After 2, though, there was that fan theory that the 'real world' was just another layer of the Matrix and I'm still disappointed it wasn't true
Reloaded is excellent. I like it a lot. Revolutions isfine. Shouldve been a lot better. But I enjoy watching it at least.
It also didn't really bring any new ideas to the table like the original and Reloaded did.
they're pretty similar. they both have some interesting ideas and cool action and visual effects, but overall, they're somewhat poorly directed and vastly inferior to the original.
After 2, though, there was that fan theory that the 'real world' was just another layer of the Matrix and I'm still disappointed it wasn't trueI mean, it isnt literally true, but the humans of the real world are living in a controlled environment that the Machines had set up for them without their knowledge, so it is still effectively true.
matrix 1 neo had complete mastery over the matrix,
????matrix 1 neo flexed and bent space (this one could just be a cinematography choice)
fact that matrix 1 neo had complete mastery over the matrixI dislike this sentiment. It's just conjecture. People assume he was God, but like you pointed out, all he did was fly inside of Smith and destroy/reprogram/whatever the hell he did.
I dislike this sentiment. It's just conjecture. People assume he was God, but like you pointed out, all he did was fly inside of Smith and destroy/reprogram/whatever the hell he did.perhaps i could have worded it differently
i remember them both as pretty awful. to say something nice, at least one of the fight scenes in reloaded felt impressive at the time
i do intend to rewatch them by myself and confirm whether they're as bad as my memory
i specifically say *by myself* because my co-viewer is guaranteed to complain, talk over, or otherwise distract from the technobabble- such that i won't be able to tell whether the movie's genuinely nonsense or i just wasn't paying close enough attention
Reloaded has like one of the greatest car chase scenes ever.Man the Dark Matrix stuff with vampires and werewolves was the worst part of the trilogy to me. Edit: ok that's an exaggeration but I still thought it was stupid.
I also learned that apparently those ghost things are like from an older version of the matrix where vampires existed or something.
it's certainly not ALL nonsense. one thing that makes 1 feel so separate from 2 and 3 is that the original is a very straightforward movie and the sequels are way more symbolic and insinuating. i won't bring up truffaut's law again, but 2 and 3 are movies that definitely get better if you watch them several times. and even then, a lot of the stuff in it only makes sense if you know a decent amount about philosophy and religion. i know i'm coming off as a pretentious "you just didn't get it" asshole - and maybe i am one - but it's pretty frustrating to see 2 and 3 get dismissed as 100% bullshit by people who probably can't even tell the difference between jean baudrillard and ayn rand. (edit: to be perfectly clear, this isn't in response to your post. i'm talking about people in general who dismissed the movies as 100% bullshit.)Good post Lasa.
...all that being said, some of the stuff in the movies definitely IS nonsensical technobabble, though, at least to me. i've wasted way too much time reading rambling matrix articles and watching matrix youtube videos and some dialogue still makes me go "nope, this doesn't make sense."
it's certainly not ALL nonsense. one thing that makes 1 feel so separate from 2 and 3 is that the original is a very straightforward movie and the sequels are way more symbolic and insinuating. i won't bring up truffaut's law again, but 2 and 3 are movies that definitely get better if you watch them several times. and even then, a lot of the stuff in it only makes sense if you know a decent amount about philosophy and religion. i know i'm coming off as a pretentious "you just didn't get it" asshole - and maybe i am one - but it's pretty frustrating to see 2 and 3 get dismissed as 100% bullshit by people who probably can't even tell the difference between jean baudrillard and ayn rand. (edit: to be perfectly clear, this isn't in response to your post. i'm talking about people in general who dismissed the movies as 100% bullshit.)first of all, i appreciate your well-thought out post. and yeah, that's part of why why i'm planning on rewatching.
Good post Lasa.
it's part of managing expectations. on that subject, i think what turned people off was the fact that the sequel to a rational movie was irrational (or allegorical, or to use your words, "less straightforward")
not quite the same, but remember how "drive" was marketed as a "fast and furious" movie, and then people entered the theater and watched an hour of near silence followed by a guy smashing a watermelon? not saying the movie would magically become good, but people would have been less unhappy if they knew what they were getting into from the start
i've got to imagine the allegory is more interesting than "hey guys, remember jean baudrillard? hey guys, remember ayn rand? hey guys, remember christianity? remember buddhism? remember semester 1 of philosophy?" i think cinema has the ability (and perhaps a mandate) to do more
a friend of mine is finishing up her phd in cognitive science, and she always makes sure to mention that she dislikes the trilogy for reminding her too much of her stoned freshman and sophomore classmates
i'm hoping she's wrong and just extra jaded from 8 years of schooling on the subject