that's too easy to go with the pretentious nature of the films. They'll probably go with the more nonsensical idea that due to Agent Smith and Neo's interaction in the first film, Neo's developed some of his machine like abilities (including control) in the real world and Smith's developed some of his human like abilities. How they explain that, I can only guess but that'll probably be done in Revolutions. It also makes the dialogue between Smith and Neo before the horde fight make more sense.

Also, I'm sure they'll pull a 'twist' out invovling the real mother of the matrix since the Architect never admitted that the Oracle was in fact the mother of the matrix. 

In the real world, Neo and company will find out that the core systems of the Matrix are being run on an old Windows PC, hence the need to "reset" everything at frequent intervals. 

there've been no BSODs yet... 

nice stuff! johnny depp is in nice form and the CG is nicely done. Verbinski's visual style continues in the same moody style as 'The Ring'. Well worth watching, it's a tad too long though. 

saw this last night. It has to be one of the greatest scripts ever written. Very classy stuff. 

Fuck the matrix.

I mean really.
Fuck it. It's crap. it really is.

It has good action scenes, in fact incredible action scenes, and besides that Laurence Fishburne is usually a good actor. But I mean really, what is it? It's a combined rip-off of Terminator and Dark City, with 1.1735% pretentiousness thrown in for good measure and 1.732% shittiness as an overall factor. My biased, arrogant opinion is that if you find the Matrix series thought-provoking, you're probably mentally retarded.

Good action? fine. But revolutionary and thought-provoking? My god, what has the human race come to... 

"Fuck the matrix.

I mean really.
Fuck it. It's crap. it really is."

Tronyn for President !!!!!!
You got my vote.
I seen the first one ( never paid to see it, seen it on TV, still felt ripped off ) When the second one comes on, I'll change channel and watch the test pattern instead. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. But thats the beauty of freedom of choice and individuality, each to his own, and his own to each. 

you forgot to mention that it was shot well, well the first one anyway. But I'm with you anyway.

Also, saw Vertigo last night. Pretty good, just not what I was expecting. Fantastic visuals, especially for the time but it's a bit long and windy for what it is. 

You went to an action flick looking for a meaningful philosophy lesson, and you're calling other people retarded? 

I think that's the problem, if it was a straighforward action flick, that'd be fine. But it's very pretentious, and IMHO that takes away from it. 

If you want a good action movie, fine. both matrix films are fairly entertaining. but the pretentiousness, and how stupid people go on and on about how clever and philosophical it is, is really what ruins it. I'm not saying it has no virtues, including being shot well and of course its action scenes, even some interesting ideas, but as an entire package you've got to include pretentiousness in there, and that just stinks. and WTF was that about vampires and ghosts being explained as exiled computer programs? THIS MAKES NO SENSE. that was just another example of them trying to be clever, and market the film as if it is thought provoking.

I didn't go to an action film looking for a philosophy lesson, but that is how the matrix presents itself. 

The Matrix relates to a few thoughts that are very universal and hadn't been wrapped up in one package before, and it was well done. However, the idea of a sequel delving deeper into the details of their specific embodiment of these messages almost seems to undo the universal message and has yet to tempt me. 

I didn't get a vibe of pretentiousness. Maybe I've been exposed to so many truely pretentious films that it rolls right off my back and I can no longer recognize it in smaller doses. What was pretentious about it? 

an example would be the architect's speech in Reloaded. What he revealed was not really all that complex (well maybe in plot terms but not so much otherwise), however the way it was presented was deliberately done so that it sounded confusing and intellectual. 

I saw JFK last night, and took kell's advice of watching it with a grain of salt. Personally, I liked it, quite a lot. I think it works quite well as a film but no so good as a documentary (especially if you hear how much was inaccurate or fabricated in Stone's commentary). However, the question I guess is whether it would have worked as well as a film if the material was not about real events? 

What made the delivery seem falsely intellectual?

You're not just talking about the multiple Neos on the monitors, are you? I hope not, I thought that part was really cool. 

I meant the language (mainly) and structure it was delivered in. The terminology etc makes it sound complex and confusing when it's really not all that articulate an idea.

A lot of people I know that watched it didnt get the ending because they thought it was too complicated, which wither means that they're stupid or the creators got what they intended. 

The terminology etc makes it sound complex and confusing when it's really not all that articulate an idea.

As you said, if you're saying something simple then there's no real need to use complex language; but to me, that was part of the character. It would rather be an anticlimax to find that the architect, the creator of the Matrix, not only looks like Colonel Sanders, but talks like him, too.

You don't meet the smartest person in the world and expect him to use a vocabularly on the same level as a 4th year student, just because that's the average reading level for the population. 

I probably contradicted myself a bit in that message. Deal with it. 

The architect certainly spoke in a way that was hard to follow, but I don't think he spoke in a particularly intelligent way. A lot of the longer, more uncommon words were just put in there for the sake of it, where much clearer words could have been chosen to convey the message. A more intelligent way of speaking would choose a longer word because it conveyed something more subtle: a more complicated, subtle or elusive meaning. The architect from the Matrix Reloaded was made to speak big clevor words because it makes him, and the movies underlying philosophy and 'plot' seem big and clevor. Welcome to pretentiousness, for lesson two we'll be visiting the Art Department. 

Words can't be clevah, only sentances.

If you want to create the impression that he's so intelligent, using longer and less common words would be a good route to go. And that's not pretentious. What they should have done was have Neo say everything back to him in a simpler language and probably using a metaphor (the Star Trek method). 

 

thats very typical.
you dont like *somthing* that others adore and you feel pissedoff and start to HATE it and even everyone who loves it...

if it makes you feel any better: you are fine if you dont dig matrix, dont worry :) 

talk about taking if out of context. I dont recall anyone (apart from maybe Tronyn) saying that they hate all Matrix-lovers or that they couldnt stand the film. I think it was more a discussion on what aspects of the film they did and didnt like.

RPG,

I was going to reply, but starbuck said most of all I had to say. I'll just add that considering the rest of the film had dialogue that looked like it was stolen from George Lucas's safe, some of the "intellectual" conversations looked really out of place. The first one's a bit better in this respect, but still pretentious IMHO. 

/me shrugs

I had no real issues with that part of the movie, so suit yourself.