Matrix Revolutions

I don't think this was ever explained. As was why Neo and his cronies had no trouble offing a ton of guards and cops, therefore killing a bunch of enslaved humans. (I think I have reached my maximum level of geeking out.)

I read an article (NYTimes, I think), that likened their mindset regarding the killing of innocent enslaved humans to that of terrorists.

As for the film...

1) Was giggling at the end. Thought I got it. Explained to mate what my theory was. He looked perplexed. Realised that any film where i have to decide whether it was good or awful isn't actually that good.

2) I reckon this was a bit of an Apocalypse Now for the brothers W. There's a great story in Reloaded and revolutions - How neo does some shit to save Zion. You could ice a lot of the rest for director's Acid Cut on DVD and still be left with a 2 hr 30 minute film that kicked major league ass. For starters, the chase seen from 2 and the battle scenes from 3 are magnificent. They should have done what they did first time - realise that kung-fu. intelligent cgi, chicks in pvc with guns and cod-philosophy make a decent movie. Instead, they gone all Lucas and actually start to believe this shite and take it seriously with equally poor results.

3) I realised that what i like about 1 was the aesthetic of the matrix; it had a similar 'any city' feel to it like 'Se7en' but had this really cool dislocated timeframe through the TV screens being 1950s stylee, offices being late 80s etc. That was all left behind as all scenes in the Matrix became darkened and night-set, especially in 3.

4) At the start of 3, we're told that Merv is a kick-ass dude. Yet he promptly disappears from the film. How does he stop the Architect getting him? Does Smith get him? What / who is he? Help!

5) Ditto Oracle. She was dead. Then she's not. What's going on? Help. Please.

6) What happened in the end? Was the machine god the architect?

Some films use ambiguity well; but they combine the ambiguity to certain key moments which determine the discussion of the film and its reception by the audience. This film wasn't ambiguous; it was fucking incomprehensible. It wasn't art-house. it was a major blockbusting big-budget kick-ass movie. I shouldn't leave a film with so many questions about what actually happened before my eyes. I want to ponder the implications of what's happened, not wonder what on earth just happened before my eyes. I'm still wondering.

The Oracle was Smithed but returned to her previous state when A/MG reversed Smith's meddling of the Matrix.

Architect is the manifestation of the Machine God within The Matrix only, so they seem to be one and the same thing.

as time goes by even the most ardently naive defenders of this kind of stuff think of 1000 ways it could've been better. we definitely need a new franchise that combines action with intelligent, non-cliched sci-fi ideologies - 35% Matrix, 65% K Dick/Herbert/M Banks/Gibson...you can now do absolutely anything with special effects technology so with the novelty of that wearing off it would be great to see more cerebral, adult-orientated (not meaning violence or sex particularly) plots and concepts executed with more artistic integrity - again The Animatrix does hint at this with marvellous glimpses in 'Beyond' and 'Matriculated' especially.

However, no one on this thread mentioned the bit in the initial pan across the goth club where one of the dancers pulls his dance partner's breasts out of her corset by the nipples, WTF?!

i will probably agree more with gear than myself two years ago...

also, best description of the elders group goes to a friend who called them "Dreadlocked Starfleet Command"

why aren't they called 2 and 3, though? stupid names

oh it doesn't matter.

I would like die hard: with a vengeance more if it were called die hard 3: die hard with a vengeance or something