Matrix Revolutions - just watched it again

[Wrath of the Swarm]

While the movies certainly weren't incredibly profound, there was some rudimentary philosophy in it, and I've noticed that the people most critical of the movies are the ones who seemed to "get" those points the least.

The whole point of that discussion was that it's the end result of the process that matters. It simply isn't relevant whether the program duplicates the neurological and biochemical processes involved with human love; all that matters is how the program acts.

'Sati', the name of the little girl, is most simply translated as 'true' or 'faithful'; it might be more accurately translated as "dutiful self-sacrifice", as it was the name for the action of a widow leaping onto her husband's pyre in old India.

It was just a word. The label is not as important as the thing it refers to. This is a point Neo needed to be reminded of, and you need to learn, Kai Lord.

 

[Greatwyrm]

Okay, I just saw it tonight for the first time. All I can say is, that's two hours of my life I can't get back. I liked the first Matrix. The second was okay. What the heck is this third one?

I was watching it with my wife. She's not as familiar with the story line as I am, but by the time the first digger actually breaks into Zion, she was completely lost. I kept trying to explain it to her, to bring her up to speed. After a while, I realized that the more I tried to explain it, the less sense the whole thing made to me.

STOP READING NOW IF YOU DON'T LIKE SPOILERS



In the very last scene where everything resets, the Architecht and the Oracle have a little exchange. Basically, it breaks down to the two of them looking at everything as if they were classical Greek gods. Their dialogue can pretty much be summed up in, "So, I guess we're going to screw with the mortals tomorrow again, huh? No, not tomorrow, maybe Tuesday."

They could have just cut the last 30 minutes or so out of the whole thing and done the same thing they did on Dallas. Neo walks out of the shower, wipes off the mirror, and says, "it was all a dream." It would have been just as dumb as when they did it on Dallas, but it would have been better than this. Probably would have made more sense, too.

 

[Eosin the Red]

Strangely enough, I really liked the second and third movies. Revolutions required more thought and even some reading before I was satisfied that I understood what what being said but after some digestion, I begin to grok.

The only part of the movies I disliked was the squids moving around in cool patterens instead of attacking in cool patterns.

I am not used to having to read scripts to help me analyse a movie and I assume that others are probably the same, so it comes as no surprsie that many dislike the films.

I feel the same way about Star Wars though so sue me. I still like The Wheel of Time also .... maybe I just have bad taste or more tolerance to wade through carp to get to the diamonds??

 

[Villano]

While the movies certainly weren't incredibly profound, there was some rudimentary philosophy in it, and I've noticed that the people most critical of the movies are the ones who seemed to "get" those points the least.

Actually, I'd say that the people who didn't like them are the ones who did get that the philosophy was only rudimentary and it wasn't as profound as it pretended to be.

 

[drnuncheon]

Actually, I'd say that the people who didn't like them are the ones who did get that the philosophy was only rudimentary and it wasn't as profound as it pretended to be.

My philosophy can beat up your philosophy.

J

 

[takyris]

I feel the same way about Star Wars though so sue me. I still like The Wheel of Time also .... maybe I just have bad taste or more tolerance to wade through carp to get to the diamonds??

While the rest of us flounder around and dance to a different tuna?

The only meaningful judgment of a particular movie is whether you thought it was worth what you paid for it. If you were entertained enough to not feel like you'd wasted your time, it was a good movie for you.

Some people enjoyed the movie after thoughtfully digesting the philosophical themes. Bully for them.

Some people enjoyed the movie because of the fight scenes and totally missed the deeper stuff. Their enjoyment is just as valid as the philosophically minded folks.

Some people hated the movie because they didn't get the philosophy. Bummer for them, but it's a valid opinion.

And some people hated the movie because they worked through all the deep stuff and found out that they were being told about something that they'd already worked through in high school, making it a preaching-to-the-choir experience, only with fight scenes. And for these people, yeah, this was a bad movie, unless they liked the fight scenes a lot.

I suppose my point here is that "Well, anyone who didn't like it didn't understand it" is just as stupid a comment as "Anybody who thought that movie was deep is an idiot."

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Actually, I'd say that the people who didn't like them are the ones who did get that the philosophy was only rudimentary and it wasn't as profound as it pretended to be.

That sounds like a plausible explanation, except when such people proceed to explain what they thought the philosophy actually was, they've usually missed basic points and misinterpreted others.

If they can't see even the most obvious interpretations, they probably didn't get any of them. If that's the case, then their complaints don't mean much.

Basically, the people who make those arguments are much more likely to be the ones who wouldn't know profundity if it hit them in the nose.

 

[Greatwyrm]

That sounds like a plausible explanation, except when such people proceed to explain what they thought the philosophy actually was, they've usually missed basic points and misinterpreted others.

Here's some philosophy. When making a philosophical movie and disguising it as an action flick, make sure your disguise isn't too good.

 

[Villano]

That sounds like a plausible explanation, except when such people proceed to explain what they thought the philosophy actually was, they've usually missed basic points and misinterpreted others.

If they can't see even the most obvious interpretations, they probably didn't get any of them. If that's the case, then their complaints don't mean much.

Basically, the people who make those arguments are much more likely to be the ones who wouldn't know profundity if it hit them in the nose.

Let us all take a step back and remember we're talking about a movie here. Arguing about plot holes and lapses in logic are fine, but arguing over the "correct" way to interpret philosophy is ludicrous. What's next, "your portrayal of the afterlife was completely inaccurate"?

After all, Madonna has also argued that anyone who thinks her movies are bad are idiots and they just don't "get" them. So, are you a person who "wouldn't know profundity if it hit them in the nose" if you didn't like Swept Away?

Look, you enjoyed the film. Good for you. If you need my opinion to validate your's, I'm afraid I can't help you there.

Me? I take no shame in the enjoyment I feel when I watch the "Captain Kirk Meets God" Star Trek movie. I don't think it's a good movie and certainly not profound, but you can't argue to me that it isn't enjoyable. You may not like it, but I do. I'm not saying that you have no right to enjoy the Matrix sequels or that you're an idiot for doing so. This thread was for people's opinions of them. I gave mine.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Who says I enjoyed the films?

I have no problems with people who offer intelligent criticisms of the movies, or just say that they don't like them. Hey, different strokes.

I object to people disliking the movies because they didn't understand the first thing about them and are convinced that they understand everything, and what they understood is garbage. Arrogance and ignorance are fair targets for my wrath. Aesthetic disagreements aren't.