»The Real Problem with the Matrix Revolutions«

one- i was dissapointed at the fact that there wasn't much fighting as in part two

two- nothin really blew my mind eXcept for that huge clutter of Sentinels and the APU's , and of course the final battle between Neo and Smith

threE- the cover box for the DVD is HOORRRIBBLLEEE >:-O

whoever designed that needs to be SMACKED! i think the cover box should've looked like the poster of Neo in the rain with Trinity and Morpheous behind him and all the Smiths behind them three . THAT would've been hot
but NO.... lets cut out pictures and paste them together and make a cover box guys :-\ :: SMACK! ::

Quote:

threE- the cover box for the DVD is HOORRRIBBLLEEE >:-O whoever designed that needs to be SMACKED! i think the cover box should've looked like the poster of Neo in the rain with Trinity and Morpheous behind him and all the Smiths behind them three . THAT would've been hot but NO.... lets cut out pictures and paste them together and make a cover box guys :-\ :: SMACK! ::

Anyone loosely familiar with Photoshop could produce better. I'm glad it's the movie that matters and not the packaging.

I personelly loved revolutions. Why? simple. I didnt have such a thing for Neo winning.hell i felt more bad seeing Trinity die then when Neo died, not sure why, but maybe its just keanu's bad performance, as usual, hes been better in other films, but here hes just a "cog" for the audience as he is a cog in the film i guess, lol. plus i LOVED Trinity, probably more then Neo did, lol, i just love Carrie Ann and her character.of course i wanted to see Neo destroy the machines, but hes right, these films ARE grown up and have a message that we ussually dont see in major high octane action films. it was a risk the bro's were willing to take, and it seemed that to make an ending like THAT, they MUST have been doing it for there own satisfaction, not giving a hoot and holler what the critics thought (though some of the ppl on this thread sound like friggin critics when it comes to bashing this film). I am happy that finally a trilogy like this is more human then, say, an Arnold movie, like stuuupid Commando or whatever (wait, didnt Arnold destroy himself to save the boy in T2? sound familiar? hmmm....). Still, this trilogy is WAY millions times more better then the damn, now newly called "terminator" trilogy, which i loath the fact that it ever BECAME a trilogy, it doesnt deserve it to be! you ppl REALLY want a scifi film to bash? Bash T3, in all its assinine glory! a movie truly worth the bashing of the entire PLANET! Matrix revolutions was SO much better then anything terminaor or any other stupid star trek, starwars wannabes could ever make or create, by themselves at least! Matrix 3 ruled, (besdes Trinity dieing, of course) and im standing by that opinion!

Freedom wrote:

The thing I agree with most is the point about how my hero gets his butt beat in almost every fight and who wants to say "It was a great game, we lost 72 to nothing....yea!" How can loosing 72 to nothing be a great game/movie? I guess some of you like the bully on the block to win!

At the end of Matrix 3, the machines stop their war against the Zionites and for a while the humans will live in peace, but the machines will certainly be back to start another war like in 50 or 100 years, so who knows when. I think Neo was supposed to be a Christ like figure who died in order to save everyone else; and later when the humans are once again threatened by the machines another Neo will return. You certainly would not like to have been a film goer during the 1960s and early seventies when it was cool for the hero to fall or lose like Captain America and Billy in Easy Rider or Popeye Doyals failure to catch frog #1 in the French Connection. Anyone who is disapointed by the ending of Revolutions obviously has grown up on a strict diet of happy endings where our hero's not only defeat the villians but keep their female loved ones or win the girls. Losing love and being defeated by those who are corrupt is more realistic and some feel that movies have to make us relate to them in such ways. Although Rocky has a patriotic, feel good message that appeals to Americans, he did not win his first match against Apolo Creed. Or did he? Rocky won the ability to change through hard work and determination and the first picture didn't have an obvious Hollywood, sports victory win for the hero. Now if Neo kung fued his way to victory against the machines, the morivingian, and the Architect without any problems including struggling, feeling pain and fear you would have probably been chearing while saying "oh, how bitchen yeah go Neo kick his butt, AWSOME!," and maybe Matrix Revolutions would have been your favorite. But Matrix Reloaded is the weakest because you know that Super Neo is going to get out of any problem no matter how many Smiths he fights. Reloaded fight scenes are predictable and boring because you know Neo will win, plus the choreography is too obvious and the fight scenes in Reloaded are too clean, perfect, and slow to be of any interest and I definitely was not on the edge of my seat. In most of the first film and Revolutions, Neo is more human, vulnerable, and you really don't know if things will turn out ok and it is possible that our hero may not win which makes parts 1 and 3 exciting, unpredictable, interesting, and Revolutions ends with no cliches. Neo did not destroy the villians, but he won hope for the Zionites, their love and respect, and even their lives. Like Rocky 1, it is not a typical Hollywood ending where the hero knocks down the villian for good. I think those who favor Reloaded over Revolutions wanted Neo to continue being a Superman as an excuse to have more kung fu action and probably like the Matrix films only because of their action scenes.

I love the trilogy. NUFf SAID.

But, why does Revolutions feel weaker than the others? Could it be that most of it does take place in the real world? In, the first two, we had a healthy dose of wild, reality bending images that blew out minds (trinity jumping over shit on foot or bike, Neo's mouth closing on itself, dodging bullets or not having too, flying at Mach godknowswhatmakingsupermanlooklikeapussy). But that is the point. These rebels could do just about anything and get away with it. They could ressurect each other, kick ass Hong Kong style, ride, drive, or fly anything on a whim. And yet, we knew that even though they could die, there was no real threat.

But in the real world....

Though it is not as interesting, the stakes are higher. This time when you die, you die for good; no ressurection. You only know how to brawl, and can't kung fu someone's ass. Everyone actually is afraid, and feels pain. When a toilet full of squidies are flushed down a pipehole on top of your head, you are going to get annhilated. When you live in caves and have only a few mobile ships, you are not going to have any remarkable strategy to beat back a quarter of million killing machines. There has to be sacrifice to accomplish a goal. This is reality. And though they broke all the rules in the Matrix, the Bros. W have to keep the really real world real, this means all the above things will happen, or it is just another matrix in a matrix (which it is clearly not. If it was, Neo would have kicked all the machines ass outside Zero 1, he would have ressurected trinity, he would have kicked a hole in Duex's tin head, he would have waited until Smith took over all the machines, thus destroying the enemy, and then gone and kicked Smith's ass as well; he the ONE after all isn't he?).

Now, back to reality. The reason why people hate revolutions, is not because the Bros. are pasifists or think people are overtly evil or that the Bros. should have pandered to moviegoers brainwashed by Disney and they didn't, it is because most viewers cannot handle reality. They spent two movies plugged into the Matrix, and when the red pill is offered and they see Revolutions, they totally rebel agaist this reality, like Cypher. These viewers are the same people who would refuse to be unplugged when offered the choice and choose to be the machines bitches by believing in a fairy tail, the very antithesis of their beloved first movie.

Now, many will say that the Bros. were crazy, or sold out, or ate their fans, but just remember what Lock said to Morpheus (Lock being a stereotype of the philosopher Locke who killed God and all divinity with his own philosophy, and bathed in the glory of what men is, was, and will be, or the haters on this site, while Morpheus is the god of dreams, or the Bros. W. and those who support thier vision, the actual divine fighting to stay alive in such a world that would deny divinity by usurping the right to play gods over others, ).

Lock: "Goddamnit, Morpheus! Not everyone believes what you believe!"
Morpheus: "My beliefs do not require them to."



Now that's closure from the creators themselves.

Qbosch wrote:

Lock being a stereotype of the philosopher Locke who killed God and all divinity with his own philosophy, and bathed in the glory of what men is, was, and will be, or the haters on this site

Okay look! That is just unfair to Locke entirely. Locke's philosophy about the nature of reality annoys the hell out of me (because I agree with Berkeley's criticisms). But Locke was not an atheist. Locke criticised the concept of 'innate ideas'. Religious people would use the view of an innate idea of God to claim that anyone who claims not to have heard of God has no excuse. Locke wrote many essays encouraging religious tolerance.

Qbosch wrote:

Lock: "Goddamnit, Morpheus! Not everyone believes what you believe!" Morpheus: "My beliefs do not require them to."

That said, I do like the way your quote fits in. Lock is worried about people being endangered by beliefs they do not share or understand. Morpheus, however is an unshifting image of faith. This is interesting when we see how Morpheus questions himself in M3 and how Locke proves to be more effective than expected when he is outnumbered in the sentinel battle.

It's quite interesting to compare that quote with the scene in M3 where Morpheus is nowhere near so confident:

Lock: I wouldn't ask me that question. I would ask him. *points out Morpheus*
Council: Why?
Lock: Because he's the one who believes in miracles

I agree with that. It's not that I dispise poor Locke, it's just that his beliefs do not coincide with most of mine. Which is fine as I quoted Morpheus saying.

The reason why I am so hard on Locke is that after him, there was a big shift in how religion was viewed: prophesy was dead, God had shifted from a caring father to a shapless entity that lives inside all mankind etc. William Blake wrote a great poem after the Locke's ideas of religon called Nobodady.
Find it and read it sometime, if you haven't already.

Anyway, back to Lock and Morpheus. I like the fact that no matter what one believes, it will not alter the will of the universe. To exert my beliefs forcefully onto another only creates conflict, while the universe moves on. I believe in God, another believes in Allah, what does this matter? It doesn't, because my beliefs do not require anyone else to believe. Morepheus is the passive believer, he gives people choices to believe or not. Lock doesn't see people having choices, if he had it his way, he would force EVERYONE into the hangar to fight the sentinals, and not just those who choose or volunteered to fight.

See the parallel with these two and other two opposites of like mind? Oracle and the Arch. If programs had human forms Oracle's would be Morpheus and the Architech's would be Lock's.

Um.... if you are of the opinion that as long as everyone believes in God it doesn't matter then that's fine. However, my new favourite philosopher, Nietzsche, was of the opinion that the concept of a God was the most harmful idea in existence. Some might feel it is when people take the idea of their God too personally and take it to extremes that it becomes a problem, but how can one not take religious ideas to extremes?

I have recently become very interested in Don Cupitt's Sea Of Faith movement, which tries to see God as a motivational force rather than a literal person.

I know we are off topic now, but I have a religous opinion which I try not to overtly state. I am of the mind that religion and philosophy are two separate entities, also Blake's point. It is bad when religious leaders try to push religion into a philisophical mold and vice versa. It is troubling when a philosopher tries to turn religion into a philosophy. Philosophy asks what is right or wrong, while religion tells us the difference between right and wrong. Relgion establishes morals (whether these in themselves are right or wrong is another matter entirely), while philosophy questions those morals.

It is not that I favor one over the other; it is just that they cannot be mixed. To do so is to do a disfavor to both disciplines.

Religion already IS a philosophy. The question is whether it is taken and analysed (to check if it is consistent and see where details need clarifying) by theologians or whether it is left to have free reign without anything holding it back.

I see Nietzsche as more of a theologian than a philosopher. He was explaining the psychological problems caused by religious doctrine. Nietzsche wanted to show how religion could have very negative effects on everyday life.

I am not an atheist welcoming any opportunity to diss religion. I like Nietzsche because as a Christian I found there were certain aspects to his writing which were undeniable. His writing moved me and that is the sign of a good writer.

Religion IS a philosophy, but it needs to be discussed in its own terms. In contrast to Nietzsche's "The Antichrist", I also found "The Orthodox Way" by Father Kallistos Ware very moving.

Well put. Nuff said.

Where classics.

Just My 2 cent's

I didnt rush out to the theatre to see this movie. As a matter of fact, it was a good couple of months before I saw this is the theatre. Everytime friends would start saying how cool this movie was I would tell them not to ruin it for me and they would stop. A dear friend, who opinion I respect, told me that when I finally do go see Revolutions not to look at it as a movie in and of itself. But to look at it as the story coming full circle. The movies were all advertized pretty much the same way. "With every beginning is an end ya-da ya-da." I see the flimsiness of the third movie not as a fault with the series or any singular movie but in the advertising. Most people didn't put together the fact that the first movie was the beginning of this cycle. The second movie was the meat of the story and the third was a conclusion to this particular cycle. Other One's handled the situation differently.

Life feeds on life!

That's a very good point, camshaft. Yet another problem of Hollywood promoting a very non-Hollywood movie to Hollywood junkies. The trailers pandered to the audience; something the movies never do. This is why, the Bros. W are directors and whoever puts movie trailers together, just puts movie trailers together.

ya know why?

At the half point of the movie, both me and my friend had to take a piss. In the bathroom we made a bet on whether Trinity Died.

I got $5 to watch that half rate movie

w00t!

In the amount of time it took you to take a piss, you missed a lot. Thus you came back thinking, "I don't get it. What a piece of shit." And the fact that you focus only on whether Trinity died or not shows you missed a whole lot more than a piss' worth of movie. You gained five bucks for guessing, but you took away absolutly nothing stimulating but the love for the almighty dollar; and that is something philosophy is not.

dude, I saw it several times on DVD to

I still hated it


with the Matrix/matrix reloaded (before any of the questions were badly solved by revolutions) there were tons and tons of puestions/statements I had about them. I could see the work of many, many different philosiphers.

with rev, NOTHING

OK, I respect your view. Now, what questions/statements were badly solved by Revolutions? I would like to know the bad points. What questions were not solved? In what way was there no philosophy in Revolutions. Did you not watch the movie? HOw long were you taking a piss? (not to be nasty or anything, but I find it hard to accept that such a deep movie as Revolutions, though it is not as deep as the other two because it is tieing up all loose ends, could be viewed as mindless eyecandy).

Just an example, in my opinion, is that Reloaded set up the whole philosophy that we are not in control; we have no choice; it is just an illusion. When we think we are making our own decions we are not, it has already been determined for us. I, as a firm believer in free choice, felt that the Bros. W. were overly stating their belief in determinism. Yet, lo and behold, in Revolutions, they take the other side by showing the power of free choice and the consequences of such.

I could go on, but I would like to know your own reaction, proof as to where the hollowness of Revolutions comes from, and what significant setup was not paid off.

the reason there is no philosiphy is that the Wakasowi's overdid it with the eye candy, for without it the movie would have been a great philosiphers movie. The most philosophical thing I noticed was when Neo and Trin saw the sun (like in the Cave allegory) and then fell down to earth. NOw there were tons of other things that were deep, but you just don't care about it don't you? NOt with the great Digital Effects around, you don't.

hmm...thirty minutes till dinner...*does pass out move on self

Kant wrote:

the reason there is no philosiphy is that the Wakasowi's overdid it with the eye candy, for without it the movie would have been a great philosiphers movie.

Hm,.... the eye candy prevents the philosophy from being?...

Kant wrote:

The most philosophical thing I noticed was when Neo and Trin saw the sun (like in the Cave allegory) and then fell down to earth.

Great moment! But by far not the only one...

Kant wrote:

NOw there were tons of other things that were deep

Bingo!

Kant wrote:

but you just don't care about it don't you? NOt with the great Digital Effects around, you don't.

Sorry,.... I do! The Matrix is a modern myth, presented in the language of our time. And - apart from an imo a bit too long siege - I dig their way of presenting it.

Qbosch wrote:

Now, what questions/statements were badly solved by Revolutions? I would like to know the bad points. What questions were not solved?

I'd like to know this, too.

Qbosch wrote:

Just an example, in my opinion, is that Reloaded set up the whole philosophy that we are not in control; we have no choice; it is just an illusion. When we think we are making our own decions we are not, it has already been determined for us. I, as a firm believer in free choice, felt that the Bros. W. were overly stating their belief in determinism. Yet, lo and behold, in Revolutions, they take the other side by showing the power of free choice and the consequences of such.

And what free choice is and how it is achieved!
I couldn't agree more!

Kant wrote:

with the Matrix/matrix reloaded (before any of the questions were badly solved by revolutions) there were tons and tons of puestions/statements I had about them. I could see the work of many, many different philosiphers. with rev, NOTHING

Philosophy is more than just Descarted, Kant, Hegel.... Try Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Aurobindo, Wilber... and many aspects of Revolutions will shine in a new light.

My dad is a zen buddhist, and he has a library of religous books, most of them non-christian

I was raised on stories of Nasruden and ganesh
I didn't find these messages in Revolutions, not so with the original and reloaded

its because there were so many distractions IN the movie that I couldn't pick up on em.

Like what?

Like the Dragon Ball Z fight.
Like the battle through hell
like those FREAKIN "Neo, I believe: quotes Taken from the other movies

also I am pissed that The Matrix Revolutions was a 2 hours add for The Matrix Online

n00b-yay! I get to find out what happens
guy from this site-you sad, sad little man

Yawn....

Kant, so far you have yet to proove anything. You have contridicted yourself by now saying that there is deep meaning, yet the fx get in the way. In fact, the previous two movies had a lot more spectacular special effects and harder philosophy, yet you seemed to get it.

How is the dragon Ball Z (burley brawl) fight overdoing it or more distracting than Neo fighting 50 Smiths, or even flying at supersonic to rescue Trinity falling from a window, or snatching his buddies from the top of a crushed and exploding rig?

The battle through hell distracts you more than the sword brawl with Merv's henchmen? Dude, are you talking out of your ass?

What is it? There is either no philosophy in the movie, as you have stated, or there is a lot of philosophy and you get distracted by the fx to the point where you can't think. How old are you? This isn't kindergarten anymore.

Perhaps, all the movies would have been better if it was just an intellectual movie talking about everything without the fx. This series is a salute to Japanimation, which contains deep philosophy and lots of action. Revolutions appears over the top because it is a culmination of (the very climax of) what has happened before. People bitch because we see a similar fight to the lobby scene in the first movie when Morh, Trin, and Ser enter club Hel, and yet bitch again because there is a real world battle with real world stakes paying off a set up established in the very first movie and echoed in the second. We have never seen a mech fight in any of the previous movies and yet, here is one, and ya'll bitch about it. There is a super burly brawl that has to be more intense than any of the other fights, and it is, so ya'll bitch that it is too "dragonball Z," which is japanimation (at its most known in America, yet this style is prevalant throughout most japanese cartoons) at its heart, the very thing they have said they are trying to imitate from the very first movie.

The reason why you all don't like it is that no body panders to your Disney style tastes. You want your cake and icing separate. You have been brainwashed by silly Disney tales of good is good and evil is evil, and there is nothing in between. You watch, "yawn", arthouse movies that talk philosophy the whole time, yet don't show it, that when a movie comes out and mixes philosphy that must be discussed (unlike the spoonfed phiosophy of any other movie) with never before seen special effects, everybody whines. You want special effects with no story or formulaic (Terminator) and your story without special effects (Travolta's Phenomenon) yet when both are mixed (Matrix dualogy, baby) its too much for your two bit, immature, flagulating mind to even wrap around, that it is easier to claim ignorance than it is to actually find out the answers. Because that is the whole purpose of the Matrix, to make you think for yourself, and not be told what to think or do.

Now, if you can read all those big books in your daddy's library, do you think you can sit down in a two hour movie and actually think after all the explosions have occured. Enjoy the fx, then when it all goes away think about what you saw. Maybe sit in your daddy's library and just think away from distractions. Talk to him, don't just listen.

I now agree with Akshat. Yawn.

If you post again, give better evidence to your arguments than showing how smart your daddy is.