The Shrine

<div style='font: 12pt "Cooper Black"; text-align: left; '>dang, i tired to go to a 7:15 show for Troy and got there at 6:45 but it was already sold out, i guess i should know better. It got great reviews, i'll try and see it tomorrow afternoon.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Great great movie, saw it at 2:40.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Sold out here too, for days. I tried getting tickets 3 days in advance, but the earliest I could get was Tuesday. I should have gone the moment advance tickets were on sale like I did with Lord of the Rings.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Well, how was it?</div>

<div style='font: italic bold 14pt ; text-align: center; '>Well it was better than the matrix....</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>I find that hard to believe. I don't see Brad Pitt doing any Kung Fu.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt "Cooper Black"; text-align: left; '>because, as we all know, the amount of kung fu in a movie is the basis on how good it is.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Well that just goes without saying. :P</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Well, you can't go around saying that the X is better than The Matrix, when X doesn't even have any kung fu in it. I don't see anything in Troy beating the car chase scene.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>So you saw it?</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Means nothing to me, I am not a Matrix fan, I can't stand those types of movies. How does it compare to movies like Braveheart, The Vikings, Rob Roy, Lord of the Rings, or something like that?</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "Fine Hand"; text-align: left; '>That's like saying "Troy was better than The Fast and the Furious".</div>

<div style='font: italic bold 14pt ; text-align: center; '>in comparison to those it sucks major ass. I had found it to be extremely dissapointing and something I'm glad I didn't have to spend $10 on</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>What Sine is doing is taking a shot at cross genre comparisson. You can't compare movies like the Matrix and Troy because they appeal to different types of audiences in a totally different way; in Matrix's case, one major aspect is the kung fu =P</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Why am -I- taking a shot? It was fucking -Derithian's- comparison!</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>No I didn't. The material didn't appeal to me. I thought Clash of the Titans was a more interesting storyline.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>You guys are fucking warped.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Sine you can't go around saying this and that about a movie until you see it, Zeus's taste sucks but at least he sees the movie before critiquing it!</div>

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>On the contrary. I can and will claim that any number of films are better than the Matrix movies, irregardless if they contain kung fu or car chases.</div>

<div style='font: italic bold 14pt ; text-align: center; '>I wasn't comparing the movies you fucktard. I was comparing my enjoyment level of the movie. I hated the fucking matriz and it was more enjoyable. That's the only positive thing I can say about troy.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Again, you guys are fucking warped. I doubt you'll like FF7:AC either.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>The Matrix's storyline, while not the absolute best in the world, was good, and the action sequences have REVOLUTIONIZED the way we look at film! There are few movies that can pull that off, Troy probably not being one of them.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>I'm not critiquing the movie. I'm just saying that, based on the previews, Clash of the Titans seemed to have a more interesting storyline. I would much rather have a movie based around Odsessy than the Illiad.</div>

<div style='font: italic bold 14pt ; text-align: center; '>What the hell are you talking about. I didn't like a movie that I thought was badly made and a generic action flick? I havn't seen FF to criticize it but troy just wasn't that good.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Quite the opposite, in fact. I can't count the number of times I've rolled my eyes at movies that more or less prostate themselves at the altar of Matrix-inspired camerawork, Equilibrium and Underworld among many. To be perfectly frank, I am sick and tired of seeing slow-motion tilt-o-whirl pans and shots of kung fu and acrobatic flip flops. I am doubly disgusted with the emphasis on action over plot and style over substance. Whatever its flaws, the first Matrix movie at least had the moxie to tell a decent story with philosophical undertones in addition to its hyper-charged, caffeine-addicted martial arts and gunplay. The same cannot be said of the many ripoffs that followed in its stead, to say nothing of the dreadful sequels, Reloaded and Revolutions.

For the record, I haven't seen Troy.</div>

<div style='font: italic bold 14pt ; text-align: center; '>What you mean bland with really bad CG?</div>

<div style='font: italic bold 14pt ; text-align: center; '>I swear to christ. You jump to more conclusions that anyone else I know. Yoou make G-Man look like an open-minded person</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>I might see it. But, the previews didn't do it for me, and neither do the mediocre reviews.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I agree with that wholeheartedly. The voyage of Ulysses back home from Troy was always far more exciting to me.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt "Cooper Black"; text-align: left; '>The styles of the Illiad and The Odesey are so different that people agree that Homer may have been a sort of name used for an unknown author, like a John Doe or Anonymous now, because the two were clearly written by different people.

I have still not seen the film, but the reviews say that Pitt does a great job portraying the disturbed Achilles. Being the strongest and greatest warrior is not all it is cracked up to be, it seems. Achilles, in the Illiad, is a deep character with a lot of rage, torment, and emotion. I wrote a paper on how i thought he was literature's first attempt at a 'hero'. I mentioned that the public back then must have given it mediocre reviews and so 'heroes' created since then were made like they are today; pure, truthful, and ethical through and through.

Our class agreed that the Illiad is more for adults while the whimsical adventures of the tradition hero Odyseus is more for children. There is death and killing in both, but the way the Illiad treats it shows this seperation very clearly, it is much more of a darker collection (one of the different author arguments, too).

Achilles is indeed a very very interesting 'hero'. I'm glad to hear the movie touches on it, but i'm sure they blew it, too.</div>

<div style='font: italic bold 14pt ; text-align: center; '>blowing it would be an understatement.</div>

<div style='font: italic bold 14pt ; text-align: center; '>Boy do I love bacon</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Hey, hey! Stop bagging on Reloaded. It was the best of all 3.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>I think you're letting your love of French gnosticism and causality get the best of you, Ish. While Reloaded may pack a fruit cart's worth of (largely pointless and amateurish) philosophical references, the original still takes the cake from a dramatic (i.e. story-telling) point of view.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>...because it introduces the entire Matrix universe. But, Reloaded did a great job of answering questions with mind-blowing precision (ie: the Artitect scene), and left enough big questions to leave the public speculating for weeks. I remember that EVERYBODY had their theory of what the real world was, who was Smith, and why Neo could do the things that he could do...this forum included.

Overall, Reloaded had the greatest -impact-, which is important to recognize. Revolutions was a lack-luster and cliche-ridden movie, but it did cover its bases and more or less ended the story with few questions left hanging.</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Actually, it's the smartest movie of the smartest movie series to ever come out of Hollywood. All of the philisophical wankering tied intimately into the story. Too high brow for 98% of the American movie going public? Probably, but I'm glad they shot for the stars and nailed it.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>And I have to worry about writers who think French gnosticism (or religious mysticism in general) is important or worthy enough to merit citation. Leave that irrational crap where it belongs, in the closed and insular religious academies that still concern themselves with such important philosophical questions as, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>And I didn't see anything particular French about the gnostic overtones. Maybe you see something I don't. And I never read Derrida, so you have me there.

Anyway, I thought use of Greek beliefs int he power of The Word (ship called Logos, "What is Love? Love is a word" and machine's ability to truly love/exist/hate/etc), obvious gnostic metaphors (i.e. fake Gods, false realities,and Keanu as the man/Jesus to show people the true world), Christian theology (Seraphim/angel protecting the Oracle), choice vs causality (Calvinism vs Free Will?), and visual symbolism which EVERYBODY missed (gold vs green code, something talked about by no one anywhere...except for me. :) ). Then there's our French buddy's debate and the Architect's discourse which I won't bother getting into now (though I'm just looking for an excuse to do exactly if you're willing). And of course there's the Morpheus = god of sleep, Trinity = holy trinity stuff, that they threw in there for everybody to get.

ALL of that is important and say differently is wrong. I don't mean to stamp my feat and throw a fit, but that point really can't be argued.

Anyway, I've gone over this here at length in much better detail before. If the search function here wasn't so bad, I'd point you straight to it. However, I'm more than willing to launch into a new debate here and now. ;)</div>

<div style='font: 12pt "Cooper Black"; text-align: left; '>"Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why, why do you do it? Why, why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is, do you even know? Is it freedom or truth, perhaps peace - could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the matrix itself. Although, only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson, you must know it by now! You can't win, it's pointless to keep fighting! Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist?!"

Thats gold! And i'm not being sarcastic, i swear, this passage is fantastic writing.</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Yikes, spelling error galore! Too late to edit now.</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>From M1: "Humans are like a virus". By Revolutions, who turns out to be the virus? hah!

And from the monologue you quoted: "Although, only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love." At the very beginning of Revolutions, we see the lie that is with the conversation with the Indian machine world family that everyone hated so much. The whole series is full of jewels like that.

I have a soft spot for that arrogant French bastard's (aka the Merovingian) monologue in Reloaded, myself.</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>From M1: "Humans are like a virus". By Revolutions, who turns out to be the virus? hah!

And from the monologue you quoted: "Although, only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love." At the very beginning of Revolutions, we see the lie that is with the conversation with the Indian machine world family that everyone hated so much. The whole series is full of jewels like that.

I have a soft spot for that arrogant French bastard's (aka the Merovingian) monologue in Reloaded, myself.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Yes, never again will silk not go together with asswiping...</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Anyone can wax philosophical and make references. Writing a good story, on the other hand, is hard.</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Well I'd argue that they aren't waxing philosphical. The philosophy directly impacts or reflects what's going on in the movie as well as provides answers that the Bros W don't tell you directly (this being the point that causes people's minds to short circuit and hate the movies)...</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>That's because there's nothing to do in the Atlantic provinces :-)</div>

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>You start from the assumption that understanding Reloaded's philosophy is essential to enjoying and understanding the movie. I disagree. Philosophy or no, Reloaded is a very simple film. One doesn't need to know about gnosticism or religious metaphors, genealogies of Greek words and concepts and Derrida to comprehend it. From a dramatic point of view, Reloaded goes like this:

1.) Neo and Gang need to find the Key.
2.) They talk about needing to find the key.
3.) They fight guys who don't want them to find the key.
4.) They get the Key.
5.) They use the Key.
6.) Neo talks with a guy who wants him to fail.
7.) Neo doesn't fail; makes a choice.
8.) Uh-oh! Zion's in trouble.
9.) Neo realizes that there's more to the Matrix than he originally imagined. Roll credits. Wait for Revolutions.

And there you have it. Reloaded is a very simple story that's infused with a cartload of philosophical references that, while interesting, do not add very much to the film's dramatic structure. The movie's structure is pretty bare, with little in the way of character development or plot twists to make things more interesting. Trinity remains pretty much the same individual she was at the end of the first movie. So does Morpheus. So does Neo, although his faith in his own ability to make meaningful decisions is tested. The new characters, Nairobi and the others, are neither interesting nor deep.

Reloaded's plot is little more than a mess of contrivances and bloated conceits. Why does Neo spend ten minutes fighting endless clones of Agent Smith when he could zoom away at Mach 10 whenever he felt like it? Because the Wachowski brothers wanted to have a REALLY AWESOME WOW scene where Neo, assisted by wires and some pretty silly looking CG, fights hundreds of Agent Smiths. Why does Neo waste his time fighting Eurotrash with medieval weapons? Because the Wachowski brothers wanted a scene with Neo fighting Eurotrash with medieval weapons. Because they knew that, if Neo really exercised his powers as "The One" to their fullest extent, there wouldn't be much of a movie.

To sum, the dramatic engine that drives Reloaded--which is entirely distinct from its philosophical superstructure--is a plodding mess. You imply that people didn't like the film because they didn't "get" it--as though all the country's finest critics simply stumbled out of theaters scratching their heads and saying, "Golly, I just don't get it. That film didn't make a lick of sense, so I'm going to write a real bad review of it!" In fact, they "got" Reloaded only too well. The critics who knew what they were talking about saw right through the film's thin facade and labeled it a bloated action movie with a thin plot covered up by a host of philosophical references. I concur.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I actually enjoyed Reloaded (it was fun to watch), but I also concur.</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Perfect example: Kill Bill. Some people see it as mindless action with a dumb plot, where as people who "know" that understand that it's a homage. This doesn't make them better people. It doesn't make the movie meaningless. It just makes it different from your typical flick.

If you didn't understand this, then you simply are not going to see Kill Bill the same way. Regardless of whether you enjoy the movie, there's still going to be a whole subtext that you miss out on that will always prevent you from *fully* enjoying (or hating) the film. Anyway, on to my response to your post.

You start from the assumption that understanding Reloaded's philosophy is essential to enjoying and understanding the movie. I disagree. Philosophy or no, Reloaded is a very simple film. One doesn't need to know about gnosticism or religious metaphors, genealogies of Greek words and concepts and Derrida to comprehend it. From a dramatic point of view, Reloaded goes like this:

Actually, I don't start with that assumption at all. I always make an effort to say that you have to understand the philosophy (which is not Reloaded's per se; it's a mish mash a other stuff) to get the *full impact*. I know people who liked it just fine without understanding any of the philosophical underpinnings or knowing that it had any philosphical underpinnings at all! That's what the cool fight scenes and car chases are for after all (not that I'm putting myself on a pedestel because I geeked out over all that too).

<div class=msg-quote>1.) Neo and Gang need to find the Key.
2.) They talk about needing to find the key.
3.) They fight guys who don't want them to find the key.
4.) They get the Key.
5.) They use the Key.
6.) Neo talks with a guy who wants him to fail.
7.) Neo doesn't fail; makes a choice.
8.) Uh-oh! Zion's in trouble.
9.) Neo realizes that there's more to the Matrix than he originally imagined. Roll credits. Wait for Revolutions.</div>

Well...yes...

And there you have it. Reloaded is a very simple story that's infused with a cartload of philosophical references that, while interesting, do not add very much to the film's dramatic structure. The movie's structure is pretty bare, with little in the way of character development or plot twists to make things more interesting. Trinity remains pretty much the same individual she was at the end of the first movie. So does Morpheus. So does Neo, although his faith in his own ability to make meaningful decisions is tested. The new characters, Nairobi and the others, are neither interesting nor deep.

I'd venture to guess that you didn't get as many of the "cartload of philosophical references" as you think, but since I can't read your mind (YET!!!!), I can't really comment on it too much. ;)

Anyway, you're pretty much wrong on most other counts. All the characters main characters change dramatically from the first movie. Morpheus goes from faithful warrior/priest/what-have-you to a shocked shell of a man when he finds out that everything he believes is a lie. None of Neo's decisions are meaningless. The decisions he makes will determine whether what happens with the current iteration of the Matrix will be teh same as the previouis 6. And many of the new characters are among the most interesting in any movie (esp the Merovingian and the Architect ). As for Nairobi...OK, so you got one right. :)

Reloaded's plot is little more than a mess of contrivances and bloated conceits. Why does Neo spend ten minutes fighting endless clones of Agent Smith when he could zoom away at Mach 10 whenever he felt like it? Because the Wachowski brothers wanted to have a REALLY AWESOME WOW scene where Neo, assisted by wires and some pretty silly looking CG, fights hundreds of Agent Smiths. Why does Neo waste his time fighting Eurotrash with medieval weapons? Because the Wachowski brothers wanted a scene with Neo fighting Eurotrash with medieval weapons. Because they knew that, if Neo really exercised his powers as "The One" to their fullest extent, there wouldn't be much of a movie.

Actually, all of these have explanations. The Bros W just weren't nice enough to go yelling them to you with flashy neon signs pointing to them.

Q: Why doesn't Neo just destroy the Smiths like he did in the first movie?

Answer: He's not the same Smith. Hugo goes into one of his cool monologues explaining just exactly how badass he is and how he's going to kick Neo's and everybody else's ass.

Q: Why does Neo fight the Eurotrash Gang of Superheroes?

Answer: You could call these accidental upgrades. They're glitches or different programs from different versions of the Matrix and the same rules don't apply to them. You get about 3 or 4 sentences from the Oracle explaining them and that's it.

Anyway, I'd argue that Neo DID use his powers to the fullest extent in both cases. But he's not God and essentially a Matrix construct.

To sum, the dramatic engine that drives Reloaded--which is entirely distinct from its philosophical superstructure--is a plodding mess. You imply that people didn't like the film because they didn't "get" it--as though all the country's finest critics simply stumbled out of theaters scratching their heads and saying, "Golly, I just don't get it. That film didn't make a lick of sense, so I'm going to write a real bad review of it!" In fact, they "got" Reloaded only too well. The critics who knew what they were talking about saw right through the film's thin facade and labeled it a bloated action movie with a thin plot covered up by a host of philosophical references. I concur.

I've noticed whether you like the film or not is independent of whether you "get it"...which again, is why I'm always careful to stress that you have to understand the philosophical undertones to *fully enjoy* the film(see Kill Bill example). However, I think there's a huge section of the Matrix hating public that don't like it because they:
(A) don't understand the philosophical undertones and/or
(B)Missed almost every *non*-philosophical plot point in the movie because the Bros. W don't spend much effort trying to get the audience to keep up. (see, why he doesn't destroy Smiths, why he isn't all powerful, etc).

And don't give the critics "who knew what they are talking about" too much credit. The reviews on this film were almost universally bad, regardless of whether the critic enjoyed the film (see, Harry Knowle's review at Aint It Cool News).</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Good example: Kill Bill. Some people see it as mindless action with a dumb plot, where as people who are in the "know" understand that it's a homage. This doesn't make them better people. It doesn't make the movie of meaningless references. It just makes it different from your typical flick.

If you didn't understand this, then you simply are not going to see Kill Bill the same way. Regardless of whether you enjoy the movie, there's still going to be a whole subtext that you miss out on that will always prevent you from *fully* enjoying (or hating) the film. Anyway, on to my response to your post.

Anyway, that's the idea.

You start from the assumption that understanding Reloaded's philosophy is essential to enjoying and understanding the movie. I disagree. Philosophy or no, Reloaded is a very simple film. One doesn't need to know about gnosticism or religious metaphors, genealogies of Greek words and concepts and Derrida to comprehend it. From a dramatic point of view, Reloaded goes like this:

Actually, I don't start with that assumption at all. I always make an effort to say that you have to understand the philosophy (which is not Reloaded's per se; it's a mish mash a other stuff) to get the *full impact*. I know people who liked it just fine without understanding any of the philosophical underpinnings or knowing that it had any philosphical underpinnings at all! That's what the cool fight scenes and car chases are for after all (not that I'm putting myself on a pedestel because I geeked out over all that too).

<div class=msg-quote>1.) Neo and Gang need to find the Key.
2.) They talk about needing to find the key.
3.) They fight guys who don't want them to find the key.
4.) They get the Key.
5.) They use the Key.
6.) Neo talks with a guy who wants him to fail.
7.) Neo doesn't fail; makes a choice.
8.) Uh-oh! Zion's in trouble.
9.) Neo realizes that there's more to the Matrix than he originally imagined. Roll credits. Wait for Revolutions.</div>

Well...yes...

And there you have it. Reloaded is a very simple story that's infused with a cartload of philosophical references that, while interesting, do not add very much to the film's dramatic structure. The movie's structure is pretty bare, with little in the way of character development or plot twists to make things more interesting. Trinity remains pretty much the same individual she was at the end of the first movie. So does Morpheus. So does Neo, although his faith in his own ability to make meaningful decisions is tested. The new characters, Nairobi and the others, are neither interesting nor deep.

I'd venture to guess that you didn't get as many of the "cartload of philosophical references" as you think, but since I can't read your mind (YET!!!!), I can't really comment on it too much. ;)

Anyway, you're pretty much wrong on most other counts. All the characters main characters change dramatically from the first movie. Morpheus goes from faithful warrior/priest/what-have-you to a shocked shell of a man when he finds out that everything he believes is a lie. None of Neo's decisions are meaningless. The decisions he makes will determine whether what happens with the current iteration of the Matrix will be teh same as the previouis 6. And many of the new characters are among the most interesting in any movie (esp the Merovingian and the Architect ). As for Nairobi...OK, so you got one right. :)

Reloaded's plot is little more than a mess of contrivances and bloated conceits. Why does Neo spend ten minutes fighting endless clones of Agent Smith when he could zoom away at Mach 10 whenever he felt like it? Because the Wachowski brothers wanted to have a REALLY AWESOME WOW scene where Neo, assisted by wires and some pretty silly looking CG, fights hundreds of Agent Smiths. Why does Neo waste his time fighting Eurotrash with medieval weapons? Because the Wachowski brothers wanted a scene with Neo fighting Eurotrash with medieval weapons. Because they knew that, if Neo really exercised his powers as "The One" to their fullest extent, there wouldn't be much of a movie.

Actually, all of these have explanations. The Bros W just weren't nice enough to go yelling them to you with flashy neon signs pointing to them.

Q: Why doesn't Neo just destroy the Smiths like he did in the first movie?

Answer: He's not the same Smith. Hugo goes into one of his cool monologues explaining just exactly how badass he is and how he's going to kick Neo's and everybody else's ass.

Q: Why does Neo fight the Eurotrash Gang of Superheroes?

Answer: You could call these accidental upgrades. They're glitches or different programs from different versions of the Matrix and the same rules don't apply to them. You get about 3 or 4 sentences from the Oracle explaining them and that's it.

Anyway, I'd argue that Neo DID use his powers to the fullest extent in both cases. But he's not God and essentially a Matrix construct.

To sum, the dramatic engine that drives Reloaded--which is entirely distinct from its philosophical superstructure--is a plodding mess. You imply that people didn't like the film because they didn't "get" it--as though all the country's finest critics simply stumbled out of theaters scratching their heads and saying, "Golly, I just don't get it. That film didn't make a lick of sense, so I'm going to write a real bad review of it!" In fact, they "got" Reloaded only too well. The critics who knew what they were talking about saw right through the film's thin facade and labeled it a bloated action movie with a thin plot covered up by a host of philosophical references. I concur.

I've noticed whether you like the film or not is independent of whether you "get it"...which again, is why I'm always careful to stress that you have to understand the philosophical undertones to *fully enjoy* the film(see Kill Bill example). However, I think there's a huge section of the Matrix hating public that don't like it because they:
(A) don't understand the philosophical undertones and/or
(B)Missed almost every *non*-philosophical plot point in the movie because the Bros. W don't spend much effort trying to get the audience to keep up. (see, why he doesn't destroy Smiths, why he isn't all powerful, etc).

And don't give the critics "who knew what they are talking about" too much credit. The reviews on this film were almost universally bad, regardless of whether the critic enjoyed the film (see, Harry Knowle's review at Aint It Cool News).</div>