I saw it in a sneak peek yesterday morning and, my advice to everyone going to see it is to leave all the deep embedded theories at the door. That may increase your enjoyment rather than leave you with having too many unanswered questions. I thought the movie was good but has some real problems that the ravonous Matrix fan will be disappointed with.
First, there are some things with the Marovengian (sp) that don't really seem to have much meaning in the grand scheme of things towards this movie as they did in the last movie. Yet, they do set you up for the ending with some conversations between Neo and a "Computer Program family".
The CGI in the Zion Battle was good and, to disagree with some of the posters here, I think did a good job of defining the moving. The only thing about the Zion battle is that, there is a point where the machines don't really act like the same effecient killing machines that they are against the Hover Ships. At one point, you find it hard to believe that that the machines haven't wiped all the "deck defenders" out already. The other problem with the Zion battle defining the movie is that, it's not the battle that SHOULD define the movie IMHO.
The final battle with Neo seems to be very anti-climatic in that, we are used to seeing Neo being the big ass kicker and, at the end, he is, more often than not, in situations that are beyond his abilities to handle. He is more "human" than he is "The One".
I did not like the ending in that, I don't feel like it's an ending to a trilogy. It's more like an ending that sets you up for something else. (Like a Matrix MMORPG.) What I mean by that is, it doesn't really leave humanity in a good position vs the Machines in the long run.
A good attitude to have but somewhat niave on how business is really run in the US. You can bust you butt, study, live, eat drink and sleep code 24/7 and be the best coder on the planet. However, to an accountant, your still only a $60,000+ salary than can be replaced by cheaper labor. Accountants don't care about anything but the bottom lines. Bottom lines don't know Joe Super-Elite-MIT-PHD from Joe Third-World programmer. Bottom lines only know two things: Software will always suck and $60,000 > $5,000.
So, wait a minute here, why does software always suck? Isn't bad software only the result of bad programmers? Sometimes this is actually the case. However, experience has taught me that bad software comes from bad design which stems from poor requirements analysis which stems from unrealistic demands and deadlines. Even if your the best programmer in the world, if someone asks you to build X and then turns around at the last minute and says it also needs to do Y and Z as well, your going to fail and either not develop Y and Z or sling Y and Z together poorly. Well, who's responsible for that? The developer? Nope, it's management. Well, what's the one group who ISN'T going to get shipped overseas? That's right, those same yes-men managers who only care about meeting a deadline to impress THEIR manager. So, if the software is always going to suck given that management isn't going to change, then who cares if it's Joe Third-World or Joe Super-Elite-MIT-PHD doing the coding? Certainly not the bean-counters or the managers. Those guys aren't going anywhere. All they care about is the bottom line and we know where we stand with the bottom line.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw it in a sneak peek yesterday morning and, my advice to everyone going to see it is to leave all the deep embedded theories at the door. That may increase your enjoyment rather than leave you with having too many unanswered questions. I thought the movie was good but has some real problems that the ravonous Matrix fan will be disappointed with. First, there are some things with the Marovengian (sp) that don't really seem to have much meaning in the grand scheme of things towards this movie as they did in the last movie. Yet, they do set you up for the ending with some conversations between Neo and a "Computer Program family". The CGI in the Zion Battle was good and, to disagree with some of the posters here, I think did a good job of defining the moving. The only thing about the Zion battle is that, there is a point where the machines don't really act like the same effecient killing machines that they are against the Hover Ships. At one point, you find it hard to believe that that the machines haven't wiped all the "deck defenders" out already. The other problem with the Zion battle defining the movie is that, it's not the battle that SHOULD define the movie IMHO. The final battle with Neo seems to be very anti-climatic in that, we are used to seeing Neo being the big ass kicker and, at the end, he is, more often than not, in situations that are beyond his abilities to handle. He is more "human" than he is "The One". I did not like the ending in that, I don't feel like it's an ending to a trilogy. It's more like an ending that sets you up for something else. (Like a Matrix MMORPG.) What I mean by that is, it doesn't really leave humanity in a good position vs the Machines in the long run.
A good attitude to have but somewhat niave on how business is really run in the US. You can bust you butt, study, live, eat drink and sleep code 24/7 and be the best coder on the planet. However, to an accountant, your still only a $60,000+ salary than can be replaced by cheaper labor. Accountants don't care about anything but the bottom lines. Bottom lines don't know Joe Super-Elite-MIT-PHD from Joe Third-World programmer. Bottom lines only know two things: Software will always suck and $60,000 > $5,000. So, wait a minute here, why does software always suck? Isn't bad software only the result of bad programmers? Sometimes this is actually the case. However, experience has taught me that bad software comes from bad design which stems from poor requirements analysis which stems from unrealistic demands and deadlines. Even if your the best programmer in the world, if someone asks you to build X and then turns around at the last minute and says it also needs to do Y and Z as well, your going to fail and either not develop Y and Z or sling Y and Z together poorly. Well, who's responsible for that? The developer? Nope, it's management. Well, what's the one group who ISN'T going to get shipped overseas? That's right, those same yes-men managers who only care about meeting a deadline to impress THEIR manager. So, if the software is always going to suck given that management isn't going to change, then who cares if it's Joe Third-World or Joe Super-Elite-MIT-PHD doing the coding? Certainly not the bean-counters or the managers. Those guys aren't going anywhere. All they care about is the bottom line and we know where we stand with the bottom line.