The Matrix Resurrections was released in theaters on December 22, 2021, and was meant to continue one of the most influential science-fiction franchises in cinema history. Neo returns. Trinity returns. The Matrix returns. After nearly twenty years, expectations were understandably enormous. That is exactly why this film needs to be approached by separating two questions: what it tells and why it tells it this way. Only then does it become clear why I found the film not just disappointing, but genuinely frustrating.
Spoilers: the ending explainedOpen only if you want to know the ending.
The story initially presents itself as a reset. Thomas Anderson is once again living inside the Matrix, now as a successful video game designer. His most famous work is a blockbuster game series called The Matrix, supposedly inspired by a period of mental instability. The events of the original trilogy are reframed as trauma, delusion, or creative projection. Neo is kept emotionally sedated through blue pills, his memories fragmented and suppressed. Trinity also exists inside the Matrix, does not recognize Neo, and lives a conventional, domesticated life. Gradually, the truth emerges: both Neo and Trinity were reconstructed by the machines after their deaths. Not out of mercy, but because their emotional bond generates extraordinary levels of energy. The peace established at the end of Revolutions is fragile at best. Machine factions have split, new power structures have formed, and Neo and Trinity are being exploited as an emotional power source. Eventually, both are freed once more, with Trinity even assuming the central savior role as the system is broken yet again.
That is the story the film tells. And it is already deeply problematic. But the real issue lies not only in the plot, but in how the film constantly comments on itself. The Matrix Resurrections is not a traditional sequel; it is a meta-commentary on sequels. Characters openly discuss franchise fatigue, studio pressure, brand exploitation, and nostalgia as a commodity. The film repeatedly signals that it is aware of being a Matrix movie. And that self-awareness destroys immersion. Instead of building a world, the film dismantles itself scene by scene.
The original trilogy worked because it took its universe seriously. It had rules, consequences, and internal logic. Resurrections treats those rules as inconvenient baggage. Neo is dead? Doesn’t matter. Trinity is dead? Doesn’t matter. Sacrifice, choice, the cycle, the peace achieved in Revolutions—all of it is retroactively diminished. Not because the story demands it, but because the film cannot exist without undoing those outcomes. In doing so, it not only weakens itself, but also undermines the ending of the original trilogy.
Tonally, the film also struggles. Emotional moments are immediately undercut by irony, as if the film is afraid of sincerity. Action sequences feel strangely weightless, visually chaotic, and lacking impact. The iconic clarity of the earlier films is gone. In its place are endless explanations, justifications, and self-commentary. Characters often feel less like people and more like mouthpieces for ideas.
Why is this film the way it is?
This question is essential to understanding The Matrix Resurrections. The film was created under unusual circumstances. Lana Wachowski directed the film alone—Lilly Wachowski was not involved. This is not a minor detail. The original trilogy was built on a shared creative vision. Resurrections clearly reflects a singular perspective.
The film itself addresses the pressure to continue a successful brand. To me, it plays like a conflict projected onto the screen: between authorship and surrender, personal expression and corporate inevitability.
The heavy meta approach functions as a defensive strategy. By criticizing itself in advance, the film attempts to disarm external criticism. The implication seems to be: if we already acknowledge the problems, they can’t be used against us. But this logic collapses quickly. A film can be self-reflective without sabotaging itself. Resurrections does not manage that balance. It feels like a work that wants to exist and apologize for existing at the same time.
In the end, The Matrix Resurrections feels less like a continuation and more like an internal reckoning — with the brand, with Hollywood, with audience expectations, and perhaps with the creators’ own past. The problem is that this reckoning happens inside the narrative and destroys it in the process.
The Matrix Resurrections is not a misunderstood masterpiece and not a bold reinvention. It is a conceptually conflicted film that hides behind meta-layers to avoid committing to its own story. Instead of progression, it offers reversal. Instead of consequence, cynicism. Rating: 1/10.
Watch the film at home
Watch digitally
Rental and purchase options for the US. Check current terms on Prime Video.
For your home collection
These editions link to the US store. Check format, audio, region compatibility and current availability on Amazon. Digital extras may have separate restrictions.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Using these links does not add to the price you pay.