Some spoilers.
Having read many reviews and blog posts telling me that Matrix: Revolutions was a horrendous let-down, I sat through most of the film waiting for the bit where it would disappoint me. I waited for that moment, and waited some more.
Then the movie was over, I thought "hey, that was pretty cool", and went home.
I think the big problem is that people have built this construct in their heads of what the first Matrix movie was. The facts that the acting was wooden, the philosophy trite and the plot made no sense whatsoever1 were erased by the fact that it was cool, and new, and did stuff we hadn't seen in mainstream action cinema before.
What was new and cool in The Matrix is now worn and clichéed. When Reloaded came out, people wanted to be blown away like they were the first time, and they weren't. Partly because the script was poorly balanced: too much badly timed non-action and a gratuitous sex scene, but mostly because the stuff that was cool, was really just more Matrixy-like stuff. When it tried to outdo its predecessor, it just came off looking like a try-hard.
The fans consoled themselves by diving into all the exposition that happened in Reloaded, and building grand theories of what It Could All Mean. For a time, the fact that the drawn-out speeches from the Architect and Merovingian were part of what bogged the second movie down in the first place was forgotten, as they were examined for Deeper Meaning.
In Revolutions, these theories weren't just proven wrong, they were largely ignored. The Architect's speech turned out to be a classic McGuffin: something that sounds really important, but is really just a hook and doesn't play too much of a part in the rest of the plot. The Merovingian turned out to be just what he was described as: an old program with powerful connections.
Which isn't to say that things aren't resolved. They're just resolved in a way that is fairly contemptuous towards anyone who tried to make more of Reloaded than was really there.
My own personal theory, the only one I came out of Reloaded with, was that the Council of Elders in Zion consisted of those people who were freed from the Matrix by the previous One last time it was reset, and thus knew what was really going on. I also strongly suspected that the old guy who talked to Neo in the Zion boiler room was the last One. This is all still possible, but none of it was addressed in Revolutions.
But really, what would it have cost the movie to follow this particular plot-strand? I can imagine the confrontation scene sitting in a previous draft with a big red line through it, because it was largely irrelevant to the main plot, and would have bogged down the pacing.
If you look at Reloaded and Revolutions as two halves of one movie, that makes the latter two thirds of Revolutions the 'third act': the time when you abandon exposition and stop introducing new ideas or characters in order to accelerate the story towards its climax, and resolve the main thread of the plot (Think of the original Matrix movie from the lobby scene onwards). Which is exactly what happens.
Having quite enjoyed Reloaded, and not got too heavily into the theorizing game, I found Revolutions to be an enjoyable film, and a satisfying conclusion to the series.
Addendum: Is it just me, or is there something really David-Eddings-y about the climax of Revolutions? The ultimate good guy faces off against the ultimate bad guy to determine whether the balance will be restored, or the world will be plunged into darkness, and it all hinges on The Choice? I know the first half is pretty standard, but the ultimate focus on The Choice rings a few too many bells. :)
1 I mean, just think about that whole "human battery" premise for a while, and tell me it's not just a really implausible sci-fi hook.
While Revolutions wasn't as revolutionary as the original Matrix when it came out, I still enjoyed it. I thought the resolution to all the different plot lines was entirely satisfying (especially the way Neo finally beats Smiths) apart from one thing: the man-machine conflict. How can the Architect offer people in the Matrix the choice of leaving? Once they know the truth they _have_ to leave. And the machines are still dependent on humans for power, and now that Neo doesn't exist, why don't they just finish destroy Zion? They're ruthless machines, remember? I can't even come up for a half-assed explanation for that.
One other thing: who was the little Indian girl? I didn't really get her role. The Oracle referred to her as "the last [something]" but I can't remember what. Actually I think I'm going to have to re-watch Revolutions to understand that whole thing with the train.
If you remember from the Architect's speech in Reloaded, everyone in the Matrix has made a choice (at least at an unconscious level) to accept the program. Those who do not make that choice are the ones who seek to escape. Presumably under the new regime, those people would be allowed to be extracted from the Matrix instead of being hunted down by Agents.
Given the choice between the Matrix and the rather nasty version of "reality" outside it, I'm not sure I'd choose reality. Sure, in some universe I'll never see, my body is being harvested for energy. I never see any evidence of that in _my_ reality, though, which is on the whole much more pleasant than that sunless, scarred planet.
Given that The Matrix runs on its own internal laws, and its inhabitants have free will to act according to those laws, is that really any less free will than you have outside the Matrix?
The machines keeping their word isn't that far-fetched either. The histories in the Animatrix showed the war between man and machines to be far more the fault of humanity's inability to recognise that the machines had the right to exist.
Which brings us to the Indian girl, who was a symbol. Not of outsourcing (Damn, all those programs are coming from India now!), but of the machines sentience: symbolised by the ability to express love. It's from that recognition by Neo that the machines are capable of love that redemption is possible. It's Agent Smith's speech denouncing love as a human weakness that allows Neo to make his choice at the end: to decide what it is he's fighting for now Trinity's gone.
I don't remeber where I readed it (some science website) but it's been discovered that the human body can generate about 5v per minute... So it's not a far-fetched idea.
Next time I'll read the whole post before commenting :)
You're right, the are some elements from David Eddings books: The protagonist is a "can-do-everything and most powerful" guy (think Belgarion and Sparhawk with the Beheliom) aided by a bunch of experienced people (too many to name here) and with the guide of an all-knowing entity (Belgarath and Sephrenia)
Voltage is a measure of electrical potential, and is thus completely meaningess as a rate such as "volts per minute". Where would you attach the electrodes to measure the potential across anyway?
I'll happily concede that humans generate energy. If you Google, you'll find references to some ideas of ways to power nanobots by having them feed off the energy of their human host. But nanobots don't really need that much energy to begin with.
Humans generate energy by burning stuff. We take in carbohydrates, burn them in oxygen, and produce energy, water and carbon dioxide. C6H12O6 + 6O2 = 6CO2 + 6H2O. We are, however, incredibly inefficient at it. Most of this energy goes to keeping our bodies alive, because that's what our bodies were designed to burn those sugars for in the first place.
You would by definition get energy more efficiently out of burning the carbohydrates outside the human and capturing the released energy directly than you would by passing it through a human being.
This movie provided a conclusion to many questions put forth in the first 2 movies. However it also left many open to interpretation, which allows for a very personal feeling to the trilogy. If we wanted to be spoon-fed everthing in the movie without any thought or mental dedication we could go watch a skin-deep movie. This movie has dozens of level to explore, everytime you watch the movies you can come away with a diffent view and understanding. Also for the argument on human energy consumption-distibution-it may seem outlandish and far-fetched, but I have a degree in mechanical engineering and it makes sense to me. Turn your enemy to you benefit and you will be that much stronger,they would have to perfect the exraction process, but there are billions of humans,therefore trillions of btu's which in this cold world are very valuable. Plus most of you haven't realized that nearly all current means of power generation need at least some interaction from the sun, considering that is where nearly all energy originates. I believe that the machines are looking for a long-term solution. Remember they have been doing this for atleast 600 years, that is longer than any human-devised power-source could last. Lastly even if there are easier and more efficeint ways of deriving energy to us, remember that this is primarily for applications in philosophy, and do you really think there is a poison that can be put in the ear or on a blade that will kill no matter the dosage(Hamlet), No its just for mental-visuals. It's nice that the Brothers put enough thought into it for it to at least be possible.
(Sorry about the rant)
I also have a degree in Philosophy not unlike the other brave soul on this thread who disclosed his educational identity at the risk of everyone shouting, "PHILOSOPHY! Who majors in that?!"
However, this movie could be praised or ridiculed without the use of philosophy or even the word "philosophy" for that matter. Let's just talk art, shall we? Isn't that what we all went to see anyway--art in the form of story, effects, timing, acting, etc?
Without writing a novel I'd like to highlight a few of the inadequacies of this film. -- I think many of the criteria I am about to establish will be agreeable to most of you movie-goers --
A good film should have good acting, and if it desires to be original, it should also avoid cliche. This film has neither good acting, although none of us were able to notice since we have been slathered with poor performances from the beginning, nor does it avoid cliche. In fact, it seems to me that if there exists an award for most predictable lines in a film, Revolutions is a shoe in.
A good film (especially a finale to a trilogy) should remain consistent with the concepts, beliefs, and climate that it has established for its audience. This movie failed miserably in this respect: (1) Are we actually to believe that the machines, the horrible, emotionless, "we need humans for fuel" pieces of metal will honor a deal with a human to establish some sort of peace?!!! How ridiculous and demeaning! (2) The two prior Matrices (that's plural for Matrix) pounded home to us the idea that Neo can do the things he does WITHIN the matrix because his program is an anomaly WITHIN the matrix, and (in Revolutions) that he is Smith's opposite code WITHIN the matrix. BUT....somehow Neo OUTSIDE the matrix can, while physically blind, see Smith/Bane OUTSIDE the matrix, and destroy machines OUTSIDE the matrix -- INCONSISTENT and STUPID.
A good action/sci-fi film should have great effects. this film does have great effects. It is visually stunning as are its predecessors. Unfortunately, it exudes this quality at the expense of throwing everything intellectual out of the film.
Many of you keep proposing that a good movie should leave things undone, questionable, intriguing. Intersting concept; and one that can be admired if done properly. But Revolutions doesn't do it properly. They are obviously providing what they think are answers, folks. This is important -- this means that they ARE NOT TRYING to leave open endings, THEY ARE just providing an ending that is so devoid of reason and plain ole common sense that many viewers walk away feeling intrigued when in actuality they are just confused. Furthermore, if one can make great movies by proposing hundreds of questions and not providing any adequate answers for them, sign me up - I'm pretty sure I could accomplish this.
Here's what I think happened: The Matrix brothers met in a bar one night about a year ago to discuss the future of the film and decide how to wrap it up. After 7 or 8 beers and no decent ideas, they ordered two doubles and concluded that Neo should waltz into the machine city with his newfound super powers leading the way, strike a deal with the machine god (who of course will honor it, 'cause after all...machines have integrity), explode into a ball of light (which in this trilogy, means you have either saved the world or you're having an orgasm), and bring peace, love, dope to the world as we know it...or is it the new matrix...or is it the old matrix...who stinking knows!
This movie blew and blew badly -- no philosophy needed.
The machines turning out to not be so bad after all makes a lot more sense if you've seen the back-story of the war in the Animatrix.
At what point was the _first_ matrix original, or avoiding of cliches? It was a standard Campbellian hero, with a smattering of Christ-myth, and a style appropriated from the long tradition of Japanese animation, and a similarly anime-flavoured mystical sci-fi plot. Have a look at this frame-by-frame comparison of scenes from The Matrix against scenes from Ghost in the Shell, for example: http://www.geocities.com/tacobelll/matrixgits/
If you expected originality from Revolutions, then you were going in with entirely the wrong expectations. The movies hadn't changed: you had. The Matrix was always a pastiche of myth and archetype: mysticism bound together with shaky science. If that's the sort of thing that only works for you once, then you're quite welcome to dislike the movie. But it doesn't subtract from my enjoyment of it.
Oh, and please don't be a patronising fuckwit. Not only do I, and the vast majority of this website's readership know what "Matrices" means, we can also explain precisely why it is an inappropriate plural for the Matrix movies.
Fuckwit. Hmmmm...It is interesting to me that having two options at hand, deciding that I was being condesending or deciding that I actually was trying to explain the term just in case, you chose the former without hesitation, and accordingly cursed at me. Well done!
As far as cliche goes -- yes, the first matrices had their fair share, but Revolutions took the cake. I was not refering to genre-typing here--if we go that route then every movie out there is cliche and unoriginal because it's a "love story" or a "good vs. evil". There's a difference between the good guy winning and 20% of all dialogue having been heard before, way too often.
Out of interest, I end with two questions:
(1) Why, in your opinion, is the word "matrices" inappropriately used in my blog?
and, (2) Who is the author of the animatrix stuff, and why, in your opinion, should it be used as a valad source of history in reference to the machines? I honestly don't know a thing about "animatrix".
The Animatrix is a series of seven animated features that was released between The Matrix, and The Matrix Reloaded. The project was overseen by (and much of the writing done by) the Wachowski brothers, and thus they are a valid part of the Matrix canon. The were _intended_ to be part of a multi-media story universe that includes the three movies, the Animatrix, and at least two video games.
Watching the Animatrix explains quite a few things that are left unexplained in the movies. The important ones are "Final Flight of the Osiris", which details the Osiris' discovery of the burrowing machine army, and their desperate flight to deliver this information back to Zion. "The Kid" is the back-story of the Kid character in Reloaded and Revolutions. "The Second Rennaissance" is a two-part story that fills in the history of the human vs machine war.
"Matriculated" is also important, but I didn't realise how much until after seeing Revolutions: it's the story of a group of freedom-fighters who convert machines to their cause by showing them the possibility of peace.
There's also more back-story in the "Enter the Matrix" video-game, which was also scripted and directed by the Wachowskis. In the game you learn how the Osiris' last message was recovered from the Matrix by Niobe and Ghost. You also learn what really happened to the Oracle between Reloaded and Revolutions.
One of the problems with Revolutions is that the story of the Matrix is tied up in all these different media. While movies _should_ stand alone, and perhaps Reloaded and Revolution fail to do this, it does not reduce my enjoyment of the movies because I didn't see them alone, I saw them as part of the whole story.
And it's not over: the Matrix Online MMORPG is set (once again under Wachowski direction) to show what happens within the Matrix _after_ the end of Revolutions; answering the question of what the hell happens to all those people still plugged into the machines?
A good site for "Cliffs Notes" on parts of the canon that you've not seen (I didn't play most of the game, for example) is Matrix 101: http://www.thematrix101.com/
As for "Matrices", that means "more than one Matrix". To extend that to mean "more than one movie fromt he Matrix series" is clumsy and inaccurate: it is the movies that are plural, not the Matrix itself. There was one Matrix. There was one Matrix Trilogy. There was one Matrix Series, but there are several Matrix movies, or several Matrix stories. "Matrices" just doesn't fit properly.
Here are some examples of the way the Matrix plot runs through the various media it was presented in, and how certain things that weren't explained in the movies, were in fact explained elsewhere:
(The Animatrix) The crew of the Osiris witness the machine army burrowing towards Zion. They are brought down by sentinels, but not before they can drop a final message in the matrix, from which it is (Enter the Matrix) recovered by Niobe and Ghost of the Logos. They transmit the message back to Zion. A number of ships captains gather inside the Matrix (Enter the Matrix / The Matrix Reloaded) to discuss what to do next, and the meeting is disrupted by the arrival of agents.
(The Matrix Reloaded) The Oracle sends Neo to the Merovingian to retrieve the Keymaker, who will guide him to the source. The Merovingian (Enter the Matrix) takes his revenge on the Oracle by buying her termination codes from two programs in exchange for hiding their daughter in the Matrix. Neo (The Matrix Revolutions) meets these two programs and their daughter in the train station. The Oracle (Enter the Matrix) allowed this to happen because she can foresee the child changing to both the matrix and the real world for the better, and (The Matrix Revolutions) even looks after the child in the matrix.
Thanks for the info on the animatrix stuff.
Believe it or not, I do realize that using "matrices" is clumsy in that respect. I was trying to be cute...:) I thought you were going to give me some sort of highly technical computer-math sort of reason or something.
Thanks again, Charles.
Wow, I'll be finding as much extra story as I can now thanks Charles.
Regardless of what each individual feels they wanted from the third movie it has succeeded as a cause for thought. I enjoyed it and I find it works on different levels for everyone. No other film has stimulated as much imagination and debate. Think about it, make up your mind, positive or negative and then pause before you argue your beliefs. Have you needed to express your thoughts on any other movie this much before (or is it just me). It’s a fantastic movie.
Its cool how you can find underlying themes every time you watch it or just marvel at the action. Most importantly the choice is yours.
I wonder if the theme of dependence continues throughout the other media. Having seen revolutions I think it ended in a sensible way because this theme was never broken.
Man needs Machine
Machine needs man
The Matrix needs Neo
Conscious minds (Human or Artificial Intelligence) need choice.
Also Neo and Trin need each other
The Architect needs the Oracle etc
What other themes or ironies have you noticed?
I can buy into just about everything the movie talks about inside the Matrix because it is not real and there are no boundries, just codes that can be rewritten. But will someone please try and explain why Neo has powers outside the Matrix.
This site might help http://www.thematrix101.com/reloaded/meaning.php
There is nothing wrong about tying a movie to a number of other media (animatrix, games), because it does provide that extra enjoyment to the hardcore fans. But Revolutions is too dependent on this, which is why casual movie goers will dislike it (and so they should, because they paid for entertainment that never happened).
The Wachowski brothers should have either: reached a compromise between fans and general public; or not reached the compromise and provided warnings and/or released the movie straight to video.
"But will someone please try and explain why Neo has powers outside the Matrix."
Certainly. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -- Arthur C. Clarke.
Maybe The One gets his power from the fact that his brain is some freakish (or engineered by the machines, since The One is part of their plans) biological radio that is able to directly interface with the signal from the Matrix. Maybe his brain was pumped full of nanobots in preparation for being The One, back when he was still living in a pod full of goo? Maybe this more direct and complete brain-to-matrix connection would explain why he can manipulate the virtual world better than anyone else?
Or perhaps it's just the case that all of the Matrix movies had a significant dose of mysticism tied up with the plot, and it's rather silly to wait until the third movie to complain about it.
As for the rest: I never said Revolutions was "brilliant", or that other people should like it. I just said that _I_ liked it. I find it amusing that so many people were so offended by this movie that they'll go to the website of a complete stranger and write five-hundred word screeds about how much it sucked, and how this complete stranger is a moron for not noticing how much it sucked.
Which, I guess, is no different to me writing several thousand words trying to defend why I liked it, but hey, at least it's my website.
As I said in another thread, I'm quite used to liking movies other people didn't like: I really liked David Lynch's much-abused Dune, after all.
Hmmm. Gratuitous mysticism, large chunks of plot left open, wooden acting... Maybe there's a pattern here? Maybe what Revolutions really needed was the little girl at the end to shout "For he IS the Kwisatz Haderach!"
But Charles, I must argue with you here; big surprise, huh!
It seems as though, through your examples, you are trying to say (please correct me if I'm wrong) that if a person can provide some possible explanation for a certain event in a film, no matter what lack of evidence actually exists to support that explanation, then it makes sense for it to be in the movie. Many nonsensical movie events could be explained in this way, but it doesn't justify their appearance in the story.
I believe that when people ask the question, "Can someone explain to me how Neo stopped the sentinals in real the world?", they are assuming they will receive an answer that is justifiable by the movies themselves.
Here is an easy, albeit lame, example of what I mean:
It would be like you asking me to explain how, in the movie Superman II, Superman relinquishes his powers in the middle of the arctic and manages to make it back to the city with Lois, when we know that no human could stay alive in those clothes while walking back to Metropolis...and my explanation being, well, Jarel probably provided him with enough super human power to allow him to make it back, and then it left him completely.
I'm really not trying to be argumentative; It's just that, although this movie from our perspective may have some mystical attributes, from the point of view of the characters in the Matrix, there isn't much mysticism. Besides the "prophecy", everything has a logical, structural explanation -- Neo can do amazing things in the Matrix because he is an anomaly program; the oracle can see things because she is a program that has been there with the other "One's", and it is her purpose as a rogue to see things; manipulating the matrix is a mental thing because the matrix is nothing more than a mental interface; etc, etc.
There are just too many things that they explain well to let this obvious oddity pass by without skepticism. And since it is this oddity that has an ENORMOUS impact on the salvation of Zion and the end of the entire story, I believe this is why so many people including myself feel ripped off. In a movie where the story is revealed with every new answer to a seemingly unaswerable question, the writers stop answering things and just go with superhuman power and a gullible audience.
I liked it, all my friends hated it. All of them.
They thought I was being sarcastic when I was describing all the reasons I enjoyed it :/
I'm so glad that they didn't make it a matrix within a matrix within a matrix/it was all a dream.
My new theory is that the movies were about the merging of humans and machines, and that neo was the next evolution of mankind, evolved to beat the machines - he (in the real world) has an extra sense that normal humans don't have, he can see at a different level to everyone else and control the world around him - in the matrix you can see that integration as once his power was fully developed he could do whatever he wanted - he just had to realise that the power was within him and then learn how to use it, which is where all the OVERLY repeated elements of Faith and needing to 'believe' come in to play. The similarities to Christ are there.
That's why in the first movie they had all those kids hanging around the oracles place, possible 'ones' that Zion have found in their search - but the childrens sense or power was not as a developed as the real 'one' - Neo, who Morpheus and Trinity finally found when they noticed his advanced Hacking.
Agent Smith was possibly coming from the other direction, artificial intelligence becoming more and more human. The two halves meeting.
I'm still fleshing out the idea in my head, but the more I think about it the more I like it.
I guess because everyone was expecting the matrix within the matrix idea they were disappointed with this Christ like revelation, in Hindsight I think the directors made it obvious - we were just looking deeper and trying to think of plot twists etc..
I have no idea why people hated the third one, I liked it better than the second I think - it was so epic - the fight in the dock was incredible, all those mech battling thousands of squids, although the squid 'school' tactic seems a little flawed - bunching up to make an easier target. Those massive ships firing squids at Neo and Trinity kicked ass, same with the machine city - and the talking head.
The battle at the end was SO good (and once again, epic), all those akira like explosions and not so much KungFu (I can't be the only one that was sick of that) - the lightning flashes etc.. they took the end of movie duel to another level. I LOVED IT
What other movie is comparable in scale and effects? I can't believe people are calling it generic or tired, the only other movie I can think of that has a comparable sized battle to the Dock is the end of Attack of the clones, but we didn't see too much of that.
Did anyone else wonder why they didn't hire another similar looking woman to play the oracle instead of putting Morgan Freeman in a dress?
Some negative points, the first hour or so was pretty dull - the club scene was good, but the battle to get in was so lame, I mean the walking on the roof was cool - but trinity, morpheus and the other dude used all the same moves from the Lobby Scene in the OG Matrix :/
'Mervs' accent was still horrible, Monica Belluci's breasts were divine.
I'm still trying to work out what the point of the Train driver and the Indian family were.
Anyone else feeling more and more driven to just wait for movies to come out on dvd, the quality is so much better :/ plus you don't get the annoying cow I had sitting near me who made sarcastic chuckles every 30 seconds - as if to show how 'above' the film she was. Yes we all know the dialogue is cheesy and sucks, SHUT UP.
One more thing, how awesome was Hugo Weaving! What a legend, the way Agent Smith grew more and more insane (more HUMAN?) throughout the series was so good, I thought he was so hilarious in this movie. *cough*oscar*cough*
Bill:
What I'm saying is that there are two ways to look at anything: with, or without the benefit of the doubt.
The line between science-fiction and fantasy has always been very thin. As the Clarke quote suggests: where science ends and magic begins really depends where you stop explaining yourself.
For example, why do we accept the blatantly silly idea of humans being preserved as an energy-source, but reject the idea of Neo being able to connect to the matrix without a machine to help him? Because the former is given a glib, pseudo-scientific rationalisation by Laurence Fishburn, and the latter is given a mystical hand-wave?
Is the mechanism really important? In the Superman example, it jars because the issue is simply ignored and the producers hope you don't notice. In Revolutions the issue is brought up, acknowledged as being really hard to understand, but the Oracle seems to think there's a good explanation, and she should know: she's seen a few chosen ones in her time.
Add to that, an explanation would have weighed the movie down. The Matrix series is already overloaded with exposition that goes nowhere.
As for mysticism... You blow off the prophecy in a single aside, but you can't really get much _more_ mystical than a Messiah, can you. The Oracle's predictive power goes far beyond that which the Matrix could deliver: predicting things that bridge deep into the real world, such as Neo and Trinity falling in love. And how exactly do you deal with Trinity bringing Neo back to life with a _kiss_?
oh yeah I like to pretend that the Machines were using the humans brains as some sort of beowulf cluster (or whatever) for massivly powerful calculations rather than as an energy source.
I just read someone on slashdot saying that people were disappointed because the humans didn't win and there wasn't a matrix within a matrix like they expected, so they feel it didn't end properly...
I like your explanation though Charles, I can't help but wince when watching the first Matrix, it's just as cheesy as the other two.
Charles,
I hear you. I think you are right to bring up the gray area between mysticism and science fiction. But I honestly think your "sarcastic" answer to the question, "...why do we accept the blatantly silly idea of humans being preserved as an energy-source, but reject the idea of Neo being able to connect to the matrix without a machine to help him?" is perfectly acceptable. Our bodies produce energy, and it is therfore plausible that we might be used as an energy source. However, having some human connection to machines is not plausible outside of some unexplainable phenomena. Believing in a prophecy is one thing (especially when that prophecy might actually be reduced to the fact that all this has happened before and someone's been there to witness it); believing that all of a sudden someone can inexplicably NOT ONLY connect themsleves to the matrix, BUT ALSO blow machines out of the air by thinking hard and raising his hand is another.
Of course we can posit explanations for anything we don't fully understand, and that might be an option in a movie that is wholly spiritual and mystic, but this one is not. It has that flare, but in the end is largely a movie about real people who can enter a computer program that is some sort of advanced virtual reality, and do crazy things because they are not in reality. In the first movie Fishburn tells Neo that it's not air he's breathing, that the rules in the matrix can't be bent, unlike the rules in the real world. Then in Revolutions he bends the rules in the real world.
I personally think an explanation of this would not have dragged the movie down. For me, if it was satisfactory, it would have made the movie.
In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics
It was ok.....I wish it had more about the Architect. To me that was the only really interesting thinga bout Reloaded. And also what was the whole train station thing about? It would have been a really good sub-plot to explore the construct of the train station, who the train man was and how he came about. Also from where did his powers emminate? Are there others like him who can alter the reality of the Matrix? How come none of the other agents new about the Frenchmen and shut down the club? Seems to me that they are exiles too. Like I said it was ok but the final fight scene with Neo and Smith was too over the top for me. Also the battle scene at the dock was too long. And finally, how come the final scene with the Oracle and the Architect the world which I assume was still the Matrix, in which they existed, was clear and in vivid real color and not the vailed green world of the matrix? I don't know I think that the cult classic of the first Matrix has been vicitimized by the commercialism that is Hollywood and like the Star Wars franchise has been feminized and packaged to appeal to wider audience. The problem with doing that is you alienate your loyal follwoing. They forgot the name of the horse they road in on. Hence all the faux-romance. But I did indeed get my $6.00 worth. I tell all my friends who haven't seen it to go catch the matinee. If I had paid $9.00 to see it I wouldn't be nearly as accepting of what they served up on the big screen.
Charles and Bill,
I have to say that I have enjoyed your intellectual chess match (or more aptly, your whose-intellectual-phallus-is-bigger-than-whose-contest (btw - I just tallied, Charles you are up 5-3 by my record)), but I have to ask you, Bill - was the fact that Neo had powers in the real world the only fact which you found to be illogical in the movie (based on your previous posts)?? If so, I have a perpetual motion machine I would like you to consider buying... Please! The movie was full of things which made little scientific sense. It is science-FICTION, not a scientific documentary. Now that I think about it, I am disappointed to realize that Luke's use of the force and his telekenetic ability might be fake! Excuse me - I am dizzy from this realization. Haha - of course, my sarcasm is just for kicks, but did we all really think that everything was supposed to make sense, or at least have some weak explanation to go along with it in just an hour and a half? I liked the movie, as well - for what it was - a good science fiction flick. If you are looking at it as a romantic comedy or a broadway musical, then I agree - it probably wasn't that good.
I have to agree with Bill that the main reason I disliked the movie was the fact Neo has powers outside the matrix, or more so that they don't EXPLAIN why he has powers outside the matrix. They make a cliff hanger ending out of Reloaded in which people analysis that over and over. And then don't make any mention of it in Revolutions other than he can now control machines in the real world. WTF
If it is supposed to be mysticism then the Warhoski (sp) bros. do a real crappy job of explaining and presenting that to the audience.
Thanks for the comment Greg.
George, I'd like to know the method behind your scoring analysis. I mean is it like a FICO score? Can I improve my status somehow?(just kidding Charles)
To answer your question George let me say that I agree with the idea that many things in this trilogy are hard to swallow at first, but that what I found (and still find) to be intreaguing and gratifying is searching for the answers to those illusery ideas--intreaguing becase I have to think; gratifying because there are answers usually acceptible to the typical mind (maybe mine is too typical). However, the super-human Neo is too much for me to swallow, given, as I've said before, the pallat that the writers have already constructed; namely one that provides some reasonable explanation of what is going on throughout. I guess what I'm saying in other words is that there is a difference between logic and probability. I find it illogical that Neo would have these powers in the real world; I find it improbable that a matrix like this actually exists. Now of course if something is illogical, then it is usually thought of as being improbable as well. But this is not what I am saying. When I say "illogical" I am talking about contradiction. I find it contradictory for the writers to tell us, through the characters of course, that Neo is the one because his program is an anomaly, and that THIS is why he can do great things in the Matrix, AND THEN to turn around and attribute his power/expand his power to the real world. I just think it would have been better to keep the solution within the realm of the Matrix since that is where the story lies anyway. ------ How cool would it have been if Neo had realized that he could copy himself onto Smith, and then began doing so. Neo's and Smith's could have been fighting all over the city/country/world/matrix, until Neo wins the final battle and Smith is gone. He then proceeds to control the entire matrix and destroys the machines from the inside out! Of course many of you may think this ending would be lame, but even if Smith had won the battle and they gave us a tragic ending to deal with I think I would have appreciated it more than what we got. It would have made more sense GIVEN the world(story) they created.
Incidentally, what did you find "illogical", George?
P.S. Can I at least have 4 points?
[Deleted as per RealNamesPlease policy]
[Deleted as per RealNamesPlease policy]
[Deleted as per RealNamesPlease policy - cm]
Aahuumm,
Many humans attack things that don’t make since as well. And thank goodness for that, or we’d all be confused between the jewels and the junk.
For what it's worth, I left the theater after Reloaded with the same opinion regarding Zion and the Council as the first poster in this thread.
I just saw Revolutions and sought out a forum to try and understand the meaning in the movie. Personally, I found it to be very interesting and religiously symbolic. Wasn't the Merovingian supposed to be the Devil? He was wearing red and Trinity, Morpheus and Saraph were tempted to make a deal with him. Also, the train station (to me) was clearly purgatory. Neo died (I think) to save the people of Zion (a wholly coincidental name choice, eh?).
I also find it interesting that Neo effectively fought The Oracle at the end of the movie. It looked like he was fighting Agent Smith, but when the other Agents looked down into the hole in the street at the end, the Oracle was laying there. I see the Architect and the Oracle as a divorced couple forced to compromise as it relates to their respective joint custody over their child (The Matrix).
I don't profess to be as profound as anyone else on this message board...just one movie guy's opinion.
I just watched Revolutions on December 2nd. It's clear they never had any intentions of doing a sequel after the original. These guys were lost! I walked out feeling as dumb founded as I did after seeing Reloaded. How could these guys do such a fantastic job on the original, then have nothing left for the following two films? Reloaded and Revolutions were both total dissapointments! No solid story line, no superb special effects and to boot....they did not even finsih the story! Don't even think about a fourth film, damn you already completely ruined it with the 2nd and 3rd!
OK, the scene at the train station, in which Neo confronts the Asian family. Some people have asked what does this scene mean. My interpretation of it:
It gives Neo insight into the ruling machine's evolving "emotions" and ultimately influences his decision in what he is going to do to save humanity. The "parents" of the little girl are both software programs created by the machines. The "parents" are the machines' proxies for acting out the emotion of 'love' as the machines see it. The machines, through the "parents" are describing to Neo their interpretation of love. For Neo's part, he learns that the machines are capable of displaying human emotions. He learns that perhaps the machines are not as ruthless and unemotional as they appear to be.
Neo meditates on what he has learned. Before, his only real choice to save humanity (and what we all wanted him to do) was to utterly destroy the machine city and the machines (and hence the Matrix). But, he knows the machines are too powerful, and he knows that even if he joined in the defence of Zion he cannot save the human city. But having experienced what he did at the train station he realises there could be another way to save the humans; appeal to the machine's ultimate controller to stop the war. Neo senses there could be something human evolving in the machines and it is this 'something' that Neo is going to appeal to.
The final scene, in which the Oracle and the little girl watch the rising sun. It signifies the promise of a new day i.e. the dawn of a new matrix that is significantly better than the previous matrices. The matrix has been reloaded (the current One has finished his job so the old matrix is deleted and a new one is created and loaded), but this new matrix may have in it, for the first time, real love, real human emotions.
Dear Friend,
I think there will a lot to say in upcoming game which will be released very soon, as it contains story lines about what happen after "Reveloution".
I know that most of the people wont like buying or playing games to knw the rest of story line, but I will certainely do.
I absolutely loved this movie...it has its flaws, but the movie has so much depth that i will still be watching 20 years from now. Its very easy to not like this movie, but it is very very difficult to like. The more i watch it though, the more i understand what teh bros were trying to accomplish. And lets not forget that the bros atleast TRIED to make a great movie, they went for the long shot. they had one chance to display there imaginations and beliefs on screen with two movies! I think that they were thinking more about themselves than the fans, and thats not a bad thing at all. For those who hated the sequals, the world doesnt revolve around you. your not always gonna get what you want. THe bros ccould never in any universe make a movie that EVERYONE would love...impossible.