’ll watch this movie and actually start to realise how packed with potential interpretations it is. There’s the look between Day-Lewis and his son after first encountering Paul Dano’s Eli. The first time I saw this look, I hadn’t really cottoned on to the fact that it was a separate character to Paul at the start (that realisation alone could save you a whole viewing, so pay attention). This time I saw it entirely from Day-Lewis’ side; in relation to his powerful stance on family matters; he simply realises how much Eli looks like his brother … something he’ll never see in his son, just as later when duped by an imposter, it’s the kind of thing that crushes the seemingly uncrushable Daniel Plainview. Well, that and religion. Who knows what I’ll see in that look the next time I see it.

There’s the sweeping shot of the barebones railroad town following the scene with Paul, that beautifully minimal Jonny Greenwood loop playing over as the camera pans from an empty railroad, past the empty platform, all the while following Plainview’s little motorcar that seemingly appears out of nowhere, completely selling us the space in which the rest of the movie will play out.

Someone criticised me in my review of Sunshine for calling Danny Boyle the new Kubrick. Though I still stand by that statement in terms of the quality of that movie, repeat viewing notwithstanding – and even though apparently the movie Paul Thomas Anderson watched most during the creation of this marvel was actually a John Huston movie, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre – I have to say, if it’d been shown to me at random without credits, I could have been fooled more easily into believing this was somehow Kubrick’s lost last masterpiece before believing it was made by the Paul Thomas Anderson that made Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Punch-Drunk Love. Just the 2001-like opening, that oil-slicked rod completely reminding me of the monolith with all the eerie primal meanderings that preceed it, and the symmetrical, theatrical finale in the bowling alley, nevermind what falls in between. It’s pure perfection. But watch it 3 times – the first time with as little interruption as humanly or even inhumanly possible.

Addendum: I almost forgot the one thing I really wanted to say in this review what with my mood of late. I noticed reading the old review how even I got fooled into following the herd and describing this as a very masculine movie below, for which I can only apologise. Do not assume that because it’s mainly populated by penis-bearers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that this means it’s necessarily a “man’s movie”. As far as I understood it this time around, I can’t imagine a more anti-male film. It’s all about the destructive nature of greed, self-righteousness, pride … that is, of being that horrendous stereotype associated with the Y chromosome. Even I won’t deny the unfortunate truth of gender stereotypes in history ... I only ask that people don’t let them influence their expectations of the future. I guess if you view everything in terms of sex and gender you won’t be able to help seeing it so; but you’d do a lot better to view it simply as cinema that’s true to its world. (Addendum addendum?: I hope she doesn’t mind me mentioning it if she reads this but I was really buoyed by my sister saying she never once considered the lack of female characters in the movie.)

February 19th 2008:

I was lucky enough to (through no effort on my part, honest, it just kinda happened; I’m not that much of a nut lol) pretty much follow Mark Kermode’s advice on how to watch this movie verbatim – that is, almost empty cinema (about 3 other people in there with me I think, lol), decent sized screen, central seat (five rows back – can’t believe I used to obsessively want to be as close to the screen as possible, it’s a wonder I didn’t break my neck) ... and believe me, I’m glad I saw it like this. It does demand, at the least, your full attention. Usually I’d shun such advice – I always say a great film will grab my attention despite the attention I give it, the screen size, etc – but for Paul Thomas Anderson following his last hat trick of masterpieces? I’ll pretty much do anything.

I’ve said a few times since the nominations that this would probably be the film I ended up rooting for at the Oscars. That this film makes No Country for Old Men look positively mainstream pretty much ends any real hope I had that it had a chance, lol – I’m actually inclined now to think it’ll be Juno or Clayton that takes the gold, so similar and difficult are this troublesome pair.

This film and No Country for Old Men (Assassination of Jesse James perhaps completing the threefer) are like a characteristically perverse inversion of the old “waiting for a bus” thing – you’re waiting around for hours and then three show up at once. I don’t think anyone was particularly “waiting around for” these movies last year – except in that vague, ongoing way we’re always wanting something to blow us away and change the way we look at film. Yet show up they did anyway, and demanded to be seen. I’d love to know if the film makers concerned were aware that what they were doing wasn’t so unique – the whole thing’s like a mini New Wave to me.

If you noticed I’m babbling, it’s ‘cos I know it will take another viewing for me to feel like I know what I’m talking about on this one – it was churning around in my mind and slotting itself together even as I was walking home, and I think there are still a few things I surely missed. What I can say is, from the moment Daniel Day Lewis’ pickaxe first thwacks into that rock, it’s like Paul Thomas Anderson was doing the same thing to my skull – it’s really a movie that gets inside your skin … in fact, more than that, in this case you almost get inside its skin. And I guess I do now understand why this movie has unfortunately been seemingly reduced to nothing but Day Lewis’ performance in critics’ and awards circles. You come away from the movie almost feeling like some of him has rubbed off on you in some strange cinematic transference. He’s almost the ultimate anti-hero: almost in that by the time the movie’s over, though you know exactly why he did the things he did, you’d really be forgiven for not having a shred of forgiveness for him.

But it’s not just Day Lewis’ movie. Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier and all the supporting cast are perfect; Jonny Greenwood’s score, like Nick Cave’s for Jesse James in fact, is no iPod material in its dissonance but perfect support for Anderson’s imagery (No Country of course had no music so there’s another thing that ties these films together), and the sound ... I thought No Country’s sound was good, but, again that pickaxe, just wow … if it wins any Oscar outside of Day Lewis, and I hope it does, then I hope at least it’s that one.

Like I said, it’s gonna take at least another viewing for me to truly put it all together – and I’ve never been more excited about seeing a film a second time in my life … could even be the first time I see a movie more than once on the big screen in a long time if my multiplex still has it next week. BTW I can also understand how some people will absolutely hate the movie – as a PTA fan even I felt twinges of disappoint over how it lacks the slickness particularly of Boogie Nights and Magnolia. Kermode compared it most to Punch-Drunk Love and I’d agree – the scene around the son’s accident, score and all, reminded me completely of that movie’s most chaotic moments, particularly in the music department. It’s still a very different Paul Thomas Anderson though – I’d almost not even know it was his movie if I weren’t told … a few themes carry through, but visually it’s much grittier. It’s incredibly, almost repulsively masculine, too – which, if you know me, make the fact that (I think – that 5th heart is still pending) I love it even more of a testament to how good this film is.

What is there to say? This is just a straight continuation of the story in Parent Trap III and as such just as avoidable. One thing I didn’t write in my review there was what I think is these two installments’ biggest failing – they focus way too much on the adults. I guess maybe they were trying to make the movies “grow up” with the fans of the first sequel (which, one supposes, was made since the video generation had just come across the original) – it’s still way too stuffy, even with Hayley Mills still floating around. Glenn Shadix (*Beetle Juice* and Heathers) provides some relief I seem to recall (writing up long after watching again, sorry), but it’s still really sad, even for a TV movie.

Eep. I didn’t need my full attention on this one to know from the start my pleasant surprise at part two wasn’t gonna last long. Threequel means we get triplets – well done – but clearly they cast the only triplets they could find, who all look (ok that’s redundant) like Amy Fisher, and basically this movie serves as a reason why you shouldn’t cast triplets as triplets unless you’re making a porno. They’re bad – and I’m not just saying that ‘cos they’re not cute as Hayley and Lindsay and Carrie etc … but for the record, they’re not

Hayley fares better here than in part two, it’s gotta be said – but that’s perhaps only ‘cos alongside the girls and Barry Bostwick, the frustratingly brief scenes with her simply carry the class she brings to everything she’s in. She even sings a few notes late in the game – okay, it’s about as pointless as Julie Andrews’ singing in Princess Diaries 2 but sometimes it really is the little things, lol. When I realise I’d rather be watching an episode of “Saved By the Bell” ... that’s when a movie is really not good.

This is one of those movies where if I tried to put into words how low my expectations were, it’d still be an understatement. I didn’t even know Hayley Mills had starred in the Parent Trap sequels until just recently; much less that there were three of them … I must have stopped even noticing let alone watching at part III, lol. Even knowing she was in it, I put it on purely because I knew it’d be an easy watch and I could get on with other things while it was on.

In short … it’s really corny, pretty much a retread of the same plot … but, hey, I wasn’t massively keen on the original so there was a lot of room for improvement; and frankly, though of course the Lindsay Lohan version is the one to see, I can see myself coming back to this one far more often than is probably healthy.

Though Hayley Mills somehow manages to look even older here mid-Eighties than she has recently in ITV’s “Wild at Heart” (which, incidentally, she’s so good in that she makes it worth watching), not to mention gagh! the accents … the two girls who set the traps this time around are if anything even more wonderful than she was in the original – I was about as surprised to see Carrie Kei Heim (Santa Claus: The Movie and very little else) as Mills’ daughter here as I was to see Tom Skerritt as the romantic interest, lol. I’m cuckoo when it comes to completely generic little girl activities and from the completely impossible marshmallow and jellybean cookie mix, to blowing bubblegum bubbles on the phone, to laying face down on the bed wiggling feet in the air while blasting the neighbourhood with Eighties sounds, this movie has it all. To say it won’t be to everyone’s taste would be understatement of the week, but for me it was a pleasant surprise and I can only hope the other two sequels are as fun.

And more Olsen twins time filling. You know, what I find the best, often only good reason to watch these movies is to marvel at how thoroughly they teach how not to make a movie. Like here, for instance, take the espresso-making scene. There are so many ways to make a clutzy teenage girl trying to get to grips with an espresso machine funny, y’know, see something like Lindsay Lohan with the washing machine in Just My Luck for instance; even Katie Holmes in Pieces of April with the oven. There are no end of sources of inspiration which a movie like this could quite easily just lift verbatim. It’s incredible how unfunny they manage to make such a scene here. Don’t even get me started on those accents. A smattering of points for showing so much of the city, they appear to have actually shot there, but still … eww. Must watch New York Minute (don’t read that review btw, it was evidently written before I succumbed to the cheese that is Paris) again early next year to restore my love for these girls.

Ugh, this is excruciating. And I know, it’s billed as being about Mary-Kate and Ashley getting their driver’s license, and driving doesn’t interest me in the slightest, so I should’ve known. Thing is – I wish this movie was more about the car and the road. It’s a road trip with barely any road in it. I swear, this script – if there even was one – must’ve been written in a night and never altered thereafter. It’s just a random series of events, none of which are remotely interesting. The cover art of this one made it look like one of the few, (moderately) slicker Olsen twins movies, like Passport to Paris, Winning London, New York Minute. Instead, it’s almost unwatchable, packed with those desperate silences which can only have been left in to maintain a feature length. Bland doesn’t even cover it. If you make it through, you won’t believe the sigh of relief you release when you realise yay, there are outtakes at the end!!!!