"The Matrix" is an alaborate computer system and all the humans (thinking they're living their lives in the "real world") are just connected to the machine while asleep.

Cool, huh?

Now what are these Reloaded and Revolutions things people keep going on about?

Bruno

ya who knew humans when used as a power source can actually generate a net energy gain. Apparently, all this cold fusion research is just a waste of time.

haha. good one.

Warning: "Miss Smilla's Feeling For Snow" spoilers

ya who knew humans when used as a power source can actually generate a net energy gain.

It's the theory of the vis vitalis, or life-force, which was only ruled out by science in 1828. It seems to remain a very compelling piece of folk physics, because Miss Smilla's Feeling For Snow (also published in the US as Smilla's Sense Of Snow) makes exactly the same mistake, even going so far as to have scientists examining a strangely exothermic rock saying "There are no detectable chemical reactions occurring -- the only possible source of heat is if it is alive".

Does Peter Hoeg not count among his friends any chemists, biologists, or physicists, then? I mean, I wouldn't write a book which had, say, flower-arranging as a key plot device without asking at least one genuine flower-arranger to check it for plausibility. Does he not have kids with whatever the Danish equivalent of GCSEs are? It's such a shame, because it's a really good book otherwise.

I haven't seen the film, so I don't know whether the folk physics was cleaned up by the film-makers.

Peter

The film is basically a reiligous film veiled in the notion that's it's a sci-fi flick anyways, I doubt the creators were worried too much about realism- it's not supposed to be about realism. A lot of people may be suprised to find out the Matrix is a reiligous film but it is-- think about it- the whole premise is if you have faith you can be delivered into a trurer existence. The name of the ship is Trinity etc etc etc..

You should probably watch the movie.


What it's "about" doesn't change the fact that the the story developed in each film is not held together well for one reason or another. The "concept" as it was introduced in the first movie breaks down somewhat in execution of the two sequels. And that's what you'll find most people complaining about. It's what I'm not satisfied with. You can set aside realism and you can pepper the movie with even more overt religious tones, but neither of those choices, nor any number of others ade in the movies, changes the flaws of simplicity and consistency in the scripts. With the exception of a couple of bits of dialogue, each subsequent movie seems to have been dumbed down.

Don't get me wrong however. They've all been entertaining to watch. But at the conclusion, I think I may have preferred three seperate stories within the single "concept" perhaps from thre different perspectives or at thee different times.

Bruno

Fair warning: everything I'm about to say is based on the concepts as they are presented in the third film. I believe the previous films hinted at other directions.

The film is basically a reiligous film

I'd have to disagree here, though it does depend on the meaning you pour into the word "religious". However, I'd say it's a philosophical film, not a religious one. True that it has religious symbolism, but religious symbolism does not a spiritual movie make. In the end I thought the movie(s) took more of an existential bent (along the lines of this book I think) than a spiritual one.

the whole premise is if you have faith you can be delivered into a truer existence.

I'd disagree here. Some of the characters have faith, but mostly this is demonstrated to be empty faith. True there is faith in Neo in the end, but this is more of a blind hope than anything else. I'd say the real premise of the movie(s) is that we do what we do because we choose to, not because of faith, love, power, etc. This does not imply spiritually but in fact the opposite: there is no "why", only existence and our choice to continue in it (hmm sounds like something Yoda would say!). At least that's my take on the movie(s).

(Of course I disagree with the philosophy personally, but it's what I think they were driving at.)

However, I'd say it's a philosophical film, not a religious one.

It's neither. It's an ordinary "hero's quest" tale, with all of the usual philosophical baggage and religious symbolism that goes along with it. It's the whole Campbell "Power of Myth" thing, the same stuff Lucas based all the Star Wars movies on. Or heck, for that matter, the whole Lord of the Rings series. I once saw a web site that took Matrix and Star Wars point by point through all of the Power of Myth cliches, I wonder if anyone has a link...

It's neither.

Hmmm, I just don't know that I can agree here. It's WAY more philosophical than say Star Wars, which at it's heart is (as you term it) is a "hero's quest". I don't think the heavy handed "the reason you act is because you choose to" stuff was simply tacked on to fill out the movie or as "baggage". I think it was a major reason for the creation of the movie in the first place. I could be wrong about this, of course, but I don't see the creators sitting around going "here's a cool story" and running with it. I think more likely it was, "here is a way that we can present XYZ philosophy and make people think." Of course the brothers won't say, but it really had the feel of a movie trying to make a point.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, it did seem that they changed ships mid-stream philosophically (from faith to choice), which if they had planned from the outset only points to a philosophical film. Of course, I could be wrong and they might have just thrown all of it in the mix trying to make a "thinking man's" movie.

On those lines, someone did what I thought was a very interesting deconstruction on the philosophy behind the film.
http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/031109matrix.htm

and the bonus-round stage of Galaxian.

Oh my God, he's right.

Well, maybe Galaga more than Galaxian, but he's right.

Very interesting, thanks for the link! It had many references I didn't catch (clearly the author is much more learned than I am). It strikes me, though, that he didn't mention the one thing that was continually beat over our heads throughout the last movie: the choice to act regarless of success. How many events were we subjected to where there was no chance of success yet the characters carried on, not out of hope or faith but choice? I suppose he addressed this when talking about "I choose to", but only in simple terms of human freewill, not persisting against hope.