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.

40 of 607 comments (clear)

  1. Your impression... by dvk · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    -DVK

    --
    "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
  2. Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Oh come on by still_sick · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      --
      ...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
    2. Re:Oh come on by spoonboy42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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*.

      --
      Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
      Andy Grove: "Not Much."
    3. Re:Oh come on by spoonboy42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
      Andy Grove: "Not Much."
    4. Re:Oh come on by theLOUDroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    5. Re:Oh come on by weston · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.


  3. Re:Its a sequel by aarondyck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  4. Philosophy and the matrix... by Goonie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?)
    1. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by kamikazichaser · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!

    2. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by maxpublic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    3. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by alienmole · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    4. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by etymxris · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.
    5. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by etymxris · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
    6. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by etymxris · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    7. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by etymxris · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.
    8. Re:Philosophy and the matrix... by Vann_v2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  5. Matrix Philosophy by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  6. I'm sorry to say it... by Wind_Walker · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    1. Re:I'm sorry to say it... by MourningBlade · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  7. Time review... SPOILER!!!! by Shant3030 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    --
    100% Insightful
  8. The latest Wired magazine by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

  9. Strange... by 11223 · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

  10. Advertising for The Matrix Reloaded has been awful by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  11. Is it part two or part three by supun · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    --
    :w!
  12. Bogus Review by Quantum+Jim · · Score: 5, Funny
    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!

    --
    It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
    - Jerome Klapka Jerome
  13. Re:Destiny by Jainith · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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

  14. Re:640 Agent Smiths ought to be enough for anybody by the_consumer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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

    --
    "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
  15. Well... by Faust7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...

    1. Re:Well... by m00nun1t · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

  16. Subtle? by Gondola · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Speaking of Pinket.. by cioxx · · Score: 5, Funny
    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?
    1. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

    2. Re:Speaking of Pinket.. by 1nv4d3r · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

  18. Re:Destiny by tealover · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
  19. Don't forget ... by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Funny

    Leather and boobs.

  20. har har har by falsification · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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!"

  21. Not First Review at all. by idontneedanickname · · Score: 4, Informative
    This isn't the "World Exclusive" at all. One need look no further than reuters.com

    Film Review: the Matrix Reloaded

  22. honestly folks by salmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  23. Re:Its a sequel by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny
    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"