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.

[Ishamael]

<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 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>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>First off, you don't need to make the point to me about using multiple perspectives to interpret or evaluate a film or a text. Take any advanced class on literary theory or critical methods and you'll hear the perspectivist argument repeated ad nauseum in many different forms and flavors. :)

I'd like to revisit my criticism of the film's dramatic structure. A point I did not make in my first post is that much of what actually happens in a cinematic sense (i.e., what is shown onscreen or revealed through dialogue) in Reloaded is rather superfluous. The film begins quite slowly with a protracted dream sequence and a series of extended conversations between major and minor characters in Zion that take up approximately 30-40 minutes of screentime--that's about a third of the movie spent on exposition alone. This seems excessive, especially given that we learn an inordinate amount of detail about Zion's history and its internal political maneuverings, information that could have just as easily been summarized or eliminated altogether. I would likewise file the much-ridiculed "Orgy" sequence/Dionysian revelry under the "unnecessary" category. The film only really gets going when Neo and Gang finally do the thing they spend much of the First Act talking about doing: tracking down the Key.

(Now, it goes without saying that if you positively enjoyed the rich exegeses on Zion's history and the inter-political workings between the ship captains, or if you were held riveted in your seat by the sight of all that multiracial gangbanging, then more power to you. I will only add that I envy your capacity to be entertained.)

What happens after Morpheus and Trinity acquire the Key is mostly dramatic stuff (in the sense that it actually advances the plot in a direct and concrete way, unlike the First Act's peripheral discourses on the Nature of Machines or Neo and Trinity symbolically humping away atop an altar), save for a few digressions into Ship Captain politics and discussions about how best to defend Zion from the machines. None of it is particularly compelling stuff, I thought, but your mileage may differ.

In any case, I want to get to some of the specific replies you made to my post.

<I>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. ;)</I>

You'd be right if you had said this after the first time I watched the movie. But I have seen the movie twice, and, having read some articles about it, I think I pretty much grasp the film's philosophical thrust.

<I>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 shell of a man when he finds out that everything he believes is a lie. None of Neo's decisions are meaningless.</I>

I don't remember Morpheus's stance on the whole "free will" problem at the end of Reloaded (side note: the very concept of "free will" is one of the things I don't agree with, since I don't view the "will" as having the capacity of an agent: I agree with those philosophers who pose the problem as "are we <I>free</I> to will?"), but I'll go ahead and cede the point that Morpheus at least suffered the dramatic shock of having his beliefs proved as lies.

You misunderstand my statement on Neo, though. I wasn't saying that his decisions were meaningless, or even that he came to view his decisions as such. I wasn't making any judgement about the quality or meaning of his decisions. I was saying that, throughout the movie, his *belief* in his ability to make meaningful decisions (decisions not predetermined by the Matrix, and hence doomed to failure) is constantly challenged. Coping with the possibility of the essential hopelessness of his situation (I assume it would be hopeless if every human action has been predetermined and set into motion by the Matrix, The One included) is Neo's primary dramatic struggle, although Keanu Reeves is such a wooden actor that the conflict becomes muted.

<I>And many of the new characters are among the most interesting in any movie (esp the Merovingian and the
Architect ).</I>

Both the Merovingian and the Architect are largely one dimensional constructs meant to fulfill limited purposes. They are defined entirely by the foil they present to Neo; they are roadblocks, obstacles, nothing more. They are not so much characters as they are pop-up impediments to Neo's progress. They may challenge and obfuscate him, but they never grow or develop into anything beyond what they are at the very first moment we see them. (I.e., the Merovingian never changes or deviates from being what he his at any given moment--an evil, decadent French aristocrat who wants to stop Neo at all costs).

<I>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.</I>

That's not the question I was asking. I didn't expect Neo to be able to destroy Agent Smith at will in Reloaded, because obviously that would have made for a very boring movie. What I wanted to know was why Neo simply didn't take off flying in the first place. There's no reason for him to stick around and beat up a few more Agent Smiths; that's just a waste of energy, since Smith can apparently replicate himself ad infinitum.

<I>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.</I>

Er, well, okay, but that still doesn't answer why he has to fight them. They're still just a bunch of guys with swords and polearms. Unless there's some "upgrade" that prevents Neo from leaving the place, then he has no reason to stick around while Morpheus and Trinity are in trouble....

...and do I even need to mention that this whole "upgrade" business is a little arbitrary, and, well, lame? This is probably what's going on in Neo's mind as he fights the Eurotrash: "Okay... let's see. There's some dudes with swords who are obviously trying to keep me from helping Trinity, Morpheus, and the Key, and I can't do anything except fight them because the Matrix downloaded a patch that prevents me from buzzing away at 2000 mph... but not AFTER I defeat them. Whoa. That's totally fucking insane."

<I>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).</I>

I don't know about what other people think. I can only tell you what I think, and I don't believe I fall into either of those two categories. Obviously, though, if someone only dislikes the Matrix because he or she doesn't understand the philosophical references, then that person's opinion needn't be taken seriously.

<I>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).</I>

Jesus, please don't demean the fine word "critic" by calling that raving bag of suet Knowles one. He's not a critic, he's a rabid fanboy posing as one. I only visit "Aintitcool" if I feel like having a television show spoiled for me, or if I want the latest buzz on which filmmaker is doing what.

Maybe I'll go check Rottentomatoes.com and read the Reloaded reviews to see if they're really all that bad. But until I do, I can't comment on them.</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '><i> First off, you don't need to make the point to me about using multiple perspectives to interpret or evaluate a film or a text. Take any advanced class on literary theory or critical methods and you'll hear the perspectivist argument repeated ad nauseum in many different forms and flavors. :)</i>

No classes needed to understand this. It's self evident. However, I keep making this point because you, among others, insist on claiminmg that understanding only parts of the layers of the movie can result in the same experience for all people. It doesn't work that way. This is quadrupally true when you aren't being hand held through the film.


<i> I'd like to revisit my criticism of the film's dramatic structure. A point I did not make in my first post is that much of what actually happens in a cinematic sense (i.e., what is shown onscreen or revealed through dialogue) in Reloaded is rather superfluous. The film begins quite slowly with a protracted dream sequence and a series of extended conversations between major and minor characters in Zion that take up approximately 30-40 minutes of screentime--that's about a third of the movie spent on exposition alone. This seems excessive, especially given that we learn an inordinate amount of detail about Zion's history and its internal political maneuverings, information that could have just as easily been summarized or eliminated altogether. I would likewise file the much-ridiculed "Orgy" sequence/Dionysian revelry under the "unnecessary" category. The film only really gets going when Neo and Gang finally do the thing they spend much of the First Act talking about doing: tracking down the Key.</i>

Can't really argue this because it's they're your opinions, which is cool. However, I disagree with almost all of them.


<i> You misunderstand my statement on Neo, though. I wasn't saying that his decisions were meaningless, or even that he came to view his decisions as such. I wasn't making any judgement about the quality or meaning of his decisions. I was saying that, throughout the movie, his *belief* in his ability to make meaningful decisions (decisions not predetermined by the Matrix, and hence doomed to failure) is constantly challenged. Coping with the possibility of the essential hopelessness of his situation (I assume it would be hopeless if every human action has been predetermined and set into motion by the Matrix, The One included) is Neo's primary dramatic struggle, although Keanu Reeves is such a wooden actor that the conflict becomes muted.</i>

This is flat out wrong.

First of all, they don't even know that they've been lied to until at least the halfway point of the movie. They still think they are making open ended decisions and steering the course of their future. So nobody was coping with anything because they didn't know they had anything to cope with.

Neo's primary dramatic struggle was to find The Truth (his purpose). It is only during the course of *that* struggle that he finds out about the lies and all the rest.

<i> Both the Merovingian and the Architect are largely one dimensional constructs meant to fulfill limited purposes. They are defined entirely by the foil they present to Neo; they are roadblocks, obstacles, nothing more. They are not so much characters as they are pop-up impediments to Neo's progress. They may challenge and obfuscate him, but they never grow or develop into anything beyond what they are at the very first moment we see them. (I.e., the Merovingian never changes or deviates from being what he his at any given moment--an evil, decadent French aristocrat who wants to stop Neo at all costs).</i>

Wow.

If you can strip down the Merovingian and the Architect to mere impediments to Neo, then you've basically captured the essense of why you're offended and annoyed by the philosophical meanderings of the Wachowskis in these movies. You don't understand them.

Yes, in the strictest, dryest, most academic sense, they are impediments. But I guess stricly speaking, the Mona Lisa just a bunch of oil splattered over a canvas.

First off, I challenge your assertion that these characters need to grow, develop, or be multidimensional to be interesting. This is not their story. They are what they are.

Let's start with the Merovingian. You call him "n evil, decadent French aristocrat who wants to stop Neo at all costs". Wow. Assuming you didn't accidently overstate yourself to make a point, this character flew right over your head.

He doesn't hate Neo upon seeing him. The Merovingian couldn't possibly give less of a damn about Neo beyond what he can gain for himself from Neo. This is a man who only craves power. Period. The Merovingian understands what Neo, does not - that most things in the Matrix are happening for a predetermined reason, even the very mission of our gang of heroes. And that reason has been largely predetermined by a powerful outside force (whom this is, the Merovingian doesn't mention). If you have knowledge of how and why things happen (things like say how to shuttle machine world programs into and out of the Matrix or how to hide programs from deletion upon reloading the matrix), you can become a very powerful man.

As for the Architect, he's a machine who given the form of a human so that Neo has something to talk to. He explains what the Architect hinted at - there is no free will and that everything that Neo does has been planned ahead of time. He also goes into the history of the Matrix and it's only at this point that we come to understand that everything that Morpheus believes is a lie. This is well into the movie, so it kind of makes it hard to call it the primary dramatic struggle. (We also find out that the Architect is still lying because people can still make choices that can change the outcome of the Matrix).


<i> That's not the question I was asking. I didn't expect Neo to be able to destroy Agent Smith at will in Reloaded, because obviously that would have made for a very boring movie. What I wanted to know was why Neo simply didn't take off flying in the first place. There's no reason for him to stick around and beat up a few more Agent Smiths; that's just a waste of energy, since Smith can apparently replicate himself ad infinitum. </i>

Oh, this is an easier question to answer. Why would he run away? Up until that point, Neo pretty much pulverizes everything and everyone that steps into his path as if he were Einstein taking on George Bush in a Relatativistic Physics competition. He knows nothing about the Agent's replication ability and even when he does find out, he doesn't see much reason for concern (again, why should he, given his history). It's only after he figures out that "uh oh, these guys just aren't going away", that he begins to understand his true predicament and it's only *then* that he runs.


<i> Er, well, okay, but that still doesn't answer why he has to fight them. They're still just a bunch of guys with swords and polearms. Unless there's some "upgrade" that prevents Neo from leaving the place, then he has no reason to stick around while Morpheus and Trinity are in trouble....

...and do I even need to mention that this whole "upgrade" business is a little arbitrary, and, well, lame? This is probably what's going on in Neo's mind as he fights the Eurotrash: "Okay... let's see. There's some dudes with swords who are obviously trying to keep me from helping Trinity, Morpheus, and the Key, and I can't do anything except fight them because the Matrix downloaded a patch that prevents me from buzzing away at 2000 mph... but not AFTER I defeat them. Whoa. That's totally fucking insane."
</i>

This is wrong. He has to fight them to protect Morpheus and Trinity who in turn are protecting the Keymaster.

As for the upgrade business, most of these guys are just glitches or programs from past iterations. So they're just "different", not so much upgrades (unlike the Agents).

<i> I don't know about what other people think. I can only tell you what I think, and I don't believe I fall into either of those two categories. Obviously, though, if someone only dislikes the Matrix because he or she doesn't understand the philosophical references, then that person's opinion needn't be taken seriously.</i>

Actually judging by your responses, you pretty much got A and B covered (though your aren't completely in either one). ;) However during the course of this back and forth, I'm hoping you'll gain another perspective.

<i> Jesus, please don't demean the fine word "critic" by calling that raving bag of suet Knowles one. He's not a critic, he's a rabid fanboy posing as one. I only visit "Aintitcool" if I feel like having a television show spoiled for me, or if I want the latest buzz on which filmmaker is doing what.</i>

Sorry, sorry! Moment of weakness. He popped into my head and I typed in his name. I don't know what I was thinking here either.</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '><i> First off, you don't need to make the point to me about using multiple perspectives to interpret or evaluate a film or a text. Take any advanced class on literary theory or critical methods and you'll hear the perspectivist argument repeated ad nauseum in many different forms and flavors. :)</i>

No classes needed to understand this. It's self evident. However, I keep making this point because you, among others, insist on claiming that understanding only parts of the layers of the movie can result in the same experience for all people(i.e., claiming that you can truly understand *everything* that's going on without knowing the philosophical subtexts). It doesn't work that way. This is quadrupally true when you aren't being hand held through the film.


<i> I'd like to revisit my criticism of the film's dramatic structure. A point I did not make in my first post is that much of what actually happens in a cinematic sense (i.e., what is shown onscreen or revealed through dialogue) in Reloaded is rather superfluous. The film begins quite slowly with a protracted dream sequence and a series of extended conversations between major and minor characters in Zion that take up approximately 30-40 minutes of screentime--that's about a third of the movie spent on exposition alone. This seems excessive, especially given that we learn an inordinate amount of detail about Zion's history and its internal political maneuverings, information that could have just as easily been summarized or eliminated altogether. I would likewise file the much-ridiculed "Orgy" sequence/Dionysian revelry under the "unnecessary" category. The film only really gets going when Neo and Gang finally do the thing they spend much of the First Act talking about doing: tracking down the Key.</i>

Can't really argue this because it's they're your opinions, which is cool. However, I disagree with almost all of them.


<i> You misunderstand my statement on Neo, though. I wasn't saying that his decisions were meaningless, or even that he came to view his decisions as such. I wasn't making any judgement about the quality or meaning of his decisions. I was saying that, throughout the movie, his *belief* in his ability to make meaningful decisions (decisions not predetermined by the Matrix, and hence doomed to failure) is constantly challenged. Coping with the possibility of the essential hopelessness of his situation (I assume it would be hopeless if every human action has been predetermined and set into motion by the Matrix, The One included) is Neo's primary dramatic struggle, although Keanu Reeves is such a wooden actor that the conflict becomes muted.</i>

This is flat out wrong.

First of all, they don't even know that they've been lied to until at least the halfway point of the movie. They still think they are making open ended decisions and steering the course of their future. So nobody was coping with anything because they didn't know they had anything to cope with.

Neo's primary dramatic struggle was to find The Truth (his purpose). It is only during the course of *that* struggle that he finds out about the lies and all the rest.

<i> Both the Merovingian and the Architect are largely one dimensional constructs meant to fulfill limited purposes. They are defined entirely by the foil they present to Neo; they are roadblocks, obstacles, nothing more. They are not so much characters as they are pop-up impediments to Neo's progress. They may challenge and obfuscate him, but they never grow or develop into anything beyond what they are at the very first moment we see them. (I.e., the Merovingian never changes or deviates from being what he his at any given moment--an evil, decadent French aristocrat who wants to stop Neo at all costs).</i>

Wow.

If you can strip down the Merovingian and the Architect to mere impediments to Neo, then you've basically captured the essense of why you're offended and annoyed by the philosophical meanderings of the Wachowskis in these movies. You don't understand them.

Yes, in the strictest, dryest, most academic sense, they are impediments. But I guess stricly speaking, the Mona Lisa just a bunch of oil splattered over a canvas.

First off, I challenge your assertion that these characters need to grow, develop, or be multidimensional to be interesting. This is not their story. They are what they are.

Let's start with the Merovingian. You call him "n evil, decadent French aristocrat who wants to stop Neo at all costs". Wow. Assuming you didn't accidently overstate yourself to make a point, this character flew right over your head.

He doesn't hate Neo upon seeing him. The Merovingian couldn't possibly give less of a damn about Neo beyond what he can gain for himself from Neo. This is a man who only craves power. Period. The Merovingian understands what Neo, does not - that most things in the Matrix are happening for a predetermined reason, even the very mission of our gang of heroes. And that reason has been largely predetermined by a powerful outside force (whom this is, the Merovingian doesn't mention). If you have knowledge of how and why things happen (things like say how to shuttle machine world programs into and out of the Matrix or how to hide programs from deletion upon reloading the matrix), you can become a very powerful man.

As for the Architect, he's a machine who given the form of a human so that Neo has something to talk to. He explains what the Architect hinted at - there is no free will and that everything that Neo does has been planned ahead of time. He also goes into the history of the Matrix and it's only at this point that we come to understand that everything that Morpheus believes is a lie. This is well into the movie, so it kind of makes it hard to call it the primary dramatic struggle. (We also find out that the Architect is still lying because people can still make choices that can change the outcome of the Matrix).


<i> That's not the question I was asking. I didn't expect Neo to be able to destroy Agent Smith at will in Reloaded, because obviously that would have made for a very boring movie. What I wanted to know was why Neo simply didn't take off flying in the first place. There's no reason for him to stick around and beat up a few more Agent Smiths; that's just a waste of energy, since Smith can apparently replicate himself ad infinitum. </i>

Oh, this is an easier question to answer. Why would he run away? Up until that point, Neo pretty much pulverizes everything and everyone that steps into his path as if he were Einstein taking on George Bush in a Relatativistic Physics competition. He knows nothing about the Agent's replication ability and even when he does find out, he doesn't see much reason for concern (again, why should he, given his history). It's only after he figures out that "uh oh, these guys just aren't going away", that he begins to understand his true predicament and it's only *then* that he runs.


<i> Er, well, okay, but that still doesn't answer why he has to fight them. They're still just a bunch of guys with swords and polearms. Unless there's some "upgrade" that prevents Neo from leaving the place, then he has no reason to stick around while Morpheus and Trinity are in trouble....

...and do I even need to mention that this whole "upgrade" business is a little arbitrary, and, well, lame? This is probably what's going on in Neo's mind as he fights the Eurotrash: "Okay... let's see. There's some dudes with swords who are obviously trying to keep me from helping Trinity, Morpheus, and the Key, and I can't do anything except fight them because the Matrix downloaded a patch that prevents me from buzzing away at 2000 mph... but not AFTER I defeat them. Whoa. That's totally fucking insane."
</i>

This is wrong. He has to fight them to protect Morpheus and Trinity who in turn are protecting the Keymaster.

As for the upgrade business, most of these guys are just glitches or programs from past iterations. So they're just "different", not so much upgrades (unlike the Agents).

<i> I don't know about what other people think. I can only tell you what I think, and I don't believe I fall into either of those two categories. Obviously, though, if someone only dislikes the Matrix because he or she doesn't understand the philosophical references, then that person's opinion needn't be taken seriously.</i>

Actually judging by your responses, you pretty much got A and B covered (though your aren't completely in either one). ;) However during the course of this back and forth, I'm hoping you'll gain another perspective.

<i> Jesus, please don't demean the fine word "critic" by calling that raving bag of suet Knowles one. He's not a critic, he's a rabid fanboy posing as one. I only visit "Aintitcool" if I feel like having a television show spoiled for me, or if I want the latest buzz on which filmmaker is doing what.</i>

Sorry, sorry! Moment of weakness. He popped into my head and I typed in his name. I don't know what I was thinking here either.</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '><i> First off, you don't need to make the point to me about using multiple perspectives to interpret or evaluate a film or a text. Take any advanced class on literary theory or critical methods and you'll hear the perspectivist argument repeated ad nauseum in many different forms and flavors. :)</i>

No classes needed to understand this. It's self evident. However, I keep making this point because you, among others, insist on claiming that understanding only parts of the layers of the movie can result in the same experience for all people(i.e., claiming that you can truly understand *everything* that's going on without knowing the philosophical subtexts). It doesn't work that way. This is quadrupally true when you aren't being hand held through the film.


<i> I'd like to revisit my criticism of the film's dramatic structure. A point I did not make in my first post is that much of what actually happens in a cinematic sense (i.e., what is shown onscreen or revealed through dialogue) in Reloaded is rather superfluous. The film begins quite slowly with a protracted dream sequence and a series of extended conversations between major and minor characters in Zion that take up approximately 30-40 minutes of screentime--that's about a third of the movie spent on exposition alone. This seems excessive, especially given that we learn an inordinate amount of detail about Zion's history and its internal political maneuverings, information that could have just as easily been summarized or eliminated altogether. I would likewise file the much-ridiculed "Orgy" sequence/Dionysian revelry under the "unnecessary" category. The film only really gets going when Neo and Gang finally do the thing they spend much of the First Act talking about doing: tracking down the Key.</i>

Can't really argue this because strictly speaking they're factually true, but your conclusions are your opinions, which is cool. However, I disagree with almost all of them.


<i> You misunderstand my statement on Neo, though. I wasn't saying that his decisions were meaningless, or even that he came to view his decisions as such. I wasn't making any judgement about the quality or meaning of his decisions. I was saying that, throughout the movie, his *belief* in his ability to make meaningful decisions (decisions not predetermined by the Matrix, and hence doomed to failure) is constantly challenged. Coping with the possibility of the essential hopelessness of his situation (I assume it would be hopeless if every human action has been predetermined and set into motion by the Matrix, The One included) is Neo's primary dramatic struggle, although Keanu Reeves is such a wooden actor that the conflict becomes muted.</i>

This is flat out wrong.

First of all, they don't even know that they've been lied to until at least the halfway point of the movie. They still think they are making open ended decisions and steering the course of their future. So nobody was coping with anything because they didn't know they had anything to cope with.

Neo's primary dramatic struggle was to find The Truth (his purpose). It is only during the course of *that* struggle that he finds out about the lies and all the rest.

<i> Both the Merovingian and the Architect are largely one dimensional constructs meant to fulfill limited purposes. They are defined entirely by the foil they present to Neo; they are roadblocks, obstacles, nothing more. They are not so much characters as they are pop-up impediments to Neo's progress. They may challenge and obfuscate him, but they never grow or develop into anything beyond what they are at the very first moment we see them. (I.e., the Merovingian never changes or deviates from being what he his at any given moment--an evil, decadent French aristocrat who wants to stop Neo at all costs).</i>

Wow.

If you can strip down the Merovingian and the Architect to mere impediments to Neo, then you've basically captured the essense of why you're offended and annoyed by the philosophical meanderings of the Wachowskis in these movies. You don't understand them.

Yes, in the strictest, dryest, most academic sense, they are impediments. But I guess stricly speaking, the Mona Lisa just a bunch of oil splattered over a canvas.

First off, I challenge your assertion that these characters need to grow, develop, or be multidimensional to be interesting. This is not their story. They are what they are.

Let's start with the Merovingian. You call him "n evil, decadent French aristocrat who wants to stop Neo at all costs". Wow. Assuming you didn't accidently overstate yourself to make a point, this character flew right over your head.

He doesn't hate Neo upon seeing him. The Merovingian couldn't possibly give less of a damn about Neo beyond what he can gain for himself from Neo. This is a man who only craves power. Period. The Merovingian understands what Neo, does not - that most things in the Matrix are happening for a predetermined reason, even the very mission of our gang of heroes. And that reason has been largely predetermined by a powerful outside force (whom this is, the Merovingian doesn't mention). If you have knowledge of how and why things happen (things like say how to shuttle machine world programs into and out of the Matrix or how to hide programs from deletion upon reloading the matrix), you can become a very powerful man.

As for the Architect, he's a machine who given the form of a human so that Neo has something to talk to. He explains what the Architect hinted at - there is no free will and that everything that Neo does has been planned ahead of time. He also goes into the history of the Matrix and it's only at this point that we come to understand that everything that Morpheus believes is a lie. This is well into the movie, so it kind of makes it hard to call it the primary dramatic struggle. (We also find out that the Architect is still lying because people can still make choices that can change the outcome of the Matrix).


<i> That's not the question I was asking. I didn't expect Neo to be able to destroy Agent Smith at will in Reloaded, because obviously that would have made for a very boring movie. What I wanted to know was why Neo simply didn't take off flying in the first place. There's no reason for him to stick around and beat up a few more Agent Smiths; that's just a waste of energy, since Smith can apparently replicate himself ad infinitum. </i>

Oh, this is an easier question to answer. Why would he run away? Up until that point, Neo pretty much pulverizes everything and everyone that steps into his path as if he were Einstein taking on George Bush in a Relatativistic Physics competition. He knows nothing about the Agent's replication ability and even when he does find out, he doesn't see much reason for concern (again, why should he, given his history). It's only after he figures out that "uh oh, these guys just aren't going away", that he begins to understand his true predicament and it's only *then* that he runs.


<i> Er, well, okay, but that still doesn't answer why he has to fight them. They're still just a bunch of guys with swords and polearms. Unless there's some "upgrade" that prevents Neo from leaving the place, then he has no reason to stick around while Morpheus and Trinity are in trouble....

...and do I even need to mention that this whole "upgrade" business is a little arbitrary, and, well, lame? This is probably what's going on in Neo's mind as he fights the Eurotrash: "Okay... let's see. There's some dudes with swords who are obviously trying to keep me from helping Trinity, Morpheus, and the Key, and I can't do anything except fight them because the Matrix downloaded a patch that prevents me from buzzing away at 2000 mph... but not AFTER I defeat them. Whoa. That's totally fucking insane."
</i>

This is wrong. He has to fight them to protect Morpheus and Trinity who in turn are protecting the Keymaster.

As for the upgrade business, most of these guys are just glitches or programs from past iterations. So they're just "different", not so much upgrades (unlike the Agents).

<i> I don't know about what other people think. I can only tell you what I think, and I don't believe I fall into either of those two categories. Obviously, though, if someone only dislikes the Matrix because he or she doesn't understand the philosophical references, then that person's opinion needn't be taken seriously.</i>

Actually judging by your responses, you pretty much got A and B covered (though your aren't completely in either one). ;) However during the course of this back and forth, I'm hoping you'll gain another perspective.

<i> Jesus, please don't demean the fine word "critic" by calling that raving bag of suet Knowles one. He's not a critic, he's a rabid fanboy posing as one. I only visit "Aintitcool" if I feel like having a television show spoiled for me, or if I want the latest buzz on which filmmaker is doing what.</i>

Sorry, sorry! Moment of weakness. He popped into my head and I typed in his name. I don't know what I was thinking here either.</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '><i> First off, you don't need to make the point to me about using multiple perspectives to interpret or evaluate a film or a text. Take any advanced class on literary theory or critical methods and you'll hear the perspectivist argument repeated ad nauseum in many different forms and flavors. :)</i>

No classes needed to understand this. It's self evident. However, I keep making this point because you, among others, insist on claiming that understanding only parts of the layers of the movie can result in the same experience for all people(i.e., claiming that you can truly understand *everything* that's going on without knowing the philosophical subtexts). It doesn't work that way. This is quadrupally true when you aren't being hand held through the film.


<i> I'd like to revisit my criticism of the film's dramatic structure. A point I did not make in my first post is that much of what actually happens in a cinematic sense (i.e., what is shown onscreen or revealed through dialogue) in Reloaded is rather superfluous. The film begins quite slowly with a protracted dream sequence and a series of extended conversations between major and minor characters in Zion that take up approximately 30-40 minutes of screentime--that's about a third of the movie spent on exposition alone. This seems excessive, especially given that we learn an inordinate amount of detail about Zion's history and its internal political maneuverings, information that could have just as easily been summarized or eliminated altogether. I would likewise file the much-ridiculed "Orgy" sequence/Dionysian revelry under the "unnecessary" category. The film only really gets going when Neo and Gang finally do the thing they spend much of the First Act talking about doing: tracking down the Key.</i>

Can't really argue this because strictly speaking they're factually true, but your conclusions are your opinions, which is cool. However, I disagree with almost all of them.


<i> You misunderstand my statement on Neo, though. I wasn't saying that his decisions were meaningless, or even that he came to view his decisions as such. I wasn't making any judgement about the quality or meaning of his decisions. I was saying that, throughout the movie, his *belief* in his ability to make meaningful decisions (decisions not predetermined by the Matrix, and hence doomed to failure) is constantly challenged. Coping with the possibility of the essential hopelessness of his situation (I assume it would be hopeless if every human action has been predetermined and set into motion by the Matrix, The One included) is Neo's primary dramatic struggle, although Keanu Reeves is such a wooden actor that the conflict becomes muted.</i>

This is flat out wrong.

First of all, they don't even know that they've been lied to until at least the halfway point of the movie. They still think they are making open ended decisions and steering the course of their future. So nobody was coping with anything because they didn't know they had anything to cope with.

Neo's primary dramatic struggle was to find The Truth (his purpose). It is only during the course of *that* struggle that he finds out about the lies and all the rest.

<i> Both the Merovingian and the Architect are largely one dimensional constructs meant to fulfill limited purposes. They are defined entirely by the foil they present to Neo; they are roadblocks, obstacles, nothing more. They are not so much characters as they are pop-up impediments to Neo's progress. They may challenge and obfuscate him, but they never grow or develop into anything beyond what they are at the very first moment we see them. (I.e., the Merovingian never changes or deviates from being what he his at any given moment--an evil, decadent French aristocrat who wants to stop Neo at all costs).</i>

Wow.

If you can strip down the Merovingian and the Architect to mere impediments to Neo, then you've basically captured the essense of why you're offended and annoyed by the philosophical meanderings of the Wachowskis in these movies. You don't understand them.

Yes, in the strictest, dryest, most academic sense, they are impediments. But I guess stricly speaking, the Mona Lisa just a bunch of oil splattered over a canvas.

First off, I challenge your assertion that these characters need to grow, develop, or be multidimensional to be interesting. This is not their story. They are what they are.

Let's start with the Merovingian. You call him "an evil, decadent French aristocrat who wants to stop Neo at all costs". Wow. Assuming you didn't accidently overstate yourself to make a point, this character flew right over your head.

He doesn't hate Neo upon seeing him. The Merovingian couldn't possibly give less of a damn about Neo beyond what he can gain for himself from Neo. This is a man who only craves power. Period. The Merovingian understands what Neo, does not - that most things in the Matrix are happening for a predetermined reason, even the very mission of our gang of heroes. And that reason has been largely predetermined by a powerful outside force (whom this is, the Merovingian doesn't mention). If you have knowledge of how and why things happen (things like say how to shuttle machine world programs into and out of the Matrix or how to hide programs from deletion upon reloading the matrix), you can become a very powerful man. And the only reason that he wants to stop Neo is because Neo is trying to take something away from him. He protecting himself from Neo, not trying to stop Neo on some pointless mission he doesn't care about which he's seen end the same way 5 times.

As for the Architect, he's a machine who given the form of a human so that Neo has something to talk to. He explains what the Architect hinted at - there is no free will and that everything that Neo does has been planned ahead of time. He also goes into the history of the Matrix and it's only at this point that we come to understand that everything that Morpheus believes is a lie. This is well into the movie, so it kind of makes it hard to call it the primary dramatic struggle. (We also find out that the Architect is still lying because people can still make choices that can change the outcome of the Matrix).


<i> That's not the question I was asking. I didn't expect Neo to be able to destroy Agent Smith at will in Reloaded, because obviously that would have made for a very boring movie. What I wanted to know was why Neo simply didn't take off flying in the first place. There's no reason for him to stick around and beat up a few more Agent Smiths; that's just a waste of energy, since Smith can apparently replicate himself ad infinitum. </i>

Oh, this is an easier question to answer. Why would he run away? Up until that point, Neo pretty much pulverizes everything and everyone that steps into his path as if he were Einstein taking on George Bush in a Relatativistic Physics competition. He knows nothing about the Agent's replication ability and even when he does find out, he doesn't see much reason for concern (again, why should he, given his history). It's only after he figures out that "uh oh, these guys just aren't going away", that he begins to understand his true predicament and it's only *then* that he runs.


<i> Er, well, okay, but that still doesn't answer why he has to fight them. They're still just a bunch of guys with swords and polearms. Unless there's some "upgrade" that prevents Neo from leaving the place, then he has no reason to stick around while Morpheus and Trinity are in trouble....

...and do I even need to mention that this whole "upgrade" business is a little arbitrary, and, well, lame? This is probably what's going on in Neo's mind as he fights the Eurotrash: "Okay... let's see. There's some dudes with swords who are obviously trying to keep me from helping Trinity, Morpheus, and the Key, and I can't do anything except fight them because the Matrix downloaded a patch that prevents me from buzzing away at 2000 mph... but not AFTER I defeat them. Whoa. That's totally fucking insane."
</i>

This is wrong. He has to fight them to protect Morpheus and Trinity who in turn are protecting the Keymaster.

As for the upgrade business, most of these guys are just glitches or programs from past iterations. So they're just "different", not so much upgrades (unlike the Agents).

<i> I don't know about what other people think. I can only tell you what I think, and I don't believe I fall into either of those two categories. Obviously, though, if someone only dislikes the Matrix because he or she doesn't understand the philosophical references, then that person's opinion needn't be taken seriously.</i>

Actually judging by your responses, you pretty much got A and B covered (though your aren't completely in either one). ;) However during the course of this back and forth, I'm hoping you'll gain another perspective.

<i> Jesus, please don't demean the fine word "critic" by calling that raving bag of suet Knowles one. He's not a critic, he's a rabid fanboy posing as one. I only visit "Aintitcool" if I feel like having a television show spoiled for me, or if I want the latest buzz on which filmmaker is doing what.</i>

Sorry, sorry! Moment of weakness. He popped into my head and I typed in his name. I don't know what I was thinking here either.</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '><i> First off, you don't need to make the point to me about using multiple perspectives to interpret or evaluate a film or a text. Take any advanced class on literary theory or critical methods and you'll hear the perspectivist argument repeated ad nauseum in many different forms and flavors. :)</i>

No classes needed to understand this. It's self evident. However, I keep making this point because you, among others, insist on claiming that understanding only parts of the layers of the movie can result in the same experience for all people(i.e., claiming that you can truly understand *everything* that's going on without knowing the philosophical subtexts). It doesn't work that way. This is quadrupally true when you aren't being hand held through the film.


<i> I'd like to revisit my criticism of the film's dramatic structure. A point I did not make in my first post is that much of what actually happens in a cinematic sense (i.e., what is shown onscreen or revealed through dialogue) in Reloaded is rather superfluous. The film begins quite slowly with a protracted dream sequence and a series of extended conversations between major and minor characters in Zion that take up approximately 30-40 minutes of screentime--that's about a third of the movie spent on exposition alone. This seems excessive, especially given that we learn an inordinate amount of detail about Zion's history and its internal political maneuverings, information that could have just as easily been summarized or eliminated altogether. I would likewise file the much-ridiculed "Orgy" sequence/Dionysian revelry under the "unnecessary" category. The film only really gets going when Neo and Gang finally do the thing they spend much of the First Act talking about doing: tracking down the Key.</i>

Can't really argue this because strictly speaking they're factually true, but your conclusions are your opinions, which is cool. However, I disagree with almost all of them.


<i> You misunderstand my statement on Neo, though. I wasn't saying that his decisions were meaningless, or even that he came to view his decisions as such. I wasn't making any judgement about the quality or meaning of his decisions. I was saying that, throughout the movie, his *belief* in his ability to make meaningful decisions (decisions not predetermined by the Matrix, and hence doomed to failure) is constantly challenged. Coping with the possibility of the essential hopelessness of his situation (I assume it would be hopeless if every human action has been predetermined and set into motion by the Matrix, The One included) is Neo's primary dramatic struggle, although Keanu Reeves is such a wooden actor that the conflict becomes muted.</i>

This is flat out wrong.

First of all, they don't even know that they've been lied to until at least the halfway point of the movie. They still think they are making open ended decisions and steering the course of their future. So nobody was coping with anything because they didn't know they had anything to cope with.

Neo's primary dramatic struggle was to find The Truth (his purpose). It is only during the course of *that* struggle that he finds out about the lies and all the rest.

<i> Both the Merovingian and the Architect are largely one dimensional constructs meant to fulfill limited purposes. They are defined entirely by the foil they present to Neo; they are roadblocks, obstacles, nothing more. They are not so much characters as they are pop-up impediments to Neo's progress. They may challenge and obfuscate him, but they never grow or develop into anything beyond what they are at the very first moment we see them. (I.e., the Merovingian never changes or deviates from being what he his at any given moment--an evil, decadent French aristocrat who wants to stop Neo at all costs).</i>

Wow.

If you can strip down the Merovingian and the Architect to mere impediments to Neo, then you've basically captured the essense of why you're offended and annoyed by the philosophical meanderings of the Wachowskis in these movies. You don't understand them.

Yes, in the strictest, dryest, most academic sense, they are impediments. But I guess stricly speaking, the Mona Lisa just a bunch of oil splattered over a canvas.

First off, I challenge your assertion that these characters need to grow, develop, or be multidimensional to be interesting. This is not their story. They are what they are.

Let's start with the Merovingian. You call him "an evil, decadent French aristocrat who wants to stop Neo at all costs". Wow. Assuming you didn't accidently overstate yourself to make a point, this character flew right over your head.

He doesn't hate Neo upon seeing him. The Merovingian couldn't possibly give less of a damn about Neo beyond what he can gain for himself from Neo. This is a man who only craves power. Period. The Merovingian understands what Neo, does not - that most things in the Matrix are happening for a predetermined reason, even the very mission of our gang of heroes. And that reason has been largely predetermined by a powerful outside force (whom this is, the Merovingian doesn't mention). If you have knowledge of how and why things happen (things like say how to shuttle machine world programs into and out of the Matrix or how to hide programs from deletion upon reloading the matrix), you can become a very powerful man. And the only reason that he wants to stop Neo is because Neo is trying to take something away from him. He protecting himself from Neo, not trying to stop Neo on some pointless mission he doesn't care about which he's seen end the same way 5 times.

As for the Architect, he's a machine who given the form of a human so that Neo has something to talk to. He explains what the Merovingian hinted at - there is no free will and that everything that Neo does has been planned ahead of time. He also goes into the history of the Matrix and it's only at this point that we come to understand that everything that Morpheus believes is a lie. This is well into the movie, so it kind of makes it hard to call it the primary dramatic struggle. (We also find out that the Architect is still lying because people can still make choices that can change the outcome of the Matrix).


<i> That's not the question I was asking. I didn't expect Neo to be able to destroy Agent Smith at will in Reloaded, because obviously that would have made for a very boring movie. What I wanted to know was why Neo simply didn't take off flying in the first place. There's no reason for him to stick around and beat up a few more Agent Smiths; that's just a waste of energy, since Smith can apparently replicate himself ad infinitum. </i>

Oh, this is an easier question to answer. Why would he run away? Up until that point, Neo pretty much pulverizes everything and everyone that steps into his path as if he were Einstein taking on George Bush in a Relativistic Physics competition. Neo knows nothing about the Agent's replication ability and even when he does find out, he doesn't see much reason for concern (again, why should he, given his history). It's only after he figures out that "uh oh, these guys just aren't going away", that he begins to understand his true predicament and it's only *then* that he runs.


<i> Er, well, okay, but that still doesn't answer why he has to fight them. They're still just a bunch of guys with swords and polearms. Unless there's some "upgrade" that prevents Neo from leaving the place, then he has no reason to stick around while Morpheus and Trinity are in trouble....

...and do I even need to mention that this whole "upgrade" business is a little arbitrary, and, well, lame? This is probably what's going on in Neo's mind as he fights the Eurotrash: "Okay... let's see. There's some dudes with swords who are obviously trying to keep me from helping Trinity, Morpheus, and the Key, and I can't do anything except fight them because the Matrix downloaded a patch that prevents me from buzzing away at 2000 mph... but not AFTER I defeat them. Whoa. That's totally fucking insane."
</i>

This is wrong. He has to fight them to protect Morpheus and Trinity who in turn are protecting the Keymaster.

As for the upgrade business, most of these guys are just glitches or programs from past iterations. So they're "different", not so much upgrades (unlike the Agents).

<i> I don't know about what other people think. I can only tell you what I think, and I don't believe I fall into either of those two categories. Obviously, though, if someone only dislikes the Matrix because he or she doesn't understand the philosophical references, then that person's opinion needn't be taken seriously.</i>

Actually judging by your responses, you pretty much got A and B covered (though your aren't completely in either one). ;) However during the course of this back and forth, I'm hoping you'll gain another perspective( my perspective aka the Correct Perspective :) ).

<i> Jesus, please don't demean the fine word "critic" by calling that raving bag of suet Knowles one. He's not a critic, he's a rabid fanboy posing as one. I only visit "Aintitcool" if I feel like having a television show spoiled for me, or if I want the latest buzz on which filmmaker is doing what.</i>

Sorry, sorry! Moment of weakness. He popped into my head and I typed in his name. I don't know what I was thinking here either. I'll lash myself a thousand times for this transgression.</div>

[kali o.]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Too far down for anybody to read but....too "highbrow"? Haha, anyone with an ounce of intellect was probably insulted by the juvenile psuedo-philosophical spewings in that pile of crap. Honestly, ruined the whole series for me, plot-wise.</div>

[Zeus]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>The first one was great, the second two went downhill FAST. I thought the second was disappointing, but the third is a waste of film</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Or you might be giving your philisophical intellect more credit than it deserves. Naaaaaah, the series must be garbage! :)</div>

[kali o.]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Funny, the first Matrix was so good largely in part to it's potential and unanswered questions...yet as the series progressed and it laid out its explainations, it displayed its utter lack of sophistication.

A new villain, the real world was another matrix, flashes of Vanilla Sky...frankly, I didn't care. I just wanted some new plot twist...instead the story played to the lowest common denominator, new characters replaceable and altogether unimportant to its uninspired story (the French man, while lovable, played no significant role other than "Has Keymaster, Employs Trainman, see for both. kthxbye").

A shame really...

But if you think slapped on community college Philosophy and Religious Study quotes make for a near-Tolstoy experience...more power to ya I guess.</div>

[kali o.]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Funny, the first Matrix was so good largely in part to it's potential and unanswered questions...yet as the series progressed and it laid out its explainations, it displayed its utter lack of sophistication.

A new villain, the real world was another matrix, flashes of Vanilla Sky...frankly, I didn't care. I just wanted some new plot twist...instead the story played to the lowest common denominator, new characters replaceable and altogether unimportant to its uninspired story (the French man, while lovable, played no significant role other than "Has Keymaster, Employs Trainman, see for both. kthxbye").

A shame really...

But if you think slapped on community college Philosophy and Religious Study quotes make for a near-Tolstoy experience...more power to ya I guess :)</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>So do you think Disney should release a Country Bears 2? ;)</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>...The 2nd film burst through the envelope like Courtney Love into my house on one of her crack binges and people's minds got fried (even many so-called self described philosophy 101 "experts" ;) ).</div>

[Derithian]

<div style='font: italic bold 14pt ; text-align: center; '>Yeah but the CG work was sooo bad half the time it looked like something out of an original PS1 game. I'm sorry but the CG work was terrible</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>I'd admit you could tell if you looked hard enough, but goddamn...have you even replayed FF7 and compared the CG animations with the movie?</div>

[kali o.]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>....foretell an event in the form of a dream that is dependant on variables of the real world (and non-jacked in characters as well as a rusty joint), while still staying true to the technological, non-magical plot progress (ie: Trinity entering the Matrix to shut down the back up grid and dying)?

Now mind you, I just picked one plot hole (imo), but I like this one...it was one of the few points in Reloaded that still gave me hope the 3rd would introduce some neat plot twist... (and no, the Architects ramblings don't explain this away, even if I were to assume every variable was considered, the dream still remains).</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Time is a very malleable thing and so in a world where Neo can bend the rules to serve his will, is it that ridiculous for the same thing to apply to time (as defined by the Matrix) also? And remember too, this is the 6th iteration of the Matrix. He could just as also have seen after echos of previous iterations (reincarnation?).</div>

[Zeus]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Yep</div>

[kali o.]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>That makes no sense whatsoever. Watch Reloaded again to remind yourself as I'm guessing you've forgotten. And I guess to help you out along a little more, the Architect himself stated that Neo was the "first" to share the inherent attachment to a single person, thus no flashbacks to previous incarnations are possible (if that were even plausible, which it is not, given the list of variables outside of the Matrix control - the rusty bridge joint, etc).

I could give you 10+ other plot holes, but if you can't reasonably explain away one....well :P</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>

That makes no sense whatsoever. Watch Reloaded again to remind yourself as I'm guessing you've forgotten. And I guess to help you out along a little more, the Architect himself stated that Neo was the "first" to share the inherent attachment to a single person, thus no flashbacks to previous incarnations are possible (if that were even plausible, which it is not, given the list of variables outside of the Matrix control - the rusty bridge joint, etc).

Ummm, I think you may need to review the movie yourself. The Architect said that Neo was the first one to place his love for one person over the safety of humanity, which was the foundation of the Matrix's control over "the systemic anomoly".

Also, things in the Matrix can have effects in the real world. There are clues all over the place.

- The most obvious clue is when the Oracle straight out tells Neo that the power of The One extends into the real world. But does something count as a clue if it's the thing that you're supposed to given clue about in the first place? :)

- Agent Smith rewriting the "software" of Bane's mind

- machine world and matrix world programs crossing into each other territories

I could give you 10+ other plot holes, but if you can't reasonably explain away one....well :P

That all depends on how one defines "reasonable". :)</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>

That makes no sense whatsoever. Watch Reloaded again to remind yourself as I'm guessing you've forgotten. And I guess to help you out along a little more, the Architect himself stated that Neo was the "first" to share the inherent attachment to a single person, thus no flashbacks to previous incarnations are possible (if that were even plausible, which it is not, given the list of variables outside of the Matrix control - the rusty bridge joint, etc).

Ummm, I think you may need to review the movie yourself. The Architect said that Neo was the first one to place his love for one person over the safety of humanity, which was the foundation of the Matrix's control over "the systemic anomoly". And how does that preclude possible flashbacks to previous incarnations? He is obviouisly *not* the same as previous ones, though many events unfold in similiar fashions. BTW, I'm not saying there are flashbacks to previous iteration; it's just one plausible explanation. I've never heard of a reincarnaition based religion/philosophy that says you have to do everything exactly the same as your previous self and Bros. W probaly hadn't either.

Also, things in the Matrix can have effects in the real world. There are clues all over the place.

- The most obvious clue is when the Oracle straight out tells Neo that the power of The One extends into the real world. But does something count as a clue if it's the thing that you're supposed to given clue about in the first place? :)

- Agent Smith rewriting the "software" of Bane's mind

- machine world and matrix world programs crossing into each other territories

I could give you 10+ other plot holes, but if you can't reasonably explain away one....well :P

That all depends on how one defines "reasonable". :)</div>

[kali o.]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>This debate reminds me of someone defending religion :)</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Matrix discussions tend to have that effect...Kinda like talking about your favorite NFL team...</div>