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.

Comments

Re:Its a sequel

[aarondyck]

Are you saying that it's not possible to innovate AND make money? It seems to me that in the first Matrix movie they were both innovative and money-making! In addition, this movie has been compared to the Empire Strikes Back by the Wychowski bros. (sp?), another movie that both innovated and made money...seems to me that Empire is still in the top 20 all time...and do you remember the scenes with the ships and the guns and the snow and the stormtroopers...cutting edge bluescreen technology, they did things that were unheard of in the movie inudstry at the time. I believe that Matrix Reloaded will be the same...right down to the romance scenes!

Matrix Philosophy

[dpilot]

Two catch-phrases stuck with me from the movie. The first one was, "There is no spoon," because it was quoted here on /., and on second thought it was kind of amusing.

But the one that really stuck was, "Guns, lots of guns." The lobby scene was one of the most poetic sequences of violent overkill I've ever seen, right up there with the Diva/Lulu music/fight scene near the end of Fifth Element.

I am purposely avoiding reviews until I see the movie, so I haven't read the link, and skipped the earlier quote. But the action is OK if it has the poetry in motion of the first one. Hopefully they've broken some new ground, if they want my money on the third movie before it gets to second-run cheap seats.

I'm sorry to say it...

[Wind_Walker]

The Matrix was really not a philosophical movie. It was an action movie that throws in a few pseudo-philosophical concepts without actually delving into the subject fully. I don't fault the creators for this, but I'm still mad at people who are upset by this "divergence" from the original.

The first time I watched The Matrix I was impressed by the philosopical aspect of it, and wowed by the action. The second time I saw how thin the plot was and how shallow the characters were, but was still impressed by the action. The third time I used my Chapter button on the DVD to skip ahead to the action, because I grew tired of the one-line philosophy.

"Have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real?" Please. Read fscking Decartes, he does a much better analysis of reality than Morpheus ever could. "Would you still have broken the vase if I hadn't said anything?" Christ, get that woman some Herodotus or St. Augustine. "Fate is not without a certain sense of irony." Give me a gun. I can't take it anymore.

It's pseudo-philosophy, just like Contact is pseudo-scientific. Fine for the mainstream audience, but if you've studied the subject they're touching on it's just plain insulting. So I'm glad to see that they've stopped trying to be philosophical and just stuck with what really made The Matrix successful - mind-blowing action.

right

[mojowantshappy]

I can hardly say that the first movie had a stunning, subtle philosophical theme. Our perception of reality is false, instead we are a battery for robot overlords. Very subtle.

Time review... SPOILER!!!!

[Shant3030]

Time magazine put a review on their website, that supposedly spoils the ending.

DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK IF YOU DO WANT THE ENDING SPOILED

Matrix spoiler

Re:Oh come on

[spoonboy42]

Funny, I always thought the Matrix was more like Descartes' "Malicious Demon", who has conspired to decieve an individual from birth into believing in an utterly false conception of reality. Starting by assuming that the existence of said demon is possible, Descartes began to reason that only his own internal thoughts were not suspect (and even then, his thoughts must have been colored by perception. Who is to say that 2 + 2 = 4 is not itself a deception?). This led to his eventual famous formulation: I think, therefore I am.

I could go on at length about his "ghost in the machine" concept here, but I'll hold my tongue, as I don't feel like typing all that. Suffice to say, the Matrix has a good number of Cartesian themes.

Anyway, the Matrix isn't meant to introduce genuinely revolutionary concepts in Philosophy. It does, however, serve as an excellent vehicle for conveying Philosophical concepts in an entertaining, easily accesible way. Plato himself did this by writing dialogues: Sure, he expoused all sorts of interesting ideas in works like the Republic, but he related them much more fluidly in the dialogues (except for Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, which were really about his teacher Socrates). No, the Wachowskis aren't possessed of Socratic wisdom, but they are much like the great poets whom Socrates questioned: they have an intuitive knowledge of their art, and through their work they introduce the masses to ideas that they wouldn't ordinarily come across, and this is definately a *good thing*.

How to use the premise

[Kappelmeister]

I'd also be disappointed in an all-out action sequel, because of the philosophical underpinnings of the original.

I'm writing a movie about the psychology of VR worlds (applied to MMORPGs) and thought it would be a neat exercise to make a list of the ways the Matrix premise could been pushed. These are straight from my notes:

• An RL (real life) character takes on several MV (metaverse) characters, or at least, someone who doesn't look exactly the same.
• RL characters continue to kill with impunity in the MV, but discuss the ethics -- isn't it as bad as killing an RL person, since it essentially is? (Why is Neo less than a serial murderer for what he did in the lobby, since those policemen thought they were pretty real?)
• Neo alters MV world history by materializing at key places at key times, as opposed to just hanging around downtown.
• The Matrix history is recorded and characters use the records to uncover key revelations about the world and each other. (This world would be very different if there were absolute records of every physical event.)
• A futher exploration of the mind/body problem. This movie "enforces" the notion that all physicality is part of the mind -- they are not parallel or intertwined. Neo's ability to reform the Matrix is a great device for this -- "there is no spoon" indeed. But is the spoon, then, bent just for him, or for everyone? How might the computer resolve divergent internalizations, interpretations, and mental images? Surely there is a large piece of perception that lies well outside the computer's reach of sensory input -- can't people get out of sync?

But then again... it's hard to sell tickets when you make movies out of musings like those.

Re:Destiny

[Jainith]

KEANU Reeves turned his moribund career around by taking the part of Neo. But it could have been a lot different. Ewan McGregor and Will Smith both turned down the part before the Speed star snapped it up.

Hmm...matrix with Ewan McGregor...I can see it, maybe...but not nearly as *cool* as the real one.

Will Smith, UGH! That would have been a disaster...He would have destroyed what is truely a classic movie!

Jainith

Re:Oh come on

[weston]

Subtle philosophy? More like blatantly obvious and hackneyed oversimplification of philosophy.

Oversimplified? Maybe. Muted? You bet. But:

1. This is a story told in film. The premise isn't a vehicle for detailed philosophical discussion, it's for the story.
   
2. The premise, however, is one of the first full illustrations of the "brain in jar"/"shadows on the wall"/"evil demon" philosophical themes that some people are going to encounter. Philosophy students are going to find only very well-trodden ground -- but wasn't it terribly interesting to even them before familiarity bred contempt?
   
3. Furthermore, there's some interesting angles that most people totally ignore. Why would a demon keep your brain in a jar and torment you? There's evilness/enmity and that's a possibility. But in the Matrix, there's utility derived from doing so -- supposedly energy, maybe computational work. The former premise is so ridiculous to anyone who knows what's going on you wonder why they made it. I wonder if they did it to draw attention to a potential analogue: in this world, in 2003, you are plugged into a system. It's not a evil AI made VR, it's society. And it may be there are forces at work in that society that exist to keep you working as little other than a happy cog... you could use the analogy as an examination for socio/political commentary, if you like.
   
4. Buit the movie doesn't seem to, really, and in fact, the movie's peripheral treatment of philosophical elements may have been one of the wisest possible moves. And akin to what Lewis and Williams and especially Tolkien liked to do: don't work with analogy so much as archetype, and not even archetype so much as simply story. It's not about creating a symbolic tapestry that the initiated can have a field day swimming in and decoding. It's about creating a compelling experience that people can taste and draw meaning out of.
   

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[etymxris]

I have a feeling that most people who enjoyed The Matrix won't be able to handle lofty philosophical concepts

That's not exactly fair. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit and have a firm grasp on the fundamentals of most philosophical subjects, which includes a degree in the field. The Matrix is a scenario that is impractical to implement but nevertheless a rich source of discussion in philosophy. Of course, it's been done before. The 'Brothers are by no means the first to think of the idea. Way before them was the idea of a "brain in a vat" that would live a simulated existence. The possibility of such a brain leads us to question what we can call real. Is our entire life just simulated? Would we be able to tell? Does it even matter? These are important questions. You are being too dismissive to just say that the Matrix has no philosophical content. It might not have any new philosophical content, but that does not leave it stripped of anything worthy of discussion.

Re:Speaking of Pinket..

[Random BedHead Ed]

Having said that, imagine Ewan MacGregor. We know he can go from Trainspotting (think thin, pale) for the real world to ATOTC (action hero) for the Matrix. I think he would have added a lot more dimension to Neo than Keanu did.

I quite like the first film with Keanu, and I think it's his best role to date (which isn't saying much, but admit it - you didn't cringe at his acting in Matrix like you did in his other films). But I think a film with Ewan would have been a really interesting choice.

You're right, though. Will Smith has a lot going for him, but he might have ruined The Matrix.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[etymxris]

I think the shallowness of the philosophy in the Matrix makes it so that you can safely say "the Matrix has no philosophical content". It can spark a philosophical discussion, but so can my three-year-old.

Does The Matrix make cogent philosophical arguments? No. But I'd say it's ability to "provoke" discussion is a little better than your three-year-old. Things such as The Matrix exist primarily as philosophical ideas, whereas your three-year-old has a lot more going for him/her than being a subject of philosophical discussion.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[etymxris]

What's depressing is that so many people seem to think the crap that was in The Matrix consisted of Important Questions About Existence(TM).

I don't understand. Isn't something like "the matrix", or "a brain in a vat" exactly the type of idea we want to consider when trying to determine what the ultimate nature of reality is?

Let's consider a simulated environment so good that we could not determine it was simulated. How then could we call it simulated? We would have no evidence of it being simulated, and so all of empiricism would have us call it "real"? But in this hypothetical example what is, by all available evidence, called "real" is not real. And our means of obtaining knowledge cannot allow us to answer this question. So is there even a distinction to be made between the simulation that is experienced "as real" and what "really" is?

The distinction is false, and leads us into the mysterious realm of anti-realism. You should read a few proponents of the subject, such as Hilary Putnam and Michael Dummett, before you disparage it. Not saying these philosophers would enthusiastically embrace the movie "The Matrix", but the type of hypotheticals considered in the movie are critical to, say, Hilary Putnam's anti-realism.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[Vann_v2]

You've hit the nail on the head. The problem with most philosophical "proofs" of God's existence is that they proof a God wholly different from the one we "want." Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion goes over this pretty well, and Kant's moral argument for the existence of God is one of the few "proofs" that actually presents us with the God we "want."

I say "want" for the very reason that, of course, different people want different gods. Take it as you will, and forgive me for possibly being incoherent -- I need sleep.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[benzapp]

Ahh, and pray tell, what philosophy have you read in your life?

No western philosophy discusses in too great of detail whether this world is real or not. Western philosophy has realized for some time that the best way to control men's minds is to present to them a false reality. This is in fact one of the dominant themes in Nietzsche, that morality and tradition were created as tools of enslavement.

Today, the method is through education and corporatism. Enslave the mind and you have no need for shackles.

I would estimate that less than 1% of Americans are familiar with this concept as outlined by Nietzsche, you among them. The matrix presents this in a fantanstic way, and has the means to convey this important lesson to the viewer.

Would I rather have people read Beyond Good and Evil and The Geneology of Morals? Certainly, but that won't happen. Perhaps your inability to see any wisdom in the movie speaks of your own ignorance. What you believe to be philosophy is nothing more than jibberish... Modern philosophy seeks to answer more than simple and ultimately irrelevant metaphysical questions. That is for the buddhists and new age folks.