»Matrix Revolutions is a fake«

If you had told me the actions and the script I would have told you that this is most probably a fake. What's the point after 3 movies? Where's the twist? Where are the explanations?

yes, I also believe it...

It was great to pick appart the movies, well the other 2. But as you may realize we were missing the point. The FIRST thing we wanted to talk about was the most important in Reloaded

The Architect Scene

The Pre talk with Smith before the burly brawl

The Merovingian conversation


We totally picked appart these discussions. After we beat it to a frazzle we went on to other things

Significance of red

Reflections in the mirrors

Graffiti on the wall



These are just a few. Yes they are cool to look at and they DO signify something but they DO NOT deal with NEO's PURPOSE

THe WHOLE movie is what Smith said. You are in the Matrix for a REASON a PURPOSE. This was NEO's purpose. He fulfilled his purpose, he then trancended beyond the Matrix.

The movie was extraordinary. It could not have ended any other way. Im not dissing ANYONE who didnt like it. All im saying is that I appreciated it. It explains everything i need to know

If you dont understand, Play ENTER THE MATRIX it explains ALOT. Read THE GOSPEL RELOADED, Excelent on explaining the religious aspect of ALL THREE movies. Give the movie a chance, the answers are all there.

the whole thing was forced. The movie was too predictable. This movie was made for those who watch Matrix for the action...

We'll probably be able to get lots of explanations by playing Matrix Online. What else would you be able to do in that game if you got the whole thing layed out in the third movie?

i don't see how the movie was made for people who like the action,seems the whole trilogy was written by the borthers way back in 1997 or whenever it was and was always intended to be a 3 part trilogy.

I tell you that Matrix Revolutions is just action and predictable, because I think this movie was a joke of the Wachowskis....

knnknn wrote:

If you had told me the actions and the script I would have told you that this is most probably a fake. What's the point after 3 movies? Where's the twist? Where are the explanations?

The point, my friend, is what the point has always been. Create a sensation, stir up media hype and people like us that are looking for a glimmer of something to believe in in a world where God is dead and to make money. Lots and Lots of money.

There's no way the Wachowski brothers had the story for 2 and 3 in mind when they wrote the first one. The first film was great as a standalone story. They have been forced to try and write two more films to follow the story on, and they have done quite a good job, but not as good as it could have been. I was disappointed by the end of the final film. There are two many things in the second two films just because the brothers thought it would be cool. Like the the trainman routine. That's completely irrelevant. And Smith as Bain proves totally pointless - Neo just kills him. So many things like that. Anyway, would someone read my explanation of the whole story and tell me what they think?

Phil2415 wrote:

Like the the trainman routine. That's completely irrelevant.

The trainman leads to Merovingian. He says "Wanna have some eyes", Trin says "No". Pointless.

The same applies to the Architect scene in Reloaded. It is pointless to Revolutions. I can't believe that. If you cut out Neo+Archie you could still watch Revolutions. The former Neos/cycles had no effect on the story of Revolutions whatsoever. Lamest.

If smith didnt become Bane neo wouldnt of got blinded. I dont see how the architec scene was poitnless either it was there to warn neo if he chose the opposite door smith aka the system crash would destroy the matrix and everything in it. He didn't know that neo could stop smith.

knnknn wrote:

Phil2415 wrote: Like the the trainman routine. That's completely irrelevant. The trainman leads to Merovingian. He says "Wanna have some eyes", Trin says "No". Pointless. The former Neos/cycles had no effect on the story of Revolutions whatsoever. Lamest.

Ehh, i dont think so. The Trainstation is a place between the matrix and the realworld leading to both, i think this is a very important point in understanding that machine conciousness can live in a human body (bane).. i think this also supports the fact that Neo is in fact a program imprinted in a human body, or atleast carries some CODE within himself.

pikkumies wrote:

knnknn wrote: Phil2415 wrote: Like the the trainman routine. That's completely irrelevant. The trainman leads to Merovingian. He says "Wanna have some eyes", Trin says "No". Pointless. The former Neos/cycles had no effect on the story of Revolutions whatsoever. Lamest. Ehh, i dont think so. The Trainstation is a place between the matrix and the realworld leading to both, i think this is a very important point in understanding that machine conciousness can live in a human body (bane).. i think this also supports the fact that Neo is in fact a program imprinted in a human body, or atleast carries some CODE within himself.

The Matrix system is an allegory, like Dante's depiction of Hell, it pairs up the sign and the signified in surprising ways (unless of course you work with programs or read Gibson). So the Train Station is just another expression of some aspect of programming architecture, by itself maybe not very interesting. Certainly the Trainman was redundant. The train might have simply shut its door in Neo's face by itself, but to be consistent to the idea that all aspects of the Matrix is run by some entity, they put a bum there. And I think Ramakandra (sp?)'s explanation for why AIs would seem to emote like humans reenforced a central idea in the triology, that the signified and the sign are arbitrary. A human word for "love" is just an expression of some abstraction all sentience can understand in some way. The body is not a permanent shell for any given mind. The Matrix is also a shell for, an expression of, "reality". Okay, so I don't know much about philosophy but that's my take from the scene.

And a scene need not contribute to "action" or even the plot to be useful. Yeah, it would be great if it does, but it doesn't have to.

Dwayne wrote:

If smith didnt become Bane neo wouldnt of got blinded.

So what was the point of Neo loosing his sight after all? None, apart from some cool visuals.

to see Bane for who he really was. To understand that SMith can leave the matrix and is a threat to both the humans and the machines.

He describes 01 as "light everywhere". It is all he needs to see. He only sees machine code when blinded. He sees the machines for who they are so he can relate to them and explain the the Deus Ex Machina his PURPOSE

[quote] There's no way the Wachowski brothers had the story for 2 and 3 in mind when they wrote the first one. The first film was great as a standalone story. They have been forced to try and write two more films to follow the story on, and they have done quite a good job, but not as good as it could have been. I was disappointed by the end of the final film. There are two many things in the second two films just because the brothers thought it would be cool. Like the the trainman routine. That's completely irrelevant. And Smith as Bain proves totally pointless - Neo just kills him. So many things like that. Anyway, would someone read my explanation of the whole story and tell me what they think?

Quote:

I'm not entirely sure about this, but in the first Matrix when Neo get in the car with Trinity and the crew they stop and look down a road. Doesn't she say something about how Neo had seen that road before, and how it was the end? Isn't that the road that the 'showdown'between Neo and Smith takes place down at the end of Revolutions? I am pretty sure it was something like that, but I havnt' got it to watch! Someone with knowledge please reply...

Jax wrote:

Doesn't she say something about how Neo had seen that road before, and how it was the end? Isn't that the road that the 'showdown'between Neo and Smith takes place down at the end of Revolutions?
I am pretty sure it was something like that, but I havnt' got it to watch!
Someone with knowledge please reply...[/quote]

I've been saying this a long time !

Loki the exact point of Neo losing his sight was probably to further show that Neo had great powers even out of the matrix. Being able to see while his eyes were destroyed.

There's no way the Wachowski brothers had the story for 2 and 3 in mind when they wrote the first one. The first film was great as a standalone story. They have been forced to try and write two more films to follow the story on, and they have done quite a good job, but not as good as it could have been. I was disappointed by the end of the final film. There are two many things in the second two films just because the brothers thought it would be cool. Like the the trainman routine. That's completely irrelevant. And Smith as Bain proves totally pointless - Neo just kills him. So many things like that. Anyway, would someone read my explanation of the whole story and tell me what they think?


I'm not entirely sure about this, but in the first Matrix when Neo get in the car with Trinity and the crew they stop and look down a road. Doesn't she say something about how Neo had seen that road before, and how it was the end? Isn't that the road that the 'showdown'between Neo and Smith takes place down at the end of Revolutions?
I am pretty sure it was something like that, but I havnt' got it to watch!
Someone with knowledge please reply...

Phil2415 wrote:

There's no way the Wachowski brothers had the story for 2 and 3 in mind when they wrote the first one. The first film was great as a standalone story. They have been forced to try and write two more films to follow the story on, and they have done quite a good job, but not as good as it could have been. I was disappointed by the end of the final film. There are two many things in the second two films just because the brothers thought it would be cool. Like the the trainman routine. That's completely irrelevant. And Smith as Bain proves totally pointless - Neo just kills him. So many things like that. Anyway, would someone read my explanation of the whole story and tell me what they think? homepage.ntlworld.com...

Absolutely! I have been looking for reason, looking for answers, looking for explanations and here I hit the one explanation that strikes a chord! M1 was an experiment that succeeded beyond the experimenters expectations and so, M2 and M3 were born. They were both "bastard sons," they would never live up to their father. Excuse me for being cynical but, we've been had. There is no deep philosophical core to these movies, they are not the strokes of a genius, alas, they have become merely "sequels." We can read into them what we will but it won't change the fact we have three disjointed movies that don't have much of a story to tell.

The story of a human breaking free of aprison he is trapped in his whole life and eventually freeing his whole race from being used as slaves isnt a good story?

akc wrote:

pikkumies wrote: knnknn wrote: Phil2415 wrote: Like the the trainman routine. That's completely irrelevant. The trainman leads to Merovingian. He says "Wanna have some eyes", Trin says "No". Pointless. The former Neos/cycles had no effect on the story of Revolutions whatsoever. Lamest. Ehh, i dont think so. The Trainstation is a place between the matrix and the realworld leading to both, i think this is a very important point in understanding that machine conciousness can live in a human body (bane).. i think this also supports the fact that Neo is in fact a program imprinted in a human body, or atleast carries some CODE within himself. The Matrix system is an allegory, like Dante's depiction of Hell, it pairs up the sign and the signified in surprising ways (unless of course you work with programs or read Gibson). So the Train Station is just another expression of some aspect of programming architecture, by itself maybe not very interesting. Certainly the Trainman was redundant. The train might have simply shut its door in Neo's face by itself, but to be consistent to the idea that all aspects of the Matrix is run by some entity, they put a bum there. And I think Ramakandra (sp?)'s explanation for why AIs would seem to emote like humans reenforced a central idea in the triology, that the signified and the sign are arbitrary. A human word for "love" is just an expression of some abstraction all sentience can understand in some way. The body is not a permanent shell for any given mind. The Matrix is also a shell for, an expression of, "reality". Okay, so I don't know much about philosophy but that's my take from the scene. And a scene need not contribute to "action" or even the plot to be useful. Yeah, it would be great if it does, but it doesn't have to.

cool

...BURP...

Seriously...
Matrix 1: The movie was about some geek learning he is the coolest person in the world.
Matrix 2: The movie was about the coolest person in the world learning how to be even cooler.
Matrix 3: The movie was about the coolest person in the world learning that it's not fun being the coolest person in the world when you can't see...so instead let's just kick some Smith Ass and save the world.

or Seriously...
Matrix 1: The movie is about waking up and realizing you have wasted the first 20 something years of your life.
Matrix 2: The movie is about making up for the last 20 something years of your life.
Matrix 3: The movie is about forgetting about yourself and saving everyone from what you had to go through for the first 20 something years of your life.

or Seriously...
Matrix 1: The movie is about Neo
Matrix 2: The movie is about Every Other Character But Neo
Matrix 3: The movie is about Smith

or Seriously...
Matrix 1: The movie is about waking up...
Matrix 2: The movie is about going to work...
Matrix 3: The movie is about coming home from work in rush hour traffic and getting into a huge car wreck...only to hobble out of your car...save a little girl from a burning car...then as you put her out of harms way...DIE a horribly painful death by an oncoming car not paying attention.

or as Lawrence Fishburne aptly put it...
Matrix 1 is about birth, Matrix 2 is about life, and Matrix 3 is about death.

that was exactly what i thought when i watched the movie on opening night. actually, i've seen the spoiler online a few months ago (as i'm sure many of you have) but when i saw it, i thought it was bogus and i thought, "there's no way it could end like this." so throughout the movie i was thinking, "oh no, it can't be..." and after the movie i thought that it must be a joke. the real matrix revolutions will come out later, or they'll put the real version on the DVD or something. i just had so much faith that the wachowski bros won't disappoint me. guess i was wrong. i was so confused (not about the movie, but about how i should react). when people ask me how was the movie, i don't even know what to tell them. on the one hand, i love the matrix series so much i feel a sense of loyalty to it, but on the other hand, i couldn't tell people that i thought the movie was good without feeling like i'm lying to myself. it's terrible. somebody go back in time and remake matrix revolutions, please!

I feel really bad for you that completely missed the plot

go to "Why Matrix Answers All Questions"

You will like the movie better after you know the plot!