"the film has the same problems as "The Empire Strikes Back,"

I'm there!
Read the full review here

A first sequel, meant to bridge films one and three, is always going to be a middle not even in search of a beginning and end; as such, the reviewer -- who's probably more comfortable with the sort of self-contained films found in a series, like the Bond movies -- seems unable to grasp the overarching vision of any multi-part saga.

The second MATRIX is simply not for the uninitiated; neither was THE TWO TOWERS. This doesn't mean that each film doesn't have failings (even fatal failings, perhaps), but an astute reviewer would focus on these and not the fact that the movie continues a story that will not resolve itself (presumably) until the third film is released in November.

Just curious, does anyone here have any philosophic/scientific/religious background? Having just seen it once, I am still reeling from the enormous amount of ideas that the Warchowskis threw around. I just don't see how people dismiss the movie for the "lack" of a story, "bad" maybe, but "no" story? Anyway, I remember freshman year in college when I took two philosophy classes in a row (ethics and skepticism, mostly dealing with Kant, Descartes, and Hume), and I remember those classes being the most interesting ones, or at least the only ones that I remember taking. So any philosophy/religion majors here willing to discredit/accredit what the Warchowskis have done?

Generalistically speaking, I think that Reloaded took the basic core of those ideas and turned them upside down, fusing them with science and technology, and putting an eye-popping kung-fu/action spin on top of all that, giving the Matrix so much flair and style that I can't possibly think of any other recent film as thought-provoking as this one (Fight Club being a close contender).

Personally, I never thought too much of the original Matrix, because there wasn't all that much to dissect, and I think there's really a huge gap between the two in terms of intellectual content, with Reloaded being the more saturated of the two. Althought it was perhaps a bit too didactic--with ideas being thrown at Neo as opposed to having Neo go through the same kind of self-discoveries/revelations that he went through in the first movie.

Now, I can't say that I understood everything, so it's my time to play Neo and ask a bunch of WHATs and WHYs (more like WHOs):

SPOILERS

-Who exactly is the guy on the table at the very end? I think I know, but I not quite sure....
-Who is the guy that wanted to stab Neo when he was given the spoon?
-Who the hell is Bane?
-Is Neo really Superman?
-Is Trinity really Lois Lane?

Thanks to anyone willing to answer my elementary questions....

I noticed two things:

When that girl forced Neal to kiss her I think she gave him a virus.

And when Neo was attacked by a hundred Agent Smiths, I got the sneaking suspicion that Smith was up to something from the way he acted. He might have been trying to learn Neo's fighting pattern?(?)

God! What a terrible movie! The first was great, but this one blew SO BADLY! The fight scenes were even tidious and not nearly as well as they were in the first movie.

I'm not done ranting about how this movie blows big time.

So, I waited after the movies end, cause someone said that after the end credits there is a preview of "Revolutions"

So, again, I waited. After almost 10 minutes of end credits with the most GODAWFUL music I have ever heard, the trailer kicked in. WHAT A BIG ****ING LET DOWN! That trailer sucked ass! I waited 10mins to see that?

Pissy ranting Number 2: Don Davis's frakenstein score. The score it's self had some good moments, but having it mixed with horrible techno beats and other instrumental songs was almost to much to bare.

So they: Mixed a score with songs, did a lot of tideous pointless fighting, had a lot of special effects, sex and blew **** up. That's about it. This movie couldn't stand up to the first one even if it used a chair.

I want my 5 dollars back! Now, combined with what someone said above that The Matrix survives the last film and they use that as a selling thing for GAMES(???!!!), I have no intension of seeing the third installment. What a waste.

And in reply to as whether Neo stopped the "squddies" near the ned of the film:

I can talk for hours on end about the the parts such themes play within the Wachowski's worlds. I can talk about the film Solaris (both Tarkovsky & Sodebergh's versions) to an equal extent because it is just as heavy on such philosophical themes and like Reloaded, is an astonishingly rewarding film if you actually understand what is being discussed on screen.

The fact is the entire story construct of the Matrix films is smarter than the average person who is going to see it purely because so many go just get high on the levels of stylish violence. Head to Aint it Cool News or a variety of internet movie forums to read a variety of reviews making heavy use of the word "suck" and see my point proved.

I can understand people finding the film boring, but no one really has any right to deem it plotless. Those who claim such things really should be smart enough to realise that given the film is roughly 60% dialogue based, the characters are in fact talking about something important and relative to the entire point of what the three films (and the expanded universe of the Animatrix....etc) are actually getting at.

I'd like to think that some who saw The Matrix Reloaded and were left relatively clueless by it will at least have had the good nature to do some research into some of the films themes, names and their meanings.

It's great if a film speaks intelligently to the viewer upon first viewing. It's also great if it can inspire a viewer who doesn't quite understand it at first to go out, explore, read, and try to understand it for themselves. I can imagine for those in the second position to make such discoveries for themselves would yield the process and films then to be incredibly rewarding.

quote:

---

Generalistically speaking, I think that Reloaded took the basic core of those ideas and turned them upside down, fusing them with science and technology, and putting an eye-popping kung-fu/action spin on top of all that, giving the Matrix so much flair and style that I can't possibly think of any other recent film as thought-provoking as this one

---

Yes I'd agree. Ever since seeing the first film, the action impressed me, it just didn't overly interest me and Reloaded didn't change that. I still maintain the best scene in the first film is Neo's visit and talk with the Oracle in her kitchen, people look at me funny when I lay down that claim instead of going on, and on about that blasted lobby shootout sequence.

The first film has a lot to say if you listen, and the second one more so. It’s just tragic so few are really listening...

On to your questions;
[spoilers follow for those who have not seen the film, obviously]

quote:

---

Who exactly is the guy on the table at the very end? I think I know, but I not quite sure....

---

Bane.

quote:

---

Who is the guy that wanted to stab Neo when he was given the spoon?

---

Again, Bane.

quote:

---

Who the hell is Bane?

---

Agent Smith the in real world. It is imperative the viewer does not let their guard down whilst watching this film… "Smith will suffice"...... remember?

I think what is driving a lot of people mad is actually how reliant Reloaded is on Revolutions, and vice versa.

I've been drawn to looking at both sequels in this way, that they are just one four and a half hour sequel. If reloaded is act 1 and the beginning of act 2 of this four and a half hour film, then Revolutions is surely the completion of act 2 and the telling of 3.

Much of of Reloaded is to inevitably be explained in Revolutions. If people fail to get the point come November, then well, perhaps they never will.

Dan (UK)

PS: I enjoyed the Revolutions preview making good use of a cue from Newton Howard's Snow Falling on Cedars score. I've always felt that would make good trailer music..... and it truly does.