Kingsley Jegan says:
It's not yet released in India and won't be for a while, but I have braced myself for a lot of dissappointment. Most of the appeal of the first movie wasn't in the fx, and I am rightfully apprehensive that the rest of the movie is bound to go downhill when so much effort is spent on the fx.

Matt says:
You know, I thought very much the same thing as you, and posted as much in my review. Be warned, heavy on the spoilers.

Mathew says:
My review over there. I thought this movie was much better than the original.

Teller says:
It'll open here tomorrow. But after seeing the last and longest trailer some thoughts came. In the first movie human actors always played themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong but main characters were always plauing all the scenes themselves (maybe stunt, but never computers). Wires and greenscreen of course.

Now computers have been used to create some action scenes because their impossible to create with real actors. Somehow it just doesn't cut it. Perhaps sticking to simpler tricks and shots and stuff that looks a bit duller but in the end pays off because people feel that this could be really happening as it look well... real.

Of course, this comes from a man who hasnt' seen the movie. Yet :)

Sunil says:
I was somewhat disappointed. But I paid 9 dollars for two hours of escapism, and that's what I got.

jazer says:
I haven't seen it, however I am not surprised at all the negative criticism, given that Matrix: Reloaded has been highly anticipated by one of the world's most critical audiences.

Ross K says:
I think I missed out on a major plot point- Who was that "survivor" at the end of the movie?

Mark says:
Most of the appeal of the first movie wasn't in the fx

I agree completely, except for the fact that I don't agree with this at all. Almost all of the appeal of the first movie was in the special effects.

Marshall says:
It's funny to hear people talk so much about the special effects. What did you think about the STORY? The Ws lament that Reloaded is a bit incomplete in that respect, because it's really only the first half and dependent upon Revolutions for a satisfying finish. Was it really that bad?

Not having seen it yet, my early instincts say that many of the special effects are so good, they simply go unnoticed, and are taken for granted. That's not necessarily a bad thing, because effects should not be so obvious that they take away from the story. And if people are lamenting some poor effects, perhaps there are some issues there that need to be worked out. But again... how is the STORY?

And K -- Neo is not Jesus. Savior does not equal Jesus. There are plenty of other influences which contradict Christian theology in numerous ways. "We get it, Neo is Jesus," even if it's an off-the-cuff, casually dismissive comment, suggests that you don't get it.

Brad Choate says:
The fate and survival of a species? If that's not a weighty matter, I don't know what is. These people aren't in the Matrix to pick fights and have a few laughs. They're at war. I think the level of humor was adequate considering that.

I do agree that the FX weren't all they were cracked up to be, but they were spectacular nonetheless. And Smith had some great moments. Can't wait to see the showdown in Revolutions.

I think the time spent on Link and his family was a waste though, unless he plays a important role in the next movie.

jkottke says:
Who was that "survivor" at the end of the movie?

Yes please, who was that? He was upsidedown on the screen for like a second and I didn't catch who it was. Anyone?

Not having seen it yet

Then please save your comments about it until you've actually seen it so you can, you know, know what the hell you're talking about.

jkottke says:
Even though I disagree with his assertion that the Wachowskis know what they're doing regarding the philosophical aspect of the film, Andrew O'Hehir has written one of the better reviews I've read of the Matrix Reloaded.

Gene says:
The survivor was Bain, who I think was infected by Agent Smith earlier in the movie. He sort of tried to kill Neo in front of an elevator in Zion (he was the guy cutting his hand with a knife). I thought his Hugo Weaving demeanor in that scene was a dead giveaway.

sam d says:
I have to say this I thought that the Animatrix was a lot more satisfying ( http://www.intothematrix.com/ )

Eric J says:
To me the movie was GREATLY enhanced by watching the Animatrix films. Seeing that backstory on the history of the human/machine conflict added another dimension to the story and made scenes like Neo and the Chancellor dude in the giant machine room make more sense and seem less trivial.

I highly recommend watching those short films to better understand all the weighty issues the W brothers are trying to develop in the flick. Sometimes they stumble (the goofy dance scene - was that a metaphor for human passions vs. machine logic or an excuse to show some skin?) but even Star Wars tries to get all philosophical with the Force and whatnot. I'd compare Matrix to Star Wars instead of X2.

Anil says:
Lots of spoilers: Upside down guy was Cypher. I'm a bit concerned about what bit I missed at the end of the credits by not sticking around.

But the movie? It was entertaining, but not great. The hippie-dippie raver scene was only missing a hacky sack in order to perfect its lameness. Along with a terribly unsexy sex scene layered on top of it. Morpheus' big speech was underwhelming, and the cuts between expository dialogue and actions taking place during the "heist" scenes at the end seemed too abrupt. They're talking about what they're going to do, they're doing it, oops! They're dead. Wasn't really explained very well. And the worst thing about the movie was the music. During the Burly Brawl, video game music would've been an improvement over the accompaniment. The fight with the malovingian's goons was three times longer than it needed to be, and unsatisfying.

The good stuff was great. The freeway scenes were all exceptional. The freeze-frames during the Burly Brawl did look computer-generated, yes, but so what? Still fun as hell. Even the gratuitous fights, like the one before Neo meets the Oracle, were fun to watch. Though most of the new characters are forgettable, the keymaker was great fun, and Link was useful in reflecting the audience onscreen.

Not as good as the first, of course, but we can't be wowed again like we were 4 years ago. I'm glad I saw it, but I don't think a new generation of fanboys will pore over this DVD for details as closely as they did the first film.

Derek K. Miller says:
The complaint that the computer-generated people don't look real enough is interesting: given the premise of The Matrix, it seems to be that people who look computer-generated are _more_ "realistic," as far as where they're supposed to be (or "be"). Right? :)

BTW, only last night did I watch The Matrix for the first time, on DVD. I have not yet seen the new movie.

Gene says:
Upside down guy was Cypher. No! Really?

Wasn't Cypher re-inserted in the first movie? How would he be in Zion?

Anil says:
Maybe I'm wrong on the Cypher thing, I'm hearing conflicting reports. Could be Bane, and that means that Agent Smith is able to leave the Matrix, I guess.

jkottke says:
Maybe I'm wrong on the Cypher thing, I'm hearing conflicting reports. Could be Bane, and that means that Agent Smith is able to leave the Matrix, I guess.

He didn't have the Cypher "soul patch" on his chin...he had the full goatee. And Agent Smith being out and about in the real world makes sense given Neo's newfound powers outside the Matrix. Neo sets Smith free to multiply & leave the Matrix. Smith in turn infects Neo and endows him with machine-like powers outside of the Matrix. Code modifying code, if you'd like.

Eric J says:
It was Bane or whatever the name of the guy Agent Smith zapped with the chocolate pudding happened to be. It was the guy who tried to kill Neo after slicing his own hands. Another reason we know is because someone sabotaged those 5 ships with an EMP and it was done deliberately and that someone was obviously meat Smith. Or, I could be dead wrong but I doubt it since I'm so rarely wrong.

steve minutillo says:
Did anybody else notice this: In the scene where the Architect is explaining everything, he says that the first Matrix was perfect, but failed, so they constructed another one that takes into account the evil of man (or something along those lines). While he is saying that, images of evil are flashing on the screens behind him... Hitler, piles of skulls... and.... George W. Bush!

Jacob says:
I think the survivor was Bain (or whoever the hand-slicer is), and my friends and I have decided that the "free" world of Zion is just another Matrix and thus Neo's new-found powers. ("What are the Matrices?")

What I don't get: Even if only .01% of people plugged into the Matrix become an "anomoly" like Neo, why does the old guy at the source allow Neo (and his five predecessors) to select new people and rebuild Zion?

Matt says:
There's a bit of a discussion along the same lines as what Jacob said going on at my review. I kinda like the idea that there is a Greater Matrix, which would explain Smith's ability to move into the "Real World", as well as Neo's ability to EMP, since really it's just more code manipulation.

Steven Garrity says:
There was a lot of cleavage (and some of it was not in the chest area...).

The Zion scenes remidned me of the Star Wars pre-quels (in a bad way).

Pretty damn entertaining though.

jkottke says:
What I don't get: Even if only .01% of people plugged into the Matrix become an "anomoly" like Neo, why does the old guy at the source allow Neo (and his five predecessors) to select new people and rebuild Zion?

Zion is reseeded as part of an overall system of control of the humans by the machines. From the machines point of view, as explained by The Architect, the Matrix is inherently flawed, meaning that people are going to get out. Rather than let those people organize themselves into a potentially dangerous resistance, the machines provide an escape for them (Zion) that the machines are in control of. (You have to wonder why they go through all that trouble and instead just invest in better security in their storage areas.)

N. Tallmadge says:
I saw it last night and I really enjoyed it. My key to prevent from being disappointed is that I put a strict "radio silence" on big movies I want to see. Hollywood doesn't think that you've promoted something until you've seen half the movie in the trailers, in "the making of" shows, and in magazine articles. So I keep away from that stuff until after I see the movie. Cuts down on disappointment.

I wasn't expecting "great", after all this is just a movie and a second in the trilogy and by definition there will always be a level of disappointment in the middle movie. People had the same comments to make about "Empire Strikes Back" and "Two Towers" Special effects I thought were really great. That rave/sex scene at Zion could have a whole lot shorter and I thought that the ending was too abrupt. Some of the new characters were really great...I loved those pale dudes with the dreadlocks, very nice effects with them. I'm interested in how the whole prophecy thing is going to play out in the next movie since in this movie they find out...ah well, I'm not going to spoil it.

Sebastian says:
Just a thought that crossed my mind while reading the comments... what if Zion is a simulation too? What better way to fool humans into believing they have control?

Robin says:
I saw the movie last night and I was disappointed by the special effects. Even with the consideration that they are fighting in the Matrix, a virutal reality, the fight scenes were sloppy. I understand that serveral cgi firms went bankrupt while working on the film, and it shows. I wanted to feel like all the working out that Neo did in the first movie paid off, and he was getting better and better. But I could see his face morphing into what looked like an animated version during those fight scenes, and that totally turned me off.

The rave scene was campy with all those stalagtites and stalagmites everywhere. And the old, white, wise man in Zion brought the film down a notch, same with the Link storyline. It just didn't feel like the writers focused enough on the big picture of why the rebels/human are fighting the machines. I needed to feel an urgency re: why the war was being raged. Otherwise this savior stuff was tedious. Remind me why I cared?

Dan says:
There's no evidence that Zion is a simulation. It could be a simulation. Anything could be a simulation, but that's what the first movie was about, but I think the Wachowski's have been there, done that.

The most likely reason Neo can destroy the Sentinels is because he is part human, part program, and has some connection to the machine intelligence even when he's not inside the matrix. Like Smith/Bane. (This fits with Kottke's statement that Neo is Jesus. Word made flesh and all that.) He just didn't understand that until he met the architect.

I was dissappointed with the effects. The first movie was amazing because it looked unreal and completely real at the same time. The CG effects were just not up to it this time. It would look "OK" when there was a lot of action, but as soon as they slowed down to bullet time, everything turned all "Toy Story 1".

greg.org says:
Hmm. There ARE a lot of spoilers in this comment thread.

It feels like I took the red pill.

Timothy Shey says:
The New Yorker had a very long piece about why people might have gotten so much more out of the first one. I always thought the first one was just a little silly, if only because the outfits they all chose to wear in the Matrix looked wildly impractical. Jesus in Prada?

samantha says:
1) The guy at the end was definitely Bane, of the hand slicing fame. Bane got chocolate pudding'd by Agent Smith in one of the first few scenes, and then he picked up the phone and went all green tingly, which means he moved out of the Matrix into Zion-world.

2) I really like the idea of Zion being yet another sim, because then the Matrix would really be a game within a game, and all that good stuff.

3) I hope everyone stayed through the credits and caught the teaser for Revolutions!

4) When Carrie Ann Moss nearly died, I'm so, so glad they didn't have Neo save her life with a kiss.

5) The sex/rave scene was appallingly bad. And the worst part about that is that it was also completely, utterly unnecessary. If they wanted to give the free humans some background and color, there are tons of better ways to do it.

6) Think of The One as a leap year. The current Matrix generates a certain amount of mathematical/computer error, and having one person be "The One" might be a release valve. It's like a garbage disposal system. They need to gather the free humans because there's a certain percentage of people who just reject the Matrix. The One is basically their disposal unit.

7) An interesting analysis and discussion on Reloaded.

Jon says:
I enjoyed the movie greatly. Yeah, the Zion rave sure could have been cut, but I'll deal. Things people have criticized:

--poor CGI
--labored dialogue
--the aforementioned Rave scene
--too much confusing philosophy
--longish fight scenes

So ok. Take a deep breath and step back to 1999. Did you REALLY love the Matrix that much when you FIRST laid eyes on it? Go have a real, hard listen to the dialogue. It's just as labored as anything in Reloaded. And the fight scenes? When I first saw the now cinematically worshipped Lobby scene, I thought, "yeah, cool, ok, get on with it already!"

The rave scene is, by far, the film's greatest flaw. As for the CGI, I honestly don't see what you're talking about. FYI, there were no 3D models in the 100 man fight scene. Weaving and Reeves were captured in high resolution film, fed into a computer, and recreated with a perfection great enough to be seen in close-up.

More than anything, Reloaded is a victim of impossibly high expectation. Matrix 1 WASN'T that perfect, but over the course of four years we've had a chance to appreciate every single detail of the film, and we've become charmed by the film's little flaws. In the same way, a decent number of really good Cheers episodes causes us to forget the slew of bad episodes, and we deem the show a classic after a few years.

Like I said, I really, really liked the movie. Even the philosophical parts, which yes, I understood. I was sitting in my seat going "Dear God, that's brilliant, but half the friggin' world won't get it." Not that I'm SUCH a genius or anything, but most people unconsciously expect "The same thing, only different." Reloaded is a different, more complex film, setting up a killer ending. Ultimately, it's a beautifully crafted film with killer action, and after a few repeat viewings and the inevitable sale on DVD, I garauntee you, we'll like it just as much as the first film.

Perhaps we'll like it even more when Revolutions comes out.... :)

Ryan says:
I echo the comments about The Animatrix -- having had the chance to see an advance copy of the DVD, I was pleased to see that several stories were essentially threads that fed into the movie storyline. "Flight of the Osiris," for example (which I believe was shown as a trailer event in some theaters). The animated piece is about a ship that discovers the machine mission to drill down to Zion, and must get that information to a drop-off point within the matrix. Characters in the movie mention having received the intelligence dropped off by the Osiris crew. Then there's the kid who worships Neo when he gets back to Zion; he is the subject of "Kid's Story" on the DVD. (One of the two best pieces IMHO.) I'll have to go back and see if their are other nods along these lines.

Animatrix is a must-buy, BTW. Fantastic stuff.

Also agree with the comments about impossible expectations. The original Matrix just didn't leave any ground for this movie to break.

Ross K says:
Jason said (You have to wonder why they go through all that trouble and instead just invest in better security in their storage areas.)

Yeah... or instead of having that big drain pipe go into an open sewer-or-whatever, just install a giant blender. When someone manages to free themselves, they just get chopped into tiny pieces.

Adam Howell says:
OK, I've got it. I've been trying to come up with the next "Bullet Time" cinema leap and this is it: "Fast Forward Time". Spend millions of dollars on complex coreography, huge sets, and CGI tomfoolery and then - speed it the hell up. The "Burly Brawl" could have been over in a mind-blowing, adrenaline pumping 15 seconds! You wouldn't have had a chance to see how silly polygonal-Neo looked. Just imagine how much more plot you could fit into an action movie with "Fast Forward Time" (oh, well, there are still a few kinks to work out).

abhi says:
We don't like it now since we know how it was made. I think it still good as the promos on TV look pretty nice. And as Kinglsey said, it isn't released in India so I haven't seen it.

Brent Gustafson says:
I think it's obvious it's a matrix in a matrix. The fact that Agent Smith a so called program, can exist in the "real" world, and how Neo could use powers in the real world and see the future. Hell, it even makes sense why the sky is blackened, the humans then can't see the stars and be able to tell what year it *really* is. It's all just a mirrage for the 1% who see past the first matrix.

The thing that struck me is when the Oracle gives Neo some candy. He takes it, but doesn't eat it. She does, and it's a redish candy. A red pill? Will Neo find it in his pocket in the next film and "get out" of the second matrix?

Hell, I'm still not convinced Neo is even human. He may just be a program, which would explain the architect's fascination with his love for Trinity, cuz how could a program fall in love w/ a human?

copongcopong says:
since this film is a second part we cannot compare it to the first one which is very interesting since things are revealed one at a time. i find the freeway chase the best!

James says:
People. check out Computer Boy.


The Matrix 1.1?

greg.org says:
Hm.

The rave reminded me of that hot and transparently-targeted-at -an "urban"-demographic Kahlua commercial a few years back.

On the other hand, every time I hear Zion, I think of Utah and Mormons. No Kahlua, decidedly not "urban." The armies of darksuited, cleancut dudes reinforced this.

Zion's like after-school sports: a way to keep kids from getting into trouble.

So far, though, Animatrix is better.

karla says:
steve minutillo says:
Did anybody else notice this: In the scene where the Architect is explaining everything, he says that the first Matrix was perfect, but failed, so they constructed another one that takes into account the evil of man (or something along those lines). While he is saying that, images of evil are flashing on the screens behind him... Hitler, piles of skulls... and.... George W. Bush!

Yes! I could've sworn I saw GWB on one of the small screens behind Neo. The "Twins" reminded me of Milli Vanilli.

denise says:
the thing that bugged me were the clothes. i always assumed in the first movie that their clothes were dirty and holey because they were salvaging remnants from a prior civilization and had no means to produce new ones. yet, when they are in zion, and it's obvious neo had been to zion several times before, all of the people there have beautiful clothes and jewelry and good food. then, after they leave zion, they all have ratty clothes again except the people on the other two ships. i just thought that didn't make any sense.

Eric J says:
Did anyone else think it was weird that when the Nebuchadnezzar was docking the Zion control room was this ultra-White futuristic looking Minority Report styled control room? Then after docking everything else in Zion and everywhere in the whole movie was dirty, run down and Blade Runner-esque with lots of wires and buttons and regular monitors.

I couldn't grasp that brief scene. It seemed too stark a contrast. Seems like there should be evidence of similar styled technology somewhere else in the world. It almost seemed like that scene was something they meant to cut out but forgot to remove. I dunno. It just struck me as really out of place. My expectations after that scene were for Zion to be some super-slick utopia place even though I "knew" it wasn't going to be.

Mr. Nosuch says:
The first film was much more effective because it could be viewed metaphorically. The premise of living in a false world and being able to be freed by sheer conviction of will is compelling, even if it is hokey bullshit set in a stylish sci-fi comic book world. Who doesn't want to do something like that?

The second film has nothing that maps to anything real, so there's no way to identify with it. How can I understand characters that have undefined and extraordinary powers which have unclear constraints in a world that has arbitrary and shifting parameters? In a world where characters have potentially unlimited powers in a world that has no immutable rules, it's hard to care about what happens.

Even in cheesy comicbook films, the idea is the characters have powers that occur in the world as we (more or less) know it. But in Matrix Reloaded, not only is everything entirely up for grabs, reality is just a set of chinese boxes.

Is Neo trying to save humanity? Or are we going to find out that the whole thing is a series of nested simulations running on some giant distributed computing project made by Stephen Wolfram? Does it matter?

Mr. Nosuch says:
The control room in Zion was a construct, by the way. They cut to showing people jacked in who looked just like the control room people.

Makes sense. Easier to make complex interfaces in a construct.

Aaron says:
I don't think they are trying to say Neo is Jesus. Tales of rebirth, messiahs and prophecies are about as old as storytelling. Should they have just dropped the religious themes after the first movie cuz, duh, we get it?

Something I find funny about a lot of the negative reviews I've read is the underlying tones of "oh my gosh, it wasn't perfect!" All films and stories have flaws. I think the good in Reloaded far outweighed the bad, and I completely enjoyed myself. Willing suspension of disbelief, and all that jazz.

Bill Brown says:
I only saw the first one last weekend and I wasn't impressed. I may see TMR when it comes out on DVD or satellite—especially after all of the reviews I've read (both positive and negative).

Joshua Kaufman says:
Yes, it took itself too seriously at times, which was very noticable alongside all of the comic one-liners.

I must be the only one who didn't mind the rave/sex scene. When I watched the scene, I thought it was too long and stylized. But thinking back after the movie, it was great irony. It was meant to be a celebration of humanity when in the end humanity’s whole existence was contrived.

I didn't like the editing done when they were planning Neo's entrance to The Source. I understand the type of effect they were going for - explain it as it's happening - but I think the editing made it more confusing than it needed to be.

Jon says:
My problem with Matrix one is that the plot isn't anything new, and the special effects had already been done in that Kodak commercial a few weeks/months before Matrix came out. And the rest was slo-mo.

So yeah, I'm in the small group that didn't like it, and I'm not seeing the second. (or third.)

Eric J says:
Mr. Nosuch says:
The control room in Zion was a construct, by the way. They cut to showing people jacked in who looked just like the control room people.

Makes sense. Easier to make complex interfaces in a construct.

So they are able to manipulate real life objects within the construct? I don't remember seeing anyone jacked in besides the ship's crew (though I could be wrong) but it doesn't seem to make sense that the dock operators can open doors and guide a ship in while jacked into some construct.

To my knowledge, there was not a single instance in either movie where actual real life objects (doors and guidance systems) were manipulated by people in a construct or even the Matrix. What did I miss here?

Mr. Nosuch says:
When in a construct, a training program can be loaded. The training program is a physical thing external to the construct effecting something in the construct. Also communication is clearly possible between construct/matrix and people outside of it (the operator.) All those goofy displays also show stuff going on in the construct.

It's clear data/information can flow in/and out of constructs and the matrix, so there's no reason why it couldn't be interfaced to do other stuff as well. Remember that Zion has a "mainframe" that had to be carefully protected.

jim says:
The rave scene wasn't that out of place. What else would you do when you're facing impending robot doom? It was raising the sex quotient of the movie. Perhaps as an attempt to shift the feel of the movie from the cold sterility of the machines to the more carnal world of Zion and the "real" humanity.

FWIW, my take on Neo: Neo is Choice. Choice needs to exist in the Matrix to complete the simulation. The computers learned via the Oracle that humans must at some level choose to live in the Matrix. Hence the dismal failure that was the original "no-choice" Matrix, hence the Judas-Cypher in the first movie.

Choice however is contrary to the design of the Matrix built as a prison for the human batteries. So, as a work around they run the Matrix in cycles with Neo choosing X people from the Matrix to seed Zion (enter the origin of the Prophecy), live a couple generations accepting the side effects of choice in the system, and then mop up Zion and reinstall the operating sytem, er, Matrix.

It does sort of destroy the nurturing, maternal feel of the Oracle though. She's no more human than the Keymaker (there's no Dana, only Zul) just feeding Neo his clues.

I don't know what's significant about this iteration though. Is this the only Neo that's chosen to forsake humanity for love?

Brian says:
Ack! Thpfth! If Zion is just another sim, and the Matrix is really a game within a game, what if ALL of it just ends up being a massive sim on some kid's peecee? The idea being, the old argument "what if what we believe to be reality is just God dreaming?"

greg.org says:
Not a sim on _some_ peecee, Brian, YOUR peecee. For $44.95 MSRP.

And if you have problmes with people intentionally wear shabby clothes when there are some nice ones to be had, steer clear of Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

FWIW, the opening meeting, where the captains are standing around talking about the boring (pun definitely intended), also seems like it's matrix-as-chat-space.

Of course, Wild Palms had that whole chat avatar thing, too...

Natalia says:
With me and my friends, the major debate was whether Neo's ability to stop the machines in the Real World was because he is part machine (like Smith is now part human with Bain) or whether it was because the Real World is just another Matrix (maybe the matrix for the machines, who some other beings are controlling?). I guess we'll find out in Revolutions..

denise says:
my brain hurts. i just liked the pretty people in sharp clothes kicking some ass.

David G. says:
A side note: Why human batteries? Why not something less troublesome, like cows? Infinite fields of tasty grass are a lot easier to simulate than, say, Sydney.

I liked the movie but wished I hadn't read the Wired article. I spotted evil Bush too -- almost subliminal.

anthony langford says:
The Matrix: Reloaded was only slightly more entertaining than Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers: The Movie, and only slightly less thought provoking.

Christina says:
I didn't really like this one as much as the first, for all of the reasons stated here...

The shining moment though, was after the scene with the malovingian and the blonde woman...

My boyfriend leaned over and whispered "That was damn good cake..." :D

:-x

Joan says:
Got to say I agree with, I think it was Marshall - even an off-the-cuff remark about Neo as Jesus is painfully biased. There are a ton of philosophical takes on the idea of the Matrix and that's only one of them - discrediting several other, equally reasonable interpretations. And since the Wachowskis prefer to "let the spirituality of our film speak for itself," as they're quoted as saying several times, guess we won't ever know if there's a "right" interpretation - Christian or otherwise.

And the guy on the table at the end is the man who came up to the Neb crew as they were getting on the ship, who had just cut his palms and was going to (apparently) knife Neo. But it's not Cypher. Remember - his deal was that he could go back into the Matrix for turning Neo over to Smith in the original. So ostensibly he's not in "the real world" any more. I believe this character is one of Niobi's enemies in the "Enter the Matrix" video game but I can't place his name.

I liked the movie. And the effects. But that's just me.

Brian says:
Clarification: I believe Tank killed Cypher at the end of the first Matrix, so Cypher never made it back into the Matrix.

And another thing.... Those little quarter-size connectors in Neo's skin -- weren't those removed in the first Matrix.

Finally, here's an article about the blend of spirituality and storyline in the Matrix.

ed says:
Review's up at Plight. In short, it was utter crap.

Eric J says:
Mr. Nosuch

I must disagree with your premise. Nobody in the construct has ever directly interacted with real world objects or information. Each time they talked to a real world person and THAT person gave them the download or directions or information. If they could interact with the computers then they wouldn't need the humans in the real world but could talk directly to the computers themselves for the downloads, directions, etc.

My point is, if the docking control station was a construct then:
1. Some real world person would have to be interacting with them and it would defeat the whole purpose of having them jacked into a construct.
2. If they are in a construct that can manipulate and directly interact with data or objects then this is a new technology not previously displayed or illustrated at any other time.

There are limitations to the back and forth communication between the construct people and those in the real world that may be downloading information. All construct exchanges with the real world rely on a person. So, I can't agree with you that the scene with the all-white docking control room is simply a construct.

Brian Hamilton says:
While the general philosophy base may be generic (savior, resurrection, etc.), the names are overwhelmingly of the Christian tradition. Trinity, Nebuchadnezzar, and Logos (Naiobi's ship) for example.

Re: the "survivor." I was under the initial impression that it was Cypher, but now I begin to doubt. A nagging rumor remains in my mind (from a friend, and as of yet unverified) that when Cypher and the other guys died in Matrix 1, there ended up being one less body bag than had been supposed dead. If that's true, probability points to Cypher. And it certainly looked like the same guy. Can anybody do an actor check?

Overall: I liked it, though I thought pieces (rave/sex, a few fight scenes) went too long and were overdone. I will positively see Revolutions, though.

Brian Hamilton says:
Oh, and also about the philosophy behind the movie: not that it really matters. Regardless of its intentions, it poses some interesting questions and challenges about faith in general.

Brian says:
We must quell this rumor before it gets out of hand. Joe Pantoliano was most assuredly not in TMR.

Honestly, I can't believe Anil started this rumor in the first place. :-)

J.D. Roth says:
I had mixed feelings upon leaving the theater: yes, the action scenes were fun, but the rest of the film seemed thin.

Upon reflection, however, the end appeals to me. It reminds me of Edgar Allen Poe: "All that we see or seem/Is but a dream within a dream."

I think that, as has been noted, this film is very sequel-dependent. It's the first part of a two part film. The slow beginning led to a flurry of action scenes, and the meaty philosopical/mystical stuff was just coming to a head as the film ended. I'm anxious to see if The Matrix Revolutions can deliver.

What is the matrix?

Mr. Nosuch says:
Eric:

If I am Neo standing in a construct, and I speak into the air "I need guns, lots of guns," somehow my voice, which exists only in the construct, is transmitted to the headset of the operator. The operator also is looking at a display screen, which allows him to see what I am doing.

Both the headset and the display are clearly electronic devices, as evident when they power down the ship. Therefore, what people do in a construct (and the matrix) can interface with electronics on the ship. If my voice can be directed to a headset, there is no reason my interaction with a control in the construct can't effect some device outside of the construct. It's all just technology. There's no explicit "one way" barrier.

I agree that the Zion control room is the most complex example of this shown in the movie, and it is fleetingly passed over, but if you watch the scene again, and notice how they cut it with a scene of people jacked in (with the same faces as the people in the control room), I can't see any other interpretation.

Eric J says:
Mr. Nosuch

Good points and I can't reall disagree much. I admit that I don't remember seeing the same faces so another viewing is in order. However, my point is that up till that one extremely brief scene the communication between the real world and the construct is not equal. Those in the construct can only blindly ask for things like guns and can't "see" or "hear" what is going on in the real world. However, the person at the controls can see and hear both the construct and real world.

If I am Neo in your same scenario and suddenly there a Sentinals attacking the Hovercraft I have no way of knowing unless someone tells me. There is no visual representation of what is going on.

True, in theory it would seem that if someone can speak to Neo from the real world and describe what is going on then it would seem that the technology exists to also visually represent that and allow Neo to initiate some defenses or something while in the construct. However, until that brief scene there was not a single instance of this occurring and my problem is that the scene was so brief and "new" that it's hard to accept your explanation.

It may be that you're right on and I really don't have any good explanation but if people are able to interact seamlessly with the real world while in a construct then why not fly hovercrafts this way? Why fool with the myriad of wires and keyboards when a white room with super nifty design is available?

R says:
junk food. the illusion hiding the fact that the matrix is nothing more than a knapsack of cliches and pop culture references (including real cultural artifacts that have been reduced to pop-culture taglines) is no more. "I have a dream..", two albino wanna-be Jamaican dreaded brits, another marginated black role used as a laugh-inducer after an intense action sequence? please. can they get any more desperate? and it was nice of them to throw in all those black people and black cultural things in there, but the star is still a white man. give me a break. trying to have your cake and eat it too? we all know black people are cool, but not like this. and by the way, this is excellent proof that you can make a so-so movie and totally butcher it with a bad ending. props to all the talented dorks who worked long hours on this project, but man, they should have worked on the X-Men instead.

dumpster says:
Most stories suffer from the infamous '2nd Act' problem. The Matrix Reloaded suffers from the very beginning because we're only shown one half of the story. The cultural references mentioned in a previous post are rich and diverse, ultimately, the second film falls because it's just a pause. I wrote a little analysis over here. Let me know what you think.

Geoff Gresh says:
I have a very geeky analogy, but it's the only way I've been able to truly understand why I was so disappointed by this sequel: In the first film, the Agents were the epitome of bigtime videogame bosses. They were scary, they were clever, and they seemed impossible to truly be overcome (as Morpheus pointed out, before the events of the first film, everyone that had gone up against an Agent had died). Then Neo went online and found the cheat codes, and suddenly the Agents weren't all that scary anymore. Anyone who's used cheats in a videogame before knows that the fun of being all-powerful quickly wears off. It was hard to be compelled by even the action sequences when we all knew that Neo was in almost complete control of the Matrix (in complete "God mode" for you FPS fans). I just didn't feel like he was ever really threatened, and that made me yawn, even when the camera was traveling at light speed.

R says:
Sometimes I feel The Matrix is just a cheap ripoff of Tron.

Bruno Cunha says:
A reasonable theory (massive spoilers):

-In The Matrix, Agent Smith captures Morpheus in order to gain access codes to Zion. He wants OUT of the Matrix, he wants to be truly free. However, he failed to get the codes. So, as a computer program, he infects someone, this Bane for example, and exits the Matrix in their body. Hence his appearance in Zion. A lot of the dialogue in The Matrix Reloaded hints at this. And just to clarify, he is CLEARLY on the bed beside Neo in the ending. Besides, Cypher's dead.

-The white looking people = The Twins.

-Focus on Link: This is explanable. My friend told me that the actor who played Tank was fired during the shooting of the sequel. Supposedly, it was because he was stealing food from concession stands en masse. So in the plot, they pretend he died and replace him with Link. Link plugged right into the story; his story would have made perfect sense if he was Link OR Tank. Either way, it would have been an insight into an old character or the discovery of a new one.

-The rave scene: There must be an explanation, do you not have faith in those that have dreamed the entire conception of the Matrix? Someone slightly touched on what I was going to say; it signifies the celebration of human life to contrast the contrived state millions felt within the Matrix. It symbolized the primal feel of life those in the Matrix missed out on. Look at it: sexual dancing, drums, you've got it all.

-Trinity becomes teenageresque: Wow, please don't criticize someone for falling in love.

-Everyone's fighting Agents: Remember, Morpheus fought Smith in the first film. He's a warrior, and his character has grown. He beats an agent in the sequel, but not by much. And Trinity, she gets her ass handed to her by an agent. Neo, after discovering the powers of being the anomaly known as The One, has always handled Agents nicely. In the sequel, he has more, longer fights with multiple enemies, so that was an enjoyable twist in the action.

-Neo stops the Sentinels: most of my friends have concluded that the Matrix is within a Matrix. I thought so also, until I read a comment about Jesus being the commander of flesh and everything else. Neo is an anomaly in a computer program. He possesses powers to understand the Matrix deeper than any previous "One" can; he can now modify it (takes the bullet out of Trinity so smoothly). This signifies an understanding of the robots, which would make sense when he says "Something's different; I can feel them." So Neo's power in the Matrix created his powers out of it.

Here's some real juicy stuff:

Okay, the Matrix has been rebuilt six times with the anomaly always forming. Humans need robots (The counselor touches on it when discussing technology early in te film) and the robots need humans (to fuel the Matrix and their own existence). The Architect gives Neo two choices. One, he chooses 23 people to restart Zion (notice, there were 23 counselors on the board) and eventually the anomaly would appear again and the cycle would repeat itself forever. His second choice was to save Trinity at the cost of the collapse of Zion and the Matrix as well. However, Neo was the first to fall in love and experience emotion. He already made this decision, and he had to understand why, according to the Oracle atleast. This was foreshadowing the end when he decided to save Trinity.

This is where it gets good: it's all in the open now. There is no prophecy, nothing can be predicted because Neo chose the door that was never chosen befored. This has never happened before and will ultimately decide the fate of the Matrix and everything that revolves around it. Mr. Smith must play a vital role, he is the only other one that can understand the Matrix on any level close to how Neo can. The only details I really saw in the Revolutions trailer were: The Oracle's assistant is around, lots of Sentinels and movement outside of the Matrix, and more incredible action.

I loved the sequel. The philosophy was new on top of old and it's allowing for many possibilities for the finale. The action scenes were awesome: if you notice the small things like the "low-quality" of Neo's face or whatever people are complaining about, you're not watching the action scenes for the right reasons. They were new and awesome. It was all great. I just can't wait for The Matrix Revolutions.

Graham says:
My review, with a mention of a couple gaping plot gaps, unless I missed something (which is possible, I had an idiot in my theatre who was snoring for 5 minutes).

A couple quick plot questions--maybe someone can explain them:

Okay, so The Architect... he's like, the master program of Tron fame?

And he tells Neo this is the 6th time someone like Neo has come along, along with everything else. Is there any reason for Neo to believe *anything* The Architect says? After all, isn't he on the Machines' side? Couldn't the door to the right just be a trick?

Door on the right, you reset the Matrix and pick 23 people to repopulate it, yes? Uhm, so? How does that have any effect on the Machines that are burrowing into Zion to destroy it? What am I missing?

Neo picks the left door, which will lead him back to the Matrix, and to Trinity, and the end of the Matrix (or so The Architect says). But, it doesn't. Neo goes back, saves Trinity, and leaves the Matrix (or so it seems so far). Was The Architect just lying?

Bruno Cunha says:
The first choice allowed the complete restarting of the world, focusing on Zion. The Sentinels would die off and the conflict would be at ease, temporarily. The second choice, which Neo took, was to save Trinity at the cost of total destruction. He took the chance, and the Sentinels are only closer to Zion. If Zion dies to the Sentinels, the Matrix will eventually collapse and all will be gone. The cool thing is, Neo is the first to feel emotion and make the choice he made, so no one can tell what will happen.

The Architect had no reason to lie. I think he's more neutral than he may appear. We'll see, I'm going to see Reloaded again in a couple hours.

Tom Dolan says:
One word review: Weak.

Brian says:
Brian Hamilton says:
While the general philosophy base may be generic (savior, resurrection, etc.), the names are overwhelmingly of the Christian tradition. Trinity, Nebuchadnezzar, and Logos (Naiobi's ship) for example.

I beg to differ. The names are representative of a broad spectrum of beliefs: Soren (homage to Kierkegaard, no doubt), Persephone and Morpheus (both from Greek mythology), Merovingian (ancient Euro) and Bane (wolf's bane, or just bane of neo's existence?), Niobe (Roman mythology) ... And from the first movie, how about Switch, Apoc, Tank and Dozer? No christian tradition there that I can see at all.

Brian Hamilton says:
Oh, and also about the philosophy behind the movie: not that it really matters. Regardless of its intentions, it poses some interesting questions and challenges about faith in general.

I can't imagine there's a thing in The Matrix universe that should challenge anyone's faith unless they are hopelessly confused to begin with. To be certain, whatever philosophy the Matrix portrays is as much a "stew" as the sources from which the characters' names are drawn.

Marshall says:
A few observations, before getting back to the philosophy:

- I don't think it's a Matrix inside a Matrix, partly because I'm not sure how to explain why Neo would be so hurt by the confrontation with the sentinels, and partly because I instinctively think the Ws would find that cheesy. Not that either is much impetus for convinction... but it seems like the movie is going in the direction of empowered humanity, rather than increased plot trickery. Having a Matrix inside a Matrix starts to wreak of a deus et machina, which I have to believe they wouldn't do to us. :)

- Bane, or whatever the traitor's name was (the fella who was going to cut Neo after cutting his own hands), was the guy on the table at the end. I think the Wachowskis are on record as saying that Cypher (and Joe Pantoliano) is gone for good after the first.

Jason - I've seen the movie, now... not that I'm not sure how seeing the movie could explain away the absence of substance in, uh, what the hell you're talking about.

Why the casual "Jesus is Neo" remark? Why the distrust of the writers' philosophical chops? Do you have any kind of argument, or at least a collection of observations, to back it up, or is that just your gut reaction? It's very widely accepted that they do know what they're doing, and widely discussed by people who know them that they are well-versed in theology and philosophy, so I'm interested in hearing an articulate case against those elements of these films.

Brian remarks with "certain"-ty that the film contains little more than a philosophy stew, but several compelling cases (even a few on the film's home page) have been made that suggest there's a framework in place. Where's the "certain"-- or at least, decent-- disagreement spelled out?

Marshall says:
Heh... I said convinction. Conviction. Oops. Must've been a glitch in the Matrix...

Brian says:
Brian remarks with "certain"-ty that the film contains little more than a philosophy stew, but several compelling cases (even a few on the film's home page) have been made that suggest there's a framework in place. Where's the "certain"-- or at least, decent-- disagreement spelled out?

It's not my contention that by virtue of the fact that the philosophical underpinnings are by nature a stew they are also, ipso facto, "little more;" i.e., of little or no value, or that they lack a framework.

This article I linked to above suggests "(i)ts script...draws on Platonic philosophy, Greek mythology, Buddhism, and postmodernism...."

The same article quotes the Wachowski's as saying that all of "their allusions to myths and philosophy were intentional."

My contention isn't particularly unique, either: The Wachowski brothers have taken ingredients from various spiritual recipes in our melting-pot world, and made something all their own.

Afrael says:
I haven't seen the movie yet, I will be showcased here in PR next thursday, but I think there's been some much hype (*I loathe those powerade commercials*) that there is no way the movie can fullfil everybodies expectations. I've seen the trailers and about the Neo vs 100 Agent Smiths, it does show the computer generation, we know its CGI, the trick is to make so real that you could be amazed by it.

I cant say anything about the rest, but I know the movie has some sort of romantic twist to it - come on it's supposed to be an action flick.....

shawn says:
Well it was no Lizzie MaGuire but I liked it better than X2. Which given my comic geek creds is surprising. It does leave you with an Empire Strikes Back cliffhanger but if you sit through all the end credits they show you the first trailer for Matrix: Revolutions.

sam says:
Lots of comments, crazy. A few notes though, because I can.

I think if they ended with 'its a matrix inside a matrix' that would seem far too much like a cheesy "Pull out at the end and reveal the whole world inside a snow globe." ending. Bad bad bad.

Many of the criticisms of the movie seem to stem from the fact that it is the second movie in a trilogy. These aren't movies like Diehard or Naked Gun where you can watch any movie from the series without seeing the others and be just fine. Those movies are all different movies that have the same characters. The Matrix is one movie that has been cut into three two hour acts so that our short attention spans can make it through without falling asleep.

If you take a book, open it up one third of the way through, and read until you are two thirds of the way through, then you aren't going to think it is that great. The first part contains the amazing revelations, the revealing of the wonderful characters, unfolding layers of mystery, etc. The last movie contains the climax of the action and the resolution of conflict. The second movie just contains 'meat', just stuff that needs to happen to setup the climax. That stuff might not be as mind blowing as the stuff from the exposition in the first movie, but it is key to the story.

I agree with the comment earlier that we have elevated the first movie to a cult status, and now nothing can compare to the mental vision we have of it. These aren't seperate movies that are competing, they are part of the exact same movie.

I highly recommend going out and seeing the original matrix before seeing the new one. I saw the original as a midnight movie at one of our local theaters a week before seeing Reloaded, and it helped by making me see Reloaded as a continuation, rather than a whole seperate movie.

The Neo vs. 100 Smiths scene looks like a damn video game. However, I'm going to give the directors the benefit of the doubt here, and suggest that it might look that way on purpose. They aren't fighting in the 'real' world. They are fighting in a virtual game world. Neo and Smith both know the rules of the world, and they know which rules can be bent or broken. They know it like two video game geeks know Tekken, because they've spent weeks and weeks playing it. I think the scene is supposed to remind us of the fact that Neo plays the matrix like its a game. When in the french guy's house later, this is even alluded to more, as they describe it all as 'just a game'.

To clear up confusion, the guy at the end isn't cypher. Its bane. Earlier in the movie, two men are in the matrix, they are about to leave, and they say to each other something to the effect of 'hurry, all that matters is getting this back.' one guy takes the envelope and picks up the phone, but the second guy, Bane, is still there. Smith does his pudding thing on him, and the guy becomes a Smith. Then the new smith picks up the phone and goes back into the matrix. 'Real Bane' is now infected with Smith. He is the guy cutting his hands up and looking suspicious. He's presumably the guy who set off the EMP charges early (though his involvement could have been different, plot twists are still possible), destroying the Zion fleet, and he is the guy in a coma alongside Neo.

That doesn't necessarily mean that zion is another matrix. Smith and Neo talk about 'sharing' something. They each have new code. Neo has gained the ability to affect the programs of the matrix on a base level. Smith may have gained the ability to affect the human mind like a program.

The white control room makes lots of sense to me. If you are setting up your own matrix (as opposed to jacking into the matrix owned by the machines), then there is no reason at all that you couldn't have high speed interactive connections from the construct to the control systems in the real world. All it is is a computer monitor for your whole brain. They talk and the information is heard by the people outside the construct. They push a button in the construct, and it activates a program running on the door control system outside the construct. If you build your own matrix, then you can have all the connections between them that you want. We haven't seen them do it before, because the big matrix, the machine's matrix, isn't under human control.

Presumably, the reason we don't see them use these fancy construct rooms is that in most places, you need someone outside of a construct who can protect you if necessary. If a whole ship's crew is inside of constructs, it just takes one little EMP to kill the whole ship. If someone is outside the construct at all times, then that person can protect the ship in ways that a jacked in person couldn't. Thats why the operator never goes in himself.

Anyway, I thought the movie was a great movie. Its not as 'wow' as the first, but you would have been wrong to expect it to be. Its a setup for the amazing ending. In a few years we'll have all three of the movies on their special edition disks, and we'll see them not as three movies, but as one long movie, and then it won't be as big of a deal that the second doesn't have as much 'magic'. I've got more review here if anyone is interested. I know every damn blogger has already reviewed it, but hey, it felt good to do. ;)

Omegajuiec says:
The whole reson the operator doesn't go in is because they have no 'plugs'. Link and Tank were both born in the 'real world' so they don't have any of the plugs on them that Neo and company do. They don't go into the Matrix because they can't.

Andy says:
After a second viewing, I'm much happier with it. With some satisfaction in knowing where things were going, and my opening night jitters gone, I was able to really enjoy the film scene by scene for what it was, and stop wondering where it was all going, and if it was going to be good enough to meet my expectations.

The second film is just completely different than the first. There is no way that it could have been at all similar to the first. The first movie was about slowly and artfully letting a cat out of the bag. It was a mystery.

But once the cat was out, it was out. I'm glad that the sequel forged ahead, showed us all the cool stuff we wanted to see (Zion, Neo kicking ass, etc) and still managed to complicate the surrounding mystery.

The question "What is the Matrix?" is still unanswered.

Morpheus' best answer, in the first film, is: "control."

Did anyone notice that this film raised the question "What is control?"

The deal with the Architect was interesting. It seems that they can't prevent some people from rejecting the Matrix, nor some from developing superhuman powers inside it. As a release valve, they allow these to escape to Zion, and allow them to pull other "problem children" out as well. The Oracle makes damn sure that they seek out and remove "the One," and once he's out, they send an army to destory Zion. Iteration complete. Next round. They don't wait around for more than a single "One" to develop.

However, I still have no idea why the Architect presented Neo with the 2-door choice. It makes no sense to me at all. But I'm willing to let that hang for now. It's only till November.

Too bad the music sucked so bad, though.

Gina says:
Ok, a lot of folks "don't get" the Rave scene...but if you were paying attention, Morpheus was asked to "complete the pray" made by the councillor, and if you were also paying attention, they said that they were meeting at "the temple"...in a lot of religions, dance and drumming is a form of prayer...so, to me it was a giant prayer...but that could just be my pagan-ness coming through (and yes, that includes the sex scenes...I give the Bros. W some credit for being pan-religious...)

Alex Halavais says:
I really, really hope that Neo's new powers outside of the Matrix do not lead to a "Matricies all the way down" conclusion. This has already been done to death (eXistenZ, 13th floor), and it would be sad to finish on such a cliche.

The difference between the first and second films is clear, I think. The first did not take itself very seriously. It was a hyper-real version of the cyberpunk genre, and played with "haha, only serious" really well. Now its like the bros are somehow no longer in on the joke. It looks like they took the embrace by scholars and philosophers too seriously.

Bill Brown says:
I thought that the sentinels stoppage was more due to the fact that a ship immediately came upon them and probably launched an EMP. The sentinels dropping was consistent with the same thing in the first movie.

I don't think an EMP would have an effect on a person, but maybe it did.

Nicky Peeters says:
About Bane-Smith :
He's presumably the guy who set off the EMP charges early

I don't know if it's already posted here, but what if the Smith-infected Bane set of an EMP charge in the same way that NEO set one of in the 'real world' ? And what if NEO somehow inherited this ability from his little encounter with Smith ?

It would explain why BOTH are in coma at the end of the film...
It still doesn't explain anything more than that but it's another possibility worth mentioning ?

jkottke says:
Unloading on the Matrix Reloaded at The Morning News.

jkottke says:
Good thread so far. Thanks for participating, everyone.

There's a theme running through this thread that there's a lot to get out of the Matrix movies and that if you don't get that much from it, you're uneducated, not interested in philosophy, or weren't paying close attention. My view is that the movies are not that deep. The depth of the movie doesn't necessarily mean that you can't get a lot out of it...someone wrote an entire book on philosophy and The Simpsons and it's hard to imagine The Simpsons was conceived as a philosophical masterwork.

As films, The Wachowskis' Matrices most closely resemble George Lucas's Star Wars, James Cameron's Titantic, Peter Jackson's LoTR movies, Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek films & series, and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. These are all good (or even great) films -- fun, engaging, etc. -- and much has been written about the significance (be it emotional, philosophical, spiritual, or social significance) of each of these films. James Lileks even called Spider-Man "more important, in the long run, than any other movie, novel, artwork or musical composition that will be produced in 2002". But these are not deep movies and no amount of books or articles written by famous philosophers will make them richer or more densely layered with meaning.

The depth and significance people attach to these films remind me of the deep, philosophical conversations you have in your freshman year of college with your roommates until the wee hours of the morning, possibly while high. The participants may find meaning in such conversations, but Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Foucault, or Camus you are not.

But that's just my take on it all.

Andy says:
Did anyone notice that Cornel West is in the movie? He's one of the council members.

West is a professor of religion and afro-american studies at Princeton. He's was in the news briefly last year as he proposed a pilgrimage of Harvard's African-American professors to Princeton.

I'm not quite sure what he's doing here.

Shyamal says:
I guess I chose a very wrong time to go offline. I seem to have missed all the action.

I posted my comments about the movie, just minutes after having seen it. I was pretty content with the effects and the stunts. But the whole idea of leaving the movie unfinished was disappointing. I felt the story wasn't convincing enough either. My hopes for Revolutions won't be as high now!

Graham says:
Jason: I think they're definitely deeper than, say, Star Wars or Spider-Man, but I think "deep" is something of a misnomer. I think yes, parts of the movie's philosophy are deep (I'm still trying to wrap my head around the architect's whole spiel), but overall, it's not really "depth" as it is "revelation" or "exposure" to different philosophies or ways of thinking about the world. (Kind of like how people in the film have their whole world shift when they realize what the Matrix is?) Similar feeling you get from taking a Hinduism or Buddhism class, if you've been raised in Christian America.

In the first film, it was the revelation that "maybe this world isn't really real" that astounded my friends and I in college as sophomores. In the second film, there are similar "new philosophies" that the audience is exposed to, but I don't think they're integrated into the plot as well, or explained as well, either.

This CorporateMofo article really helped me understand the philosophies present in the second film, but in my opinion, it shouldn't have had to. I'm an intelligent person; I watched the movie closely. I think if the Brothers Wachowski had done a better job weaving the ideas into the plot, I would have understood everything the first time around. (Or maybe they want me to go see the movie again, and shell out another 10 bucks.)

Gina: I don't know that people don't "get" the rave scene, as much as we all just hate the rave scene.

tj hooker says:
Overall, I was quite disappointed. I wasn't expecting perfection -- a sequel after all -- but the editing was so choppy. And the rave scene was pure Pepsi commercial. I agree with the view that making Neo so omnipotent really robbed the film of suspense. For instance, the best part of the car chase was the fact that Neo wasn't around; when Morpheus fought that Agent on the truck, some of that original Matrix juice started flowing, because remains some fragility to Morpheus, a fragility that Neo lacks. Like when he beats all the Agent Smiths: why couldn't Smith have made hundreds of thousands, or even millions of himself? Like, uh, real viruses...?

I did like fact that the Architect proposed the geekiest of premises: that the whole story is one iteration of a "for" loop. And Monica Belucci was pretty yowsa.

Jonathan Rosenberg says:
However, I still have no idea why the Architect presented Neo with the 2-door choice. It makes no sense to me at all.

Choice is essential to the Matrix -- or, at least, maintaining the illusion of choice. The lack of choice (free will) is why the first one failed. By offering choice, even though the outcome is predictable, they maintain control.

Of course, the fact that Neo chose the non-predictable option kinda means everything is up for grabs in the third film.

Marshall says:
Jason -

The freshman year analogy is interesting, to the extent that it works as a very accurate way of communicating how you feel. Of course, like any good sophomoric remark, it also has a certain amount of enough-to-be-dangerous mischief to it, taking a stab at anyone in your readership that thinks there's more philosophy to the Matrix movies than a Star Wars-esque smorgasbord.

The movies you mention all have elements of philosophy to them to which people (and certainly film cults) have attributed significance in their own ways. Unlike the movies you've mentioned, however, the writers of the Matrix films are on record as saying that exploration of philosophical issues was chief among their goals (as well as top-notch kung-fu) while they created this trilogy.

As anyone who's studied literature knows, motifs and archetypes historically recur in the work of both those who intend to reference them and those who do not. Great stories tend to be the ones that resonate well with a universal message, and such messages tend to occur in patterns when observed comparatively across many works over long periods of time. But the fact that you stumble upon little details or nuances accidentally does not mean that the Matrix movies were made in an undisciplined way.

I don't think, as you suggest I might, that you're uneducated or uninterested in philosophy; on the contrary, I assume that you are the converse, and as a result, I expect-- perhaps unfairly-- a more articulate response to specific aspects of the movie. But your reaction leaves me wondering if you pulled the names of four philosophers from a Google search rather than your learned experience.

My suspicion is that either you don't have much background in philosophy, or that if you do, you simply haven't paid the movie(s) the favor of much independent thinking. If you have, and nothing worth sharing has occured to you, it may also be true that you haven't even bothered to carefully read and consider the work of those for whom the movies have raised some interesting philosophical questions. I find it hard to believe, however, that anyone with their lights on regarding philosophy could come away from the films, and the corresponding discussions thereof, without any awareness of the organized philosophy inside the story.

There are certainly people out there who don't have the background in philosophy, but have their wits about them enough to pick up on various ingredients of the "philosophical stew" and notice multiple influences. We live in an culture where people make surface observations all the time, but rarely care to explore them at any substantial depth. While you may be on safe ground assuming that no one in your readership has philosophical chops the likes of Nietzsche and company, I think you do yourself a great disservice by assuming that no one in your audience has enough academic training or well-informed interest to do more than intellectually tread water.

There's much more to discuss here than "Whoa, dude, he's like Buddha and Mohammad all at the same time," but if all you've got is "Neo is Jesus, we get it" (your initial "freshman" volley, I remind you) followed by condescending remarks about your readers and generalized observations, you do little more than artfully dodge the rigorous discussion of which sort you pretend to be capable with your quick-and-dirty allusion to a few vowel-heavy philosophers.


Andy -

Cornel West is in the movie because the Wachowskis asked him to be. He was invited by them during the filming to talk about philosophical issues, and as reported by a few different articles, he was "quite impressed" with the scope of their knowledge, for whatever that's worth.

Killing The Buddha says:
We just posted a piece on it, for those who might be interested.

Andy says:
We live in an culture where people make surface observations all the time, but rarely care to explore them at any substantial depth

Okay, I'll bite, Marshall. You imply that you have the necessary background to distill and appreciate the philosophical intent and athletics of the film. Enlighten us, please! This is not a taunt. I'm sure you're right in many respects and would like to hear what you have to say about the film.

I agree it's really too easy to conclude "bah! there's nothing there!"

Marcus says:
I heard a lady on the radio this morning urging the film makers to take some responsibility for the rash of violent freak-outs that seem to be occuring in theaters when schizophrenics have subjected themselves to this movie.

I don't remember hearing about schizophrenic freak-outs when Spiderman came out.

Bill Brown says:
Finally got my review up.

nramsey says:
Great discussion, glad to read so many viewpoints. Not that it should be necessary this far down, but !!!SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!

Here's the point I am stuck on: I thought Zion was destroyed. When they are on the ship at the end and they are talking about how it was a massacre, a Sentinel for everyone man, women, and child, I thought it meant that everyone in Zion was dead. But Link didn't seem that upset that his wife was dead, so I was confused.

If I could figure this part out, then I know the rave scene would come into focus for me.

Andy says:
They were talking about the ill-fated counter-attack that Lock arranged to take place in one of the utility pipes or passageways above Zion. That didn't go so well, apparently, because the premature EMP took down 5 ships, etc. It was a slaughter.

I swear there is a moment, though, when you're looking down the unlighted column of Zion, at the criss-crossing paths, and there are sentinels slowly creeping forward, as if their tunneling is complete and they're ready to attack the sleeping city.

I'm none too clear there.

Sean Duncan says:
Here's my review. I have pretty much the same take as you, Jason. It was bloated, overly serious and (I think) the Wachowskis had too much creative control (much like Lucas clearly does with the latest Star Wars flicks). Do these people never get the point that a lean, mean movie nearly always beats out the self-important "epic"?

--sean

jb says:
1) cypher dies in the first movie, he's not reinserted

2) agent smith takes over bane's body inside the matrix so when he is pulled out he is still agent smith because, as we all learned in the first movie, "your mind makes it real." I think this is the same reason Neo is able to be the One outside the matrix too, because his mind has made it real, but i'm probably wrong and i'll probably be corrected in revolutions, but it works for now.

3) everybody needs to watch the animatrix and play Enter the Matrix. both tell much much much more of the story and if you don't want to be covered in story, just watch the first movie and forget about the rest.

4) please don't act like nothing makes sense because i think a lot of it isn't supposed to yet. much more will be explained in revolutions and i can't wait for it.

in closing i'll say that while the first movie did make a little sense the first time you watch it, you would find out more and more in each subsequent viewing, so give this one the chance you gave that one. i know that the second time i saw it i found myself understand much more about the movie and the philosophy. and go back and watch the first one again because you'll realize that the first one makes even more sense now and you'll realize how amazing the FX in the new really are despite a few short comings in recreating reality perfectly.

Sean Duncan says:
This has been said many times, but I'll say it again -- why should someone have to watch a bunch of animated films plus play a game plus rewatch a bad movie in order to "get" the bad movie?

A lot of it just doesn't make sense. Why does Neo have superpowers in the "real world"? Unless this is a hint that the world of Zion/the "real world" is yet another level of fakeness, I'll be really disappointed.

The Wachowskis made this series in order to create a new type of superhero mythology. It worked in the first one, it didn't in the second.

--sean

Mark T. says:
I thought the movie was great. The Wachowskis want us to interpret the movie how we see fit. If you want a Kung-Fu movie, you get one. If you want a deeper spiritual significance you get that.. Keep in mind, there is even more to the names and characters than the obvious Christian and Greek Pagan symbolism. Ex. The 'Merovingian' are a famed lineage of French monarchy that have a peculiar history about them. There is myth that they are the surviving bloodline of Christ who according to this legend, did not die on the cross but was rescued by the Apostles, fled and married Mary whom then prospered with their children ultimately creating the Merovingian bloodline. Remember Merovingian in the movie? Dig a little deeper and you will find a lot more to think about.

jb says:
like i said, if you don't want the entire story, watch the first, pretend like it makes sense by itself and forget about the rest. and i also said that a lot of it isn't supposed to make sense. imagine if you cut 'akira' in half or 'metropolis' in half; you'd bitch about it not making sense.

and i think neo has powers in the real world because he made it real. it's all about mind over matter and therevada buddhist beliefs, but like i also said, it's unlikely that we are supposed to understand it yet.

evan says:
I unfortunately have no insight into the film, but there is something that I noticed that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else, though of course, I haven't looked everywhere.

Nobody smoked in the movie, not even the Oracle, who smoked in the first Matrix. It seems as though she kicked the habit and took up candy instead (am I remembering this correctly? I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong ;)

As an aside, I think this may have been the first film I've seen in years where there was no smoking; kudos to the film-makers.

A question: What product placement did you pick up on? (Besides of course the Phatalacs)

Theo says:
I think the Brothers Wachowski have done several things in this movie that no one has done before, not the least of which is make a sequel that is actually two movies, Reloaded and Revolutions, separated by six months. Reloaded is getting criticized here and in the press because things are left unexplained at the end or because it lacks the tidiness of the first movie or because some scenes appear to be useless. Bollocks. The original film was self-contained because it had to be. But with more money and greater latitude, the brothers have pushed the boundaries and given us something new, not just in special effects and a general synthesis of intellectual and popular, but in the staging of new kind of storytelling itself. And we as a culture don't like new that strays from formula. I don't believe this movie should be criticized using the criteria we use for other movies--because it's not a complete movie. I have issues with the film, there's no doubt; it's not what I wanted or thought it would be--and I'm glad. Because I'm patient and can wait for the second half of this sequel to be over in November. I think it's an inherent problem with our culture in general...we're too accustomed to instant gratification. 'Why does Neo have power outside the Matrix?' 'I don't like it cause it doesn't make sense.' I'll be happy to recant and say it all sucked and was lame if Revolutions doesn't follow through, but for now I'm content remembering why I liked The Matrix more and more as I waited for the sequel. Because I could sit with the questions I had remaining at the end of the film, it made me think and not be dismissive of new ideas, and I remained open to the possibility that there was another way of thinking about the world.

Bill Brown says:
Product placements:

Audi
Cadillac
GMC

I think there were some others, but I can't recall them immediately.

whuzza says:
Next to the blatant Cadillac CTS commercial, there's the sweet Ducati 996 that Trinity speeds around in.

Thanks to Jon for reminding me that the first movie wasn't all that groundbreaking as the hype would have you believe. The same topics were explored in Dark City and Thirteenth Floor, albeit with slightly less violence.

I thoroughly enjoyed Reloaded still. Skip the comments from others and watch the movie yourself.

retrovirus says:
Theo: What about Back to the Future II and III?

Product placement: The dorky Samsung "official Matrix phone"

Theo says:
retrovirus: BtF 2 and 3 were each independent movies, each had the standard three-act arc, each could exist independently from the other--I'm not talking about movies being shot back to back...my point is that I don't think Reloaded can exist on its own as a traditional narrative, and again, when Revolutions opens, I think we'll see it not as third in a trilogy, but second half of a sequel.

The two films need each other in order to be one complete movie.

mojokitten says:
I can't find if this has already been stated, but I think it's important to note that the party in Zion was not actually a rave. It looked like Stomp (or a combo similar) was playing. The music initially sounded tribal. It isn't until Neo & Trinity start doing the hokey pokey that the techno starts up - as soundtrack music, not the music from the environment. Just had to get that out of Ye Olde System. The reason I've had to set this straight with far too many people I know is that the idea of a tribal gathering to dance around a fire (slbeit a bit scantily clad in this case) is not new. It's as old as rebirth mythology. Early tribes had to be content with drums and other makeshift instruments since Panasonic hadn't come out with a good CD player yet ;) It makes more sense when you think of it less as a rave and more as the end of a tribal council... with a helluvalot of people.

Steve says:
Sean Duncan says : why should someone have to watch a bunch of animated films plus play a game plus rewatch a bad movie in order to "get" the bad movie?

Why should we, as a public, has ALWAYS to watch stupid movies ? At last with Reloaded I saw one that requiere more than a Homer IQ to get. Who cares that you don't want to think at all, and for ONCE, having a movie that ask more than usual ?

It worked in the first one, it didn't in the second.

You think so. We are legions who think not. Too bad for you, cauz actually Reloaded DO worked well.

RB says:
I've just read through all of these, and had thought on the extended universe/multiple media. People say that they shouldn't have to wait or watch more just to get a movie. My thoughts? Then don't. But don't complain. The way it's been built, that is tantamount (as previously mentioned) to opening a book, reading 1/4 of it, and saying, "This blows. I don't understand anything. It seems too concentrated on this or that or the other thing."

I believe that the Waschowskis are trying to change the entertainment experience. We're just used to a movie being a movie. Obviously, the potential for more has always been there, and no one has ever tried before (well, ok, sorta, but they failed miserably. But no one's tried to this extent. OK, fine Star Wars. But even though it was started with an intent, it was not for what it has grown into). They're not forcing you to do any more, but they're offering the chance. Those who have seen the Animatrix (advanced copies) said it adds to the experience. I think I'll wait until I buy that and play the game before I go a second time. Then it'll be even better. And I liked it the first time!

I understand the complaints, but to me, they sound like someone experiencing something that's completely different from what they're used to and rejecting it because of that. Possibly like someone who tastes Indian food for the first time, hates it, then you meet them a couple of years later and they can't get enough of it. OK, better analogy - like the resistance that talkies encountered when they were introduced over silent movies. I'm not saying the franchise/universe idea is the way to go for everything (really, it wouldn't work for 99.9% of the stuff out there), but I think that it is something different, and one has to appreciate what they are trying to do.

mojokitten says:
Amen to you, RB! As a would-be screenwriter with one on a big guys desk now, world building is an exceptionally challenging exercise. I admire the Wachowskis for being able to construct a multiverse with rules that I feel are working well for them. Just because we feel they've been broken doesn't mean we knew all the rules... yet... if ever. I can't wait until November. Until then, I'll bide my time rewatching what I thought was an excellent film experience!

Dave says:
During the Freeway scenes, there is a quick shot of the interior of a police car with the radio handset laying on the seat. If you listen closely you hear someone over the radio say "1 Adam 12"....I thought it was a hilarious reference to that old TV show. Refutes the opinion that the Ws took the film too seriously.

Andy says:
This has been said many times, but I'll say it again -- why should someone have to watch a bunch of animated films plus play a game plus rewatch a bad movie in order to "get" the bad movie?

They just provide more back-story. Here's an example:

The kid whos always hanging off of Neo is the main subject of one of the Animatrix shorts. He's a young hackeresque skater who goes through much the same process that Neo does: dissatisfaction with the world, late night chat sessions where he learns the truth (except this time it's Neo doing the talking, not Morpheus).

He's pegged as a "free mind" by agents, who pursue him. At the climax of the short, he commits suicide, ostensibly, jumping off the top of a building. The next thing you know, he's on the operating table of a Zion ship, being looked over by Neo and Trinity. But unlike Neo's case from the first Matrix, the kid was not "awakened" by the ship's crew. He spontaneously woke himself by believing that the world inside the Matrix was not real, and killing himself there. Somehow, the Zion ship, which was monitoring him, found his awakened body, and rescued him, but they marvel that he was able to wake himself. They've previously thought this impossible.

This is why Neo tells him, in Reloaded, "I didn't save you, you saved yourself."

So what?

Wellll....

At the beginning of Reloaded, Morpheus emphasizes that the prophecy of the One is not to be ignored, offering the fact that since Neo came around, "we have freed more minds in 6 months than in 6 years"

And at the end of Reloaded, we get that long conversation with the Architect, where he expains that there is a systemic problem in the Matrix, of which the One is the sum, the epitome. Some people reject the program, and if they go unchecked, they can present a threat to the system.

I think the fact that people are beginning to spontaenously free themselves from the Matrix supports the fact that things are reaching a critical mass, and that they do have a choice whether to stay or go. Enough people have rejected or are rejecting the system, that the machines have to do something about it. Which leads to the entire plot of Reloaded - the machine army, the maniuplation of Neo and Zion, etc. The fact that this kid chose to just leave suggests that everyone else is subconsciously choosing to stay, which is a basic premise of how the Matrix is supported, and offers the key to how it might be destroyed.

So there you go. You don't HAVE to see the kid's back story to understand the film, but it lends some support to the events you see in Reloaded. If you want to get more out of the story, and enjoy some cool animation besides, see the Animatrix. If you're too disgusted with cross-marketing to bother, then don't!

Dave says:
Something I haven't read yet. What's the significance of the gift of the earpiece that Agent Smith sends to Neo at the very beginning of the movie (other than, it's just to emphasize the fact that Smith has been set free)?? Will it come into play later??

corporatemofo says:
A philosophical perspective here.

emily says:
i liked it. :-) warning: critical theory ramblings ahead....re: the "rave" scene upping the sex quotient of the film -- i'm fascinated by the sexual imagery in TMR, and i can see a trend developing across the trilogy. the first film was full of images of birth or rebirth, most obviously when Neo awakens in his goo-pod and is flushed out and rescued by the Nebuchadnezzar (just love typing that...Nebuchadnezzar!). the story revolved around Neo's being "born" into a new consciousness, etc. TMR moves on to images of sexuality and especially orgasm, and its dual meaning as "the little death." the film opens with Neo precognizing Trinity's death, a scene that flashes again as she "dies" (i.e. comes) in his arms during the "rave" sequence. then at then very end, Neo saves her life by literally reaching inside her -- to me, a much more sexual image than a big wet kiss would have been. sex and death as the end (as in the "purpose" and as in the "ending") of life is a common theme, and there are all kinds of interesting references sprinkled throuhg the film...look at the Architect, he looks just like Signmund Freud, for pete's sake! :P there is also my favorite pun, the "death by chocolate scene," where we are led (or at least i was led) to believe the Merovingian was going to poison that woman with the chocolate dessert, but instead gives her a glowing green Matrix-code orgasm from across the room...i was sitting there thinking, "The MPAA folks must not get this, or it would be rated NC-17!" just kidding...

rebecca says:
1) I find it heartbreaking that they compromised the aesthetic of the first movie in exchange for sponsorship dollars. The first film was atmospheric and dark: Cypher drives a verdigris 1965 Lincoln Towncar with suicide doors. The second movie, by contrast, offers us the Cadillac Escalade. Sigh.

2) And what do we get for those dollars? Over-the-top fighting that pushes the limits of the technology. I completely agree, Jason K., that they would have been better advised to stay well within those boundaries. The first movie never strayed from effects that had been used for ages in the Hong Kong action film circuit. Let Michael Bay and James Cameron test the beta versions.

3) The geek-boy wish fulfillment is a fucking tragedy. Cave orgy, Persephone begging Neo to make out with her, the orgasm cake... After the first Matrix I had