quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
I find it odd and somewhat humorous that someone might actually forego seeing a film because of the emphatic words from zealots (like myself) that find refuge on this board.

I will be the first to admit that Reloaded does not stand up well against the original...but wretched...(come on Joan!) There was no possible way to recreate the sense of wonder from the original without going in an entirely different direction...which I don't think would have made sense. So what are we left with...the action portion and fleshing out the world. That is what we got...in unfortunate excess.

I would say that relative to other action/sci-fi films Reloaded is still relatively strong...relative to the original it is not. I tried to make the same point about the Star Wars prequels in the past and was berated for suggesting that among the available sci-fi films out their there still pretty good movies.

Of course, relative to Mission to Mars both Reloaded and the prequels are top-notch. I will take too much CGI over a bored Gary Sinise, lame dialogue, and one of the more hokey endings I have seen in some time. "They are us...we are them" Oh crap...

---

Wretched ... excess. Got it.

They will not get another 7.00$ from me and I will no way in HELL rent this movie. I will never watch "Reloaded" ever again and will NEVER see "Revolutions".
I am still fu(king pissed about the 7.00 dollars. I want that back.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southall:

Sorry Mike, I've changed my message. And I DID reply to your emails! Twice, in fact! Does your email server think I'm sending you spam or something and filter me out!?

And I agree with everything Jeff Bond said above... as usual.

James

---

Hey! I never have gotten any replies to your e-mails. I'm using Hotmail, but I don't have any filters set up. I've heard that the big Canadian ISP (Shaw) is not allowed to send e-mail TO a Hotmail account; perhaps it's the same case with yours?

On seeing the Matrix trilogy, let me say that I respect the film-makers' outstanding contributions to:
(i) attempting to translate the aesthetics of anime and manga to live action;
(ii) enhancing the pool of special effects tools for other films to draw on in the years to come. There are sunk costs in this production that will really pay off for other film-makers;
(iii) in parts, translating some fairly esoteric philosophical issues to the screen.

Now, the original Matrix, which I only saw early this year, was the film that most effectively executed (i) and (iii). For (i), the bullet-time action sequences and comic-book framed visuals of the film were recognised as masterworks. As for (iii), you only have to look at the litte things like the appearance of Simula and Simulacrum, or the Oracle's dialogue, or the archetypal character names to see how subtle some of the Wachowski Bros. little thought references were. I was hugely impressed by the first film, thinking that it could only be improved by placing a better actor at the centre. (But what is that?) At the same time as changing the look of sci-fi and action films in general, it dared to put the images to a heavily modernistic score by Don Davis. (Incidentally, Moviewave has an excellent series of reviews on the three Matrix scores.)

Well OK, that's the Matrix, what about Reloaded and Revolutions? That's where point (ii) is... mmm... obviously I don't need to talk about great special effects in either film. It's pretty clear that these films both have the limit of what hard work and a great deal of money can buy with respect to eye candy in modern cinema.

Let's start with Reloaded. I love both the Burly Brawl and Overdrive sequences. I like the Chateau fight and Neo's Flight down Main Street. And the film is more than its effects and setpieces - the attempt to enrich this sci-fi series with more random thoughts from the post-modernist canon is entertaining to a certain extent as seen by meetings Neo has with the Oracle, Smith, Councillor Impression, the Merovingian and the Architect. Some are more successful than others - I won't mention any names - but it's quite noticable that the shift to a less subtle incorporation of philosophy has taken place. Gone are the tongue-in-cheek references and we're left with a film with one too many Socratic dialogues (or worse, monologues) for anyone to really get a fix on what's going on.

At the same time, it's not clear at a great many moments in the film why any of it is happening. Characters and incidents seem arbitrary, and audience sympathies need to be driven by something a little more, shall we say, purposeful...? Why is Smith back from the dead? And what is he doing in that hallway with several versions of himself? Why does Seraph need to fight Neo? (And who is he, BTW, apart from the film's stunt coordinator?) Why do I care about a Kid who likes Neo? Why do I care about Link's wife? Why does Persephone have to kiss Neo AND WHAT DOES IT SIGNIFY? Who are the Twins, and were they interesting people when they weren't becoming aggravated? Too much is ultimately left unexplained (or not sufficiently explained) by the third film and hangs in this film like dead weight. There is a lot of incident and a lot of people in this film, but not a great deal in the way of either plot or character. (And yes, I'm happy to elaborate on either of those points.)

You wouldn't think that with a flabby story there wouldn't be much room for verbose dialogue, but as already indicated, Reloaded's script is as top-heavy as they come. Characters seem to relish saying everything in threes (e.g. Morpheus, Neo, Smith), with the exception of characters who are saying something that is truly difficult to comprehend on first hearing (e.g. Architect, Merovingian, and it's them you'd think would need the extra air time). Things have gone from being trendy and snappy to being portentous and dull.

At the end of third viewing of Reloaded (I waited for DVD for that), I wasn't sure what had gone wrong, but I had a list of suspects. The original film had a main character that was so easy to identify with because every experience was fresh to him. The feelings of discovering that reality did not feel so real after all was equally well tapped by The Game, Truman Show, Fearless, Dark City, eXistENZ and other films. But there is no such arc in the second film. Who can identify with dreams of the death of a loved in a future sequence of events that are perfectly foreseen? And while this dilemma appears for Neo more than once in the film and is (I think) the central narrative issue, it's articulation is very poor and is so often interrupted by another incident that it never really is the film's focus. At the same time as having a weak narrative core, the ideas are disconnected and didactic. And a great deal is left unexplained... You're left with some truly great setpieces, a film that looks fantastic, though not as good as the first film, and a whole set of interesting points you hadn't thought about since you read Foucault or whatever it was that got you going during undergraduate ennui.

That last point is an unfair remark to make about Reloaded. It is after all, a cliff-hanger film, and a lack of resolution is a necessity. So one looks at each of the unresolved points in Reloaded and tries to find their resolution in Revolutions. And I'll tip my hand early on here - I found Revolutions unexciting in the extreme. Early on in the film the first and final interesting idea appears - that love is a word, and programs know the meaning of the word. It's a scene filled with fantastic suggestion and subtle argument for the nature of humanity. And from that scene it becomes clear there's only one way the film can end - with the death of the one character who can be truly said to lack any pathos at all. That it gets resolved with a fairly arbitrary deus ex machina was a bit of a let-down, but the preview seemed to be suggesting that would happen.

Now there're unexciting films and there are boring films. Revolutions didn't bore me, though I haven't felt this comfortable going to the loo in the middle of a film since I saw The Thin Red Line for the fifth time at a cinema. My attention was always rapt - I was eager to find out how the Merovingian trapped Neo, what Seraph had to do with him, what happened to the Oracle, what function Smith serves, what Neo would say to the Machine Mind, etc. And of course I was eager to see how the Reloaded plot points would get cleared-up. Anyone whose seen the film will know that the answers are there. Ask yourself whether the answers: (i) satisfied; (ii) surprised you. I would have to answer no on both counts.

Incidentally, Revolutions does have a great couple of moments of pathos - Neo's farewells firstly to Morpheus and later on to Trinity. Remembering the relationships between these characters over the course of the three films, I couldn't help but get a bit misty on both occasions.

At the very least, Revolutions looked good and sounded better. But I'm always a bit dismayed when I have to fall back on those lines of defence for a film. The trilogy as a whole has contributed a great deal to modern film-making and pop-culture, and that's my positive assessment of it.

Speaking to the defenders of the recent films, do I not sound just a little bit reasonable here?

NP Sleepy Hollow (Elfman)

Oh and I love the Animatrix, esp. the Second Renaissance.

When a story is being badly told, the audience will try to make sense out of it any way they can. We always feel a need to make sense of things, no matter how unrelated or random they may seem. This is why we think we have to find significance in our dreams or figure out what's really going on in Mulholland Drive.

Once the audience starts to lose interest like this the only option left for the filmmaker is to make every scene that follows more awe-inspiring or stupefying than the last. This is why the Wachowskis in the Matrix sequels (though moreso in Reloaded than in Revolutions) have to resort to inconsequential action set pieces to make sure the audience pays attention.

Hemingway said "Write the story, take out all the good lines, and see if it still works." Applying this to film, specifically to Reloaded and Revolutions, the "good lines" are undoubtedly these action set pieces. But if you took those out, you'd have nothing. That's what really makes these sequels so inferior to the original. In that film, the lobby shoot-out and bullet-time effects were breathtaking, but if you removed them you'd still have a compelling story about an ordinary person thrown into a new world that turns his upside-down and then thrusts the entire weight of that world on his shoulders. Strip the spectacle from the sequels, and you have a bunch of people talking about some issues that, while somewhat interesting, aren't worth the $8.50 you paid to get into the movie. That money would be better spent on a book about philosophy rather than a film where characters sporadically discuss it for a couple minutes in between technically impressive but ultimately insignifcant action sequences.

There are things about the film I really liked, most of which concern the way the religious allegories come to fruition and all of which involve spoilers. I already wrote them in the "Matrix explained" thread, so if you already know how the film ends (or don't care) you can read them there.

Kirk
NP - Matrix Revolutions

Don't call the highway chase in RELOADED the "Overdrive" sequence. Sheesh! Mona Lisa Overdrive is the name of a William Gibson book that Davis happened to lift for the track title (and for good reason!). What goes on in the book certainly doesn't apply to the sequence; Davis just used it as a cue title in a well-meaning nod to Gibson and his cyberpunk novels, where the basic idea of a cyberspace 'matrix' humans could jack into came from.

Don't mean to harp on you about it, but I'm really digging Gibson's novels at the moment, and didn't want to see the Overdrive name tossed about recklessly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hornerfan:
Don't call the highway chase in RELOADED the "Overdrive" sequence. Sheesh! Mona Lisa Overdrive is the name of a William Gibson book that Davis happened to lift for the track title (and for good reason!). What goes on in the book certainly doesn't apply to the sequence; Davis just used it as a cue title in a well-meaning nod to Gibson and his cyberpunk novels, where the basic idea of a cyberspace 'matrix' humans could jack into came from.

Don't mean to harp on you about it, but I'm really digging Gibson's novels at the moment, and didn't want to see the Overdrive name tossed about recklessly.

Mike

---

I do still have one question. Everyone (not just here but on other boards as well) says that Reloaded asks alot of questions that never get answered in Revolutions. I've seen Reloaded 4 times and none of those times did I ever walk away feeling as thogh there were alot of unresolved issues. I was wondering if anyone could list a few of them?

Maybe its just me. Maybe I am alot less critical then everyone here. I don't go see movies to pick apart and analize them. I go see them for what they are entertainment. I go into a film knowing what kind it will be and what to expect. When I go see a Fairly(sp) Brothers movie I'm not going in expecting high drama and emotional pull. I expect to laugh. When I go see the next Indiana Jones movie(soon I hope) I expect the same old B movie serial excitment. Old fashioned stunts with out all the glitz of computers. When I went to the Matrix movies I wanted a fun mix of Sci-fi and Kung Fu. Thats what I got out of it Kung-Fu movies set in a Sci-Fi universe which allowed the fights, due to being set in a compter and not the real world, to be over the top and outragous for a reason. The whole argument "no one could really do that" was pushed out the door....now i'm just babling.

I have some answers to the questions in one of the aboves posts but I need to get going for now. I'll get to them later!

That's a few that come to mind. In the back of my mind there're a couple of others, but that's probably enough for now. You'd probably guess from the list above that I'm the type of person who tries to do two things at a cinema: (i) enjoy a movie; (ii) dissect it so that all the thought and effort and (perhaps unintentional) messages are clear to me. So, while I didn't enjoy Revolutions - note that I did enjoy Reloaded quite a bit up to a point - I'm racking my brain to appreciate it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
Unresolved issues in Reloaded? I suppose there is a perfunctory answer to everything, but those answers frequently don't feel 'enough'. Things I really wanted a bit more enlightenment on include:
1. Why Smith as the negative to Neo?
2. Who is the Merovingian? Again, who is the Merovingian? What are the extent of his capacities? To what does he correspond in the real world, if anything? (And an unanswered question from Revolutions - how can he imprison Neo outside the matrix?)
3. Who is Seraph? Why does he get to know people by fighting them? Why does he protect the Oracle - how did that come about? And a Revolutions question - why is he referred to as both prodigal son and Judas, not one but two biblical metaphors?
4. What does the Oracle's cookie/candy do to those who eat it?
5. Who were the Twins? Maybe it's Darth Maul and Deathstryke all over again, but I didn't have a clue who they were, why they teamed up with the Merovingian - what they got out of it - why they chose their particular appearance, etc.
6. How is it that Smith can take over a human form? In the first film, there are rules and everything is very clearly defined, but I really wasn't sure what rules were governing the behavior of everyone here. This possibly was answered in Revolutions.
7. Who is Persephone? What does the kiss signify, other than to give her that sole line in Revolutions that really doesn't amount to much?
8. (ANSWERED IN REVOLUTIONS) Was the Architect telling the truth? Answer: Insofar as it was within his capability to understand the question, yes. (answered by the Oracle).
9. Why the return of the spoon? What message is there in that - perhaps, 'there is a spoon after all!' No, but I jest.
10. Since I'm big of the whos, let's throw the Keymaker in as well. What is the story here? Why did he cease to be the guard of the key to the source, how did the Merovingian catch him, and what did the Merv want with him other than 'more power'?

That's a few that come to mind. In the back of my mind there're a couple of others, but that's probably enough for now. You'd probably guess from the list above that I'm the type of person who tries to do two things at a cinema: (i) enjoy a movie; (ii) dissect it so that all the thought and effort and (perhaps unintentional) messages are clear to me. So, while I didn't enjoy Revolutions - note that I did enjoy Reloaded quite a bit up to a point - I'm racking my brain to appreciate it.

[Message edited by franz_conrad on 11-08-2003]

---

I have a some stabs at a few of those...

1. My guess is that when he tried to destroy the Agent Smith, his code caused something in the Matrix to retaliate, to "balance" the equation so to speak.
2. The Merovingian seems to simply be a program to govern parts of the Matrix, such as keep in line the person running the trainstation (gateway). He didn't imprison Neo at the trainstation. Neo ended up there when he went into his "coma" after stopping those machines in the real world. Since the Trainman works for the Merovingian, he simply has the power to KEEP him there. A bargaining chip as is demonstrated later in the film.
3. He wants to know them so they can have a pointless fight sequence that doesn't further the story at all. I certainly don't go beating up my friends just to "know" them.
4. Nothing, I assume it's a test of "choice."
5. Just loyal servant programs of the Merovingian to do dirty work.
6. Not sure why, but he did it. Perhaps just as neo has a connection with the machines, Smith, his opposite can have a certain connection with humans.
7. Persophone is simply a program obsessed with understanding the human emotion of love. I got the impression that the machines were very curious about human emotions and conditions instead of simply enslaving them for power. The concept is not unlike Dark City.
8. don't know
9. don't know
10. My guess is that he is looking toward the future just as the oracle is. The Merovingian wants the machines to maintain power I assume.

The first thing I want to mention is most of the questions asked here were about secondary caracters. A secondary character by default is there to support the story and the main characters. You only need to know enough about them to either further the plot or flesh out the main characters more fully. Wanting to get more information on their back stories, histories, motivations, etc. draws us away from what is important...the main characters and or the plot. Also you only have so much time to tell the story you want to tell in a movie. Having to dive into everybodies history and motivations will lengthen the movie and possibly bore more people then keep their interest.

So most of the questions asked here seem to me to be a bit erroneous to me as they don't serve any function to further the main characters or the story. They would make nice detours for an expanded edition of the Trilogy though.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by franz_conrad:
[B]
1. Why Smith as the negative to Neo?[B]

The easiest answer would have to be - why not Smith? In a literary sense he is the nemesis of the movie and has to be there for Neo to overcome. And if not Smith. Who? If it wasn't him it would have to be someone else. Plot wise there is no getting around a character to be Neo's negative. From the movies point of view he is the negative to Neo becuase the Archetect was trying to balance the equation that the Oracal 'unbalanced'. He was believed to be a necessary program by the Architect to keep things in check.

[B] 2. Who is the Merovingian? Again, who is the Merovingian? What are the extent of his capacities? To what does he correspond in the real world, if anything? (And an unanswered question from Revolutions - how can he imprison Neo outside the matrix?)[B]

The merovingian was said to be a trafficker of information in Reloaded. In Revolutions we also find out he may also be a link between the machine world and the Matrix. He moves programs in and out of the Matrix both legally and illeaglly. As for knowing about what the extent of his capabilities are...that does nothing to further the story or the plot. It doesnt matter if he can do A B C and D if all we need to know about him is that he can do A and B. As for imprisoning Neo I believe that is answerd at the begining of Revolutions in the Trainstion...but I can't remember exaclty what was said. I'll have to see the movie agian and get back to you

[B] 3. Who is Seraph? Why does he get to know people by fighting them? Why does he protect the Oracle - how did that come about? And a Revolutions question - why is he referred to as both prodigal son and Judas, not one but two biblical metaphors? [B]

Seraph is the Oracle's bodyguard and thats all we need to know. "Why does he get to know people by fighting them?" Havn't you ever heard a boxer say 'You don't know anything about yourself or your competition untill you fight them'? Bassically I think Seraph was just sizing Neo up...testing him for his own pleasure. He is a fighting program and fighting is how he measures other people...or programs i suppose. Another example to explain this could be about painting. You can stare at a painting all day and learn all about its color and composition, etc. But doing this won't tell you a whole lot about the painter or the process. So if you were to watch the artist create the painting you would learn worlds more about the artist and how the final product was created.

[B] 4. What does the Oracle's cookie/candy do to those who eat it? [B]

It makes them full.
Maybe I really missed somthing here but I honestly think this is making somthing out of nothing.

5. Who were the Twins? Maybe it's Darth Maul and Deathstryke all over again, but I didn't have a clue who they were, why they teamed up with the Merovingian - what they got out of it - why they chose their particular appearance, etc.

The Twins either just worked for the Merovingian as hired 'muscle' or where his personal body guards. As to their apperance. They where ghosts. I think it was Persephonie who mentioned that there were werewolves, ghosts vampires and other supernatural beings written into the matrix to explain for the overwhelming number of strange experiences and encounters in the "Real World". So if somthing had to be done in the matrix that may be seen by 'real' people and a ghost program was sent to accomplish this task. The 'real' people would be trying to explain what they saw and it would possibly be blamed on a 'ghost'. In the Animatrix episode 'Haunted House' this is shown a bit. The kids play in a house they think is haunted due to the fact that strange things are occuring there.

[B] 6. How is it that Smith can take over a human form? In the first film, there are rules and everything is very clearly defined, but I really wasn't sure what rules were governing the behavior of everyone here. This possibly was answered in Revolutions. [B]

This is explained in Revolutions and touched upon in Reloaded. When Smith recounts how Neo 'kills' him at the end of The Matrix he says that somthing was imprinted on him from Neo. Neo being The One has a connection to the machines as explaned by the Architetct. This connection was what was imprinted on Smith. This power gave Neo the ability to connect with the machines in the real world and it gave Smith the power to interact with humans in the real world. If you want an actual scientific or more detailed answer I think that would be asking to much as it doesnt matter. It would be like asking how the fu.ck Superman's heat vision works. It doesnt matter. It just works and its cool.

[B] 7. Who is Persephone? What does the kiss signify, other than to give her that sole line in Revolutions that really doesn't amount to much?

Persephonie was an intuative or emotional (perhaps passion) program for the Matrix (maybe she was a sensual program...cause she was hot ). This would explain the kiss making sense due to the fact that she would be the one that makes us feel all woozy in our stomachs when we get that first kiss from that special person we love. She is unfortunatly 'hooked up' with the Merovingian. He seems very calculating cold and unemotional about feelings. He cheats on her and gets BJs in the bathroom from ladies that he manipulates. She wanted to feel that *spark* that kiss of true love that she is responsible for but does not recieve from the man that she is with. It is possibly a selfish jesture on her part But can you blame her? If you have ever had that feeling of love and passion with a person and it fades thats a terrible thing to loose. She just wanted that feeling.

[B] 9. Why the return of the spoon? What message is there in that - perhaps, 'there is a spoon after all!' No, but I jest. [B]

The spoon was just a symbol. Like the cross some people wear around their necks. Its there so you don't forget...so you remember why your doing somthing.

[B] 10. Since I'm big of the whos, let's throw the Keymaker in as well. What is the story here? Why did he cease to be the guard of the key to the source, how did the Merovingian catch him, and what did the Merv want with him other than 'more power'? [B]

He ceased to be the guard of the key to the source because he was shot . It doesn't matter how Merv caught him. It doesnt further the plot at all. All we need to know is that he has him. And finally you answerd the last question yourself. Merv wanted more power. More power is what every powerful man wants. You see that in our real world everyday (or in comic books...Lex Luthar already owns half of Metropolis, is wealthy beyond his wildest dreams but still he wants more power. The same could be said with The Kingpin). With power comes control...and apperantly hot french girls

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
I'll try to answer the questions here posed by Franz. They may not be the answers you are looking for but to me they make sense.

The first thing I want to mention is most of the questions asked here were about secondary caracters. A secondary character by default is there to support the story and the main characters. You only need to know enough about them to either further the plot or flesh out the main characters more fully. Wanting to get more information on their back stories, histories, motivations, etc. draws us away from what is important...the main characters and or the plot. Also you only have so much time to tell the story you want to tell in a movie. Having to dive into everybodies history and motivations will lengthen the movie and possibly bore more people then keep their interest.

So most of the questions asked here seem to me to be a bit erroneous to me as they don't serve any function to further the main characters or the story. They would make nice detours for an expanded edition of the Trilogy though.

---

Unfortunately, when the principal characters were so stripped of interest and colour as Neo, Morpheus and Trinity were in Reloaded and Revolutions, some of us have to be forgiven for finding the background more interesting than the foreground.

And this is science fiction - part of the appeal is always about the world and how a place where extraordinary stuff happens is kept internally consistent. So they're hardly unlikely questions at all.

On Agent Smith

quote:

---

The easiest answer would have to be - why not Smith? In a literary sense he is the nemesis of the movie and has to be there for Neo to overcome. And if not Smith. Who? If it wasn't him it would have to be someone else. Plot wise there is no getting around a character to be Neo's negative. From the movies point of view he is the negative to Neo becuase the Archetect was trying to balance the equation that the Oracal 'unbalanced'. He was believed to be a necessary program by the Architect to keep things in check.

---

I wasn't so much asking why does Neo have a negative as why is Smith the one. I would have liked a scene somewhere in the trilogy where this relationship was explored without the two trying reinvent the limits of special effects.

And no, it isn't really an answer to answer 'why not'...

On the Merovingian

quote:

---

The merovingian was said to be a trafficker of information in Reloaded. In Revolutions we also find out he may also be a link between the machine world and the Matrix. He moves programs in and out of the Matrix both legally and illeaglly. As for knowing about what the extent of his capabilities are...that does nothing to further the story or the plot. It doesnt matter if he can do A B C and D if all we need to know about him is that he can do A and B.

---

Ah but it does matter. He seems to be a major player with his own interests, but we never really learn what they are. And you've got to admit, in anyone of his scenes he's the most interesting character in the room.

And I really would've liked to have seen Neo fight someone who faced off his predecessors.

quote:

---

As for imprisoning Neo I believe that is answerd at the begining of Revolutions in the Trainstion...but I can't remember exaclty what was said. I'll have to see the movie agian and get back to you

---

I'm curious about that.

On Seraph and biblical metaphors

quote:

---

Seraph is the Oracle's bodyguard and thats all we need to know.

---

If that's all I needed to know then why is it implied that his relationship with the Merovingian runs deeper? And the biblical metaphor stuff is still there.

quote:

---

Bassically I think Seraph was just sizing Neo up...testing him for his own pleasure. He is a fighting program and fighting is how he measures other people...or programs i suppose.

---

Now that is an interesting idea.

On candy and cookies

quote:

---

Maybe I really missed somthing here but I honestly think this is making somthing out of nothing.

---

It may be drawing a long bow, but I couldn't help but wonder if she was giving Neo upgrades and add-ins to equip him for his task each time she met him.

On the Twins

quote:

---

The Twins either just worked for the Merovingian as hired 'muscle' or where his personal body guards.

---

Yeah, I figured as much, I'd just hoped there was more.

quote:

---

As to their apperance. They where ghosts. I think it was Persephonie who mentioned that there were werewolves, ghosts vampires and other supernatural beings written into the matrix to explain for the overwhelming number of strange experiences and encounters in the "Real World". So if somthing had to be done in the matrix that may be seen by 'real' people and a ghost program was sent to accomplish this task. The 'real' people would be trying to explain what they saw and it would possibly be blamed on a 'ghost'. In the Animatrix episode 'Haunted House' this is shown a bit. The kids play in a house they think is haunted due to the fact that strange things are occuring there.

---

That is the best of the Animatrix episodes, that Haunted House one.

Smith chews on life as a piece of dead meat

quote:

---

This is explained in Revolutions and touched upon in Reloaded. When Smith recounts how Neo 'kills' him at the end of The Matrix he says that somthing was imprinted on him from Neo. Neo being The One has a connection to the machines as explaned by the Architetct. This connection was what was imprinted on Smith. This power gave Neo the ability to connect with the machines in the real world and it gave Smith the power to interact with humans in the real world. If you want an actual scientific or more detailed answer I think that would be asking to much as it doesnt matter. It would be like asking how the fu.ck Superman's heat vision works. It doesnt matter. It just works and its cool.

---

Well, comics are notorious for not trying very hard to justify their wondrous activities. Science fiction generally takes the next step and provides some foundation to suspend disbelief. The Wachowskies did this very well in the first film, and also in parts of the second and third. e.g. explaining crazy stuff as the manifestation of rogue programs. I would've liked something a bit more explicit about this in any case.

Persphone

quote:

---

Persephonie was an intuative or emotional (perhaps passion) program for the Matrix (maybe she was a sensual program...cause she was hot ). This would explain the kiss making sense due to the fact that she would be the one that makes us feel all woozy in our stomachs when we get that first kiss from that special person we love. She is unfortunatly 'hooked up' with the Merovingian. He seems very calculating cold and unemotional about feelings. He cheats on her and gets BJs in the bathroom from ladies that he manipulates. She wanted to feel that *spark* that kiss of true love that she is responsible for but does not recieve from the man that she is with. It is possibly a selfish jesture on her part But can you blame her? If you have ever had that feeling of love and passion with a person and it fades thats a terrible thing to loose. She just wanted that feeling.

---

This is interesting. Again, I'm drawn to these secondary characters and their very interesting actions and capabilities because the script-writers have generally disavowed any development of the leads above improved fighting prowess. (Now that's harsh but it's also not too far off.)

But why a spoon?

quote:

---

The spoon was just a symbol. Like the cross some people wear around their necks. Its there so you don't forget...so you remember why your doing somthing.

---

I just thought Neo was going to make some discovery that brought the spoon message back to mind.

The Keymaker

quote:

---

It doesn't matter how Merv caught him. It doesnt further the plot at all. All we need to know is that he has him.

---

Mmmmm.... well I kind of hoped that instead of the leads saying the same lines three times in a row they might go into making the roles of the secondary characters a little more ... deep? Look at Lord of the Rings . You wouldn't get away with telling Tolkien that all we need to know about Eowyn was that she was pretty and the sister of another important character.

quote:

---

PHEW! Thats enough typing for now. I hope that all makes sense its 2 am here right now

---

Thanks for your thoughts. There's some interesting ideas there.

I guess my only response to this would be look at other famous Sci-Fi characters and see how little depth they were given and yet people still loved them.
1) Han Solo - All we knew about him was he was a smuggler, he had a fast ship. Thats all we ever needed of him. No other back is ever really given (other then his ties to Jabba and Lando and I believe those futher the story more then the flesh out the character of Han)

2)Boba Fett - He had 8 minutes of screen time in Empire and became a cult favorite. No one complaind that we knew so little about him people just thought he was cool. We just wanted to see him use all his hidden weapons and that cool jet pack.

3) Any character in the movie Alien - This is a classic sci-fi movie. And i just recently went and watched the Big screen re-release. I had a wonderful time seeing it for my first time on the silver screen and not my old beat up VHS copy. As much as I like the movie the characters are nothing but cardboard cut outs. Little if no explination is given about them. They are there for no other purpose then to DIE DIE DIE at the hands of the alien. An alien that we know nothing of. Why does he want to kill everyone? What is his culture like? And yet even with all those and possible more questions the movie is still a fantastic piece of Science Fiction.

I still see most of the questions posed as unnecisary to further the plot of the movies. They are interesting questions and fun for debate but not anything that needs to be answered in the movies. All character depth that was really needed was given in The Matrix. Everything after that was how those characters (and the depth they were already given) and their motivations worked together to end the war. None of the questinos asked furthered that plot (or made for a cool kung-fu fight )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
I still see most of the questions posed as unnecisary to further the plot of the movies. They are interesting questions and fun for debate but not anything that needs to be answered in the movies. All character depth that was really needed was given in The Matrix. Everything after that was how those characters (and the depth they were already given) and their motivations worked together to end the war.

---

And that's the thing. From a character perspective, the second and third films added very little about Neo, Morpheus and Trinity that wasn't already known by the end of the first film. If they didn't develop those characters at all, what was the point? Was I meant to feel for the one-dimensional beautiful bodies in Zion?

quote:

---

None of the questinos asked furthered that plot (or made for a cool kung-fu fight )

---

Which only proves that, AGAIN, some people will buy into ANYTHING, as long as it seems 'cool, man'.

There is NO way that anyone can make the claim that this was originally planned as a trilogy... the first MATRIX is no great shakes either in the dialogue or plot department, but everyone dissolved in warm gooey puddles over the look of it.

If you need proof of how to handle the same subject matter in an intelligent fashion, rent eXistenZ and DARK CITY -- neither cost as much, and there is a lack of ripping off Japanese anime, and cool edgy violence to make the acne on one's face break out, but both will hold up far longer than THE MATRIX "trilogy" will.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LRobHubbard:
Having taken my time to finally see RELOADED (on the opening day of REVOLUTIONS), the only thing I can take away from it is that the Wachowski Brothers seem to have caught the dreaded Lucas malady of Head-Up-Ass Syndrome, brought on by wads of cash and adoring fanboys who proclaimed them The New Gods after the release of THE MATRIX.

Which only proves that, AGAIN, some people will buy into ANYTHING, as long as it seems 'cool, man'.

There is NO way that anyone can make the claim that this was originally planned as a trilogy... the first MATRIX is no great shakes either in the dialogue or plot department, but everyone dissolved in warm gooey puddles over the look of it.

If you need proof of how to handle the same subject matter in an intelligent fashion, rent eXistenZ and DARK CITY -- neither cost as much, and there is a lack of ripping off Japanese anime, and cool edgy violence to make the acne on one's face break out, but both will hold up far longer than THE MATRIX "trilogy" will.

---

Though I hesitate to be seen talking to someone who chose the name of the man who spawned Battlefield Earth [ ], I agree with you about Dark City and eXistENZ , though the latter was bit alienating. When I saw The Matrix not too long ago for the first time I went on-line to make sure Dark City had indeed come out well before as there were too many similarities for my liking. (Incidentally, the train station in Revolutions rang bells from Dark City 's 'train to shell beach' sequence.) The Truman Show essayed similar material and was probably the most effective dramatically of these 'reality is not' films. (There's also Fight Club too I suppose.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
I guess the last thing I have to say on this topic relates to the obvious dislike on how much depth the matrix characters have been given. I personally (of course) thoght there was enough to keep me invested in the story and the characters. But it looks like people wanted more.

I guess my only response to this would be look at other famous Sci-Fi characters and see how little depth they were given and yet people still loved them.
1) Han Solo - All we knew about him was he was a smuggler, he had a fast ship. Thats all we ever needed of him. No other back is ever really given (other then his ties to Jabba and Lando and I believe those futher the story more then the flesh out the character of Han)

2)Boba Fett - He had 8 minutes of screen time in Empire and became a cult favorite. No one complaind that we knew so little about him people just thought he was cool. We just wanted to see him use all his hidden weapons and that cool jet pack.

3) Any character in the movie Alien - This is a classic sci-fi movie. And i just recently went and watched the Big screen re-release. I had a wonderful time seeing it for my first time on the silver screen and not my old beat up VHS copy. As much as I like the movie the characters are nothing but cardboard cut outs. Little if no explination is given about them. They are there for no other purpose then to DIE DIE DIE at the hands of the alien. An alien that we know nothing of. Why does he want to kill everyone? What is his culture like? And yet even with all those and possible more questions the movie is still a fantastic piece of Science Fiction.

I still see most of the questions posed as unnecisary to further the plot of the movies. They are interesting questions and fun for debate but not anything that needs to be answered in the movies. All character depth that was really needed was given in The Matrix. Everything after that was how those characters (and the depth they were already given) and their motivations worked together to end the war. None of the questinos asked furthered that plot (or made for a cool kung-fu fight )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HadrianD:
I like you Dave. Your opinion matches mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:

But they could have furthered that plot, and made it great.

---

I'm gonna go with a quote from message that was posted to a different board.

quote:

---

A small group of people write the story (which is an amazing story) and millions of people see the movie and out of these millions of people no one is going to think of something that one of the writers didn't think of. You can't have a perfect plot according to everyone who saw it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
And that's the thing. From a character perspective, the second and third films added very little about Neo, Morpheus and Trinity that wasn't already known by the end of the first film. If they didn't develop those characters at all, what was the point?

---

quote:

---

From The Wall Street Journal 10/11/2003:
For "The Matrix Revolutions," Warner Bros. took the unusual step of launching the film simultaneously in more than 100 countries.

The Warner Bros. strategy was to put the film before as many possible moviegoers as possible before bad worth of mouth could spread, a problem that dogged "Reloaded."

---

Too late.

quote:

---

From WSJ:
Domestic ticket sales for "The Matrix Revolutions" ran about 45% below last spring's "The Matrix Reloaded" during its opening weekend, the latest sign that movie fans are less than satisfied with the diet of blockbuster sequels Hollywood has been serving up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HadrianD:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by franz_conrad:
[b]And that's the thing. From a character perspective, the second and third films added very little about Neo, Morpheus and Trinity that wasn't already known by the end of the first film. If they didn't develop those characters at all, what was the point? <HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess from all your careful, meticulous analysis of the movie, it never once occur to you that Neo is not human? That he was just a program that was downloaded to a host body to do a job? That's a whole lot of character developement. [/B]

---

No, that occurred to me. Granted, maybe my gripe with Neo is more with the actor and dialogue than the character. Riddle me this though, why is there no scene where Neo, who previously considered himself as a human, buckles - feels sick - is haunted by - irritated by - confronted by - or FEELS ANY EMOTION WHATSOEVER ("apart from the Architect scene") the fact that he is not human? I mean, has such a major character development ever been so glossed over in terms of its implications for the character involved? The 'robot' in Alien:Resurrections (a really bad movie depending on how you look at it) had more pathos! Respectfully, that is.

I do like Reloaded a lot. When I first watched it, I was afraid it was going to suck because in the beginning, there was one pointless fight scene after the other, but in between there were interesting bits (like the Merovingian), and somewhere in the middle it became really good, and there was purpose enough to make the action setpieces not boring but thrilling - like the highway sequence. All in all, I think there are many parts where it matches the first movie, and some where it even exceeds it. I admit I'm one of those wondering if people criticizing the movie really got it, because in my opinion there's a LOT of fascinating concepts in it. The entire architect scene was highly interesting, and the cliffhanger had me speculating on how it would all make sense.

Obviously, I had high expectations for Revolutions, but even if I hadn't expected anything, I'd still be disappointed. It starts out so well, with half an hour or so that goes on just like I had hoped, with fascinating concepts that built a complex system of interesting questions. I was looking forward to how it would all be solved and make sense, but then what happened? They must have suddenly fired the script writers, because the movie stopped having any plot whatsoever. How long did that Zion sequence last? 30 minutes? 45 minutes? Without any interesting story or tension whatsoever, and the action stuff so chaotic that there wasn't really much to enjoy about the effects either. Still, I was hoping this would be just the boring middle section, since obviously all the stuff from Reloaded and the first 30 minutes from this movie had yet to be resolved. Instead, the whole Neo/Trinity plotline is reduced to mostly pointless action as well. Trinity is wasted in this movie, even more than Morpheus. The final fight with Smith had some good bits, but was mostly just effects and too chaotic to see any choreography. At the end, there were some more interesting bits, but nothing satisfactory, and certainly nothing that gave sense to all the unanswered questions.

I agree with many of the questions above, but my biggest complaint (aside from at least an hour's worth of absolutely useless action sequences) is the bit that made me come up with my own interesting theories at the end of Revolutions: Why could Neo sense and influence the machines without being connected to the Matrix? How could he get into the Matrix without being connected? It would make sense if the "real world" was just another Matrix, and "the" Matrix a sub-Matrix. But instead, we're just told that Neo has supernatural powers in the real world as well - why? How? What makes him affect and now actually SEE machines without being connected in any way?

They put all their interesting concepts and choreography into Reloaded, only to abandon both for the final movie and replace them by endless shots of sentinels being shot by guns.

If somebody told me that the studio didn't like the Wachowski's original movie and brought someone else in to re-do everything but the first 30 minutes at the last minute, I'd believe that at once.

quote:

---

Why could Neo sense and influence the machines without being connected to the Matrix? How could he get into the Matrix without being connected?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marian Schedenig:
Well, I've just come back from watching Revolutions, and I'm angry.

I agree with many of the questions above, but my biggest complaint (aside from at least an hour's worth of absolutely useless action sequences) is the bit that made me come up with my own interesting theories at the end of Revolutions: Why could Neo sense and influence the machines without being connected to the Matrix? How could he get into the Matrix without being connected? It would make sense if the "real world" was just another Matrix, and "the" Matrix a sub-Matrix. But instead, we're just told that Neo has supernatural powers in the real world as well - why? How? What makes him affect and now actually SEE machines without being connected in any way?

---

I guess I'm not done.

You would think that a publication like the Wall Street Journal wouldn't jump to conclusions and make a rash and ultimatly pointless dig at a movie such as this. And if any one (you all here included) beleives that load of crap they can't see past what is directly in front of their face.

NO MOVIE THIS YEAR (with the possible exception of a few) STAYED AT NUMBER ONE FOR MORE THEN ONE OR TWO WEEKS. Most movies this year had huge openings and then droped tremendously their second and third weeks.

So maybe Revolutions didn't suck. It just followed the same trend thats been taking place all year. A poor economy doesn't allow people the luxery to see the same movie over and over again. And almost every weekend (at least in the Summer) a 'BlockBuster' of a movie opened up.

And I'll leave the post up so I can Copy & Paste it out of there when convenient. I'm sure there will be discusions like this later.

I can't resist Marian Schedenig's Post so I must do this.

QUOTE
but my biggest complaint (aside from at least an hour's worth of absolutely useless action sequences)
END QUOTE

These are action movies. You're going to have acton. And since this movie is the conclusion of a series thats talked about nothing more then ending this war and to save Zion and to stop the Man VS Machine conflict your going to have to accept heaping chunks of of action. Complaining about the action in this is like complaining about the predictable twists and all the mushy lovie-dovie dialogue in 99% of the Romantic Comedies out there. So to quote Agent Smith, "Its inevitable."

QUOTE
But instead, we're just told that Neo has supernatural powers in the real world as well - why? How? What makes him affect and now actually SEE machines without being connected in any way?
END QUOTE

This is explained in the movies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

I can't resist Marian Schedenig's Post so I must do this.

QUOTE
but my biggest complaint (aside from at least an hour's worth of absolutely useless action sequences)
END QUOTE

These are action movies. You're going to have acton. And since this movie is the conclusion of a series thats talked about nothing more then ending this war and to save Zion and to stop the Man VS Machine conflict your going to have to accept heaping chunks of of action. Complaining about the action in this is like complaining about the predictable twists and all the mushy lovie-dovie dialogue in 99% of the Romantic Comedies out there. So to quote Agent Smith, "Its inevitable."

QUOTE
But instead, we're just told that Neo has supernatural powers in the real world as well - why? How? What makes him affect and now actually SEE machines without being connected in any way?
END QUOTE

This is explained in the movies.

[Message edited by Dave on 11-10-2003]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
These are action movies. You're going to have acton. And since this movie is the conclusion of a series thats talked about nothing more then ending this war and to save Zion and to stop the Man VS Machine conflict your going to have to accept heaping chunks of of action.

---

I don't complain about the action. I never complained about the action in the first movie, and neither about most of the action in the second one. What I'm complaining about is 30 minutes or something like that of 1) pointless, 2) boring and 3) unlogic action stuff. The fights in the first (and most in the second) movie had a purpose, a plot, and a choreography. The Zion battle is pure chaos, and even less entertaining than that in Episode 2.

And I do complain if there's too "mushy lovie-dovie dialogue" in romantic comedies. It's for this reason that I do not generally watch movies of that genre unless they seem to be better than the mass. And for the same reason I enjoyed the first two Matrix movies while at the same time I absolutely loathe the Bruckheimer crap.

quote:

---

This is explained in the movies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marian Schedenig:

What I'm complaining about is 30 minutes or something like that of 1) pointless, 2) boring and 3) unlogic action stuff. The fights in the first (and most in the second) movie had a purpose, a plot, and a choreography. The Zion battle is pure chaos, and even less entertaining than that in Episode 2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marian Schedenig:

"The power of the One extends beyond the Matrix" is neither an explanation nor something that makes sense to me, and I haven't heard any more explanation for it in the movie, or read any on the threads I've seen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HadrianD:
[quote]and I haven't heard any more explanation for it in the movie, or read any on the threads I've seen.

---