Slashdot Mirror
First Matrix Reloaded Review
EpsCylonB writes "The IMDB is reporting that the London Daily mirror has the first review of the Matrix Reloaded. Sounds like the Wachowski borthers have gone for an all out action movie which is a shame if true. What I liked most about the original was the way it blended stunning action with a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality." I'll hold judgement until the closing credits myself.
Subtle philosophy? More like blatantly obvious and hackneyed oversimplification of philosophy.
If by philosophy you mean the sort of thoughts you have when you get stoned and are fascinated by the Winamp visualization plugins, then I'll agree. But if by philosophy you mean anything vaguely legitimate on an academic level (I'm talking about old dead Greek and European guys here), then you're sorely mistaken.
The "message" of the Matrix, if it can be called that, is sort of like Plato's Allegory of the cave, minus any actual intellectualism and plus a lot of guns. Don't get me wrong, it's a helluva lot of fun to watch, but you'd be hard pressed to sell it (or the vaunted "Fight Club") as a "philosophical" movie. The Matrix is philosophy in the same sense that pop music is music.
Or maybe that's just my arrogant elitist opinion. Mod down if you really want to, I suppose.
The first Matrix did have some ideas that were distinctly philosophical in nature - to (poorly) summarise "how do I know what is real, and what does 'real' mean anyway"? However, the questions have been asked, and answered, pretty much the same way in a great deal of other fiction. It's philosophical, sure, but it's well-trodden ground.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
They give far too much of it away, not the plot necessarily, but the action sequences and 'new characters'. I don't see they why they are pimping it so badly. People are going to want to see it anyway. The adverts should have been complete teasers. I'm tired of walking into a movie only to discover I know whats coming because of what I've seen on the adverts.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Why use humans at all? If all you need is a powersource, stick in sheep? Less troublesome by half
a) There're no sheep left after the war between humans and machines, presumably;
and 2) Your brain produces enough electricity to power a microwave. I'm not sure how other mammals compare in this regard, but I doubt they fare much better.
The caloric efficiency of using bodies as massive networked energy sources is a concept I don't buy. Cripes. Burning wood has to be more efficient.
Yeah, the efficiency thing bugged me too. You can't just keep feeding dead people to new people without losing at least the body heat of the living in the process. Perhaps there's another unexplained food source, maybe algae or something. As for trees, the sky has been 'burnt', so no solar energy gets through (which would've been the optimal solution anyway, at least until the machines develop some other source of energy based of fusion or something).
Moreover, who cares what people in the matrix think? If they revolt, so what?
Actually, I think the preceding two points you made answer this one nicely, if we consider the Matrix a stop-gap measure used by the machines to perpetuate themselves until such a time as they no longer need humans. They may even be using human scientists within the Matrix to provide solutions to problems which they, as machines, haven't the creative insight to solve for themselves. Approached from this point of view, the eventual extermination of the human race by the machines becomes an inevitablility if the humans to not wake up and overthrow them.
Lastly, this is a nitpick I know, but bullets travel at well over the speed of sound. I don't care how fast you pull the trigger, with the action of a semi-automatic, the bullets will likely be 100 feet apart between shots.
That's true if you or I are firing the gun. If an Agent inside the Matrix is firing the gun, however, the results may be somewhat different.
Of course, you still have to jump through a lot of suspension-of-disbelief hoops to buy the premise of the movie, so if you don't appreciate crazy scifi kung-fu stoner philosophy flicks with Carrie-Anne Moss in skin-tight leather outfits, you're more than welcome to spend your movie dollar seeing The Lizzie McGuire Movie
"If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
If you thought that theme was subtle, you don't get out much.
I've seen numerous movies with more subtle themes. The Matrix is about kicking ass and wearing leather.
The message must be appropriate to the medium.
Movies affect the senses in order to affect the mind. Books turn that around.
Therefore, for a movie to be a "philosophical" movie, it is more important that it show the results of its motivation in a sensual manner (sensuous is acceptable as well, depending on your motivation ;-) and allow the audience to create its own framework for analysis than to spell it out for them.
The point of the questioning in The Matrix was to provide an easily-graspable starting point for anyone to start thinking about what he had seen and felt from the movie. The action sequences were there --- at least in part --- for us to entertain ourselves with the construct so created.
Fiction lies within the realm of "what if." It is the responsibility of the fiction writer to produce an entertaining read for his audience (even if that audience is just himself). We ask a bit more of science fiction, in that the what if must also consider philosophical ramifications, but we often balk if said philosophy bits are presented in the raw and not worked into the story.
The point is that exposition and essay such as Descart and Herodotus wrote is completely inappropriate to a science fiction movie, and more suited to the medium in which they wrote. Otherwise they would have been writing plays or poems and songs such as their artistic bretheren were doing.
The dialogues of Plato also are ill-suited to the movie medium. The closest good (by which I mean literary or otherwise of artistic merit) movie to the dialogues would be Waking Life --- and even that is half-baked if considered as a philosophical essay.
The mistake is not in the creation, it is in the analysis of the critic: we do not analyse poems as we do philosophical journal articles, so why insist that movies serve as such?
Another thing that bugs me about the above post: the author is only considering what is actually said in the movie. In a visual and auditory medium, that is insipid: would Apocalypse Now play so well as a radio show?
Also, it is considered of higher intellectual integrity to kindly consider a piece's arguments and fill them out as you would if you were the person proposing them in opposition to your own arguments. Knocking a work because it does not address what you are arguing is of very low class. Perhaps you should read Aquinas, or talk to any Ancient Philosophy 101 teacher.
The point of philosophy is not to bash another's views, but to discover Truth and the constructs towards Truth. That's why we call it philosophy.
All the same, I thank you for your post because it was one of the first in its vein cogent enough to respond to.
PS: Yes, I feel the same way towards people who consider The Matrix to be the be-all-end-all of solipsistic philosophy. Then again, it's not the worst introduction to it, and I've been shocked by how few people are familiar with solipsistic arguments.
ROTFLMAO.
Oh yes, The Matrix, a movie, was so very, very subtle. And philosophic. It practically put Plato to shame. Oh, we are so sophisticated here. Hmmm. Could we build on this deep, deep insight and discuss how Biodome compares with Kierkegaard? "No! I will not be limited by your limited metaphysical world!"
I'm sorry, I enjoy The Matrix as much as the next geek, but please. Philisophical content??? The basic idea of the mind/reality seperation has been around longer than Descartes' subjectivist turn in his Meditations. Let's not put too much value in these films. They throw a mild technology element into an idea thats existed for a long time. I think the production and mythological element should be much more valued. Maybe I've just spent too much of my life buried in books (yes the ones with paper pages and ink type) but I didn't find the "world isn't real" aspect of the film(s) to be that shocking or original. It was mildly interesting at best. But the way it was presented in combination with the way that their (semi)religion was presented in the context played out in a very interesting manner.
The X-Men saga is about as interesting philisophically with the alagory (that whole civil rights thing). Then again, I'm excited about these flicks as well.
Both, I think fall in the good movies as opposed to good films category (call me snobby! please!). Apocalypse Now was a great film. Fritz Lang's catalogue were great films. The Matrix and The Matrix:Reloaded, must see? YES! Great film? eeehhhhh.... Derivative, but well presented? Probably. Only time will tell what people really think of these.