Matrix' Questions Columnists Personal Tastes

By Greg Dew
Columbus Wired Columnist
8/1/02

Coming on the heels of another disappointing prequel to the “Star Wars” franchise is the news that Warner Brothers has announced the date of May 15, 2003 for the release of the sequel of “The Matrix.”

“The Matrix,” of course, is the current chic fantasy movie franchise that has legions of fans counting down the days till its release. Time Magazine quoted in its May 13th issue that, “not since the “Star Wars” movies has a film inspired so much breathless anticipation on the Internet.” 

Like “Star Wars”, “The Matrix” has become a significant cultural event with an audience that will debate the plot points in conversations and indeed on the Net.

Normally, such a cultural phenomenon would grab my interest and hold as excitement grew and culminated in the release in May. Moreover, the makers of “The Matrix” look to quickly cash in on this momentum and have tentatively scheduled the release of the 3rd installment of “The Matrix” in November 2003.

Unfortunately, I made a promise to myself years ago to never waste my money on a movie starring Keanu Reeves. At the time, it was an easy decision to make. The movies he had made previous to my decision were not exactly impressive.

I had also just watched “Point Break”, a movie in which Reeves so insulted my respect for quality acting that I couldn’t imagine ever wasting my time with him again. Time is important to me, so if Reeves couldn’t spend the time to memorize “Brodie, I am an F-B-I agent” without looking at cue cards behind the camera than I wouldn’t throw 2 hours of my life away to watch something he had done.

My personal boycott had been easy to hold till the release of “The Matrix.” Sure I had to miss an Al Pacino performance in “The Devil’s Advocate” but it was a small price to pay to hold a promise to myself. I take pride in staying true to myself and for the most part this personal guide to movies has allowed me to almost always leave a theatre satisfied. It is basic and
goes on the premise that a quality actor is going to choose a quality film.

Therefore if a movie is advertised to star Reeves, Brandon Frasier or any member of the cast of “Friends” chances are good the movie is not worth viewing. 

“The Matrix” has put this premise to the test, however. A smattering of conversations over the years has led me to question myself on this movie only. “Greg, its not about Keanu, it is about the movie. Trust me you’ll love it.” “

I prefer movies that blow my mind, like ‘Fight Club’ (agreed) and ‘The Matrix.’” It has reached the point where I agree that the movie probably is pretty good. The plot sounds exceptional and the images I’ve seen look to be on the cutting edge of movie technology. 

The debate is now what to do with my promise. Being true to oneself is an important part of life, even when it involves something so absurd and inconsequential as the debate on whether to watch a movie with a bad actor.

Or does a desire to witness and take part in the culture of a major movie culture trump a promise made years ago? Should I swallow my pride or should I continue my personal quest to hold movie companies responsible for picking actors with the skill to make it through a scene without the need to read from a cue card?