The Matrix Saga: A Look Back - Page 2

I love these movies. That is all.

Yeah, but does knowing that make the scene any more compelling?

They should have written her out of the scene, or the entire movie.

The Oracle had to change her shell because of the growing threat from the Merovingian. What's the problem with that? It just shows how dangerous the matrix has become, and poses more questions about RSI's in the matrix. Its either that or one of the most important characters in the trilogy is suddenly absent for no good reason.

Yeah, the Wachowskis were generally in a no-win situation. I don't think Mary Alice was bad at all, but just about every scene would've been more effective had Gloria Foster appeared as the character.

Basically, this thread is an open debate forum and with me being indifferent to the Matrix Trilogy, I am using this to guide me one whether or not to review the Matrix Trilogy once more. With that said....


I am a graduate student beginning a MA in English/Education. I just wanted to say that if you want to make a critical essay of this to be PUBLISHED in the future, you can. Use this blurb as a starting point, this is the material suits your argument best. You sir have your points in order and so far convinced me of your stance.

The Matrix supporters have alot of catching up to do.

"The Oracle had to change her shell because of the growing threat from the Merovingian. What's the problem with that?"
Or just admit the Warchoskis had to recast, a lot like the Potter films had to recast after Richard Harris died?

"They should have written her out of the scene, or the entire movie."
That would have been hard to do. The filmakers were right in recasting, but whether they chose the right actress is a matter of debate.

My own Matrix stand: I loved the first, but was very disapointed in the sequels.

his "stance" is hardly material for an essay to be published. TDS's far too fond of the pronoun "we" when he gives an explanation, to be able to convince anyone but the already converted.

he surely brings up some interesting points, but a serious "essay" could never be based on such inaccurate assumptions as "we should really be hoping for the survival of these people and yet we couldn't give two shits about them". who's we? since i personally happen to give two shits and then some more about the fate of zion, the "essay" has instantly lost its grip on me. and the same goes for most other matrix supporters out there, i assume.

if he'd said "i don't give two shits about them", it would have been more accurate. but then of course it have just been one guy's opinion, and that's not a good way to convince anyone, is it?

that's a very good point, cog.

i've always thought fishburne sells morpheus' transformation really well. the moment he hears from neo that the prophecy was a scam, his entire world crashes right in front of him: it would have been ridiculous for the directors to keep him sporting his cool man-on-a-mission facade.

personally, i would have given him a bigger part at the end of "revolutions", to tie everything up. but i like the whole trilogy nontheless.

Come on dudalb! Its the Matrix, a virtual reality, changing avatars ties in perfectly with the film, and conveys the growing danger to the character, and sparks debate about identity and whatnot. Really, there is no problem here. If you have a problem with the performance then fine, but the excuse they gave for the sudden change was fine in my opinion. All the characters pretending they dont notice her change in appearence is ludicrous.

Yeah, I agree, but I'm happy with what they did with the character anyway. He does go into the background slightly, but then the story becomes bigger than most of the characters too, and like you said, its not the same Morpheus anymore. Infact considering the circumstanes, having his entire ideology ripped away, he dealt with it pretty well!

As for Trinity, well there are many different religious/philosophical aspects people can draw from, but I see the ending as Buddhist in tone. Trinity was Neo's desire, and once he lost that then he was able to transcend reality, because in Buddhism desire is what keeps people back. Its all about peace and coexistence, and asskicking action along the way. I love the fact that Smith and Neo crash in the exact same spot Neo flew away from in Matrix 1. The mirroring between the first film and last film is perfect, so many mirror scenes its great to watch. For a fan anyway.

I'm still of the firm belief that Reloaded has the kind of tone the wachowskis bros. were aiming for, when it failed, in the public's eye's not necessarily here the bros. decided to just go back to formula. I'm sure they didn't just say 'Fuck it' and start writing random, there was still a useful plot thread and they did what they could with it but I think they just decided to go for eye candy instead assuming that's what the public wanted.

Truly, this is an argument that will rage for decades.

Let me re-phrase what I said earlier then because I realized my error: what was posted here was good enough for a ROUGH DRAFT....it is good enough to be published after the usual editing and what not. Change of tense, pronoun usage and the like would be edited. But the evidence is there.

Don't harp on the semantics of what he said because you are sore that the content is actually plausible.

So far:

Matrix: 40
No-Matrix: 60.

Out of a scale of 100 of course.

Polls shall remain open for the sake of democracy.

EDIT:

I understand where you are coming from, but most debates are fully of "I"s. Critical essays are also full of opinions that are supported with evidence from the text the essayist is critiquing (sp). In this case, he is focusing in on a movie not a text, so to mention specific parts and using some quotes or scenes from the film in line with his opinion is the same thing (I believe ) as quoting a text. Also, his comparision of TTT's use of Rohan and its people to incite compassion for the cause of humanity to that of M:Reloaded and Revolutions use of Zion to incite compassion for humanity is a topic for a film/drama class itself. In fact you can use the theme of Humanity's survival in the face of disaster or something along the lines and compare the success of the Matrix Trilogy and the LOTR's trilogy in displaying the topic. HOLY CRAP!!!! I am so ready for graduate school it isn't funny!! I might just use that for a paper if the situation arises.

There is no poll, or contest B.G, just a somewhat mature look back at the saga.

The idea was around before even Bound, the scripts werent written or redrafted in 2001, and I dont think even the Wachowskis could get away with changing the third installment midway through production, everything has to proceed like clockwork on such a mammoth project. Just face it, this is the story they invisioned from the beginning, I dont know how anyone can think the third film was suddenly made up (note: the entire movie is a mirror of the first film), the only thing changed was the Oracle's shell storyline due to Gloria Foster's death.

What the Wachowskis were aiming for really. Discourse, open dialogue, opinions, everyone's but their own.

And not to nitpick too much, but these two paragraphs:

Contradict each other. You complain about no introductory scene in one paragraph, and then say you would have cared more if there wasnt. Like I said before, its down to preference of location and setting, and of course other things factor in like acting and direction, but generally this war scene was a generic one, just like the one in TTT. Comparing the two franchises is futile though. One is a pretty much black and white (literally!) good v bad story, the other is all about shades of grey, and no real villain, as even Smith is a sympathetic character.

it goes beyond semantics when you try to convince someone of something and you base your assumptions on a "mutual" feeling that is not there. once again, as an example, if he claims that one of the problems of the sequels was that we were supposed to care about zion but didn't, well, that implies that this "not caring" feeling is felt by me who reads his review as well as him who wrote it. but i don't share this feeling, which means that semantics have nothing to do with this.

but that's not a problem. this is what we do all the time on these boards: trying to convince people that everybody who watched a particular film did or did not feel one way or another.

so i'm definitely not "sore", as you put it. why would i be? there's simply no amount of forum posts that will convince me that the matrix trilogy isn't as good as i think it is.

No amount of revisionism, wishful thinking, and armchair philosophy will ever convince me that Reloaded and Revolutions have much merit as films. As philosophy lectures, sure. Films? Not a whole lot.

As a huge Matrix fan, I can admit the scenes in Zion are the weakest points in the trilogy. But for me, they fail for different reasons than cited above. First, the description of Zion Morpheous gives us in Matrix 1 led me to believe Zion was essentially a rag tag bunch of colonists living in caves just trying to survive. The Zion we are shown is in stark contrats to that. It houses 250,000 people; it is a large and civilized city with a council, military, and engineering room (I'm not sure if that's an adequate description of the place where Counselor Hammond takes Neo). Basically, Zion is a far cry from just a bunch of rag-tag rebels.

As for Commander Locke, while his character doesn't necessarily further the plot, he does does have a purpose. The Wachowski's are big on Eastern philosophy and Locke's ying served as Morpheous' yang. While Morpheous represented blind faith, Locke represented science and reason. Link's wife serves to emphasis this as well. Her plea for Link to wear her rosary beads was a plea for Link to "believe". Earlier, Morpheous also asked Link to "trust" him fully and without question.

As for the Sentinel strike, I don't really care who gets killed or not either. That scene serves as eye candy for me. It's quite a spectacle, whether you care about the people of Zion or not. In fact, of the people I know who hate the movie, they always site that scene as one they liked.

I guess that's where we disagree. To me, the philosophical point is the plot of the movie. The action scenes serve to emphasize the philosophy.

The point I was trying to make is that we (i.e., the audience) need to feel for these characters in order to appreciate the scene. But in the 45 minutes of Reloaded's running time that the Wachowskis spend in Zion, we learn nothing about these people, and if anything, are made to dislike them. With how poorly the Wachowskis managed to established these characters, it might actually have been preferential to not show them at all - at least the audience wouldn't dislike them.

And they're very comparable franchises, because in the end, it comes down to the survival of the human race. The Lord of the Rings made me, and quite a bit of the general public, sympathize. The Matrix, judging by its massively decreasing profits, didn't.

Outside of a reviewer at DVDVerdict who claimed the scene was better than the Battle of Pelennor Fields, I can't think of one person who truly liked that scene. When I saw the film at the 7 p.m. showing opening day, I heard yawns.

Well, I politely agree to disagree. There's not much debate if your whole argument is "I don't like it." Personally, I felt that scene was technically and visually stunning.

Technically and visually yeah. It was top notch. So was the Burly Brawl. But both scenes lacked gravity. They lacked meaning and weight. Why did the Burly Brawl go on for so long, when Neo just flew away at the end, as we all knew he would do? Why should the audience care about the Zion citizens, when it became somewhat obvious that the Wachowskis didn't?

That's what sticks in my craw about Reloaded and Revolutions so badly. Technically, they're very well made films. There's a lot of deep philosophy in there too, and that's fine. But there's nothing human about them. There's no anchor-point for the viewer anymore. It becomes so MUCH about the philosophy, that that's all the movie becomes. It becomes lectures from characters we've just met, and who knows when we'll see them again. Motivations are thrown to the wind, scattered and forgotten. The Matrix had a very human story, with enough of the philisophical undertone to make it more interesting, and to make it resonate further. Reloaded and Revolutions were short levels of a videogame interspersed by very long cutscenes about Neitzche, or something.

It was no longer exciting, because even if there was something at stake, most of the audience had no clue what it was anymore. Sure, watching robots killing other robots is pretty cool, but after a few minutes of that, it's just not exciting anymore. It's allowed to go on for too long, and feels more like a tech demo than a scene.

Ok, but assuming the philosophical points are the reason for the movie's existence raises questions. First, why create a conflict in the first movie that requires a certain course of action (the defeat of the machines) if it conflicts with your desires to emphasize philosophical points later on? Assuming that the Wachowski's started with The Matrix as a film telling a story that had some pretty elementary philosophical implications, then why not accept those limitations when you go back to write sequels? Just because you can shoehorn philosophy into a film does not mean it aids the film at all. Action as a genre will have a more difficult time conveying philosophy because its focus is simply not on reflection.

Furthermore, I believe that even if the point of the sequels is to make philosophical points, the Wachowskis do a fairly poor job of it. For instance, the Merovingian makes a long speech about the absurdity of free will and the necessity of cause and effect. It's a point made by many, many philosophers. But, although he extols this philosophy, nothing about his character actually reflects said philosophy. It's simply a discussion.

I think a much better example of philosophy fit gracefully into a film is Collateral. Yes, it's a thriller...an excellent put-together one, but it's not a big film. That being said, the scene where Jamie Foxx puts Vincent's Nihilism to the test by crashing the cab is simply a brilliant representation of a critique of a certain school of philosophy. What truly makes it a credit to the film is just how unobtrusive it is. You can totally miss the symbolism of what's occuring on screen and enjoy it as "Jamie Foxx having been pushed too far". You can't say that about the Architect.

Bah...these damn films frustrate me so very much for their pretensions. I don't want to slag on anyone for liking them at all. I think they were truly ambitious films, but I think it was that very ambition that caused them to fail. Sometimes, if you aim for the moon, you land among the stars. The Matrix Trilogy, to me, ends up aiming for the moon, but crashing into a room full of innocent people, and the pilot sneaks away from the scene babbling about the effect of quantum uncertainty upon free will so that everyone is too confused to blame him.


Also, I kept on waiting for the Wachowski's to address the Turing vs. Searle "Artificial Minds" debate, because it seemed so obvious to be addressed given the tensions between the machines and the humans, and I was fairly stunned when it was left out...

And just, for the record, I'm never going to try and convince someone that the movies were bad. I think they were, but if you're really into them, good for you.

I'm just trying to point out why I, personally, have a distaste for them, and to deflect the frequently leveled criticism that people who don't like it don't "get it". I got it. I just didn't think it was very interesting.

Anyway, carry on.

Any notion of a poll is just a gauge for my own personal use. I am trying to use your arguments as a means to determine whether or not I should give the Matrix Trilogy another chance.

But that's the thing: there are people who agree with that notion of not caring about Zion. He uses "we" too loosely, however, in hope that some of those people post here. You may not, but I do agree his use of "we" is too liberal.

And that's why I'm using this to determine my desire to revist Neo and the gang. Here, you will use your A-game to support your side and ultimately I'll get a good reading as to both sides of the argument. Then, I will use the info as a suppliment to my eventual reviewing of the films.

That's just my intent. Others might want a flame war. (Not saying you or cognizant are )

EDIT:

That's another that always bothered me: whenever I would tell my friends that I thought the films were ok, they always...ALWAYS... flamed me by saying that I wasn't intelligent enough to get it. I have a BA in English with a minor in Education and Creative Writing, I am currently engaged in my studies for my Graduate Degree and I was on the Dean's List at my school multiple times....I feel that I have some chops and verses in the world.

But here I get a lesson on intelligence from a guy who never attended college, needed help in high school spanish and offered to repay me by teaching me advanced Klingon? KLINGON??

Just because you watch a film that dabbles in some sort of higher philosophy doesn't make you a friggin' Aristotle. Nothing on the films, just on some people who watching them with an elitism that makes me sick.

You seem to be suggesting that philosophy is seperate from human experience. the philosophy in the matrix films is all about how we live our lives and what it is to be human. All the connections betwen the characters and the scenes are in the philosophy. it's all linked.

so these arguments along the lines of "Reloaded and Revolutions were short levels of a videogame interspersed by very long cutscenes about Neitzche, or something" really only imply that you are ignoring the philosophy and then getting annoyed when the film isn't working for you. Big surprise.

A great deal of revolutions is actually very beautiful and very human, if you are willing to get into the nity gritty of the philosophy.

So carry on not liking them, but you are showing your ass if you are so arrogant as to think that the films are just empty period. You are just not looking in the right place for the emotion.

So yes, the first Matrix did manage the trick of being able to be enjoyed on a philosophical/symbolic level AND a purely surface/action film level while the sequels are heavily weighted towards the former (the payoff being that the sequels provide MUCH more interesting and satisfying thematic content).

That's what this thread is about - watching the films in terms of what they are rather than what you or the hype machine wanted them to be.

trying to watch the sequels without diving deep into the philosophy is utterly pointless. like watching a film with your eyes closed. if you don't want to get involvd with all the symbolic crap, just don't watch them - they aren't for you. Arguing that they are without content at all will, however, incur the wrath of those who are willing to get to grips with it and mark you out as a fool to those who are acutally knowledgable about the themes being expertly played with by the Wachowski's in these films.

I totally agree with your first points. The Wachowski's have said they were extremely annoyed that people took their technically achievements in The Matrix and played them out to such a degree it became a parody of sorts. Most of the scenes that drag on to long (Burly Brawl, Zion attack, freeway chase) do so because the Wachowskis wanted to create something so technically advanced it would be costly, both in time and money, to copy it. While they acheived their goal, I agree that they did so to the detriment to the emotional gravity of the film. That's why I say most of those scenes are just "eye-candy".

Secondly, your reference to the film feeling like a videogame is accurate, precisely because I think that's what the Wachowski's were going for. They are heavily influenced by videogames and have hinted that the Matrix story world continue in videogame form. I also admit, that type of format may not work for some people.

Lastly, I agree there is nothing human about the films. But again, I think that's the point. The title's of the films are telling. Although we take the trilogy to be about Neo and his quest to save mankind, the films are ultimately about "The Matrix" -- what it is, why it exists, and ultimately how a "revolution" is needed to "reload" the system in such a way it is benefitial to both man and machine.

Was I disappointed that there wasn't a more satisfying ending, with Neo destroying the Matrix and freeing all the humans? Sure. But in the context of the film, the ending shown is the only ending that could have happened. There is no way Zion could accomodate the millions of people that inhabit the Matrix. Freeing them without having the proper resources to care for them is mass sucide. On the flip side, I liked the evolution of machines. The purpose of Sati was to show that machines could evolve and exhibit "emotions" similar to humans. They could do things just for the sake of doing things. They could exist without a purpose. It is Sati who showed Neo that things didn't have to be so black and white. A middle ground could be reached.

Rodney King once questioned, "Can't we all just get along?" With all the craziness going on in the world today, the notion of compromise is very compelling to me. I think the ending of the Matrix is more than uplifting. It saddens me that others can't see that. I realize that the Wachowskis were very ambitious and the flaws of the movies overshadow the achievements for some. But for me, they will remain amazing pieces of work.

The dude is a 'trafficker of information', he's obviously clued up on the path of the one and controls the keymaker, because he doesnt want the matrix to be reloaded again, he's interrupting and attempting to control the flow of cause and effect. If he had the Oracle's 'eyes' (her method of calculating future events), he would control cause and effect in the matrix.

Isnt the entire trilogy a Turing test anyway? People were fooled in the first (completely generic actioner) film that the Oracle was a human being, and then were stunned to discover she was an A.I from the machine world in Reloaded. And then in the third film we discover the A.I have their own take on karma and love, its all about opening debate on what these words mean if A.I can define them in their own way. Love for Rama is just a word..."What matters is the connection the word implies."

Look, its pretty simple, if a little flawed: The first film set up a movie universe, and concentrated on a small story, it made the viewer believe "Morpheus's bullshit", and the sequel shed more light on the movie universe and introduced the viewer to more concepts and ideas in the world of philosophy, while at the same time building up a threat from the machines, and the third simply brings things to a logical conclusion, that in order to get to the future, humans and machines must coexist, "Bless all forms of intelligence" as it says in the Animatrix.

Sure the films arent perfect, I can accept the criticisms of the Zion battle and stuff like that, the films arent going to win Oscars (should of won best effects though) but the story itself is pretty damn cool in my book, I like the characters (even if we dont know alot about them), I like the action, the ideas, and the performances are good too, Smith is now one of the best antagonists in cinema history, the movies speak to a generation and have become icons.

EDIT: No flame wars please! I dont think people who dont like the movies are 'dumb' if they dont like it, but the movies are cerebral, you have to give them some credit, personally I'd take the subversive and challenging Matrix over the not-so subversive or challenging LotR or SW anyday of the week. I dont care if those franchises made more money than the Matrix, freeminds only take up 1% of humanity anyway...

Most people in here just want a discussion. I've never throw the "you don't get it" argument around and I think most CHUD Matrix fans don't either. I love discussing these films and welcome people's criticisms. Thanks for particiapting.

I never argued that they were without content, Trinity.

They've got content up the yin-yang, wazoo, and all other places that can theoretically have things crammed into or up.

What they lacked, for me, was pacing, writing, interesting characters, interesting action, a compelling plot, and a satisfying story.

All those things that, y'know, sort of make a movie.

The movies feel hollow to me because the philosophy is there, but that becomes the be-all and end-all of it. It's no longer about the characters we cared about in the Matrix, it's about obtuse ideas and monologues that explain what it means to be. The sequels failed to provide a compelling context for all of those big ideas, and they're just left to flounder like beached whales, waiting for gravity to collapse their distended ribcages.

Well, you'd be surprised at how often that "criticism" gets levelled around here at people that just plain don't like these movies, no matter how well-thought out and eloquent their criticisms of the "Holy Trinity" may be.

Ultimately, and I've said it before, there will never be an agreement between the two camps.

You either like it or you don't. I'll agree that the trilogy is rich with philosophical subtext, which, if that were on its own, I'd probably find very compelling and interesting. Personally, I just think that subtext is really all the sequels have going for them, and that's not enough to make a movie for me.

No flaming...that's a promise. I hope it hasn't come across like that yet. I do have a problem with someone being the one who controls cause and effect in any context, because a total theory of cause and effect effectively removes any element of control by anyone.

Anyways, I've said my piece, had it listened to with a pretty good deal of respect by people who are completely opposed to me on the issue, and had some decent discussion. All in all, that's a pretty good way to leave it. I just hope more people show up to voice their opinions.

I don't thjink anyone wants an agreement. In fact, I think most of us agree these films are flawed. We just disagree on whether these flaws make or break the movie.

Personally, I'd rather watch a film that is ambitious and fails, than a movie that never tries.

*Edited for spelling

I think that's kind of the point. The Architect believes he has all the answers, that he can control humans and machines like pieces on a chess board. The presence of the Oracle and Neo serve the purpose of debunking that notion. Eastern philosophy is all about lack of control. They teach that life is change and that we as humans simply must adapt. We have problems when we get too attached to things because it is the nature of the world to change. Nothing last forever and until we learn to let go, we can never truly progress.

Ditto.

I really think the first movie was ambitious and succeeded wonderfully. I think it's lost some of its luster over the past few years, but it still stands up as a very good action movie with truly intriguing story elements. It felt like the perfect mesh of big action and big concepts.

But here's where we're going to disagree. I don't think that the sequels were ambitious. I don't think that at all. I think taking the subtext and making it the whole of the movie was a lazy thing to do. None of the ideas presented in Reloaded and Revelations are new, or even particularly unique. It's philosophy that a lot of people are fairly well versed in. It's heavy, and it's dense, but it's not all that foreign or alien. If they had managed to use that as a jumping off point to continue a great story, and characters that felt complete and fleshed out, and a plot that was coherent, I'd be applauding them for their ambition. But I don't think what they ended up doing really takes a lot of guts, from a storytelling standpoint. It felt like they took a lot of really heavy symbolism, put it in a blender, and hoped the ambiguity would be mistaken for depth, and the impenetrability mistaken for wit and intelligence.

In a way, I feel like the Wachowskis have gotten exactly what they wanted. They may have perpetrated the biggest practical joke of all film history. They managed to make two movies.. and the viewers have somehow managed to make at least a hundred different plots for them.

That's the same argument Agent Helix.

As i said, and this is me argreeing with you (honest), the sequels do not work on that purely narrative level in the same way as most action adventure films, or the first matrix, do. They do not work.
If you are going to watch them like that they are going to fall flat - they are going to be very much like how most people describe them.
This is certainly a failure of marketing and of movies-as-business, but it is not necessarily a failing of films outright.

When you say the philosophy becomes the be all and end all of the films to the exlusion of all else i feel you are only half right - everything else (character motivation, compelling narrative) comes through the philosophy. You seem to be wanting to shift the philosphy to the side and still have a good film with cool characters fighting and shotting and stuff. It won't happen. Not in these films. They don't work that way.
But they do work.
the philosophy is not something at the side, informing the main action, it is right at the centre of everything - it provides all those things you are looking for. That's what make the sequels fun for me. it's a question of whether you can accept philosphical arguments as very human things, rather than dry, academic (in the sense of not having much bearing on normal life) and deliberately obscure. Not many people do, and this is why there is such ire at the films.

It's also the case that the first matrix dealth with cartesian dualism (is this real?) whch most teenagers are comfortable with. The details of post-modernism, higher maths, greek mythology and eastern spirituality are not as well known. they are not part of most peoples everyday life or vocabulary.

So the sequels are films for either the very trusting (well it must make sense, even though i haven't got a clue), those whose goth fetish overwhelms all other considerations, or the philosophicaly educated (and possibly those well versed in anime). this is not that many people.
Perhaps the question should not be why you did not like the sequels, but why you have such a hard time letting them go.
why do us geeks have such a hard time forgiving films that do not match our expectations?

my own criticism of the sequels?
-a lack of joy. Neo was having a blast in the lobby scene, enjoying his new found powers. Morpheus visibly gained satisfaction from teh training scenes. everyone is a bit glum in the seqeuls. that said they are saved by very playful versions of god and limbo.
-the suggestion that would only introduce the zion characters IMMEDIATELY before the siege? spot on. the 'engineering level' and the 'rave scene are only really bearable because of that holy 'next' button.

The sad thing about the engineering level scene is that I like what the Wachowskis were trying to do with it, and what Hamann (I believe that's his name) has to say. But it comes after an already long-winded stretch, so it comes off as tedious.

I have a problem with people with God complexes but I still get a kick out of the Architect character, lol. These characters all have their ideologies, and whether we agree with them or not, its still interesting to watch them do their thing. To me anyway. And like I said earlier, I just love Morpheus's character arc throughout the three films.

Well debate is good, though I foolishly expected this thread to be gushing about the recent boxset mostly, heh. Anyone here listened to the commentaries? I havent checked out the critics one yet, but the philosophers one was pretty good, could have been better, they didnt go nearly deep enough than I would have liked, but fun nontheless.

Another thing I love about these films is how they expect the audience to root for terrorists and subversive counter-culture freaks. Its a thin line the characters walk, justifying killing innocents because they could turn into agents of the system, but I doubt many people who watched it in the cinema were feeling uncomfortable at all, we're so used to rooting for rebels in movies (even if they're called terrorists and are against the status quo), but not in real life.

it's also unnecessary. the entire movie is about that 'we need them, they need us' thing, so spelling it out comes out as heavy handed.

here's my pet theory: either silver or the wachowski's shoved a lot of that zion stuff in because they thought it would make the films easier to digest. they didn't REALLY want it, ther hearts weren't in it (which is why so much of it seems so flimsy and dull) but then put it in in the vague hope that it make it easier to 'get' and 'get into' for the average film-goer. Foolish film-makers.
unfortunately i still believe they genuinely thought the rave was cool. i like the intercutting and especially the premonition of death at the end but...but...

well, it's a theory. theories are fun.

Well, Trinity, after reading your response to my post, I can tell that the crux of this debate is that you and I were simply looking for different things from the films. I'm very much a believer in strong narrative being the most important part of a film. You obviously go more for thematic elements and intangibles as what you find most interesting. It's interesting to see that perspective on the films, since I don't feel they work very well. I can see how they work from your viewpoint, though.

Thank you for reading through all my spelling mistakes.

So yes, what you said. You won't find me arguing that the sequels are great narratively or in terms of character. the 'through line' of these films is thematic and the characters are symbols for human states.

The whole argument of 'you just don't get it' is silly as it implies that it's just a question of intelligence. that's patronising and incorrect. the argument should be about how you chose to relate to watching a film.
Wanting a strong narrative is fair enough. it's what most people want and, i i'm honest, it's what i want most of the time. It's only not fair to suggest that a film can ONLY work narratively.

We all just have to be honest about what we want to get out of a movie and how we watch them.

For for anybody thinking about whether to give them another go - they aren't going to have improved if you still want that simple narrative story of the first film. better to leave them behind.

Masterpieces? Hell no.

Vastly overrated? Yes.

Still, some awesome effects and really innovative eye-candy.

As for a deep compelling story, nope, don't see it.

The Matrix - Overrated hodge-podge of elements taken from other works. Story wise a complete rip-off of both TRON and Overdrawn at the Memory Bank (go back and watch that MST3K episode, I dare you). Hollow characters and no emotional interest beyond the Joey Pants character, who was the most 'human' character in the film until they drop the ball on him by turning him into the stock villain in the third act. Masturbatory action and a salute to violence be it gun or otherwise. Special effects seen before (GAP ads, Lost In Space, and Wing Commander all had 'bullet-time prior).

Trinity's super-secret Matrix power? That she'd 'Love the One!' What was once this strong, kick-ass femme is reduced to saying shit like 'You can't die, Neo. The Oracle said my special gift was lovin' the one...and I love you. So you can't be dead...'

Neo...yeah, he becomes The One when the girl says she loves him and only after The Oracle says he's not and gives him a cookie.

And nobody ever brings up three points that piss me off every time I watch the film.

1. That the world is not stable or viable enough to support the newly awakened human race. What, do they have wherehouses full of Gruel stacked up somewhere? Will Morpheus stand at the gateway to this world of shit wearing a purple top hat and say 'Welcome to the real world?'

2. What happens if the humans DON'T want to lose everything they know and love? The 'heroes' are so hellbent to defeat the machines that they never stop to ask whether waking up 3 billion people and telling them 'Whoops everything you know if wrong' is a good idea. I know humanity were slaves to the machines, nothing more than human batteries. But as it was stated by a few characters...people were blissfully ignorant of the deal, happily living their lives without a clue in the world.

That's why Cypher was my favorite character in the first film. He DIDN'T want to be out the real world. Selfish, yes. Unheroic, sure. But a hell of a lot more human that any of the other characters.

If Morpheus and Co. had woke my ass up and took me away from my life...I'd beat his fuckin' ass once he stuck all the pins into it to stimulate my muscles.

3. Granted that The Agents can assimulate anyone at anytime, so trust no one. But the 'heroes' shoot so many goddamn innocent people who are not in on the joke that they stop being heroic let alone likeable for me. The lobby shootout...how many innocent lives did Neo and Trinity take in the pursuit of freedom?

Yes, I know that freedom isn't free and that it costs a buck oh five. But I'm reminded of my reaction when I was a child to the original V of all things. There's a moment where Marc Singer tells Faye Grant about the thousands of humans in storage on the motherships and how they must free them. She sighs and says they'll try but they may have to accept that they'll have to sacrifice them in order to save millions.

If someone would have taken thirty seconds to address something similar...okay, I would accept that. But they didn't as it would take time away from blowing people away in slow motion.

The ONLY scenes I can watch in the film are the Joey Pants ones and Smith's anti-humanity speech to Morpheus. They rest can go screw.

All in all...about as intellectual as a cheese sandwich.

Reloaded - What I enjoy about this film is how it's two and a half hours of our heroes being told they're wrong. That they're full of shit. Neo? You're not The One. Morpheus...you're an idiot. The lot of you...who the fuck do you think you are.

That's good stuff for me.

Revolutions - My favorite film of the series. Great scenes with Smith ('Cookies are made with Love...') and a kick-ass final duel which is completely as it should be. Not to mention scenes that are so ham-fisted that they become entertaining as hell - Trinity's ten minute death scene, The Zion Battle complete with gratuitous Vasquez archtype...

Who out there can say they hate it when the APU's start firing their guns gangsta style?

Whether it's because it actually makes senses on a philosophical level (the only way to destroy a negative is with a positive that'll bring things back to zero) or on a 'so-bad-it's-good' cheese level...I love The Matrix Revolutions.

Not as much as I love Enter the Matrix though. Cause Ghost kicks some serious fucking ass.

Let's give it up for The Other Anthony Wong...

Those questions, which have been argued over many times elsewhere - at least, are part of what enhances the first film for me.

The 'prophecy of the one' is religion. Morpheus is functioning under religious zeal - so there is no question about whether the humans want to be freed. they HAVE to be freed. The truth is better than a lie, from morpheus' (and thus the first film's) POV - which, as you said, is soundly kicked in the head in Reloaded.

Yep, it enhances the first film for me too.

This argument seriously needs to be put to rest. What these films had was not the same as in Matrix. The 360 degrees camera move in those was done on object/people that were frozen in time and space. In the Matrix, it's done with characters moving in the frame. Lost in Space and Wing Commander do not have bullet time.

Awesome! I can appreciate the sequels on a cheese level as well.

I had a discussion with a IRL friend about the "cheesy dialouge" of Reloaded and Revolutions and I noted how the dialouge was equally bad in the first Matrix. The only reason why we love Smith so much is because Hugo Weaving is a good actor and can take the cheesetastic lines he's given and turn them into something compelling. Lawrence Fishbourne, on the other hand, is such an overactor I can't help but be amused whenever he's onscreen. Even in the first film, he is just so over the top. I just can't get behind anyone who says the first film is so different from the sequels.

Despite whatever I may say about the Matrix Trilogy as a whole, I'll always stand by Weaving's work as Smith to be spectacular. Truly one of the best movie villains of recent years.

Wouldn't shooting the guns that way give whoever's controlling the APU a better line of sight as to what they're shooting at? I'll have to look at it again to see if it makes any real sense, but oh well.

Just wanted to say that I love the Matrix films unconditionally.
Why?
Because I choose to.

About the APUs: Yes, they're flawed in that the controller is vulnerable to attack, but what do you expect when they're made by the machines themselves? Its also ironic as they look like a rawer version of the APUs the humans used during the Second Rennaisence (which were completely protective for the controller).

About Morpheus: His lines are over the top because thats the guy he grew up as (thanks to the Oracle), he's a sucka throughout most of the films, pure zealot.

Django your comments about the film are meant to stir up debate among people who watch it, its not meant to be the reason you hate the film (well it can be if you want, but it shouldnt). Of course we all knew Morpheus's mission was stupid, destroying the matrix is mass murder. And Cypher is an excellent character because we can sympathize with his attitude, but like I said there really isnt a conventional villain in the trilogy.

Except for Smith...

He's pretty much pure, high-octane evil.