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

Destiny

[mao che minh]

I believe it is our fate to read the review.

It is our destiny.

I believe this review holds, for each and everyone of us, the greatest spoiler of our lives.

** By the way **, the site was already running a bit slow when I previewed this article, so just in case, the article text:

FIRST REVIEW OF STUNNING NEW MATRIX MOVIE
May 7 2003
WORLD EXCLUSIVE
From Jackie Winter In Los Angeles

AT THE start of The Matrix Reloaded, Laurence Fishburne turns to Keanu Reeves and says: "This is going to be difficult." How right he is.

The much-anticipated sequel to 1999's cult classic sees all manner of kung-fu warriors and evil machines thrown at Reeves in an orgy of highly-choreographed martial arts mayhem.

The Matrix Reloaded picks up where the original left off - but explodes the action and special effects by a factor of 10.

There are more fights, more crashes and more action in two hours than a hundred other sci-fi movies combined. But the highlight is a spectacular freeway demolition derby which takes car chases to a whole new level.

And the first film's groundbreaking slow-motion/freeze-frame effects have been further extended, tweaked and enhanced to make them even more eye-popping than before.

But if you're looking for something a little more than crash, bang, wallop then this second instalment will leave you cold. Reloaded is crammed full of the cod philosophy that fans of the original loved but which left me distinctly unimpressed.

The plot is even more convoluted than before and flits between everything from religion to quantum physics and mathematics.

When we last saw Neo (Keanu Reeves), he was preparing to lead a revolt against the machines that had enslaved all of humanity - and that were now threatening to attack the last human city of Zion.

Recognised by Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) as The One, the potential saviour of mankind learned how to manipulate the computer program that is our world.

Now Neo has honed those skills until he can fly like Superman. It's a skill that comes in handy after he starts having dreams about his girlfriend Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) falling from a city skyscraper in a shower of glass.

The villain of the first film - Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) - is back with a few new tricks up his sleeve, not least the ability to replicate himself. In one of the key scenes, Neo battles it out with first just one Smith, then eight, then 24 and finally 100.

Dressed in his shades and robe, Reeves once again deadpans his way through the movie. It's a role made for him as he has to do little more than smoulder and high kick his way through the baddies.

At least he gets a sex scene with Moss before he heads off to the city of Zion. It's one of the few breaks from the relentless action and although it sounds ridiculous, it provides a welcome diversion from the non-stop effects.

There's also some new characters like Niobe (Jada Pinkett Smith), who captains one of the rebel ships. And Persephone (Monica Bellucci), a sexy bad-girl-turned-good who hooks Neo up with the all-important Keymaker (Randall Duk Kim).

Also making an appearance are evil twins played by brothers Adrian and Neil Rayment who have, bizarrely, made the leap from handymen on Carol Vorderman's Better Homes to Hollywood stardom.

If you're looking for a deep, meaningful cinematic experience then The Matrix Reloaded is not for you. But if it's a non-stop rollercoaster ride you're after, then this movie is light years ahead of anything that's gone before.

- THE Matrix Reloaded is released on May 23. The final chapter in the trilogy, The Matrix Revolutions, is out in November.

THE Matrix Reloaded and the next film, Matrix Revolutions, were shot simultaneously in Australia over 270 days from 2001 to 2002. Combined, they cost more than £200m - £160m more than the original.

MANY believe The Matrix is cursed. In A

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:Destiny

[tealover]

Someone please save the parent post. It's the only known post to indicate a preference for Keanu Reeves' acting ability.

I'm sure someone from the Smithsonian will want to archive it.

Re:Destiny

[Davak]

Shmuck... you lie. The screeners are fake.

I'll be reported first here when it is finally leeched.

Heck, it would probably be a freaking slashdot story.

Stop the rumors...

Davak

Your impression...

[dvk]

Your impression that the first Matrix had any philosophical content was just a glitch in the program.

-DVK

Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Oh come on

[still_sick]

It's odd that you chose to mention Plato's Cave in your rant, rather than the "Mad Scientist" / "Evil Demon" / or "Brain in a Jar" problem, each of which being essentially the actual premise of the movie.

A very very very quick summary for those who didn't waste time in Philosophy classes (like me :) :
- Plato's Cave poses the idea of some people being bound in a cave in such a way that the only things they can see are shadows on the back of the wall. These people are in this situation for their whole lives, and so to them, the entire world consists of shadows on a wall. Anyone who tried to tell them that the shadows are being created by 3D beings in a whole big bright world out there would be immediately dismissed by them as a lunatic.
- The "Mad Scientist" / "Evil Demon" / "Brain in a Jar" problem are all the same question - how do you know "reality" as you know it really exists? How do you know you're not imagining everything? The "Mad Scientist" and "Brain in a Jar" are two names for the same variant - what if you're nothing but a brain in a jar being poked/prodded by a Mad Scientist such that he's making you THINK that your reality exists. The "Evil Demon" is the exact same idea, but posed way back in Plato's time - what if the entire world the way you know it is nothing but a trick being played on you by an Evil Demon?

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*.

Re:Oh come on

[spoonboy42]

Of course it has Cartesian themes. It's a Matrix, after all.

I apologize for the prior lame math joke in response to my own post and hereby hang my head in shame.

Re:Oh come on

[BTWR]

I'm talking about old dead Greek and European guys here

Last time I checked, Greeks were Europeans too...

Re:Oh come on

[theLOUDroom]

Or maybe that's just my arrogant elitist opinion. Mod down if you really want to, I suppose.

It is. "The Truman Show" is Plato's allegory of the cave. "The Matrix" is a different concept.

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.

Wow. I wasn't aware that you had to be a dead greek or european to have "legitimate" ideas about philosophy. Holy ethnocentrism batman! I suppose you're willing to just ignore any sort of eastern philosophy? Or is it just that you have to be dead before your ideas are worth anything?

While "The Matrix" wasn't an old, dusty book, it sure was a legitimate discussion of certain philosophical ideas. Maybe you're just too easily distracted by action sequences.
It didn't contain any truly revolutionay ideas, but I don't think Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" did either. Both were a good story, that people can actually grasp. Who do you think they're both so popular?

I suppose you're so eager to belittle "The Matrix" since it means people can get access to certain ideas that you had to learn in a more painful manner. No one could ever learn anything worthwhile except from a book that was written by a dead white guy. Geez. Who educated you?

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:Oh come on

[sparkz]

Heard of Google?

You can find Buddhism, Christianity, both Buddhism and Christianity, and tons more.

Last time I google'd, which was a year or two ago, many more (and, might I say, better) articles were found by Google on the first few pages.

The obvious stuff: Zion, Trinity, NeoOne, even more at Raiders News. It may be news to some at /., but "Oracle" isn't only a database, too...

Basically, the film (great as it is) has borrowed from just about everything it can find. Its great achievement is combining all these things into a single, reasonably coherent film. Let's hope the next are as good, and not just "But what if a computer-created bus had no breaks" and "What about a cruise ship?"

Re:Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

But what is philosophy if it is not intellectual masturbation? Really, I could live a perfectly happy and productive life and contribute all kinds of great things to the world without ever having read Nietzche, Ayn Rand or Lao-Tzu. Some people happen to like their intellectual masturbation in the form of philosophy. I happen to like my intellectual masturbation in the form of science fiction novels by people like Verner Vinge, Joe Haldeman and Douglas Adams. To say that the kind of stodgy philosophy taught in college is worthwhile and where as the kind learned from sci-fi novels (and movies like The Matrix) is worthless just shows a lot of elite bigotry and small mindedness.

Re:Oh come on

[Ieshan]

I'd also like to point out a few things you missed:

1) The people who are gifted enough to leave the "cave" first poorly adjust - see Neo in new environment. The people who return, in order to "liberate" the caged are laughed at, and told that the true light has blinded them, as they are unable to identify the objects on the wall.

2) The "Philosophers", the ones who see the true light, are reluctant but feel obligated to return to the cave in order to free them, much like the characters in the matrix, who face countless obstacles but still persist.

The Cave Allegory is quite well played out in the Matrix. Don't be so quick to bash his comment.

Re:Oh come on

[reverseengineer]

Yeah, Jean Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation" sorta fits in with the idea of the Matrix, the first chapter, anyway, and interpreted in a literal way. He coined that fantastic phrase, "the desert of the real", actually. He starts off with the suggestion, like the brain-in-a-jar concept, that if a simulation of reality were perfect, we could be "on the map, not the territory," and would not be able to distinguish the two. He then moves to the idea of a possible "hyperreality," a map more accurate than the territory itself, a simulation more real than reality. This is an abstract metaphysical concept to Baudrillard; it is depicted quite literally in "The Matrix."

The real world is a nightmarish wasteland under a ruined sky. The crew of the Nebuchadnezzar wear dirty, torn rags and eat a substance succintly characterized as tasting like "a bowl of snot." They have to pilot their decrepit old ship through old sewers, hiding from terrifying robotic killers, defended only by a desperation weapon. They don't even know what year it is.

Keeping that in mind, the Matrix must seem even more alluring to the crew of the Neb. Not only have they actually seen the real world, and been made aware of its hellish condition, but also when they do enter the Matrix, they get to be effectively demigods on earth. The crew jacks in, and is transformed into a team of badasses. Dressed to kill, and heavily, heavily armed to help them accomplish that task, they are the epitome of millennial cool. Food tastes as it should, they roll a sweet ride complete with suicide doors (judging from the trailers for "Reloaded," though, it would appear that the construct program recently had the "Cadillac" patch installed), they in fact know kung fu. (I realize that they would know martial arts in reality as well, but they would be of limited use against giant metal squid machines with plasma drills.) What's more, the laws of physics apply to them only in a very limited sense (and in the case of Neo now, almost not at all). The illusion of the Matrix presents a land of nearly infinite possibility; it is a remarkable form of reality that does not have the constraint of needing to be realistic. Were it not for those pesky Agents and turncoats like Cypher trying to kill them, the Matrix could well be like a paradise. To paraphrase a fantastic line from another great recent movie, they would be as gods among insects. It's not quite what Baudrillard had in mind when he wrote about the hyperreal (in fact, I'm not entirely sure exactly what he meant, given the wording, but I'll get to that in a sec), but the idea is definitely transmitted in the exchange between Cypher and Trinity (as Cypher is unplugging the crew one by one), where Cypher argues that the Matrix could be far more real than the real world.

It's an interesting idea, that a simulation could be more real than reality itself. If such a thing were arranged, would you ever want to leave? The crew of the Neb are obviously helped out in their decision, as the vast majority of the Matrix can at any time be taken over and transformed into a relentless killing machine that can dodge bullets and punch through walls. But if there were no Agents, it's hard to say whether I'd take the bombed out desert of the real over a perfect computer universe that I could bend to my will. It's hard enough sometimes to pull away from a computer game, which is often a very limited simulation of some part of reality; how on earth could you decide to leave a computer game that could be far better than life in reality could possibly ever be.

You might argue, like Trinity, that "it isn't real." You're right. It's better than reality, more than reality. As even Morpheus, the zealot trying to free all humanity from its "prison," admits, "reality" is defined by "electrical signals intrepreted by your brain." In the desert of the real, these electrical signals transmit that the world involves ugly clothes, disgusting food, plugs in your body, and hiding in sewers from killer robots.

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!

Philosophy and the matrix...

[Goonie]

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.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[kamikazichaser]

but that question was simply there to set up the action, not enlighten or challenge you. I loved the first one, but it was pure escapism, nothing more. if this movie is 10 times the action and 10 times the SFX, as the mirror reviewer states, then it will be 10 times the movie (ideally speaking of course). Hell, I want people to be passing out in the theater due to the action!

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[goatasaur]

Try Descartes' Meditations if you want to check out the OG of questioning.

As Plato said in Phaedrus, "the writer cannot determine his audience". and I have a feeling that most people who enjoyed The Matrix won't be able to handle lofty philosophical concepts, much less a fiercely logical structured argument for the existence of God and reality, without constant diversions in the form of gun battles, sex scenes, and other forms of violent eye candy.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[Verteiron]

This is off-topic and will probably be moderated as such, but can you point me to an example of a fiecely logical structured argument for the existence of God?

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[maxpublic]

The philosophical musings of the first one weren't any deeper than you'd find in the ramblings of a wet-behind-the-ears freshman taking a required first-year course in the subject.

Really, the 'philosophy' of the Matrix was just a set up for the theme of the movie. There was nothing at all 'deep' to it, unless your normal fare of this stuff consists of the questions Seinfeld asks during his stand-up routine at the end of his horrid show.

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). That says more about the educational system than anything else.

But I wouldn't sweat it. The Matrix was great, brainless fun, and that's exactly as it should be.

Max

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[alienmole]

We must have different definitions of "logical". Descartes' Meditations doesn't conform to anything recognized as logic in the modern world. You can call it philosophy, but not logic.

It's full of unsupported statements like "For there can be no doubt that God possesses the power of producing all the objects I am able distinctly to conceive", and early on, he admits that "the belief that there is a God who is all powerful, and who created me, such as I am, has, for a long time, obtained steady possession of my mind". IOW, it is a profession of faith, and at best, a philosophical justification thereof.

So no, Descartes Meditations cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as a "fiercely logical structured argument for the existence of God and reality". A fiercely logical argument would tear that work to shreds, as important as it might be in the history of existential thought.

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:Philosophy and the matrix...

[etymxris]

Decartes' Meditations... read what you're replying to. It's useful.

Logic is destructive, not constructive. It leads us from contradiction, but lends us no positive conclusions. Nothing that is not a tautology follows from logic. Is God a tautology? Not any "God" that does any meaningful actions. So there can be no logical proof of God's existence.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[johnnyb]

The only one of Descartes meditations that made sense was the first one. The rest rested on very large assumptions. Many people in philosophy think that he bunged up the first one as well, but I've never seen someone argue that successfully. It's usually because they assume that Descarte's "I" implies a "soul" with all of it's trappings. If you don't take it as that, I find that the Descarte's first meditation is one of the only self-evident truths, but sadly you can't get beyond that. Descarte tried but failed miserably.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[johnnyb]

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.

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...

[jellybear]

I disagree.

Matrix:
philosophy=1
action=1
escapism=1
ove rall=1*1*1=1

Matrix reloaded:
philosophy=0
action=10
escapism=10
o verall=0*10*10=0

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.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[forgotmypassword]

You are making a false conclusion from true statements. You can see this everyday in mathematics. You can start with some axiomic set of definitions and work your way into proofs of incredible theorems. Now, logically, you have nothing more than the definitions that you began with - but you can do so much more and your understanding is so much greater.

There was a school of thought centered upon your very argument. They were ant-logic and anti-science. I can't remember their name, but they were mostly debated into oblivion a long, long time ago.

And proving that there can be no proof of a God that performs meaningful actions is infinitely more difficult than you claim. Especially when you do not define God.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[kamikazichaser]

Who the hell said that that was the equation to make a good action flick? Look, I know this is subjective, but I think it does a disservice to serious movie makers (actors, directors, etc) to assume that this movie needs poignant character relationships or an important message.
Granted, I prefer an action film have a bit more than guns and gore, but I certainly don't need a deep meaningful discussion on "why." All I need for a really good action flick is a little character development (so I care who wins), a defined setting, and a coherent plot. Once you have that, you just add action and stir.
In an action flick, plot and setting are there to move the action along. Everything else is just too subtle to play in a film like this.
If you want cyberpunk with philosophy, go read a Gibson novel.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[curunir]

Yeah, but you used standard multiplication...with "Matrix" multiplication a single zero doesn't zero out the entire result...

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[Textbook Error]

No western philosophy discusses in too great of detail whether this world is real or not.

Er, not quite - that was exactly what Descartes (rationalism) and Berkeley/Lock (empiricism) were all about (as well as nutbars like Heidegger and Kant to a degree).

This was probably the most significant development in "western" (i.e., european) philosophy at the time, and arguably a lot more profound than Nietzsche's semi-sociological leanings (which are more about his obsession with control than anything else - "if you're going to see a woman, remember to take a whip!", etc).

If the Matrix takes anything from philosophy, it's the Cartesian method - how do you know that what you perceive is real, and not just put there to trick you? Descarte's answer was that you can't, and the only thing you can ever know for sure is that you, the individual doing the questioning, exists.

Neo takes it for granted that the reality shown to him by Morpheus is really real, but of course he has no more way of testing that than he did in the original simulation. Ultimately he takes the route of Empiricism, and choses to act in a way that seems appropriate to what he perceives - which of course is exactly what he was doing before.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[Groganz]

But Rene DesCarte was a drunken fart who was very rarely stable.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[tuxedo-steve]

Score:-1, Uppity masturbation.

If you think you've got the opportunity to teach people something, learn to do it gracefully.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[puusism]

No western philosophy discusses in too great of detail whether this world is real or not.

Then perhaps you haven't read enough western philosophy? The father of "modern" philosophy, Plato, believed that the world we see is only an incomplete projection from a world of ideas. His most famous example of this is the cave analogy, where the people in the cave only see the shadows of things in front of the cave entrance, and believe what they see in front of them is all there is.

Rene Descartes pondered what we can tell for sure about the world around us. His famous conclusion was "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"). He meant, that one person may be just tormented by some demon who feeds him sensory information, but by thinking, the person can know for sure that he exists, and only that.

I think your claim that western philosophy doesn't discuss the reality of the world is false. Reading a few books by Nietzsche doesn't make anyone a philosopher. I would recommend an exellent book "Sophie's World" by Jostein Gaarder as an introduction to the basics of western philosophy.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[Drakonian]

Cute, but yeah it does.

Re:Philosophy and the matrix...

[etymxris]

And proving that there can be no proof of a God that performs meaningful actions is infinitely more difficult than you claim. Especially when you do not define God.

Not only is it difficult, it's impossible. There can be no logical proof of God's existence, and there can be no logical proof of God's non-existence. In addition, there can be no logical proof that there is no proof of God's existence. But there is a logical proof that there is no logical proof of God's existence.

What I mean by "logical" proof is just that that can be derived from logic. God does not follow from logic itself. But as someone else pointed out, God might follow from something else, such as morality, as Kant thought.

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.

Re:I'm sorry to say it...

[MourningBlade]

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.

Re:I'm sorry to say it...

[Idarubicin]

It's pseudo-philosophy, just like Contact is pseudo-scientific.

To be fair to Carl Sagan, the book version of Contact (preceding the movie by many years) was IMHO much superior to the movie. In a book, one has the time and space to much more thoroughly explore both science and philosphy--which Sagan did.

Re:I'm sorry to say it...

[sparkz]

If you got all the philosophical stuff out of The Matrix in the first viewing, you obviously know your Judeo-Christian history and Buddhist philosophy intimately. I'd guess it'd put you in the top 2-5% of such knowledge.

Hang on though, such experts would either ignore it as not their problem, or investigate it further as such.
I suspect you're more the "Philosophy 101" type who says "Trinity - I've heard that word; Zion - I've heard that word, too" without any actual understanding.

The Matrix is a strange, and inconsistent film (not least - why, in a simulated world, do simulated telephones have such significance?!) but to dismiss the entire thing in a single viewing is a sign either of an incredible life experience, or of an incredible ignorance.

It's only a film, that is true, but there is more to it than Independance Day, which, to be fair, a Media Studies student could hopefully be able to get /something/ out of after a 3rd viewing.

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

640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody

[sandbagger]

The first film I saw drunk and was still able to shoot holes in the "plot".

Why use humans at all? If all you need is a powersource, stick in sheep? Less troublesome by half.

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.

Of course, if you choose that route then you don't have a story, my point exactly.

Moreover, who cares what people in the matrix think? If they revolt, so what? If I want a how do you perceive reality story, I'll take "Rosencratnz and Gildenstern are Dead" any day.

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.

Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody

[the_consumer]

Actually, none of those examples are "plot holes", which generally means an error in continuity or logic in the story. It did have a couple, but on the whole, for being as convoluted as it was, it was pretty internally consistent.

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

Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody

[ShadowDrake]

>2) Your brain produces enough electricity to power a microwave.

Wow. I was under the impression that a typical microwave (the one they design the frozen dinner for) required 700 watts or so. The one on my kitchen counter uses 1100 IIRC. Let's imagine the heat output of four halogen bulbs (or 15 or so Palominos at 1667MHz) in a space smaller than a two-litre soda bottle.

Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody

[maxpublic]

Your own justification for humans as power sources is itself full of holes. The human body will always consume more energy than it produces; humans are losers in terms of energy production, and highly inefficient losers at that.

There are at least a dozen different power sources I could name that would've made more sense than what was described in the move. It would've been much more logical to assume that the Matrix was, in fact, an extension of the current internet - one that gained a life of its own, but in Futureland couldn't exist without the continued processor power of 6 billion human brains, connected. Now *this* I could've bought, even if it strained my credulity more than I normally allow.

Use this and you have a definite reason why the Matrix needs humans and can't give them up. Without all those human brains for processing power it becomes lobotomized and dies.

Max

Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody

[markx16]

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.

No, the agents can't change how machines work. If you remember the Metal Storm(lots of bullets in a tube machine gun) and from that discussion, remember that even at the maximum cyclical rate of an automatic machine gun, bullets are separated by hundreds of feet. That's because there's quite a bit to be done to extract the cartridge, eject it, and get a new cartridge in position, and usually you're cycling a pretty massive piece of metal, which has to accelerate and decelerate.

Pushing the trigger faster and faster on a semi-auto (which is what their Desert Eagles are) won't do a damned thing if the slide's still open and there isn't a bullet in the chamber.

That's not true, however, of revolvers - which cycle as fast as you can cycle the cylinder. So they'd be able to shoot it much faster than with a semi-auto - up to the point that it starts and stops so fast the catch breaks. They'd be much better off with the new S&W .50cal revolver than their Desert Ealges. Humans can do it, too. The fastest trick-shooters in the world do all their stuff with revolvers becasue semi-auto's are too slow for them. Something like 6 shots in half a second or something. Real freaky.

Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody

[hesiod]

> It'd be rich in virtual world vs. fighting machines in some crappy world

Remember that, in the story, that wasn't the first Matrix -- the one where people were all happy failed.

The latest Wired magazine

[mao che minh]

The latest Wired magazine (May 2003, "Take the Red Pill") has an in-depth interview with the lead special effects guru of The Matrix, John Gaeta. According to him (and he has in-depth explinations and narratives) "Reloaded" innovates a ton - the battle between Neo and Agent Smith uses technology that is completely new, for example.

Besides, it has some great pics of Jada Pinket-Smith in it. Yeeeeaaaaa baby.

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:How to use the premise

[lkaos]

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?

This is an interesting point but the problem can be avoided if one separates the observation of an individual and the results of his observation. The individuals all observe the same reality and each of their individual actions affect that one reality.

Syncronizing multiple realities just seems like a total waste of resources (what a waste of memory).

Whore

[Anonymous Coward]

...of Karma.

My friends liked it

[sammaytg1]

My firends are all basically warez pirates in training so they managed to snag a copy of the preelase and have already seen it. They all liked it and said it was as good as the first one.

Strange...

[11223]

Now, this flatly contradicts what this week's Time Magazine claimed - namely, that the first hour of the new movie was all plot and little action, and only in the second hour does it begin to heat up.

Who do you believe? I'll wait and see myself.

Advertising for The Matrix Reloaded has been awful

[Chuck Chunder]

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.

"subtle phillosophical theme" ?

[Edmund Blackadder]

the phillosophical theme of the matrix was as subtle as a punch in the face.

And lets face it, if you liked the phillosophical theme you would have preferred Dark City, the matrix predecessor that had a very similar plot (without the action and the kung foo).

You may as well admit it -- you liked the action.

Not the first

[athorshak]

Ron Epstein, the admin at Home Theater Forum has had a review up for a couple days. Just click on the Reloaded link on the left frame. sorry for no direct link.

Is it part two or part three

[supun]

where Neo is finds the buffer overflow error in the Matrix and installs Linux over the existing OS, forcing Mr. Smith to live inside VMWare session?

Did you even read the review?

[bobwoodard]

I'm guessing you just skimmed it, since the reviewer actually complains that there is too much of the philisophical mumbo-jumbo.

Subtle?

[nathanh]

... blended stunning action with a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality

Subtle? It was about as subtle as a foot long brown shit sitting in the middle of a white tablecloth. Philosophical content was borderline nil. The movie was kung fu, action, kung fu, babes and kung fu.

Also it's "i" before "e" except after "c".

Re:Subtle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also it's "i" before "e" except after "c".

Yeah. English has some wierd spellings, huh?

Re:A review I shall not read

[11223]

And reading Slashdot stories about reviews counts as seeing it cold release how?

Subtle?

[Anita Coney]

The Matrix had the subtlety of a Gwar concert!

Bogus Review

[Quantum Jim]

And Persephone, a sexy bad-girl-turned-good who hooks Neo up with the all-important Keymaker.

NO NO NO! That's wrong! He's not the Keymaker, he's the Keymaster. And he gets it on with the Gatekeeper before turning into a giant dog - pet of Gozer! Jeeze!

the philosophy in the first movie

[f00zbll]

was decent, but I would hardley call it mind blowing. It definitely did a better of using philosophy than other films, but it doesn't come close to reading the I-ching or the birth of trajedy.

There's nothing wrong with Pop philosophy, but people need read the original works. Hopefully, the movie inspired some people to go read the original text and really get a mind altering experience.

Well...

[Faust7]

At least he gets a sex scene with Moss before he heads off to the city of Zion. It's one of the few breaks from the relentless action

I don't consider a sex scene a break from action, well, not exactly...

Re:Well...

[m00nun1t]

I don't consider a sex scene a break from action, well, not exactly...

If you are a /. reader, it's more like a break from tradition.

i can't care less.

[dance2die]

I can't care less about all these bs comments. I watch movies to have fun. As long as I enjoy movie, I don't care about what others think about. (And you know that those criticists don't know jack either like us or know as much as we do in other words :) Wherther to make the Matrix team happy or not, just enjoy the movie folks. That's all. Nobody thinks about the same movie the same way.

The Matrix vs. The Thirteenth Floor

[Rhone]

Am I the only one who enjoyed the The Thirteenth Floor more than The Matrix? They used the same humans-living-in-a-computer concept, but while Matrix turned into a pure action movie, Thirteenth Floor continued to have a plot.

Subtle?

[Gondola]

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.

But that's the whole point

[Little Grey]

The whole story was written from the beginning as a trilogy, so the 2nd part was the setup for the huge war. So whether it's an all-out action movie or not, it's exactly what the brothers intended it to be from the start.

matrix && pop culture

[bloosqr]

The Matrix is has philosophical overtones in the same way Philip K Dick has philosophical overtones. Admittedly, I am a HUGE PKD fan but in sheer entertainment/fictional value the pulp-sensibilities of reality and perception (aka practically any pkd novel or movies like the matrix/existenz etc etc) still win me over, over say plowing through "kierkegaard/descartes/sartre etc etc" or pynchon/delillo and their ilk :)

-bloosqr

To quote Orson Scott Card...

[Anonymous Coward]

"What matters is which fiction you believe."

Speaking of Pinket..

[cioxx]

I loved this part of the article.

"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."

Imagine Will Smith getting Neo's role then doing the soundtrack to Matrix. That would have been a disaster of Battlefield Earth meets Wild Wild West proportions.

Can you imagine the famous Hallway Shootout sequence and Will Smith rapping in the background?

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:Speaking of Pinket..

[1nv4d3r]

Can you imagine the famous Hallway Shootout sequence and Will Smith rapping in the background?

I now know that I can. Thanks a lot...

Re:Speaking of Pinket..

[bubkus_jones]

Hey, I liked Bill & Ted. He was perfect for that role.

Re:Speaking of Pinket..

[marklar1]

No. This is bull shit, but I guess I'll take the bait. If you saw the Matrix, you might remember Laurence Fishburne? You know, the well spoken, accomplished actor that had the other major role, and in fact, mentored neo down the path of enlightenment? Nah, you'll just sit there and have a knee-jerk reflex attitude about your race. White america wants people regardless of their "culture" to be able to show up for school or work prepared to read and write standard english and math skills. They want self-reliant people who do their job, get paid for their SKILLS, and don't threaten to call the NAACP when they are held accountable. They want police in chicago who aren't given jobs to meet quotas regardless of how they scored on standardized tests. (or for entrance to higher education) Take responsibility. Don't breed unless you have the tools to provide and mentor a youngster - whether you're white/black/latino, whatever. Nobody gives a hoot what your skin color is. Most black people will continue to go on choosing to seperate themselves from success by not learning and sticking to the basics. Blacks will be free when they learn the difference between celebrating cultural heritage, and celibrating a culture of poverty and lowest common denominators. When success is celebrated and embraced (regardless of whether it has been traditionally "white" in this country) instead of violence, athletics, and music. Learning to be mainstream (courteous, well spoken) at appropriate times. Go tell Laurence he's being discriminated against. Dumb ass

Re:Speaking of Pinket..

[johnjay]

I always liked the fact that Keanu was so flat in the first movie. My take on it is that he's sort of an idiot-savant: a perfect weapon for the simplified world of The Matrix, but real people would find him rather -- limited.

I'm sure Ewan would have given more depth to the role, but considering all of the schlock philosophy, the extra depth would have been out of place.

As a side note, that guy with the sideburns (was his character's name Dozer?) who always stayed on the ship was such a ridiculous hack that, next to him, Keanu looked like Olivier.

Re:Speaking of Pinket..

[LilGuy]

I agree! I never thought of Johnny Depp being in the matrix as there weren't any drug references.. but then I over look the pill popping scene. They woulda done a roll on that scene alone as I'm sure they couldn't have stopped him from popping both pills.

subtle, like a duracell?

[GodWasAnAlien]

You mean subtle, like holding a Duracell(tm) battery to explain an energy cell to the audience?
Or subtle like Oracle(tm) pointing the audience to a chicken/egg circumstance that will "bake our noodle"?

Don't forget ...

[B3ryllium]

Leather and boobs.

Review contradicts itself

[altek]

But if you're looking for something a little more than crash, bang, wallop then this second instalment will leave you cold. Reloaded is crammed full of the cod philosophy that fans of the original loved but which left me distinctly unimpressed.

Huh??? So if you're a fan of the philosophy it will leave you cold, but yet it is crammed full of the philosophy that fans of the original loved??

If you're looking for a deep, meaningful cinematic experience then The Matrix Reloaded is not for you. But if it's a non-stop rollercoaster ride you're after, then this movie is light years ahead of anything that's gone before.

Ok great, so it's going to be a good action flick, but why does he assume that even though it is 'crammed full' of the philosophy content, that you won't like it? Just because he wasn't a fan of that part of the film?

methinks this review was written rather hastily, no?

Don't

[cr4zyb0y]

Those who could only find subtexts that any ten year old can find, shouldn't blame the source, rather their analytical skills. That the Matrix is merely a comment on Plato's "shadows on the cave wall" is oversimplifying (or dare I say it! too hard for you critics to see!). There's more to the Matrix than a first-year Introduction to Philosophy. The references to poststructuralism are explicit, and more importantly, intended. Look closely at the book that Neo keeps his mini-disc in--read the books and the theory surrounding THAT text (and understand it!), and then come back and criticise--just make sure you know what you're talking about first. Until then, maybe you should learn the first lesson that a first year philosophy student learns--just because you don't see something, it doesn't mean there's nothing there.

This wasn't the first Matrix Reloaded review...

[Overly Critical Guy]

AICN had the first review of Matrix Reloaded online quite a while ago. I don't know who Slashdot is trying to fool.

AICN has been running reviews all week, in fact. Sigh.

har har har

[falsification]

a subtle philosphical theme about how we percieve reality.

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!"

Not First Review at all.

[idontneedanickname]

This isn't the "World Exclusive" at all. One need look no further than reuters.com

Film Review: the Matrix Reloaded

Re:Not First Review at all.

[xaaronx]

Imagine that, misinformation on Slashdot!

Haven't even seen it, and I'm already complaining

[greck]

In one of the key scenes, Neo battles it out with first just one Smith, then eight, then 24 and finally 100.

1, 8, 24, 100? That's not a very apropos way for a computer-generated anything to replicate.

Yes, please shoot me already.

Matrix and Marx

[Snafoo]

Okay, so it isn't 'subtle', but I think that the philosophical content of the Matrix resembles a late twentieth-century Marxist retort to postmodern/anarchist ethics, rather than a disembodied echo of Plato or Descartes. (In reply to apologists for the former reading: The 'real world' is far too dirty, and requires a revolution of consciousness in order to attain, rather than death, a la Plato. Plato suggests that the best we can hope for as mortals is _knowledge_ of forms, which is quite different from perception. And as for Descartes --- well, if you're painting with strokes that thick, we might as well say that any ontology which clearly distinguishes between perception and reality is Cartesian; ie, almost all philosophy ever written.) Consider the indicators: The antagonist is a 'Mr Smith' (get it? As in 'Adam'?). The object of Neo is to 'awaken' the citizens from the fripperies and consolations of decadence to the reality of tje exploitation of their energies (labour). Sure, the task will require complete subordination to those leading the revolution, but, as ugsome as such a prospect might be to senses of personal dignity and liberty, it is certainly to be favoured over the false liberty of cosmopolitan capitalism.

Or maybe it's just a movie.

honestly folks

[salmo]

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.

Re:Its a sequel

[drinkypoo]

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!

I don't think that it would be appropriate to include, say, explicit close-ups of anal sex, which is what it would take to shock hollywood at this point.

Re:Its a sequel

[Trurl's Machine]

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!

I think you're wrong. Name just ONE innovative factor in "Matrix" - one that was not borrowed from John Woo, "Ghost In The Shell", "Neuromancer", "Superman", Baudrillard, Dick, Stanislaw Lem (cough) etc. I am a big fan of "Matrix", but let us juse our words wisely. Cool? Yes. Entertaining? Yes. Breathtaking? Yes. Worth seeing again and again and again? Oh yessir, just look at my DVD copy of "Matrix". Innovative? Definitely not.

Its a trilogy so wait for it to be completed first

[ixxologic]

Just like The Lord of the Ring, the matrix IS a trilogy.. it wasnt really ever supposed to be 3 movies but given its success.. it now is.. I think its a bit wrong to judge no 2 as an all out action movie.. even if it is because just as with LOTR.. it really needs to be seen as a whole..when its done.. so.. its an important chapter in the book.. Didnt anyone notice how actionbased The Two Towers is?...lets not play old senile men with big beards sitting on a chair in the sky and casting used condoms on people until they're done with all 3. ixxo

Re:Its a sequel

[EpsCylonB]

There really is nothing new under the sun y'know, everything is derivative in one way or another. The influences on the music of the beatles are all obvious, but we don't credit those influences for their music do we ?.

You can take the film apart and analyse each element but the fact is that the Wachkowski brothers were the people who put it all together and brought it to the mainstream. Inevitably they are going to get credit.

Reloded is better than the reviewer gives credit

[vespazzari]

I got to see a exhibitor screening last friday, and, to put it simply, The Matrix Reloded was the first movie that I wanted to watch again immediatly after it ended. The other people I was with also agreed that it was an increadibly good movie, not only for the action (which it seems nobody is debating) but I thought the story was really good also, and brought up some interesting points of discussion. And that alone is light years more than most summer blockbuster films.
The reviewer seems to be saying that reloaded would be a terrible movie if it were not for its action, I can only think that the reviewer is an idiot, or maybe he just didnt understand the film.
As I was talking to one of my boss, after the movie, he didnt seem to think that it would do very well (boxoffice wise) because most people would not understand some of the more complex issues that the film touched on.
There was a lot of reference to the inner workings of computer systems, very vauge references - but they were there none the less. I cannot really elaborate without giving too much away, but I am sure that a lot of the /. crowd will catch on some of the stuff.

I must say though, do not get discouraged- this is an awesome film! there are also a number of reviews on aint-it-cool-news.com

The Mirror

[wodon]

As many fellow British Slashdotters will know, The Daily MIrror is not exactly a bastion of news intellect.
It is much better than the virtual soft pornography of the Sport but not quite up there with the broadsheets. I am not surprised that the review focuses on the violence and sex scenes rather than whether it is actually a good movie.

Ill not got off my middle class socialist soapbox and go back to my copy of the Grauniad (sic).

What I liked about the first one....

[MortisUmbra]

Was exactly what makes me NOT leary of the second one. So many people I know thought it was nothing more than an action flick....never the wiser in regards to the REAL message.

So I for one won;t be worried until I see it. I don't trust critics enough to even come close to worrying about a review like this.

Re:Its a sequel

[grondu]

Its supposed to make money, not innovate all over again.

Do you mean innovate in the dictionary sense, or innovate in the Microsoft sense?

Re:Its a sequel

[ciphertext]

Was Matrix the first to use Bullet Time?

If we are talking about technical innovation, Matrix Reloaded is the first to use true, 3D cinematography and computer generated actors (that look real, not computer generated). The "Big Brawl" scene is the one that is some commonly refernced. I believe that whole fight scene occured within a computer.

If we are talking about conceptual innovation, or innovation as it applies to storylines, screenwriting, etc... then I don't think that there are many "new" and "innovative" ideas out there right now. My opinion, as to why this situation exists, is that Hollywood (collectively being the movie industry) are more interested in the "assembly-line" approach to movie making. The same plot, different story sort of approach. The "guaranteed" money maker. They only change the template when the viewers become desensitized to the model and cease to pay for movies at the theaters.

Re:Its a sequel

[Peterus7]

Hey, what people loved about the matrix was they could see things that could never happen in the real life... The first one offered bullets stopping...

And the second shows a geek getting laid by a hot chick... Yeah.

Oh for fuck's sake.

[mad_clown]

This is for those of you who're sitting in front of your computer screens waxing eloquent about the profound subtleties (or lack thereof) that may or may not, according to the hallowed body of work left behind by such intellectual titans as Nitschze, Kierkegaard, Descartes, and Plato (hint: namedropping "The Cave" doesn't make you sound cool or particularly educated) be embodied in The Matrix: please, for the love of God, get over yourselves. It's a fucking movie. If The Matrix is so intellectually beneath you, then don't see it. Go read "The Birth of Tragedy" or something in a coffeehouse, smoke some cloves, and wear a beret or something. Because, and I can't stress this enough:

THE MATRIX IS JUST A MOVIE.

Thank you and good night.